Celebrities Bring Fund-Raising Glitter — But Not Always Much Else

The tragic earthquake in Haiti has once again thrust celebrities, such as George Clooney and Wyclef Jean, into the role of fund raisers for charities.

Although their efforts have seemingly helped produce substantial contributions to assist the disaster’s victims, critics have questioned whether celebrity-led drives are really useful and how much of the money ever makes it to the intended beneficiaries.

Americans, they argue, do not need high-profile entertainment, political, or sports figures to encourage them to be generous and could give their support more effectively if they were not attracted to organizations promoted by celebrities.

Nonetheless, apart from their role in disaster relief, celebrities have become increasingly prominent in philanthropy. Much of this philanthropy is undoubtedly worthwhile. But so alluring is the prospect in this country of linking giving with glitter that nonprofit organizations can easily overlook the pitfalls of involving a celebrity in a cause.

To be sure, many celebrities provide money through their own foundations or corporations. But most seek to use their influence with the public to promote giving and volunteering to causes they have chosen to endorse.

Organizations such as the Giving Back Fund and the Global Philanthropy Group now exist to assist sports and entertainment stars with their philanthropic efforts. In 2006 Look to the Stars, a Web site devoted to reporting on celebrity giving, began operations. And in November, the Foundation Center published its first directory of celebrity foundations. In nearly 500 pages, the book provides a guide to 1,665 organizations, which collectively had $255-billion in assets and made almost $14-billion in grants, according to the latest records available.

However, the sums high-profile donors give are much less than the Foundation Center’s directory (and surveys) suggests.

The Foundation Center takes a very broad view of who a celebrity is, including in its estimate a number of big foundations created by business leaders like Bill and Melinda Gates, Henry Ford, and Sam Walton, along with charities, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure and America’s Promise, that raise money from the public.

Giving by organizations set up by entertainment, political, or sports figures—normally the people thought of as celebrities—came to just a billion dollars in the Foundation Center’s tally, scattered among some 1,000 foundations.

That is hardly a small sum, and it does not include donations given directly rather than through foundations. But it is unlikely to make a big difference for most organizations. Moreover, the effort entailed in obtaining such gifts perhaps could be better directed toward building support among the much larger group of Americans who are not celebrities but whose total giving is far greater.

Celebrities are thought to bring a lot of intangibles to a cause as well, especially the kind of heightened visibility that might persuade other people to donate or volunteer. In October, for example, the Entertainment Industry Foundation started a drive to encourage Americans to give time to charities by incorporating pro-volunteering themes into television shows.

While the campaign might be well intentioned, little reason exists to think that such messages have as much effect as more personalized appeals. At best, they might produce “episodes” of volunteering—such as for the Martin Luther King Day of Service—but how many of those who participate will continue to give their time is questionable.

“Celanthropy,” as the financial writers Matthew Bishop and Michael Green called it in their book, Philanthrocapitalism, also carries several risks.

Fame is fleeting, and so is the value of a celebrity’s endorsement. Even worse, scandals can tarnish an image, possibly harming charities that a celebrity has been helping, or even raising questions about the sincerity of their relationship in the first place. (In December, shortly after an avalanche of adverse publicity for the golfer Tiger Woods, an insurance broker announced plans to offer a policy that would protect organizations against financial losses if their celebrity endorsers got into trouble.)

Questions about how much of a celebrity’s own money has been donated—or how much has been spent on the expenses of celebrity fund raising—can be uncomfortable.

Political celebrities can add other complications.

More than a few elected officials at all levels of government have exposed themselves—and the causes they were trying to assist—to criticism (and sometimes legal investigations) by raising money from companies or individuals seeking their support for government actions.

And when they no longer look like they can be influential, their usefulness to their favorite charities often declines as well. During his career in Congress, Sen. Bob Dole, who suffered crippling injuries in World War II, helped raise millions of dollars for the well-regarded organization Dole Foundation for Employment of People with Disabilities. Once he left the public arena, it closed its doors.

Celebrity philanthropy is usually part of a larger strategy designed to reinforce a celebrity’s career, whether in politics, entertainment, sports, or other fields. That may not make it less valuable to the charities benefiting from such assistance, or less significant to the benefactors, but it can make it less dependable. With some notable exceptions, a celebrity’s real cause is usually not that of the organizations he or she is nominally helping. It is the image these figures are trying to present to a world upon whose continued awareness and high regard they so greatly depend. The requirements for doing that can change frequently.