How is funnelling money to their buddies any different than the entire rest of the world? This is how the entire world works, that you think it should somehow b

How is funnelling money to their buddies any different than the entire rest of the world? This is how the entire world works, that you think it should somehow be different in charitable causes is the funny part. In your personal dealings, if you have to buy X and your friend sells it and some random stranger sells it, would you rather buy it from your friend? If the answer is yes(which will be true for 99+% of the entire 8 billion people on the planet), then you are being at the very least a touch hypocritical. I think with your attitude being fairly common, this good PR perspective doesn't seem to necessarily be true. As for doing good, what does that have to do with anything? There are tons of non-profits out there, that are objectively failing at their mission. Should they all close as well, just because they had a bad year or two? Clearly whoever is funding and controlling the foundations thinks they are doing good. I guarantee even the most widely accepted non-profits get plenty of criticism at failing to do good. Good is not an objective measure anyway. If I think saving the last 2 stuffed Tux penguin's on the planet is important and I'm willing to pay for their continued survival, what does it matter that you think stuffed Tux Penguins is not doing anything good in the world. It's not your resources used to keep the last 2 stuffed Tux Penguins in good condition. FYI: Foundations are generally required to spend at least 5% of the total fair market value of its noncharitable-use assets from the preceding year on charitable causes. This means that they will almost certainly close eventually.