America: The Case Against Oligarchical Philanthropy

It is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 19:23 NIV)

In Lords of Charity (its title in the June 26, 2017 print edition of America) Nathan Schneider, a reporter and professor of media studies at the University of Colorado, argues the case against oligarchical philanthropy as we know it, specifically targeting Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. 

Is Bill Gates giving his money away?  Isn’t he buying control of additional sectors of the economy, setting the agenda in health care and school reform. His foundation rivals the World Health Organization. At least the WHO has some government accountability. He holds influence over the US public school system which his foundation consistently steers toward Microsoft products. He went to private school and was a college dropout; he is a good salesperson of a monopolistic product. Does that qualify him to redirect large areas of the economy outside his expertise, solely because he has money?  Is what he is doing philanthropy, love of humanity?  Schneider compares it to buying indulgences.

Yet long after anyone remembers the misfortune of running Windows Vista, Mr. Gates can expect enduring praise for pouring money into humanitarian pursuits.

What are the alternatives?  Schneider proposes giving it back in several ways:
1. To the employees:
2.To the users of Facebook in the case of Mark Zuckerberg.
3. Direct gifts of cash to accounts of poor people.

Schneider details creative ways of doing all this that would increase democracy by letting employees, users, and the poor decide how the money is to be spent. Against fears that it might be misspent, Schneider quotes Francis “for a homeless man maybe a glass of wine is his only happiness in life.”

If philanthropy means love of others, it must prove itself by entrusting the material of that love to the intended recipients. To believe in the dignity of other human beings is to honor their capacity to choose.

My Comments

This article strikes an appropriate degree of skepticism about the rich. It questions whether they deserve their wealth, and what motivates their philanthropy.

The above quote by Jesus was not to the rich man who neglected the beggar at his steps, That man was clearly destined for hell. Rather Jesus spoke them to a rich man who claimed he had observed all the commandments from his youth. When asked what more could he do, Jesus replies that he should sell everything, give the money to the poor, and follow him.

Jesus understood that money, status and power can limit our ability to do good. Likewise, we should understand that billionaires are more likely to be part of the problem rather than the solution

This article’s critique of current philanthropy goes beyond that of the oligarchs, and applies to the philanthropy of nonprofits, and governmental philanthropy.

The county mental health boards in Ohio are in many ways a model of good governmental philanthropy. Most of their money comes with property taxes which must be renewed every ten  years. They also administer state and federal tax money though those often have strings attached. The money is administered by volunteer citizens chosen partly by county commissioners, and partly by the Ohio Department of Mental Health. Boards do not directly operate services but contract with providers. Sunshine laws give citizens a lot of access to decision making. So there are a lot of checks and balances.

Yet even this well designed system of philanthropy has its limitations. As one consumer leader said:

I don’t want the most expensive mental health system, not even the one with the best practices, rather I want a system that I have helped shaped and that I know will be there when I need it.

Most of the large philanthropies with which I have been associated (higher education, the church, the mental health system) see more money as the solution. But most people are rightly skeptical, They see greedy administrators; they wonder how much money gets to the line staff that does the work, and how much the money benefits the people whom these institutions serve.

What these philanthropies usually talk about is better practices. But these practices are usually defined by the experts who happen to be the people who run these institutions. There are the consumer satisfaction surveys, but those rarely address the real needs and outcomes of the people being served.

Allowing the people who are served (by which I would include all stakeholders, not merely the mentally ill but their family members, various community agencies, the general public) to have a say in the shaping of the mental health system is a difficult and never finished task. However it begins with the primary recipients of the philanthropy who often are the ones most neglected. Their dignity and capacity not only to choose but to shape the philanthropy is essential.

This article raises questions about our personal philanthropy. Can we give to organizations in ways that maximize our own involvement as well as that of the recipients?

When I became financially secure around age forty, I decided to limit my giving to several larger contributions. These would go only to organizations where I was personally involved, or knew very well, and that I would target specific projects within these organizations.

So for example rather than giving to a general diocesan fund, I gave specifically to a campus ministry program that provided a Catholic intellectual as well as pastoral presence on a state university campus. Rather than give to the general fund of a Catholic university, I gave to a scholarship fund for people from the same county where I grew up.

When I have been involved in parish ministry, e.g. pastoral staff, pastoral council, I have contributed to the parish general fund. However when I have not been personally involved I have given to specific parish projects, like the Saint Vincent de Paul society or parish food bank that target how my money is used.  I have long believed in being a poor church for the poor.