The Perils of Philanthrocapitalism

E. Amarante
{"title":"The Perils of Philanthrocapitalism","authors":"E. Amarante","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2885550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent announcement by Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Priscilla Chan to pledge Facebook stock worth $45 billion to various philanthropic efforts was met with more skepticism than praise. Most of the criticism concerned the couple’s decision to organize the CZI as a for-profit limited liability company (LLC), rather than the more traditional tax-exempt private foundation. Despite the tax benefits of private foundations, Zuckerberg and Chan were attracted to the fact that LLCs may freely engage in political activity, fund any type of entity, and participate in policy debates.This begs the question: why should we care how Zuckerberg and Chan engage in charitable activity? The Facebook stock is, after all, their property, and the general public does not generally have any say in how the wealthy dispose of their property. This Article argues that the criticisms are warranted. The reason the public does (and should) care, is that the decision presents troubling questions about the role of philanthropy in our society and the consequences of philanthropists using for-profit vehicles to engage in charitable work.For more than a century, sociologists have criticized philanthropy as antidemocratic, paternalistic, and amateuristic. However, the regulatory mechanisms governing private foundations ensure that the entities actually engage in publicly-blessed charitable activity, require numerous disclosures to increase accountability, and restrict certain political and lobbying activities. Although these mechanisms do not eliminate the negatives of philanthropy, they do limit their negative effect. As such, there is a convincing argument that philanthropy is worth these costs. The hope is that the mechanisms regulating private foundations result in a palatable balance between philanthropy’s negative and positive aspects.However, the recent trend of conducting charity through for-profit vehicles throws that balance off. The regulatory bulwarks designed to encourage the positive aspects of philanthropy do not exist in the for-profit realm. As such, philanthropy conducted through for-profit vehicles encourages entities to engage in matters of public concern free from meaningful regulation and limitations.This Article discusses each of the traditional critiques of philanthropy and explores how they are exacerbated when philanthropic efforts are conducted through a for-profit vehicles, such as LLCs.","PeriodicalId":431428,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: LLCs","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: LLCs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2885550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

The recent announcement by Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Priscilla Chan to pledge Facebook stock worth $45 billion to various philanthropic efforts was met with more skepticism than praise. Most of the criticism concerned the couple’s decision to organize the CZI as a for-profit limited liability company (LLC), rather than the more traditional tax-exempt private foundation. Despite the tax benefits of private foundations, Zuckerberg and Chan were attracted to the fact that LLCs may freely engage in political activity, fund any type of entity, and participate in policy debates.This begs the question: why should we care how Zuckerberg and Chan engage in charitable activity? The Facebook stock is, after all, their property, and the general public does not generally have any say in how the wealthy dispose of their property. This Article argues that the criticisms are warranted. The reason the public does (and should) care, is that the decision presents troubling questions about the role of philanthropy in our society and the consequences of philanthropists using for-profit vehicles to engage in charitable work.For more than a century, sociologists have criticized philanthropy as antidemocratic, paternalistic, and amateuristic. However, the regulatory mechanisms governing private foundations ensure that the entities actually engage in publicly-blessed charitable activity, require numerous disclosures to increase accountability, and restrict certain political and lobbying activities. Although these mechanisms do not eliminate the negatives of philanthropy, they do limit their negative effect. As such, there is a convincing argument that philanthropy is worth these costs. The hope is that the mechanisms regulating private foundations result in a palatable balance between philanthropy’s negative and positive aspects.However, the recent trend of conducting charity through for-profit vehicles throws that balance off. The regulatory bulwarks designed to encourage the positive aspects of philanthropy do not exist in the for-profit realm. As such, philanthropy conducted through for-profit vehicles encourages entities to engage in matters of public concern free from meaningful regulation and limitations.This Article discusses each of the traditional critiques of philanthropy and explores how they are exacerbated when philanthropic efforts are conducted through a for-profit vehicles, such as LLCs.
慈善资本主义的危险
马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)和普莉希拉·陈博士(Dr. Priscilla Chan)最近宣布,将把价值450亿美元的Facebook股票捐赠给各种慈善事业。大多数批评都是针对这对夫妇将CZI组织为营利性有限责任公司(LLC)的决定,而不是更传统的免税私人基金会。尽管私人基金会享有税收优惠,但有限责任公司可以自由参与政治活动,为任何类型的实体提供资金,并参与政策辩论,这一点吸引了扎克伯格和陈。这就引出了一个问题:我们为什么要关心扎克伯格和陈如何参与慈善活动?毕竟,Facebook的股票是他们的财产,一般来说,公众对富人如何处置他们的财产没有任何发言权。本文认为,这些批评是有根据的。公众关心(也应该关心)的原因是,这一决定提出了一些令人不安的问题:慈善事业在我们社会中的作用,以及慈善家利用营利性机构从事慈善工作的后果。一个多世纪以来,社会学家一直批评慈善是反民主的、家长式的和业余的。然而,管理非公募基金会的监管机制确保实体实际参与公众支持的慈善活动,要求大量披露以增加问责制,并限制某些政治和游说活动。虽然这些机制并不能消除慈善的负面影响,但它们确实限制了慈善的负面影响。因此,有一个令人信服的论点,即慈善事业值得这些成本。希望非公募基金会的监管机制能够在慈善事业的消极和积极方面取得令人满意的平衡。然而,最近通过营利性机构开展慈善活动的趋势打破了这种平衡。旨在鼓励慈善事业积极方面的监管壁垒在营利性领域并不存在。因此,通过营利性机构进行的慈善活动鼓励实体参与公众关注的事务,而不受有意义的监管和限制。本文讨论了对慈善事业的每一种传统批评,并探讨了当慈善工作通过营利性机构(如有限责任公司)进行时,这些批评是如何加剧的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信