

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Google billionaire Larry Page, pictured here in 2010, is under fire for his approach to philanthropy. (Photo: Bloom Energy/Flickr/cc)
Google co-founder and billionaire Larry Page is the subject of a report Wednesday from tech journal ReCode which shows how the Silicon Valley super-rich use workarounds in managing their private foundations that avoid direct contributions to actual charities.
Page's Carl Victor Page Memorial Foundation pushed around $400 million in publicly announced Christmastime donations between 2015 and 2017, but none of it reportedly went directly to charity.
"This a very bad look for Larry Page," tweeted National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy researcher Ryan Schlegel.
As ReCode reporter Teddy Schleifer described in his piece on the billionaire, Page's foundation funnels cash primarily into funds which allow their benefactor a measure of control.
"What Page was doing each year was something of a philanthropic sleight of hand," wrote Schleifer.
Private foundations are required by law to disburse at least 5 percent of their assets a year, a requirement meant to make sure that these taxpayer-subsidized philanthropies actually took part in charity.
But in recent years, Page's foundation has made last-minute donations to hit the threshold only by making bulk donations to separate charitable accounts Page also had some control over, donor-advised funds (DAFs). Those donations technically count as contributions by the foundation, helping it meet the 5 percent standard, even though that money can then sit in the donor-advised funds indefinitely, with no requirement that it goes to needy nonprofits.
"Donations from the foundations to the DAF count toward the 5 percent, even if the DAF then sits on the millions indefinitely," Schleifer added.
The billionaire did donate $21 million from his foundation to charity, but, as ReCode shows, the amount funnelled to DAFs was far greater.
As a result of the DAF system the money in the funds can remain, untaxed, forever. It's a clever tax workaround that uses the specter of altruism to mask a cold calculation over how to hoard capital.
While experts say many charitable foundations use DAFs in a responsible and reasonable manner, ReCode's analysis showed that Page's use of it is in a class of its own.
"It is possible," wrote Schleifer, "that Page is the country's greatest exploiter of this loophole."
Given Page's foundation's size and power, said National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy's Schlegel, the billionaire is not only sitting on tax-free money--he's sitting on power.
"If he wants to avoid public disclosure of the recipients of his largesse he's perfectly free to set up an LLC as some of his very rich peers have done lately," said Schlegel. "But this set up is publicly subsidized influence laundering."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Google co-founder and billionaire Larry Page is the subject of a report Wednesday from tech journal ReCode which shows how the Silicon Valley super-rich use workarounds in managing their private foundations that avoid direct contributions to actual charities.
Page's Carl Victor Page Memorial Foundation pushed around $400 million in publicly announced Christmastime donations between 2015 and 2017, but none of it reportedly went directly to charity.
"This a very bad look for Larry Page," tweeted National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy researcher Ryan Schlegel.
As ReCode reporter Teddy Schleifer described in his piece on the billionaire, Page's foundation funnels cash primarily into funds which allow their benefactor a measure of control.
"What Page was doing each year was something of a philanthropic sleight of hand," wrote Schleifer.
Private foundations are required by law to disburse at least 5 percent of their assets a year, a requirement meant to make sure that these taxpayer-subsidized philanthropies actually took part in charity.
But in recent years, Page's foundation has made last-minute donations to hit the threshold only by making bulk donations to separate charitable accounts Page also had some control over, donor-advised funds (DAFs). Those donations technically count as contributions by the foundation, helping it meet the 5 percent standard, even though that money can then sit in the donor-advised funds indefinitely, with no requirement that it goes to needy nonprofits.
"Donations from the foundations to the DAF count toward the 5 percent, even if the DAF then sits on the millions indefinitely," Schleifer added.
The billionaire did donate $21 million from his foundation to charity, but, as ReCode shows, the amount funnelled to DAFs was far greater.
As a result of the DAF system the money in the funds can remain, untaxed, forever. It's a clever tax workaround that uses the specter of altruism to mask a cold calculation over how to hoard capital.
While experts say many charitable foundations use DAFs in a responsible and reasonable manner, ReCode's analysis showed that Page's use of it is in a class of its own.
"It is possible," wrote Schleifer, "that Page is the country's greatest exploiter of this loophole."
Given Page's foundation's size and power, said National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy's Schlegel, the billionaire is not only sitting on tax-free money--he's sitting on power.
"If he wants to avoid public disclosure of the recipients of his largesse he's perfectly free to set up an LLC as some of his very rich peers have done lately," said Schlegel. "But this set up is publicly subsidized influence laundering."
Google co-founder and billionaire Larry Page is the subject of a report Wednesday from tech journal ReCode which shows how the Silicon Valley super-rich use workarounds in managing their private foundations that avoid direct contributions to actual charities.
Page's Carl Victor Page Memorial Foundation pushed around $400 million in publicly announced Christmastime donations between 2015 and 2017, but none of it reportedly went directly to charity.
"This a very bad look for Larry Page," tweeted National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy researcher Ryan Schlegel.
As ReCode reporter Teddy Schleifer described in his piece on the billionaire, Page's foundation funnels cash primarily into funds which allow their benefactor a measure of control.
"What Page was doing each year was something of a philanthropic sleight of hand," wrote Schleifer.
Private foundations are required by law to disburse at least 5 percent of their assets a year, a requirement meant to make sure that these taxpayer-subsidized philanthropies actually took part in charity.
But in recent years, Page's foundation has made last-minute donations to hit the threshold only by making bulk donations to separate charitable accounts Page also had some control over, donor-advised funds (DAFs). Those donations technically count as contributions by the foundation, helping it meet the 5 percent standard, even though that money can then sit in the donor-advised funds indefinitely, with no requirement that it goes to needy nonprofits.
"Donations from the foundations to the DAF count toward the 5 percent, even if the DAF then sits on the millions indefinitely," Schleifer added.
The billionaire did donate $21 million from his foundation to charity, but, as ReCode shows, the amount funnelled to DAFs was far greater.
As a result of the DAF system the money in the funds can remain, untaxed, forever. It's a clever tax workaround that uses the specter of altruism to mask a cold calculation over how to hoard capital.
While experts say many charitable foundations use DAFs in a responsible and reasonable manner, ReCode's analysis showed that Page's use of it is in a class of its own.
"It is possible," wrote Schleifer, "that Page is the country's greatest exploiter of this loophole."
Given Page's foundation's size and power, said National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy's Schlegel, the billionaire is not only sitting on tax-free money--he's sitting on power.
"If he wants to avoid public disclosure of the recipients of his largesse he's perfectly free to set up an LLC as some of his very rich peers have done lately," said Schlegel. "But this set up is publicly subsidized influence laundering."