June 4, 2009 | Read Time: 4 minutes
When a dozen billionaires met in private last month in Manhattan, speculation ran wild about what they talked about over cocktails and dinner. Did they discuss stock tips? Where to buy the best private jets? How to fake a moon landing? In fact, the answer is philanthropy.
At a hush-hush meeting May 5, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Sr., and Warren E. Buffett were the hosts of an elite group brought together to discuss charitable giving and ways to fix the world’s most pressing problems.
With Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, George Soros, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York among the members of this Secret Society of Super-Philanthropists, it was an unprecedented gathering of the world’s most wealthy — and most generous — people. According to Chronicle of Philanthropy tallies, collectively the donors who met that cool spring evening have committed more than $72.5-billion to charitable causes since 1996.
Such a collection of high-profile faces drew both scorn and praise. Conspiracy lovers called it an Illuminati-like cabal bent on world domination, while others compared the philanthropists to Wonder Woman and Superman, albeit with less spandex in their closet, one hopes.
But according to a participant — the only one who would talk about the event publicly — the meeting was rather pedestrian.
“A group of philanthropists came together to discuss their giving,” said Patricia Q. Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “There’s really no secret about that. It was an informal get-together and a chance to exchange ideas about what motivates them and what they have learned so far.”
She said it started promptly at 3 p.m., was held at the residence of Rockefeller University’s president, and lasted through dinner.
As for the evening’s discussion, Ms. Stonesifer, who is currently chairwoman of the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents, would say little else.
“It was a wide-ranging conversation,” she said, “but they each shared what motivates their giving, their areas of focus of their work, the lessons learned, and thoughts on how we might increase giving.”
The meeting was a secret — Ms. Stonesifer prefers the description “private” — until Irish Central, an online publication in New York that covers Irish American news, uncovered it. As the news media dug further, some details leaked out. The Sunday Times, a British newspaper, reported that Mr. Gates wanted the guests to support efforts to curb population growth. While the newspaper also said that education and health care were discussed, the fact that population control may have been broached drew condemnation from conservative Christian organizations, who objected to the possibility that money would go to birth control and abortions.
Similar debates arose on The Chronicle’s Web site, where readers offered more than 100 suggestions for what causes the team of super-philanthropists should support. The ideas included curbing climate change, encouraging youth to volunteer, paying for dental care for the poor, forming a third political party, and reducing the sex and violence on television.
Several people urged the philanthropists to do more to assist the American economy and the unemployed, arguing that overseas projects are important but it was the homeland that was hurting now. Someone made the novel suggestion that the donors give all 304 million Americans $1 to donate to charity and track the results — a kind of private economic-stimulus package for charity.
To be sure, some commenters were less than enthusiastic about the role of philanthropists in society. “Keep your damn money and leave us the hell alone,” one wrote.
With such hostility and speculation about their motives, it’s unclear if the group will combine efforts in some fashion.
Ms. Stonesifer said they agreed to keep talking, but there were “no specific action items.”
If there is another meeting of the Secret Society of Super-Philanthropists, it raises the question: Will the event be behind closed doors?
Some nonprofit observers said it should be open, arguing it would promote philanthropy and that the donors’ decisions should be public, since their giving affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.
As Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, co-authors of Philanthrocapitalism, said on their blog: “In the fictional world, superheroes tend to try to hide their true identities; real world superheroes have no need to be so secretive about who they are and what they do.”
Indeed, who would want to see Ted Turner in a cape and cowl anyway?
Maria Di Mento contributed to this article.
