Those wacky Astors:

But even though the foundation stated that it aimed to raise money publicly, it is not listed in the telephone book. It has made no public mailings soliciting contributions. And one of its addresses, listed on the letter to Mrs. Astor, is the East 79th Street Manhattan apartment of Charlene and Anthony D. Marshall, Mrs. Astor’s son. A lawyer for Mr. Marshall said about $35,000 of the money had already been donated.

Peter J. Kelley, a Manhattan lawyer who was listed as an initial director of the foundation when it was formed, said he has heard nothing about the organization over the years and has never met or known of Charlene Marshall. Mr. Kelley said in a telephone interview yesterday that last year he resigned from the post he held in name only.

Moreover, the New York State attorney general’s office, which oversees charities, said that Shepherd Community Foundation had not registered with its charities bureau, even though it would have been obligated to do so within six months of taking Mrs. Astor’s $100,000 late last year. The attorney general’s office said that it plans to send the foundation a letter notifying it that it had not registered and requesting an explanation.

A high-society soap for us mere mortals.

Artist Dale Chihuly has found a nice way to profit from his nonprofit:

But in addition to providing art classes, the charity sells Chihuly's work in an unusual arrangement that helps fund the group's program and has put at least $1 million into the artist's pocket over the past five years.

No doubt just another innovative cause marketing effort in the eyes of Selfish Giving.

Let the debate continue:

According to Schley, however, investor Warren Buffett's decision to donate the bulk of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — and to stipulate that at least one of the Gateses remain actively involved in the foundation for his annual disbursements to continue — has revived the debate about whether or not it's always a good idea for wealthy individuals to create their own foundations and whether those foundations should be established in perpetuity. In fact, according to the New York City-based Foundation Center, starting in the 1990s more foundations were established by younger donors, many of whom were more inclined to set a time limit for their giving.

That's the beauty of the tax law. You can perpetuate or you can take your ball and end the game whenever you want. What's wrong with that?

Nonprofiteer gets it right:

So if you have $100,000 to spare, you can avoid all taxes by giving to charity, whereas if you don't make enough money to itemize, your gifts will come from taxable income.  This shouldn't be a surprise coming from the same people who believe that if you work for your money it should be taxed (the income tax) but if you inherit your money it shouldn't (the estate tax). 

...

And it's a disgrace that organized charity, in the person of the president of the United Way, endorses this as "reform."  If the tax system collected enough, organized charity would face a less impossible task.

Many large nonprofit institutions now seem to behave like greedy Fortune 500 companies. Any legislation that lines their pockets is fine; fairness be damned. If our sector can't stand up for fairness, who will?

Olasky at the World Magazine blog:

Brooks, who has a book coming out on this subject, concludes, "So who is more compassionate: the religious right, or the secular left? The answer appears to be the former. The reason for this, however, revolves around religion, not political ideology. The relatively large religious right and fairly small religious left are both far more compassionate than secularists from either political side. The most uncompassionate group of all - in attitudes and behaviours - is a subset of conservatives who are also secularists. Inordinate media attention to this group may help explain why conservatives are often accused of being uncompassionate."

Do we know what charities the religious right donates to? Perhaps churches that spew anti-gay hatred from their pulpits and praise the current administration's policies of giving tax cuts to the rich while opposing increases in the minimum wage? As Randall Balmer points out in his book, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, the term "Christian" has taken on a whole new meaning the last six years or so. I dare say we can't determine a level of "compassion" based purely on size of donations. You could get a tax deduction from donating to these guys.

Inordinate media attention to secular conservatives? Yeah, right. I read about them every day on the front page of the New York Times.

Phil over at Gifthub points us to an article in the latest issue of Family Giving News, published by the National Center for Family Philanthropy, about the value of bringing on non-family members on to the boards of family foundations. I found this interesting:

Although subsequent generations had little to say about the original donor's reasons behind the appointment, author Kelin Gersick surmises that in some cases the philanthropic work was seen as a natural outgrowth of a family business, in which case the most qualified person was brought on board to manage the process, family or not. In other cases, however, it seems clear that the presence of these representatives was intended to quell anticipated family misbehavior, which the founding donor feared might stymie the family's giving.

Now we know why Warren Buffett just gave it all to the Gates Foundation.