HOME / the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

Give It Up!Rachael Larimore takes readers' questions about the Slate 60 index of top philanthropists.

Updated Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008, at 3:45 PM ET

Slate's Rachael Larimore was online at Washingtonpost.com on Thursday, Feb. 14, to discuss the Slate 60 index of 2007's top American charitable donors. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.

(Continued from page 1)

RSS

Southeast Washington: How do the wealthy justify multimillion dollar gifts to entities like performing-arts groups and museums when there are more urgents causes, such as disease research, antipoverty efforts, and equal-justice task forces? Seems like a lot of money goes to things that are really just for the rich themselves to enjoy.

Rachael Larimore: When Slate first set out to do the Slate 60, we enlisted the help of a woman named Ann Castle, who compiled the list for the first four years before passing away. After her death, Slate's Jack Shafer wrote this: "Ann wouldn't tolerate cynical talk about philanthropy: It was important to recognize and praise generosity, she would say. All generosity."

I've wondered a lot about why donors choose their targets, and sometimes it does make you scratch your head. In some respects, especially in regards to university giving, I wonder if its not generational. Some of the older donors that make the Slate 60 grew up in the early 20th century, or the Depression, when a college education was not as easily accessible as it is today. While younger philanthropists, who might have been able to take college for granted, do focus on anti-poverty efforts.

Disease research and medical giving was actually huge this year—our No. 3 and No. 4 donors both gave all or most of their donations to medical causes.

As for other causes, donors might not want to get political, or, in terms of international giving in the developing world, they might fear that their hard-earned money will end up in the hands of dictators or corrupt bureaucrats.

So, while I've shaken my head at a gift or two while working on the Slate 60, I try to keep Ann Castle's guiding philosophy in mind.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: The 1999 Slate 60 (Slate, Feb. 28, 2000)

_______________________

Reading, Pa.: Rachael: It's great to see those who are doing well helping out good causes. What percentage of the givers do you estimate are doing it for purely altruistic reasons and how many do it for the tax benefits?

Rachael Larimore: I'm terrible at math, so I won't venture a guess as to a percentage regarding who's being altruistic and who's in for the tax relief.

But I'd like to take a few examples from the top of the Slate 60 to make a case for the altruistic-minded. John and Karen Huntsman were No. 3 on the list, with over $600 million earmarked to cancer research and assistance. Mr. Huntsman has battled cancer several times in his life, and his donation seems like a striking form of empathy.

Denny Sanford, who, we discovered yesterday, had made even bigger donations than we'd realized, has focused his giving on providing health care in Sioux Falls, S.D. Excellent medical care is harder to come by in the Great Plains, because the population is smaller, and he seems very eager to provide for the well-being of those around him.

And George Soros, at No. 5, is very involved in his foundations.

_______________________

Omaha, Neb.: Warren Buffett led the Slate 60 list last year, I believe, because of his gargantuan donations. Was that just a one-time thing, or does he merely appear lower down on the list this year for donations?

Also: What's the difference between the two Slate 60 lists for pledges and for donations? Can someone make the lists in two different years on essentially the same donation by pledging one year and then following through in a future year? How does all this work?

Rachael Larimore: This year, for the first time, we decided not to differentiate between pledges and donations. But, to answer your second question, we actually updated our methodology to make sure donors weren't counted twice for the same gift.

What we do—actually, what the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University does, because they compile the list for us—is to track all donations from individuals, whether they be gifts or pledges, that go directly to beneficiaries or to foundations. We no longer count payments on pledges—to avoid double-counting—and we do not count gifts from foundations. That's also to avoid double counting. If Bill and Melinda Gates donate $5 billion to their foundation, we count that. If, the next year, they make out big payments, to count that would effectively count the same donation twice.

So, in regards to Warren Buffet, while he was far and away our No. 1 last year, he won't make the list again for any payments on that pledge. If he makes further donations that qualify, he most certainly would.

_______________________

Rachael Larimore: I'm afraid that's all the time we have today. Thanks for all of your great questions, and for your interest in the Slate 60.