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.
There is a cleansing process for the money given by donors exposed by their misdeeds—some observe it, and some do not.
Jelani Cobb, a staff writer at the New Yorker, offers us something new to consider about this ugly story. “The great mystery of evil is not that it persists but, rather, that so many of its practitioners wish to do so while being thought of as saints.”
One problem with having high-profile folks on your board or as donors is that their public personas sometimes go south in a very big and flashy way.
