"Giving while Living" isn't just for billionaires
There's been a lot of talk lately about Bill and Melinda Gates' and Warren Buffett's push to encourage their fellow billionaires to give 50% of their net worth to philanthropy - during their lives or through their estate plans.
I've just returned from the Giving Institute Summer Symposium in Park City and the CASE Summit for Advancement Leaders in New York City where the topic was debated. The crux of the issue? Is this push a good thing?
I admit that, when I read about what the Gates'/Buffett tag team was doing (check out this article in Fortune), my personal reaction was that this was cool, inspiring, and something that could lead to a lot of good. But I do realize that, given what I do and who I am, I'm predisposed to thinking that any initiative to increase the investment made in the sector is a positive thing. These three folks are so famous already that I can't imagine they're going after philanthropic dollars -- or trying to tackle malaria for that matter -- simply for the PR.
But at both the meetings I attended this past week, a common, dissenting theme arose. The perspective is a valid one - that by focusing on billionaires (and only billionaires), the Gates/Buffett team is letting other people off the hook. They're making it easier for the simple millionaire to say "those truly rich folks have it covered."
I guess I hadn't thought about those situations, but I know they DO exist, where constituents of nonprofits don't make donations because they assume the handful of major donors "who always come through" will take care of things. As a "glass is half full" kind of person, I don't particularly like this point of view.
Cokie Roberts, moderating the closing session at the CASE Summit, asked philanthropists Charles Bronfman and Jonathan Tisch what they thought about the Gates/Buffett initiative. Charles Bronfman, somewhat sarcastically, said the pledge certainly didn't include "the little guys like us." Little? Hmm.
So what can we do about it? First, we should be honest with ourselves that some people may never choose to support the work of nonprofits. Ok, we admitted it. Now we can move on and work to take the essence of what the Gates/Buffett team is trying to do to a wider audience. Expand it to others who, while nowhere near as rich, can and will play a role in driving positive change. One speaker at the Giving Institute said that the issue was that Gates/Buffett focused on money vs. being "self made." So that's one avenue to take. Another is to take the message to anyone you feel seeks to make change in the world and could increase his or her philanthropic stake. I'm talking about major donors of all levels (for some that begins at $1,000, for others it means $100,000). On the other end of the scale, it means spreading the word with students who, more and more, are seeking careers in the nonprofit world or ethical, sustainable businesses. It's about being inclusive with the message, not exclusive.
I'd like to think we can quickly leave the debate behind and focus on what's good about the initiative. The nonprofit sector is a vital part of our system, our world, our communities. Increased investment will bring challenge, sure. But it will also bring good things. And if we stay focused on how to channel the investment and identify the true drivers of change, well, that would just be nirvana, wouldn't it?