> Once the donor has given that contribution, it is no longer "their funds." There's power in controlling money even when you can't spend it on yourself. The d

> Once the donor has given that contribution, it is no longer "their funds." There's power in controlling money even when you can't spend it on yourself. The donor can use it to own securities and control corporations. > Unlike family foundations, which are required to distribute 5 percent of their assets each year and have historically been the way wealthy donors disbursed their philanthropic firepower, D.A.F.s have no distribution requirements, meaning that billions of dollars earmarked for charity can sit idle for decades. That 5% per annum distribution requirement is the check on transferring this power from one generation to the next and is completely absent from D.A.F.s. There are better arguments for raising that minimum % than for removing it.