Tuesday, March 2, 2010
[The following is crossposted from JStreetJive and is a follow up to the previous post, Guess Who's Dining at CJP's Trough?]
A number of readers have inquired about DAF's (Donor Advised Funds) in relation to targeted grants bestowed by the CJP. Briefly stated, DAF's are charitable giving vehicles administered by a third party and created for the purpose of managing charitable donations on behalf of an organization, family, or individual.
Rather than setting up your own foundation, DAF's provide a means of charitable giving that avoids the lengthy and expensive (tax and administrative costs) process inherent in direct giving. Other than the basic requirement of fiscal due diligence, the administering non-profit may or may not reserve the right to reject targeted grants.
CJP reserves that right as stated on its website [PDF]:
"CJP reserves the right to reject grant recommendations for purposes contrary to its mission or to organizations that fail to maintain proper standards of financial oversight or accountability. CJP may request the return of grants that are discovered to be in conflict with its mission, or in violation of the guidelines in this section."
Moreover, as CJP states:
"Contributions to your DAF are irrevocable gifts to CJP. In accordance with the Internal Revenue Code, CJP owns the assets in each DAF outright and retains exclusive legal control over these assets for the charitable purposes of CJP. Donors may not restrict the absolute rights of CJP as owner of the assets. This is the basis for your eligibility for a federal income tax deduction."
These two paragraphs essentially say it all. "CJP reserves the right to reject..." And as "exclusive" controllers of these funds, ultimate responsibility for approving grantees resides with the CJP. Do cash grants to organizations like the American Friends Service Committee and Media Matters conflict with its mission? I believe they do. Let the debate begin.
I think the questions I asked in reaction to the previous CJP post were on point, so I'll repeat them here: "What explanation does the CJP offer? Does it benefit from managing those donor directed funds?"
Does the CJP ever decline to make the gifts those who originally gave the money would have them make? Is the CJP reluctant to say no because they benefit financially from earnings generated by those same funds? Have they never been called upon for an explanation?