Philanthropy Roundtable Defends Donor Anonymity, and Critical Race Theory By Accident

From The Chronicle of Philanthropy

I’m always surprised a little bit at the hypocrisy exhibited by some of the issue advocacy organizations.  Take the Philanthropy Roundtable, for example.  This week the organization submitted its comments in response to a Ways and Means’ (the Republican side, at least) Request for Information regarding political activities and foreign funding of charities and social welfare organizations.  The Roundtable, a shrill for the anti-wokers in the Republican party, nevertheless relies on and celebrates cases and laws that vindicated human rights of God’s po’ lil black chill’un.  No kidding, the Roundtable thoroughly celebrates the abolitionist and civil rights warriors in defense of donor anonymity.  I probably don’t disagree with their position and I would cite the same cases:  

Throughout history, the federal and state governments have often sought to curtail this right when faced with the power of Americans joining together for a common cause. For example, President Andrew Jackson attempted to compel postmasters to divulge the identities of individuals supporting the abolitionist movement, aiming to subject them to public mockery, coercion, and intimidation. In a similar vein, in the 1950s, several southern states demanded that the NAACP disclose the names of its members and contributors. As a result, NAACP membership in southern states declined by 38 percent between 1955 and 1957, with approximately 246 branches closing in the region. 

The Supreme Court has responded forcefully to these unconstitutional disclosure mandates. In 1958, the Court delivered a unanimous ruling, saying Alabama (or any state) could not coerce the NAACP into revealing their donor information. The Court said such an action would violate fundamental First Amendment rights by exposing members and donors to “Financial retaliation, employment loss, threats of physical force, and other forms of public hostility.” With American society characterized by significant polarization and division today, safeguarding donor privacy continues to be an indispensable facet of philanthropic liberty. 

The Roundtable goes on about the targeting of po’ lil billionaire funded “right-leaning” organizations and it even throws shade on Obama — the President in the tan suit — for good measure.  Citing the Washington Times, not the Post by the way.  Somebody at the Roundtable must have forgotten about Lois Lerner because there are plenty of real newspaper articles about that. 

In any event, the Roundtable’s comments pair up nicely — perfectly, in fact — with Viv and Ron’s race-baiting campaigns.  So yeah, the Roundtable is Viv’s organization just like American Campaign Academy was Reagan’s. If DeSantis wins, the Roundtable will support him in ways that cannot and honestly probably should not be regulated.  Not by the tax code anyway.  What’s most ironic is that Roundtable cites history and precedent that might not ever be taught again in Florida and other places demonizing Black people for political purposes.  Cases that might generate guilt in God’s po’ lil white chill’uns and we can’t have that.  We should also hope that hell never freezes over, by the way. 

I can’t even define what “woke,” is and neither can the Roundtable. Theirs’s is just a reactionary campaign against the memory of a President in a tan suit. Nor is there any evidence that the Roundtable has ever read a book or a even paragraph on critical theory.  It’s effective but unsophisticated demonization of Black people. I’ll not be quiet about it either. Oh there are pictures of MLK, Jr. and Viv on their website, as if those two are similar like asses and elbows.  And they even feature some Black people warning of the sky falling because of wokeness.  Fair enough, we don’t all sit around singing the same rap songs anyway. But you won’t find a peep from any of the critical race theorist whose thoughts General Mark Milley decided were appropriate for study even at West Point.  There is plenty of free speech worshiping too, but you probably won’t get promoted if someone catches you reading Devon Carbado or Sherrilyn Ifill.  But who needs to learn why they are so afraid anyway.   We know the boogeyman when we see him!   

My point is that if the Roundtable and its preferred candidates succeed in their advocacy for laws against woke-ness, nobody will even know why the abolitionists fought President Jackson’s efforts to force disclosure of John Brown’s donors, or the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama could not force disclosure of NAACP membership.  But praise be for small victories.  Because the best evidence that the anti-woke candidates and their supporting organizations are wrong is that they rely on cases taught most often by critical race theorist.  Cases that will never be taught again if Viv and his Roundtable have their way.  Where’s the lie?  I just wonder who’s gonna save the Roundtable when the mob shows up demanding that it stop citing woke judges?   Thank me later, Roundtable.

darryll k. jones