Bill Gates, Big Philanthropy, and the troubles they create

We do know that money can solve many problems—albeit not all—and at times it can create or worsen some, as well. It certainly can be helpful in addressing challenges on both personal and societal levels. Most of us would welcome the extra resources. Yet, big wealth, such as Bill Gates’s and that of his philanthropy—mainly institutionalized through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—is also a problem.

According to progressive journalist Tim Schwab’s 2023 investigative work, The Bill Gates Problem: Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire, Gates and his foundation symbolize what’s often called “Big Philanthropy.” This phenomenon is complex—a problem, a challenge, and perhaps even an opportunity—but certainly a problem that belongs to all of us, especially as American citizens who might want a democratic voice in how immense wealth influences public affairs. And crucially, we do not have to simply accept it.

Schwab’s critique, steeped in a left-of-center worldview, focuses on the anti-democratic tendencies embedded in Big Philanthropy’s arrogance and its mode of giving—patterns that clash with genuine charity. He sharply reminds us that billionaires like Gates, Charles Koch, and Michael Bloomberg are far from neutral do-gooders. Instead, they are powerful political actors who use philanthropy to advance personal interests and bolster their reputations, often at the expense of society and democratic principles.

For conservatives who see Big Philanthropy as financially reinforcing a centralized elite of experts pushing top-down, scientifically “proven” progressive policies without popular consent, Schwab’s indictment should resonate as our problem, too. None of us, left or right, should simply take this as inevitable.

Not who you think

The foundation operates more like a monopolistic pharmaceutical company than a charitable grantmaker, according to Schwab.

The Bill Gates Problem convincingly and comprehensively makes a case that Gates is neither who you think he is, nor is he who he wants you to think he is, nor is he who he says to others and thinks he is to himself. Schwab describes Gates not as the benign philanthropist portrayed publicly, but as a power broker, using his wealth to reshape the world to fit a narrow vision. The Gates Foundation is less a charity and more a political organization wielding massive influence over public policy.

This duplicity—claiming charity while acting politically—is not mere hypocrisy, but a self-deception with damaging societal consequences. The foundation operates more like a monopolistic pharmaceutical company than a charitable grantmaker, according to Schwab. Nearly 40 percent of its budget is devoted to pharmaceutical research and development, drawing heavily on Gates’s Microsoft legacy.

The foundation has invested $500 million in its own nonprofit pharmaceutical enterprise and gives large sums to for-profit drug companies, often holding stocks and bonds in those same companies. This creates conflicts of interest from which the foundation can financially benefit from its “charitable” partnerships—an evident problem.

By controlling intellectual property and aggressively defending patents, the foundation and Big Pharma work hand in glove, often blocking cheaper or better products from reaching those who need them most. Schwab warns this meddling can delay lifesaving drugs and vaccines from getting to the global poor—a deeply troubling scenario.

Though Gates proclaims the benefits of this relationship, the foundation’s track record on innovation is surprisingly weak. Its heavy involvement in the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this, with its influence eclipsing the World Health Organization (WHO) to the point that it lacked authority and capacity due to Gates’s rise. Yet despite billions funneled into vaccine companies, many in poorer countries remained unvaccinated long after wealthier nations were serviced.

Gates blamed factory shortages rather than patent protections—ironically, factory construction and staffing could have been funded by the foundation had it foreseen the need. This episode exposed the limits and contradictions of philanthropy wielded as political power.

A blisteringly disheartening education

. . . if Gates was willing to associate with Epstein to advance his global health agenda, what else might he tolerate for influence?

Schwab presents a litany of “counts” that further dismantle the Gates narrative. From dealings with poor populations, especially in Africa, to issues of race and gender, the foundation’s operations reveal arrogance, inefficiency, and opacity.

David McCoy of the United Nations University characterizes Gates’s brand of charity as “disempowering” to the very people it claims to help. Far from empathetic philanthropy, Gates’s blinded self-belief and disregard for the autonomy and wishes of the poor expose a “fundamentally colonial” mindset.

Conservative philanthropy, of course, is not immune to such flaws—arrogance, self-importance, and hypocrisy are universal risks. Yet the scale and power wielded by Big Philanthropy create consequences far beyond those caused by smaller conservative foundations.

Schwab also exposes contradictions in Gates’s personal life, such as controversial ties to Jeffrey Epstein and contradictory public stances on women’s empowerment. Even accepting Gates’s explanations, suspicions remain: if Gates was willing to associate with Epstein to advance his global health agenda, what else might he tolerate for influence? The foundation’s apparent inability to address these issues is troubling.

Gates’s focus on family planning is another sensitive subject. Schwab recalls Giving Review co-editor William A. Schambra’s past characterization of progressive philanthropy’s “original sin”—eugenics—which shadows much of the movement’s history. Melinda French Gates’s 2010 comment about “overpopulation” during a poverty tour in India highlights a problematic fixation on population control, historically a tool used by wealthy elites to restrict reproduction among poor and marginalized groups. Gates’s family planning efforts prioritize meeting targets and managing corporate partnerships more than supporting women’s reproductive rights, often narrowing choices to a single Gates-funded “option.” Such coercion is another dubious matter.

In education reform, the foundation’s promotion of the Common Core, smaller schools, new teacher evaluations, and charter schools draws similar criticism. Schwab contends the foundation orchestrates undemocratic, top-down changes both domestically and abroad, working behind the scenes rather than engaging communities—a troubling pattern.

Same temptations

Schwab’s critiques of Gates and Big Philanthropy offer not necessarily a mirror, but a warning to be heeded about the same temptations, including structural ones, facing [conservatives].

Conservative philanthropists also face their own pitfalls, of course, but rarely wield comparable scale to produce the wide-reaching effects of Gates and bigger philanthropies. For these conservatives, then, Schwab’s critiques of Gates and Big Philanthropy offer not necessarily a mirror, but a warning to be heeded about the same temptations, including structural ones, facing them.

As Schwab describes, the Gates Foundation exploits broad, loosely enforced nonprofit laws and regulations to avoid transparency, engage in political lobbying, and evade taxes with sophisticated legality. Gates and his foundation naturally consider all of this a correct and smart use of the system. Smaller conservative givers who operate similarly claim comparable justification, often adding that this is needed fight or counter progressive agendas.

Specifically, on transparency, Melinda French Gates claims openness about funding and outcomes. Schwab calls this an “odd rationalization,” since employees and grant recipients routinely sign confidentiality agreements, silencing debate. Moreover, “sub-grants” obscure ultimate fund recipients, with layers of middlemen like the New Venture Fund channeling money to left-of-center causes with little public disclosure.

The Gates Foundation also funds many other foundations that then funnel money further downstream, amplifying both political influence and opacity. This “Russian-nesting-doll” complexity helps Gates build an echo chamber of difficult-to-trace allies, essentially masking the true scale and nature of its reach.

Politically, Bill and Melinda Gates have given more than $10 million personally to campaigns and causes of both parties. The foundation itself has donated nearly $10 billion to Washington-based organizations, twice what it gives to Africa, signaling where real priorities truly lie.

The foundation also funds news outlets and expert sources that shape public discourse about its activities, blunting journalistic scrutiny and holding power to account. Schwab laments that journalists fail to recognize the foundation as a political power structure with inherent conflicts of interest.

Protect, preserve, and promote

If philanthropy is a political tool shaping public policy, Schwab asks why it isn’t regulated like lobbying or campaign contributions.

Though this anti-democratic power is legal under current nonprofit law, Schwab urges rethinking Big Philanthropy’s special tax privileges and political influence. Tax laws grant the ultra-wealthy enormous benefits for philanthropy; a single donated dollar might yield up to 74 cents in tax savings. Most observers estimate Gates personally receives a roughly 50 percent tax benefit, including low excise taxes on foundation endowment income. Some years, the foundation’s investments earn more than it spends on charity.

If philanthropy is a political tool shaping public policy, Schwab asks why it isn’t regulated like lobbying or campaign contributions. Across the political spectrum, scholars propose limiting such tax-privileged giving. Libertarian Stephen Moore advocates capital gains taxes on donations and caps on deductions. Populist J. D. Vance has called for removing special privileges for nonprofits and foundations.

To thwart these challenges, Gates and fellow billionaires have invested heavily in advocacy groups to defend their privileges, donating more than $500 million to groups that bolster philanthropic interests, publicize good deeds, and control the debate’s boundaries.

Gates is part of and supports an entrenched elite that enjoys near-total freedom to influence politics through philanthropy while paying minimal taxes and being celebrated publicly—an extraordinary entitlement bolstered by Big Philanthropy’s vast financially and culturally influential status.

Money, including nice big donations, can indeed solve many problems, and most of us would accept it despite potential complications. The deceptive, and self-deceptive, Bill Gates and Big Philanthropy also present problems, to all of us, as Schwab well tells in The Bill Gates Problem.

To the degree that efforts to conserve and enhance monoculturally progressive Big Philanthropy’s policy-provided prerogatives include conservatives who would normally stand and act against—and even more, would proudly and loudly say to all and believe themselves that they aggressively and effectively “fight,” “take on,” or somehow counter—it, conservatives in particular may have something of their own Bill Gates problem, too.

We may not be who we say and think we are, either.

Must we accept that?

Source: https://capitalresearch.org/article/bill-gates-big-philanthropy-and-the-troubles-they-create/