Rupert Murdoch Dead Last In Charitable Giving

Conde Naste’s Portfolio Magazine has compiled a list of billionaires ranked by their charitable donations. The Generosity Index itemizes fifty of the wealthiest individuals as donors, relative to their wealth.

Coming in fiftieth is the miserly media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that an uber-conservative, Republican monopolist, should finish last in expressions of charity. The Republican me-first ideology that values greedy self-centrism predictably drives people like Murdoch to the bottom of these lists.

At the other end of the spectrum, the top five most generous billionaires (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, George Soros, and John Kluge) are all reliable supporters of Democrats and most have contributed to the campaign of Barack Obama.

This news bite is just a little more evidence that Republicans tend to be selfish, social Darwinians and Democrats tend to have more compassion and concern for the well being of others.


12 thoughts on “Rupert Murdoch Dead Last In Charitable Giving

  1. Sometimes I get pretty annoyed by those who say that donating to an organized charity is the most important thing people can do with their hard-earned money. The most important thing Bill Gates–or Rupert Murdock or Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet–ever did with his money was to fuel the economy by giving people work that made them productive and allowed them to contribute their own talents and skills.
    Do you remembet the lesson about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish?

    • Sometimes I get pretty annoyed by those who say that giving people work is some sort of favor. Business do not hire people out of the kindness of their hearts. They hire them when they calculate that the new employee will contribute to the company’s earnings an amount in excess of their salary. And they fire them when calculation changes.

      Putting all that aside, there is still nothing preventing someone who has billions of dollars from demonstrating some sense of compassion. And not all charities serve people whose problem is that they are unemployed. Most help people with illnesses or other dire circumstances that cannot be resolved with a job. You can’t teach a infant with brain cancer to fish.

  2. Ouch, when do you ever make enough money? I mean, how much do you need exactly to live comfortably? I can’t imagine having that much and not giving a huge chunk away.

  3. I will never understand why such name calling is necessary between our parties. The article says that all Republicans are “selfish Darwinians”…….which is an absolute lie, while going on to say how generous Democrats are. I have met some of both…….but really, it’s just the character of that particular person……not party. I have a son who is a Democrat and still has the 1st Dollar he ever made.

    • First of all, I did not say “all” Republicans or Democrats behave a certain way. The phrase I used was “tend to be.” But I take your point that I made a generalization and I also have known generous Republicans and stingy Democrats.

      That said, the examples of the individuals on this list are telling.

  4. I GIVE NONE! I create jobs for those who want to work and earn. If you don’t care to work go stand on the street corner with a card board sign. This asking businesses to give back to the community is crap they already provided a product or service most provided jobs nothing else should be neccessary. A good deed never goes unpunished I know I tried in the past and long ago QUIT….

    • Your a selfish hypocrite. Stop lying about creating jobs for people. That’s bull! You create jobs for yourself when your business justifies it. You do it so your business will earn more, not for any altruistic purpose, so tell the truth. Your admission that you “give none” is proof that you don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself.

    • First of all that is a two year old study. Secondly, it counts all donations to churches as part of the donation totals. That favors religious conservatives but isn’t really charity as it just funds the operations of the church. Thirdly, your article does nothing to contradict the data in my posting. This is about billionaires, not the population at large. So your study is actually not relevant to the point I’m making. But thanks anyway.

  5. One example of a stingy republican does not an argument make. If you work in philanthropy you know as a rule democrats give less across all socio and economic boundaries. It is sad when you can raise 600 million for a marketing campaign to become president on the promise of change when if that money was invested in your communities it would create the change you desire. Personal Responsibility was replaced by let Barak do it.

    • Oh please…

      Your suggestion that donors to political campaigns somehow cancel out other charitable donations is nonsense. People support candidates like Obama for so many reasons that have nothing to do with philanthropy. It’s about policies like healthcare, energy, climate change, war and national security, and taxes and the economy. It’s about having a voice in your government. Are you suggesting that people shouldn’t care about those things?

      And apparently you missed the part of my article that says that all of the top 5 givers on the list above are Dems. See…It’s possible to participate politically and still be generous to those less fortunate than you.

Comments are closed.