10 ms·

Why India's rich don't give their money away

167 points by happy-go-lucky 8y ago

jadbox 8y ago
Basically it seems like the premise is that the rich generally like donating because of the publicity it generates for them (trading financial capital to social capital). However, in India there is a fear of being noticed by the 'taxman' and being asked/audited for higher taxes (it's not clear). This means the wealthy are afriad of publically donating, and hence, donate less because there's no 'social capital' to buy via the donation. At least this was my interpretation.
- Liber-Abaci 8y ago
  My interpretation was also they didn't trust the charities/groups weren't embezzling the money. >So, for instance, a non-profit that works to improve sanitation could use donor funds to build toilets, hire more people or even buy a laptop or other equipment that might make them more efficient. But most donors, Mr Bhagwati says, will set conditions about how they want the money spent. In other words, they will insist on the toilets being built. He calls this "restricted giving" and says it's hard to coax people to give any other way.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  In the US, the federal government heavily subsidizes rich people’s charitable contributions. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Even when completely legal, rich Americans use charities as a means to avoid taxes while still using their money to influence policy or pursue other agendas. But there are also a plethora of charity-related tax evasion, money laundering, and fraud schemes. The Trump Foundation is a good recent example of how criminal schemes tied to charitable organizations (like white collar crime more generally) go largely uninvestigated and unpunished in the USA. The brazen repeated crimes were only noticed because the chairman/founder became President and started attracting scrutiny from the media.
wyxuan 8y ago
Yeah. There is also the element of how being philanthropic isn't 'cool' as it might be in the US. The article specially notes the problem of how the are no economic incentives to do so, unlike the US and China.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  i know the US gives tax deductions for charitable giving. i don't know how this works in China. what are the incentives in China?
azemda 8y ago
http://socialistreview.org.uk/402/philanthropy-capitalist-art-deception http://socialistreview.org.uk/402/philanthropy-capitalist-ar...
blackoil 8y ago
Noting one exception, India's biggest business group 'Tata' is a 100+ years old family business conglomerate, but is mostly owned by various trusts(https://www.tatatrusts.org/ https://www.tatatrusts.org/). It is very easy to find works around the country funded by them, be it restoration of historical monument, NGO publishing children education books.
anonymous_i 8y ago
I will give you my interpretation: - There is an incredible amount of systemic corruption in India. This means there are people- a lot of them, who are rich not by the value creation or inheritance. - A measure of wealth in India is land ownership, not swathes of hundreds of acres of land like Bezos, but owning a 200 Sq.Ft. land or some real estate property in cities. A flat in a decent city like Bangalore or Hyderabad goes upwards of million dollars. - Binami. These are aliases of rich politicians mostly their family members control hordes of wealth. When these people start to give away, it actually generates negative social capital. They face a backlash from the same people they are donating to because, they cannot donate enough. The reason why recipients are insatiable is because, they view the wealth accumulated by these people is thru' non-legit means. - We are seeing a new generation of multi-millionaires in this country. Seeing what they saw I don't think they will be inspired to donate. If they set up an organisation be it a private charity, there is a good chance they will have to deal with misappropriation of funds in their own organisation. - Add caste based and religion based inconveniences you may cause to general public with your charitable work, unbeknownst to you.
- abhiminator 8y ago
  It's also partly cultural, imo. Most Indians believe in reincarnation [1] and also believe that the current state one is in is because of "mistakes" from one's "previous life." (aka karma) That gives rise to extreme apathy, zero sympathy for folks on the lowest rungs of society, and a general lack of credence in effecting change. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Hinduism
  - rjf72 8y ago
    Just emphasizing how important a point this is around the world. I've seen many in the US idealize Buddhism which has a similar view as in Hinduism that good actions in this life lead to a better place in the next [reincarnated] life. And indeed this seems like a really awesome baseline tenet for a religion, but in practice it ends up distorted just as all other 'divine imperatives' do. As one example among many, a family I've lived with is what I'd describe as friendly, intelligent, and perfectly reasonable. They were also Buddhist. But they had some views I initially didn't understand. In one instance they found an individual with a crippling disability (leading to a sort of very awkward bow-legged walk) absolutely hilarious. In other they found people working in some really atrocious conditions at a fishery as comparably humorous. The issue is that they ultimately felt these individuals must have deserved such fates due to bad actions in a past life. After all, if they did good in their past life they would not have ended up in such positions in this life. So they viewed it as people getting what they deserved. Never give people a divine righteousness, whether it be in religion or social belief held in a fashion otherwise indistinguishable from religion. They will find a way to screw it up no matter how unimaginably benevolent and harmless it sounds.
iamgopal 8y ago
The real way of giving away money, using corruption free ways to needy in India, is to start a business venture that is not so profitable but gives tons of employment, like TATA had done since ages. India has so many people ( even wealthy people are poor compare to Western counter part ) that philanthropic activity does not move the needle much, while business venture helps a ton. I hope indian rich keep not-giving away money and instead keep investing in employment generation.
- temporalparts 8y ago
  How do you feel about ride sharing and delivery companies like Ola and Uber?
  - iamgopal 8y ago
    You mean to say, Because of Ride "Sharing", they are actually reducing the net employment ? Well, I support all idea that improves resource utilisation and helps environment, even at the cost of employment.
  - djangovm 8y ago
    Not OP, but here is my take. While Ola and Uber would not actually aim to be philanthropic companies, they definitely have enabled people to come from different walks of like and become a driver. I have met many drivers who came from villages to drive and support their family, and Ola and Uber made it very easy for them to get started. Overall, good for a larger segment of the society i would say.
    - kamaal 8y ago
      >>I have met many drivers who came from villages to drive and support their family, and Ola and Uber made it very easy for them to get started. Making a virtue out of compulsion, eh? Those people leave rural farming jobs and come to cities, because irrigation infrastructure is in shambles. Farming is not open to free market economics, there is not enough water, and overall its not profitable. They sell what they have and inhale CO day in and out to put food on the table. Farmer to cabbie ain't exactly a good career transition.
Dravidian 8y ago
Meanwhile current government has made anonymous corporate donations to political parties seamless, no prizes for guessing which party benefited the most. One can witness the secularism in the country as many philanthropists mentioned in the article belong to minority communities in the country, while the current ruling party projects secularism as a cancer. Few days back India's PM openly called the leader of competiting political party 'a coward' for competing from a constituency which has considerable non-hindu population. The ruling party's agenda is to undermine democracy, constitution to create a 'Hindu' nation. I wonder what these philanthropists would feel about it.
rishav_sharan 8y ago
My take; We Indians are used to seeing sights of abject poverty everyday and it simply desnsitizes us. Most people from developed nations dont understand whats it like to see these things every single day. Some who come to India, get a huge cultural shock (though it is getting better) and are simply unable to process all the misery they see around them. When I was kid, I used to give money to beggars but now that i am an adult with a steady income, I dont do it anymore. Either I feel that my few rupees is not gonna have any effect on the other person's poverty, or that this beggar is just trying to scam me by leveraging my kindness. I am just a middle class person in India. But if I were to suddenly become super wealthy, I fear I would carry much of this baggage with me. I cant substatntiate this with data, but I believe that rich people from other developing nations also have this problem. they dont give their wealth away. Better education and a growing middle class will help improve the perspective of the average indians. Till then apathy and cynicism will prevail.
- TheTruth1234 8y ago
  If you are self-aware enough to write this comment, why wouldn't you be self-aware enough to think through the baggage which might hinder philanthropy?
  - paraschopra 8y ago
    Because writing uses thinking processes while donating uses emotional processes. It’s easy to see that what we know intellectually (cigarettes are bad) does not necessarily translate into what we actually do.
    - TheTruth1234 8y ago
      Not implying you are one ... but if you're not a hypocrite, that shouldn't be a problem.
      - TheTruth1234 8y ago
        Ok then - you are one! LOL
sriram_iyengar 8y ago
People do it and there is no effective tracking system in place. As any media house, the headlines and the content inside are contradicting itself. A headline like 'Philanthropy challenges in India' would have made sense. Comparing to US is a poor benchmark as well. Please go and check for contributions made by Indian citizens on crowd funding platforms like 'Rangde', you will realise there is some serious traction on.
srndh 8y ago
There are a million ways to help. Giving money away to charity is just one way. In the US, it is a tax write off & status symbol and you have the challenges of what percentage actually reached the poor. In India, many huge groups do help in the society. Like the TATA group has employed members of the victims of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, not just the victims that died in the Taj Hotel (Tata owned). Even the families of the cops kills also got something. These are on top of the financial aid given. Handicapped service members (soldiers who are hurt during duty) are extensively employed in the private sector. Basically in India, we believe in teaching a person to fish instead of supplying them free fish. Its actually a rule for Govt entities and most private firms, if a person who is employed dies during on-duty or off-duty. A member of the family will get a job. Basically they help another member of the family to be employed to replace the lost revenue. These efforts are never accounted. Tata's are pioneers and a model company that all Indian companies aspire to follow. There are many examples of this involving other groups. Actors like Nana Patekar has adopted villages. As per the Vedic culture, you actually have to help the needy yourself and not make someone else to do it. So, the concept of giving a charity cheque is not accepted to many. In my village, we have a collective fund that I pay to monthly. The fund is used to serve dinner to all 365 days a year. We have about 300 people daily for dinner. Like a soup kitchen in the US.
- inapis 8y ago
  In India we do both. Teach them how to fish as well as hand out lots of fish - government’s byzantine number of subsidises or continuous farm loan wavers.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 8y ago
Despite claims on the contrary, the philanthropist model is a way for a rich person to use their money to control public policy and garner public support. I'm no expert on India, but with the wide scale corruption problem I'd guess they just skip the middlemen.
thisisit 8y ago
This is a clickbait title. The article clearly says "Rich Indians might be charitable, but not enough of them are philanthropists." So the title should be "Why India's rich don't give their money away to philanthropy"? But going by the comments in this thread I guess the title has achieved in drawing the reactions it really wanted to. Still as per the quoted report[0], private funding grew by 15% compared to less than 10% growth in US[1] (unfortunately drawing a parallel between private funding is kind of difficult). Additionally, the article says "ultra-rich households have grown at a rate of 12% over the past five years". So, the private funding growth (15%) has kept up with the UHNI growth in past 5 years? Sure, we can make a case of more funding for UHNI but then the title makes even less sense. Additionally, to add one more of the interpretations in the ring. Indians donate lots of money in temples like Shirdi, Thirupati Balaji which goes to some chartiable trusts. Though again the major point is charity vs philanthropy. [0] - https://www.dasra.org/assets/uploads/resources/BAIN_BRIEF_India_Philanthropy_Report_2019.pdf https://www.dasra.org/assets/uploads/resources/BAIN_BRIEF_In... [1] - https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/report-projects-growth-in-charitable-giving-in-2019-20 https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/report-projects-grow...
known 8y ago
Casteism is worse than Racism; Casteism = Racism + Slavery http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-worlds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-wo...
- adwww 8y ago
  I advise against taking lessons on racism from the Daily Mail.
arisAlexis 8y ago
Publicly tracking charity donations on the blockchain could solve the problem of who gave what to whom and how it was spent.
calvinbhai 8y ago
I'm glad they don't. Philanthropy is a great way to undermine democracy and is often the way real, govt lead development projects stall. It's a nice facade for those who want to get things done without being an elected official. Even if the outcome is good, it is still undermining the democratic process.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Wow, how do you think the Carter Center's election monitoring undermines elections? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Center
  - calvinbhai 8y ago
    TBH, I'm not aware of this org. This org as well as many more out there may be doing genuinely good work. I'm not an American but I'm skeptical about US politics, of which "Philanthropy" is a huge part. So any thing that comes across as a philanthropy especially one whose goal is to solve a political problem, I'll be a little extra skeptical about it. Especially from a country that is known around the world to install democracy of their choice I'm not sure which side of the US politics you are (I'm neither, since I cannot vote in the US), but it's kinda funny that Carter Center didn't monitor elections in the US, so all we have are the "collusion" stories flooding the news reports every day, in 2019. If you take a look at the most hated personalities in India, most of them happen to be the darlings of certain US Philanthropies. (I hope that explains my skepticism about such orgs).

Basically it seems like the premise is that the rich generally like donating because of the publicity it generates for them (trading financial capital to social capital). However, in India there is a fear of being noticed by the 'taxman' and being asked/audited for higher taxes (it's not clear). This means the wealthy are afriad of publically donating, and hence, donate less because there's no 'social capital' to buy via the donation. At least this was my interpretation.

Liber-Abaci 8y ago
My interpretation was also they didn't trust the charities/groups weren't embezzling the money. >So, for instance, a non-profit that works to improve sanitation could use donor funds to build toilets, hire more people or even buy a laptop or other equipment that might make them more efficient. But most donors, Mr Bhagwati says, will set conditions about how they want the money spent. In other words, they will insist on the toilets being built. He calls this "restricted giving" and says it's hard to coax people to give any other way.
jacobolus 8y ago
In the US, the federal government heavily subsidizes rich people’s charitable contributions. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Even when completely legal, rich Americans use charities as a means to avoid taxes while still using their money to influence policy or pursue other agendas. But there are also a plethora of charity-related tax evasion, money laundering, and fraud schemes. The Trump Foundation is a good recent example of how criminal schemes tied to charitable organizations (like white collar crime more generally) go largely uninvestigated and unpunished in the USA. The brazen repeated crimes were only noticed because the chairman/founder became President and started attracting scrutiny from the media.

wyxuan 8y ago

Yeah. There is also the element of how being philanthropic isn't 'cool' as it might be in the US. The article specially notes the problem of how the are no economic incentives to do so, unlike the US and China.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
i know the US gives tax deductions for charitable giving. i don't know how this works in China. what are the incentives in China?

azemda 8y ago

http://socialistreview.org.uk/402/philanthropy-capitalist-art-deception http://socialistreview.org.uk/402/philanthropy-capitalist-ar...

blackoil 8y ago

Noting one exception, India's biggest business group 'Tata' is a 100+ years old family business conglomerate, but is mostly owned by various trusts(https://www.tatatrusts.org/ https://www.tatatrusts.org/). It is very easy to find works around the country funded by them, be it restoration of historical monument, NGO publishing children education books.

anonymous_i 8y ago

I will give you my interpretation: - There is an incredible amount of systemic corruption in India. This means there are people- a lot of them, who are rich not by the value creation or inheritance. - A measure of wealth in India is land ownership, not swathes of hundreds of acres of land like Bezos, but owning a 200 Sq.Ft. land or some real estate property in cities. A flat in a decent city like Bangalore or Hyderabad goes upwards of million dollars. - Binami. These are aliases of rich politicians mostly their family members control hordes of wealth. When these people start to give away, it actually generates negative social capital. They face a backlash from the same people they are donating to because, they cannot donate enough. The reason why recipients are insatiable is because, they view the wealth accumulated by these people is thru' non-legit means. - We are seeing a new generation of multi-millionaires in this country. Seeing what they saw I don't think they will be inspired to donate. If they set up an organisation be it a private charity, there is a good chance they will have to deal with misappropriation of funds in their own organisation. - Add caste based and religion based inconveniences you may cause to general public with your charitable work, unbeknownst to you.

abhiminator 8y ago
It's also partly cultural, imo. Most Indians believe in reincarnation [1] and also believe that the current state one is in is because of "mistakes" from one's "previous life." (aka karma) That gives rise to extreme apathy, zero sympathy for folks on the lowest rungs of society, and a general lack of credence in effecting change. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Hinduism
- rjf72 8y ago
  Just emphasizing how important a point this is around the world. I've seen many in the US idealize Buddhism which has a similar view as in Hinduism that good actions in this life lead to a better place in the next [reincarnated] life. And indeed this seems like a really awesome baseline tenet for a religion, but in practice it ends up distorted just as all other 'divine imperatives' do. As one example among many, a family I've lived with is what I'd describe as friendly, intelligent, and perfectly reasonable. They were also Buddhist. But they had some views I initially didn't understand. In one instance they found an individual with a crippling disability (leading to a sort of very awkward bow-legged walk) absolutely hilarious. In other they found people working in some really atrocious conditions at a fishery as comparably humorous. The issue is that they ultimately felt these individuals must have deserved such fates due to bad actions in a past life. After all, if they did good in their past life they would not have ended up in such positions in this life. So they viewed it as people getting what they deserved. Never give people a divine righteousness, whether it be in religion or social belief held in a fashion otherwise indistinguishable from religion. They will find a way to screw it up no matter how unimaginably benevolent and harmless it sounds.

iamgopal 8y ago

The real way of giving away money, using corruption free ways to needy in India, is to start a business venture that is not so profitable but gives tons of employment, like TATA had done since ages. India has so many people ( even wealthy people are poor compare to Western counter part ) that philanthropic activity does not move the needle much, while business venture helps a ton. I hope indian rich keep not-giving away money and instead keep investing in employment generation.

temporalparts 8y ago
How do you feel about ride sharing and delivery companies like Ola and Uber?
- iamgopal 8y ago
  You mean to say, Because of Ride "Sharing", they are actually reducing the net employment ? Well, I support all idea that improves resource utilisation and helps environment, even at the cost of employment.
- djangovm 8y ago
  Not OP, but here is my take. While Ola and Uber would not actually aim to be philanthropic companies, they definitely have enabled people to come from different walks of like and become a driver. I have met many drivers who came from villages to drive and support their family, and Ola and Uber made it very easy for them to get started. Overall, good for a larger segment of the society i would say.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    >>I have met many drivers who came from villages to drive and support their family, and Ola and Uber made it very easy for them to get started. Making a virtue out of compulsion, eh? Those people leave rural farming jobs and come to cities, because irrigation infrastructure is in shambles. Farming is not open to free market economics, there is not enough water, and overall its not profitable. They sell what they have and inhale CO day in and out to put food on the table. Farmer to cabbie ain't exactly a good career transition.

Dravidian 8y ago

Meanwhile current government has made anonymous corporate donations to political parties seamless, no prizes for guessing which party benefited the most. One can witness the secularism in the country as many philanthropists mentioned in the article belong to minority communities in the country, while the current ruling party projects secularism as a cancer. Few days back India's PM openly called the leader of competiting political party 'a coward' for competing from a constituency which has considerable non-hindu population. The ruling party's agenda is to undermine democracy, constitution to create a 'Hindu' nation. I wonder what these philanthropists would feel about it.

rishav_sharan 8y ago

My take; We Indians are used to seeing sights of abject poverty everyday and it simply desnsitizes us. Most people from developed nations dont understand whats it like to see these things every single day. Some who come to India, get a huge cultural shock (though it is getting better) and are simply unable to process all the misery they see around them. When I was kid, I used to give money to beggars but now that i am an adult with a steady income, I dont do it anymore. Either I feel that my few rupees is not gonna have any effect on the other person's poverty, or that this beggar is just trying to scam me by leveraging my kindness. I am just a middle class person in India. But if I were to suddenly become super wealthy, I fear I would carry much of this baggage with me. I cant substatntiate this with data, but I believe that rich people from other developing nations also have this problem. they dont give their wealth away. Better education and a growing middle class will help improve the perspective of the average indians. Till then apathy and cynicism will prevail.

TheTruth1234 8y ago
If you are self-aware enough to write this comment, why wouldn't you be self-aware enough to think through the baggage which might hinder philanthropy?
- paraschopra 8y ago
  Because writing uses thinking processes while donating uses emotional processes. It’s easy to see that what we know intellectually (cigarettes are bad) does not necessarily translate into what we actually do.
  - TheTruth1234 8y ago
    Not implying you are one ... but if you're not a hypocrite, that shouldn't be a problem.
    - TheTruth1234 8y ago
      Ok then - you are one! LOL

sriram_iyengar 8y ago

People do it and there is no effective tracking system in place. As any media house, the headlines and the content inside are contradicting itself. A headline like 'Philanthropy challenges in India' would have made sense. Comparing to US is a poor benchmark as well. Please go and check for contributions made by Indian citizens on crowd funding platforms like 'Rangde', you will realise there is some serious traction on.

srndh 8y ago

There are a million ways to help. Giving money away to charity is just one way. In the US, it is a tax write off & status symbol and you have the challenges of what percentage actually reached the poor. In India, many huge groups do help in the society. Like the TATA group has employed members of the victims of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, not just the victims that died in the Taj Hotel (Tata owned). Even the families of the cops kills also got something. These are on top of the financial aid given. Handicapped service members (soldiers who are hurt during duty) are extensively employed in the private sector. Basically in India, we believe in teaching a person to fish instead of supplying them free fish. Its actually a rule for Govt entities and most private firms, if a person who is employed dies during on-duty or off-duty. A member of the family will get a job. Basically they help another member of the family to be employed to replace the lost revenue. These efforts are never accounted. Tata's are pioneers and a model company that all Indian companies aspire to follow. There are many examples of this involving other groups. Actors like Nana Patekar has adopted villages. As per the Vedic culture, you actually have to help the needy yourself and not make someone else to do it. So, the concept of giving a charity cheque is not accepted to many. In my village, we have a collective fund that I pay to monthly. The fund is used to serve dinner to all 365 days a year. We have about 300 people daily for dinner. Like a soup kitchen in the US.

inapis 8y ago
In India we do both. Teach them how to fish as well as hand out lots of fish - government’s byzantine number of subsidises or continuous farm loan wavers.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

boomboomsubban 8y ago

Despite claims on the contrary, the philanthropist model is a way for a rich person to use their money to control public policy and garner public support. I'm no expert on India, but with the wide scale corruption problem I'd guess they just skip the middlemen.

thisisit 8y ago

This is a clickbait title. The article clearly says "Rich Indians might be charitable, but not enough of them are philanthropists." So the title should be "Why India's rich don't give their money away to philanthropy"? But going by the comments in this thread I guess the title has achieved in drawing the reactions it really wanted to. Still as per the quoted report[0], private funding grew by 15% compared to less than 10% growth in US[1] (unfortunately drawing a parallel between private funding is kind of difficult). Additionally, the article says "ultra-rich households have grown at a rate of 12% over the past five years". So, the private funding growth (15%) has kept up with the UHNI growth in past 5 years? Sure, we can make a case of more funding for UHNI but then the title makes even less sense. Additionally, to add one more of the interpretations in the ring. Indians donate lots of money in temples like Shirdi, Thirupati Balaji which goes to some chartiable trusts. Though again the major point is charity vs philanthropy. [0] - https://www.dasra.org/assets/uploads/resources/BAIN_BRIEF_India_Philanthropy_Report_2019.pdf https://www.dasra.org/assets/uploads/resources/BAIN_BRIEF_In... [1] - https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/report-projects-growth-in-charitable-giving-in-2019-20 https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/report-projects-grow...

known 8y ago

Casteism is worse than Racism; Casteism = Racism + Slavery http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-worlds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-wo...

adwww 8y ago
I advise against taking lessons on racism from the Daily Mail.

arisAlexis 8y ago

Publicly tracking charity donations on the blockchain could solve the problem of who gave what to whom and how it was spent.

calvinbhai 8y ago

I'm glad they don't. Philanthropy is a great way to undermine democracy and is often the way real, govt lead development projects stall. It's a nice facade for those who want to get things done without being an elected official. Even if the outcome is good, it is still undermining the democratic process.

skybrian 8y ago
Wow, how do you think the Carter Center's election monitoring undermines elections? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Center https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Center
- calvinbhai 8y ago
  TBH, I'm not aware of this org. This org as well as many more out there may be doing genuinely good work. I'm not an American but I'm skeptical about US politics, of which "Philanthropy" is a huge part. So any thing that comes across as a philanthropy especially one whose goal is to solve a political problem, I'll be a little extra skeptical about it. Especially from a country that is known around the world to install democracy of their choice I'm not sure which side of the US politics you are (I'm neither, since I cannot vote in the US), but it's kinda funny that Carter Center didn't monitor elections in the US, so all we have are the "collusion" stories flooding the news reports every day, in 2019. If you take a look at the most hated personalities in India, most of them happen to be the darlings of certain US Philanthropies. (I hope that explains my skepticism about such orgs).