The IRS, I’d guess. I doubt that Sterling gives away money out of the goodness of whatever he has for a heart. You can bet his accountants have calculated how much to give away to gain the greatest reduction in his taxes.
If they want to associate themselves with Sterling, that’s their problem.
What’s so special about money that it’s exempt when it comes to ethics? The Ferrari dealer probably wouldn’t invite Sterling to his barbecue, but he wouldn’t hesitate to take his money because…why?
I doubt that Sterling can do anything privately and quietly now. Any donations he makes will be found out sooner or later.
This is surely part of it. While 3MM sounds like a lot when it comes to medical research it’s really not that much.
The bad feelings accepting the money will generate more than offsets the loss.
People who donate to charity can be just as fickle as anyone else. Some may just not want their names on a donor list that also has Sterling on it.
Shit, remember all the talk about Obama “palling around with terrorists”? Guilt be association is alive and well in the public eye.
Fraid not. I read the OP and the linked article. Kidney disease has been a problem in my family. It’s personal and I’d accept money from Charlie Manson if it could save people I love from dialysis. It’s a horrible way to live. Not just the treatment. The required diet is even worse than what a diabetic has to follow. Research is absolutely imperative.
So you didn’t read those who say that accepting Sterling’s $3 million would likely reduce the overall amount of money coming into UCLA for research. Does that change your mind?
I read it today. I guess UCLA can’t accept the 3 million if the public is that narrow minded. It’s sad they’d punish UCLA for trying to push forward life saving/altering research. But, nothing humans do these days surprises me anymore.
If the people who work in the charity field say taking the money is a bad idea. Then, I have to agree with them.
We aggresively go after grants at the University where I work. I’m not involved in that field. I do know what 3 million can buy. Basically the professor that wrote the grant proposal would get a lab equipped & setup and create grant funded positions for a lab administrator, assistants, and a few graduate positions. 3 Million can fund salaries for several years of research. Then you have to try and get another grant.
This is all about protecting your brand, your organization’s reputation. UCLA’s reputation is not worth risking for $3M, and everyone know he is using a large donation made very publicly to a well-known organization to polish up his own very damaged reputation.
I’ve been in the position twice of proposing that significant gifts be politely returned. Most NPO’s of any size have a gift acceptance policy, and that policy may include turning down a gift from an individual or organization who would be considered repugnant to your Board, membership, and major donors. I would guess this was a no-brainer for the Board of Trustees, but they almost certainly polled at least some of their major donors to get a read before sending back a resounding no.