July, 29 2020, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Olivia Alperstein, olivia@ips-dc.org, 202-704-9011
Chuck Collins, chuck@ips-dc.org, 617-308-4433
Chris Fleming, chris@redhorsestrategies.com, 202-631-0929
When Mega-Donors Dominate Charitable Giving, Democracy Pays the Price
Wealth inequality distorts giving sector, posing risks to democracy and integrity of tax system.
WASHINGTON
In advance of the 10th anniversary of the Giving Pledge, founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) documents a troubling trend of small donor declines with a parallel rise in wealthy mega-donors within the nation's philanthropic sector.
The report, "Gilded Giving 2020: How Wealth Inequality Distorts Philanthropy and Imperils Democracy," finds that this top-heavy philanthropy poses considerable risks to the independence of the nonprofit sector, the integrity of the tax system, and to democracy itself. It also suggests that the 2017 tax cut and the COVID-19 pandemic will worsen this drift toward inequality in philanthropy. The report can be found here.
"Philanthropy should not become an extension of private wealth and power for the richest 0.1 percent," said Chuck Collins, Co-author of report and Director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at IPS. "Congress needs to update the rules governing philanthropy to prevent abuses to the tax code and protect our democracy and nonprofit sector."
"The Giving Pledgers set out in 2010 to give away half their wealth and instead their assets have doubled," said Collins, citing one of the report's findings. "By giving $1.7 billion directly to 116 charities, MacKenzie Scott (Bezos) has modeled what Giving Pledge billionaires should be doing with their wealth. They should give it directly to working nonprofit charities and not to their own perpetual family foundations or donor-advised funds."
While overall giving to charity has grown over the last several decades, the report says that trend masks the growing inequality in charitable giving. Findings include:
- Small donor giving has been steadily declining for two decades. Between 2000 and 2016 (most recent data), the percentage of households giving to charity has dropped from 66 percent to 53 percent. Wage stagnation, unemployment, declining homeownership all contribute to economic insecurity and declines in giving.
- The increase in charitable giving has been driven by donations by wealthy donors and mega gifts over $300 million.
- In the early 2000s, households earning $200,000 or more made up only 30 percent of all charitable deductions. By 2017, the most recent year available, this group accounted for 52 percent.
- The percent of total charitable deductions claimed by households making over $1 million dollars grew from 12 percent in 1995 to 33 percent in 2017. The richest 1 percent of wage earners claimed one-eight of all charitable deductions, Today, they claim one-third.
The Giving Pledge, founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, is a case study of top-heavy philanthropy. On August 4, 2010, 40 billionaires pledged to give away at least half their wealth before their death. But the growth in billionaire wealth has largely outstripped their capacity to give in a timely way. The "Gilded Giving 2020" report includes a preview of data from a forthcoming larger analysis about the impact of the Giving Pledge. Among these findings:
- Of the 62 living U.S. Pledgers who were billionaires in 2010, their combined wealth has increased from $376 billion in 2010 to $734 billion as of July 18, 2020, an increase of 95 percent, in 2020 dollars.
- Of these 62, 11 have seen their wealth go down either because of aggressive charitable giving or market changes. But the remaining 51 have seen significant increases in their net worth. Nine of the billionaires have seen their wealth increase over 200 percent over the decade, adjusted for inflation. These include Mark Zuckerberg (1783 percent), John Doerr (416 percent), Marc Benioff (400 percent), Bernie and Billie Marcus (311 percent), Ken Langone (288 percent), Ray Dalio (280 percent) Arthur Blank (277 percent) Stephen Schwarzman (245 percent), Scott Cook and Signe Ostby (221 percent).
- The 100 living U.S. Pledgers who were billionaires on March 18, 2020 had a combined wealth of $758.3 billion at that time. This is the date of both the beginning of the pandemic lockdowns in the U.S. and the publication of Forbes annual global billionaire survey. By July 17, 2020, their assets had surged to $971.9 billion. This means that over the four worst months of the pandemic in the United States to date, their collective wealth increased by $213.6 billion--an increase of 28 percent.
- If the 100 living U.S. Pledgers gave away half of their wealth-an estimated $485.8 billion--today, the loss of tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury would be as high as $360 billion in reduced income, estate, and capital gains taxes. This is based on a conservative assessment of the taxpayer subsidy for households in the top 0.1 percent.
The preliminary analysis in the report reveals two troubling concerns related to the Giving Pledge:
- The wealth of the U.S. billionaire class is growing so fast, even during the current pandemic, that it has outstripped Giving Pledger's capacity to give it away.
- Most of these funds will end up in family foundations and donor-advised funds that could exist in perpetuity.
The "Gilded Giving 2020" report also documents how ever-greater proportions of charitable dollars are being diverted into wealth-warehousing vehicles such as private foundations and donor-advised funds, rather than going to active nonprofits serving immediate needs.
- As charitable giving increasingly becomes the province of the wealthy, we have seen a dramatic growth in giving to private foundations and donor-advised funds (DAFs), giving intermediaries that give donors long-term control over funds and have significant tax advantages.
- Between 2005 and 2019, the number of private foundations grew from 71,097 to 119,791, an increase in 68 percent. Over the same period, their assets grew 118 percent, from $551 billion to $1.2 trillion. The proportion of all charitable dollars going into foundations has tripled over the past 30 years.
- Donations to DAFs have increased even more rapidly, from $20 billion in 2014 to more than $37 billion in 2018--86 percent growth over just five years. DAFs have seen their share of the giving pie triple between 2010 and 2018, rising from 4.4 percent of all individual giving to 12.7 percent. The single biggest recipient of charitable funds is the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. And over the past three years, six of the top 10 charity recipients have been DAFs.
"The original proposition was in exchange for a tax reduction, the donor gives up dominion over their money and it flows to a charitable purpose," said Helen Flannery, report co-author. "Why should taxpayers subsidize perpetual private foundations that give away the mandated minimum each year and chew up millions in overhead? Why should donors get substantial tax reductions for giving to donor-advised funds (DAF) with no mandate that funds flow to working charities?"
Report authors point to the Conrad Hilton Foundation as an example of a perpetual foundation that is an inefficient use of taxpayer subsidies. The Hilton Foundation has $2.8 billion in assets and spent $51 million in overhead to give away $101 million in grants in 2018. Over $18 million went to staff compensation and fees to six family-member trustees, who received $35,000 a year to serve on the board.
The report points out that risks to the public include:
- the warehousing of wealth in the face of urgent needs
- an increasingly unaccountable and undemocratic philanthropic sector
- the rise of tax avoidance philanthropy
- self-dealing philanthropy
- the increasing use of philanthropy as an extension of power and privilege protection.
Risks to charitable independent sector organizations include:
- increased volatility and unpredictability in funding, making it more difficult to budget and forecast income into the future
- an increased need to shift toward major donor cultivation
- an increased bias toward funding heavily major-donor-directed boutique organizations and projects
- increased potential for mission distortion.
The report recommends a number of solutions.
Immediate Action: Congress must implement an Emergency Charity Stimulus, a three-year emergency mandate to require private foundations to double their payout from 5 percent to 10 percent; establish a temporary 10 percent payout requirement for donor-advised funds that have no mandate. This would move an estimated $200 billion off the sidelines and into front-line working charities without increasing taxes or adding to the deficit.
Charity Reform Agenda: Rules governing the giving sector have not been meaningfully modified since 1969, a period of relative equality in the U.S. The modernization reforms should aim to:
- Protect the independent sector from undue influence of wealthy donors.
- Protect democracy and civil society, of which philanthropy is one aspect, from the undue influence of private power.
- Prevent abuse of the tax system from charitable-giving vehicles primarily used for aggressive tax avoidance or to maintain indefinite control over donated dollars.
To further these larger goals, the rules governing philanthropy should be overhauled to maximize the public good in these ways:
- Preserve a vibrant, independent charitable sector outside of private, state, and corporate control.
- Modernize incentives to encourage broad-based giving across all segments of society, particularly the non-wealthy.
- Ensure the timely flow of funds out of charitable giving instruments to the public benefit, thereby discouraging the warehousing of wealth.
- Reform tax deductibility rules to align them with the public interest and to protect the integrity of our tax system.
Proposed reforms include:
- Protect society from concentrated wealth in private philanthropy by levying a wealth tax on closely held private foundation assets and donor-advised funds and establishing a lifetime cap on charitable deductions.
- Make private foundation payout requirements meaningful and increase the flow of funds to working charities. Eliminate the perpetual private foundation, as it is currently constituted.
- Require donor-advised funds to have a payout, reduce abuses from gifts of non-cash assets, and increase transparency and reporting.
- Implement a universal giving credit to broaden giving by the non-wealthy.
- Prevent abuses and encourage transparency with reforms requiring board independence, banning compensation of family members, and donor disclosures.
- Create a new federal oversight agency for foundations and charities, funded by foundation excise taxes.
The final report Gilded Giving 2020 can be found here.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
After NYT Sues Over Pentagon Policy, Press Advocates 'Urge Other News Outlets to Follow'
"The only way to put an end to the Trump administration's multipronged assault on press freedom is for every news outlet to fight back at every opportunity," said the head of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Dec 04, 2025
Press freedom advocates on Thursday welcomed the New York Times' lawsuit over the US Department of Defense's "flatly unconstitutional" press policy, filed on the heels of the first briefing for what critics call the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps."
The newspaper and Times reporter Julian E. Barnes, one of several journalists who refused to sign the policy earlier this year, are suing the DOD—which President Donald Trump has dubbed the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, in the US District Court in Washington, D.C.
The plaintiffs are asking Judge Paul L. Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, to strike down provisions of the Pentagon policy that violate their First and Fifth Amendment rights, and warn that "if allowed to stand, that policy will upend the longstanding and 'healthy adversarial tension between the government, which may seek to keep its secrets' and 'the press, which may endeavor to' report them... and will deprive the public of vital information about the United States military and its leadership."
The filing notably comes not only as the DOD celebrates that dozens of "independent journalists, bloggers, and social media influencers" who "are not associated with legacy media outlets, including print media such as newspapers and magazines, and broadcast media, such as cable television news," have joined the new Pentagon Press Corps in exchange for signing the controversial agreement, but also as Trump and Hegseth face mounting outrage over boat bombings that experts argue are "war crimes, murder, or both."
Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the newspaper, said in a statement that "the Times stands with fellow news organizations across digital, print, and broadcast media, including many conservative outlets, in strongly opposing this unprecedented policy."
The paper has hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn. The Washington Post reported that "lawyers representing the Times said they discussed litigation with other news organizations but ultimately decided to proceed on their own. They said they would welcome other outlets filing their own lawsuits or amicus briefs in the Times' case."
While Parnell said in a statement that "we are aware of the New York Times lawsuit and look forward to addressing these arguments in court," journalists and media advocacy groups are already signaling support for the newspaper—which is also battling a $15 billion defamation suit refiled by the president in October.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press vice president of policy Gabe Rottman said Thursday that "the Pentagon's press access policy is unlawful because it gives government officials unchecked power over who gets a credential and who doesn't, something the First Amendment prohibits."
"The public needs independent journalism and the reporters who deliver it back in the Pentagon at a time of heightened scrutiny of the department's actions," he asserted. "We look forward to lending our voice in support of this suit."
The Pentagon Press Association said it was "encouraged by the New York Times' effort to step up and defend press freedom," while White House Correspondents' Association president Weijia Jiang declared that the WHCA "stands firmly" with the newspaper and described the suit as "a necessary and vital step to ensure journalists can do their jobs."
Clayton Weimers, executive director for Reporters Without Borders USA, said that "it's great to see the New York Times continue to proactively defend press freedom in the courts as well as on their pages. We all know by now that capitulation to Donald Trump's authoritarian impulses never works out, but fighting back will."
"This is the logical next step after the mass refusal of journalists to sign Secretary of Defense Hegseth's loyalty pledge," Weimers added. "Journalists must be able to cover the government critically and freely."
Pointing to television companies' recent settlements with the president, Freedom of the Press Foundation executive director Trevor Timm said that "in an era where news networks seem to be caving to Trump's censorious tactics left and right, it's refreshing to see the New York Times leading by example and sticking up for the First Amendment in court."
"An attack on any journalist’s rights is an attack on all. And the only way to put an end to the Trump administration's multipronged assault on press freedom is for every news outlet to fight back at every opportunity," Timm continued. "We urge other news outlets to follow the Times' lead."
"These days, the government has countless platforms of its own to tell the public what it wants it to know. A free and independent press isn't needed for that," he noted. "The Constitution guarantees one anyway precisely because the public needs the information the government does not want it to know. The Pentagon's absurd access pledge has been an affront to the First Amendment since the first day they proposed it. And we look forward to a federal judge throwing it out with the trash, where it belongs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Experts Say Those Ordering and Carrying Out US Boat Strikes Should Be 'Prosecuted for Homicide'
“US military attacks on alleged drug traffickers at sea," said two human rights experts, "are grave violations of the right to life and the international law of the sea."
Dec 04, 2025
Two United Nations rights experts warned that in numerous ways in recent weeks, the Trump administration's escalation toward Venezuela has violated international law—most recently when President Donald Trump said he had ordered the South American country's airspace closed following a military buildup in the Caribbean Sea.
But the two officials, independent expert on democratic and international order George Katrougalos and Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, reserved their strongest condemnation and warning to the US for the administration's repeated bombings of boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, which have targeted at least 22 boats and killed 83 people since September as the White House has claimed without evidence it is combating drug traffickers.
The strikes, said Katrougalos and Saul, "are grave violations of the right to life and the international law of the sea. Those involved in ordering and carrying out these extrajudicial killings must be investigated and prosecuted for homicide.”
Human rights advocates have warned for months that the strikes are extrajudicial killings. Trump has claimed the US is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels in Venezuela—even though the country is not significantly involved in drug trafficking—but Congress has not authorized any military action in the Caribbean.
Typically, the US has approached drug trafficking in the region as a criminal issue, with the Coast Guard and other agencies intercepting boats suspected of carrying illegal substances, arresting those on board, and ensuring they receive due process in accordance with the Constitution.
The Trump administration instead has bombed the boats, with the first operation on September 2 recently the subject of particular concern due to reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order for military officers to "kill everybody" on board a vessel, leading a commander to direct a second "double-tap" strike to kill two survivors of the initial blast.
Hegseth and Trump have sought to shift responsibility for the second strike onto Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, the commander who oversaw the attack under Hegseth's orders. Bradley was scheduled to brief lawmakers Thursday on the incident.
The White House has maintained Bradley had the authority to kill the survivors of the strike and to carry out all the other bombings of boats, even as reporting on the identities of the victims has shown the US has killed civilians including an out-of-work bus driver and a fisherman, and the family of one Colombian man killed in a strike filed a formal complaint accusing Hegseth himself of murder.
The UN experts suggested that everyone involved in ordering the nearly two dozen boat strikes, from Trump and Hegseth to any of the service members who have helped carry out the operations, should be investigated for alleged murder.
After Hegseth defended the September 2 strike earlier this week, Saul emphasized in a social media post that contrary to the defense secretary's rhetoric about how the boat attacks are "protecting" Americans, he is carrying out "state murder of civilians in peacetime, like executing alleged drug traffickers on the streets of New York or DC."
As Common Dreams reported last month, a top military lawyer advised the White House against beginning the boat bombings weeks before the September 2 attack, saying they could expose service members involved in the strikes to legal challenges.
Katrougalos and Saul urged the administration to "refrain from actions that could further aggravate the situation and ensure that any measures taken fully comply with the UN Charter, the Chicago Convention, and relevant rules of customary international law."
They also emphasized that Trump had no authority to declare that Venezuela's airspace was closed last week—an action that many experts feared could portend imminent US strikes in the South American country.
“International law is clear: States have complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above their territory. Any measures that seek to regulate, restrict, or ‘close’ another state’s airspace are in blatant violation of the Chicago Convention,” said the experts. “Unilateral measures that interfere with a state’s territorial domain, including its airspace, risk fully undermining the stability of the region and are seriously undermining Venezuela’s economy."
Saul and Katrougalos further called on the White House not to repeat "the long history of external interventions in Latin America."
“Respect for sovereignty, nonintervention, and the peaceful settlement of disputes," they said, "are essential to preserving international stability and preventing further deterioration of the situation.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Human Rights Group Warns US Gaza Plan Will Impose 'Unlawful Collective Imprisonment' of Palestinians as New Details Emerge
“The design of these proposed cities mirrors the historical model of ghettos,” said the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which said the US plans to cram 25,000 people into areas smaller than a square kilometer.
Dec 04, 2025
A prominent international human rights organization is warning that the United States' plan for postwar Gaza will impose "unlawful collective imprisonment" on the Palestinian civilians who have survived two years of genocide.
In November, several news outlets reported on the Trump administration's plan to carve Gaza in two: a so-called “green zone” controlled by Israel and a “red zone” controlled by the militant group Hamas.
The US would construct what it called “Alternative Safe Communities” for Palestinians to live in the Israeli-controlled portion of Gaza, which is over half of the territory under the current "ceasefire" agreement.
The New York Times described these communities as "compounds" of 20,000 to 25,000 people, where Israeli officials reportedly argued they should not be allowed to leave.
The initial reporting raised fears that the US and Israel were constructing what would amount to a "concentration camp," where Palestinians would be forced to live in squalid conditions without freedom of movement.
On Wednesday, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor released new details on how Palestinians, currently facing mass displacement from their homes in the portion of the strip not occupied by Israel, would be corralled into the green zone under the US proposal.
The Geneva-based group issued a stark warning about the plan, which it said carried "grave risks, including the effective displacement of Palestinians from their homes and the transformation of large parts of Gaza into closed military zones under the direct control of the Israeli army."
“Entry and exit would be permitted only through security screening, effectively converting these sites into overcrowded detention camps that impose severe restrictions on residents’ freedom of movement and daily life."
Euro-Med's report explains that the transfer of Palestinians would be carried out using "various pressure tactics."
"This is done by creating a coercive environment in the red zone and making access to relative protection and basic services conditional on relocating to designated areas within the green zone, following extensive security screening and vetting," the report says. "This removes any genuine element of consent and places the process squarely within the scope of forced displacement prohibited under international humanitarian law."
It also provides new details on the conditions Palestinians would be subject to once they've arrived: "The plan includes the establishment of 'cities' of prefabricated container homes (caravans) in the green zone, each housing around 25,000 people within an area of no more than one square kilometer and enclosed by walls and checkpoints."
This means these Palestinian cantons would be over three times as densely populated as the Tel Aviv District, the most crowded in Israel, which has about 8,130 people per square kilometer.
"Entry and exit would be permitted only through security screening, effectively converting these sites into overcrowded detention camps that impose severe restrictions on residents’ freedom of movement and daily life," the report continues.
This is not the first proposal to use the promise of safety to lure Palestinians into an enclosed space without the right to leave.
Earlier this year, following US President Donald Trump's call for the people of Palestine to be forcibly removed from the Gaza Strip, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz proposed the creation of a massive “humanitarian city” built on the ruins of Rafah that would be used as part of an “emigration plan” for hundreds of thousands of displaced people.
Under that plan, Palestinians would have been given “security screenings” and once inside would not be allowed to leave. Humanitarian organizations, including those inside Israel, roundly condemned the plan as essentially a “concentration camp.”
Euro-Med said that the design laid out in the new US plan "mirrors the historical model of ghettos, in which colonial and racist regimes confined specific groups to sealed areas surrounded by walls and guard posts, with movement and resources controlled externally, as seen in Europe during World War II and in other colonial contexts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


