I just posted the CC policy as an example of a donor screening policy, and by posting it I donât necessarily endorse its exact contents. As you helpfully pointed out, the terms of this policy could be overbroad and burdensome, and would have to be adapted to the different context in which EA orgs operate.
âa $10k donation from a Palantir employee would simply be totally prohibitedâ
First, many EAs donate a lot more money ($1-10k/âyear) than the average non-EA donor, so $10k would likely be on the high end for a gift to CC but typical for an EA org. So I think the threshold for an EA org to scrutinize a donor should be much higher than CCâs threshold - $50-100k might be appropriate.
Second, by âtotally prohibitedâ I think you are referring to the section on exclusionary criteria. The most relevant criteria for your Palantir example might be these ones:
the Donorâs involvement in:
The manufacture or sale of arms, including any direct or indirect involvement in the manufacture or sale of illegal or controversial weapons;
International crimes; this encompasses International crimes as defined in treaty and customary law, which include violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and violations of International Human Rights Law (IHRL), such as crimes against humanity, genocide, torture; as well as other international crimes such as piracy, transnational organized crime, human trafficking, financing of terrorism, amongst others;
Even if taken literally, this would only apply to Palantir employees who work directly on weapons systems or any software that is being used to commit violations of international law (such as war crimes). Palantir has branches that work with the private sector, and most employees there would likely be exempt.
That said, if it applied to literally all employees who worked on a particular project at Palantir, itâs probably too broad. Taking money from rank-and-file employees of Palantir (or any large tech company) is unlikely to bring CC into disrepute, but taking money from a senior executive might. (That said, there is a group trying to disparage the events startup Partiful based on its founding employeesâ connections to Palantir, though itâs hard to say how much influence they will have.)
Decisions are taken after thorough examination of such Donation [emphasis added]
As @huw suggested in another comment, this could be outsourced to an organization or team that can do centralized donor vetting and risk scoring for the whole EA community. Impact Ops comes to mind.
I just posted the CC policy as an example of a donor screening policy, and by posting it I donât necessarily endorse its exact contents. As you helpfully pointed out, the terms of this policy could be overbroad and burdensome, and would have to be adapted to the different context in which EA orgs operate.
First, many EAs donate a lot more money ($1-10k/âyear) than the average non-EA donor, so $10k would likely be on the high end for a gift to CC but typical for an EA org. So I think the threshold for an EA org to scrutinize a donor should be much higher than CCâs threshold - $50-100k might be appropriate.
Second, by âtotally prohibitedâ I think you are referring to the section on exclusionary criteria. The most relevant criteria for your Palantir example might be these ones:
Even if taken literally, this would only apply to Palantir employees who work directly on weapons systems or any software that is being used to commit violations of international law (such as war crimes). Palantir has branches that work with the private sector, and most employees there would likely be exempt.
That said, if it applied to literally all employees who worked on a particular project at Palantir, itâs probably too broad. Taking money from rank-and-file employees of Palantir (or any large tech company) is unlikely to bring CC into disrepute, but taking money from a senior executive might. (That said, there is a group trying to disparage the events startup Partiful based on its founding employeesâ connections to Palantir, though itâs hard to say how much influence they will have.)
As @huw suggested in another comment, this could be outsourced to an organization or team that can do centralized donor vetting and risk scoring for the whole EA community. Impact Ops comes to mind.