I made some remarks about philanthropy on an earlier post. The gist of those was something like: Philanthropy is another way for rich people to support their personal beliefs and ambitions, and look good while doing it. I am unimpressed with corporate philanthropy as well, because corporations want economic success and are not ethically averse to disingenuous or unethical ways of going about getting it. How 'things, in the broadest sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest sense of the term' is not so easy to determine when there is a lot of money and prestige at stake. It all gets pretty 'fuzzy'...
but, as Lou Dobbs once opined, we do have the best government money can buy. Which does say SOMETHING...just what that something is is indeterminate.

I had an alternative thought (no, not an alternate fact---those are for someone else to assert; deny; refute or just laugh at...). the question was: Is philanthropy bad for democracy? Maybe the question ought to be framed the other way round? Democracy, for whatever else it could or should be, does not require philanthropists, or their largess, in order to function, equitably and according to certain constitutive and institutional facts and rules. If we look at campaign contributions and other sorts of financial aid, in support of political gain, the personification of democratic ideals and principles takes on another, less idealistic hue: some of the SOMETHING, referred to in my comment of 4/12/2019. Think about it this way, if you please: democracy which is based more on money changing hands than on one person, one vote, can hardly be squared with the democracy envisioned by our forebears. Or, to rework the now-less-than-historic phrase coined (by someone) and repeated by Mr. Dobbs: the best government money can buy IS NOT the best government. I know this runs counter to the current, popularly accepted norm. But, there are only so many ways of looking at this. I'm just calling it the way it looks. No matter how one looks at it, philanthropy is getting a bad rap, and THIS democracy does not give a flip...

I completely agree, as I usually do, with HGN. And when I don't agree, he prompts me to re-evaluate my own positions...this is called "doing philosophy." Here is a post I ran on philanthropy recently that still applies to this discussion.

Charitable Contributions

Walking with a friend the other day, we came upon graffiti on a wall: “Tax the Rich.” My friend said “amen.” I said “It’s not about how much to tax, it’s about what the taxes are going to be used for.” (Of course in a real democracy the people would probably have the right not just to vote on the tax rate, but to vote on government spending too. Congress seems paralyzed to handle these matters anyway.)
Let’s say I’m upper middleclass in the income department. I already pay about 70% of my income to taxes (federal and state income, social security, sales, property, excise, tolls, licenses and permits, utility taxes, etc.). That’s a lot of taxes I already pay. We are the (second?) richest country in the world; could the amount of money wasted on warfare and imperialism and hegemony, and graft, and duplicating federal and state governmental organizations, pay for what we really need such as universal health care, free education and daycare, and guaranteed national income ($75K tax free), and infrastructure upgrade? (There should also be a cap on individual earnings of $1M per year, with the obligation to pass on the individual earnings over that down the path to each person in line in the company or family, always max $1M.)
Charitable contributions? The government in theory gives a deduction for contributions for services and support that it should ideally provide. But the elaborate system set up to allow an organization to authorize the deductibility promotes huge salaries and perks for the organizers, and all kinds of bullshit that actually keeps significant funds from reaching the intended goals. US taxpayers should get a tax deduction for charitable giving to individuals in need that are not IRS designated charities. Do you know that the IRS trusts us to pay business expenses of $25 or less without the necessity for a receipt? Why not the same for charitable giving to people in need who are not 501c3’s? Or why not trust us for giving of $100 or less? Or $1000? I meet people, working people, all the time who are so broke that they can’t take care of basics. I help them out; but even though I am doing something I think any decent government would do for them, I cannot claim a tax deduction for my contribution. The system is set up to benefit the “charitable” organization, not the purported recipients of the donations. Try to find a public record of the salaries and perks of a charitable institution.
The government is giving tax deductions to taxpayers who want to “save mountain lions” (now so “saved” that they can eat babies in urban shopping malls?), but I can’t get a tax deduction for helping my friend who can’t afford a necessary surgery.

: Once one puts money in a charitable foundation, there is a tax write off and the money no longer belongs to the person that set up the foundation. The money has to be given to valid charitable organizations. Trump treated his “charitable foundation” as his own personal slush fund. How widespread is such abuse where a person has a substantial tax deduction and then uses the money as his/her own?

On reflection, no.. They are, as Gould posited, non-overlapping magisteria. One might argue that democracy fosters philanthropy.. That would not be right. There would be no utility in the notion. Alternatively, someone might argue the the other. But the same negative attains. People who have much money can do whatever they want. Those who do not can't. Why , then ask the question? Just asking...Of course, in Gould's time, pragmatism meant something more than now.. Circles within wheels... Read Pollan's this is your mind,,,' skipped the section on caffeine. AOK.

....contrariwise, is democracy bad for philanthropy? It might be, except for the fact that capitalism does not wish any harm to befall it'$ cash cows., therefore, those who can afford to be philanthropic are given all sorts of tax breaks and incentives to encourage such largess. Even in countries, not pre-disposed towards capitalism as we know it, the crazy rich are given leeway. No, money talks and only the foolish in any stripe of governance are idiotic (or ignorant) enough to mess with that. Is there philanthropy among the wealthy under totalitarian regimes? You bet there is! And, they do not much mind lending (bad choice of word) monetary support to 'the party'. In return, they are left alone to make as much money as possible.

Mirugai: Have missed you. When Smith said he missed me, I did not know to whom I should respond.
Whether you are who I think you are is unimportant. Late on, I learned what mirugai meant.
Bye, for now...
Neuman.

First off, I didn't realize the gilded age history here, the impact of Anne-Robert Turgot, the liturgical and antidosis practice in Ancient Greece, or the effect of the Waqf on our everyday lives. Reich is not an expert of history, philosophy, or encyclopedist of philanthropy but clearly a scholar and easy-to-follow writer. The show and book have directed my thought to all these and now to our current political practice.

Though we all give percentage-wise similar amounts to charity, we don't share equally or with the same expectations. The interests of lower-class donations are piecemeal, and in general, less accounted for (or accredited), consist of voluntarism, and are aimed more at individuals and local communities. Wealthy interests are tax-wise, broader in scope, substantial, and tailored to prestige. It galls me to have wealthy donors given head of state status while at the same time I can not help but think my exasperation is a character flaw given the good these foundations and donations do. Reich gives me reasons to feel better about my intuitions.

The few rich who do public philanthropy well hide the majority of donors who practice it with a seedy, antisocial, sometimes antiquated, and often with an aggrandizing focus. I would support almost all of Reich's reform ideas and offer these which are in use in some regional and state governments already.

We should have a flat 2% tax for every taxpayer who is sufficiently able to afford it (i.e., no one in poverty or near poverty status.) That money should be dedicated to a 501c3 or like organization of their choice as filed on their tax return. This could be a foundation or a church that would spend out the money in a defined window with accountability and return on past investment documented. This could be similar to the optional political donations that taxpayers already are offered.

School foundations should have an equity statement with real consequences and documented return on investment for enabling student opportunity post-graduation in neighboring less well-off districts. This is already done in many communities but could be done regionally as well as locally.

Finally, I would propose a wealth or income tax globally similar to what Thomas Piketty has suggested. If one doesn't live on income - their wealth should be taxed. Not because it is a good idea, but rather because inequity is pretty much the problem, and solutions in any one state will have repercussions in others.

None of my ideas rise above that of Reich, of/to whom I am now aware and indebted.

Looking back at comments on this topic, mostly my own, I come to a conclusion. Or two. 1. I did not think as well as I may have before pontificating on the core question. Origins, you see. As a practical matter, philanthropy feeds off capitalism. There is comparatively little of it in societies and economies where fewer inhabitants do well. They simply lack essential resources and volition to enable and support philanthropic efforts. 2. Does this MEAN that strong, robust capitalism is critical to philanthropy? I heartily believe so and THAT belief is not propositional, near as I can tell. 3. Is there a mutual hunger from capitalism for philanthropy? I think it must be so. The flow of money and the health of economic wealth depends heavily on the prosperity of that 1%. 4. When the 1% does well, they feel good about tax write-offs. Those feelings contribute to philanthropic acts.: reduction of tax burdens are a strong incentive to give more to those who have less. So, there is, if one will, a mutual or saphrophytic benefit exchanged herewith. My high school biology/botany lies far behind this moment. Anyway, that is my reassessment, after further thought.

Mirugai: speak to us, if you can. The games are afoot Holmes and Watson are impatient. My birthday is coming up. A word or several from you would be a gift...

My sources in another country tell me troubling news. Much of the civil unrest there and agitation going with it is receiving funding from anonymous donors. This appears to be a sort of philanthropy, taken to an extreme. If we follow the money, it seems one objective could be government disruption
Drawing a further conclusion, one might say this looks like government overthrow...shooting an earlier assessment in the foot, and finding philanthropy culpable. Did this apparent snow-boulder begin with our own debacle a year ago? It seems naive to dismiss it as coincidence or resultant from the pandemic only. Keep your ears on and eyes open. Good night, and good luck.