Follow the Money

Accumulating power and control is an old and continuing story.

Milford, New Hampshire, sits at a quiet crossroads where old-town charm meets a branding-driven economy. Its sidewalks echo with the sounds of shops, Municipal Offices, and cafes’ conversations. You sense that a few generous hands are quietly authoring the town’s future. Beneath banners, endowments, and donor-funded programs lies a more decisive story. It is a narrative of transactional charity. These charity markets power as philanthropy. It presents donors as stewards of influence, offering a public advantage.

Picture the town library, a civic monument, or organizations, where a brass nameplate and signage signal virtue. An endowment funds literacy initiatives and after-school programs—often framed as community lifelines. Residents view these as essential services. To others, they are the visible edge of a broader landscape. It is money buying visibility, and visibility buying influence over Milford’s future.

The mechanism isn’t a single act of generosity but a persistent pattern. Wealthy donors don’t merely give; they align themselves with Milford’s narrative. They sponsor museums, libraries, schools, and cultural centers. They also sponsor events. This helps embed their names and causes into daily life. This branding presents philanthropy as a living sign of virtue. It creates a robust social license. This license is tacit permission to shape the town’s notion of “the common good.” In this theater, the donors and their donations leave a significant impact on public life. It determines which projects are supported, promoted, and funded, as well as who sits at the table. It also influences which issues rise to the top of the policy agenda.

Power in Milford rarely announces itself with banners and ballots. Power operates subtly in quiet corridors. These include a web of sycophancy that influences government boards, appointed committees, and commissions. Private civic groups, the Chamber of Commerce, and “old money” add to this cabal of trusted confidants. They contribute to a web of sycophancy that influences government boards, appointed committees, and commissions. Economic self-interests steer conversations toward familiar vistas. When private wealth and donor funds a library or cultural center, governance can drift from public processes to private ones. Boards are transparent, but their choices unfold within a donor-aligned horizon. They decide what programs to fund, which voices to elevate, and which narratives to foreground. The result is a governance logic. Private influence threads through public life. Elected representatives become one channel for funneling donor priorities.

This is about more than money. It’s about social capital—the soft muscle that moves agendas, lands, and policy opportunities. In Milford’s town hall, the message is clear: Services stay strong with partnerships. We must collaborate with those who can supply the necessary funding. We want services to stay strong. To achieve this, we must partner with those who can offer the required financing. To achieve robust services, forming partnerships with funding sources is crucial. Partnering with those capable of supporting us is necessary to keep strong services. If we want a quality of life, this partnership is essential.- The logic sounds constructive: philanthropy as a force multiplier for public good. The danger lies in multiplier effects, which can tilt the balance of power. There is a risk that a handful of individuals and private groups will accumulate this social capital. They try to manipulate a town’s investments and civic identity. They exploit the lack of knowledge and time of the general population, which allows them to check their influence. These individuals and private groups show a skewed narrative to the public. They refashion private gains as a public good. They steer a budget line. They also direct a planning discussion. Ordinary citizens see their voices displaced. These are overshadowed by a brand narrative dressed as civic virtue.

The asymmetric ecology matters most. Milford’s donors and rentier class gain from tax incentives, naming rights, and the aura of moral leadership. Those benefits compound, enabling further influence without proportional accountability. The public bears tangible costs of influence. There is less predictable land use. The policy menu is narrowed. Governance becomes a contest between branding campaigns and ideological beliefs, rather than competing visions for the common good.

The cycle can be troubling. Donor-driven wins confer legitimacy on the status quo. Grassroots voices struggle to be heard in a landscape dominated by branding and private economic interests. Yet Milford also holds potential for reform. It offers transparency and inclusive oversight. Governance safeguards guarantee that donor and special interest advice is advisory, not determinative.

Paths ahead include robust disclosure of enhanced boundaries of conflicts of interest. They also include impact data. Stricter safeguards and standards are necessary for public officials. These officials should not use their offices for personal gain or to influence others for their own advantage. An automatic ethics review should be implemented as a procedural requisite for any government-elected or appointed board’s decisions. Another path ahead is expanded community representation on boards. Media coverage should strike a balance between philanthropy and stories of need, featuring diverse voices. Civic education can illuminate how branding operates, enabling residents to engage critically rather than passively accept minority driven priorities.

Milford’s story is not unique, but its specifics merit careful study. If the town can merge philanthropic energy with accountable governance, then branding can enhance democracy. It will not replace it.

References

– Reich, Rob. Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy. Princeton University Press, 2018.

– Giridharadas, Anand. Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Knopf, 2018.

– Bishop, Matthew, and Green, Michael. Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World. Wiley, 2013.

– Callahan, David. The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age. Simon & Schuster, 2017.

About The Author

Scott Kimball Blog

See author's posts