The name of Oprah Winfrey, the world's first black female billionaire, was conspicuously absent from the Midas list of do-gooders released this week by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who have dragooned their billionaire brethren into promising to give away half their fortune. Mr. Buffett has said he intends to call Ms. Winfrey about making a public commitment to this philanthropic endeavor, and while I'm sure the conversation will be more than cordial, I'll wager that the lady in question, whose net worth is $2.4 billion, will be unresponsive.
After all, Oprah Winfrey has already established herself as a beloved American icon and does not need the P.R. boost that will bestow the 40 financial titans who have signed "The Giving Pledge" to share their riches with those less fortunate. But more importantly, Oprah would never voluntarily put herself on the public watch list that will dog the dollars of these philanthropists down to their last decimal, reporting on how much they donate, to whom, when and why. Diane Sawyer has already announced on ABC World News: "We'll be watching." Such public scrutiny is loathsome to someone as controlling as Oprah who has kept her finances as private as possible.
Yet, unlike some of the Buffett-Gates givers, she has publicized her philanthropy over the years through press conferences, interviews and her daily talk show. Her giving in the early years of her career was minimal -- less than 10 percent of her incredible income -- but in 1998 she began increasing her charitable contributions and making more sizable donations to her charitable foundation:
Her biggest contribution is to her $40 million school in South Africa, The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls, which she supports through the Oprah Winfrey Foundation. She has said that the school will be her legacy. She decided long ago to make her philanthropic investment in South Africa rather than America, where she said poor children did not appreciate education.
"I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going," Oprah said. "The sense that you need to learn just isn't there. If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
While many applauded Oprah for opening her heart to young girls in South Africa, some criticized her for not investing in the youth of America. "I find it interesting that white people are concerned about me educating black girls," she said. When the chorus of carps continued, Oprah spoke sharply to all her critics in an interview with BET: "To hell with your criticism," she said. "I don't care what you have to say about what I did. I did it."
As you can see from the chart below, Oprah contributed 7.75 percent of her income over the last few years to her school:
A few months after opening in 2007, Oprah's Leadership Academy became mired in scandal. Seven students were expelled for lesbian liaisons, and criminal charges were lodged against a dorm matron on fourteen counts of sexual abuse and abasement of students. The trial continues to drag on in Johannesburg.
To date, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have received commitments from 40 people to sign "The Giving Pledge," eleven of whom are not even billionaires or listed on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, but are well-known for their philanthropy. Oprah, who has made every money list imaginable, and is revered for her good works, has yet to sign. Perhaps Mr. Buffett will be able to persuade her to join philanthropist David Rockefeller, New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, entertainment executive Barry Diller, Oracle's co-founder Larry Ellison, energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, media mogul Ted Turner, film director George Lucas and investor Ron Perelman. But odds are that this is one club Oprah does not want to join.
Follow Kitty Kelley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KittyKelley
As an aside, none of those men give away their money to charities. They just move it from their household account into another account which they control, which they name their "charity" account. As long as they pay out 5%/year of that money, they don't have to pay income tax on any of the money they put into the charity account, up to 1/2 of their gross income. It isn't really a charity -- it's a tax con. That's what Gates does, Buffet, Bloomburg, Clinton -- all of them. If they really wanted to help the poor, they would give the money to established charities such as Doctors Without Borders. But they don't. They keep the money and just pretend they are philanthropists.
Helped pave way for women, minorities, the overweight
Broke silence on sexual abuse
Popularized provocative day time talk which broke taboos and helped make gays mainstream (see the book FREAKS TALK BACK)
Helped put a black family in the white house
Supported Ellen DeGenres when she came out of the closet, playing the therapist on her show at a time when it was extremely controversial
Made Nate Berkus the first openly gay host of a reality show, now making him the first openly gay male syndicated talk show host
Made Dr. Oz the first Arab American talk show host, with a show that focuses on preventative health care which will save lives and reduce health care costs
Helped turn Chicago into a thriving media market, and a hot spot for celebs and tourist
Sent 250 black men through college
Challenged religion by promoting inclusive secular forms of spirituality like the book "A New Earth"
Encourages people to stop texting and driving
Got millions to read more, many of them mothers who pass the influence on to kids
Built homes in New Orleans after Katrina with the help of viewers and personally donated $10 million.
Supports inner city school that is making a difference (Ron Clark academy)
Created thousands of jobs
Brought quality black literature to the screen and Broadway
Gave government hundreds of millions in taxes
Bringing Rosie back to TV
Helped pass a law through congress to combat child abuse
Inspired many to be more generous
You've nothing to give, in financial, factual, literary or intellectual terms; and I say that having waded through one of her worthless tomes.
LOL!
Maybe Oprah feels lonely with so few other "blacks" eligible to join the club because our nation's heinous history of racism, white supremacy and discrimination have kept us from competing equally for financial success.
But I do think that anyone who has made billions (or even millions) should feel the need to share most of his/her wealth with the people of the nation that makes his/her privileged lives possible. After all, without the folks who comprise the military, the citizens who vote, the teachers and the educational system, the doctors, lawyers and scientists, the artists, the police, the cabdrivers, ditch diggers, maids, tech geeks, etc.. and all of us who support the ideals of our (admittedly flawed) democratic-republic, how much of "their" wealth would they be able to make and enjoy in peace?
I think it's way past time for the biggest beneficiaries of the American Dream to help alleviate the American Nightmare so many of their fellow Americans are living.
Don't you?
http://buythecover.com
http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual_2008/?chan=magazine+channel_special+report
By contrast, I don't think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give anywhere near 50% of their income to taxes, because their income tends to come from capital gains (unlike Oprah who gets money from producing and hosting a show) and the tax rate on capital gains is much less. It's great that they are encouraging philanthropy (though I would rather they encouraged higher tax rates for themselves) however over 90% of American billionaires haven't joined their movement so to see the only African American billionaire singled out for scrutiny, judgment and investigation is extremely disturbing.
Why in the world is she talking about Oprah's financial situation? What Oprah has done is charity in action. Her very name = giving.
Come on Kitty time to find another gig!
She sure is a gossip queen. Trying to align her name with the rich and famous.
Who agrees with me? Who would want to have Kitty Kelly over for dinner? :-)
Ed
As for charitable giving, Oprah makes sure every dime she hands out is publicized from the rooftops. By the way, her carbon footprint is the size of the western hemisphere.
Oprah went along with the Iraq War and said little or nothing about the known excesses of
the Bush-Cheney Gang. I wouldn't be surprised if Oprah plays: I've got mine, you get yours!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hoYisRDBWI
Then 48 hours before the war began, Oprah did another anti-war show with Michael Moore and middle eastern professor Fawas Gergez. This was incredibly brave of her given the political climate at the time and the corporate interests she's beholden too.
In just one day Oprah does more to benefit humanity than you have ever done in your whole miserable existence.
Consider yourself fanned.
Why would Kitty Kelley intrude upon Ms. Winfrey's personal life? I do not own a television, nor have I ever seen the Oprah Winfrey show but from all I have heard she is compassionate, appealing and has been eminently helpful to others. Kitty Kelley (from that which I understand) decided to make Ms. Winfrey her focus as she is presumably the most celebrated and adulated figure in American culture, today, but also because she is notoriously private about her life.
That which I do not understand is why should one not be entitled to keeping one's life private if one wishes to do so. It would, perhaps, be one thing were she a hypocritical politician who presented one face to the body politic in legislative acts while privately living an entirely distinct existence. We can all think of such examples. But Ms. Winfrey is not of that ilk: to the contrary she has been very open about her struggles and her flaws. She demonstrates empathy and connection with her guests from all that I have read, and has brought the country's attention to many salient issues of the day.
And so she wants to retain some privacy? Where is the harm in this?
We have become a culture of cameras, of prying into others' personal lives with no sense of shame or constraint. In fact these intrusions are celebrated and remunerated. Why?
lets look at some of the other forbes 400 and see how much they donate.
230 million so far in her life is not a small amount
and also, many of the others in the club are at a stage in their lives where they are closer to retirement and are not actively building a business or building their wealth still. oprah has a long way to go and we have no idea what she will do next. she may need to invest to try and make more in the future
i don't see how it is a fair and balanced criticism to compare oprah to the others. oprah has a long way to go. we can discuss what she did or didn't do when she is older and slowing down and has turned into a semi retired philanthropist like gates, turner, and lucas
larry ellison and pickens are an entirely other category of wealthy. they have billions to spare. and they aren't the product they sell anyway. oprah needs to work to continue to make money. she is the product. she is busy.
we can talk about oprah's deeds in 20 years
so far, i find what she has done impressive and laudable. 130 million dollars for a school for poor kids in africa is heroic
http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual_2008/?chan=magazine+channel_special+report
she didn't ship people here to send them to school
and also, i'm sure her people get paid a good salary. i have never heard otherwise. in fact, the few times i saw things mentioned people said that she gives big bonuses to the people that work for her
so if you want to clarify what you are referring to, perhaps we can understand better
I don't see Donald Trump there, either - why pick on just Oprah??
oprah is getting disproportionate criticism
all this and comparing her to an older set of billionaires that are getting closer to retirement and have made most of the businesses they are ever going to make.
bill gates is not going to start another company. oprah might. she may need to invest a few hundred million in the new company. who knows
and all of this towards someone that has already donated 230 million dollars
i'm going to wait until she gets older and starts winding down her professional life before criticizing her
PLUS notice one thing. those other people have "pledged" to donate half their fortune before death. she has actual donated the 230 million so far
all she has indicated is that she doesn't want to be part of this club. she never said she is going to start hording her money just for herself. she just doesn't feel like answering to these people