As an article in this month's issue of the online history journal Common-place explains, good old TJ foresaw the danger of burgeoning private fortunes. In "Private Wealth, Public Influence:
The Jeffersonian tradition and American philanthropy," the author explains that Jefferson believed in breaking up private fortunes to insure that America didn't grow its own aristocracy. It was a radical idea both then and now. But it hadn't occurred to me before that this could extend to philanthropic foundations.
The author of the piece, Johann Neem, argues that foundations like Bill Gates'—no matter how noble its aims—perhaps wield too much power because of the massive amounts of money they control. Is this money even rightly theirs? Neem tells the story of a populist Democrat in the early 20th century who argued that foundations let the wealthy maintain control of huge sums of money for nebulous purposes. This populist contended that John D. Rockefeller's fortune came from "the exploitation of American workers" and truly belongs "to the American people."
It's quite reminiscent of the recent WaPo article about Catherine Reynolds, who made a fortune off of student loans through a "non-profit" organization. While it's laudable that she gives large sums of money to charity, why not give some money back to the students? As things stand now, the money she made off of students in debt is funding an enormous addition to the Kennedy Center.
Tuition and fees for next year at many private schools will top $35,000, and while as a PhD student I won't be paying that, many other students will. Paying for a college education has become a huge concern for many American families, but I haven't noticed many private foundations directing their attention at this problem. That's because, as Jefferson realized, such foundations aren't accountable to the public. The government--to some extent, although not much lately--is the entity accountable. Maybe that's where the money should be.
I'm not sure how Jefferson intended to break up private fortunes, but I agree with Neem's suggestion that higher taxes on the wealthy are a good start. Since that's not on the horizon, hopefully Congress's latest bill to help out will survive.
