From the WSJ:
Why Donating Millions Is Hard To Keep Secret
Anonymous Gifts Are Growing, But Groups Are Under Pressure To Reveal Benefactors’ Names
By SALLY BEATTY
…publicity-shy donors say they want to give back to their communities but avoid the headaches of a high public profile, including pushy fund-raisers, jealous relatives and even risks to their personal safety.
…Proponents of greater disclosure by charities, including some lawmakers and consumer groups, argue that keeping givers’ identities secret can mask efforts by wealthy individuals and corporations to use philanthropy as a tool of undue influence.
To say nothing of philanthropists getting tax breaks to fund programs that support the governing class in having its way with less wealthy taxpayers.
…And political rivals of presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton have pressed her husband, former president Bill Clinton, to reveal names of anonymous donors to his foundation.
Sounds like a great way for the Clintons to subvert campaign finance regulation.
…Wealthy donors have different reasons for wanting to stay out of the limelight. Most major religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam, regard anonymous gifts as a more sincere or even higher form of giving compared with gifts for which the donor takes credit publicly…
OK, how’s about this? So long as the benefactor and benefactee do not get any tax breaks, e.g. so long as the benefactor does not take a tax deduction, and so long as the benefactee pays income tax on income derived from the gift, it should be just fine for the donor to remain anonymous. After all, can anybody’s religion really consider it a more sincere form of giving if there are tax benefits for it?