Politico did all of us a favor by obtaining the publicly-reported 990 tax forms for Betsy and Dick DeVos Foundation. If I were a billionaire and had a foundation, I would give more to the Network for Public Education, People for the American Way, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Education Law Center, the Diane Silvers Ravitch Fund for Education and the Common Good at Wellesley College,the Breukelein Institute, and other organizations that sustain civil society. If you had a Foundation like the DeVos family, where would you give? I say, if you can’t give six figures, give the groups you admire $50, $100. Help them now.
To open the many links, open the piece.
WHERE BETSY AND DICK DEVOS HAVE FUNNELED THEIR PHILANTHROPY: Beyond the millions of dollars that the DeVos family has spent bankrolling Republican candidates across the country, Betsy DeVos and her husband, Dick, also have given away tens of millions of dollars of their fortune through a philanthropic foundation they started in 1989.
– Much of the billionaire couple’s charitable giving reflects their conservative political views and Christian beliefs – and looking at where they’ve chosen to funnel money may also offer some clues about the causes that Betsy DeVos may seek to champion as Donald Trump’s education secretary.
– The foundation’s most recent tax forms, which were completed several weeks ago and obtained by POLITICO after a request, show that the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation in 2015 doled out more than $10 million to a wide range of organizations – and pledged an additional $3.2 million in grants to be paid out in future years. Here are some of the highlights:
– The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation approved $400,000 in funding for Loudspeaker Media Inc., helping former CNN anchor Campbell Brown launch her education site, The 74. Brown said recently that she’d recuse herself from editorial involvement of her site’s coverage of DeVos. A couple of days before that decision, however, Brown authored an op-ed for The 74 that praised DeVos. The foundation also gave $400,000 to Brown’s nonprofit, The Partnership for Educational Justice.
– Success Academy Charter Schools received $150,000 from the foundation in 2015, with another $150,000 approved for future payment. The New York City charter school chain’s founder, Eva Moskowitz, who was also considered for Trump’s Education secretary, tweeted that she was “thrilled” about DeVos as the pick. The DeVos Family Foundation also donated $5,000 to GREAAT Schools, Inc., a non-profit charter school management company.
– The Potter’s House, a Christian school in Grand Rapids, Mich., received $200,000 from the foundation in 2015. In an interview with Philanthropy Roundtable, Betsy DeVos, who hails from Michigan, credited her visit to the school several decades ago as helping to spark her interest in school choice advocacy.
– The couple gave $100,000 to the nonprofit Alliance for School Choice, which works closely with the American Federation for Children, of which DeVos recently stepped down as chair. DeVos has also sat on the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, which was founded by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. The foundation gave the group $50,000.
– Conservative organizations: Betsy DeVos sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy. In 2015 her family foundation donated $750,000 to the Washington, D.C.-based think tank – and approved another $1 million in future funding for it. In addition, the DeVos’ foundation donated $10,000 to Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian law firm that has funded school choice lawsuits across the country, and $6,500 to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Inc., a group that promotes conservative viewpoints on college campuses.
– Colleges and universities: University of Maryland College Park Foundation, which has an arts management institute named after the DeVoses, received $500,000. The School of Missionary Aviation Technology, which offers undergraduate certificates in aircraft maintenance and flight and whose goal “is to equip men and women to serve God in mission aviation,” received $150,000, with another $100,000 approved. Ferris State University, a public school in Michigan, received $113,500. Davenport University , a private nonprofit school in Michigan, got $55,000, with another $100,000 approved. In addition: Rollins College ($50,000); Calvin College, Betsy DeVos’ undergraduate alma mater ($35,000); Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ($10,000); the University of Michigan’s Food Allergy Center ($10,000); Grand Rapids Community College Foundation ($5,000); Cornell University’s Weill Cornell Medical Center ($500); and Wake Forest University ($250).
– The couple donated to a wide range of Christian-related education groups, such as the Grand Rapids Christian School Association ($350,000); the Ada Christian School Society ($50,000), the Rehoboth Christian School Association ($10,000), and Christian Schools International ($1,000).
– The DeVos’ foundation also donated to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts ($250,000), where Betsy DeVos previously served on the board; ArtPrize Grand Rapids ($400,000), an art festival found by the family; the Boy Scouts of America ($305,000); the Xprize Foundation ($1.8 million) and a number of Christian ministries, churches and pro-life groups. Read the full list here.

Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
In this country, $$$$$ talks. SAD and SIC. Those who have little $$, have no or little voice.
LikeLike
So, to balance things and get rid os some rumor-mongering:
https://edtechtimes.com/2016/11/30/betsy-devos-busting-myths-trumps-secretary-of-education-pick/
LikeLike
Rudy, this article does not disprove anything posted on this blog. It doesn’t mention DeVos’s gifts to Focus on the Family, which supports conversion therapy for homosexuals, nor her and her family’s political contributions to homophobic campaigns.
LikeLike
The article DOES disprove things on this blog, Diane.
For one, she has not donated anything to Donald trump – unlike the statements on this blog.
She is NOT a supporter of Common Core, like statements on this blog.
Yes, she supports movements that are important to her from a faith perspective. YOU support causes that are important to you. And what of that? You may not like her causes, I do not like some of your causes. Does that make you a bad person because you support things I disagree with? Of course not! I admire people who believe in a cause and support that cause as well as they can.
And don’t go all Nazi on me now, and say that should be okay to support too, ok? You KNOW that is not the intent of the statement.
I don’t know Betsy or any of her family tree. But, as with trump, there are enough valid things for people to disagree with without having to invent new ones.
LikeLike
Rudy,
There is one thing about Betsy DeVos that makes her unfit to be Secretary of Education. She is hostile to public education. Like the Walton family, she gives relatively small sums to the local public schools, but her heart is with charters and vouchers, where she spends millions on millions. The report of the American Federation for Children that I posted a few days described as electoral “victories” the win of candidates supporting alternatives to public schools. No supporter of public schools got a dime from the DeVos political action committee.
I know you are committed to everyone being fair. So am I. I am opposed to anyone who wants to replace public schools with privately owned charters and vouchers for religious schools. So, please, Rudy, stop telling me DeVos is really just swell even though she opposes what I believe in. She is a zealous, ambitious advocate for privatization. I oppose privatization. Read those words over and over, Rudy. You just don’t get it.
LikeLike
Rudy, I live in Michigan. I think you that you are trying to distract with minor points of contention. I really don’t care whether she donated to Trump. And I don’t really care about her dedication to Christian causes. For that matter, Common Core is of no issue to me (but there was a time that she supported the Core, just not now).
I care about what her ideology will do to public education. And since I live in Michigan, that track record is pretty clear. One needs only to see the way in which the DeVos family manipulates state legislators through donations and primary challenges in gerrymandered districts to know the direction she will try to take policy. The Detroit mess is largely a function of the choice mantra with little to no regulation. And they fought hard to keep that regulation out even though a wide range of stakeholders, with different political priorities argued hard for that accountability.
So you can nitpick on a variety of things that you focus on that are relatively meaningless. The main point is that Betsy DeVos is not good for public schools. She has a vision that is damaging to education in our country and we should be prepared to oppose her on a grassroots level.
You probably think you’re bringing balance to the conversation. That’s fine. But you have moved away from reason and started ranting. Mostly about marginal points that are not germane to what policies we fear may be promoted. I’d avoid phrases like “before you go all Nazi” as well.
LikeLike
Rudy,
You are wrong on this. Part of the role of the Secretary of Education is to demonstrate the meaning of tolerance and acceptance for all students, including LGTB. Will she issue a bullying curriculum? Will she preach the values of her particular church? Will she issue statements denouncing LGBT youth as unworthy? Yes, it matters. Just not to you.
LikeLike
The best thing DeVos could do would be to send the money back to the states based on population. Let the states put it to use as they see fit. Don’t build complex systems where the money evaporates in a bureaucracy of administration and never makes it to the classroom.
LikeLike
I joined this blog to have dialogues about pedagogy, not political beliefs, agendas or metaphysical discourses. Yes, all these things affect pedagogy and public policy; I understand that. Yet, to point out ones’ apparent disdain at those who in their philanthropy choose to support conservative causes (which can be argued, or not, are the “salt and light of the earth”) seems pretty biased, and reveals an animosity against those who do question certain sexual behaviors and other “possibly socially destructive behaviors”. Do a study on homosexual health statistics and it cannot be denied that there are much higher risks of disease and maladies with those who habitually, or in a committed manner, practice these things. Whether one wants to call these “sins” and discuss them in terms of absolute morality (of which many still believe in) may be questioned, but one must admit at the pragmatic and utilitarian level some behaviors do produce negative consequences. We discuss the ills of excessive drug and alcohol usage, but when it comes to sexual choices “all is good”?
So, Ms. DeVos is a “conservative” and promotes her agenda. Don’t you Diane promote yours? And yet none of us are complaining about your liberalism, or lack of moral convictions, or acceptance of “anything goes”.
Yes, I don’t agree with vouchers and privatization and acknowledge the role of a robust public education; that discusses, debates and dialogues about all metaphysical/religious viewpoints. For out of these thesis-antithesis dialectics truths can be distilled.
Yes, many of those that are conservative are in the privatization camp, but then so are many liberals, and the president of the last 8 years, lest we forget. To point out only conservatives pushing for privatization, while ignoring forces on the Left is seeing and believing only what one wants to.
Yet, all I hear to often is how “evil” conservatives are. How we are a menace to society, just because we are not convinced all forms of liberalism are really healthy and beneficial to the long-term sustainability of societies (ex. Rome fell from internal corruptions before any external enemy conquered them).
I imagine there are others in this blog that grow weary of being called ____phobes, just because we question the validity and consequences of certain behaviors or belief systems.
Feel free to delete me from this blog if this input offends you, for I value this blog but not the bias that too often clouds it.
LikeLike
Rick, I would say that the conservative stuff is an ideology. Living in Michigan, however, I can tell you that the Christian material about DeVos is worthy of our attention because the faith dominates the worldview (a term Dick DeVos uses with great frequency) of the family.
The DeVos family is deeply dedicated to the promotion of the Christian faith. That’s fine. It is, however, a deep question that relates to the role of government and religion. Vouchers, for the DeVos family, are a way to direct public money into Christian schools. Read what they have to say about school choice and it’s not really about choice itself but choice as a mechanism to redirect public money.
Charter schools have hurt public schools but they have flat out kneecapped parochials here in Michigan. We’ve seen numerous Christian oriented schools close here and don’t think the DeVos family hasn’t noticed.
I think the Christian aspect of the DeVos philanthropy is fully worthy of inclusion in her background because it is, without a doubt, the single biggest influence on her school policy initiatives.
LikeLike
Good to know Steve, and yes one’s faith, worldview, lack of convictions, etc.. will determine how they view and implement public education. Yes, I know the De Vos family promotes their faith, as much as liberals and “anything goes agenda” promote theirs (the faith of nothing absolute).
I believe in separation of church and state, but that does not mean a faith-less curriculum. Exposing students to metaphysical/religious ideas, and letting them explore them IS NOT equal to the establishment of any one specific dogma. If it was then much of our current curriculum would be guilty of violating the 1st amendment (ex. the intentional exclusion or inhibition of certain viewpoints, or the promotion of only some views). The State can neither promote or inhibit/prohibit religious expression.
I DON’T agree with state money being used for charters, vouchers, private schools, etc. I don’t believe my taxes should be used in anything but public schools, in their pursuit of a neutral environment of religious expression. My taxes are not tools to make others believe as I do, or as tools to try and destroy the faith of others.
LikeLike
Rick, we are talking about far right wing loons and tea party types who are reactionary and want turn the clock back to 1929? 1829? They’re a menace and a danger to our democracy.
LikeLike
Just to cut to the chase on this, I believe Rick is a “young earth creationist.”
LikeLike
OOoohh, using labels and stereotypes. Such scholarly spirit, FLERP, What acronym can we know you by? So, does your materialistic, deep-time, evolutionism (of which a myriad of evidence falsifies, or at least gives one doubts that materialism is a viable origin model) disqualify you for making contributions to our dialogue (as apparently you believe I am)????
LikeLike
What’s the stereotype? You’re not a young-earth creationist?
LikeLike
If Betsy DeVos is a proponent of religious school vouchers, is that compatible with the creed of the US department of education? Maybe they need to find a more moderate leader. Or maybe they need a 3/5ths compromise 3/5ths of the public funding for parochial schools.
If a lot of the population believes in creationism, doesn’t believe in global warming, and isn’t LBGT friendly, how does it work? With gays in the military as policy, and gay marriage basically the law of the land, is your marriage invalid if you cross state lines? How to reconcile people’s fundamentally different beliefs under a loosely defined creed of the United States and have it function?
LikeLike
MUTUAL RESPECT, is how that works.
LikeLike
DeVos is still a more progressive pick than Duncan. Picking you male basketball buddy for a female dominated profession? How much more crony chauvinistic can one get. No points for Obama on that one.
LikeLike
None of this discussion would be possible without investigative reporting on non-profit expenditures. Here is a real threat to informed discussion of the non-profit sector, estimated to be include of 30,000 organizations who enjoy tax breaks for various projects and causes.
If ALEC has its way, the ability to access IRS form 990 and track flows of money to and from non-profit organizations will be eliminated . ALEC is the infamous corporate-backed American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC’s model legislation would prevent investigative reporting of non-profits.
Here is the model legislation, directed at the authority of state attorneys general. See also my comment below. I have eliminated a couple of the “Whereas” statements.
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NONPROFIT DONOR PRIVACY
WHEREAS, the first amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to the freedom of speech and according to founding father Benjamin Franklin “is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins;”[i]
WHEREAS, the first amendment’s preservation of free speech and assembly encourages open public debate, which is essential to the proper function of American democracy;
WHEREAS, nonprofit organizations are a primary mechanism by which groups of people assemble to practice free speech and express their opinions on political and nonpolitical subjects;
WHEREAS, the first, fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution have been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to respect that an individual has an inferred right to privacy under many circumstances[ii];
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama[iii] found that requiring the NAACP to disclose its donor list would have suppressed the rights of its members to associate thereby threatening the first, fourth and fourteenth amendment rights of individuals and the organizations they assemble;
WHEREAS, violating the privacy of individuals who choose to donate to nonprofit 501(c)(3)-designated organizations has the potential to pose a serious threat to an individual’s safety and well-being, chill free speech for fear of retribution and stifle subsequent participation in the political system;
WHEREAS, the United States has a committed history of encouraging charitable donation and Americans are the most philanthropically generous people of any developed country, giving at least twice as much to private charities as those in other developed nations. [iv]
…
WHEREAS, the US tax code and other regulatory policies have long been drafted to encourage private giving to nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, and charitable giving continues to be essential to the health and welfare of our nation;
WHEREAS, in recent years, state legislation and ballot initiatives have percolated across the states that violate the sacred confidentiality of donors to nonprofit 501(c)(3)-designated organizations, thereby posing a threat to the proper function of the vibrant U.S. charitable marketplace;
WHEREAS, state Attorneys General, including those in New York and California, have increasingly sought, and at times publicly disclosed, donor information from nonprofit organizations, thereby jeopardizing donor rights to confidentiality;
WHEREAS, the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts government transparency coupled with individual privacy is essential to keeping government accountable to the people and the people free from excessive government intrusion;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the American Legislative Exchange Council supports efforts to safeguard the privacy rights of donors to nonprofit 501(c)(3)-designated organizations;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the American Legislative Exchange Council opposes efforts to violate donor privacy rights by expanding nonprofit 501(c)(3)-designated disclosure requirements;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, state Attorneys General should not violate the privacy of donors to nonprofit, 501(c)(3)-designated organizations by making confidential donor information available to the general public.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the American Legislative Exchange Council, to the extent a state legislature chooses to proactively safeguard against the erosion of nonprofit donor privacy standards, determines the following statutory language is advised:
Section 1. Notwithstanding any other law, any entity with a charitable tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (or any successor provision of federal tax law) shall not be a political committee and shall not be required to file any reports set forth in this chapter.
Section 2. Notwithstanding any other law, this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state shall not require any organization organized under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (or any successor provisions of federal tax law) to file with this state or any agency or political subdivision of this state an unredacted version of the 501(c) entity’s Internal Revenue Schedule B Form (Form 990 or 990-EZ), any successor federal tax form, or any other document that includes the names or addresses of the 501(c) entity’s donors or contributors. This section shall not be interpreted as (a) superseding any reports required to be filed by political committees if a 501(c) entity (other than a 501(c)(3) entity) otherwise meets the definition of a political committee, or (b) otherwise precluding any lawful warrant for information issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(A) The documents, forms, and reports described in this section are not subject to public disclosure under this state’s public records laws.
There are four citations, some of them of dubious relevance
1. Refers to Benjamin Franklin, The Pennsylvania Gazette (April 8, 1736), not a legal argument.
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965) . This case was about two officials in the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut who “gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control.” They were convicted under a Connecticut statute which (at the time) criminalized counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. The US Supreme court ruled that the statue was null and void, even though the Constitution does not explicitly establish a right to privacy. The Court argued the “various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations.” ALEC seems to be saying that information about donors to non-profits and recipients of that money are somehow relevant to the right to privacy in marital relations? https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479
NAACP v. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958) This case was about membership lists requested at the height of NAACP’s campaign for civil rights. It was NOT about disclosure of contributors to NAACP or expenditures by NAACP. I think that ALEC is misrepresenting this case. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/357/449
Almanac of American Philanthropy, Philanthropy Roundtable (January 8, 2016) https://www.alec.org/tag/donor-privacy/
ALEC is really unhappy with attorneys general in New York and in California who won cases that required disclosures of donors to non-profits See details at http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/27970/ and http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/federal-court-rules-against-citizens-united/
States may have regulations on disclosure that differ from the IRS. These regulations are intended to prevent fraud (as in Trump’s non-profit paying for his self-portrait and other disallowed personal benefits).
See, especially p.25, and other references to “designated disclosure requirements for nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations.” https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf
LikeLike