No More Learning

The use of a subterfuge--in the form of Rockefeller-controlled foundations--in effect produces the same result as if Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) owned substantial stock interest in Continental Oil, Ohio Oil, Standard Oil Co. (Indiana), et al. 11
The Rockefellers also have stock holdings in these companies through personal trust funds, as shown by TNEC, Monograph #29, and perhaps directly.
One is impeded from ascertaining precisely what the Rockefeller interest now is in each of the Standard Oil companies through the spreading around of stock ownership in foundations, personal trusts and personal accounts. Under the law establishing the Securities and Exchange Commission, as we have noted, any holding of a publicly offered stock by any individual or enterprise in excess of 10 per cent of the issue must be reported. But, as I pointed out earlier, a man could secretly hold most of the stock in a company by having 9 per cent in his name and 9 per cent in each of various trusts. If he never changed his holdings the fact would never be reported. He could hold more by adding foundations to the scheme, although the foundation holdings would be on the public record. just what the percentage of Rockefeller ownership/control now is in any of the Standard Oil companies cannot be ascertained from the record because apparently no individual or trust owns as much as 10 per cent of any issue.
"It is a well-known fact that the Rockefeller family controls Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey), and the Rockefeller-controlled foundations own a substantial part of the corporation," Patman remarks in the same place.
Only once has Rockefeller dominance ever been challenged. That was in 1929 when strong-willed Colonel Robert W. Stewart, chairman of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, appealed to general stockholders over the heads of the Rockefellers for control of the company. In the show-down vote all the Rockefeller foundations, funds, trusts, personal holdings and holdings of old Standard Oil families were massively counted against Stewart. Ile was ignominiously snowed under.
Rockefeller family control of the giant Standard Oil flotilla is unchallenged and unchallengeable. Foundation-held stock helps insure it to perpetuity. No possible combination of financial interests under existing law could dislodge that control.
I am not suggesting that this control should be altered. I am simply stating a fact of financial-political life. One may be entirely satisfied to see the Rockefellers rather than some other group in control. But control is what is at stake. One deduces this because this is the way it is. This, one must suppose, is the way it was planned by the wily master architect of Standard Oil.
True, one could suppose that the major intent was philanthropic. It is not logically impossible that the outcome of control was unplanned. But John D. Rockefeller I, whatever else he was, was a planner. I conclude, possibly erroneously and uncharitably, the situation is the consequence of a plan that visualized the retention of control as a goal.
The Rockefeller foundations, as Patman found, are by no means unique as mechanisms for corporate control.
Two Du Pont foundations owned 6,931 shares of Christiana Securities Company worth $83. 8 million, and 358,105 shares of E. I. du Pont de Nemours worth $20. 4 million.
Six Mellon foundations held 120,294 shares of Aluminum Company worth $8. 2 million, 3,729,933 shares of Gulf Oil Corporation worth $124. 5 million and 48,750 shares of First Boston Corporation worth $3. 2 million.
The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation owned 645,238 shares of Dow Chemical Company worth $48. 1 million. The Howard Heinz Endowment owned 314,104 shares of H. J. Heinz Company worth $42. 5 million. The Timken Foundation owned 427,760 shares of Timken Roller Bearing Company worth $20. 5 million. The Charles A. Dana Foundation held 500,000 shares of Dana Corporation worth $16 million. The Gulf Oil Foundation held all the stock of Pontiac Refining Corporation, worth $32 million.
Foundations as Untaxed Holding Companies
Foundations often serve as tax-free holding companies that maintain working control by means of 10 to 100 per cent ownership of many large corporations, the Patman inquiry made certain. But 73 foundations out of 534, including some large ones, did not report such ownership positions to the Treasury as required by law. 12
Some of the leading corporations in addition to the Standard Oil group entirely or supplementarily controlled by foundations are as follows: 13
(Asterisks mark those not reporting ownership as required by law. )
Controlled
Corporation
Kaiser Industries
Callaway Mills
Coca-Cola
George D. Roper
Midwest Oil
Eli Lilly
Kellogg
preferred
S. S. Kresge
United States Sugar
B. Altman (N. Y. )
Connecticut Railway
and Lighting
preferred
Duke Power
preferred
Ford Motor
W. T. Grant
Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea
S. H. Kress
Untaxed
Foundation
Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation
*Callaway Community
Foundation
Emily and Ernest Woodruff
Foundation
Sears, Roebuck Foundation
*Standard Oil Foundation,
Inc.
Lilly Endowment, Inc.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Trust
Kresge Foundation
Chas. Stewart Mott Founda-
tion (General Motors)
Altman Foundation
Charles Ulrick and Josephine
Bay Foundation
*Duke Endowment
Percentage
of Ownership
15. 4 100. 0
15. 21 11. 77
18. 34
46. 24 common
10. 40 class B
58.
51. common
34.
48. 2 84. 59
99. 25
51. 07 common
57. 24 common
82. 02
Ford Foundation 100. class A
Grant Foundation 10. 7
*John A. Hartford Foundation
Samuel H. Kress Foundation
33. 98 common
41. 9
American Chain & Cable
Federal Cartridge
preferred
Reinsurance Corp. of
N. Y. Faberge
pref.
pref.
Electrolux
Enna Jettick
Pittsburgh Steel
preferred
Sun Oil
National Bank of
Commerce, Houston
Allen Bradley
preferred
Miller Brewing
National Lead Co. of
South America
preferred
James S. Kemper
preferred
Wieboldt Stores
preferred
Sahara Coal
preferred
Tecumseh Products
Hormel
Ralston Purina
American National
Insurance
Beaunit
Jonathan Logan
Cudahy
common
Springmaid of the West
William T. Morris Foundation
*Olin Foundation
Richardson Foundation
*Samuel Rubin Foundation
17. 8 100.
14.
100. common
100. 1st
70. 2nd
Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research 24. 2
Fred L. Emerson Foundation 100.
Donner Foundation 10. A
Pew Memorial Trust 21. 29
Houston Endowment 23. 4
*Allen-Bradley Foundation 64. 62
De Rance, Inc. , Milwaukee 29.
*National Lead Foundation 100.
*James S. Kemper Foundation 34. 2
*Wieboldt Foundation 90. 6
*Woods Charitable Fund 20. 7
Herrick Foundation 23.
*Hormel Foundation 11. 69
*Danforth Foundation 23. 4
*Moody Foundation 34. 55
*Rogosin Foundation 24. 5
*David Schwartz Foundation 15.
*Patrick & Anna Cudahy Fund
Springs Foundation
86. 66 B 100.
Some additional significant enterprises under foundation control
were the
following: 14
Edgewater Beach Hotel
Chicago
First National Bank ,
Ligonier, Pa.
North American Accident
Insurance
Field Enterprises
preferred
Reinsurance Corporation
of N. Y.
Cannon Mills
First Boston
*The Boston Foundation 100.
*Avalon Foundation
(Mellon) 21. 5
*Field Foundation 30.
*Field Foundation 100.
*The Richardson Foundation 14.
*Cannon Foundation 11. 69
*Sarah Mellon Scaife
Foundation 43. 33
In all, no fewer than 111 foundations were found to own more than 10 per cent of one class of stock, usually the voting stock, in one or more of 263 different important
corporations as of December 31, 1960. 15 This was a considerable number of corporations in which to exercise tax-free control even though not all of them were of the commanding size of Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea, Kresge, Ford Motor or Sun Oil. The Ford Foundation does not directly control Ford Motor, but its holding of nonvoting stock enables the Ford family, which also controls the foundation, to control the company absolutely with its own block of stock of weighted voting power.
But at the end of 1960 all 534 foundations in the study held investments in the stock of more than 2,000 corporations, assuring considerable dispersion of voting influence. 16
The point about foundation control, full or partial, is that it is tax free all the way, giving the foundational enterprise a big competitive edge over nonfoundational businesses, a facet Representative Patman was especially interested in. He cited reports from various businessmen on how they were being undercut in the market by foundation-owned enterprises.
The 534 foundations "had aggregate untaxed receipts of almost $7 billion during the period of 1951 through 1960. During the one year 1960, their total receipts were $1. 34 billion as against $554 million in 1951. I find it difficult to reconcile the withdrawal of $1 billion annually from the reach of the Treasury with the federal government's pressing need for revenue.
"During the period of 1951 through 1960, the contributions, gifts, grants, scholarships, etc. , paid out by the 534 foundations totalled $3,448,867,894 (see Schedule 3A for details)--roughly 50 per cent of their aggregate receipts of $6,981,180,819. They claimed expenses, including administrative and operating costs, of $721,199,586-- almost 10 per cent of the total receipts. " 17
The foundations in the aggregate, it is readily seen, are as prudent as the corporations in what they pay out. They pay out only about half of income, plus 10 per cent for administration, while the corporations pay out only 44 per cent. The remainder, in both cases, is used for reinvestment and growth. The capital position of the foundations over the years is thus enlarged on the basis of their tax savings. What they don't pay in taxes, it must always be remembered, must be paid in other ways--mainly by the rank-and-file, flag-waving patriots.
To show the magnitude of income for only 534 foundations, Patman points out that 7,213,000 families in 1960 had incomes of less than $2,000 each before taxes, aggregating $8. 04 billion. Foundation income the same year was 13 per cent of this total.
But the foundation income of $1. 034 billion for 1960 was more than 20 per cent greater than the $864,435,000 net operating earnings after taxes of the fifty largest banks in the United States! 18
At the end of 1960, indeed, the net worth of the 534 foundations studied was 23 per cent greater than the capital, surplus and undivided profits of the nation's fifty largest commercial banks. 19
As to accumulation of income, the Patman findings, apart from showing payouts in pro forma beneficences of only 50 per cent of earnings on the average, placed into view some startling findings. Retained earnings of only some of the largest foundations, which are supposed to be doing the most public good, were as follows through 1960: 20
Ford Foundation
Carnegie Corporation
William Volker Fund, California
Retained Earnings
through 1960
$432,916,492
65,854,287
17,204,824
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Callaway Community Foundation, Georgia
William H. Miner Foundation, Chicago
The Cranbrook Foundation, Michigan
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
T. B. Walker Foundation, Minneapolis
Danforth Foundation
Charles Hayden Foundation
John and Mary R. Markle Foundation
Milbank Memorial Fund
William T. Morris Foundation
Olin Foundation
Research Corporation
Rockefeller Foundation
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Fred L. Emerson Foundation
Thomas J. Emery Memorial
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation
Houston Endowment
30,334,316
7,173,911
13,963,496
8,187,872
7,524,832
8,436,379
15,799,676
16,064,615
9,589,958
9,412,828
8,831,544
15,239,780
10,070,661
51,019,677
33,152,735
9,394,815
6,847,411
8,154,763
6,198,566
27,110,937
While such saving is excellent investment procedure, it does not represent giving away either income or principal. Yet the law (only since 1950) in allowing tax exemption to such enterprises stipulates that there shall be no unreasonable accumulations of income. Prior to 1950 foundation income could be retained without even nominal restriction.
Untaxed, Unfair Competition
Representative Patman's main concern was that the foundations steadily shrink the tax base, thereby increasing the tax burden for others. At the same time they gain a competitive advantage by escaping corporation taxes of 48 to 52 per cent which other business entities must load onto costs. This tax saving they use to build their capital position higher. They in fact literally, almost to the penny, capitalize their tax savings and grow. The wealthy churches do this, too.
The general panorama revealed by Patman was that through the foundation device this privileged part of the American capitalist structure had been able to move itself back into the earlier position of unregulated, uncontrolled, untaxed capitalism. Through the foundations, unless they are restrained by law or public criticism, the old unregulated capitalism may well be restored behind the screen of fitful and halfhearted pubpolic corporate regulation in the foreground.
The Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury Department, Patman showed, paid only the most cursory attention to the foundations, apparently taking them at their face value as beneficences. It rarely conducted field audits, kept very haphazard statistics, did not require proper reports, accepted any and all schemes of accounting, did not hold the foundations to existing regulations, did not hold them to the requirement in law forbidding "unreasonable" accumulations of income, gave tax exemptions for straightout big-profit big-business deals, allowed the tax base to be eroded and, in general, after a few feeble token gestures, allowed anything called a foundation to do whatever it wanted to do. 21
As a first step in correcting this situation Representative Patman called, futilely thus far, for a moratorium on the granting of further tax exemptions.
He showed, further, no less than twenty-eight accounting defects in the law-required reporting procedures of foundations.
Among other questioned practices he showed that big New York banks turned over to their own foundations appreciated assets, which the foundations then sold, thus evading a capital gains tax. 22
In the matter of holding controlling blocks of stock he showed them to be agents of more intensive corporate concentration. 23
He showed foundations operating wholly owned enterprises in competition with taxpaying enterprises, with the foundation-owned enterprise paying no taxes because it was ostensibly operated for charity. 24
Funds were given by certain foundations to certain universities which used them in applied, profit-making research for enterprises with which the foundations were connected rather than in basic research available to everybody. Such activities were carried on in competition with taxpaying firms of engineering consultants which should, it was suggested, more properly have been hired. But as the whole ride was tax free on gifts to university and institute research departments, there was more mileage to be had from the money. Had the services been purchased, the purchaser would have had packed into the price be paid (as the ordinary consumer has) profits and the business income taxes. 25
Certain large enterprises are established, indeed, to carry on applied research, without any shadow of charitable intent, and yet are given sweeping tax exemption.
26
Foundations, as the Patman inquiry showed, carry on, tax free, the following kinds of operations:
1. They buy up properties from large companies and lease them back, thus providing the companies with ready cash so that they need not enter the competitive capital market.
2. They lend money at cut rates to very large corporations, thus enabling the latter to bypass banks and the capital market.
3. Some of their donors are given convenient cut-rate loans.
4. The foundation stockholdings are used in struggles for corporate control. "In 1960 [the Patman report said], during the battle for control of the Endicott Johnson Corp. the Albert A. List Foundation, of Byram, Conn. , received 54,000 shares of Endicott Johnson from the J. M. Kaplan Fund, of New York City. These shares were used by Mr. Albert A. List in his unsuccessful attempt to acquire control of the corporation. According to press reports, during the struggle over the Alleghany Corp. between Allan P. Kirby and the Murchison brothers, the Fred M. Kirby Foundation purchased Alleghany shares, which had not previously paid a dividend. "
5. They return capital to donors when, as and if the latter need it.
6. They render research, market study and other services to related businesses on a preferential basis; staffs of large foundations serve as a minor governmental advisory staff for the donors. Parenthetically one should observe that foundation staffs regularly interchange high- and middle-level personnel with formal government. The Barons at times serve the Crown, and officers of the Crown at times serve the Baronage. For a good many years secretaries of state have mainly been foundation officers, corporation lawyers or both. Among the former has been Dean Rusk. Among combinations of the two have been John Foster Dulles, E. R. Stettinius, Jr. , Henry L. Stimson, Frank B. Kellogg and Charles Evans Hughes. Corporation lawyers in the post have been Elihu Root, Philander C. Knox and Robert Lansing, to go no further. Secretaries of the Treasury have long been drawn for the most part from banks or investment funds. John W. Gardner, recent Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, was drawn from the
presidency of the Carnegie Corporation. Government reciprocally supplies, from time to time, high foundation personnel; McGeorge Bundy skipped from the position of presidential adviser on foreign affairs to the presidency of the Ford Foundation. Rusk originally went from the State Department to the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation. The reciprocal interchange of personnel is heavier on the middle levels between government on the one hand and foundations, investment houses and corporate law firms. Only here and there on both middle and top levels does one find professional politicians, disparagingly referred to in the newspapers as "political" appointees. This means, between the lines, that the man is more or less incompetent for the job but useful in snaring votes. Foundations, law firms and investment houses form in relation to government part of what is known in football as The Platoon System; they have entire specially trained teams ready to be sent into the highest strata of government as conditions require. As all of these are Organization Men of the finest tooling, they fit as though pre-engineered into whatever slot they are assigned. And the reason for this is that the world of finpolity is itself a world of government.
7. They pay excessively for certain assets.
8. They sell certain assets to certain parties for unaccountably low prices.
9. They accept contributions (kickbacks? ) from persons or organizations that supply goods and services to companies interlocked with the foundation. 27
10. They also often grossly understate their assets, either in whole or in part. This includes the biggest among them such as the Ford Foundation, Samuel H. Kress Foundation, John A. Hartford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Extraordinarily valuable properties are often carried on the books at $1. 28 Patman concluded all foundations understate asset values.
It cannot be said surely that any of this is done with intent to deceive; one simply does not know what the intent is and must infer from results.
Additionally, the foundations are big operators in the stock market, acquiring huge tax-free capital gains. 29 They do, in fact, whatever banks and investment trusts do except issue securities. They are like closely held private family banks and trusts, with virtually no limitation on their operations.
Despite substantial payouts over the years from time of inception to the present, the retained assets of the leading foundations, thanks to their tax exemption and average half payout rate, have piled up astronomically.
Much of the research and other contributions of the foundations pertain to areas of special high pecuniary interest to the donors.
Some of the foundations, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, are used in concert with large corporations such as the Hughes Tool Company and the Hughes Aircraft Company in achieving very large tax savings on assets shuffled back and forth. The Hughes Medical Institute started out by buying $75 million of commercial business assets and assuming liabilities of $56 million, at the same time becoming additionally and directly liable for $18 million on its own note. Said Representative Patman: "This sounds more like high finance to me than charity. " 30
So increasingly scandalous did the Patman findings become in the course of the investigation that the staid New York Times took to distinguishing in its reports between "reputable" and "disreputable" foundations, without listing either or laying down criteria for the distinction.
By "reputable" it presumably referred to the largest foundations. And the Ford Foundation is presumably as reputable as any.
But Patman in his very first report teed off on the Ford Foundation as well as other big ones and showed it to be as free-wheeling as any.
First, the Ford Foundation is engaged in large-scale money-lending activity in competition with taxpaying banks. It lends money to a large variety of leading corporations, the interest to them tax-deductible, such as Chris-Craft, the New Haven Railroad, the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, Continental Air Lines, Standard Oil of California, Shell Caribbean Petroleum Company, El Paso Natural Gas Company and many others. Stockholders in taxpaying lending enterprises such as banks are 'certainly undercut by such tax-free activity.
Moreover, whenever it wishes it can lower its interest rate to preferential levels. "Why, for example," Representative Patman asked, "was the Duke Power Co. of Charlotte, N. C. , charged only 2. 65 percent interest on a $3 million, 20-year loan, while other borrowers paid 6-1/2 percent? Duke Power, incidentally, is owned 57 percent by the Duke Endowment, another tax-exempt foundation. " 31 Here is one foundation washing the hands of another.
Even more fundamental questions were raised about Ford operations by Patman.
I have already referred to the $33 million the foundation loaned overseas during the 1961 balance-of-payments crisis. This, in effect, amounted to a Government subsidy being used, without Government control, in operations in conflict with government policy. Treasury Secretary Dillon on May 17, 1962, warned that the mounting flood of European bond issues sold in the U. S. capital market is undermining our Government's efforts to defend the dollar. Precisely such an outflow of dollars--to industrial nations like France, Belgium, and Canada--was involved in the Ford Foundation's loans, as shown on Schedule 4, pp. 83-84.
The Ford Foundation loans to foreign corporations and governments create a somewhat bewildering paradox. Our Government brought home soldiers' families so as to save dollars overseas. Yet the Ford Foundation exported $33 million in the year 1961. Also, in 1960 the Ford Motor Co. arranged to export $358 million to purchase minority stockholdings in British Ford which they already controlled.
The result was that a substantial part of the dollars we saved by separating our soldiers from their families was sent back overseas by the Ford Foundation and the Ford Motor Co. And the irony is that the Ford Foundation operates on a subsidy from the taxpayers--in the form of tax exemption.
Moreover, we do not know the purpose of the Ford Foundation loans to the foreign corporations and governments. For example, if the loans are used by foreign businesses--which are not bound by our antitrust statutes-to help them gain entry to our market, those foreign firms have a great competitive advantage. Trade practices in the United States and the Common Market are quite different. In Europe, an industry cartel can cut up the U. S. Market, assigning to certain members exclusive territorial rights in certain sections of the country. Our firms cannot do this without facing a violation of our antitrust laws. Hence, the Ford Foundation's loans could conceivably be helping our competitors who are not bound by the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, etc. 32
But Mr. Patman appeared to be overzealous when he took the Ford Foundation and others to task for contributions to nonprofit educational television stations, which appear to be entirely defensible activities. Only if Mr. Patman's unstated premise is valid, that all activities must be profit-making, can his argument here hold. 33 If this is so, then contributions to nonprofit hospitals and schools are questionable.
The Patman inquiry, one must conclude, fits well the thesis of sporadic friction between the Crown and the Baronage, between pubpols and finpols. Patman's, it is
evident, is not the prevalent view of the foundations among pubpols. But the pubpols in their various calls for regulation, supervision, revision or reform of one or another aspect of the realm of finpolity--sometimes corporations, sometimes foundations--do appear to be playing some part of the role of the medieval Crown vis-a`-vis the restless Baronage. This will no doubt continue until the day arrives, if it ever does, when they effect a transition either into the corporate state or into the collective corporation: One corporation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all directors and major stockholders. . . .
Seven Wildcat Foundations
Thus far Patman dealt with the foundations in their generality. In the second and third parts of his report, which ran to 872 large pages, he concentrated on seven foundations with a view to showing just how freely foundations could operate under existing laws and regulations.
In the second part he dealt with the David, Josephine and Winfield Baird Foundation ($10. 2 million), the Winfield Baird Foundation ($17. 4 million) and the Lansing Foundation ($779,546), all established by David G. Baird of Baird and Company, member of the New York Stock Exchange; the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, established by Charles F. Noyes, a New York real estate broker; the Lawrence A. Wien Foundation and the Harry B. Helmsley Foundation.
The third part was devoted entirely to The Nemours Foundation and the originating Alfred I. du Pont Estate of Jacksonville, Florida.
As commentaries around the country showed, Mr. Patman at this stage had made a deep if fleeting impression.
The report revealed that the Baird foundations engaged in just about everything conceivable in the way of loose practice. They had trustees and directors who were employees of Baird and Company or relatives and friends of Mr. Baird, "mere figureheads. " All were "subservient" to him. "The abuse of public privileges" by the Baird foundations recalled findings in 1948 about three trusts established by Textron, Inc. , under Royal Little, which were held by the Senate Commerce Committee to exist "for purposes of tax avoidance and providing risk capital to Textron, thereby giving Textron an unfair advantage over the orthodox manufacturer. " One of the Baird foundations was involved, as it happened, with Textron.
Patman detailed a number of exact similarities between the Textron operation and the Baird foundations. From very small beginnings in the 1930's and 1940's both groups grew to large size.
The Textron foundations consisted of the M. I. T. Trust, the Rhode Island Charities Trust and the Rayon Trust.
Said the Patman report: 34
The M. I. T. Trust, created in 1937 with assets of $500, had earned almost $1 million net by October 1948. Its beneficiary, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had not received any contributions.
The Rhode Island Charities Trust, created in 1937 with assets of $500, earned $4. 5 million by September 1948. The Providence Rhode Island Community Chest, the sole beneficiary, had received only $85,000 contributions. The bank handling the investments and the trustees, however, had received over $140,000 during the same period.
The Rayon Foundation, created in 1944 with assets of $100, earned $750,000 by October 1948. The Rhode Island School for Design, the sole beneficiary, received only $75,000 in contributions.
All of this was tax exempt.
Benefits accruing to Mr. Baird and associates were set forth as follows:
1. Substantial commissions for Baird and Company were generated by large and continuous securities transactions of the Baird foundations.
2. The foundations received contributions from others which should have been treated, and taxed, as income to Mr. Baird for services he rendered to the "donors," or at least as income of the foundations rather than as tax-free increments to their capital funds.
3. Loans were made to business associates of Mr. Baird "for purposes of swinging deals. "
4. The foundation funds were freely used to "prop up" a series of Baird-dominated companies, companies controlled by the Baird foundations and companies in which Mr. Baird was a director or stockholder. 35
All of this had gone on for at least twelve years without any intervention from the Treasury Department. There is little "interference" by government with business conducted by foundations, as Patman showed conclusively.
The records of the Baird foundation "prove beyond doubt that these organizations have operated as multi-million-dollar, tax-free securities dealers-dispensing millions of dollars of credit to prominent businessmen-customers. " 36
". . . no less than 70 persons and companies used the Baird Foundations as securities dealers and/or uncontrolled lenders for securities purchases. " 37
Inter-dealings of the Baird foundations with similar foundations were frequent.
The significance of such sources of unregulated credit is that fiscal authorities have no way of preventing the credit, under existing law, from entering into wild speculative sprees that terminate in crises like the stock-market collapse of 1962. While nominally facets of capitalism, such operations in fact undermine formal capitalism at its very wellspring. These operators, despite protestations, have no more piety toward capitalism than a Lenin or Trotsky. They appear as no more than pecuniary anarchists.
The Patman report, in many pages and exhibits, details many of these deals.
"The records of the Baird Foundations have been kept in a state of total disarray, indicating a shocking disregard of the most elementary accounting principles. The Foundations' books have never been audited by independent accountants, and numerous discrepancies are evident in the accounts. . . . " 38
These foundations accumulated income at a great rate, failing to live up to charitable pretensions and, over a period of ten years, carried on "log-rolling" of assets among each other and with foundations established by business associates. According to the tax returns of the Baird foundations, they paid out $28,476,567 in contributions, gifts, grants, scholarships and the like for the decade through 1960. But about half of this sum represented solely "wash" transfers to each other and to nine other foundations owned by business associated! 39 Not a vestige of public charity was involved in such transfers.
According to the Patman findings, the foundations made unsecured loans to friends, failed to report stock ownerships as required by law, engaged in purchases and lease- back transactions that should have been taxable, made loans at "usurious" rates,
collected fees in the form of "contributions," accepted gifts from business associates of Mr. Baird, engaged in unlicensed private banking, etc.
On the basis of an avalanche of these and other alleged abuses it is difficult to characterize the operations of the Baird foundations. They appear to have been carried on without imaginative limitation as though no government or laws existed, as though they were infinitely privileged.
While the Baird foundations, like many others, are not individually of great size in the foundation world, the Patman analysis of their operations showed what any foundation can do if it likes under the existing law and regulations. The sky is literally the limit on foundation operations.
Broadly similar states of affairs were shown to exist with respect to the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, the Lawrence A. Wien Foundation and the Harry B.