Tainted money they call it! Unclean and not acceptable under any circumstance! Whose money is it? Tobacco companies. Would your association or organization accept philanthropic contributions from corporations who produce tobacco products? Is there really an ethical dilemma associated with accepting this so-called tainted money?

Unfortunately, the philanthropic mission, goals and achievements of these successful American corporations have been largely ignored. The highly vocal critics would have you believe that no ethical charitable organization would accept such gifts.

Don't you believe it! Each year thousands of ethical charitable organizations apply for, and gladly accept, gifts from corporations who produce tobacco products -- and do it with open arms and smiles on their institutional faces. Tens of millions of philanthropic dollars from these corporations are invested into countless worthy community causes.

All of these recipient organizations can't be unethical and totally unconcerned about their public image. What's the deal?

"The organization who states they won't accept a gift from these tobacco companies is taking a position to be noticed," stated Mike Poston, Vice President and Associate Dean for Development and Alumni Affairs at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "And they are being noticed because they are rejecting these gifts as if they were eligible to get the gift in the first place, which they're not. So what they're doing is actually engaging in a sort of passive public relations and imaging campaign to get themselves better known by rejecting money. However, if they were able to get that money, and if their constituency was able to benefit from that money, and the leadership in the organization has rejected that money, then maybe that organization is not living up to its mission."

The issue of whether a charitable organization would accept or reject a philanthropic contribution from any source is predicated on the gift actually being offered. Anyone who has ever written a grant proposal knows that it's essential to study the corporate or foundation guidelines. In the R.J. Reynolds Charitable Giving Guidelines it specifically states: "... To be eligible for funding consideration, an applicant must generally be: ... serving residents in communities where significant numbers of RJRT employees live and/or work." This single requirement will render more than 95 percent of all American charities ineligible for a grant from this company. Vivian Turner, Director of Contributions and President of the R.J. Reynolds Foundation, talked about their geographic limitations. "We focus on communities where our employees live and work because our founder, Richard Joshua Reynolds, believed that charity starts at home."

Although Philip Morris has no specific geographic limitations in their Grant Guidelines, they indicate that they do give higher priority to grants that "... foster a positive environment in the communities where we operate."

When asked why some organizations would decline a gift from Philip Morris, Karen Brosius, Director of Corporate Affairs, commented, "If a charitable organization chooses not to apply to us for a grant that is certainly their right. However, the only way they can accept or reject our money is to apply for it in the first place. Each year we receive thousands upon thousands of philanthropic requests, far more than we could ever fund. Over the past ten years Philip Morris has given more than $1 billion to charitable causes. Last year alone our gifts were in excess of $125 million."

It has been debated in many circles whether the philanthropic giving practices of these tobacco companies is suspect. Let's be honest, the critics who adamantly accuse these companies of bolstering their public image through philanthropy, are absolutely correct. However, it's the company's money to give away, so they can pick and choose charities as they wish. Consider the alternative. If you were the CEO of a major company, would it be wise for you to invest your very limited philanthropic dollars in charitable programs or activities that are counter to your giving guidelines, generate negative public opinion and ultimately hurt the intrinsic value of your company? That kind of philanthropic logic would not only be unwise, it would be counter to every good business practice ever put forth.

However, the question still must be addressed. Are tobacco companies making contributions just to enhance their public image? "Absolutely!" emphatically stated Tim Delaney, attorney and Founder of The Center for Leadership, Ethics & Public Service in Phoenix. "The proof is in the pudding. Think back five years ago. How many television ads did you see them running about how they were doing wonderful things in the community? It wasn't until after they got tagged for the multi-million dollars from the states that they started doing public policy ads. They help some homeless shelter or domestic violence shelter and then pump millions of dollars worth of ads onto the airwaves and say, 'Gee, look how nice we are, we just gave $10,000 to this entity that's doing all this important work. So don't beat up on us anymore.' Five years ago they weren't doing that, they just didn't care. If they were really nice and wonderful, they would give all that money away without running all those ads trying to cleanse their own image."

Bill Pfeifer, President and CEO of the American Lung Association would agree that the gifting practices of the tobacco companies are highly suspect. "We would consider gifts from R.J. Reynolds or Philip Morris to be tainted gifts and would not receive a direct contribution from any tobacco company. It is my belief that the philanthropic efforts of the tobacco industry is totally suspicious. Its greatest objective is for the positive public relations for the tobacco industry. The secondary by-product might be to help a local community charity."

Even a staunch critic like the American Lung Association admits that they often receive tobacco company stock from individuals. Bill Pfeifer explained, "I'm sure there are a variety of reasons we receive these kinds of gifts, some may be to ease the guilt of the donor for having owned that stock in the first place. In those cases we are receiving a gift from an individual and that gift just happens to be tobacco stock. We do have a policy that prevents us from holding tobacco stock, so after receiving the stock, we would liquidate it and then we would reinvest the proceeds."

How far removed from the tobacco company is necessary before the gift becomes less tainted? "That's a very good question for the organization because they may end up being grand hypocrites in the scheme of things," commented Mike Poston. "If the organization will not take money directly from the tobacco company, but they will take tobacco stock from an individual, something about that doesn't sound right. One dollar is not spendable whereas the other dollar is? That's "BS" because all dollars are spendable."

Anti-smoking groups have tried for years to convince organizations not to take philanthropic gifts from companies who produce tobacco products. "In the public health community there is virtually a united front against the idea of taking money from Philip Morris," commented Joel Spivak of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington, DC. "We say, 'You shouldn't take money from an organization that does so much harm.' But I'd be lying if I said it was an easy sell. It's very difficult to tell an organization that has no money in their budget to do something that is ultimately going to help a lot of people, that they shouldn't take tobacco money. They're interested in getting their job done anyway they can."

There are those who would argue that philanthropic money is philanthropic money and it should be invested in worthwhile activities regardless of its origin. Mother Teresa, the Catholic nun who ministered to the abandoned dying on the streets of Calcutta, apparently took that view. She reportedly quipped, "I know where the money has been and I know where it's going." In her lifetime she raised millions of dollars from all kinds of people including some very large gifts from despots and unsavory political rulers who salved their conscience with financial contributions. Though criticized for accepting tainted money, Mother Teresa never refused a contribution from any source. She was called the Saint of the gutters and she was not about to refuse gifts of charity that could be used to aid those who lived there. Of course, a case could be made for rejecting money received from criminal activities, but on the other hand, as Mother Teresa implied, what was once ill-gotten gains is now going to do some good. Mike Poston would agree. "I think people have got to remember that charitable organizations need money and it often doesn't matter the source of that money. What matters is the structure of the gift, the intention of the gift and who and how it will benefit mankind. And if it does all those things in an ethical and appropriate manner, then it shouldn't really matter where the money is coming from."

Should the history and pedigree of donations be a central focus of a charitable organization? Does money have a sense of history, shame or pride or is it just a tangible commodity? "We don't find ourselves sitting around thinking of what kinds of gifts we would or would not take," explained Sandra Boyette, Vice President for University Advancement at Wake Forest University. "We do have a special committee that looks at complex gifts, but usually it's the structure of the gift we discuss and not the nature of the donor."

Tim Delaney, however, takes the opposing view. "I don't believe that money is a tangible commodity with no sense of history, shame or pride. In our society money equals power and in our society many organizations want to buy a better image. In the case of big tobacco companies they have done bad things in the past and now they want to make themselves look better."

To the many organizations who actively pursue and gratefully accept gifts from companies who produce tobacco products, the idea that their philanthropic dollars are tainted is ludicrous. Virginia Blood Services in Richmond, Virginia has been a long-time recipient of generous financial gifts from Philip Morris. "We accept their blood donations so, of course, we would also accept their financial contributions. There is no reason for us not to accept the donation," stated Lynn Miller, Director of Development. "Our relationship with Philip Morris has existed since we opened in 1974. We have received financial contributions from Philip Morris nearly every year to help purchase bloodmobiles and support our bone marrow program. They have also been our largest blood donor group. Philip Morris is important to Richmond, considering that the tobacco industry has been a long-time employer in the area. Their staff has been just as important in helping our blood donor base here as it has in financial contributions."

Tobacco companies have been accused of requiring special recognition as a result of a philanthropic gift. Quite frankly, considering the dismal giving record of many Fortune 500 companies, the outstanding philanthropic efforts of tobacco companies deserves special recognition. However, no special requests for recognition are ever required by R.J. Reynolds or Philip Morris. "R.J. Reynolds has never asked for any special kind of recognition," commented Sandra Boyette. "We treat R.J. Reynolds like any other donor. We have an honor roll of donors that's published every year. So in any year they made a gift their company name would be listed. We have in our main administration building plaques recognizing donors of one million dollars or more, so they are recognized there. Those are the primary ways we have of recognizing donors."

Wake Forest University echoes the comments of many organizations who have gratefully accepted philanthropic gifts from the tobacco industry. The vast majority of charitable recipients would defend their gifts as being purely altruistic in nature with no hidden strings, recognition, or public relations requirements. Paul Hansen, National Executive Director of the Izaak Walton League in Gaithersburg, Maryland says bluntly, "The Philip Morris people have never asked us for squat. They have never asked us to take a position on any of the issues they face nor have they asked us for an endorsement or anything else." Lynn Miller would agree. "Philip Morris is a wonderful corporate citizen and they have never asked us for any kind of special recognition for their support."

Many charitable organizations have some type of written policies that provide guidance on whether to accept a gift or not. These can be elaborate, inflexible documents or simple, common sense guidelines that allow a great deal of leeway for staff and Board members to make decisions about questionable gifts. Sandra Boyette believes that all major gifts are unique and need to be evaluated carefully. "For any major gift you need to do diligence. For example, if we accepted a grant that would, in the long run, cost us money that we were not prepared to spend, obviously we wouldn't want to do that. Another example would be a program grant from a foundation and that foundation expects the institution, after four or five years, to pick up the total cost of that program, then you need to be prepared to do just that. So those are the kinds of things we do when evaluating both requests and grants."

In the case of a gift that your organization may consider questionable or perhaps even undesirable, Tim Delaney presents the following suggestions: 1. Organizations should keep their eyes wide open when they receive gifts of questionable origin. They should ask themselves: is the gift congruent with who we are, our mission, our philosophy and why we exist? If it's not -- don't take it. That may mean that times will be rough for your charitable organization, but every organization must be true to itself and if it's not then why does it exist. 2. Keep in mind that as soon as you start accepting questionable gifts, you start losing your identity. 3. Make sure you're not selling your organization's soul in exchange for some quick bucks.

Organizations who feel it necessary to refuse a gift, or publicly state they would refuse a gift, would be wise to consider the following: 1. Who will you be offending internally or externally if you choose not to accept a gift? 2. Are you helping or hindering your organizational mission by refusing a gift? Will your constituents suffer? 3. Is the reason for refusal of a gift an institutional one supported by your entire organization, or is it merely a personal belief or one that is advocated by a minority of your constituents? 4. Is there any real likelihood that you will indeed be in a position to refuse the gift or is your public refusal more theatrical in nature with hopes of bolstering your own community stature?

Critics will always be suspicious of the philanthropic activities of companies who produce tobacco products and no amount of good intentions or positive publicity will offset that suspicion. However, philanthropy is still philanthropy. Each year thousands of charitable organizations are accomplishing their mission because of the generosity of tobacco companies and their employees. Whether you like their products or not, you must admit, even if grudgingly, that the philanthropic dollars that these companies are investing in American charities, are indeed good for America.