Getty
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, have teamed up on legislation that closely tracks a plan put forward by a group of prominent wealthy donors, foundations, and scholars of charitable giving.
Two key U.S. senators introduced legislation Wednesday designed to spur faster payouts from donor-advised funds and foundations, giving new momentum to an effort that has deeply divided philanthropy.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, a former chairman of the Finance Committee who still sits on that panel, and Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, have teamed up on legislation that closely tracks a plan put forward by the Initiative to Accelerate Charitable Giving, a group of prominent wealthy donors, foundations, and scholars of charitable giving.
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund is the big kahuna of donor-advised funds. Created in 1991, the fund ranks as the largest donor-advised fund in the United States. It even outweighs the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation based on the value of grants made for the most recent fiscal year. Assets totaled $34.5 billion as of June 30, 2020.
As I covered in my recent article, donor-advised funds have several advantages. Donor-advised funds are public charities that qualify as section 501(c)(3) organizations. That means donors can benefit from an immediate tax deduction when they contribute cash or other assets to the fund. Although contributions are irrevocable (meaning you can’t withdraw donations if you change your mind or need extra cash), the donor retains some control over how to invest the assets and how much to contribute to various charities over time.
Whither philanthropy? Under-25 learn giving in church; church weaker: empty tomb book
Young people report most of their giving goes to “church, religious organizations,” while other data points to churches weakening, according to empty tomb’s new book, The State of Church Giving through 2018. What do these trends mean for the practice of philanthropy in the U.S.?
Young people learn philanthropy in religious settings, finds an analysis in the new empty tomb book,
The State of Church Giving through 2018.
The new book also finds downward trends in church membership and giving in the U.S.
That poses the question: If young people learn to practice philanthropy in church, and churches are in downward trends, will philanthropy continue to thrive in the U.S.?
Whither Philanthropy? Young People Learn Giving in Church and the Church Is Weakening, empty tomb Book Finds
Share Article
Young people learn philanthropy in church, and churches are weakening, according to empty tomb data analyses, raising questions about the future of philanthropy in the U.S.
What may be a surprise is that those in this age group who give report that the vast majority of their donations go to church, religious organizations. CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (PRWEB) May 11, 2021 Young people learn philanthropy in religious settings, finds an analysis in the new empty tomb book, The State of Church Giving through 2018.
The new book also finds downward trends in church membership and giving in the U.S.
Under California law, when an elected official or someone acting on their behalf asks that a donation of $5,000 or more in cash or services be directed to a nonprofit or government agency, that contribution is considered a behested payment and must be reported to the FPPC. There is no limit on how much can be donated by organizations or individuals at the behest of an elected official, another aspect of the practice that has drawn criticism from open government groups.
Though behested payments are earmarked for noble causes, the companies asked by elected officials to donate often have multimillion-dollar contracts or other business before the state, creating the appearance of a pay-to-play system. Because state law does not address the use of donor-advised funds in making behested payments, or set additional disclosure requirements for those who use them, the public is unable to determine whether donors whose identities are shielded by such accounts stand to benefit from charitabl