April 28, 2005 | Read Time: 2 minutes
In an era when America is fiercely divided politically and journalists are scrutinizing nonprofit groups and donors, philanthropists should take care in giving to controversial causes. Otherwise they might become fodder for opinion writers or those looking to grind a partisan axe, writes Worth magazine (May).
Many philanthropists are already steering clear of divisive causes such as reproductive health, says the magazine. But donors who do support politically charged causes, no matter how small their gifts, can expect to find themselves under the news-media lens, the article says.
The magazine cites the case of Richard Abdoo, chief executive of Wisconsin Energy, who saw his reputation questioned by a radio talk-show host and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel when he donated $250 in 2002 to a nonprofit organization that opposed the Iraq war. The group, Not in Our Name, listed Mr. Abdoo as one of the prominent signatories of its antiwar petition, although Mr. Abdoo says his involvement was restricted to the monetary gift.
Even donors who give to popular causes like education can find themselves having to defend their contributions, the article says.
One philanthropist, Stuart Sloan, stoked the rage of community activists in 1998 when the former chairman of the Quality Food Center grocery chain began donating $1-million a year to a public elementary school near his office. Mr. Sloan hoped his money would improve pre-kindergarten classes and after-school programs, but some community organizers accused him of trying to gentrify the neighborhood and blamed him for the departure of the principal and seven teachers.
Business owners are sometimes wary of making donations because of the threat of boycotts and grass-roots campaigns, the magazine reports.
Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino’s Pizza, sold the chain in 1998, several years after the National Organization for Women led a boycott when it was learned he had made a $60,000 donation to a campaign to restrict abortion rights.
Such cases demonstrate that “red causes, blue causes and causes with no color at all” can put a philanthropist in an “unnerving spotlight,” the magazine writes.
