Quote:
Originally posted by Christien
Rick, please read my entire post before responding with such a question.
"...typically corporations use money to buy influence whereas private donors use money to make improvements or to say thanks. I'm sure you can find exceptions to these, but generally that's the case."
I'll again give the case of Schulich at McGill. He came to the administration of the university and said I have this money, what would you like to do with it? They said well, we've been promising the music faculty a new building for years now, let's do that. And voila, within a few years Sherbrooke St. has a huge new presence. Apparently he's done this at several universities.
|
I read your entire post...believe it or not.
Here's where we differ. You think that a minority of private citizens have an agenda at work when they donate money, I think the opposite. I think a minority DON'T have an agenda.
I also think it's funny that you think that my using Soros as an example isn't proof of my position yet you offer up Schulich as proof of yours.
Let me make the point this way. Schulich apparently (at least according to Wikipedia) made his millions from running a pension fund management company. After he left he decided, quite honorably, to donate much of his fortune to various colleges and universities. Just do a google on Schulich and see how many schools and departments are named after him.
Ok, so let's say that McGill University was approached by a group that wanted to show a movie to the student body that said Schulich was a pedophile who made his money by bilking old people out of their retirements. Do you think McGill would allow that film to run on campus? Even though Schulich had no agenda when he gave the money, the fact that he gave it DOES have influence on the school.
The same thing is happening with Exxon in this case.