Is Philanthropy Bad?
- Jul 22
- 6 min read
I sometimes find it useful to dig into assumptions, particularly when they are hiding in the “everyone knows...” category.
While charity and philanthropy are related, most comparisons of the two words seem to focus on charity as a short-term provision of aid or support, and philanthropy as more strategic and focused on longer-term, systemic change.
But when I started looking into how philanthropy is promoted, I found some interesting assumptions built into how the concepts are presented.
Philanthropy.org draws a very clear line between the two terms, even to the point of saying that “While often confused with charity, philanthropy encompasses a broader vision.” I find this interesting, and suspect that this is an attempt to use the two words in a quasi-technical way, to draw distinctions the writers find useful.
“Charity gives a fish. Philanthropy teaches fishing. Modern philanthropy also asks: Why was the pond empty in the first place, and how do we ensure it’s full tomorrow?” Expanding on this, charity is defined as essential for “urgent needs” which “can’t wait for long-term strategies”, while stating that philanthropy transforms. “Investing in institutions – schools, libraries, churches – builds generational impact.”
They then define the “sweet spot”, and state that the most effective organizations blend both, “meeting today’s needs while shaping tomorrow’s opportunities. A food bank that teaches proper nutrition and helps neighbors gain employment demonstrates this approach.”
While this sounded good on the surface, something bothered me. The document went on to provide a “short history”, then the “roots” of philanthropy, types of philanthropy, and other information. Then I found a statement that gave me pause:
“Philanthropy is not defined by politics – it reflects conviction.
Some people support food banks, others fund public parks or charter schools.
Some champion religious freedom, veterans’ care, law enforcement support, or civic education.
Others invest in medical research, entrepreneurship, community revitalization, or the arts.”
Stating that philanthropy is not defined by politics, then talking about supporting food banks made me stop and re-read the entire article more carefully.
Then I felt like an idiot.
If philanthropy asks: “Why was the pond empty in the first place, and how do we ensure it’s full tomorrow?” and then says that “philanthropy is not defined by politics”, something’s wrong. The person making such a statement seems to be assuming philanthropy as definitionally good, and that your politics will merely guide the direction of your philanthropic impulses.
But is that true? Is philanthropy good by definition?
Well, it depends. And usually, it depends on your politics.
First, not all philanthropy is created equal.
As an example, Centre for Inquiry Canada produced a report, The Cost of Religion in Canada: An Introductory Report, in which it reviews the amount of money given to religious charities, and discusses whether it is appropriate to have “Advancement of Religion” as a category under which an organization can qualify for charitable status. Their position is that “advancing religion” is not an intrinsic good, and should not be subsidized.
Their position is not that such charities should lose their status, but rather that organizations which provide societal goods would still qualify as charities under other categories. As an example, many YMCA / YWCA organizations are registered under the “Advancement of Religion” purpose, but are, in practice, non-religious recreational facilities. Thus, they could easily qualify by simply registering under the category “Other Purposes Beneficial to the Community.”
That said, organizations can still be problematic, such as faith-based health organizations which refuse to provide Medical Assistance in Dying.
Or consider The Heritage Foundation, which produced Project 2025. In my personal opinion, this organization is better described as a hate group, but certainly not as a charity providing a societal good.
They, and a number of other non-profits, promote climate change denial, and other positions which use misinformation and disinformation to influence public policy. On top of this, extremist and hate groups may be abusing non-profit status, which is yet another challenge, but one which can be addressed by increased transparency and better review and monitoring of the finances of such organizations. This, of course, will only work if violations are actively prosecuted.
And then, on the other side of the equation, not all philanthropists are created equal.
Why do people support philanthropic activities or charities in the first place? Well, two of the major factors are money and influence. Tax breaks for charitable donations encourage people to give, while the ability to make large donations means that rich donors can exert influence over the organization to which they are contributing.
Consider Bill Gates. While most younger people probably know him as a philanthropist who has dedicated his life and his wealth to worthy causes, he is also widely known as a ruthless businessman who bullied and exploited employees, while working to establish Microsoft as a de facto monopoly. While ultimately an unanswerable question, it’s interesting to wonder about whether the good he is undeniably doing now “balances” the damage he has caused in the past.
Another interesting question is around why he decided to found the Gates Foundation, rather than donate to an existing organization. A major reason is that this gives Gates more direct control over the actions of the foundation, and whether this is a good or bad thing ultimately depends on both Gates himself and on how the foundation is organized and managed.
While Bill Gates could be considered an example of “good” philanthropy, I would argue that the Koch family is an example of the dark side of philanthropy. Over a period of decades, the so-called “Koch brothers” established a network of donors and organizations which, in my opinion, have caused immense harm to the US and the world. They have actively opposed climate change legislation, supported climate change denial, opposed healthcare reform, supported the Great Barrington Declaration (A ridiculous and harmful document, which essentially promoted the idea of addressing COVID-19 by allowing it to sweep through the population), and generally supported Republican positions (which were often against LGBTQ rights, women’s access to healthcare, and so on).
And that’s aside from their business actions, which make Gates look good by comparison. As an example, Koch Inc was assessed over $400 million (USD) in fines, penalties, and judgments – just for the period between 1999 and 2003 – including negligence leading to pipeline ruptures which caused massive chemical and fuel spills and health impact. (Incidentally, the above assessment was criticized as misleading, due to it underestimating the number of violations)
Ultimately, I think there are two major issues.
First, we generally encourage philanthropy, but don’t insist on what I would consider an appropriate level of accountability and transparency, which leads to things like organizations producing dangerous disinformation (such as climate change denial) without facing consequences, along with general fraud and corruption.
Second, there appear to be cases where charity and philanthropy are a band-aid on what is ultimately a systemic issue, or even a (gasp!) political issue. One of the quotes above mentions food banks... In my opinion, food banks should not need to exist in the first place, and represent a failure of government’s ability to ensure that everyone is fed. That thought, of course, leads to questions around why the situation exists in the first place, and why we have such a high (and growing) degree of wealth-inequality, and why the rich are getting richer...
And all of this leads me to wonder how much philanthropy would even be needed, if we eliminated (or at least reduced) the exploitation of workers, and established more realistic taxes for the rich...
Which brings me to the recent quote from AOC, which appears to have struck a nerve...
“There’s a certain level of wealth and accumulation that is unearned. You can’t earn a billion dollars. You just can’t earn that. You can get market power, you can break rules, you can do all sorts of things, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they’re worth. But you can’t earn that.”
It seems to me that, if we had a political system which ensured that we could feed and educate everyone, and ensured that everyone’s rights were supported, we wouldn’t need philanthropy as much... and we probably wouldn’t have billionaires, either. Hm...
People should be generous, and give to those who have less, and support causes worthy of support – but learn about the organizations you give to, and what they actually do with the money. People should also ensure that they are politically aware, and understand that many problems can be solved – but only if we actually hold politicians accountable for what they say and do.
Cheers!
As an interesting side-note, the quote from AOC generated a lot of reaction, including one article that I found fascinating in the way that it aggressively and deliberately misinterpreted AOC’s statement, straw-manned her argument, and side-stepped the point she made, in order to attack it. Particularly interesting in a “non-partisan educational publication” – I mean... it’s a publication, at least... Cheers!
Comments