It looks like my instincts were right.
Now even the New York Times is taking a critical look at the so-called Giving Pledge, administered by the Gates Foundation, whereby billionaires promise to give away their fortunes.
Written by Theodore Schleifer, the Times article is titled “The Billionaire Backlash Against a Philanthropic Dream: The Giving Pledge, once trendy among the world’s richest, has come upon hard times.” According to the story:
The first signers were largely in the personal social circles of Mr. Buffett and the Gateses — bona fide American business celebrities who were greeted with adoring press. Nowadays, signers are increasingly based overseas or are lower-profile. Media coverage is dutiful.
…the rate of signers has plummeted in recent years. In the Pledge’s first five years 113 people signed; 72 in the next five years; and just 43 in the next five, including a mere four signers in 2024. Last year was a relatively successful year by recent standards, with 14 signers, including Craig Newmark of Craigslist and Drew Houston of Dropbox.
I was arrested at the 2023 Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ meeting in Omaha for raising the issue of whether Buffett’s philanthropic partnership with Gates posed a reputational risk to the company considering Gates’ relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The ridiculous charge of criminal trespassing was dropped a few days later. My false arrest lawsuit will soon be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis.
Much of the Times’ story is about billionaires who have correctly sniffed out what I complained about at the Berkshire meeting, namely that significant billionaire giving goes to pet social and political causes of donors, rather than real charities. As Peter Thiel is alleged to have warned Elon Musk: if he took the Pledge, his wealth would go “to left-wing nonprofits that will be chosen by Bill Gates.”
At the Berkshire meeting, I pointed out that Buffett had provided about half the assets of the Gates Foundation, which bankrolls a gender identity “toolkit,” the teaching of Critical Race Theory in public schools, and a host of other political causes whose proponents masquerade as charities. Those comments prompted a Buffett underling to interrupt me at the microphone and tell me to stay “on topic.” I appealed to the chair occupied by Buffett who told me that I may proceed.
I moved on to Bill Gates relationship with Epstein, the scope and intensity of which is now known to be far more extensive than was realized in 2023. My mic was cut, I was placed under arrest and hauled out of the building. Buffett’s lawyers have accused me of “inappropriate behavior” and argued that somehow the Gates/Epstein issue was not germane to our shareholder proposal for an independent chair. With Epstein and Gates in the headlines almost nonstop since that time, I have been more than vindicated. As Schleifer continues:
And that’s all to say nothing of how the public perception of one of the Pledge’s figureheads, Mr. Gates, has blown up over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. That scandal led to his divorce from Ms. French Gates in 2021 and her ultimate exit from the foundation, which administers the Pledge, in 2024. The Gates Foundation itself, meanwhile, is out of season in politics.
For his part, the 95-year-old Buffett continues to defend the Pledge, but his actions perhaps express much more. He has announced that he will give no more to the Gates Foundation beyond his existing commitments. And the Gates Foundation itself has announced that it will route no more money through Arabella Advisors, the left-wing dark money network that I also criticized before my mic was cut.
Meanwhile, Arabella has rebranded itself as Sunflower Services. As Schleifer notes, “The zeitgeist has changed very fast.”
