Skip to main content


Next time, someone should encourage MacKenzie Scott or Melinda Gates to buy newspapers and make presidential endorsements.

Meanwhile, we're not going back!
townandcountrymag.com/society/…
#WomensOpportunities #VoteSmart #USpol #USpolitics #USelections #election #elections #Harris #Walz #HarrisWalz #vote #VoteBlue #philanthropy

in reply to Rich Stein (he/him)

We’d be better off, and democracy would be stronger, if we didn’t need billionaires’ personal philanthropy
Not great if we depend on billionaire v billionaire
This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to brad m

“[U]nelected individuals do not have the legitimacy to single-handedly alter public policy, no matter how vast the private fortune they have amassed”

Opinion | The hard truth: Americans don't trust — or need — billionaires lawdork.com/p/opinion-the-hard… by @chrisgeidner

in reply to brad m

Totally agree. In this case, both women did not plan to be billionaires or "masters of the universe." Rather, they came into money as a result of marriage and subsequently divorce. Also, both have indicated an inclination to do philanthropic work and be done – M.G. (Giving Pledge) and M.S. have said as much. Gates has made a career (through marriage) of philanthropy. Scott had a previous career as an author.

I'm not advocating for billionaires in any way.
1/n

in reply to Rich Stein (he/him)

It is a sad fact that resources are unfairly distributed — and whether you are a billionaire or plebe making charitable donations before year end to take advantage of charitable deductions (or just because you finally have a handle on finances), our (US) system allows everyone to choose to whom and how to donate. Unless and until that changes — i.e., more public resources to where needed & changes to tax code — we — civil society — should try to coopt billionaire $.
2/2