The trouble with tainted money is there 'taint enough.
- A favorite saying of fundraisers
There's been a lot of news in the past week about Apple's problem unloading its cash - country-sized sums earning the same minute interest I get in my credit union. And the media have been warm in their praise for Apple's putting some of the cash hoard into dividends and stock buybacks.
I kept waiting for someone to suggest that Apple drop a fraction, how about a billion to start, into its philanthropy. To be charitable, Apple's philanthropy over the years has barely reached mediocre. A company that would put obsessive care and thought into the design of a click wheel or a computer tone or an icon hasn't been ashamed of slapdash and barely thought out corporate giving.
Company head Steve Jobs reportedly had scant interest in giving money away. He was typical of many in his generation of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. I met with a room full of them in the 1980s to pitch their support of a group looking to protect free expression on the burgeoning Internet. They were a marvelous group of eccentrics and weirdos, I felt right at home. Many of them were fascinated by the idea of giving money to other people to do good. Philanthropy was as alien to them as program code was to me. They were uniformly good-natured, they listened politely, even asked some good questions. And not one of them gave a dime. They just couldn't imagine why they should.
There are plenty of exceptions to the lack of computer money in philanthropy, look at the Hewlett and Packard Foundations, and what about the incredible job Bill and Melinda Gates have done. Plenty of other corporations have long and honorable histories of giving money away: Levi Strauss, Patagonia, Dayton-Hudson, Tiffany - and the list goes on. I want to share three points with you about corporations giving away a tiny fraction of their profits in exchange for a tax break.
1. Does Intent Matter?
Many folks struggle with the problem of tainted money. There's an ancient debate about this - Hebrew law for example is explicit that it's wrong to use another's ill-gotten gains. But some people say, if the check doesn't bounce, I'm happy. They point out that much of the money we spend ourselves comes from sources that could be deconstructed from some point of view.
Quite a few people try to discern the intentions of donors. Companies like Patagonia have an emphasis on putting money back into the communities they serve. Others like Tiffany have well-thought out philanthropy to address issues raised by their business - in their case the extraction of minerals.
I'm not sure how well the double standard of individuals versus companies holds up if we're considering intent. With the exception of the odd lottery winner, it's safe to say that individual wealthy people are spending gains from corporations they or a family member founded. I've witnessed wonderful generosity and open hearts from individual philanthropists - as well as cynical, selfish and mean-spirited grant making. Since some corporations have more transparency than most private funders, one could argue for a better chance of glossing intent with company philanthropy.
Some seeking money from companies assume the company is using philanthropy to burnish its image and may be hoping people will ignore its faults. Supporting this impression, some corporate philanthropies are part of the company's public relations department, and they make no bones about the business justification of their giving. But the same is true of individual donors - some people give money to look important, impress their wealthy friends, or even counteract scandals.
For me, after decades in the funding business, I'd advise giving up trying to cut your moral cloth using the shears of intent. There's plenty of PR talent to fuzz or obscure intent. We have enough trouble seeing into our own hearts - how can we know what others really intend?
This brings us to a more empirical standard: what corporations actually do.
2. Do Actions Matter?
Now we're on firmer ground. I used to know some of the people who worked on the philanthropy of food giant Con Agra. It's quite possible the company doesn't make a single food product I eat or would serve. And they publicize their philanthropy in their public relations and advertising efforts. But for many years, Con Agra has spent millions of dollars feeding many thousands of poor kids around the US.
Does a well-fed guy like me have a right to say, this company doesn't make products I like, so those kids should go without that extra food in their bellies? I can't see it taking that position. Instead I wish Con Agra made healthier food. And I applaud their consistent and well-executed program providing tractor trailers of food to kids who need to eat.
The Gates foundation takes some positions I regret, but their philanthropy is literally world class - well-thought out and executed - and backed by enough financial wallop to change whole countries. As with Con Agra, who am I to stipulate that poor people in distant places shouldn't benefit from Gates' help, even if the Marty Foundation would have made some different choices?
As with so many ethical questions, each of us has to figure out where we draw the line. What about the Monsanto Foundation, would you take their money? Walmart has done some interesting granting - would you have them on your donor list? Just as some corporate givers use grants as public relations tools, so do grantees - thus seeking support from a company may rest partly on how their name will look in the non-profit's annual report.
3. Cold Turkey
The other day a friend sent me an email about a new group she wanted to start. A feature of her informal proposal was that it wouldn't be a tax-exempt non-profit. So often people starting up a public benefit organization reflexively seek tax exempt status so they can receive tax-deductible grants. There is a real price paid by organizations that do this - the cost of obtaining and maintaining tax-exempt status, the huge expense of dealing with the foundation world, and I think most important, the substantive alteration of the group's activities to fit within IRS requirements for tax exemption. Organizations that take tax empt funds just isn't allowed to do certain things, period.
And finally, most non-profits are owned by their funders. If your funders are two corporations and six foundations and a handful of wealthy people, you'll dance to their tune if you want to keep your doors open. And the donors will most likely represent a broad set of values emanating from a certain social class - imprinted upon your activities by the funding.
If a group is predominantly funded by a large number of small donors, individual quirks are less likely to register, and the group will have to reflect the concerns of its community, and make itself transparent and accountable.
Most people who give $25 a year the way I do to several do-good groups couldn't care less about a tax emption. I think there are many organizations that tie themselves into knots, hoping for the big score from a foundation or wealthy donor when they could cut their overhead, operate more democratically, and only have to interact with the government superstructure through the more modest requirements of corporate and charity registration.
Let's return to the Apple Corporation for a moment. Apple can continue on as an inconsequential donor, thumbing its nose at ideas of corporate responsibility, putting back into the community that supports it, or burnishing its image. Alternatively, it could go the way of Google's narcissistic philanthropy, "philanthropy" that's really a form of corporate R&D - what appears to be a cynical misuse of our traditions of charity for selfish gain.
Or, Apple could listen to its own hyperbolic rhetoric and do something amazing, transformative - even magic. It's very soon after the passing of Steve Jobs; we can still hope that Apple's corporate culture will evolve to permit a descent from Mount Olympus. The company could save its soul with an authentic and mutually-enriching partnership with the mere mortals grubbing in the dirt at the mountain's base, surfing the web on their iPads.....