Active, outward, consistent conservatives getting top score in Forbes Philanthropy Score 2022: zero.
Forbes released its 41st annual Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans late last month. Collectively, the magazine reports, the 400 are worth approximately $4 trillion—down $500 billion from last year.
As part of the same project, to gauge how philanthropic those on the list are, Forbes compiled their known charitable contributions and assigned each of them a “philanthropy score,” ranging from 1 to 5.
“To calculate the scores,” as the magazine’s Rachel Sandler describes it, “we added the value of each person’s total out-the-door lifetime giving to their 2022 Forbes 400 net worth, then divided their lifetime giving by that number. Each score corresponds to a range of giving as a percentage of a person’s net worth.”
Most “received a 1 or a 2, indicating they have donated less than 5% of their fortune to charity so far,” according to the results. “Only nine have given away more than 20%, earning them a score of 5 ….”
By this measure, among others, the nine are at the “commanding heights” of the country’s, and the world’s, philanthropic establishment—to the rest of which they are influential exemplars, of course, and of which they would plausibly be considered representative.
They are Bill Gates, Melinda French Gates, MacKenzie Scott, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Gordon Moore, Amos Hostetter, Jr., Lynn Schusterman, and John Arnold. Collectively, their current net worths total $271.2 billion, according to Forbes’ numbers.
Acknowledging the inherent subjectivity in attempting to make any such ideological categorizations: none could plausibly be considered actively, outwardly, consistently conservative.
Certainly, Bill Gates, Melinda French Gates, Scott, Buffett, and Soros couldn’t. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation supports environmental conservation, patient care, and scientific research and projects in the San Francisco Bay area. The Barr Foundation of Hostetter’s and his family supports the arts and education and to prevent climate change. And the Schusterman philanthropies support Jewish charities and early-childhood education.
Arnold’s worldview is more difficult to categorize. His eclectic philanthropic endeavors have included supporting aggressive education reform, some of which has taken the form of affording more options for parents, as well as educating policymakers about the benefits of responsible fiscal management of governmental resources, including pensions. They’ve also included criminal justice, dietary policy, and reform of scientific research and some of the legal structures of nonprofitdom. He has been criticized by those on both the left and right for his giving.
1 thought on “Another measure of conservative absence at philanthropy’s “commanding heights””
I understand, but am not pleased, that the largest donors stay in their lanes and seem to follow a type of group think about what is acceptable. They don’t reach out to different groups to solve problems. Our society is split with side feeling justified and major problems are not addressed. I sense that lots of money is poured into political causes and elections to reinforce the sides but not the solutions. It maybe that the issues are so tough and the battles so difficult that donors chose to help a local and regional level and help individuals in need or high quality leaders. Years ago, Irving Kristol told a Council on Foundation annual meeting that they should consider an old approach, In a sense…”Why do you want to solve the problems of the handicapped with a national commission and not help a disabled person who has needs to improve his life?”