The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age

Philanthropy has taken on an increasingly large role in society. The very rich use their wealth to help advance their agenda. This may help them overcome entrenched interests for the benefit of society. It also may allow them to put their interests above that of society. Campaign finance reform seeks to limit the amount of money people can contribute to individual candidates. However, there is no similar track to limit the amount that charities can spend to help influence the political process. Often this influence takes place through multiple channels, including "think tank" positioning as well as straightforward lobbying. Charitable contributions have become more dominated by the upper echelons of society. Not only can the rich "buy influence" through their charities, they also get a tax break for doing it. (Today with the increased standard deduction, the middle class is even less likely to get an explicit deduction for charitable contributions.
The author of Givers does too good of a job trying to stay balanced. He sees something wrong with the power of philanthropy, but provides examples of both "good" and "bad" across the political spectrum. Education is an interesting case in point. A $400 million donation to Harvard seems to be a case of the rich supporting the rich. However, this also helps supports basic research that would not otherwise be funded. This can benefit all of society in general. Wealthy backers have also helped push forward lawsuits against teacher tenure and first in first out. However, this was only needed because the teachers' union exerted too much influence in legislative policy. If the democratic system had worked properly in the first place educational needs would trump needs of the teacher union. (Professors need at least 3 times longer, and they are often involved with leading edge research that is controversial. Perhaps they need a test case of a tenured teacher spending time teaching really controversial topics.) There are many other cases in society where entrenched interests dictate policy to the detriment of society as a whole. The philanthropists with an interest can help contract these. We just need to be careful to get what we want. Michael Bloomberg lead a crusade to shut down coal plants. That seems like a no brainer that would help improve the environment for both mining and burning regions. However, are their ancillary costs that are being missed? What about charter schools? A lot of money is being pushed there, yet the results are mixed. Is this due to the population? Or perhaps the negativity from the entrenched interests? Or do they just not work? It takes time and money to really answer these questions.
There have also been many cases of "grass roots" organizations that receive most of their funding from single rich donors. This contrasts with past cases where individual memberships help fund organizations. Now, without a wealthy benefactor, it is hard to get your case across.
Donors also tend to focus on areas close to them. Hospitals that serve the wealthy get plenty of donations, while those in poorer neighborhoods are hard pressed for donations. The Ivy leagues have billion dollar endowments, while community colleges are lucky to have those in the millions. Liberal and conservative think tanks battle it out with each other.
A wealthy donor can also jump start research in an area of their pleasing. The Howard Hughes Institute is an example of an institution that gives researchers a greater freedom to focus on their work. Government sponsored funding often tends to focus on "safe" incremental work. Foundation funding, on the other hand can take the more risky approach.
One of the solutions the author proposes is to increase transparency so that we know who is the end provider of funds. However, he also mentions the advantages of anonymity when supporting controversial causes. (The NAACP in the civil rights era was a prime example.) There have been other proposals to identify certain types of charitable "benefit" organizations. However, that could be difficult to implement and open to all sorts of politics.
The rise of mega-philanthropy is most likely just another symptom of the rise of income inequality.