Is Overaggressive Philanthropy Subverting Social Contract?

Print Share on LinkedIn More



April 11, 2013; Philanthropy Daily

William Schambra, Director of the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, recently addressed the annual meeting of the Council on Foundations in Chicago. The edited version of his speech published on represents some of the most interesting reading about the role of foundations and philanthropy in our society that this writer has seen in a very long time.

Mr. Schambra’s argument is that foundations in America have made a radical adjustment in the manner in which they engage with society, and in so doing may be subverting what we know as the social contract. According to Mr. Schambra, our idea of the social contract dates back to philosophers and theorists like Hobbes, Rousseau, and John Locke. These theories hold that the social contract is a direct relationship between government and the people being governed. In the case of the United States, that would mean an unmediated relationship between elected representatives and the citizens.

According to this argument, any group, movement, or individual trying to insert itself into that relationship is implicitly breaking the social contract. A union, for example, inserting itself into negotiations between workers and the government. Or perhaps the NRA advocating to senators in Washington, D.C., that background checks for gun purchasers are in violation of the Second Amendment. In both cases, one could argue, a third party has come between the political state and the rights of the people.

We have come to expect this kind of advocacy, Mr. Schambra argues, for good or bad. We are no longer shocked even when a donor, a philanthropist, goes directly to the source and advocates on behalf of the cause it supports. Mr. Schambra points to an example in New Jersey where a philanthropist said they would only make a donation to support education if the incumbent governor was re-elected. This is a far cry, Mr. Schambra argues, from our image of foundations that act from purely philanthropic impulses and give to worthy causes such as the alleviation of homelessness, poverty, and hunger. Now they are taking matters into their own hands, going directly to the source of power, and influencing decisions in such a manner as to potentially wreak havoc on that social contract.

Foundations have become more focused and directive in their giving than ever. Those of us in the nonprofit world are well aware that we now have to see what the foundation has decided should happen, and wonder if we fit. We also see the Koch brothers on the right, and George Soros on the left, actively supporting nonprofit organizations and even helping to jumpstart whole movements that support their ideas and ideologies.

Are these “donors” in danger of subverting the social contract as Mr. Schambra says? Have they come between us and our government? Or are they merely a pure expression of democracy? In our history, there have been cases when foundations have been investigated for overt involvement in the political process. Generally, however, those seem to have occurred around a major “cause célèbre,” such as anti-communism in the 1950s. There are shadowy donors on the conservative side of the spectrum and on the liberal side. And perhaps that is the issue: We only take issue when that wealthy donor is promoting a cause we disagree with. Those of us on the left raise our fists and decry the Koch brothers, and vice versa for those on the right who decry the actions of Soros.

Maybe the issue is transparency, and the “philanthropists” subverting the social contract are the ones who will not do it openly—the ones who will not publicly state they have funded the cause, the candidate, or the legislation. Or maybe it really is none of their business. This is a democracy, and one should not be able to buy your way into it, rather than vote your way in.

Or has the social contract evolved from the historical context Mr. Schambra outlines in such an erudite way? Perhaps its new definition encompasses more than our relationship to the civic state, but to each other, and what we could and should expect from being part of, and contributing to, the communities in which we live.—Rob Meiksins

  • Kelly Kleiman

    Schambra’s view of the social contract is too narrow if he regards voluntary organizations like labor unions or the NRA as interfering with it. Tocqueville, who came out of the same Enlightenment thinking as Locke and the Founders, regarded voluntary organizations as an essential component of “Democracy in America.” So the issue isn’t whether nongovernmental influence is appropriate, but what kind. You put your finger on it when you write “This is a democracy, and one should not be able to buy your way into it, rather than vote your way in.”

    Voluntary-organization advocates influence public policy by persuasion; overaggressive philanthropists like Mark Zuckerberg do it by purchase. And it’s not true that “we only take issue when that wealthy donor is promoting a cause we disagree with.” We take issue with the very existence of fortunes sufficient to purchase entire school systems. The level of inequality that implies–or, actually, requires–is the real threat to self-government, the essence of the American social contract.

  • Dan

    I really enjoy Schambra, but reading his comments, he seems to be ignoring the many and varied powerful institutions that also seek to insert themselves into the social contract- corporations, lobbyists, basically anyone and anything that seeks to influence government action. This has, and always will be true. There are many ethical and philosophical question surrounding the role of individuals vs. institutions vs. associations influencing government. And there’s a long history of debate- Schambra contributes admirably to that debate, and his point that foundations acting in the policy arena may provoke a backlash is well thought out and possibly accurate.
    But the freedom that foundations- and corporations- have in that arena is hard earned, deserved and perfectly legal. I suspect Schambra is more intererested in scolding activist foundations than seeing their activities curtailed through legislation and regulation, and thus he avoids directly encouraging such measures. In that case, his rhetorical efforts to get them to reign in or redirect their activities are a bit sly, but interesting, informative and entertaining nonetheless.

  • Patrick

    The bigger issue to me is the inequality that justifies the current state of affairs, where the very few are allowed to get incredibly wealthy at the expense of the vast majority of citizens, often using their wealth to protect their business interests, and it’s all ok because they will set up a foundation to promote their values and defend their pet causes. We are essentially saying that government is useless and we are better off letting the wealthy elite dictate where resources should be directed.