How should nonprofits address the problem of a tainted donation? What are the legalities of rejecting or giving back a large gift, and how can nonprofits protect themselves from having their own reputations sullied by a donor?
The Sackler family, founders of Purdue Pharma, faces a reckoning this week as several institutions distance themselves from what they seem to consider tainted philanthropy.
Robert Kraft’s alleged crimes spotlight national and global crises of human trafficking—and, unfortunately, colonized philanthropy.
Another Ponzi scheme clawback of money—this time, hundreds of thousands donated over a ten-year period—reminds us that money is not just money, but also influence and entrée, even when it is given philanthropically.
A French president’s office report may lead some museums to return stolen treasures to their countries of origin. But resistance among European museums persists.
RAICES says “no” to a hefty donation from Salesforce, citing its contract with US Customs and Border Protection.
Wise nonprofits know that accepting a gift from any individual or institution links your reputation to theirs.
Twin brothers Thomas and Timothy Pearson cared enough about peace to pledge $100 million to the University of Chicago to study conflict resolution, but the relationship soured and the donors want their cash back. This case is reminiscent of the historic Robertson suit against Princeton where the baby was eventually split.
Indigenous Climate Action turned down a six-figure grant because the company held investments in fossil fuels, which violates the group’s raison d’être.
Is money made from intentionally or recklessly exploiting people and environments by business moguls acceptable when some gains are given to charity? It is an age-old question, horribly illustrated by the Sackler family’s philanthropy, since much of their money has been made in pushing opioids.
