Roland And A. Scott Bolden Clash Over Who Funds The Black Fight. Corporate Checks Come With A Price

Roland Martin argues that Black organizations and elected officials who accept corporate funding are often constrained from demanding strong advocacy on critical issues like voting rights. He asserts that if corporations are unwilling to stand with the Black community during existential threats, their financial contributions are insufficient and compromise the organization's independence.

Martin lists numerous major corporations on the National Urban League's board (MasterCard, JP Morgan Chase, Verizon, Walmart, Google, etc.) and questions when these relationships will be leveraged for advocacy. He challenges the idea of accepting money without demanding action, stating, 'If you are saying corporate America needs to step up, well, what corporate America are you talking about if you don't start with the folk who are cutting you checks?'

A. Scott Bolden contends that the issue is more complicated than simply demanding corporate action. He highlights that corporations give to both Democrats and Republicans, have shareholders to consider, and face potential political retribution (e.g., from the White House or FCC) if they take strong stances on controversial issues. He suggests that Black organizations are often unwilling to reject corporate money, even if it means compromising their demands.

Bolden states, 'It's very complicated. Just pump your brakes a little bit now. Hold on because it's a two-way street between our elected officials and these corporations... They're taking on a lot of smoke from the White House, from their Republican friends. You know, they give money to Democrats and Republicans. They got shareholders, too. It gets real complicated.' He also challenges Roland, 'You won't find one black organization or elected official that'll will 'Okay, I'm not going to take your money and get off my board.' It's just not happening, man.'

Martin champions self-funded Black organizations, such as the Divine Nine fraternities and sororities, as models for independent advocacy. He argues that their member-funded structure grants them the freedom to speak truth to power without being beholden to external corporate interests.

Martin states, 'When I look at in black America, what groups exist that don't depend on corporate funding? It's those 13 organizations... those groups are member-funded... then you have the ability to say more and speak more with a level of independence other groups cannot.' He cites the Black Church's historical power as being rooted in members paying the preacher.

Martin extends the call for self-sufficiency to individual Black people, urging them to financially support independent Black media and civil rights groups. He criticizes those who demand advocacy but are unwilling to contribute financially, especially in a moment of existential threat and declining corporate DEI dollars.

Martin asks, 'You black folks have got to stop demanding that black folks speak truth to power if power is funding your speech... But you ain't even sending a dollar.' He emphasizes that his own network is sustained by small, individual donations and that Black people must make 'hard choices' about what they spend their money on versus funding the fight.