4 ms·
When one "gives away" that volume of money, what you are doing (whether you like it or not) is trading it for influence. At a minimum you are setting your fund
by fiatmoney 10y ago
When one "gives away" that volume of money, what you are doing (whether you like it or not) is trading it for influence. At a minimum you are setting your funding priorities, which has rippling policy effects as people compete for your funding (see the Gates foundation). At a maximum you've just outright laundered it (see the Clinton Foundation) or converted it into an unaccountable ideological blight completely opposed to your original desires (see the Ford Foundation).
- joering2 10y ago> just outright laundered it (see the Clinton Foundation) I'm looking. Any solid proof of said illegal procedure, or just some more conspiracy theory from Alex Jones website?
- fiatmoney 10y agohttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... Pick a different example if you'd like; plenty of "foundations" exist only to let some oligarch's kids play philanthropist.
- tgb 10y agoThat example is of a secretary of state potentially being influenced by foreign donations, going around the usual laws against campaign contributions from foreign countries. But we're taking about Zuckerberg, who can already take foreign money all he wants. Letting people play philanthropist is kind of the point of a philanthropic foundation.
- Anderkent 10y agoSure, that's the point of money. You give it to people who think can make the world a better place, and thus buy influence.