Tag: Wealth

Giving by top 50 philanthropists drops 30%

Total giving by the top 50 philanthropists in America dropped 30 percent last year, totaling $7 billion, and marking the lowest amount since 2010, according to a new report.

The Philanthropy 50 list, compiled by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the drop was partly due to massive one-time donations in 2014, including a $1.9 billion gift by Bill and Melinda Gates to their foundation.

Stock market volatility may also be to blame, especially with wealthy donors from Silicon Valley. After several years in which tech titans dominated the Philanthropy 50 list, New York and other regions made up the bulk of giving in 2015.

“For potential tech donors, the flat market in 2015 meant that there were fewer initial public offerings, mergers and acquisitions,” Emmett Carson, CEO of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, said in the report.

The late billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife was the top charitable giver in the U.S. last year, with bequests totaling $759 million. Scaife, heir to the Mellon banking and oil fortune and a leading contributor to the Republican Party, died in 2014. His will was executed last year.

Scaife, who had lived in Pittsburgh, directed most of his fortune to two private foundations — the Allegheny Foundation, which supports charities in western Pennsylvania, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which funds conservative and libertarian public-policy groups. He gave each of these organizations $369.4 million.

Ranking second was the late John Santikos, who built the largest family-owned theater chain in Texas. Santikos gave $605 million from his estate to the San Antonio Area Community Foundation.

Ranking third was Michael Bloomberg, whose giving in 2015 totaled $510 million. He was followed by New York hedge-funder John Paulson, who gave $400 million to Harvard University. EBay founder Pierre Omidyar came in fifth and was the top-ranked tech giver on the list, with $327 million in giving.

Other notables included the Walton family, with founder Sam Walton’s three children giving $407 million in Wal-Mart stock. The Gateses gave $272 million to their foundation, while 48-year-old entrepreneur Jay Faison, who founded SnapAV, gave $165.6 million to promote clean energy. Warren Buffett’s sister, Roberta Buffett Elliott, gave $100.9 million to Northwestern University.

The 23 billionaires on the list gave an average of less than 1 percent of their estimated wealth. Of the 23, former hedge-fund manager John Arnold and his wife, Laura, gave the largest share of their fortune, at 5.6 percent.

The top 50 list only measures one year, so many donors, such as Gates, are giving away far more of their fortunes over longer periods of time. Whereas the Gates family donated just 0.4 percent of their $76 billion wealth last year, they’ve gifted $1 billion or more to their foundation several times.

Bill and Melinda Gates: More philanthropy can work against inequality

Since they launched their foundation in 2000, Bill and Melinda Gates have become America’s philanthropic golden couple — giving away more than $30 billion of their wealth and saving millions of lives in the process.

But their influence goes far beyond the work of their own foundation. The pair is credited with reinventing how philanthropy is done with their focus on concete measurable goals and consensus-building between foundations, businesses, development groups and governments.

In 2010, Bill Gates teamed up with his friend Warren Buffet to launch a campaign — called The Giving Pledge — to convince other super wealthy people around the world to give away at least 50 percent of their money to charity. There are now nearly 130 billionaires with a net worth of more than $700 billion who have signed the pledge.

This year, the Gateses are rallying other global citizens — ordinary people — to get involved in charity work.

“Having individuals stand up and say I care about the rest of the world, I care about these inequalities and I’m going to hold my government accountable for what they do — that’s what we’re hoping will happen,” Melinda Gates said in a joint interview with her husband earlier this year.

This interview, one in a series of conversations with tech figures who are shaking up philanthropy, has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: This year is your foundation’s 15th anniversary. When you reflect on all the work you’ve done, what are you most proud of?

Melinda: The work in vaccines and immunizations has really been transformative in bringing down childhood deaths. The two biggest killers of children are diarrhea and pneumonia. We now have new vaccines in those two areas that we’ve been involved in getting created, bringing the prices down and trying to get the lag time down. When we got into this work, the lag time in getting a vaccine from the United States to somewhere like Kenya was 20-25 years. That’s down now to one to three years. That’s something we’re in­cred­ibly proud of.

Bill Gates and the 3-Story-High Philanthropic “Selfie”

Linsey McGoey wonders aloud in the Guardian whether philanthropy is better off once the major donor has died—or, as she puts it, “Is the most effective philanthropist a dead one?”

McGoey seems to believe that the celebrity status of some billionaire donors gets in the way of necessary critiques of their financially backed influence. She uses as an example of that blinding celebrity halo a bizarre scene that played out when Bill Gates turned 60.

To mark the occasion, more than 1,000 schoolchildren in Chennai, India, were photographed in the courtyard of their school holding life-sized cutouts of Gates’s face, raised above their heads in military salute. A three-story-high image of Gates beams from the rear of the configuration, featuring an upbeat slogan: “Grow rich. Help others.”

She contrasts this to the understated approach of the Wellcome Foundation which “creates about the same ‘good,’ measured in financial contributions, many members of the public haven’t even heard of it—let alone praise the charity in the same way that the Gates Foundation is lauded.”

“Most organizations on a par with the Gates Foundation are fair game for academic and journalistic investigation,” she writes:

When a health catastrophe strikes, many governments and UN organizations such as the World Health Organization are subjected to sustained internal and external review. The Gates Foundation, while as powerful, rarely faces the same scrutiny.

We need to challenge this silence. We need loudly to ask an uncomfortable question: do foundations narrow wealth inequalities or simply preserve them? Are foundations at their most radical when they exist to serve a benefactor’s hopes and whims—or when they’re emancipated from such an obligation?

McGooey generally believes that it is hard to be clearheaded about social inequities when that is the way that you, personally, have made your money. She posits that the “big three” U.S. foundations—Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie—only began to sympathize with labor and civil rights movements after their founders were dead, and that Ford’s grandson Henry actually resigned from the foundation in in 1977, writing that “a system that makes the foundation possible very probably is worth preserving.”—Ruth McCambridge