Inspired by John Kennedy, enacted by Lyndon Johnson, and expanded by Richard Nixon, the NEA has never come close to fulfilling their hopes that American government would invest in culture as it has in science. Indeed, since Nixon left office, the agency’s budget – now just under $150 million – has fallen far short of keeping up with inflation. Though it is the single largest funder of the arts in the United States, grants from local governments for arts projects are much greater.

Moreover, a series of controversies over awards the NEA made to artists and museums for works some viewed as obscene almost led to the agency’s demise. As a result, the agency now has to operate under several restrictions, including a prohibition on support for individual artists.

This record would not have surprised those who have long thought that practical-minded democracies would not give as much encouragement to the arts as once-aristocratic countries, with their more refined tastes. Even philanthropists, such as Bill Gates, are questioning giving money to museums instead of efforts to prevent blindness or other pressing problems.

But perhaps especially in a democracy, the arts matter a great deal, and not because of their economic value, which is debatable in any case. Rather, through the arts, citizens can find ways to express themselves, build cultural bridges across what divides them, and develop their imaginations. Over fifty years, the NEA has played a modest role in these important tasks, which is reason enough for celebration – and for doing more.

Sources:

Mark Bauerlein, with Ellen Grantham, National Endowment for the Arts: A History 1965 – 2008, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D. C., 2009.

National Endowment for the Arts appropriation history

Arts Funding: “Arts Funding Snapshot: GIA’s Annual Research on Support for Arts and Culture,” Grantmakers in the Arts, 2014.

Bill Gates: “An Exclusive Interview with Bill Gates,” FT Magazine, November 1, 2013.

The main criticism is that the Clintons have been trading personal or political favors for contributions to the foundation. The Washington Post, for example, claimed that Bill Clinton drew large speaking fees from foundation donors. Likewise, The New York Times reported that as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton helped a company run by a big contributor to acquire American uranium mines. The large amount of funds provided by foreign governments and the fact that the foundation spends much more on salaries, fund-raising events and travel than on grants have also raised eyebrows.

Chelsea Clinton and other foundation spokesmen deny any illegality and point out that its finances are more open to public scrutiny than those of most charities, who are not required to disclose the names of their donors. They also argue that the Clinton Foundation’s global reach and staff-intensive programs explain why just ten per cent of its budget goes to the organizations with which it works.

How much harm this latest controversy will do to Mrs. Clinton’s political ambitions depends on the voters. But unfortunately, facing collateral damage are the nation’s charities, which have been seeing declining public trust in how well they are using donations. The attention being given to the practices of the Clinton Foundation will do them no good.

Sources:

Rosalind S. Helderman, “For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity,” The Washington Post.

Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian uranium deal,” The New York Times.

James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Foreign government gifts to Clinton Foundation on the rise,” The Wall Street Journal.

IRS Form 990 (2013), Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Jesse Byrnes, “Chelsea Clinton defends family’s foundation,” The Hill.

To no one’s surprise, topping it was Facebook founder Marc Zuckerberg and his wife, who gave a billion dollars to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The list also included other well-known figures, such as Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and Nike’s Phil Knight.

But many of the biggest givers were people who are not household names, except perhaps, in their own communities. People such as William Ridgeway, an eye doctor, investor, and Indiana University graduate, who made the list by leaving $39 million in his will to the University of Evansville, in his hometown.

Most of the other donors also founded their own businesses. Only three inherited substantial wealth.

This underscores what broader surveys have shown: People who earned their fortunes are more likely to be generous than those who did not. And that’s not just the case for the very rich. Although the 50 most generous donors gave nearly $8 billion to charity last year, ordinary Americans gave 30 times as much from their paychecks.

What distinguishes philanthropy in the United States from giving in other countries is that a very large share of the American population does it.

Some argue that wealthy donors have the ability to contribute even more than they do, and that their gifts too often go to organizations—well-financed museums, hospitals and universities—that don’t need their money as much as charities that work with needy people. But it’s their money, and making donations to organizations that are personally meaningful has a lot to do with why they give at all, just as it does for the rest of us.