A recent rec list diary made the plea to not attack musicians and public funding for the arts and acceptance of charitable donations (with tax-deductibility) from the wealthy. The diary, a response to comments from two previous diaries, rebuts some false assumptions about who appreciates and benefits from classical music, and offers a strong defense of public investment in the arts. I was intrigued, though, by a related issue that came up in some of the comments that spurred the diary - the concept of dirty money (ie, whether symphonies should accept donations from less than savory people). Two examples will give you an idea of what caught my eye:
No matter how they try to wash their money and rep. it's still dirty money from the Kochs.
Speaking as a musician I'd rather have the Met go under than be funded by Koch blood money. Philharmonic too.
The issue of dirty money is certainly not limited to the arts. Nor is the issue as clear-cut as those ready to say charities should always reject - or always accept - those donations might make it seem. So how should a symphony, or any other charity, consider the issue of dirty money? Read on below the fold.
This is certainly not a new topic. Different nonprofits face this question from time to time, sometimes in small low-key ways and sometimes with great visibility.
UCLA recently got some major attention when it refused a donation from Donald Sterling, who was working to rehabilitate his image as a racist NBA owner. In rejecting his $3 million pledge for kidney research, UCLA said:
Mr. Sterling’s divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA’s core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion and respect.
I respect and understand UCLA's position and their concern that accepting Sterling's gift might make it seem as if they support or at least tolerate the bigotry that Sterling exemplified. On the other hand, though, what advances in kidney research might his $3 million gift have made possible? And should hateful words from an individual negate their ability to do good for society through some other charitable works? I trust the sincerity of UCLA's stated reasons, but I imagine that UCLA also concluded that the negative publicity they would receive with this donation - and its impact on other potential donors - may have cost them more than the $3 million Sterling was offering. In any case, it became an example of an institution rejecting a "dirty money" gift.
Guidestar notes five reasons why a nonprofit might consider a donor to be controversial and need to decide whether to accept or reject their gift.
(1) Sources conflict with an organization's mission or values. For example, should a Christian food bank accept funds from a group of atheists?
(2) Sources that may be detrimental to health and/or safety. This could again include entities like big tobacco (even for charities who have completely unrelated missions), as well as industrial polluters, firearms manufacturers, and others.
(3) Unethical/immoral sources. The London School of Economics accepting a donation from Libya's Gaddafi family is a prime example.
(4) Illegal sources. A commenter in the previously mentioned diary offered the example of Mother Theresa accepting funds swindled by Charles Keating.
(5) Sources that expect special treatment - ie "Strings Attached". An ugly example if Koch Brothers money going to Florida State - in exchange for their advisory board deciding on candidates for the funded position and on objectives for annual performance evaluation.
Rejecting donations from illegal sources is pretty straightforward. Similarly, "strings attached" donations are pretty clear-cut ethical lapses. Frankly, it is a sad statement on the state of higher education that so many universities seem willing to accept such donations, all while proclaiming a strong dedication to academic freedom.
But things get much trickier with those first three rationales. When should a charity not accept support from an unethical source? It may seem obvious when a donor is so morally repulsive that any sensible charity should decline their gift, though perhaps that isn't always as obvious to a charity to whom a significant gift is offered (witness the London School of Economics and Gaddafi). Some Kossacks clearly feel that any gift from the Kochs (even without strings) is tainted. On the other hand, I'd much rather see more of their dollars going to the arts or humanitarian aid than flowing into more Americans For Prosperity campaign commercials. If the Kochs gave money to a food bank or a symphony, should the operators refuse it on principle, or attempt to make something good out of that "dirty money"?
Sources detrimental to health or safety? Big tobacco is an easy example, and many charities would sensibly worry about the impact on their reputation if they were seen as too cozy. But companies like Philip Morris - by donating some of their profits to positive causes such as fighting hunger and disaster relief - may create benefits to society that their products certainly do not. Should the beneficiaries of their contributions be penalized for the wrongs of the donor? Where do you draw the line?
What about sources that conflict with an organization's values or mission? Should a faith-based soup kitchen reject support from atheists? Should an environmental organization accept funds from a polluter to help restore habitat or water quality in a community? The source may conflict with the mission, but the use of the funds certainly does not. On the other hand, charities must tread very carefully lest such donations turn into explicit or implicit pressure on how they pursue their mission. (Polluter/donor to environmental charity: "We'd sure hate to see you oppose this development proposal ...")
Clearly, meaningful support from whatever source can help a charity to advance its mission, whether that be sheltering the homeless, enriching a community through the arts, or educating disadvantaged youth. Equally clearly, taking donations from controversial sources poses its own perils for an organization and its mission.
While not from the charitable donation world, an example of how these things can backfire on a group is playing out in Colorado, where Planned Parenthood recognized a political figure for doing a good deed - in this case, Mike Coffman (and 32 other Republicans) voting for the Violence Against Women Act. Now, Coffman is featuring their logo and quoting their statement in ads supporting his candidacy against a candidate who is actually endorsed by Planned Parenthood's Action Fund, Andrew Romanoff.
The reality is that our charities need more funds, and from the arts to environmental protection, from relief for the impoverished to health research, charities will depend upon individual donors, businesses and foundations for their success. While some might want to see these charitable efforts supported fully and adequately through public sources, that won't be happening in the foreseeable future. Charities will continue to rely on private sources and to face tricky questions when considering whether to accept a "controversial" donation.
For my part, I think some charitable purposes - humanitarian aid, the arts - are unlikely to be "tainted" by virtue of taking money from the Kochs or other unsavory sources. I don't see that their "good" purposes are diminished by being funded by "bad" donors. For charities that venture into public policy (education programs, environmental protection groups, etc.) the risks of being pressured in inappropriate ways become greater. But knowing just where to draw the line is difficult, and requires thoughtfulness and patience. Ultimately, I think charities deserve our sympathies when accepting gifts - even from controversial sources - and putting them to positive use, so long as they steer clear of Guidestar's "illegal sources" and "strings attached" situations.
And in most cases when a controversial donor actually wants to do something good, I think we should applaud that act of charity - even as we retain our disapproval for their harmful or offensive acts. If UCLA's kidney disease researchers - with no strings attached - had accepted funds from Donald Sterling, I wouldn't think less of them or their work ... but I also wouldn't think Donald Sterling was any less of a racist.
I found a thoughtful piece on this issue by Rabbi Eliyahu Fink from the Pacific Jewish Center, on "The Morality of Accepting Charity from Immoral People". I will give the Rabbi the last word:
We should always assume the best intentions when people are doing good things. Charity is a good thing. It’s possible there are ulterior motives, we may even think we are certain that the motivations for the gift are not altruistic, but it does not matter.
Perhaps even more importantly, we may not undervalue the possibility that a good act will inspire more good acts. If we reject their overtures for charity, we may think we are sending them a message to improve their behavior before we accept charity from them, but they might be receiving a message that we don’t value their good acts. This is likely to push them further away from inspired living. Instead, we welcome their attempts to make positive contributions to the world. We encourage them to do more good acts. We hope that by giving charity they are inspired to do better.