What Are the Lessons of Leona Helmsley’s Bequest?

To the Editor:

Leona Helmsley’s bequest of $4-billion to a foundation to care for dogs is one of the dumbest gifts in the history of American philanthropy. It is also a fitting misanthropic legacy to the woman dubbed “the Queen of Mean.”

That said, would there be such hand-wringing and calls for changes in philanthropic law if the gift had been $400,000 or even $4-million? (“Should a Big Bequest Go to the Dogs?,” Opinion, August 21).

I think not. It is the magnitude of Ms. Helmsley’s gift, not its purpose, that is sticking in people’s craw.

Twenty-five years ago the San Francisco Foundation asked the courts to vary the provisions of the then-enormous Buck Trust, which was a bequest with a requirement that it must be spent exclusively in wealthy Marin County, Calif.

The San Francisco Foundation used the pioneering legal concept of “philanthropic saturation” as a reason to make gifts in other, more needy, communities. A judge said the concept was absurd, refused the variance, and removed the trust from the San Francisco Foundation.

Isn’t philanthropic saturation precisely what some are arguing about the Helmsley gift? Should we change the tax laws to read that stupid gifts to charity are okay only as long as they don’t go above a certain value?

Jack Shakely
Senior Fellow
Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy
University of Southern California
Los Angeles