Craig Kennedy

Senior Fellow at The Giving Review and formerly President of the German Marshall Fund and of The Joyce Foundation

[[email protected] @alisonkilling]

NEW: Xinjiang has the highest detention capacity in the world, according to FT analysis - enough space for almost 1 in 40 people in the region - more than five years after the Chinese govt announced the camps had closed.

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/UasMjwvTlr

Michael Kavate, “How Much Does It Cost Top Legacy Funders to Give Away Their Money?,” @InsidePhilanthr

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/qqHphpycha

@GivingReview senior fellow @RCK52 column in @Philanthropy last year …

[Craig Kennedy @RCK52]

One of the smartest pieces on the current state of the nonprofit sector. @GivingReview @mhartmannmke @WilliamSchambra
https://t.co/5COR1IgJGx

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/Wz10L11dPD

@GivingReview co-editor @WilliamSchambra named to TIME100 Philanthropy list …

Schambra “knows his perspectives on philanthropy are at odds with a lot of people in the sector,” according to Nandita Raghuram in the TIME profile of him. “Schambra calls himself a localist conservative, meaning he believes local communities know best how to address their own problems, ‘and there’s plenty of criticism for the left and for the establishment right from that position,’ he says.”

Schambra is “one of the most prominent right-leaning critics of the sector,” Raghuram writes. “But his critiques of ideological elitism in large foundations have attracted interest from across the political spectrum ….

“Schambra has long argued that the sector, particularly progressive philanthropy, overinvests in expert-driven, ideological strategies meant to address the root causes of problems,” she continues, “but ‘under invests in the people who are trying simply to solve the problem as they experience them.’

“The right isn’t immune to Schambra’s critiques, either.”

1/3

[Craig Kennedy @RCK52]

William A. Schambra named to TIME100 Philanthropy list - the Giving Review https://t.co/H3fiQR3LUI @WilliamSchambra @mhartmannmke

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/eXRvlG6Tfo

Advocates are pushing for recognition of hundreds of segregation-era schools built by Booker T. Washington and Sears owner Julius Rosenwald

[Scott Hodge @scottahodge]

I had a great conversation with Andrew Heaton on the Political Orphanage about the Nonprofit Industrial Complex. So put on those earbuds and tune in. 👇

https://t.co/2pBpOZ5E8f

[Walter Russell Mead @wrmead]

Frankly, if Marie Antoinette were around today, she and her ladies would be growing heritage rutabaga varieties on an organic farm in the Berkshires.

[Israel War Room @IsraelWarRoom]

👀

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/Zqz0NFw91T

In @GivingReview, @jfloithaca remembers Karl Zinsmeister …

[Dan Senor @dansenor]

👇👇👇

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/lp8j79EqSW

@GregBerman50, “What Yale Got Right That Other Nonprofits Keep Getting Wrong,” @Philanthropy

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/AiV0kkohah

@GivingReview senior fellow @RCK52 thinks @timesunion’s @emiliemunson’s recent report on charities’ political involvement in New York should spark several responses …

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/KS5NaShqqm

This am’s EO Tax Journal, to which you should certainly subscribe, republishes summary of conversation between @BrandeisU prof. and Partisan Policy Networks author Zachary Albert and @GivingReview’s @mhartmannmke …

1/3

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/TPn1hUGyeI

Last month, @GivingReview senior fellow @RCK52 criticized a @nytimes article on billionaires’ political funding because it was “misleading in two respects. First, it ignores ‘dark money’ that goes through various intermediary organizations. Second, it ignores the role that groups categorized under Internal Revenue Code §§ 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) play in influencing elections. When you broaden the lens to include these two elements, a very different partisan picture emerges.”

In the Times article, according to Kennedy, Steven Rich and Mike Baker “focus on Federal Election Committee data concerning contributions to candidates, PACs, and parties. In doing so, they take a very narrow view of how the wealthy shape elections and political outcomes.”

This morning’s Times articles by @teddyschleifer and Rich well-examines the “gray-money” role of (c)(3) and (4) nonprofits in electoral politics.

1/3

[Craig Kennedy @RCK52]

Brilliant reporting by Theodore Schleiffer on how campaigns are really paid for. https://t.co/OjLFQEq67J via @NYTimesk

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/wFxKQonaWR

“A relatively new collection of liberal nonprofits—some with dizzyingly similar names, and some operated by the very same people—is playing a big role in this trend,” @nytimes’ @teddyschleifer reports, “muscling out consultants like Arabella Advisors that have historically dominated liberal philanthropy.

“Much of the Democratic dark-money story revolves around what has been the largest Democratic super PAC, known as Future Forward,” according to Schleifer. “But good luck figuring out how all of it is funded.”

There’s the Super PAC and two connected nonprofits, one of them “explicitly nonpolitical,” as Schleifer puts it.

“Much of how the money flowed from donors to the nonprofits, between the two nonprofits, and from the nonprofits to the super PAC, is not public. Future Forward said that all its money was used for its intended legal purpose.”

[Craig Kennedy @RCK52]

Brilliant reporting by Theodore Schleiffer on how campaigns are really paid for. https://t.co/OjLFQEq67J via @NYTimesk

[The Giving Review @GivingReview]

https://t.co/b2p01f3iOA

@nytimes article leaves misimpression about billionaires and politics, @GivingReview senior fellow @RCK52 writes …