MacKenzie Scott, previously MacKenzie Bezos, has just donated about $1.7 billion of her fortune to a variety of associations and causes subsequent to swearing a year ago to part with the majority of it during her lifetime.
Scott on Tuesday gave a report on that exertion in a post on Medium and furthermore declared that she has changed her last name to the middle name she grew up with, following her divorce from Amazon (AMZN) CEO Jeff Bezos a year ago.
Scott got a fourth of Bezos’ Amazon shares in the couple’s divorce settlement a year ago, giving her a 4% stake that was worth more than $35 billion at that point. Her net worth is at present estimated to be around $60 billion, as indicated by the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index.
“Like many, I watched the first half of 2020 with a mixture of heartbreak and horror,” Scott wrote. “What fills me with hope is the thought of what will come if each of us reflects on what we can offer.”
The $1.7 billion donation was spread across 116 associations concentrated on one of nine “areas of need,” she included, including racial equity, LGBTQ+ equity, functional democracy and environmental change. Among the associations she supported are the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Obama Foundation, the George W. Bush Presidential Center, RAINN and the European Climate Foundation.
Scott signed on to the Giving Pledge activity a year ago. The activity, propelled by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates, empowers the world’s richest individuals to commit a greater part of their riches to charitable missions, either during their lifetimes or in their wills.
Bezos, the world’s richest man, has previously been scrutinized for not contributing a greater amount of his riches to philanthropy, yet has given billions of dollars lately to causes including environmental change and food banks. He has not signed the Giving Pledge.
Scott’s declaration comes a day prior Bezos is set to testify in Congress close by the CEOs of Facebook (FB), Google (GOOGL) and Apple (AAPL) to address allegations that their organizations are excessively predominant or have hurt competition.