TAINTED DONATIONS

In episode 56 we take a deep dive into the issue of 'tainted donations'. Is some money 'bad', and if so can it ever be turned to good uses through philanthropy? Including:

• Recent versions of the tainted donation issue: Epstein & MIT Media Lab, the Sacklers, The President's Club
• The history of tainted donations: medieval prostitutes, Rockefeller & Carnegie in the firing line, George Cadbury, George Bernard Shaw, William Booth
• What do we mean by tainted? In cases where there is no clear illegality, how do we navigate much more contested ethical grey areas?
• Do we need to differentiate between criticisms of specific ways in which has been made (e.g. fossil fuels, arms manufacture, tobacco) and broader structural critiques of capitalism as a whole?
• Do the ethical concerns associated with a particular source of money relate directly to the way in which the money was made, or are they indirect? Does this affect the moral status of a donation?
• In a highly interconnected world, with global financial systems, does it make sense to talk of any money as ‘tainted' or ‘pure’?
• Is it better for charities to refuse ethically dubious donations in order to avoid damaging themselves by association, or do they have a responsibility to take the money and put it to good uses?
• What level of control is a tainted donor seeking to exert over how their money is used? How does this affect the decision about whether to accept it or not?
• Will the donor get personal benefit from their donation- either in the form of tangible thanks or recognition, or in the form of more intangible social status and connections? Does this make accepting a gift more problematic?
• Does a organisation’s decision to take money always imply approval of the donor to some degree? Is it possible to counteract this implication through overt condemnation whilst still taking the money?
• In order to justify taking a charity accepting a tainted donation, does its work have to address a harm related to the way in which the money was made i.e. does there have to be some element of reparation?
• Is there a statute of limitations on tainted donations? What should we do in cases of historic wrongs that occurred so long ago that no one affected is still alive?
• On what legal basis can charity trustees decide to refuse a donation?
• How do trustees balance the potential reputational risk of accepting a tainted donation against the certainty of financial loss from not accepting it?
• Does public opinion actually support charities turning down donations from tainted sources?
• If a donation has already been made, is it even possible in charity law for it to be returned?