[Foundation-l] Directed donations

[Delirium]

Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

>The better solution is simple: total transparency.  It's something
>we've always been pretty good at, and that we are uniquely suited to
>provide.  We should simply guarantee that every penny we spend for
>any reason is listed on reports that we publish to the world
>frequently and archive indefinitely.  Anyone who wants to know how
>his money will be spent can just look to see how our money /has been/
>spent; if he likes that, he can donate.  If he doesn't, he can tell
>us why and suggest how me might improve.  But in either case, he
>has total control, and /informed/ control, and in a way that doesn't
>interfere with our management needs.
>  
>
I agree this is something we should have, but I don't think directed 
donations are mutually exclusive.  In many cases, people simply like the 
option, and will not actually take it---if the organization looks 
well-run, such that they trust that it knows how to spend money well, 
people will be willing to donate funds for "unrestricted use" or 
"general fund" or something of that sort, even if given an option to 
donate specifically to something else.  But it may pull in other 
donations from people who want to fund specific things.  We already 
accept such donations from large institutions in the form of grants for 
a specific purpose; why not give individual donors the same option?

(I know I personally would not donate to my alma mater if I could not 
earmark the funds for a specific purpose, because I disagree with some 
of the things they spend their money on.)

-Mark