In 2023, following passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies nationwide to better inform readers about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection Act has now passed in Kentucky, Georgia and Montana, and efforts to extend this legislation to other states continues in 2026.
We encourage donors to contact us with any questions about these featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent we may have missed.
This month’s Donor Intent Watch includes a discussion of the Carnegie Corporation’s decision to change its name, and an update on the WaterStone lawsuit.
The Gospel of Wealth in the Gilded Age
Earlier this month, the Carnegie Corporation of New York announced a name change to the Andrew Carnegie Foundation. Two reasons were given for the shift in nomenclature in the foundation’s 115th year:
- “To honor the founder of one of the country’s first grantmaking philanthropies” by recognizing “the role of Andrew Carnegie, the Scottish immigrant who established the foundation on June 9, 1911.”
- “To provide a clear connection to the institution’s philanthropic mission and scope of work, and to reduce confusion caused by the original name.”
Prior to 1911, Andrew Carnegie had deployed his wealth to establish and endow four organizations which continue to this day manifesting their donor’s primary interest areas: Carnegie Technical Schools (now Carnegie Mellon University) in 1900; the Carnegie Institute of Washington (now Carnegie Science) in 1902; the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1905 and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1910.
When he endowed the Carnegie Corporation in 1911 with a total of $135 million, however, Carnegie did not mandate specific areas of interest, nor did he discuss the values and principles on which his philanthropy should stand. “No wise man will bind Trustees forever to certain paths, causes or institutions,” he wrote. “I disclaim any intention of doing so. On the contrary, I give my Trustees full authority to change policy or causes hitherto aided, from time to time, when this, in their opinion, has become necessary or desirable. They shall best conform to my wishes by using their own judgment.”
It was an odd statement from the man who had so clearly expressed a faith in free enterprise, limited government and self-reliance in his 1889 book, “The Gospel of Wealth,” and it has enabled his foundation to explore funding across a wide variety of areas and geographies.
In broadening its interest areas, the Carnegie Corporation did, from time to time, utilize the open-ended mission its donor provided to extend its philanthropy to causes and philosophies that contravene Andrew Carnegie’s stated values. Les Lenkowsky noted this in an article published by Philanthropy Roundtable in 2011, the 100th anniversary year of the institution’s founding.
“Although it remains riveted on curing social and political inequalities,” Lenkowsky wrote, “it has come to regard them less as the unfortunate by-product of an otherwise successful and worthy economic system, and more as symptoms of fundamental flaws that require substantial changes to the system itself.”
In contrast, Lenkowsky maintained, Carnegie believed “The responsibility of the wealthy is not only to use their fortunes to help others, but to do so in ways that affirm the value, and enable others to take advantage of, the opportunities the United States afforded an immigrant like him.”
With a new name and a new logo to remind the public of the source of its philanthropy, the Andrew Carnegie Foundation has also launched a new mission statement: “Our overarching goal is to reduce political polarization through grants that support ladders of opportunity and a more peaceful world. Our funding provides individuals with the knowledge and tools needed to improve their lives, participate fully in society and advance peace.”
We congratulate the Andrew Carnegie Foundation on its 115th anniversary and look forward to seeing how the foundation which now bears its founder’s name will progress in the future.
Are DAF Recommendations Enforceable by Law
Earlier this year we discussed a lawsuit filed in Colorado by Philip Peterson, the successor donor-advisor to a $21 million donor-advised fund at the Christian Community Foundation d/b/a WaterStone. This lawsuit will assess “whether a donor’s or successor advisor’s advisory privileges—though nonbinding—constitute a legal interest that must be honored in good faith by the sponsoring organization.”
The law on this matter is clear. A DAF sponsor legally owns the assets in the fund and can decline recommendations. But is it reasonable for a donor-advisor to expect a certain level of access and authority, particularly when that advisor’s recommendation is clearly within the sponsoring organization’s mission? And will a court actually entertain such a lawsuit?
Peterson filed his complaint in Colorado federal court in January. As of June 21, the case is still active with additional motions due June 30. With DAFs holding nearly $330 billion, DAF sponsors and donor-advisors alike will be following the upcoming proceedings.
