4 ms·
> How do you suggest limiting donor influence, as a practical matter? Harvard, Penn, etc is far more important than bill ackman, trump, etc. > How can they be
by simpletone 3y ago
> How do you suggest limiting donor influence, as a practical matter?
Harvard, Penn, etc is far more important than bill ackman, trump, etc.
> How can they be forced to donate to organizations whose actions they oppose.
They don't have to donate. And their children don't get special privileges to these institutions. Besides, as I said, the organizations should take a neutral stance.
- kelnos 3y agoI agree with your toplevel comment in general, but I'm not sure I understand how they should avoid the outsized influence of a few donors. Is the idea that institutions should adopt policies that ensure that no one donor (or a small group of donors) consists of too much of the donations pool? Or should they actively be rejecting donations based on some sort of subjective evaluation of the donor? The former seems reasonable, but the latter sounds like the opposite of an org taking a neutral stance. I do think there are some cases where orgs should be actively disqualifying specific donors; the Epstein junk seems to be a good example of why they should be picky.