Opinion: In Praise of Criticizing Big Philanthropy

Sharp criticism of mega-donors who wield growing policy influence on issues such as public education and public pensions should be viewed as a “democratic imperative” rather than an uncivil attack on good intentions, a philanthropy scholar writes in The Atlantic.

Benjamin Soskis, a fellow at George Mason University’s Center for Nonprofit Management, Philanthropy, and Policy, cites an April column in The Chronicle of Philanthropy by the billionaire former financier John Arnold in describing a newly charged debate over big philanthropy. In his piece,Mr. Arnold decried what he termed “intensely personal” attacks by “special-interest groups” over his giving, particularly in relation to government workers’ pensions.

Mr. Soskis says public unease over widening income inequality and changes in giving practices—notably efforts by major donors and their foundations to shape policy debates and government practice—are fueling greater suspicion of billionaire philanthropists’ motives, particularly in today’s hyper-partisan political climate.

“There need not be anything deliberately sinister in the Arnold Foundation’s giving for it to demand our scrutiny,” Mr. Soskis writes. “For given the power that private philanthropy can wield over public policy, a spirited, fully informed public debate over the scope, scale, and nature of that influence is a democratic necessity. It’s our closest approximation of holding our mega-donors accountable.”