DescentBB

Sorry for starting two new topics in a row, but this seemed so outrageous I just had to add it.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ff9b0e20-0bc1-1 ... e2340.html

key paragraphs:
Philanthropy's largely self-regulated status in the US has, even before the creation of the Buffett/Gates \"mega-fund\", raised concerns about governance and regulation and fuelled a sense that increased public accountability might be necessary.

Mr Buffett explained his confidence in the Gates Foundation's international public health efforts in simple terms. \"I think Bill and Melinda Gates will do a better job managing the money than the federal government,\" he said.
But some liberal activists said they were worried about what signal that may send.

What? I don't like Bill Gates. I don't TRUST Bill Gates. Yeah, I'm a bit nervous about what they might decide to fund.

But COME ON HERE FOLKS! It's THEIR MONEY! We aren't talking about the United Way taking money from people and misrepresenting where its going to. We are talking about Buffett and Gates saying \"Hey, we wanna give some money away\". And we think that needs to be \"Regulated\"???? That they must have \"accountability?\" Does this mean that the government should start going through all of my chartiable donations and deciding whether I gave enough to the funds they approve of? What if I gave too much to right wing organizations and not enough to left wing ones? What if I funded religious organizations and not secular ones?

This is just... Our society is SICK if we have reached the point where we think we need to regulate wether or not you can give away your money. We are UNBELIEVABLY ill, perhaps ill past the point of recovery, if we can question sending the message that private individuals are better at managing money than the federal government

Kilarin wrote:This is just... Our society is SICK if we have reached the point where we think we need to regulate wether or not you can give away your money. We are UNBELIEVABLY ill, perhaps ill past the point of recovery, if we can question sending the message that private individuals are better at managing money than the fereral government

Some people think only government can solve problems. Many of those people end up running the government and contribute greatly to governments inability to do things efficiently and their jobs often entail making up excuses for thier masters inability by blaming individuals who seem to not depend on government to solve problems....

Kilarin wrote:We are UNBELIEVABLY ill, perhaps ill past the point of recovery

I think this is the most profound thing I have seen you post. Possibly the most accurate.

Kilarin wrote:Does this mean that the government should start going through all of my chartiable donations and deciding whether I gave enough to the funds they approve of? What if I gave too much to right wing organizations and not enough to left wing ones? What if I funded religious organizations and not secular ones?

I think you're confusing two different categories of donations. On one side, we have individuals who donate money to NPO's, and on another, we have the NPO's donating that money to whatever causes they choose.

Nobody in the article is suggesting that the government go through your individual donations and criticize you for your decisions. (Except, of course, when you claim a tax deduction for such a charitable contribution, but isn't it within the government's right to make sure that your deduction claims are legitimate?)

However, those in the article that advocated greater regulations of charities did so because they believe that these NPOs' tax-exempt status holds them to a greater public and legal accountability. Remember, we already hold tax-exempt NPO's to certain standards. The real question is, should there be more?

So I think that you are gravely mischaracterizing the advocates' concerns by trying to spin this as the government trying to regulate your personal donations and finances. The only regulation that comes along is if you are an individual trying to claim a tax deduction for a charitable contribution, or if you are an NPO claiming tax-exemption. Isn't it perfectly fair for the government to set up standards to regulate which donations are tax deductible and which are not and to regulate which organizations can be tax-exempt and which cannot? That's all the article was really about. As long as you aren't seeking special tax status, you are A-OK.

I am a liberal, but I don't like to be called a Democrat because of how stupid some of the people are.

\"Lets regulate the donation!\" LOL!

Kilarin wrote:Mr Buffett explained his confidence in the Gates Foundation's international public health efforts in simple terms. "I think Bill and Melinda Gates will do a better job managing the money than the federal government," he said.
But some liberal activists said they were worried about what signal that may send.

What? I don't like Bill Gates. I don't TRUST Bill Gates. Yeah, I'm a bit nervous about what they might decide to fund.

If you look at the Gates foundation's track record, there's not a whole lot to be nervous about. Not that I agree 100% with everything they fund, but seriously, anyone who's worried that Buffet's statement will "send the wrong message" because he thinks the Gates foundation has the government beat is a fool. The Gates foundation *does* have the government beat, by a long shot.

-----

Jeff, I think you've understated the position "some liberal advocates" have taken.

Yes, it's reasonable that the government should be able to set standards for which organization can be tax-exempt and to verify that organizations are in fact using their donations for charitable purposes (the suggestion made by the conservative Mr. Meyerson was "the foundation should determine whether it is effective, and government should simply monitor whether it follows the law and is using its resources for charitable purposes.")

But the aforementioned liberal activists were worried that people might *gasp* TRUST PHILANTHROPY TO HELP PEOPLE and *gasp gasp* NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT ENOUGH because of Buffet's move.

Now, the only suggested regulation in the article was "new standards for size and diversity" of boards, and the wonderfully vague "greater government oversight". Kilarin's post was definitely over the top, but so are the vague calls for "greater accountability" (which means what, exactly?) and the whining about how it "sends the wrong signal" when someone trusts the Gates foundation more than they trust the government.

Lothar wrote:Now, the only suggested regulation in the article was "new standards for size and diversity" of boards, and the wonderfully vague "greater government oversight". Kilarin's post was definitely over the top

Granted. A flaw of mine. It's not the specific regulation recommended, its' the general direction of the article and the reasons they think they NEED more regulation and where I fear that direction may go in the future.

Jeff250 wrote:So I think that you are gravely mischaracterizing the advocates' concerns by trying to spin this as the government trying to regulate your personal donations and finances.

I do think that that's where it would eventually lead. Yes, but that wasn't my main point.

Like I said at the beginning, YES I think there are reasons to regulate NPO's. Regulations such as making certain the United Way/Red Cross/Whatever organization is actually doing what it said it would with peoples money. These organizations are legally obligated to use the donations they have been given they way they promised to.

But, unless I'm gravely mistaken, the Gates foundation is nothing like the united way or red cross. The Gates foundation doesn't go around asking people for money and promising to spend it in a certain way. The gates foundation got money from Gates and Buffett. That's it. So there can be no question of obligation to the donors since it is being run BY the donors.

YES, they must fulfill the legal requirements for being a NPO. IF the Gates foundation started funding political parties, they should and would (I hope) lose their tax free status. BUT, that kind of regulation is in place already.

This article is addressing the concern that the gates foundation needs special regulations simply because it has more money to donate, so we should make certain they are donating it to the "right places."
Actually, I would break their concerns down to 3 levels:

1: They are worried that since it is donating lots of money it would have a lot of influence. (well DUH!)

"The voice with which Gates speaks is going to be pretty resounding throughout the works of philanthropy and civil society,"

I agree, I don't like the level of influence they will have, but it's not ILLEGAL and I CERTAINLY don't want the government trying to regulate it.

2: They seemed to be worried that the Gates foundation might fund the "wrong things" but everyone will be afraid to speak out against it.

"could the Gates Foundation dominate the world of philanthropy, with other foundations and those they fund unwilling to speak out against Gates positions and programmes they disagree with"

Note specifically that it's speak out against his "positions and programmes they disagree with". Not that are illegal, that they DISAGREE WITH. If the foundation is funding non-charitable causes the government would crack down on them. That's already law. This can only be discussing the foundation funding the WRONG charitable causes. Who decides which is wrong?

You see, I AGREE with the article in a way. The Gates foundation funds Planned Parenthood, just for one example. I'm on the other side of the abortion debate from them. So no, I don't LIKE the Gates foundation sending their money to the other side. But I would gladly stand and fight and die (or better yet, make the other guy die) for their RIGHT to send their money to people I don't agree with, just so long as those people qualify as a legal charitable organization. If I don't defend their right to pick whatever legal charities they wish, then sooner or later I will find *MY* charities on the "bad" list because someone else "disagrees" with them.

3: They are afraid that the Gates foundation's donations may influence people to rely less on the government for hand outs.

"Because of the intense media coverage on this event, it may give the public a feeling that philanthropy is the answer to future problems, that the government is less important, and that philanthropy can fill the holes in the social safety net being made by this administration," he said. "I think that would be unfortunate."

Oh NO! If people started taking care of other people, my goodness, folks might think they didn't need the GOVERNMENT to do everything for them! Horrors!!!!!

Honestly, I find this view reprehensible beyond measure.

And just to sum this up, note specifically the "opposition" view at the end of the article (also mentioned by Lothar):

"Mr Meyerson insisted the role of government in overseeing the work of foundations was limited. "I think it is not the business of government to determine whether the Gates Foundation is effective."

Rather, he said, the foundation should determine whether it is effective, and government should simply monitor whether it follows the law and is using its resources for charitable purposes."

Mr. Meyerson here is stating the view that I would completely agree with. The rest of the article is implying exactly what Mr. Meyerson says it is. That they want the government to monitor the gates foundation to see if it is "effective" and funding the RIGHT charitable organizations.

It's NOT the public's money. That money belongs to Gates and Buffet, and they can do whatever they darn well please with it. And as long as they are giving to legal charitable organizations, I have no problem with them having tax exempt status. And all the legal mechanisms needed to ensure they are only donating to legal charitable organizations are ALREADY in place.

leave it to americans to find a way to complain about the rich giving away their wealth.

Most of those are admitted liberal extremists, so I think that we should just let them protest in their corners without letting them affect our health. I mean, it's really easy to find and then thoroughly trounce extremist positions, just because of the nature of it being an extremist position. Be careful though, when doing so, to not to ignore any validity that that position may also hold as well.

Kilarin wrote:1: They are worried that since it is donating lots of money it would have a lot of influence. (well DUH!)

"The voice with which Gates speaks is going to be pretty resounding throughout the works of philanthropy and civil society,"

I agree, I don't like the level of influence they will have, but it's not ILLEGAL and I CERTAINLY don't want the government trying to regulate it.

Whether or not it's illegal is the question at hand. I realize that given your liberterian leanings, you might not be for the government regulating traditional business monopolies (a la Gates' Microsoft) either, but if you can at least grant that advocating the regulation of business monopolies is a somewhat reasonable idea, what makes the regulation of a potentially monopolistic NPO signficantly less reasonable? Realize that the Gates Foundation hasn't done anything to warrant criticism yet, and it hasn't done anything that anyone would consider monopolistic yet, so this is all speculative, but that's what the article is all about is speculation about the future.

Consider a scenario where the Gates Foundation, akin to the Microsoft Corporation, acquires enough leverage to force smaller charities to exclusively accept its policies (such as Planned Parenthood) or receive no funding whatsoever in a way that would be extremely damaging to their ability to do charity work if they refused. (The article mentions other possibilies as well, such as buying out experts to fit their agenda.) Wouldn't this scenario at least warrant a sound discussion of further regulation of NPO's without the idea being immediately dismissed as an unbelievable illness? Tax exemption provides the purview, and the above suggests the merit.