I try and read a selection of newspapers and magazines rather than sticking to just one or two (although, of course, I have my favourites).  So on the plane to France I read the ‘New Statesman’.  www.newstatesman.com  UK current affairs magazine of the year, according to the cover.  It’s several months since I read it and I was most impressed.  I found virtually every article engaging, some quite fascinating.

 One article headed ‘Charity’ was in part a sweet report about Penguin suits hand-knitted to keep them warm and to stop them poisoning themselves by pecking and swallowing oil when they get contaminated.  Apparently oil spills are now rare so there are a lot of little suits and no oily penguins!  Another report made my laugh out-loud, not something articles make me do regularly, least of all squeezed into a low cost airline seat.  Shazia Mirza reported “Marin County is so rich, you walk down the street and instead of waving a cup at you (homeless people) wave a chip-and-pin reader”. 

I guess both these reports were true.  Then I read a review of ‘The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy’ by John J. Mearsheimer & Stephen M. Walt (Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 484pp £25).  www.newstatesman.com/books  This book has come in for furious criticism.   “Yes, it’s Anti-Semitic” was the Washington Post headline to Dr Eliot Cohen’s comment piece.  Eliot is a prominent neocon appointed by Condoleezza Rice as her adviser last March. 

Briefly, the article in The New Statesman by Andrew Stephen explains that the book (which I haven’t read yet) examines the Washington taboo on open discussion of links between the Israel lobby and US foreign policy.  It attracted an advance of $750,000.  It is in part an answer to  ‘The Case for Irael’ by Alan Dershowitz (which I have read).   

 Which book is telling the truth?  Or are they telling it like it is, so far as the authors are concerned?

What has this to do with fundraising?  Well fundraising is predicated on the belief that the money raised makes a difference by achieving certain (defined) goals.  In some case, a new Opera House for example, the facts are pretty obvious.  In others it’s impossible to know what the goals are, let alone if they have been achieved.

Let me give you two examples.  On the way home from France I started to read ‘Making Globalization Work’ by Joseph Stiglitz (Penguin Politics £8.99 357pp).  Quoting from the back cover: “Stiglitz gives real, concrete ways to deal with third world debt, make trade fair, heal the hurt caused by economic “shock therapy” and tackle global warming.  He also shows how powerful organizations such as IMF and World Bank can be made to consider everyone’s interests.  Another world is possible, he argues, and is not only morally right but ultimately will benefit all of us.”  Is this true?

 Example two.  Gates Foundation’s response to Malaria spotlighted in today’s The Seattle Times  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/malaria/2003897861_malariatanzania09.html  It pulls no punches.  Gates is doing good on a massive and impressive scale, like money is almost the answer, but his vision is challenged by those who say, in effect, what’s the point is saving lives if there is no water, food, education, or work?  Who is right?

I think fundraisers should sometimes be paralysed by an inability to answer these questions, they are so enormous, and yet behave as though they don’t exist or don’t matter because there are other priorities.  But if you’re asking for money for an organization on the other side of the world these are questions that reasonable  donors may reasonably ask.  “Will my money make a difference?”  “Am I giving it to the right organization?”  “How do I know for certain?” 

Perhaps there are no convincing answers, only short term solutions and more questions.  Find out for yourself, be informed, and tell it like you believe it is.  Is this enough?

Pambazuka is the name of a weekly forum for social justice in Africa.  www.pambazuka.org/en/  It produced by a pan-African community of some 300 citizens and organizations - academics, policy makers, social activists, women’s organizations, civil society organizations, writers, artists, poets, bloggers and commentators.

Pambazuka is one of 25 finalists (for the third year running) for the Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics.  I have voted for Pambazuka again this year for number one.  Last year it was number two. If you are sensitive to Africa you really should visit the website and subscribe to the newsletter.  If it’s the first you have heard of them it would be a little off the wall to vote this year (but there’s nothing stopping you!)  http://tinyurl.com/2yo3vy

Referring back to yesterday’s post, here is a serendipitous illustration. 

An article in today’s New York Times  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/education/09trustee.html?th&emc=th   illustrates in a very high profile way why we warn American non-profits to take very special care when appointing celebrities to their boards.  And ensure that you have suitable Officers & Directors Liability Insurance.

It’s been the same again this week.  Most of the meetings and conversations I’ve had with charitable organizations have involved, at some point, a discussion of the contribution that celebrities can make.  Almost every charity and non-profit has one or more celebrities in tow.  Some have a substantial list.  But the reality, as I understand it privately, is that many are high maintenance, and only mega celebrities guarantee a good turn out let alone generous donations.

Don’t Tell the Donor.com had Friday Fun with Celebrities yesterday http://donttellthedonor.blogspot.com/ specially at the expense of Bill Clinton.   I too received a Dear David email from President Bill Clinton who wrote to me: My new book GIVING How Each One of Us Can Change the World, celebrates the innovative efforts of many of the individuals and fellow organizations who are putting good ideas into action around the world today.  Does Bill really mean that his book really celebrates many of those putting good ideas into action?  Doesn’t he mean  the book celebrates “just a very few” of them?  After all, those who are really celebrated are called Celebrities like Bill himself.

Perhaps Christopher Caldwell (Senior Editor at The Weekly Standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/ a leading neo-conservative US magazine) also had a Dear Chris letter from Bill.  I do hope so, because Caldwell provides a fascinating diagnosis of Philanthropy, Celebrity and Political Power in today’s Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1675cf0a-5da5-11dc-8d22-0000779fd2ac.html   It includes a major side-swipe at another icon Andrew Carnegie and his “Gospel of Wealth”.  His article is titled Unaccountable Generosity.

Caldwell’s bottom line?  Celebrity can be a way to political power in a democratic society without getting the votes.  This absolutely isn’t the reason why the charities I meet want the involvement of celebrities.  They wanted celebrities to give them a more exciting and recognized profile in order to raise larger sums of money for their work.  They don’t see themselves as a stepping stone to political influence.

Fundraising is a business about relationships.  In my view, it’s a great deal tougher than most for-profit businesses because fundraisers are not offering financial rewards (in fact the opposite) and generally offer little else in the way of thanks, status, or celebrity.  So it’s essential to try and understand what makes people act as they do - specially wealthy people. 
Sir Tom Hunter is extremely wealthy by any standards having started with nothing much, and he’s dedicated to giving £1 billion away.   He sold his first company for £300 million when he was 37.  Now he works 50% business and 50% on his charitable giving.  His passion is helping children in Scotland and in Africa.  He is probably the most philanthropic individual in the United Kingdom where there is a record £1.6 trillion in liquid assets in private hands and private giving is more than £12 billion annually.
Giving it all away is a series of 15 minute programmes on BBC Radio 4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/ available on-line worldwide on Tuesdays at 0930 BST.  You can hear the first one featuring Sir Tom until next Tuesday 4 September.  Next Tuesday Heather Payton talks with Peter Moores, Littlewoods heir and benefactor to the arts.