Gates, Microsoft Urged by Shareholders to Cease Making Charitable Contributions

November 11, 2003

Volume 5 / Number 35

Dear Colleague,

As regular readers of the Weekly Briefing know, the myth of overpopulation is as old as civilization itself. Human genius and ingenuity have consistently outpaced population growth.

The tragedy of Bill Gates’ support of abortion and population control is that technology leads to development. Unfortunately, the developing world will grow old before it develops because of population control. Gates, in supporting population control, is out of step with other great minds who have viewed people as humanity’s greatest resource.

You will recall that a similar shareholder proposal was made before Mr. Warren Buffett and 10,000 Berkshire-Hathaway shareholders last year in Omaha (see PRI Weekly Briefing on May 6, 2002, Volume 4/ Number 10). Mr. Buffett has since discontinued corporate charitable contributions.

Mr. Gates, we urge you to follow suit. NOTE: If you would like to listen to the presentation of the resolution, go to www.microsoft.com.  Scroll down the left hand side of the page, and then click on the investor relations section to get to the live link.

Gates, Microsoft Urged by Shareholders to Cease Making Charitable Contributions

Resolution: Stop Contributing to Abortion and Other Objectionable Causes

At 8:00 AM pacific (11 AM eastern) today, Population Research Institute

(PRI) will present the following resolution at the annual Microsoft Shareholder’s meeting.  This resolution urges Microsoft to refrain from making direct charitable contributions.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ‘To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.’ Choice is a popular word in our culture.  Nobel prize winning economist and long time critic of corporate charitable contributions, Milton Friedman, writes about the importance of choice in his book, *Free to Choose. By making charitable contributions at the corporate level, we have usurped the right and duty of individuals to support their favorite charities. We may, also, be forcing thousands of people to finance causes they may disagree with on a most profound level. For example, abortion rights advocates often use the word choice, without mentioning what the choice is all about, that is, abortion. Today there are a number of prominent charities advocating for abortion and, in at least one case, Planned Parenthood, actually performing abortions. Other charities, oftentimes involved in research for cures of disease, may advocate cloning or the destruction of human embryos for research purposes. These may be more controversial examples, but illustrate the point. Today, many charities are involved in activities that are divisive and not universally supported. Microsoft employees and shareholders represent a broad range of interests. It is truly impossible to be sensitive to the moral, religious and cultural beliefs of so many people. Rather than compel our shareholders to support potentially controversial charitable groups, we should refrain from giving their money away for them. Let each person choose. The importance of individual choice is perhaps exceeded only by the importance of the life of each individual.*

Never miss an update!

Get our Weekly Briefing! We send out a well-researched, in-depth article on a variety of topics once a week, to large and growing English-speaking and Spanish-speaking audiences.

Subscribe to our Weekly Briefing!

Receive expert analysis every Tuesday morning.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.