Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
While late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs never brought public attention to his philanthropic efforts, he and his family have been giving money away anonymously for more than 20 years.

The rise of anonymous giving in Silicon Valley was detailed on Friday by The New York Times, with a particular focus on Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple's former CEO. She also participated in a rare interview for a profile that was published last week, discussing her agendas in education, global conservation, nutrition, and immigration policy.

Powell Jobs
Laurene Powell Jobs at the 2012 State of the Union address.


"We're really careful about amplifying the great work of others in every way that we can, and we don't like attaching our names to things," Powell Jobs said.

Her organization, Emerson Collective, is structured like a small business and is set up as an LLC rather than a tax-exempt 501?(3). That gives her the ability to make grants, investments and political donations without publicly reporting them.

Powell Jobs told the Times that she and her organization value the ability to remain anonymous, as well as "nimble and flexible and responsive" in giving.

It was the same newspaper that caused a controversy in 2011, when reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote a piece entitled "The Mystery of Steve Jobs's Public Giving." That piece questioned why there was "no public record" of Jobs donating his money to charity.

That prompted U2 lead singer Bono, who is a friend of Jobs, to pen an op-ed noting that Jobs's contributions to fight AIDS in Africa were "invaluable." Bono is the founder of (Product)RED, a charity aimed at battling AIDS that Apple has supported with various products since 2006.

Bono revealed that Apple had been the largest contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and noted that the company has given tens of millions of dollars toward H.I.V. testing, treatment and counseling.

Last year, current Apple CEO Tim Cook also noted a number of private philanthropic efforts undertaken by Jobs during his life. Among those was a $50 million donation for Stanford hospitals, half of which paid for a new main building, while the rest was used to build a new children's hospital.

But despite his philanthropic efforts, Jobs remained intensely private, and even refused to discuss his giving with biographer Walter Isaacson before his death. Jobs also refused to participate in "The Giving Pledge," a campaign started by billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that asks rich people in American to donate most of their money to philanthropic causes.

Since the death of her husband, Powell Jobs has taken a more public role in support of her causes. In January, she launched a website advocating the "Dream Act" for immigration reform, and in April she participated in an interview with NBC's Rock Center for the same cause. Last year she also joined the governing board at Stanford University, she serves on the White House Council for Community Solutions, and she also serves as president of the after-school program College Track, which she founded in 1997.
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 146
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.
  • Reply 2 of 146
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,209member
    Why is it that the media assumes that you are not giving because it is not a public spectacle. Kudos to the Jobs family for the work he did both public and especially the private work that he sought no recognition for. Most well to do folks would have wanted their name on the hospital(s). Not Steve. He saw the real purpose - to help people in need, not as a PR stunt.
  • Reply 3 of 146
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,239member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.


     


    I understand your point, but if I were Jobs, I would have done exactly the same thing. 

  • Reply 4 of 146
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member


    It's the creation of Apple that makes Steve Jobs a hero, the simple giving away of money is nothing compared to that, no matter how much.


     


    I mean, think how much thought and effort was needed to create Apple: strategic decision making and product instincts, etc vs. just signing a check.

  • Reply 5 of 146
    youngexecyoungexec Posts: 11member


    The greater good is that individual freedom is more important than a collectivism.

     

  • Reply 6 of 146
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,209member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    ...when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.


     


     


    I dare say that those that rec'd treatment for HIV/AIDS don't feel that way, nor do those that receive treatment in the Stanford hospitals.


     


    I understand what you are saying about using it to garner more support but I completely disagree with your implication that because a donation is silent the effort is muted. Also I doubt there was anything preventing Stanford or others from saying "we got a $50 million anonymous donation". 

  • Reply 7 of 146
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.

    I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention. There are so many charities out there and most, if not all, deserve attention.

    Also. If steve jobs was alive, these articles wouldn't see the light if day. :)
  • Reply 8 of 146
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    blastdoor wrote: »
    I understand your point, but if I were Jobs, I would have done exactly the same thing. 

    I might have, too, I can't honestly say, but I hope that I'd donate in a way that made the greatest impact for others without any concern for it affected me or my life.
  • Reply 9 of 146
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member

    I dare say that those that rec'd treatment for HIV/AIDS don't feel that way, nor do those that receive treatment in the Stanford hospitals.

    I understand what you are saying about using it to garner more support but I completely disagree with your implication that because a donation is silent the effort is muted. Also I doubt there was anything preventing Stanford or others from saying "we got a $50 million anonymous donation". 

    Sure it was muted. If Jobs announced that he was giving $50 million to Stanford hospital and wanted others to donate via iTunes or a special iMessage text I bet there would be many millions more, even though Stanford means nothing to most people that would donate. I use that example because despite unrealistic to ask others for assistance for something that regarding Jobs and his family's smaller community efforts people would have added to it greatly.

    I'm sure I've see Apple already donate to disaster relief efforts around the world and have links to also get their customers to add these efforts. This is basically what I stated in my initial comment except the celebrity is the corporation using their mindshare to get others to contribute.

    jungmark wrote: »
    I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention. There are so many charities out there and most, if not all, deserve attention.

    Also. If steve jobs was alive, these articles wouldn't see the light if day. :)

    I agree with you and I wish more people would contribute because they can, not because someone they want to be or be with is doing it, but that simply isn't the case, and as far as I can see it's never been that way or ever will be.


    PS: An interesting example is Celebrity Apprentice. Regardless of how you feel about the show, the celebrities, or Donald Trump it's simply amazing how much money that show has raised for charity. From what I've seen none of the proceeds from the tasks to raise money go to the show, but straight to the charities of the winning project manager's choice.
  • Reply 10 of 146
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    ascii wrote: »
    It's the creation of Apple that makes Steve Jobs a hero, the simple giving away of money is nothing compared to that, no matter how much.

    I mean, think how much thought and effort was needed to create Apple: strategic decision making and product instincts, etc vs. just signing a check.

    Which one is more important?
  • Reply 11 of 146
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I agree with you and I wish more people would contribute because they can, not because someone they want to be or be with is doing it, but that simply isn't the case, and as far as I can see it's never been that way or ever will be.


    I think more people give than you suspect, it's just everyone's quiet about it.

  • Reply 12 of 146
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    Nice to see, but giving should be a private matter. Steve knew this. The spectacle takes away the true meaning, or at the very least, it gets in the way in our celeb-obsessed culture.
  • Reply 13 of 146
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allenbf View Post





    Which one is more important?


    Long term, Apple is more important. It's the creation of new technology that ultimately will move humanity forward and get us all out of poverty, charity is just a temporary measure compared to that.

  • Reply 14 of 146
    chandra69chandra69 Posts: 638member


    IT IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.  JOBS HAD BELIEF IN HINDUISM AND EVERYONE KNOWS HE IS AVID READER OF THE BOOK "AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI".  HINDUISM ASKS TO DO ANONYMOUS DONATIONS.  HE PRACTICED ZEN BUDDHISM.  I KNEW THAT THIS NEWS WOULD BE COMING AFTER HE DIES.  IT CAME.

  • Reply 15 of 146
    pedromartinspedromartins Posts: 1,333member


    She really is a beautiful woman.

  • Reply 16 of 146
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post


    IT IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.  JOBS HAD BELIEF IN HINDUISM AND EVERYONE KNOWS HE IS AVID READER OF THE BOOK "AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI".  HINDUISM ASKS TO DO ANONYMOUS DONATIONS.  HE PRACTICED ZEN BUDDHISM.  I KNEW THAT THIS NEWS WOULD BE COMING AFTER HE DIES.  IT CAME.



     


    You don't have to shout....

  • Reply 17 of 146
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.


     


    The idea of anonymous giving is to not draw attention to oneself.  The Bible says to give in secret and you will be rewarded openly.  I do believe he was rewarded with a very successful company so he had more money to give away. (just discussing principles as I know he was not a follower of the Bible but Buddhism)


     


    I would agree with you for special things where celebrity's can challenge each other to give for things like Sandy relief or Oklahoma relief but anonymous is much better and I respect those people more than those who toot their own horn about what they give.  Their only reward is their image.

  • Reply 18 of 146
    damn_its_hotdamn_its_hot Posts: 1,209member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example….


     


    Well, I see you have edited to clarify your post. Glad to see you expand on your thoughts because your previous words made it sound like it somehow neutered the actual donation. I get your desire to have celebrities lead by example but I really wonder how many times people actually donate to a cause because a celebrity does. I know in my case I have charities I donate to and I can't think of a time that I have donated to a cause because a celebrity did (unless you somehow count Product (RED)).


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by youngexec View Post


    The greater good is that individual freedom is more important than a collectivism.

     



     


    It would be nice if this were really true. I am one who believes that if the govt. did not rip us off to pay for all the entitlement programs that charitable contributions in general would go up. Maybe that is utopian thinking. I know as long as we are forced to pay into SS, MediCare/MediCade, housing for the poor, clinics, ObamaCare, FEMA, billions for foreign aid for refugees, or to fight other peoples wars, investing in ethanol refineries, etc. It limits the disposable cash I have available to donate to the things I feel are important. Where is our freedom to support the charities/non-profits we want to? I think we have been stripped of a major portion of our right to support what we (as individuals) want to support.


     


    Just my two scents sense cents. image  image

  • Reply 19 of 146
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    chandra69 wrote: »
    IT IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.  JOBS HAD BELIEF IN HINDUISM AND EVERYONE KNOWS HE IS AVID READER OF THE BOOK "AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI".  HINDUISM ASKS TO DO ANONYMOUS DONATIONS.  HE PRACTICED ZEN BUDDHISM.  I KNEW THAT THIS NEWS WOULD BE COMING AFTER HE DIES.  IT CAME.

    Any mention of Boo-Boo Bear or Ranger Smith in the book?
  • Reply 20 of 146
    chandra69chandra69 Posts: 638member


     


    Quote:



    Quote: Originally posted by icoco3 View Post

    Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post


    IT IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.  JOBS HAD BELIEF IN HINDUISM AND EVERYONE KNOWS HE IS AVID READER OF THE BOOK "AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI".  HINDUISM ASKS TO DO ANONYMOUS DONATIONS.  HE PRACTICED ZEN BUDDHISM.  I KNEW THAT THIS NEWS WOULD BE COMING AFTER HE DIES.  IT CAME.



     


    You don't have to shout....




    You could have tried closing your ears a little. 

Sign In or Register to comment.