Over the years, we have received dozens of questions about a problem that surfaces at some point in the life of almost every organization. The problem was nicely laid out in the following email:

This organization had stumbled on the subject that has probably taken up more time in progressive NGOs than almost any other topic one could name. In fact, had some organizations held a “dirty money discussion‐a‐thon” and sought pledges for each minute they spent discussing the very questions the writer raises, they would be handsomely endowed by now and could change their discussion to “dirty and clean investment policies.” However, the writer raises serious questions that are not easy to answer, which is why this debate is perennial.

Let's divide the questions into two parts: the concept of “dirty” money and the consequences of taking such money.

We don't subscribe to the idea that there is “dirty” money and “clean” money. Like a hammer, money is a tool. A hammer can be used to help build a house or to bludgeon someone to death, but we never talk about clean and dirty hammers. Because we don't credit hammers with power they don't have, we are able to see just what a hammer is and to separate the hammer itself from what it might be used to do. We need to get that kind of perspective on money. Money can be used wisely or squandered. It can be raised honestly or dishonestly. It can be earned, inherited, stolen, given, received, lost, found. It is not in itself dirty or clean.

If you let go of the idea of dirty and clean money, you can focus on the real questions in accepting money, which are these: How does it make you feel to accept money from a corporation whose labor practices you find appalling? How would accepting this money make you look to others? Will there be a cost in goodwill, faith in your organization, or even actual money given to your organization if you accept this money? Organizations answer this question in various ways. The following story illustrates one way.

The second question, “How would it make us look to the outside world to take this money?” is a more practical one. Sometimes a source of money will pass the vomit test but fail this second test. For example, a board member of a tiny health center in rural New Mexico was a fraternity brother of the vice president of a large uranium‐mining operation that was polluting the entire area around it with radioactive uranium tailings. Through his contact, the board member secured a grant from this mining corporation, which so outraged several major donors to the health center that they stopped giving. The ensuing bad publicity and loss of donations was a major factor in the demise of that organization the following year.

When an organization accepts money from a source that is controversial, it needs to think about how its other donors or contributors might react. Of course, others' reactions are sometimes hard to judge, but people are likely to be shocked or offended if an organization accepts money from a source that is perceived to be in conflict with the organization's values or goals. So when a mining corporation whose irresponsible practices are causing serious health problems donates to a health center, accepting such a donation can be predicted to cause outrage. Had the corporation donated to the public library, there might have been less of an outcry.

The other factors in accepting money from a controversial source are the amount of money relative to the budget of the organization and what kind of recognition the source wants for the gift. An organization is unlikely to spend hours debating whether to accept a $50 gift from a corporation with even the most foul practices or from one of that corporation's employees, because that amount of money cannot buy any influence. Similarly, organizations rarely refuse even a large gift from an individual who may have made his or her money from a corporation with horrible practices, because the corporation will not receive any glory for that gift. We also rarely hear of an organization turning down a foundation grant, even when the source of that money is likely to be problematic.

Sometimes an organization will accept money from a corporation or a person if it does not have to publicize that gift, but will refuse the gift if it requires public acknowledgment. Examining the hypocrisy of that position can be helpful to groups sorting out whether to take that money or not. Ask yourself: “If this gift from this source were to be headline news in our local paper tomorrow, would we be happy, would we feel embarrassed, or would we be nervous about the consequences?” If happy, take the money. If you would rather people didn't know about the gift, don't take it.