Robert Reich is a political commentator (as well as a professor, author and lawyer) who brings deep knowledge of the American system having worked in the administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter, Clinton and Obama. I signed up to his newsletter a year or so ago and always find his writing insightful. However, a recent piece worried me:
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-coming-gusher-of-charitable-giving
Reich is highly critical of the “charitable giving” structure of philanthropy in the USA and I agree with him but….and I’ll explain the “but” in a moment.
I’ve always been critical of the rich getting a tax deduction for their donations to the arts because, as I said in The A to Z of Arts Management “philanthropy is simply another form of government funding without any democratic control over where money is spent. What do I mean? Philanthropy is tax foregone. People donating to registered charities in countries where that donation can be used as a tax deduction are simply making the decision about what charity gets funded rather than a government department.”
What this means is art that receives philanthropic largesse is that which appeals to those who are giving. And research shows that the result is money going to traditional art forms such as galleries, opera, classical music and ballet via prestigious arts companies, rather than work that is adventurous or of minority interest or community based: https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/P1976-Arts-Philanthropy-Submission-Web.pdf
There’s also the risk that arts organisations will dampen their more challenging output in order not to upset donors. Although I haven’t had that direct experience, I have met arts managers who have and the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict has generated conflict between Jewish donors, artists and organisations about artistic content and the source of philanthropy with all losing out.
So although I agree with Reich’s discomfort about the rich getting tax benefits in exchange for potentially influencing the survival (or not) of arts organisations and the work they create, I dislike the language that he uses. He positions arts organisations alongside think tanks devoted to right-wing causes:
“…“giving” is actually a giant tax loophole that provides the super-rich a means of dramatically cutting their tax bills while quietly funding their own priorities. And “charities” under the tax code include elite universities, fancy opera houses, cultural palaces frequented only by the richest of the rich, and nonprofit “think tanks” devoted to right-wing causes.”
He argues, correctly, that those forgone taxed could be funding public goods such as scientific research, roads and bridges, healthcare but fails to put another public good, the arts, into that set of “needs”. Instead he argues that charitable giving “results in more money for organizations [such as “cultural palaces”] that cater to or do the bidding of the rich”. But that is not what we do in the arts. Our focus isn’t on making art for the rich. Is there an artist you know that doesn’t want their work to be accessible to all? Is there an arts company you know that doesn’t provide affordable education programs or cheap tickets for those with low incomes?
The arts are not, as Reich seems to be implying, just for the rich. Australians of all social classes participate in and attend the arts. The reasons that some people on medium or low incomes don’t attend the arts are multitudinous as I said in The A to Z: “….double income families lacking time; families with children lacking money; decreasing amounts on students studying the arts at school or the humanities at university; electronic consumption; increasing competition from almost everything.” To which in 2026, one could add the war in Iran and the cost of living crisis. Some of these challenges can’t be solved by arts organisations alone. But some of them can – such as making ticket prices affordable. But as real government funding decreases and the cost of making art increases, that has become progressively harder. Of course, generous donations from caring people who don’t want to influence the art can help in this environment. But I’d still prefer to see the rich pay more taxes and governments allocate more money to the arts through informed, peer assessed processes.