The Truth About Celebrity Giving

Not much about the world of celebrity philanthropy surprises Stephanie Sandler anymore. For the past nine years, Sandler, senior vice president at the Giving Back Fund, a philanthropic consulting and management firm in Los Angeles, has helped celebrities set up their own foundations. Along the way, she's had first-hand experience in the not-always-truthful world of celebrity giving.

Take the well-known entertainer who was supposedly known as being especially generous. The problem was, there was no public record of it, and the celebrity didn't return calls for clarification. "It tends to be that if the people who are putting their names out there as being philanthropic really are, they get back to you," she says.

Welcome to a world in which it's not uncommon for a celebrity's pet foundation to have greater administrative costs than the amount of money it grants. Tax records from Tyra Banks' TZone Foundation, for instance, show that in 2006 it paid $35,000 in salaries, while distributing only $32,000 in grants. A spokesperson for Banks said that the tax form was filled out incorrectly and that the foundation did not pay board members salaries.

Keep reading...

-or-

View a slideshow of the most generous members of Forbes' Celebrity 100...

Comments

[SlippingInTheDip]

Notice how the Jolie-Pitts donate from the front pocket right to the back pocket...lol.

[LMPE]

What about Norman Lear? He founded People for the American Way (and occasionally contributes to HuffPo). Of course, that's not really a giving organization as much as a counter-Jerry-Falwell organization.

"Gilligan's Island" star Bob Denver, during the final few years of his life, established an organization to assist disabled people. I trust him.

[ohioan73]

I like to see celebrities being charitable. Its disheartening when you realize that many of them are using the platform of charity to elevate their image and are not putting forth their own money. I agree. That's an insult.

[luke150]

it's one thing to compensate the board, another to incur administrative expenses. Board compensation is much more restrictive. The IRS has a set of rules. It is not against the law to have lower actual giving relative to admin costs, but it may be unusual and can raise a flag. As long as the total of charitable contributions and "related" expenses to administer the giving total to 5% of average monthly assets for the year, that's within the law.

[curiousasheck]

Some think this kind of thing vindicates them from all the sleazy things they have to do to get and remain on top of their game.

[sophieozz]

High operating costs is typical of mainstream charities and foundations too. I gave a mere $40 to a charity last spring and have received several of their glossy magazines since then. My donation didn't go to those in need, it went to print and production.

[IzzyCA]

That's why I donate to my local food bank, 96 cents of every dollar donated goes to feeding people, they keep their operating costs to a minimum.

Now I check out charities before I donate. Some of them are just too wasteful, and sending out glossy magazines is wasteful.

[lioness39]

Plus paying the oversized and very grand salaries for their executive positions.

[lizziekw]

Evidently Oprah tops their list, with Brangelina, Rush Limbaugh and Seinfeld right up there at the top, which just proves that it's an incredibly stupid list.

The late, great Paul Newman is the KING of celebrity charity supporters and has been for years. Since his Newman's Own foundation will continue giving even after his death, he will continue to be the king for the foreseeable future.

[claptrapa]

"The late, great Paul Newman is the KING of celebrity charity supporters..."

hear, hear.

[claptrapa]

Ah, those faces again. Thanks h uff.