Tainted Tzedekah

Every Hebrew school student learns about the eighth commandment:

("Thou shalt not steal"). Back in my day, it seemed pretty clear cut. Unfortunately, ethical questions today have become fraught with ambiguity and tempered by moral complication.

Take Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist and Orthodox Jew, accused of conniving a reported $80 million in fees from Indian tribes who wanted casino licenses. The tribes now cry foul at the sums paid to Abramoff, claiming that they were bilked. He is under the scrutiny of the Justice, Interior, and Treasury Departments and two Senate committees. While the possibility that Abramoff engaged in fraud in pocketing the fees is troubling enough, the goal of his work in promoting the gaming industry raises additional ethical concerns. And on Aug. 12, Abramoff was indicted by a Florida federal grand jury on unrelated charges of falsifying financial documents purporting to be a $23 million loan.

Jack Abramoff is also a philanthropist who has donated millions to Jewish charities. What, as Jews, do we think of someone who earns money from a tainted source and donates it as

(the Hebrew term for philanthropy)? What do we say about the donor and the

itself? Does the `good' of the

(good deed) outweigh the bad of the tainted source? What obligation, if any, does the donee have in terms of accepting or returning the money?

Even in his

, Abramoff's behavior may be suspect. Newsweek reports that he may have diverted funds from a youth sports charity he founded to provide weapons for West Bank settlers. Anyone who raises funds for one purpose and funnels them to an unrelated cause commits a grave violation of fundraising and ethical principles. At the very least, you alienate donors by misleading them as to what you intend to do with the money. Think what damage such behavior causes for non-profits in the eyes of the community. Doing good relies on the good will of the public. If you lose good will, then it's that much harder to raise funds for good causes.

Non-profits should understand if they accept a tainted gift they may allow the donor to assuage a guilty conscience. Should they be in the business of allowing donors to redeem themselves in the eyes of the community by giving gifts? Do not doubt this is precisely what is in Jack Abramoff's mind. In an interview with The New York Times, he pleads for our sympathy: "I have spent years giving away virtually everything I made. Frankly, I didn't need to have a kosher delicatessen. That was money I could have bought a yacht with. I don't live an extravagant lifestyle. I felt that the resources coming into my hands were the consequence of God putting them there."

Rabbi Elliot Dorff, rector of the University of Judaism, explained in an interview that the Torah comments on tainted contributions. Deuteronomy 23:18 prohibits the Temple from accepting gifts from male or female prostitutes. So certainly Jewish tradition recognizes that some gifts are tainted beyond redemption, especially if the donor makes no serious attempt to redeem the bad conduct that caused the moral taint.

How bad does a donor's behavior have to be before it becomes

(unkosher)? Would we accept

from a drug dealer? A murderer? A spouse-beater? You can get into murky ethical territory if you begin classifying levels of ethical impropriety for the sake of

.

_Related Features

Clergy and the Color of Money What to do With the Wages of Sin Doing Well by Doing Good

Continued on page 2: »