Dear Harvard: You Have $50 Billion in the Bank - Use It Now

Isn't one of the reasons you have built up an endowment that it will allow you to protect your integrity as an institution of higher learning from political assault?

In a statement released yesterday, the Administration announced that it would be undertaking …

"… a comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard University and its affiliates … as part of the ongoing efforts of the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. The Task Force will review the more than $255.6 million in contracts between Harvard University, its affiliates and the Federal Government. The review also includes the more than $8.7 billion in multi-year grant commitments to Harvard University and its affiliates to ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities. Today's actions by the Task Force follow a similar ongoing review of Columbia University. That review led to Columbia agreeing to comply with 9 preconditions for further negotiations regarding a return of canceled federal funds."

[NB:  While many people have been describing Columbia as having "settled" its dispute with the Administration, this announcement makes clear that the Administration views the agreement with Columbia as having settled only the "preconditions for further negotiations regarding a return of canceled federal funds." I.e., "You're not off the hook yet, and we have not yet decided to 'return … canceled federal funds'"]

These actions also follow a series of parallel actions targeting a number of other universities (U. Penn, Georgetown Univ.) as well as a number of large for-profit law firms (Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Covington and Burling, Skadden Arps, WilmerHale), similarly threatening each of them with a cut-off of federal money (and, in the firms' case, a denial of access to federal agencies on behalf of their clients).

One can understand the fear that this has generated for law firms and for universities.  Law firms - unlike universities - don't have endowments, and they are, generally speaking, vulnerable to the kind of severe financial shock that Trump's action might cause them.  Some have caved in rather quickly, because of that. [Some - including Jenner and Block, Perkins Coie and, I'm happy to note, WilmerHale, where I'm an alum - have chosen to fight back rather vigorously].

Universities are in a much better position to fight back, because they sitting on top of immense piles of money that they can use to offset, at least in the short-term and even, if necessary, in the longer term, the withdrawal of federal money.

Obviously, $255 million coming in through federal contracts (like the $400 million and $190 million that were cited as Columbia's and Penn's share of federal monies) is a lot of money.  But Harvard has an endowment of $51 billion; the interest alone can probably cover a good chunk of the $255 million in lost federal money. Penn's endowment is around $22 billion, Columbia's is $14 billion or so.  They could each survive for many years - until long after the Trump Administration is just a memory - without a nickel of federal money coming in, if they're willing to draw down those endowments.

Isn't that the point of having an endowment? To allow you to weather political storms like this with your integrity as an institution of higher learning intact (and even enhanced)? Keep in mind that, for all of the reasons set forth in the "Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia," Trump's actions are largely unlawful; he neither has the statutory authority to unilaterally determine whether recipients of federal funds are complying with their responsibilities, nor may he use the withholding of federal grants and contracts as a means of punishing individuals or firms for exercising their constitutional rights.

So you'll get much of the money back, in the end. There are large principles - of academic freedom, and freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry - at stake here, and if you're not willing to use that $50 billion to protect you from undue political interference, you're too close to being just a hedge fund that happens to hold some classes on the side.

Comments

[Bob from Ohio]

Not a single word about the actual anti-semitism and its toleration by these universities.

[Commenter_XY]

That is the saddest part of all; HU has a severe antisemitism problem, which didn't even rate a mention. Tone deaf would be too kind.

[David Nieporent]

Lynching is bad even if the victims actually had committed the crime the mob believed they hd.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its an investigation, not a lynching.

[David Nieporent]

Lynching is bad even if the victims actually had committed the crime the mob believed they hd.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its an investigation, not a lynching.

[JasonT20]

Not a single word about the actual anti-semitism and its toleration by these universities.

That is because speech doesn't have to be "correct", "fair", "accurate", or free of "hate" or "bigotry" in order to be constitutionally protected.

Feel free to continue to cheer the suppression of speech that you disagree with. It is good to be able to easily identify authoritarians.

[Bob from Ohio]

What are you raving about?

My comment was directed at Captain Queeg here not caring about Jewish students at all, just raving at Trump and demanding Resistance!

[Sarcastr0]

'Why didn't you name-check the Jews?' is not a good faith concern.

[Don Nico]

Your snark is not good faith either.

[Don Nico]

What you call "freedom of speech" has been targeting of a protected of a religious minority.
The next time we hear you whine about civil rights violations, we'll tell you, "chill it's just free speech."

[JasonT20]

Some of what people are calling antisemitism is criticism of the government of Israel. Bob from Ohio isn't making clear what he means by antisemitism, and I am not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that he only means the targeting of Jewish people broadly for hate and vitriol because they are Jewish or that they are guilty by association with Israel because they are Jewish.

[jb]

Isn't that the point of having an endowment?

Likely not quite what anyone was thinking of when building endowments, but certainly one of the principal rationales for having a large endowment is to be able to not to have to wildly change plans based on unexpected short term changes to revenue or expenses. So you'd think this would qualify, and I agree that this would be a good time for universities to spend their endowments and am disappointed to see, e.g., Columbia giving into Trump's demands rather than using its endowment to allow it to stand on its principles.*

Worth noting that while the Ivies and a few other schools do have tremendous endowments and can clearly survive this sort of financial assault without even meaningfully drawing down on the endowment, lots of institutions don't have the same cushion. Looking at this letter from the DOE listing many schools that they are investigating, you'll see names like American University, whose endowment is about 1/50th the size of Harvard's, or Pacific Lutheran, whose endowment is more like 1/500th of Harvard's. But likely this makes it even more important for the richer schools to stand up and fight back so that the Trump administration can't just run roughshod over the rest.

* Worth noting that in some cases, the universities probably do need to better address on-campus anti-semitism, but many of the changes demanded by the Trump administration go well beyond this and get to core academic principles/freedom.

[Armchair]

"Isn't that the point of having an endowment?"

No, the point of the endowment is to...
1. Grow the endowment
2. Justify the salaries being paid to the people who manage the endowment.

[Don Nico]

The endowment does help a university expand, renovate its infrastructure, whether economic downturn, grow new departments.
Growth of the endowment grows unrestricted annual income.

But the history of Harvard's endowment does seem to justify the comment (from Google)
1990: Jack Meyer managed HMC from 1990 to 2005, beginning with an endowment worth $4.8 billion.
2005: The endowment value reached $25.9 billion.
2021: The endowment increased by over $10 billion in fiscal year 2021, ending the year with its largest sum in history.
2023: Harvard's endowment reached $50.7 billion at the end of fiscal year 2023.
2024:The value of Harvard's endowment grew to $53.2 billion after the Harvard Management Company boasted a 9.6 percent return on its investments in fiscal year 2024.

I don't see why the HMC should not pay ~20% tax on such an enormous stream of income.

[John Hawkinson]

This is not at all how endowments work. Almost all of the money in them is restricted (effectively contractually restricted) by agreements with the donors. Those restrictions control not only the principal, but also the use of the interest. Which funds a particular named professorship, or a center or a program, &c.

And, so, similarly, Harvard cannot just use the interest on its endowment to cover a gap in federal funds. That interest is already spoken for, and it funds real people's salaries. It would be taking from Peter to pay Paul.

So, No, that is not the point of having an endowment.

[David Nieporent]

According to Harvard, about 20% of its endowment consists of unrestricted funds. That's $10 billion. (And that understates its financial flexibility, since the fact that the funds are restricted just means that Harvard can't use them arbitrarily; it doesn't necessarily mean that the restrictions are onerous and narrow. E.g., a restriction that a donation must be used for medical research would prevent Harvard from using that money for its athletic program. But it wouldn't prevent Harvard from replacing federal grants for medical research with those funds from its endowment.)

[John Hawkinson]

I'd consider 80% of funds to be "almost all" (or close enough to it for this venue). And even where the purpose of the gift may be either unrestricted or loosely restricted, that doesn't mean the university can touch the principal. This may be getting into policy rather than contractual limitations, but clearly it's generally imprudent to spend down the principal of an endowment. Of course, in emergencies and existential crises (and perhaps this qualifies), such policies can be suspended.

But really, none of this changes the fact that the interest on endowments is already spoken for. Yes, maybe Harvard can decide not to construct a hypothetical new building on its engineering campus right now (which would have been funded from loosely restricted endowment funds for the engineering school) and instead fund some engineering school salaries that would otherwise have been funded by grant funds. And likely they would make that kind of call.

But I don't think the restrictions are loose enough that this solves the problem easily. Of course it'll help a little.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, my point wasn't that 80% isn't almost all, but rather than 20% is $10B, which is plenty.

[Swede425]

Agreed.
But there is nothing stopping Harvard and other terrorist loving institutions from creating endowments for just this reason. I have no doubt that they can get like-minded successful alumni (and others) to pitch in to a "Hamas Supporters" endowment that could help bring in, and support, fellow travelers. I know it's not nearly as fun as fleecing the American tax-payer to bring in people that actively hate them and their country, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the cause.

[Social Justice is neither]

If Harvard and other Leftist institutions don't give a shit about following civil rights law then why would you expect them to the follow contracts with icky mostly dead white people? Get with the revolution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

However much Harvard stands to lose—even all of it—Elon Musk has capacity to repay. Try to implicate Musk as overtly as possible in all this, and then sue him civilly for whatever Harvard loses.

Shocking to reflect that Musk has personal wealth sufficient not only to cover Harvard's entire endowment, but probably that of the entire Ivy League. Somehow that seems to throw into higher relief DOGE/MAGA's disproportionate role in national politics.

I suggest it also reopens the question of whether Citizens United needs to be overturned. The disproportion between the gross physical size of the cash flow from commerce generally, versus the size of the cash flow used to manage politics, tells you as nothing else can that Citizens United was foredoomed to deliver political oligarchy. Some could see that in advance. Everyone should be able to see that now, in retrospect.

[rloquitur]

Do you even remember what CU was about? Government telling a non-profit that it couldn't make a video about Hillary Clinton. That it was only a 5-4 decision is revolting.

[JasonT20]

Do you even remember what CU was about? Government telling a non-profit that it couldn't make a video about Hillary Clinton.

You might want to refresh your own memory. The original question before the Court was whether the film could be shown, according to the law. But after the Justices had conferenced on it and voted 5-4 saying that the film was consistent with the law at issue (Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, aka McCain-Feingold). But Kennedy had written a separate concurring opinion arguing that the ruling should go beyond that question and address the 1st Amendment question. That is when Roberts scheduled a re-arguing of the case on those questions and they overturned previous precedent, declared corporations and unions to be the same as individual people for 1st Amendment purposes, and so on.

It is also really dubious to refer to Citizens United as a non-profit. Yes, it is a 501c4 non-profit, which is also true of SuperPACs, partisan and ideological think tanks, and such. So, it is a partisan, ideological, non-profit advocacy corporation that gets funding from who knows who.

[Bob from Ohio]

"really dubious to refer to Citizens United as a non-profit. Yes, it is a 501c4 non-profit"

Contradicting yourself in successive sentences. Bravo!

[JasonT20]

Not a contradiction. I meant that it was dubious to call it a non-profit for the same reason it is dubious to call any PAC or political advocacy group that is a organized as a 501c4 non-profit. The connotation of "non-profit" is usually that such groups have some purpose other than business interests, and most often, charitable goals. Non-profits set up as trade groups for entire for-profit industries, and organizations that exist solely to pursue political goals, are not what people think of when they hear "non-profit".

For my use of the word "dubious" to contradict the admission that it is legally a non-profit, "dubious" would have to always mean that the literal truth of the thing being called "dubious" was questionable. But I see dubious used in other senses, and I have used it in those other senses myself, and that is what I meant here.

[Armchair]

"Non-profits set up as trade groups for entire for-profit industries, and organizations that exist solely to pursue political goals, are not what people think of when they hear "non-profit"."

That wasn't what Citizen's United was though. Citizen's United (a non-profit) was set up in response to Fahrenheit 9/11 (which ironically was a commercial enterprise, but also intended to affect the Presidential Elections) and how the FEC interpreted the rules.

Some people didn't feel it was "fair" for such a blatant electioneering attempt like Fahrenheit 9/11 to be allowed to show ads right before the election, according to the FEC's own rules. Citizens United (a non-profit) challenged the film, but lost the challenge. So Citizens United "followed" the Fahrenheit 9/11 model.

That led to the Citizens United v. FEC

[JasonT20]

Citizen's United was not set up "in response" to Michael Moore's movie. It was founded more than a decade earlier. It's first film was actually about Bill Clinton: "The Truth Revealed... Confidential Report. Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the Communist Chinese Connection"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dekhUw4Hlq8

Produced in 1999.

And sure, I get why Moore's movie was viewed as "a blatant electioneering attempt", since it was. However, from a brief summary of the case CU brought against it, the FEC ruled that the ads for the movie didn't mention Bush by name or something like that, and thus weren't equivalent to election ads under the law. "Hillary: The Movie" would be hard to market without mentioning her name...

[Armchair]

"And sure, I get why Moore's movie was viewed as "a blatant electioneering attempt", since it was." And surprise...allow one blatant electioneering attempt...and others will follow suit. Celsius 41.11 was banned from being able to air ads. Because they weren't a "commercial film enterprise".

The government's argument during Citizens United was that "
"under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1990, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union.[20] Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book.[21]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

One sentence in a book...and the government could ban it. For "electioneering." The honest truth is this. The FEC blew it. Fahrenheit 9/11 should've not been allowed. But they did. And then it just became an unequal exercise, where they tried to shoehorn items in. The decision couldn't stand, and Citizens United showed it couldn't stand.

[JasonT20]

Right. That was a huge self-own on the government's part during the first oral argument in the Citizens United case. I said, however, that the FEC ruling in the Fahrenheit 9/11 case was not that at all. The FEC specifically was denying that the BCRA had that kind of sweeping scope. And, as I was saying, "Hillary: The Movie", could at least be argued to fail under the same standard that the FEC seemed to apply to Fahrenheit 9/11 in ruling that it passed, if it really was about the content in the ads for the movies.

Maybe you'll answer the question that Stephen and I posed to Noscitur:

Is it fair for the government to require real transparency in the funding of campaigning, especially by 'independent' groups, in order to have few restrictions on campaign spending, in the name of free speech?

This is where Citizens United fails as a reasonable decision. It comes off as insanely naive in viewing the vast sums spent by monied special interests as not having a significant corrupting influence on elections, all because there is no explicit quid pro quo involved in those special interests donating millions (billions now, in the aggregate) to help elect politicians that can and do enact policies that financially benefit them. The Roberts Court was extremely concerned about rights of people with so much money that they could afford to dump large sums of it on election campaigns to voice their opinions, but it completely dismissed the concerns of people about how it could degrade the right of all citizens, no matter how much money they have, to have an equal voice in choosing their government.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You might want to refresh your own memory. The original question before the Court was whether the film could be shown, according to the law. But after the Justices had conferenced on it and voted 5-4 saying that the film was consistent with the law at issue (Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, aka McCain-Feingold). But Kennedy had written a separate concurring opinion arguing that the ruling should go beyond that question and address the 1st Amendment question. That is when Roberts scheduled a re-arguing of the case on those questions and they overturned previous precedent, declared corporations and unions to be the same as individual people for 1st Amendment purposes, and so on.

In what way does that contradict what rloquitur said?

[JasonT20]

I suppose you have a point, that I fleshed out the background and ruling of the case instead of actually contradicting rloquitur.

That said, it is worth noting, if I'm going to expand on the case, that the question wasn't in regards to the video/film being "about Hillary Clinton", either. It was whether the transparent attempt at opposing her candidacy under the guise of a documentary counted as prohibited electioneering by corporations or unions close to an election. CU didn't start making such productions until it failed in a suit claiming that Fahrenheit 9/11 was basically an anti-Bush campaign ad. The whole CU case was manufactured to challenge campaign finance law. Not that trying to generate test cases is so unusual or a one sided practice, but just to add even more context.

Lastly, though, did you notice that rloquitur didn't say anything that contradicted what Stephen said about the CU case? Thus reminding him what the case was about was non-responsive?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Lastly, though, did you notice that rloquitur didn't say anything that contradicted what Stephen said about the CU case?

I don’t know, pointing out that Citizens United was about whether the government could ban the distribution of a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton seems like a fair response to the claim that we need to overrule Citizens United so we can stand up to Elon Musk.

[JasonT20]

The way he phrased his response, with the "Do you even remember" what it was about? is what I was responding to. If he wants to argue his opinion of the validity of the ruling, then maybe he can do that without acting like Stephen was ignorant of or had forgotten what the ruling was. That was a rhetorical tactic to try and discredit him, personally, by implying ignorance. So, I decided to expand on the details of the case to show what I view as some of the problems with the ruling and goals of those that brought it.

[tylertusta]

To add, reports also say that Souter was livid that Kennedy's view had gathered five votes to find the relevant sections of BCRA unconstitutional yet the issue wasn't squarely in front of the court, book banning making an appearance at oral argument or not, and his drafted dissent was going to pour gasoline onto the Court and light it on fire.

Rather than burn down the Court this way, Roberts rescheduled the case for oral arguments for the next term while Souter retired. The reargument allowed the government to fully brief and argue the bigger constitutional problem that the first oral argument uncovered.

Also, Citizens United was found to be much, much bigger than just a case about advertisements for a film. It was effectively a watershed moment for campaign finance law in the United States where the Court finally confronted the dirty secret of campaign finance law in that it was steadily eroding the 1st Amendment protection of peoples' political speech rights while the executive played political favorites in whom was allowed to speak and whom was not.

We can even point to the exact moment when campaign finance laws started to crumble at the Court: when the government came out swinging and made the argument that they could ban the publication of political books under certain circumstances.

[JasonT20]

It was effectively a watershed moment for campaign finance law in the United States where the Court finally confronted the dirty secret of campaign finance law in that it was steadily eroding the 1st Amendment protection of peoples' political speech rights while the executive played political favorites in whom was allowed to speak and whom was not.

Confronted the "dirty secret"? April Fool's was yesterday. The "dirty secret" in politics since Citizen's United is how vastly more money from the wealthy has entered campaigning to the point where it completely dominates campaign finance now.

Ask yourself this question:

What fraction of all campaign spending prior to CU came from corporate donors, unions, wealthy donors, and advocacy groups with opaque funding sources (meaning, wealthy people and corporations that manage to conceal their donations)? What fraction of all campaign spending comes from those sources now?

After you've answered that question, you might be in a position to argue that the average citizen is better off in their ability to have their voice heard because of Citizens United. That is, unless the answer to that question is what seems, by far, to be the most likely answer. Then, it would be impossible to make that argument.

[tylertusta]

Confronted the "dirty secret"? April Fool's was yesterday.

The truth hurts sometimes, and I'm just the messenger.

The "dirty secret" in politics since Citizen's United is how vastly more money from the wealthy has entered campaigning to the point where it completely dominates campaign finance now.

Presumably you are referring to the amount of money spent on political campaigns, you are correct only in that more money is being spent.

However I contest your underlying assumption that money spent in elections is neither good nor bad. The total amount of money spent on elections doesn't seem to have any discernible impact or influence on elections beyond a certain point.

Ask yourself this question:

Well, you're the one asking me. I don't have to ask myself these questions.

What fraction of all campaign spending prior to CU came from corporate donors, unions, wealthy donors, and advocacy groups with opaque funding sources (meaning, wealthy people and corporations that manage to conceal their donations)? What fraction of all campaign spending comes from those sources now?

Again, you ask these like they matter past a certain point. It doesn't matter how 'dark' the money is being spent on non-candidate political speech or how 'opaque' their funding sources. Money doesn't matter as much as you're saying it is in the context of advocacy groups.

After you've answered that question, you might be in a position to argue that the average citizen is better off in their ability to have their voice heard because of Citizens United.

And here we come to the other trope of the anti-speech crowd: that people have to be silenced in order for others to be heard.

Name me one person who was not heard because of Citizens United. Just one.

Unlike you, I can actually name people who were not heard pre-Citizens United under threat of criminal charges, fines, and jail time.

David Bossie and Michael Boos for starters.

[JasonT20]

Well, you're the one asking me. I don't have to ask myself these questions.

If you don't want to do any self-reflection or show any skepticism toward your own position, that is your business. But I don't have to view your position as worth my time to consider if you refuse to do that.

This question is something that has an answer, though it may take some digging to find. If you aren't interested in the answer and just want to assume that "dark" money doesn't impact elections significantly, then that lack of curiosity is your loss.

And here we come to the other trope of the anti-speech crowd: that people have to be silenced in order for others to be heard.

If we're going with analogies and metaphor as we are, using words like "silenced" and talking about being being "heard", then it is absolutely correct to note that individual voices can be drowned out by those with louder voices, particularly when those louder voices have equipment to amplify the sound of their voice. Try being heard, as an individual, at a political rally if you don't have a microphone or bullhorn.

That is what money does in politics. Those with more money can have their views greatly amplified to the point where their speech dominates the conversation in mass media. Duh, that is why campaigns spend money on advertising in the first place.

[tylertusta]

If you don't want to do any self-reflection or show any skepticism toward your own position, that is your business.

As a rhetorical matter, asking someone to question their own position is a bad argument to make while actually trying to argue with someone.

Introspection has its place before you enter the debate, not during, and certainly not at the demand of the other side.

and just want to assume that "dark" money doesn't impact elections significantly, then that lack of curiosity is your loss.

If it did, we would have had Presidents Romney and Clinton.

We don't because people aren't robots in a video game. They have agency.

then it is absolutely correct to note that individual voices can be drowned out by those with louder voices

No, it's not correct at all.

Back in the days of broadcast TV and radio, there may have been a small "there" there due to limited time on limited public airwaves. A rich person could buy up all of the TV stations and all of the radio advertisement slots.

This has never been true with print media, and with the advent of the internet and cable there is infinite space and infinite time with which to spread your own ideas over digital media as well. It's dirt cheap to go viral today. You have at your fingertips the ability to touch more people than the 90% of humans throughout history have. No one is "drowned out," and the fact that you can't even name people who were prevented from speaking or were not heard shows that it's all just vibes with no substance.

No, what this is really about is that misguided people assume that our politics can be fixed only by suppressing the political speech of those that they disfavor (in this case anyone who pools together money to speak). You want to implement a system that silences people or then sends them to jail for speaking their minds, and that's wrong.

As the Supreme Court said in Buckley v Valeo:

But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed "to secure `the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,'" and "`to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.'" The First Amendment's protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person's financial ability to engage in public discussion.

[David Nieporent]

I'm scared to ask, but what cause of action do you think Harvard could asset against Elon Musk?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Hypothetically, armed DOGE commandos lawlessly played a role, by breaking and entering Harvard buildings, throwing staff out at gunpoint, and then hacking computers for data that materially assisted whatever actions were taken to hurt Harvard. Then DOGE somehow finagled state power to put its own guy in as ostensible President of Harvard, who then invited the feds to buy Harvard property.

I'm no lawyer. Can you see even a tiny increment of damage in any of that?

All of it already at least approximately precedented, by the way. See U.S. Institute of Peace.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you see even a tiny increment of damage in any of that?

No, I don’t see that Harvard was damaged by an episode that exists purely in your imagination. Mix less how Elon Musk would be liable for it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — You seem to have trouble addressing arguments supported by evidence or examples.

Once again: See U.S. Institute of Peace. Everything I posited as a threat to Harvard DOGE/MAGA has already inflicted on that private entity.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I remember that you said that a cup of tea and a scone with clotted cream does not calm you, but whatever does, please take some of it. You are worrying yourself into a stroke.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I suggest it also reopens the question of whether Citizens United needs to be overturned. The disproportion between the gross physical size of the cash flow from commerce generally, versus the size of the cash flow used to manage politics, tells you as nothing else can that Citizens United was foredoomed to deliver political oligarchy. Some could see that in advance. Everyone should be able to see that now, in retrospect.

You’re wrong on the details of Elon Musk’s wealth of course, but he certainly is extremely wealthy. To the extent Citizens United has any relevance, doesn’t his enormous wealth evidence of how important it is for ordinary people who don’t have that wealth to be able to compete with him by banding together?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — Took only seconds.

Ivy Endowments:

Harvard ~53 B
Yale ~41 B
Princeton ~34 B
Penn ~22 B
Columbia ~14 B
Cornell ~11 B
Dartmouth ~8 B
Brown ~7 B

Ivies Total ~190 B
Musk Total ~340 B

Musk, personally, not far short of twice the combined Ivy endowments.

To the extent Citizens United has any relevance, doesn’t his enormous wealth evidence of how important it is for ordinary people who don’t have that wealth to be able to compete with him by banding together?

No.

How do you even come up with that?

Ordinary people who invest in per-share voting corporations may arguably (by sketchy arguments) be entitled to representation of their financial interests in those corporations. Their political interests are an entirely different matter. The ordinary investors are not typically entitled by any means to discover even the content of political messaging bought by corporate officers using corporations' money. If ordinary investors could do that, of course dark money would not be a political problem.

Do you know of any power ordinary people get to align corporate political advocacy with their own preferences, instead of with preferences chosen by corporate officers who disburse the funds?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Musk, personally, not far short of twice the combined Ivy endowments

You realize that that doesn’t mean that he has a checking account with a balance of $340,000,000,000, right? As you may recall when he purchased Twitter a couple of years ago, just announcing that he was going to sell off some of his Tesla stock and use more as collateral for a loan caused the price to drop enough to reduce his net worth by $30 billion.

Ordinary people who invest in per-share voting corporations may arguably (by sketchy arguments) be entitled to representation of their financial interests in those corporations.

Fortunately, we’re not limited to “per-share voting corporations”. If we want to get a message out, we can form non-profits dedicated to spreading it. If it’s a popular message (something like, say, “don’t vote for Hillary Clinton”), we can probably even find a group that already does the legwork (maybe even made a movie) and just donate to their cause directly!

I realize you hate free speech, but if you’re so scared of billionaires, you might want to think about how to counter them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — lf I am following you, your comments have become hard to follow. The point of Citizens United was to empower all corporations, not just bogus charities, to achieve anonymous political influence.

In the case of per-share voting corporations, that opens the way to unaccountable transfers of wealth mobilized through commerce, to be diverted at the behest of corporate managers, to promote their own personal political agendas, without disclosing to the shareholders that it even happened. Everything will be written off, probably tax free, under some anodyne expense category. Natural persons, of course, get taxed on their income before they can elect to try to buy political influence with it.

My advocacy is on behalf of free speech for natural persons. That is what I want maximized, and legally guarded. I oppose forcing natural persons to compete for political influence against others using the natural persons' own money, to pay for political influence against the natural persons' own advocacy. That is the system you endorse. I presume you understand it, and favor it just as it is.

But let's search for shared interest. I could relax my objection, and presumably encourage more-forthright speech, if there were open accounting of the purposes and contents (lobbying and otherwise) of communications purchased with money withdrawn from the treasuries of per-share voting corporations. I would still prefer that practice be banned, but I could live with that as an improvement. Will you, a sincere free expression advocate, join me in that?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The point of Citizens United was to empower all corporations, not just bogus charities, to achieve anonymous political influence.

Citizens United has nothing to do with anonymity.

Natural persons, of course, get taxed on their income before they can elect to try to buy political influence with it.

Not if they do it through donations to a non-profit.

My advocacy is on behalf of free speech for natural persons. That is what I want maximized, and legally guarded.

Me too!

Some of those natural persons have billions of dollars at their disposal and don’t need much help amplifying their voices. Others don’t, and are effectively voiceless if they can only act as individuals. That’s why their rights are only adequately protected if they can act as a corporate entity. A sort of group of citizens, who are united together, if you will.

But let's search for shared interest.

Why? In America, at least, my side—the one that favors free speech—already won. You benefit from that, with the inalienable right to grumble and yell at clouds as much as you want. But you can’t expect us to actually act on any of it.

[JasonT20]

Citizens United has nothing to do with anonymity.

So it was easy to find out where the funding for the movie came from?

Not if they do it through donations to a non-profit.

Charitable non-profits, classified under section 501(c)(3), receive donations that can be deducted from taxes. 501(c)(4) non-profit corporations? Nope. Donations to them are entirely from after-tax income for individuals. Large corporations with armies of tax laywers? I'm not so sure.

Some of those natural persons have billions of dollars at their disposal and don’t need much help amplifying their voices. Others don’t, and are effectively voiceless if they can only act as individuals. That’s why their rights are only adequately protected if they can act as a corporate entity. A sort of group of citizens, who are united together, if you will.

I find it hard to believe that you really think that people that own enough shares of a for-profit, publicly-traded company to actually have a say in how the company operates would be "voiceless" in politics they couldn't act through a corporation, and were instead limited to the means of voicing their opinions that the average, individual American has at their disposal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I find it hard to believe that you really think that people that own enough shares of a for-profit, publicly-traded company to actually have a say in how the company operates would be "voiceless" in politics they couldn't act through a corporation, and were instead limited to the means of voicing their opinions that the average, individual American has at their disposal.

I don’t know why you and Stephen Lathrop are pretending that “for-profit, publicly-traded company” is either the only corporate entity, or the one relevant to this discussion.

I am towards the top of the country’s income distribution, but I certainly couldn’t afford to get my message out in any meaningful way if I had to underwrite it myself. Protecting political speech by corporate entities lets me exercise my own free speech rights, whether thats writing an op ed in the newspaper (or posting on Reason!), or just writing a check in an amount that is individually meaningless to any of the organizations that already share my values.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — The point to oppose specifically political donations from per-share voting corporations is that their governance is anti-democratic, and thus a poor fit for republican politics. Some other kinds of corporations, at least in my estimate, have to be evaluated similarly.

Some, including many unions, govern themselves democratically. To let them band together to influence politics examples the very principle you have touted, and I do not object.

Others, such as many public charity non-profits, like the Sierra Club, do not govern themselves democratically. Those I would bar from political expenditures unless they made full public disclosures sufficient to forewarn donors how their funds would be used.

Why? In America, at least, my side—the one that favors free speech—already won. You benefit from that, with the inalienable right to grumble and yell at clouds as much as you want. But you can’t expect us to actually act on any of it.

That is distraction, in service of evasion. Address the objection that managers of per-share voting corporations were empowered to divert money unaccountably from corporate treasuries, to serve the private political interests of the managers. That does not benefit me. It drowns me out. It also deprives me and others like me of reasonable capacity to do what you say the present system enables—band together to achieve joint influence. Few if any such bands can rival the resources of per-share-voting corporations.

[JasonT20]

Stephen brings up another point about the CU ruling. They did uphold the disclosure requirements of McCain-Feingold, I believe. However, those requirements, if they are even still on the books, are extremely weak, since it can be so difficult to find out where all of the money really comes from. Single individuals donating to PACs and things can be seen, I think, but corporations can hide their donations behind holding companies and multiple layers of such "non-profits". Some call it "dark money" for a reason.

I'm with Stephen on this. If we allow unlimited "independent" expenditures (with few things deserving scare quotes as much as that does) during election campaigns, would you support much greater transparency of where all of the money is coming from?

[Stephen Lathrop]

You realize that that doesn’t mean that he has a checking account with a balance of $340,000,000,000, right?

Nor does Harvard's endowment sit in a checking account. What's your point?

[JasonT20]

....doesn’t his enormous wealth evidence of how important it is for ordinary people who don’t have that wealth to be able to compete with him by banding together?

Right. Real grassroots* funded political action committees have been able to compete with the political donor class so effectively because of the ability of ordinary people to band together.

* As opposed to astro-turf groups.

[Stephen Lathrop]

JasonT20, if that was not intended sarcastically, can you explain to me where I should look for evidence of non-donor-class political action committees competing effectively? Seems like survey after survey shows members of congress follow the donor class, and give their natural-person constituents short shrift.

Before I gave up trying, I made countless efforts to try merely to get the ear of a congressional policy aide, all without success. Not a donor? Constituent services is all you get.

I guess I should concede rare exceptions, which I have never had the luck to encounter. Someplace where intense bi-partisan alignment catches a napping elected official off guard. Is that what you have in mind?

[JasonT20]

"... if that was not intended sarcastically..."

No need to go any further. It was very sarcastic. The reference to "astro-turf" groups was the other give-away about my opinion on this.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thanks. I have been the April Fool today.

[JasonT20]

It was a coincidence that it was April Fool's. Besides, I've seen the meme that says that no one should bother with April Fool's pranks this year, since what is really happening is more crazy than any prank someone could come up with.

[rloquitur]

They may need the endowment to pay for Jewish kids' lawsuits . . . .

What people don't realize is how dangerous mob action can be. If people don't fight back, then the mob wins through physical intimidation, but if people decide to "provoke" the mob, e.g., wearing an Israeli army uniform AND decided to defend themselves when doing so if attacked, then the mob becomes a very dangerous thing--particularly in a concealed carry state.

[y81]

We'll see what the future holds for Harvard (and Columbia for that matter), but I find the current wailing and tearing of hair over Columbia puzzling. The measures implemented by Columbia at the government's demand are substantially identical to the measures recommended in a letter signed by 200 faculty members (presumably most of them Jewish, though I don't know that) in order to combat anti-Semitism. If David Bernstein were at Columbia, I say with some confidence that he would have signed the faculty letter. Does Post consider Bernstein, or the 200 faculty who did sign the letter, as threats to academic freedom?

[Roger S]

Harvard and Columbia have been rated as the two most anti free speech colleges. Except they allow speech to kill Jews, I guess. They need to clean up their acts, or lose federal money.

[Raccroc]

Don't disagree with what you say, other than I'm not sure going to the mattresses is a smart move. Elite universities have spent the last several year loosing the perception game with the middle/working class.

- Biden trying to get plumbers and carpenter to pay for the elitist educations through debt forgiveness.
- They brought us terms like Lantix and are responsible for people putting pronouns in signatures.
- Backing anti-Semitic hate & terrorists groups and ignoring the issues/bulling of their Jewish students.
- Filling our youth's heads with DEI and Marxism, Socialism, and and whole host of other unpopular-with-the-working-class -isms.
- Wasting parents money offering silly degrees like Golf Management, Feminine Theory, and Viticulture that have little to no job or future prospects

Most of the post election studies have been clear on that the lower, middle, and working class Democrats are of the opinion that the party more represents the elites instead of them.

If Harvard decides to entrench and get into a protracted war with Trump without the populist support, they run a very big risk. With enough support, Trump could go after those endowments and seek to tax them, he could work Congress to eliminate the grants completely, could go after the Student Loans Program that allow them to continually raise tuition, etc. He has plenty of bullets he can shoot... what do they have?

And it wouldn't take much for a Dem leader to throw the ivory towers under the buss in order to win back the support of the working class either; swinging even more support his way.

[шинка]

This assumes that the administration wants to draw down the endowment. The interest from the endowments already subsidizes the institute, they still are in a $200,000,000+ hole.

It is asinine from an investment standpoint to draw down principle. Sacrificing future returns and compounded interest is the antithesis of good investing. It is the path of last resort if need be.

Acquiescing the administration is the easier path. Bend the knee and protect the endowment. To your point, Trump won't be around in 4 years, and things will most likely things will change.

But drawing down from principle and thinking that the interest can cover this loss reflects a poor understanding of how endowments and investments in general work.

[David Nieporent]

But drawing down from principle and thinking that the interest can cover this loss reflects a poor understanding of how endowments and investments in general work.

You are confusing a university with a hedge fund. The purpose of an endowment is to fund things the university wants to do, not to grow the endowment for the sake of growing the endowment. If Harvard spends down some principal (note spelling) and its endowment hypothetically drops by 10%, so what? It's not going to be at any more risk of insolvency.

[rloquitur]

At last, a thing we agree upon.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You are confusing a university with a hedge fund. "

Harvard is just a hedge fund with a college attached.

[шинка]

At least someone gets it.

[шинка]

Endowments like Harvards are managed like hedge funds.

https://www.hmc.harvard.edu

Read and enrich.

[jb]

Harvard's endowment grew by $2.5B in 2024, so in practice the discussion is about growing the endowment less rather than drawing down principle. This also addresses John Hawkinson's assertion above that the interest is spoken for. Maybe literally true for interest--I have no idea--but certainly not true for the growth of the endowment.

Even if Harvard did have to draw down on principle, what David says below is correct. The endowment doesn't exist for the purpose of having as much money as possible--it exists to support the mission of the university.

[шинка]

https://www.hmc.harvard.edu

"A Singular Mission

Formed in 1974, HMC manages Harvard University’s endowment and related financial assets. Our mission is to help ensure Harvard University has the financial resources to confidently maintain and expand its leadership in education and research for future generations.

Since its inception, HMC has been tasked with the singular mission to generate strong long-term results to support the educational and research goals of Harvard University. This long-term focus has given us an edge in many facets of investment management. We were among the earliest institutional investors in venture capital, one of the first and largest investors in timberland assets, and a leading investor in some of the most successful absolute return and direct investment strategies.

Being an early entrant and bringing long-term focus has often allowed us to establish unique investment positions in less crowded areas. As a result, our portfolio has significantly outperformed a typical 60/40 stock/bond portfolio and the average endowment portfolio. This outperformance has contributed billions of dollars to Harvard University."

You are correct, they support the mission of the university....by maximizing the growth of the endowment.

Everyone has altruistic views of endowments, but the largest of them are managed as novel hedge funds. I forget off the top of my head (Yale, maybe), but there are endowments who function like VCs because they can get greater returns from VC investments over traditional investments.

[jb]

Yes, it is the job of the endowment managers to generate as much return as possible. And yes, for large endowments they're generally not that different from a hedge fund or a family office.

But it is the job of the university leadership and trustees to determine how to spend the endowment, and their job is absolutely not to maximize the size and return of the endowment, although they certainly want to make sure that they don't draw down too much, just as us normal people probably don't want to spend all of our retirement savings on big screen TVs in our 20s. (See Cooper Union as an example of getting this wrong.)

These are different roles with different considerations.

[шинка]

Yes, they can direct the spending of the endowment, but the main purpose of managers of the endowment is to maximize returns.

These roles can be contradictory to one another. The point I was making earlier was a financial one to protect the endowment by instead kowtowing to the Trump administration for the next four years to ensure maximum returns. It is more prudent in the long term to protect the endowment versus reducing its ability to generate returns just because you don't like the current administration's politics. You sacrifice so much more financially than changing some policies for the next three years. That's just shit emotional investing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Because you literally said as much, I suppose I should not be surprised you have excluded from your argument any notion of an existential crisis for Harvard, except in terms of money management. In present context, that may not continue accurate. Can you see any possibility that to say that is not, ". . . just shit emotional investing?"

[шинка]

Who cares about Harvard's existential crisis?

The only way to look at this is through a financial lens. To do otherwise would be fiscally irresponsible irrespective of the "panties in a bunch" feeling that Harvard is having right now.

Using the endowment to mitigate the loss of is a dereliction of fiscal responsibility.

[David Nieporent]

The point I was making earlier was a financial one to protect the endowment by instead kowtowing to the Trump administration for the next four years to ensure maximum returns. It is more prudent in the long term to protect the endowment

And, again, this is entirely wrongheaded. Protect the endowment for what? Harvard's mission is not to have the biggest bank account. It doesn't have any shareholders trying to maximize their retirement accounts. Harvard with a $45B endowment that stands up for its principles is superior to Harvard with a $55B endowment that doesn't.

[шинка]

Using the endowment to mitigate the loss of is a dereliction of fiscal responsibility.

Harvard doesn't have principles, that much should be grossly apparent. Look at what the administration has done at that university over the past few decades.

You're holding them to a standard they cannot achieve. Former president Gray was wholly unqualified for her job, and she was also guilty of academic dishonesty. She was only chosen for that job for the color of her skin and sexual orientation, not because she was the most qualified candidate. So help me understand what "principles" are worth preserving at Harvard?

There are significantly more reputable universities out there with significantly higher integrity than Harvard. They are the poster child for what is broken in academia.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So much for the pretense to prioritize fiscal management ahead of everything else.

[David Nieporent]

She was only chosen for that job for the color of her skin and sexual orientation,

Um, what? Her name is Gay (not "Gray" as you erroneously claimed); she herself is not.

[David Nieporent]

Using the endowment to mitigate the loss of is a dereliction of fiscal responsibility.

Repeating this — incoherently, because you couldn't even be bothered to fix the typo — doesn't make it any less inane.

[John Hawkinson]

As a factual matter that's not actually correct.

The interest earned by endowments that is invested back into the endowment principal (what you call growth) is usually encumbered in the same way that the original principal (gift) is encumbered. Of course, this depends on the exact details of how the endowment contract/agreement is written, and there are literally tens of thousands of these at an Institute like Harvard, so there will be some variation.

That is, the growth is spoken for.

I'm not sure what the basis is for you to say it "certainly [is] not true for the growth." That's counter to my understanding.

[DWB]

NO, it's to get rich and throw grand cocktail parties

[Bored Lawyer]

So Harvard is sitting on $ 51 billion, but we need to still give them hundreds of millions from the federal purse. This at a time of massive deficits. Sorry, pay your own way.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry, pay your own way.

Grants are not charity.

You're really sliding down that MAGA slope, huh?

[Don Nico]

"Grants are not charity."
Agreed.
But the management of endowments as hedge funds hardly argues that they should be effectively untaxed.

[rloquitur]

Hey all, looky here--another out of control judge:

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/03/31/boston-judge-holds-ice-agent-in-contempt-after-man-detained-mid-trial/

[Longtobefree]

Well, at least the judge got one thing right; there is a lot of contempt for that court.

[rloquitur]

The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct should be flooded with complaints about this asshole judge. Pam Bondi should figure out a way to prosecute him.

[Bored Lawyer]

Seems like a violation of the Massachusetts Court rules. Like the federal rules, they distinguish between contempts in the presence of the presiding judge (Rule 43) and those not (Rule 44).
The latter requires a complaint or indictment brought by a prosecutor.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/massachusetts-rules-of-criminal-procedure/download

Does not sound like the ICE agent arrested the guy in the courtroom. So if it is a contempt (which I doubt), then the local DA has to file a complaint.

In the unlikely event that the prosecution proceeds, it could be removed to federal court under 28 USC 1442 and 1455.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A different article (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/31/metro/ice-detention-defendant-trial-judge-investigation/) says the DA’s office received the referral and is evaluating charges. Still blatantly unconstitutional, but not a procedural violation as far as I can tell.

[tylertusta]

What was unconstitutional? The arrest or the judge's finding of contempt?

[Bob from Ohio]

He dismissed drug trafficking charges because he got mad.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The article (and the USAO’s notice of removal) says the charges were for lying on a driver’s license application. (He does have a prior conviction for drug dealing.)

[Longtobefree]

Stop with the reviews already!
Just cut all federal tax dollars going to any school at any level.

I don't care what type of protest they do or do not allow, I don't want tax dollars going to any university with an endowment that could settle the national debt.

[SykesFive]

What do you think the national debt is?

[Androcles]

Harvard can, of course, take the Hillsdale course and eschew federal funds. And they can give up federal tax exempt status.
As I recall from a cut-off of federal funds in Alabama back in my youth, the federal government can sua sponte cut off federal funds to educational institutions that discriminate on the basis of race, as has Harvard. Is there case law to the contrary? And the IRS can cut off tax exempt status based on discrimination in admissions.

[Kleppe]

"Won't someone please think of the poor universities with tens of billions in their endowments!"

[Kazinski]

There is no doubt there are important principles involved here, but surely nothing so dire as to justify foregoing Federal money.

[Frank Drackman]

Auburns endowment is a little over a Bullion (I’m a fan and last “Contribution” I gave was going to a baseball game in 2019)
That being said Bruce Pearl has us(yes, “us” I’ve been suffering with the tigers since 1979) in the final 4, where did Hah-vud end up?

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I looked up Harvard's original charter, and apparently the university's purpose is "the education of the English and Indian youth of this country in knowledge and godliness."

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=880222&p=6323072#Transcription%20of%20the%20Charter%20of%201650

Except for maybe changing "English" to "American," that sounds like a good idea.

We know Harvard still teaches godliness, because it's all about DEI, which is Latin for "of God."

[Ken Arromdee]

It's probably true that universities could use their endowments to make up for funds that are cut off because they discriminate against Jews.

But a much better solution would be to *not discriminate against Jews*.