Warren Buffet ends charitable contributions to pro-choice groups

Pressure from anti-woman (oops, anti-choice) activists in one of Berkshire Hathaway's recently acquired units has ended a program where shareholders may donate $$ to a charity of their choice. Many picked Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups.

Quoting:

"The unusual program—call it a charitable dividend—allowed Berkshire shareholders to designate $18 per share annually for up to three charities of their choosing. Some shareholders, including Buffett via his foundation, used the mechanism to give to pro-choice causes such as Planned Parenthood."

The recent acquisition was an outfit called "Pampered Chef", a tupperware-style organization selling kitchen wares via at-home demonstrations. Many of Pampered Chef's salesforce were "Christians" who objected to shreholder's distributing funds to pro-choice organizations. Their pressure ended the charitable-dividend program.


See http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ceo/articles/0,15114,465772,00.html for more

corporate based charity...yeh, private funding of charitable organizations will take up the slack from tax cuts which result in program funding cuts.

Should that matter? Probably not. However, this article sounds like only a thousand people forced him to change and cave in. Will he cave in that badly and put pressure on the candidates he supports on various issues?

SNIP...."(Coughlon numbers the petitioners at "less than a thousand.") By late June the pressure had become intolerable, and Christopher "went to Warren with a heavy heart," according to an e-mail she wrote to consultants. "It troubled him deeply that charitable donations from Berkshire Hathaway were causing you difficulty." On July 3, Berkshire announced the end of the charity program. SNIP

A THOUSAND!?

I doubt this will cause Buffett to drop his personal charity. the idea was that it was using profits created by people for causes they object to. Rather that try and find organizations that everyone agrees with, it's easier to just spike the program. sad, but reality.

"pampered chef" can start collecting funds for the social costs for unwanted babies..oh, i`m sorry their "christans" they can do what ever they want and impose their will on anyone because jesus is their savior...so they got their wish and now no one can donate to their choice of charities...oh well..capitalist christians...

sure they can...they just have to write a check...it just eliminates a transfer method...doesn't prevent anyone from donating to whoever they please

I've written a letter to Warren Buffet regarding this issue. Since I'm not a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder (can't even come close to affording one of those gems!) I doubt it will have too much impact, but Buffet is a very level-headed and sensible person, so I hope that after some contemplation he will reverse this policy.

There is no way a bunch of ignorant Christian housewives could possibly stir up enough trouble to bother Buffet if he simply throws the options for charitable donations open to a variety of pro-life AND pro-choice charities in addition to those charities that are not centered on the issue of choice.

Actually there is a way because these people are all morons and liberty haters to the last spiteful bigot, but balancing the options for donations would be the best policy for Mr. Buffet to follow because the onus is then back on these anti-choice trolls who are placed in a precarious position of opposing balanced freedom.

.

People who hide behind their deity of choice's skirts and hatefully destroy the ability of others to decide things for themselves are absolutely repugnant to me.

That this excuse of a human being is PROUD of dismantling an entire charitable donation program is beyond my power of comprehension. Correction: It's beyond the last point on the great human scale that I care to comprehend.

It is a very Republican point of view, though, once you stop to consider it: Whitebread, God-fearing Christian stay-at-home mother of 3 protests about the choices others have. That these others are both white and nonwhite, God-fearing and non God-fearing, Christian and other, and single, married, divorced, or widowed with anywhere from none to a many children is completely irrelevant: This is all about her selfish desires to limit that scope of diversity to only what she wants. Oh yeah and we can't forget the whole "screw the poor" dimension to this since most of those charitable donations are going to either make their way directly or indirectly to help those in need. Is it possible to be more worthy of every vulgarity, criticism, and condemnation than that?

I have a feeling that Mr. Buffet took this step to placate other employees like her at this time. It should be voted on by the shareholders at the next annual meeting, and, if the vote is anything like what we've seen in the past on such issues at Berkshire, this liberty-hating gal and all those like her will rightfully be squashed. Simply balancing the donation options would place the onus where I believe it rightfully resides: On the fact that people like her hate other citizens' liberty. And damnit, that is where the onus should reside, not just for her but for all Christian conservatives.

At least if you believe that such an entity would expect you to abrogate your personal choice for the sake of money. F*ck you Christian garbage ladies...I am throwing all the Tupperware in my house away! Anarchism is the only true system of worship!!!

and the woman is trying to not spend money in a way she believes is wrong...

she didn't want part of the profits she generated to go to certain groups...

would you want part of the profits you generated to go to the Klan or maybe some other group you strongly disagree with?

people are still able to write a check to anyone they please...

she doesn't want to restrict liberty..she just doesn't want to have to contribute...similar to arguements about our tax dollars going places we don't want...

I do understand your point and how the deductible mechanism works for the charitable donations.

My main problem here is that I still see it as a restriction of choice because she has eliminated an entire program that made it much more likely that more people would give to charity than in the absence of such a program.

You are most correct in your assessment that this does not in any way stop people from donating to charities. Just as the failure to pass motor-voter legislation in some states would not prevent you from registering to vote, it isn't the prevention of an end result that is my main focus: It is the restriction of choice by a minority that makes it less likely that many people will do something positive as an end result. Sure, there will be those who are altruistic through and through who will still give to their charity of choice in the absence of such a program, but overall there will be fewer people doing so than with that program in place.

I tend to think most people are fundamentally self-interested and too busy to do everything that they want; this situation creates tradeoffs and the easier you make things for them (like a charitable donation from your annual proxy), the fewer tradeoffs they will have to make and the more likely they will be to do those things that they might not do if it took an extra two or three steps otherwise.

have a good day