February 20, 2008 | Read Time: 1 minute
Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York, has long pledged to work full-time in philanthropy once he leaves public office, with estimates that his wealth could create one of the largest foundations in the country.
But The New York Times reports that Mr. Bloomberg is rethinking this idea.
“Six years of wielding the power of government office and reveling in the ego boost of broad support from ordinary New Yorkers have fueled Mr.
Bloomberg’s desire to run the country, … associates say, and diminished
his excitement over his oft-stated plan to pursue a full-time career in
philanthropy,” the newspaper reported in an article last week.
Tom Durso, an editorial consultant and author of The 501c Files, writes the mayor needs a reality check.
“If it’s influence Bloomberg craves, he could do worse — much worse — than funding worthy nonprofits with his personal fortune. While philanthropists don’t give nationally televised addresses or have the world’s best-equipped military at their beck and call, they also are guaranteed a seat at the table, unlike the politicos who aspire to the White House, only one of whom will get the nod,” Mr. Durso writes.
What do you think? Should Mr. Bloomberg stick to his original plan to be a philanthropist? Do major donors enjoy some of the influence that politicians do? Click on the comment link below this post to share your thoughts.
