“This chapter tells the little-known story, very important for understanding the politics of philanthropy, of the hostile encounter between his small group of foundations and an uncomfortable alliance of segregationists in Congress and tax lawyers in Treasury”. Zunz starts this chapter out by explicitly saying that he is going to tell the important story of the interaction between government and philanthropy in the early 1960’s. This chapter talks about how foundations had been getting plenty of fingers pointed at them at the time. Politicians opposed foundations being involved in civil rights, and civil servants suspected foundations of tax fraud. During the 60’s segregationists had resented advantages that the tax code had given foundations. Most influentially opposed to foundations was Wright Patman, a …show more content…
Democratic congressman from Texas. Zunz states that “Patman hated the arrogant wealthy, and their philanthropic efforts did nothing to lessen his disdain”. In 1961 Patman had launched an investigation into 500 nonprofit foundations, singling out the Hartford foundation. Hartford had an estimated annual income of 7.5 million dollars in 1960, which led Patman to believe that this was simply too much money to be controlled privately, and that they needed government oversight.
Patman had thought that government should have the control, and that the only useless part of big government was the Federal Reserve, simply because it catered to the needs of large corporations. The incredible increase in philanthropic foundations was not due to increased American generosity in Patman’s mind, but it was rather due to an increase in fiscal abuse. Patman had believed that philanthropy was a way to avoid inheritance taxes, keep control of companies generationally, and receive deductions when dumping unwanted assets. In these assumptions, Patman was right, as Zunz stated earlier that these were partial reasons as to how the Ford Foundation was created, although they still played a significant role in the Detroit area after the foundation was created. Other beliefs that Patman had were that philanthropy was a means to avoid antitrust legislation, hide suspicious or doubtful transactions from scrutiny, and also to influence the public through
media. Although Patman’s reports were for the most part inaccurate, incomplete reports, he was the first person to reveal the fact that the CIA had used private foundations as fronts in order to fund anti communist groups in Europe. In a haste of embarrassment, the White House quickly rallied for the deletion of this in further reports. Zunz goes on to talk about Patman and how he felt about exemptions and how money should be spent by foundations. Wright did not support the spending of American gifts abroad. He believed that if any money were to leave the country that it should go to troops. Another one of Patman’s many beliefs was that foundations should have a limited lifetime. Throughout Patman’s investigations, tax lawyers had also been in the process of investigating 1,300 foundations, but had kept quiet as to not attract the attention of Wright Patman. In the end the Treasury had found that those who held great wealth were not the ones who had been guilty of fiscal abuse, but rather those who owned small foundations and make modest contributions. These small foundations made loans to themselves and others associated with them with little interest and they also did not disburse money, but rather accumulated wealth over the years. In the end I believe that these investigations were incredibly important as they brought to scope what foundations were doing and they also enabled people to change laws and how foundations can run in order to prevent the avoidance of tax or the creation of small foundations as ways to simply increase an individual’s personal wealth.
“Judge Rutledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia revealed, in perhaps the most searing, analytical, and penetrating opinion on the subject up to that time, that the charity immunity doctrine was built on a foundation of sand.” (Georgetown College v. Hughes, Federal)
Even though these men attempted to build a stable foundation for America to grow on, their negative aspects dramatically outweighed the positive. Even though Andrew Carnegie donated his fortunes to charity, he only acquired the money through unjustifiable actions. As these industrialists continued to monopolize companies through illegal actions, plutocracy- government controlled by the wealthy, took control of the Constitution. Sequentially, they used their power to prevent controls by state legislatures. These circumstances effect the way one
...interpretations of their assumption of millions of dollars. Due to their appropriation of godlike fortunes, and numerous contributions to American society, they simultaneously displayed qualities of both aforementioned labels. Therefore, whether it be Vanderbilt’s greed, Rockefeller’s philanthropy, or Carnegie’s social Darwinist world view, such men were, quite unarguably, concurrently forces of immense good and evil: building up the modern American economy, through monopolistic trusts and exploitative measures, all the while developing unprecedented affluence. Simply, the captains of late 19th century industry were neither wholly “robber barons” or “industrial statesmen”, but rather both, as they proved to be indifferent to their “lesser man” in their quests for profit, while also helping to organize industry and ultimately, greatly improve modern American society.
"…admitting what is called philanthropy, when adopted as a profession, to be often useful by its energetic impulse to society at large, it is perilous to the individual whose ruling passion, in one exclusive channel, it thus becomes. It ruins, or is fearfully apt to ruin, the heart, the rich juices of which God never meant should be pressed violently out and distilled into alcoholic liquor by an unnatural process, but should render life sweet, bland, and gently beneficent, and insensibly influence over other hearts and other lives to the same blessed end." (348)
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
...failed in his duty to redistribute his surplus wealth to his community, and that the State should heavily tax the remaining estate. This belief that men of wealth were responsible for bridging the widening gap between the well-to-do and those hoping to do well led Carnegie to publish The Gospel of Wealth.
Crutchfield, Leslie R., and Heather McLeod Grant. Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-impact Nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Print.
Charity handouts did not necessarily help feed a poor family, but aimed to “... produce most beneficial results to [the] community” (Shi 60). This meant that the wealthy didn’t directly give citizens money, but built free public utilities. Among these free services were libraries and and centers for scientific research. Without a doubt, these buildings do not help put food on the table. They do, however, create a sense of hope for educational and social improvement for the working class.
Carnegie did not believe in spending his money on frivolous things, instead he gave most of his fortune back to special projects that helped the public, such as libraries, schools and recreation. Carnegie believes that industries have helped both the rich and the poor. He supports Social Darwinism. The talented and smart businessmen rose to the top. He acknowledges the large gap between the rich and the poor and offers a solution. In Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, he states, “the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves” (25). He believes the rich should not spend money foolishly or pass it down to their sons, but they should put it back into society. They should provide supervised opportunities for the poor to improve themselves. The rich man should know “the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise- free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind” (Carnegie p. 28). Also, Carnegie does not agree they should turn to Communism to redistribute wealth. Individuals should have the right to their earnings. Corporations should be allowed to act as it please with little to no government
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
Wensink, Joseph. Literary Philanthropy: The Pulitzer Prize, Oprah's Book Club, and Contemporary U.S. Fiction. New York: Millersmith Publishers, 2012. Print.
...rnegie was a wealthy upper-class man and believed in survival of the fittest, he was worried about the “proper administration of wealth.” (Weber 45) He believed that wealth should be in the control of the only a handful of people and they should decide how to administer the wealth; however, he didn’t want a corporate aristocracy either. In 1889, Andrew Carnegie wrote a book called The Gospel of Wealth which offered a solution to these problems.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
Philanthropy is powerful because everyone can be affected by the love for mankind, this can change the world for better. Philanthropy is not the practice of self importance and putting yourself above others. Philanthropy and its power of changing the world is about donating to charity your time, belongings, or even sharing kind words or advice in an effort to better others. It is about giving to others less fortunate, and caring about other humans. Whether you know them or not, helping others and caring for the welfare of those less fortunate can change the world. One person can change the life of someone else's by one simple act of charity or kindness. Bill Gates is a wonderful example, due to his material advantages, he can give his belongings to others to help them, rather than keeping all his success to himself. Over his lifetime Mr. Gates donated $27
The Charity Organization Society was based in the scientific movement of organizations. Workers believed that charity work needed more definition and organization and that charity should be focused more on individual need rather than as a whole population. Focusing on individual need was intended to improve relief operations while making resources more efficient. They also intended to eliminate public outdoor relief. With the promotion of more organization and efficiency the new Charity Organization Societies were born. Trattner states that these new requirements for organization and efficiency spread so “rapidly that within 6 years 25 cities had such organizations and by the turn of the century there were some 138 of them in existence” (Trattner, 1999).