Image 01 Image 03

Jaw-Dropping: Almost $25 Billion In Donations For “Racial Justice” And Related Causes Since George Floyd Death

Jaw-Dropping: Almost $25 Billion In Donations For “Racial Justice” And Related Causes Since George Floyd Death

Unintended consequences: Ford Foundation among those explicitly funding Critical Race Theory programming, which may have cost Democrats the Virginia Governor’s race.

I knew there was a boatload of money flowing toward various race-related and “social justice” activist groups and programs since George Floyd’s death in late May 2020. We see it particularly in education, where the flow of money to racialize K-12 seems endless. Contrary to the endless jabber by teachers union messaging guides and politicians like Sheldon Whitehouse, it is the left-wing that is floating in a sea of money.

Just eyeballing it I’ve repeatedly estimated the funding to left-wing education activist groups in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that’s not counting union spending. But I may be severely underestimating the cash flow to the education activist sector considering that almost $25 billion has been donated mostly to race-related activist groups and causes in the past two years.

I first saw that jaw-dropping number in an article at PJ Media by Ari Kaufman, New York Times Offers Stunning Report on Left-Wing Racial Fundraising:

Thomas Edsall, one of the few decent contributors at the New York Times, published a valuable piece of journalism Wednesday on the sheer size of philanthropic commitment to left-wing “racial justice” measures.

With nearly 3,000 words of interviews and assorted content, he explores how much money — nearly $25 billion it turns out — was donated by progressive elites to divisive racial endeavors after the May 2020 killing of George Floyd.

Before Floyd’s death, Candid — a website for wealthy “people who want to change the world with the resources they need to do it” — said philanthropic entities provided about $3 billion in “racial equity funding” from 2011-19. Since then, Candid found, “50,887 grants valued at $12.7 billion” and “177 pledges valued at $11.6 billion.”

Among the top funders are the Ford Foundation, at $3 billion; Mackenzie Scott, at $2.9 billion; JPMorgan Chase & Co. Contributions Program, at $2.1 billion; W.K. Kellogg Foundation, $1.2 billion; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $1.1 billion; Silicon Valley Community Foundation, $1 billion; Walton Family Foundation, $689 million; The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, $438 million; and the Foundation to Promote Open Society, $350.5 million.

Next time you hear Democrats complain about “right wing dark money” corrupting our system, keep these numbers in mind.

As Kaufman points out, the NYT write up points to the downside of all this money — it’s empowering the elements of the radical left who are damaging Democrat electoral chances by driving moderates away (e.g. defund the police) and turning the radical left against the mere left of the Democrat Party.

Here are some key excerpts from Thomas Edsell’s “Opinion” column, The Law of Unintended Political Consequences Strikes Again:

The killing of George Floyd and the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests that followed drove an exceptionally large increase in foundation grants and pledges to criminal and racial justice reform groups and other causes, ranging from the United Negro College Fund to the Center for Antiracist Research and from the National Museum of African American History to the Yes 4 Minneapolis campaign to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department.

Candid — a website that connects “people who want to change the world with the resources they need to do it” — published “What does Candid’s grants data say about funding for racial equity in the United States?” by Anna Koob on July 24, 2020.

Before Floyd’s death, Candid found that philanthropies provided “$3.3 billion in racial equity funding” for the nine years from 2011 to 2019. Since then, Candid calculations revealed much higher totals for both 2020 and 2021: “50,887 grants valued at $12.7 billion” and “177 pledges valued at $11.6 billion.” …

There are Democratic strategists who worry about unintended political consequences that could flow from this surge in philanthropic giving. Rob Stein, one of the founders of the Democracy Alliance, an organization of major donors on the left, argued in a phone interview that while most foundation spending is on programs that have widespread support, “when progressive philanthropists fund groups that promote extreme views like ‘defunding the police’ or that sanction ‘cancel culture,’ they are exacerbating intraparty conflict and stoking interparty backlash.” The danger, according to Stein, is that “some progressive politicians and funders are contributing to divisiveness within their ranks and giving fodder to the right.”

That’s the big NYT takeaway, all this money is counterproductive if the goal is advancing the Democrat Party. Edsell quotes and links to a variety of left-wing authors and consultants, including:

Matt Bennett, senior vice president of Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, argued in an email:

Whether inadvertent or not, some progressive foundations are funding work that is shortsighted and harmful to the long-term progress they hope to achieve. We recognize that every successful movement has people and institutions playing a variety of roles. There are folks whose job it is to push the envelope and others whose job it is to work within the system to make change. Some need to push the envelope and some need to assemble the compromise that can pass. That’s all part of the process.

However, Bennett continued, “It’s crystal clear that some ideas being pushed by activists and funded by lefty foundations go beyond that paradigm, treading into territory that is flat-out politically toxic and that undermine our collective goals.”

* * *

Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, wrote at the end of November, “It’s an undeniable fact that Democratic Party elites, progressive activists, foundation and think-tank officials, and most opinion journalists are well to the left of the party’s rank and file.”

It’s possible, Tomasky continued, “that certain issues, or ways of talking about certain issues, will be established as litmus tests within the party that could be quite problematic for Democrats trying to run in purple districts.”

A lot of the money is flowing directly to support Critical Race Theory, which of course contributed to the Virginia Republican win and will be an issue in the 2022 midterms (emphasis added):

I asked [Darren] Walker [of the Ford Foundation] about the concerns raised by Stein and Bennett. “We support issues that are about progress and inclusion and justice, but the chips fall where they fall,” Walker said.

I also asked Walker about a subject that became a central issue in the 2021 Virginia governor’s race: “critical race theory.” Walker said that the foundation supports proponents of the theory “because we believe there is value in understanding how race is a factor in our legal system,” adding that the foundation does not support the views of its grantees “100 percent of the time, but at the end of the day we believe in certain ideas of justice and fairness in our society.”

So there you have it, the NY Times committed a “random act of journalism” (as Rush Limbaugh would term it) but not on its news pages, in its Opinion section.

What was exposed were truths that we have known for a long time: The left-wing race-based activism has funding of a magnitude right and moderate groups could never even dream of, billionaires and foundations are major funders, and the most radical ideas like defunding the police and CRT are some of the destructive results. The largest brand name foundations are against you and promoting damage to our society.

More evidence of the loss of institutions.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


All this money enriching fraudulent race hustlers, instead of being used in worthwhile constructive efforts. That is the real tragedy.

    broomhandle in reply to Concise. | January 6, 2022 at 9:43 pm

    We could fund an extravagant manned mission to Mars with that much dough.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to broomhandle. | January 6, 2022 at 9:49 pm

      Or, not spend it at all. The budget deficit Hass to be reduced somewhere, and I don’t see a space program in the constitution.

      Let the down-ticks begin.

        Agree, and we are broke as well

        henrybowman in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | January 7, 2022 at 12:35 am

        Nope. I’m a former long-term officer and trustee of a national space nut society, and I agree with you 100%. The government has hampered space exploration an order of magnitude more than they’ve ever facilitated it.

        I used to get solicitations from the National Space Society with push-poll questions like, “Do you agree we have to fund space exploration to ensure a future for the human race?” I always wrote in, “Yes, but not with government (tax) money.” After a couple of years, I no longer had to write it in, because it was one of the options. A small but satisfying personal success.

        It’s enough money for Elon Musk to go to Mars. But, not enough money for Nasa to get their SLS system off the pad.

        Sure, let’s cede space to the Chicoms exactly the way conservatives ceded Academia and the entertainment industry to the progressives. What could possibly go wrong.

        Incidentally, the man who commissioned the Lewis & Clark expedition was named – checks notes – Thomas Jefferson, a guy who knew a little something about the Constitution. And yet, he fully embraced the concept of the federal government using its power to finance exploration.

          henrybowman in reply to TargaGTS. | January 7, 2022 at 3:39 pm

          The same way we “cede” interstate merchandise transportation, or retail groceries because the government doesn’t perform them?
          Or do mean the way we “ceded” mail distribution to companies like UPS and FedEx that actually did the goddam job for a fair price for once? (I’m so old, I remember when USPS fought those companies tooth and nail just to exist.)

          Jefferson also made the Louisiana Purchase — an action for which there was absolutely zero constitutional justification. Furthermore he understood that, felt he had no choice but to break his oath of office, and it haunted him for the rest of his days. And I say this as a guy for whom Jefferson is his #1 hero. He was also dead wrong when it came to his love of public education, as events have proven since. He was a man, with the failures of a man, but at least he was conscious of them.

          If you want to cede space to some other country, let our government continue to flail around accomplishing its usual bureaucratic bullshit, instead of letting a hard-driving entrepreneur get us there in a quarter of the time, on his own dime.

“they are exacerbating intraparty conflict and stoking interparty backlash.”

Thye still do not get that they are driving Democrats away from the party, driving them so far away that they will never get them to come back. I cannot express how angry I have become. These people have launched an all out assault on our civil liberties.

    henrybowman in reply to JohnSmith100. | January 7, 2022 at 12:40 am

    These people don’t see it, but this is inevitable. When your entire worldview is simply not consistent, either internally with itself, or with the basic laws of the universe and reality, something you do will always break something else you do. It doesn’t matter how many weds you add, it will simply blow somewhere else. Socialism always results in universal poverty and/or death for the masses, except for a few high officials. It can end no other way.

    The only downside to this process is that it often takes so long that the collateral damage to those who refuse the KoolAid can be considerable. If they took themselves out quickly and efficiently without inconveniencing anybody else, that would be the best of all possible worlds.

Pretty disgusting

Very disturbing


Steven Brizel | January 6, 2022 at 10:09 pm

The Ford Foundation has tons of staff members who are as woke as you can imagine

    stevewhitemd in reply to Steven Brizel. | January 7, 2022 at 1:04 pm

    Correct. This is by design but not by the design you’d imagine.

    Recall that in 19th Century England, the 1st son of an heir got the land and title, the 2nd son went to the military, and the 3rd son went into the church or overseas to help manage the colonies. All had their sinecures one way or another, and it avoided troubles. It’s one way in which Britain built their empire using other peoples’ money.

    Today, the children of the heirs get jobs with various NGOs like the Ford Foundation. It’s a way to give them their sinecures without them getting into trouble. You have a posh job, nice expense account, and don’t do much except support the mission of the people who put you there.

    It’s one way in which the progressives build their base using other peoples’ money.

This is ideal by no means but that money would be better spent giving 600 bucks to the 42 million black Americans as stupid reparations than it will ever be when used by these grifters and nutjobs.

Anyways this will buy a lot of grifters new houses and a bunch of untraceable overseas real estate.

    henrybowman in reply to healthguyfsu. | January 7, 2022 at 12:44 am

    Edward Fitzgerald:
    I often wonder what the Vintners buy /
    One half so precious as the stuff they sell.

    I often wonder where the 1% build offshore houses /
    One half so free as the country they destroyed for their price.

“The largest brand name foundations are against you and promoting damage to our society.”

I’ve said it for years: Any time ‘justice’ is modified by an adjective it always means ‘hate whitey and get revenge. Always.”

And of those billions of dollars, millions are money laundered to pay for violent commie street thug armies, like BLM and AntFa, to terrorize the populace in election years. Change my mind.

Think about the ultra conservative beginnings Ford and Kellogg started from

Didn’t Ford bring us the Muslims in Dearborn, MI?

    henrybowman in reply to gonzotx. | January 7, 2022 at 1:22 am

    Well, Henry Ford was a notorious anti-Semite, so who knows how he would feel about that.

    But seriously, we see this all the time. The founders of WalMart, Chik-Fil-A, Fox News, Levis, the Arizona Republic (née The Arizona Republican), Bank of America (née Bank of China in San Francisco — really!), Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, Disney, GoDaddy, National Review… all these companies were established by diehard capitalists and/or patriots. Then they passed on to the kids, or the mergers, or the buyouts, and they all went to woke hell.

    Sometimes it happens in zero generations, when people who made their money from good old-fashioned capitalism go prematurely senile and start blowing it on unicorn feed. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are my two favorite examples of this. Depending on how you define capitalism, even George Soros qualifies here.

      Rupert Murdoch is still alive and National Review was in a crusade against wokism before Trump even became a Republican, and calling either Rupert Murdoch or National Review non-capitalist is a joke or a lie not a statement of reality. Actually all of the organizations you mentioned are capitalist. Provide proof they want private property abolished if you are claiming them to be communists.

      Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are capitalists wanting taxes raised a little bit on the upper class to avoid imminent bankruptcy doesn’t make you a socialist. George Soros is also a capitalist, being anti-American doesn’t make you a communist.

      College students who attack capitalism generally don’t know what it is. You should know better than pretending capitalism is an issue in 2022 however because it isn’t. Capitalism isn’t threatened, the corporations are all leftist. The dividing line is culture not communism today.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Danny. | January 7, 2022 at 2:56 am

        I don’t have the proof you seek but some of the big “socialist success stories” like Sweden have more wealth disparity than we do among the classes.

        Before going socialist, the rich insulated themselves. When the socialist movements came, they enriched themselves further by buying influence to control the flow of money. Sweden has actually gone away from some of its socialist policies to rectify this disparity.

        This is exactly what wealthy Americans are doing at this point in time.

        TargaGTS in reply to Danny. | January 7, 2022 at 8:45 am

        Do yourself a solid and take the time to read up on the Italian fascist movement of the 20th century. Mussolini relied HEAVILY on Italian corporations to implement and expand his fascist policies. In fact, he had a word for it: Corporativismo.

        Corporatism ≠ capitalism/free markets. In fact, it often means the exact opposite. Large corporations LOVE a heavy-handed national government because the polices that kind of government creates often creates barriers to entry for potential competitors.

        henrybowman in reply to Danny. | January 7, 2022 at 3:42 pm

        Except that Rupert Murdoch already passed Fox News onto the kids, QED.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to henrybowman. | January 7, 2022 at 10:04 am


      Bank of America (née Bank of China in San Francisco — really!)

      I don’t know about SF, but in Los Angeles, they started off as Bank of Italy.

        henrybowman in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | January 7, 2022 at 3:50 pm

        You’re right.
        I had the location and the immigrant founder’s motivation right, but somehow in my mind the Italy got replaced by China (maybe because of the San Francisco connection).

So much grift, so little time.

Rachel Dolezal looks like the crying indian from those commercials in the 70s.

This is the unregulated free market. Perhaps because it is the only way we could influence the culture we could start using government (i.e. drop Laissez Faire because it is an alternative to every other position we have?).

If this isn’t enough to show how much Corporate America hates Conservative America I really don’t know what is.

Perhaps by the way corporate America might stop treating us like dirt if we stopped simping for them?

Human behavior is very complex. Then reality hits you in the face. Youngkin wins VA Governors race. They started buying influence. Now They are buyIng elections like Zuckerburg did in 2020.

2smartforlibs | January 7, 2022 at 6:42 am

This is where the question ” Who are the real insurrectionists” be asked. Keep in mind the VP was one that funded this.

Reuters’ own data scientist performed an analysis and came to 3 conculsions:
1. Police don’t kill blacks disproportionately
2. Police don’t over-police black neighborhoods
3. Defunding the Police does not reduce violence.

So, Reuters fired him.

Follow the money…..right to China.

The Gentle Grizzly | January 7, 2022 at 9:01 am

What percentage of these billions are from major corporations paying extortion to The Usual Suspects?