I directionally agree with the second paragraph but there are some relevant differences in my mind. First, to the extent that a large donor chose to have their donation advertised (as opposed to remaining anonymous / confidential), they can be seen as making some implied assertions (which they may or may not be consciously intending to make!):
I am public-spirited / charitable / deserving of status and praise for what I did; and
Others who are public-spirited / charitable should consider donating as I did.
This is particularly true if they get the concert hall named after them or something. I think we need to be somewhat gentle, but I think we’re entitled to get our viewpoint out on those claims.
In contrast, I don’t think anyone who spends all their money on yachts and mansions can be reasonably seen as making these kinds of assertions. The stronger response to the ineffective donor can be seen as a means of combatting these implied messages; there is little risk of anyone misunderstanding the moral value of Jeff Bezos’ non-philanthropic choices.
There’s also the practical reality that the tax breaks for charitable donations in the US mean that the taxpayers (including myself) -- as a functional matter—pay for a meaningful fraction of almost any significant charitable donation to a 501(c)(3).At some point, that gives me somewhat more of an interest in criticizing what the rich donor is claiming the tax writeoff for than in what someone is buying without a subsidy from me.
I directionally agree with the second paragraph but there are some relevant differences in my mind. First, to the extent that a large donor chose to have their donation advertised (as opposed to remaining anonymous / confidential), they can be seen as making some implied assertions (which they may or may not be consciously intending to make!):
I am public-spirited / charitable / deserving of status and praise for what I did; and
Others who are public-spirited / charitable should consider donating as I did.
This is particularly true if they get the concert hall named after them or something. I think we need to be somewhat gentle, but I think we’re entitled to get our viewpoint out on those claims.
In contrast, I don’t think anyone who spends all their money on yachts and mansions can be reasonably seen as making these kinds of assertions. The stronger response to the ineffective donor can be seen as a means of combatting these implied messages; there is little risk of anyone misunderstanding the moral value of Jeff Bezos’ non-philanthropic choices.
There’s also the practical reality that the tax breaks for charitable donations in the US mean that the taxpayers (including myself) -- as a functional matter—pay for a meaningful fraction of almost any significant charitable donation to a 501(c)(3).At some point, that gives me somewhat more of an interest in criticizing what the rich donor is claiming the tax writeoff for than in what someone is buying without a subsidy from me.