Responsibilities of the 1%/Middle class Fighting Poverty/Disease/Racism

[Boobalaa]

Mark Zuckerberg’s Philanthropy Uses L.L.C. for More Control

LLC's

1. Can invest in for-profit, private and non-profit organizations or donate to a political group or cause
2. Can distribute the proceeds of a stock sale at their own pace. A private foundation normally has to spend 5% of its assets annually on a charitable purpose.
3. The LLC means No Limits on Lobbying
4. No need to report to state and federal government like nonprofits have to do.

 

[Boobalaa]

www.theguardian.com: Are Gates and Rockefeller using their influence to set agenda in poor states?

 

[Jjz1109]

If I were donating billions I would ceratinly want to have say ("influence" is intended here to invoke a reaction) where or how it's spent. If you don't want my say, don't take my dollars. Lord knows the UN should be last to have any say as they would f- it up royally.

 

[Boobalaa]

Rich folks are so generous...
Another cheesy, self aggrandizement commercial being foisted off as news
www.theguardian.com: Aliko Dangote and Bill Gates pledge $100m to solve malnutrition in Nigeria

 

[b.c.]

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with a little self aggrandizement when donating millions to a worthy cause.

I don't have a problem with people setting up organizations and foundations that in in part, allows them greater control and management of their funds prior to distribution.

Nor do I have a problem with someone wanting to "have a say" in how the money is spent... WITHIN LIMITS.

There is difference (I think) in "having a say" at the distribution end, and wielding INFLUENCE on exactly how it's SPENT. Allow me to explain.

If philanthropist J. Doe says, I want to give 100 mil to Big Bum U. and I want the money to go to the college of business, or liberal arts, or science, that's "having a say".

On the other hand, If philanthropist J. Cock ties his 100 mil "donation" to having the ability to hire and fire faculty, set up curriculum, and dictate exactly what is going to be taught and what is NOT, then that's going TOO far.

If your donations are dictating policy, controlling government, manipulation elections, and influencing laws, that's not "having a say". That's trying to BUY power and CONTROL.

If your donations put you in control of the hiring and firing of faculty, dictating curriculum, and CHOOSING which texts and media will be used, that's not "having a say". That's trying to BUY the hearts and minds of young people.

In either case, the public has the right to be informed as to exactly WHO stands to gain and benefit.

 

[Boobalaa]

Do they need to put their logo above the story, as if they proof read it first? C'mon, these guys are gonna have Monsanto come in there, plant all these GMO seeds, and corporatize the agriculture of the whole region..

 

[b.c.]

Do they need to put their logo above the story, as if they proof read it first? C'mon, these guys are gonna have Monsanto come in there, plant all these GMO seeds, and corporatize the agriculture of the whole region..

Well.... as long as the don't break their arms.... As for what may follow next, who knows? You could be right.