It raises the issue about whether Kickstarter shuld be used by very wealthy individuals to finance private, potentially for-profit ventures. It also reports Kickstarter's stats that 63% of the contributors to Braff's film-- between 29-30K -- had never contributed before and that these new contributors returned to make 2200 contributions over 400K, with a 40/60 film/non-film split, in other words generating leads and traffic not only to 160K in other film projects, but 240K to whatever other things caught their interest.
Of course, MMDG is a non-for-profit charitable organization, so the philosophical argument about profit-making does not apply, even though few complain about funding start-up inventors, who have had projects in the high 1000's range and have returned for second and third rounds of funding, and who have the potential to be bought out for millions personally, just as this film was bought. They are also not asking for millions. And simply because an inventor or artist or filmmaker creates a project doesn't mean it is either the only means of raising money and that they don't have funding from other sources as well. Whether MMD brings new donors to fund other indiegogo projects won't be answered until there is data.
Kickstarter and indiegogo -- and all crowdsourcing schemes -- are not donations, like choosing from a catalog which family to give a goat, nor are they microfinancing, like choosing from a website to loan to a home improvement project vs. someone's food cart, nor are they venture capital schemes, which are investments. They are businesses which provide an infrastructure to create and manage project proposals and ongoing administrative management of the proposal (ex: communications via email and rewards management), and they provide a payment processing gateway and financial reporting, as well as other reporting. They are like match.com, matching people and their money to projects who want their money, and, like match.com, they offer a combination of enticement -- project vs. personal descriptions -- and incentives -- rewards vs. walks on the beach, essentially eBay for groups.
Ultimately, it is up to the potential contributors to decide whether to support the project. If they think the project owners are too big, with too many other sources of income, if they think they are greedily taking funds from lesser-known artists -- rightly or wrongly -- if they think it is somehow unfair or unseemly for an established org to do it, they won't donate. If it's a big enough project to make the news, the Guardian or the NYT might pick it up and ponder again whether the project is appropriate. If they say, "Great project" or "I really want to have dinner with Mark Morris, and that's worth 10K to me," then they'll contribute. Or maybe they don't, but think "That's a DVD that goes on my "to buy" list.