Does Money Have a Conscience?

Money does not care whether you publish religious articles, save lives, are in the pornography business, make bombs for a living, are a scuba-diving pizza delivery man (it's a real job), or even a dog-food taster (also real). And I mean no respect or disrespect toward any of these professions.

Let's lay it out on the table:

Many of us are not well educated about money: a sizable minority (28%) have a blind spot when it comes to wealth, and most have a different number when they think about what constitutes wealth.

Our attitudes generally stem from our upbringing. "Johnny, money doesn't grow on trees, you know." "Money is the root of all evil" (a common misquote from the Bible). Or, how often have you heard — in real life or on TV — something like, "Wait until you meet my new boyfriend Bobby. He's rich ... but don't worry, he's a nice guy."

Even the entertainment industry portrays the rich business owner (small or large) as a crook. (For the record, there are 28 million small businesses in the U.S. and only 18,500 big ones; according to the IRS, more than 78% of this nation's employment — 120 million people — is by businesses with fewer than 18 employees. They can't all be crooks.).

We All Depend on Money. You Can't Change That.

I study money and wealth on a regular basis because our industry depends on it. The number of us who are unconsciously prejudiced against it just astonishes me. I recently wrote an article on Tainted Gifts. I asked, "If you were a cancer research center, would you accept a donation coming from Jane Doe if her father made millions in the tobacco industry? If not (you'd be surprised how many say they wouldn't), how many generations back is it OK to go before the money becomes "clean?" (many different opinions there, too.) Is it acceptable to "punish" the spouse and children of "evildoers"?

Which begs another question: Was the income source considered "evil" back then?

Many Opinions, One Fact: Money is Stupid

Money is just paper, so it has no conscience. It cannot think. It does not move on its own. You can’t chase money. You have to attract it. Money does not know or care about your profession. Or your opinion.

If money had a conscience, there would never have been a Bernie Madoff, or a Pablo Escobar, or a John Dillinger, or a Hitler.

If money had a conscience, starving artists would be wealthy; so would all musicians, and ... so would your nonprofit.

Money moves to those who do things that attract it; who are magnetic to it. If you put a magnet on a tool bench, metal filings will be attracted to it regardless of whether the bench is owned by a good man or a bad man. So there is an argument to be made to become a good person or entity, and attract money your way so that you can use it as a tool for good.

Our Fabricated Conscience (It's a Public Relations Issue)

Unfortunately, we must contend with a minority that has personified money. At its heart, though, the issue of Tainted Gifts boils down to one of a fabricated conscience, nothing more. It’s a public relations issue. A matter of opinion. It's like calling someone "rich" when everyone has a different definition of "rich." It's like unilaterally declaring someone unattractive or beautiful when, again, everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes beauty or ugliness. Same goes with weight, height, and labels concerning race or sexual preference. All of these terms — rich, fat, ugly, sexy, liberal, conservative, cute — are tags that inspire hatred, envy, desire, snobbery. Especially envy.

(There's only one exception. My administrative assistant, Chloe, is the cutest dog ever. No argument. She even sits on my lap.)

If you have to deal with this kind of public relations issue, then consider knowing your base well, and see what you can or can't "pull off." There was a good comment on my previous post: "I think organizations have to adopt the strategy for dealing with "tainted" gifts based on their own donor culture. Basically, how will the majority of your prospects and donors [versus one or two loud ones whom you think are the majority] react to learning the back story to a gift? Some organizations are better at dictating their culture and can probably adopt the Mother Teresa approach: "I don't know [or care] where the money came from, but I know where it's going."

I don't know [or care] where the money came from, but I know where it's going.

You Have Lives to Save.

Case in point: You work at a small rehab. An anonymous gift of $1,000,000 comes in. You have no clue where it's from. A friend “thinks” it may be from the sale of drugs or alcohol, but he is not sure. What do you do? The answer should be simple, and require no second guessing. You have lives to save.

Let's exaggerate. Same rehab, but the gift was for $50,000,000 (a game changer) and you knew it came from someone who made their wealth through alcohol. What would you do?

Saving lives is your first priority, no matter what. It is now new money — and it is the new owner’s responsibility to decide how to use it. It no longer matters where the money came from. Why? Because money is neutral. It's a tool. It is your responsibility when it comes to how it's used, because you have a conscience, and money does not. As a recent Washington Post opinion piece points out, "When nonprofits reject funds from donors — tainted or otherwise — we all pay a price."

Money is a tool. Use it to enhance lives, regardless of its source. By turning money away you are doing the community a disservice. You're giving in because of the opinions of a few.

Would you decline drinking water from a well that was used by Mussolini? If yes, you might as well never visit Italy. Water is water — just like money is money, and air is air. They are all necessary and flow from one medium to the next.

(By the way, money, water and air share something in common — they are all a "deficiency need." That is, you take them for granted until there isn't enough.)

I say take the money and save lives. You need it to do good. I would love to hear your opinion below.