Talk:Donors Trust

Columbia Journalism Review: Koch brothers top contributors in 2011

Scott Illini Please provide references that contradict this content. Thank you.

The Koch brothers, Charles and David Koch, were Donors Trust's top contributors in 2011.

Chavkin, Sasha (April 22, 2013). "The Koch brothers' media investment". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved March 5, 2015. Charles and David Koch...In 2011, fully 95 percent of the Franklin Center's revenues came from a charity called Donors Trust, whose top contributors were the Koch brothers.

Hugh (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE I saw at Scott's edit summary the obvious response. Donor records are legally non-public information, the CJR article referenced this information to an article that does not support the precise statement. Had CJR actually gotten secret records it wouldn't merely be mentioning the information in passing. Scott Illini is obviously correct that this is a minor error. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that refutes the claim from the Columbia Journalism Review? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a ref, any at all, that suggest or confirm what obviously appears to be a minor and peripheral error in the CJR piece is, in fact, correct? Because right now the suggestion that Donor Trust has lost control of its donor lists (absent other media reports) is literally unbelievable. This is doubly so in light of the fact that CJR references the Koch "top" donor information to an article which doesn't support that characterization at all (hence the other editors referring to the error as obvious). Capitalismojo (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted due to obviousness, but to prevent confusion, please know that they reason there ARE reports about foundation donations to DonorsTrust is because the FOUNDATIONS have to disclose their own giving. But beyond foundation giving, no attribution is known because DonorsTrust is "not required to disclose their donors", per [1].Scott Illini (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can spike content because "they can't possibly know that, it's a secret!" We are not here to judge the methods of our sources. I don't think it is for you or anyone else to say a source is in error, because you think it is in error, absent other sources. There's you, then there's the Columbia Journalism Review, a publication of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Investigative journalism is by definition bringing to light things others prefer to keep hidden. May I respectfully ask again, please provide a reliable source that contradicts the contended content. Meanwhile, please refrain from deleting the well-referenced, neutral, conformant contributions of your colleagues without basis. If you believe corporations are people and our project owes corporations respect for their right to privacy, or if you believe our project should prohibit inclusion of results of investigative journalism, please pursue your policy goals elsewhere. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Focus on content please. You have not convinced the other editors here. Your assertion that this obvious minor slip, this brief aside within an otherwise fine article, is the fruits of academic investigative journalism? In the face of the fact that the author ref'd his material to something that does not support the bit? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully again request one or more reliable source references that refute the contended content? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that the key criticism of this organization is that it is the "dark money" ATM of the right (Dark money being secret, non-disclosed, non-transparent donors and donations) and simultaneously an editor suggests that in fact the organization is apparently not secret, that its top donors are well known and disclosed because of an obvious error in an article. If the top donors were indeed disclosed it wouyld be headline news, not buried as an aside deep in another article. Amazing. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact given this revelation from the esteemed CRJ, we should probably scrub all references to "dark money" from the article to comply with this amazing revelation. The org can not simultaneously transparent and famously secret. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me your line of reasoning would exclude all results of investigative journalism from our project, is that your intention? Donors Trust clearly prefers that their donors remain private, do you believe our project should respect their privacy? Hugh (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"the key criticism of this organization is that it is the "dark money" ATM " Our article makes no mention of the key criticism, and our article currently makes no mention of dark money, which is grossly non-neutral with respect to abundant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully again request one or more reliable source references that refute the contended content? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We journalists are, of course, obliged to cover the news, but our deeper mission is to uncover the news that powerful people would prefer to keep hidden. Moyers, Bill (April 7, 2008), On Journalism, The Huffington Post, retrieved August 25, 2015

Hugh (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From User:Filll/CIVIL POV Pushing Strategies:

Reliable sources claims to know certain facts which I believe are impossible to know. Thus, they are not reliable sources.

Hugh (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Dark Money: The Left’s unprincipled campaign against philanthropic privacy", National Review, not RS

Zeiser, Bill (September 24, 2014). "Dark Money: The Left's unprincipled campaign against philanthropic privacy". National Review. Retrieved February 7, 2015.

This source is an opinion piece. The author is a graduate student at Hillsdale College, described by the National Review as "the conservative Harvard." Any content drawn from this source is not only an opinion, but an expected opinion, and not worthy of note except perhaps in an article about the author or the National Review.

This source is the only source used in support of four claims in our article:

1. As a public charity, Donors Trust offers donors a more favorable income tax treatment as compared to donations to a private foundation.

 Done alternative source, alternative paraphrase, thank you Hugh (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1. ... by a group of donors and nonprofit executives who shared the common goal of “promoting our free society as understood in America’s founding documents. (direct quote in violation of WP:IMPARTIAL)

 Done alternative, self-published direct quote found, attributed in-text, thanks Hugh (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1. ... 70 to 75 percent of grants go to public policy organizations, with the rest going to more conventional charities such as social service and educational organizations.

• in-text attribution improved for possible bias WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Hugh (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Other Donors Trust recipients have included the Foundation for Jewish Camp, Families Against Mandatory Minimums...

• tagged with request for better ref Hugh (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully recommend we seek alternative reliable sources for this content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

<redacted obvious comments about hypocrisy in wanting to disregard an "opinion piece" (I would have called it a "column") about hypocrisy, while wanting to include opinion pieces with the opposite POV>

Points 1 and 4 do not seem controversial; point 2 would be allowed if DonorsTrust, itself, used those terms — unless you want to assert that the "opinion piece" is likely to misquote DonerTrust's charter. Point 3 seems to require a better source. Arthur Rubin (talk)11:48, 26 August 2015‎

FYI, I found a Philanthropy Daily source which reads: "DonorsTrust gave money to some public policy groups not known to be part of the right, including the Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation and the James Randi Educational Foundation. The Marijuana Policy Project Foundation received at least 10 grants...." I added it to the article as further verification for the facts above. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

conceal versus "offer anonymity"

@Marquardtika: - Looking at this edit;

I don't think this is the right way to phrase it. I don't think you give to DonorsTrust unless you want your identity withheld. Does anyone give to DonorsTrust publicly? If not, the purpose is likely just straight concealment.

Saying "offers anonymity" is like saying "a ski mask offers anonymity to a bank robber". While possibly true, it seems to infer that there's some reason other than concealment that a bank robber would want to wear a ski mask. NickCT (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a donor-advised fund, like Vanguard, Schwab, and Fidelity Charitable. It's an IRS-recognized classification, see here for more info. The anonymity offered to donors by donor-advised funds is a function of the way donor-advised funds are set up and recognized by the IRS. It's not particular to Donors Trust and is in fact true for all donor-advised funds. Marquardtika (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. A tax designation doesn't really describe what a company does, right? Like, there are all sorts of entities that have 501c3 designation. Some of them are "legitimately" involved in charitable activities. Others aren't.

Schwab isn't really a dark money entity. Schwab's raison-d'etre is to help overly rich people give away money. Donors Trust's purpose is to help overly rich people secretly give cash to political causes. Similar, but obviously different.

How does DT's tax designation affect whether what they are trying to do is conceal identities? NickCT (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The point is that by definition, donor-advised funds conceal their donors' identities/offer anonymity. That's what donor advised funds do. So as a donor, whether you give to Vanguard or Donors Trust, when those entities in turn distribute money to 501c3s, the donation shows up as from whatever donor-advised fund the donor used, not as from the individually named donors. So it's not neutral and doesn't make sense in this article to say Donors Trust is doing something particularly anonymous or concealing--they are just doing what all donor-advised funds have the IRS-designated right to do, which is to make donations on behalf of a donor, thereby allowing the donor to not be individually named as such. Marquardtika (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

re "by definition, donor-advised funds conceal their donors' identities" - Not sure that's true. My understanding is that most people use donor advised funds so they can take the tax benefits of charitable giving immediately, even if they don't have a specific charity they want to give to immediately. Do you have a source that supports your assertion? Many of the donations done through Schwab are public (i.e. the donor information is public). I don't think that's true of DT.

DT is obviously designed more to appeal to folks looking to contribute dark money. Schwab is designed for folks looking to take tax benefits. NickCT (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a helpful IRS primer. And money given to donor-advised funds can't legally be "dark money" as traditionally understood, because it can only go to 501c3s, which cannot contribute to politics. It's an interesting topic. But it's easy to veer into WP:OR. We should just go with what sources say specifically about Donors Trust. This is a good source and I don't think it's currently being used in the article. Tides (organization) is a good analogue for Donors Trust in terms of an ideologically-driven donor-advised fund. Marquardtika (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, you're saying your "IRS primer" supports your POV that "by definition, donor-advised funds conceal their donors' identities"? Can you point to the exact passage that you feel supports that?

The money isn't dark when it's given to DT. It's dark when DT gives it out, b/c after it's distributed by DT, you can't trace back to the original donor (i.e. the definition of "dark money").

There are plenty of sources that specifically use the word "conceal". This one for instance. NickCT (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful to talk about the specific wording. Your wording was: "Like all donor-advised funds, Donors Trust conceals the identity of wealthy political donors who do not wish to make their donations public." I changed the text back to: "Like all donor-advised funds, Donors Trust can offer anonymity to its clients who do not wish to make their donations public." There are a couple of problems with your text. Not all donor-advised funds "conceal the identity of wealthy political donors." All donor-advised funds offer the ability to give (to any non-profit cause) anonymously. And that's whether you're "wealthy" or not, and whether your giving is "political" or not (and donor-advised funds can only distribute money to 501c3s, which by legal definition, are not political). It's a defining characteristic of donor-advised funds, as I was saying above. Your wording of "conceal" sounds unnecessarily nefarious, as if it's not above board. I don't think we should use it in Wiki voice, when more sources use the term "anonymous," which is accurate and makes no value-judgement. Per the Inside Philanthropy source we could say something like "Donors Trust is a donor-advised fund for conservative and libertarian philanthropists which offers donors anonymity while promising to protect the intent of its clients in terms of how their money is used." Marquardtika (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

re "Not all donor-advised funds "conceal the identity of wealthy political donors." - Yes. You're right. That was a screw up on my part. I should have removed "Like all donor-advised funds".

re " It's a defining characteristic of donor-advised funds" - Again, I'm not sure this is true. For instance, do you know that if you went to Schwab and asked them to distribute a million of your dollars anomylously, they would? There's a difference between an organization that can distribute money covertly (i.e. one that is legally able to according to a tax designation), and an oragnization that does distribute money covertly.

re ""wealthy" or not, and whether your giving is "political" or not" - So you'd argue that non-wealthy people use DAF's? You'd argue DT's "giving" isn't political?

re " "conceal" sounds unnecessarily nefarious, as if it's not above board" - So, secretly giving money to politicians isn't nefarious? You don't think a lot of those dollars are just pay-to-play contributions?

re "Inside Philanthropy" - Ok. Well if you like that source, let's compromise and use the whole source rather than cherry-picking the word "anonymous". They have the following passage;

The two groups—which are really just one operation that I’ll refer to as DonorsTrust—made $90 million in grants in recent years to a who’s who of policy groups on the right like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute. DonorsTrust has also given to smaller, more controversial organizations, like the Project on Fair Representation, which has been the most effective group seeking to dismantle the Voting Rights Act. Additionally, DonorsTrust is the conduit for anonymous funding for groups sounding the alarm about Islamic threats within the United States, such as Clarion.

Let's say "Donor's Trust allows donors to anonymously give to conservative and libertarian groups as well as smaller, more controversial organizations, like ones that promote climate change denial.". Sound good? NickCT (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting it....you say "So, secretly giving money to politicians isn't nefarious? You don't think a lot of those dollars are just pay-to-play contributions?" Do you get that this is all totally legal? That's what I mean by "above board." They are simply doing what they are legally entitled to do as a donor-advised fund, same as Tides or any other such entity. You may not agree with it, but that's your point of view. And donor-advised funds literally can't give money to politicians--they can only give money to IRS designed 501c3s. The giving--which again, isn't to politicians--is not secret, it is anonymous. Looking back at your edits here, you previously changed the text to say that Donors Trust is a "conservative political action committee." Again, no. A political action committee is a specific IRS designation very different than a donor advised fund. The ins and outs of philanthropy and tax law are confusing--I used to cover them at a state level as a reporter--but I think you may be a bit confused here. Marquardtika (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

So things which are legal can't be nefarious?

If the ins and outs of tax law were confusing, you think you'd be in a position to understand them?

Look, you seem to be giving up on addressing the point. Probably b/c you're aware you're argument is shenanigans.

If we can't come to consensus, shall we simply RfC this? NickCT (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Heh, my argument is "shenanigans..." But you're the one who randomly added that this group is a political action committee (a claim that is demonstrably false) with absolutely no sources. I think an RFC is a good idea. That you personally find donor-advised funds to be nefarious seems to be hindering your ability to edit this article in a neutral and accurate way. Marquardtika (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, you evaded answering my question to raise another point. Let's try again. Are things which are legal by definition not nefarious? I'm sure during your time writing for some Houston toilet rag you encountered a dictionary.

Great sign you've lost an argument is when you start w/ the "this is only your personal opinion" line, in the face of a mountain of references to the contrary.

I'll work on an RfC. As a courtesy, I'll let you have editorial discretion before posting it. NickCT (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ouch, bro! "Some Houston toilet rag" ROFL. This discussion has really jumped the shark 😂 Looking forward to the RFC, may it include as many 7th grade put-downs as this discussion! Marquardtika (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

8th grade at least. And am I far off? I'm not familiar with the local rags down in Houston. What's your guy's equivalent for the NY Post or Washington Times? NickCT (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Only about 240 miles off--Dallas Morning News. Alas and alack, all good things must come to an end. Marquardtika (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess any paper with a few Pulitzers can't be too much of a rag. I take it you didn't adopt the "BUILD THE NEWS UPON THE ROCK OF TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS" credo. NickCT (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

- @Marquardtika: - Hey bud. Sorry for taking so long on this. Got distracted. I've drafted an RfC. Let me know if you've got objections. If not I'll post in the next 72 hours. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. Marquardtika (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Does DonorsTrust "conceal" or "offer anonymity"?

The consensus is to use the alternate wording proposed by Marquardtika: "As a donor advised fund, Donors Trust is not legally required to disclose its donors, and most of its donors remain anonymous."

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking at the section above; there's a debate about whether DonorsTrust "offers anonymity" to people, or basically "conceals identities".

Which one of these is the most neutral wording?

Current wording - "Like all donor-advised funds, Donors Trust can offer anonymity to its clients who do not wish to make their donations public"

Proposed wording - "Donors Trust conceals the identity of political donors who do not wish to make their donations public."

If you have an alternate wording proposal, let us know! 12:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• Proposed wording - As nom; there are a slew of sources that call Donors Trust a "dark money" organization (see Fox, NYT, Yahoo News). Saying a dark money organization "offers anonymity" to people is clearly euphemistic. Dark money organizations exist to conceal peoples identities. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Neither. To be clear, the organization both "offers anonymity" and "conceals identities." These are just two different ways to describe the same thing. The first is from the perspective of the organization making a pitch to prospective clients, the second is from the perspective of an inquisitive outsider. We should take neither perspective. There are a number of ways to say the same thing without taking sides. For instance, we could say that DT "keeps its client list secret" or "does not disclose its clients' identities." R2 (bleep) 17:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Alternate wording: "As a donor advised fund, Donors Trust is not legally required to disclose its donors, and most of its donors remain anonymous." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquardtika (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Neither - (randomly invited by a bot) This is a charged topic and neutrality here is challenging. Avoid words that ascribe motive and intent such as "conceal" or even "wish." I think Marquardtika has the right idea. Jojalozzo (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

References

• Neither per others though nos sure about wording. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• the Alternate Wording suggested just above by Marquardtika seems a good choice, tho just the insidephilanthropy link is sufficient--the MJ one has a polemical title. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Neither Alternate Wording suggested above by Marquardtika seems an appropriate neutral wording. Tchouppy (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Neither support Marquardtika's wording instead --DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Neither - (randomly invited by a bot) - I support the proposed wording by Marquardtika. If all Donor-advised funds do not disclose their donors, than it seems that this is being slightly redundant, (and to say "offer anonymity" would be inaccurate) though I support redundancy since it would help someone who isn't familiar with Donor-advised funds learn that this is one (standard?) feature of them. (I also liked the InsidePhilanthropy source as neutrally explaining that both liberals and conservatives use these types of funds.)---Avatar317^(talk) 22:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@Marquardtika and DGG: - So here's the problem I have with the "not legally required to" language. It makes it sound as though DT's hiding client's identities is incidental. Hiding its clients isn't incidental, it's DT's raison d'etre. Your wording is akin to saying "A ski mask doesn't have to reveal a bank robber's face. Usually a ski mask keeps robbers' faces hidden"........ That wording makes it sound as though the purpose of the mask is something other than concealment. NickCT (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

DT is not the only such fund, and, while there are reasons for using such a fund other than anonymity, it is obvious that people who want to remain anonymous will use such a fund. We can make no explicit judgments on why they want to remain anonymous. The rest of the article gives enough information for readers to understand. NPOC means we don't draw conclusions. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@DGG:- re "that people who want to remain anonymous will use such a fund" - Well that's sorta my point. While there are other funds that distribute money, you use this fund in particular if you're trying to remain anonymous. It's like off-shore versus regular banks. They both do roughly the same thing, but the reason for putting cash in one is often different than the reason for putting cash in the other.

I feel like the "not legally required to" wording doesn't make this clear. It's similar to saying, "As a happy coincidence, Nick didn't have to pay taxes on his lottery winnings b/c he chose to put the cash into a Cayman islands bank".

As you point out, we can't make "explicit judgements" about Nick's intent. At the same time, we probably shouldn't do anything to imply that avoiding taxes was not Nick's intent. NickCT (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) We ran into similar issues on the Panama Papers and related articles. We would up putting in a section on reasons someone might use an offshore account. I agree that "conceal" appears to make a judgement. I am not really sure how to avoid this without being overly euphemistic, because I agree with the happy accident argument above as well. I do not have time to dig into this but there are probably sources that go into the various reasons someone might use such a fund. Perhaps there could be a short industry overview section. Feel free to ping me on further discussion; I am interested even though currently not really available for serious editing Elinruby (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elinruby: - re "overly euphemistic" - Exactly. A lot of the proposed wordings are overly euphemistic. NickCT (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.