The work of mission, reaching into yourself and discovering a truth you care enough about to put the rest of your life into bringing it to realization in the public square, is a wonderful way to live--the only way for many of us to live--and using words well in the support of your work, is crucial.
This essay from Public Discourse is about using words well.
An excerpt.
“Marilyn Chandler McEntyre’s new book, Caring for Words in a Culture of Lies, is a warning against industrialized language prevalent in contemporary America, where words “come to us processed like cheese, depleted of nutrients, flattened and packaged, artificially colored and mass marketed.” To combat this, she advocates a strenuous connoisseurship that insists on “useable, flexible, precise, enlivening language.”
“While the author’s Christian commitment is clear throughout—Caring for Words grew out of her 2004 Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary—the book is focused on the “horizontal” dimension of language, on its primary role as man’s chief social tool. As she puts it, “caring for one another is not entirely separable from caring for words.” The state of English therefore concerns everyone—not just poets and English teachers like herself.
“McEntrye forthrightly identifies the villains: biased journalists and cynical advertisers, entertainers, and politicians. These usual suspects, she says, are the titans of the word industry who have inundated us with cheap language designed not to tell the truth, but to manipulate, evade, or sell. Public language is thus (to adopt McEntyre’s preferred, ecological metaphor) polluted and depleted by “thoughtless hyperbole, unexamined metaphors, slogans and sound bites, grammatical confusion, ungrounded abstractions, overstatement, and blather” which seep malignantly into ordinary speech and thought.
“Polluted and depleted language is obviously an inadequate medium for proper public debate. McEntyre agrees with George Orwell that last use of language leads to foolish thoughts, including foolish thoughts about urgent questions of the common good. When we lose the “subtlety, clarity, and reliability of language, we become more vulnerable to crude exercises of power.”
“McEntyre worries that the prevalence of bad English not only deadens our sensitivity to truth and falsehood but also spoils our taste for language as language, thereby denying us a pleasure “akin to the pleasures of music.” She wants us to be sensitive to euphony, layered meaning and double reference, allusion, ambiguity, and association, to relish words that are “not just meaning or reporting or chronicling or marching in syntactic formation, but performing themselves, sounding, echoing….”
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
American Philanthropy & Government
As government spends more money and creates ever larger deficits, the search for new tax money intensifies and one of the places being looked at is the nonprofit sector, which currently enjoys a tax exemption in most of its formulations, but that tax exemption is being challenged.
Reason Magazine published an interview with Adam Meyerson, of Philanthropy Roundtable, that is illuminating.
An excerpt.
“Americans love to give away money. In 2008, as the economy flailed and the government bailed, we still donated $300 billion to charity, or about $1,000 per person. That figure includes everything from the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett charitable colossus to a bus driver at church dropping a $5 bill in the collection plate.
“One reason for the ongoing frenzy of giving is the fact that Americans do not have to pay federal income taxes on money they hand over to philanthropic organizations. But as budgets get ever tighter, state and federal governments have started scrounging for change in the sofa cushions. In March 2009, spitballing about ways to pay for his health care overhaul, President Barack Obama suggested reducing rich people’s tax deduction for charitable giving.
“The response from the nation’s schools, churches, museums, soup kitchens, and thrift shops was swift and angry. A coalition of charities and other groups concerned with giving—including the Philanthropy Roundtable, an association of foundations and other charitable organizations—sent a strongly worded letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) declaring that “with so many Americans relying on the charitable sector, now is simply not the time to jeopardize the charitable gifts that are so important to its strength.
"Obama defended his proposal, arguing that if a donation is “really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming [the tax rate] shouldn’t be a determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.” The president also pulled out one of his favorite lines, noting that the tax hike would affect “only 1 percent of the American people,” but then he revealed perhaps more than he intended: “I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who’ve benefited enormously over the last several years. And, you know, ultimately, if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.”
"If you think that’s just ordinary political boilerplate, remember that Obama wasn’t talking about an income tax or a capital gains tax. He was talking about a tax on money going to charities. The people he wanted to hit with a bigger tax bill are already “paying a little bit more.” They just don’t happen to be sending their money via the White House and Congress.
"The proposal died, but the attitude behind the remarks continues to hover over American philanthropy. Comprehensive tax legislation is expected in 2010, and the revised rules may include new requirements for organizations with tax-exempt status.
The Internal Revenue Service has already been gaining greater oversight of nonprofits in recent years, both by collecting more information about the groups and by increasing application fees.
"At the state level, activists are agitating for laws mandating more diversity on foundation boards and more government control over how and where private philan- thropic dollars are spent. Even when the bills don’t pass, they often scare charities into making accommodations. In California, for example, the Greenlining Institute persuaded the State Assembly to consider the Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act, which would have mandated disclosure about the number of ethnic, sexual, and other minorities on the boards of large foundations and their grant recipients—an explicit step toward mandating quotas. After intense negotiations, the bill was withdrawn, and the state’s 10 largest foundations not coincidentally agreed to spend $20 million through minority-led groups serving minority communities, $10 million on leadership training and technical assistance to minority-led organizations, and additional cash for ongoing research and analysis about the role of minority organizations in the Golden State.
"Adam Meyerson, president of the Philanthropy Roundtable since 2001, writes and speaks frequently about philanthropic freedom, donor intent, and the role of charitable giving in a free society. Senior Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward interviewed Meyerson at the Philanthropy Roundtable’s Washington, D.C., offices in November.
"reason: What do you say to people who object to the fact that tax-exempt donations are going to the opera or to Harvard when there are genuinely needy people in the world?
"Adam Meyerson: We’ve had a long tradition where, so long as they make contributions to genuinely charitable causes, Americans can decide where and how to give away their money voluntarily. We’re talking about voluntary action here. They could spend it on their yachts, but they want to give their money to other institutions.
"Philanthropy and charitable giving are central to American life and have been since the beginning of the republic. Philanthropy supports our churches and synagogues, medical research, health care, the arts, the environment. Our colleges and universities are the best in the world thanks to philanthropy. If you look at almost every major controversial issue, whether that be abortion or gay marriage or stem cell research or marijuana legalization, the philanthropists are on both sides of those issues helping to promote and advance a really robust debate.”
Reason Magazine published an interview with Adam Meyerson, of Philanthropy Roundtable, that is illuminating.
An excerpt.
“Americans love to give away money. In 2008, as the economy flailed and the government bailed, we still donated $300 billion to charity, or about $1,000 per person. That figure includes everything from the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett charitable colossus to a bus driver at church dropping a $5 bill in the collection plate.
“One reason for the ongoing frenzy of giving is the fact that Americans do not have to pay federal income taxes on money they hand over to philanthropic organizations. But as budgets get ever tighter, state and federal governments have started scrounging for change in the sofa cushions. In March 2009, spitballing about ways to pay for his health care overhaul, President Barack Obama suggested reducing rich people’s tax deduction for charitable giving.
“The response from the nation’s schools, churches, museums, soup kitchens, and thrift shops was swift and angry. A coalition of charities and other groups concerned with giving—including the Philanthropy Roundtable, an association of foundations and other charitable organizations—sent a strongly worded letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) declaring that “with so many Americans relying on the charitable sector, now is simply not the time to jeopardize the charitable gifts that are so important to its strength.
"Obama defended his proposal, arguing that if a donation is “really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming [the tax rate] shouldn’t be a determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.” The president also pulled out one of his favorite lines, noting that the tax hike would affect “only 1 percent of the American people,” but then he revealed perhaps more than he intended: “I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who’ve benefited enormously over the last several years. And, you know, ultimately, if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.”
"If you think that’s just ordinary political boilerplate, remember that Obama wasn’t talking about an income tax or a capital gains tax. He was talking about a tax on money going to charities. The people he wanted to hit with a bigger tax bill are already “paying a little bit more.” They just don’t happen to be sending their money via the White House and Congress.
"The proposal died, but the attitude behind the remarks continues to hover over American philanthropy. Comprehensive tax legislation is expected in 2010, and the revised rules may include new requirements for organizations with tax-exempt status.
The Internal Revenue Service has already been gaining greater oversight of nonprofits in recent years, both by collecting more information about the groups and by increasing application fees.
"At the state level, activists are agitating for laws mandating more diversity on foundation boards and more government control over how and where private philan- thropic dollars are spent. Even when the bills don’t pass, they often scare charities into making accommodations. In California, for example, the Greenlining Institute persuaded the State Assembly to consider the Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act, which would have mandated disclosure about the number of ethnic, sexual, and other minorities on the boards of large foundations and their grant recipients—an explicit step toward mandating quotas. After intense negotiations, the bill was withdrawn, and the state’s 10 largest foundations not coincidentally agreed to spend $20 million through minority-led groups serving minority communities, $10 million on leadership training and technical assistance to minority-led organizations, and additional cash for ongoing research and analysis about the role of minority organizations in the Golden State.
"Adam Meyerson, president of the Philanthropy Roundtable since 2001, writes and speaks frequently about philanthropic freedom, donor intent, and the role of charitable giving in a free society. Senior Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward interviewed Meyerson at the Philanthropy Roundtable’s Washington, D.C., offices in November.
"reason: What do you say to people who object to the fact that tax-exempt donations are going to the opera or to Harvard when there are genuinely needy people in the world?
"Adam Meyerson: We’ve had a long tradition where, so long as they make contributions to genuinely charitable causes, Americans can decide where and how to give away their money voluntarily. We’re talking about voluntary action here. They could spend it on their yachts, but they want to give their money to other institutions.
"Philanthropy and charitable giving are central to American life and have been since the beginning of the republic. Philanthropy supports our churches and synagogues, medical research, health care, the arts, the environment. Our colleges and universities are the best in the world thanks to philanthropy. If you look at almost every major controversial issue, whether that be abortion or gay marriage or stem cell research or marijuana legalization, the philanthropists are on both sides of those issues helping to promote and advance a really robust debate.”
Monday, April 5, 2010
Tax Exemption & Donations
There are several items a donor should know about the nonprofit organization they choose to support and this link to the IRS Nonprofit site is a good resource.
An excerpt.
IRS Tax Tip 2010-59
Every year, millions of taxpayers donate money to charitable organizations. The IRS has put together the following list of six things you should know about the tax treatment of tax-exempt organizations.
1. Annual returns are made available to the public. Exempt organizations generally must make their annual returns available for public inspection. This also includes the organization’s application for exemption. In addition, an organization exempt under 501(c)(3) must make available any Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return. These documents must be made available to any individual who requests them, and must be made available immediately when the request is made in person. If the request is made in writing, an organization has 30 days to provide a copy of the information, unless it makes the information widely available.
2. Donor lists generally are not public information. The list of donors filed with Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, is specifically excluded from the information required to be made available for public inspection by the exempt organization. There is an exception, private foundations and political organizations must make their donor list available to the public.
3. How to find tax-exempt organizations. The easiest way to find out whether an organization is qualified to receive deductible contributions is to ask them. You can ask to see an organization's exemption letter, which states the Code section that describes the organization and whether contributions made to the organization are deductible. You can also search for organizations qualified to accept deductible contributions in IRS Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations and its Addendum, available at IRS.gov. Taxpayers can also confirm an organization’s status by calling the IRS at 877-829-5500.
4. Which organizations may accept charitable contributions. Not all exempt organizations are eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. Organizations that are eligible to receive deductible contributions include most charities described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and, in some circumstances, fraternal organizations described in section 501(c)(8) or section 501(c)(10), cemetery companies described in section 501(c)(13), volunteer fire departments described in section 501(c)(4), and veterans organizations described in section 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(19).
5. Requirement for organizations not able to accept deductible contributions. If an exempt organization is ineligible to receive tax-deductible contributions, it must disclose that fact when soliciting contributions.
6. How to report inappropriate activities by an exempt organization. If you believe that the activities or operations of a tax-exempt organization are inconsistent with its tax-exempt status, you may file a complaint with the Exempt Organizations Examination Division by completing Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form. The complaint should contain all relevant facts concerning the alleged violation of tax law. Form 13909 is available at IRS.gov or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).
An excerpt.
IRS Tax Tip 2010-59
Every year, millions of taxpayers donate money to charitable organizations. The IRS has put together the following list of six things you should know about the tax treatment of tax-exempt organizations.
1. Annual returns are made available to the public. Exempt organizations generally must make their annual returns available for public inspection. This also includes the organization’s application for exemption. In addition, an organization exempt under 501(c)(3) must make available any Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return. These documents must be made available to any individual who requests them, and must be made available immediately when the request is made in person. If the request is made in writing, an organization has 30 days to provide a copy of the information, unless it makes the information widely available.
2. Donor lists generally are not public information. The list of donors filed with Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, is specifically excluded from the information required to be made available for public inspection by the exempt organization. There is an exception, private foundations and political organizations must make their donor list available to the public.
3. How to find tax-exempt organizations. The easiest way to find out whether an organization is qualified to receive deductible contributions is to ask them. You can ask to see an organization's exemption letter, which states the Code section that describes the organization and whether contributions made to the organization are deductible. You can also search for organizations qualified to accept deductible contributions in IRS Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations and its Addendum, available at IRS.gov. Taxpayers can also confirm an organization’s status by calling the IRS at 877-829-5500.
4. Which organizations may accept charitable contributions. Not all exempt organizations are eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. Organizations that are eligible to receive deductible contributions include most charities described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and, in some circumstances, fraternal organizations described in section 501(c)(8) or section 501(c)(10), cemetery companies described in section 501(c)(13), volunteer fire departments described in section 501(c)(4), and veterans organizations described in section 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(19).
5. Requirement for organizations not able to accept deductible contributions. If an exempt organization is ineligible to receive tax-deductible contributions, it must disclose that fact when soliciting contributions.
6. How to report inappropriate activities by an exempt organization. If you believe that the activities or operations of a tax-exempt organization are inconsistent with its tax-exempt status, you may file a complaint with the Exempt Organizations Examination Division by completing Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form. The complaint should contain all relevant facts concerning the alleged violation of tax law. Form 13909 is available at IRS.gov or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Great Funding Idea
This article from The Naperville Sun reports on a really great idea—by sharing unused event tickets—for creating some funding for charities.
An excerpt.
“With the professional basketball and hockey seasons reaching their apex, and Chicago's two professional baseball teams poised for 2010, the timing for a new online ticket service couldn't be better. And for those of us who never seem to get the cool seats, a new Naperville-based business is ready to help folks get in the game.
“In mid-February, veteran businessman Kevin Nemetz launched Tix 4 Cause, an online ticket-buying service that he said he once called, "Stub-Hub for the heart."
“Nemetz said he has watched unused tickets go to waste at venues throughout the area, and figured they could be put to a better use.
"Since 2003, I have had the goal and desire to assist charities by creating a Web site that served as a ticket exchange for the donation and sale of unwanted or unused season tickets in sports, music, theater and other entertainment activities," Nemetz said. "You have these corporations and season ticket holders that use about 40 percent of the tickets themselves. The other 40 percent they either give away, sell or eat. And it seemed to me charities could benefit."
“Tix 4 Cause now means those $200 scout seats that may be vacant at U.S. Cellular Field can be filled on a summer's night and a local non-for-profit group or charity can reap the benefits. Nemetz said for a $349 annual membership fee, organizations can join a growing list of other members who will benefit from ticket sales. Early membership and ticket sale action, Nemetz said, has been brisk.
"We already have 35 organizations who are members on the Web site, and about 200 others that are in the pipeline," he said. "We just completed a trip to New York and have a number of groups there we think are going to be interested. In just the five or six weeks we've been up and running, we've moved a total of 58 tickets and only had four that expired. People are already finding out about this, and usually within the first day they are posted, they're gone."
An excerpt.
“With the professional basketball and hockey seasons reaching their apex, and Chicago's two professional baseball teams poised for 2010, the timing for a new online ticket service couldn't be better. And for those of us who never seem to get the cool seats, a new Naperville-based business is ready to help folks get in the game.
“In mid-February, veteran businessman Kevin Nemetz launched Tix 4 Cause, an online ticket-buying service that he said he once called, "Stub-Hub for the heart."
“Nemetz said he has watched unused tickets go to waste at venues throughout the area, and figured they could be put to a better use.
"Since 2003, I have had the goal and desire to assist charities by creating a Web site that served as a ticket exchange for the donation and sale of unwanted or unused season tickets in sports, music, theater and other entertainment activities," Nemetz said. "You have these corporations and season ticket holders that use about 40 percent of the tickets themselves. The other 40 percent they either give away, sell or eat. And it seemed to me charities could benefit."
“Tix 4 Cause now means those $200 scout seats that may be vacant at U.S. Cellular Field can be filled on a summer's night and a local non-for-profit group or charity can reap the benefits. Nemetz said for a $349 annual membership fee, organizations can join a growing list of other members who will benefit from ticket sales. Early membership and ticket sale action, Nemetz said, has been brisk.
"We already have 35 organizations who are members on the Web site, and about 200 others that are in the pipeline," he said. "We just completed a trip to New York and have a number of groups there we think are going to be interested. In just the five or six weeks we've been up and running, we've moved a total of 58 tickets and only had four that expired. People are already finding out about this, and usually within the first day they are posted, they're gone."
Friday, April 2, 2010
Arts Funding
This has traditionally been a difficult area, and the funding from the National Endowment of the Arts was always a blessing, but it has been in a swan dive for awhile and the impact of that, and arts funding in general, has been substantial in Pennsylvania, as reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer.
An excerpt.
“When Rocco Landesman, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, breezed through town early this month ("to learn," as an endowment press official put it), he heard a great deal about "siloing."
“The arts can't "be siloed," said Jane Golden, head of the city's Mural Arts Program. It's important "to eliminate all the silos" that constrain thinking about arts funding, said Jeremy Nowak, head of the Reinvestment Fund, the nonprofit development organization that was one of Landesman's hosts.
“There was not, however, much talk about art making, or those who make it. Art for art's sake? Not at the moment - a time when public funding for individual artists has virtually vanished from Pennsylvania, for the first time in nearly half a century.
“For much of one afternoon, the booted, bearded Landesman toured the Crane Arts building on North American Street - home to dozens of artists and arts organizations - and listened attentively to talk of the arts as an economic engine, the arts as a tool of neighborhood revitalization, the arts as a key to tourism, the arts as linchpin of economic development.
“But none of the city or tourism or development officials at that day's roundtable discussion mentioned the absence of direct federal support for artists. No one brought up the dissolution of Pennsylvania's individual artist fellowships, victims of the fiscal meltdown of 2008.
“Rachel Zimmerman, founder of InLiquid, a visual-artist collective headquartered in the Crane Arts building, did not attend the roundtable but said after Landesman's visit that she finds the absence of fellowships and discussion of them unsettling.
"It seems that culture and art are important as long as they redevelop neighborhoods or have some quantifiable measure," Zimmerman said. "We're continually losing sight of the value of what's created, not just as a means of social or economic change, but as art. It becomes a Band-Aid to fix the ills of society and is not about the art or the artists anymore."
“This has compounded a chronic problem for artists, she said. "We're really struggling."
An excerpt.
“When Rocco Landesman, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, breezed through town early this month ("to learn," as an endowment press official put it), he heard a great deal about "siloing."
“The arts can't "be siloed," said Jane Golden, head of the city's Mural Arts Program. It's important "to eliminate all the silos" that constrain thinking about arts funding, said Jeremy Nowak, head of the Reinvestment Fund, the nonprofit development organization that was one of Landesman's hosts.
“There was not, however, much talk about art making, or those who make it. Art for art's sake? Not at the moment - a time when public funding for individual artists has virtually vanished from Pennsylvania, for the first time in nearly half a century.
“For much of one afternoon, the booted, bearded Landesman toured the Crane Arts building on North American Street - home to dozens of artists and arts organizations - and listened attentively to talk of the arts as an economic engine, the arts as a tool of neighborhood revitalization, the arts as a key to tourism, the arts as linchpin of economic development.
“But none of the city or tourism or development officials at that day's roundtable discussion mentioned the absence of direct federal support for artists. No one brought up the dissolution of Pennsylvania's individual artist fellowships, victims of the fiscal meltdown of 2008.
“Rachel Zimmerman, founder of InLiquid, a visual-artist collective headquartered in the Crane Arts building, did not attend the roundtable but said after Landesman's visit that she finds the absence of fellowships and discussion of them unsettling.
"It seems that culture and art are important as long as they redevelop neighborhoods or have some quantifiable measure," Zimmerman said. "We're continually losing sight of the value of what's created, not just as a means of social or economic change, but as art. It becomes a Band-Aid to fix the ills of society and is not about the art or the artists anymore."
“This has compounded a chronic problem for artists, she said. "We're really struggling."
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Giving Through Others
In a model of reflective and serious philanthropy, Marion Rockefeller Weber shows how giving can be done simply and elegantly, as reported in the Christian Science Monitor.
An excerpt.
“Marion Rockefeller Weber makes many of her philanthropic decisions accompanied by the music of two singing finches, the becalming presence of her Blue Heeler dog, and a cat named Hermione.
“Not exactly the office décor of most philanthropic institutions. Then again, Ms. Weber is not your standard philanthropist.
“Her minor menagerie is housed in her home office, a cottage on a wooded hillside overlooking the Pacific north of San Francisco.
“Her journey here has been one of personal transformation. In the process, she has established a kind of outpost on the frontiers of philanthropic giving, one that puts a premium on intuition, relationships, trust, and discovery.
“Born into wealth, Weber says she has been a philanthropist since age 21, deciding which worthy causes to support among the many that would come her way.
"The table would be like this," she says lifting both hands shoulder high to indicate the stacks of proposals piled high on her living room table.
“It wasn't a pleasant process for her. Later, she took a one-year sabbatical, a time of self-reflection, in which she also made out her will. In the will, she gives her money to "visionary friends and associates" so they can, in turn, give it away.
“And so the idea of giving money with the stipulation that it, in turn, be given away, took root.
“Weber's brand of philanthropic giving has no offices, staff, or bureaucracy. It's called the Flow Fund Circle. Since its inception in 1991, Flow Funders have identified and supported projects all over the world, from orphanages in Uganda to reforestation in Sumatra to organic farming in Ecuador.
“Some 500 projects have been funded, nearly 80 percent of the money flowing outside the United States.”
An excerpt.
“Marion Rockefeller Weber makes many of her philanthropic decisions accompanied by the music of two singing finches, the becalming presence of her Blue Heeler dog, and a cat named Hermione.
“Not exactly the office décor of most philanthropic institutions. Then again, Ms. Weber is not your standard philanthropist.
“Her minor menagerie is housed in her home office, a cottage on a wooded hillside overlooking the Pacific north of San Francisco.
“Her journey here has been one of personal transformation. In the process, she has established a kind of outpost on the frontiers of philanthropic giving, one that puts a premium on intuition, relationships, trust, and discovery.
“Born into wealth, Weber says she has been a philanthropist since age 21, deciding which worthy causes to support among the many that would come her way.
"The table would be like this," she says lifting both hands shoulder high to indicate the stacks of proposals piled high on her living room table.
“It wasn't a pleasant process for her. Later, she took a one-year sabbatical, a time of self-reflection, in which she also made out her will. In the will, she gives her money to "visionary friends and associates" so they can, in turn, give it away.
“And so the idea of giving money with the stipulation that it, in turn, be given away, took root.
“Weber's brand of philanthropic giving has no offices, staff, or bureaucracy. It's called the Flow Fund Circle. Since its inception in 1991, Flow Funders have identified and supported projects all over the world, from orphanages in Uganda to reforestation in Sumatra to organic farming in Ecuador.
“Some 500 projects have been funded, nearly 80 percent of the money flowing outside the United States.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
