The Dreaded “Corporate Foundation”

As promised, more on the SOS Rally in my latest TNR column.

One phrase that got thrown around a lot at the rally was “corporate foundation,” with the word “corporate” being used as a catch-all insult along the lines of “dastardly” or “scum-sucking.” This seems to be a trend in anti-school reform talking points. I expected to hear this kind of rhetoric from the socialists and communists in the crowd–and to be clear, these were actual socialists and communists, complete with Lenin biographies and so forth, not “socialists and communists” as commonly defined in 2011 i.e. “people who believe in progressive taxation and the regulation of banks.” It’s disappointing that the rhetoric has become so simplistic. And it’s worth noting that the phrase “corporate foundation” has a specific meaning. For example, the ExxonMobil Foundation gives money to lots of charitable causes. That’s a corporate foundation, ultimately accountable to owners and shareholders. When ExxonMobil underwrites “Masterpiece Theatre,” it contributes to the culture but also gets p.r. benefits that help mitigate some of the less popular aspects of being a gigantic energy conglomerate. By contrast, the Carnegie Corporation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Century Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and many others are independent non-profit foundations that got their money from rich people who founded large corporations. There’s a difference. The politics of Henry Ford and the interests of the Ford Motor Company are by no means aligned with the strategies put forth by the Ford Foundation.