webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Institute for Justice

===

dogebag liar

Joshua Fox

Until at least late January, Fox was a legal fellow at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian legal group, according to posts on LinkedIn from his former coworkers. (A LinkedIn profile for Fox has been deactivated.) He graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 2022, according to an archived bio page on the Institute for Justice’s website. Fox did not reply to The Intercept’s inquiries by phone, text message, or email.

CAMP FIN OVERVIEW:

Kochs key among small group quietly funding legal assault on campaign finance regulation – Center for Public Integrity

...

But the funding that is known offers key clues about the players behind the greatest unraveling of campaign finance regulation in U.S. history.

‘Buckley’ and Cato

One must travel back in time more than 40 years to understand how today’s motley collection of campaign money laws came to be — and how limits on political fundraising and spending have unraveled along the way.

It began with the Supreme Court’s *Buckley v. Valeo* decision of 1976, a reaction to Watergate reforms passed by Congress. The court upheld limits on contributions to political campaigns, but in a critical part of the ruling which would play a major role years later, allowed for unlimited spending on campaigns.

IFrame Content

The Buckley v. Valeo fight also helped inspire Ed Crane, former national chairman of the Libertarian Party, which was one of the case’s plaintiffs, to create a libertarian equivalent to the predominant think tanks of the day — the liberal Brookings Institution and the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

With $500,000 from Charles Koch, Crane became the leader in 1977 of the Cato Institute, previously named the Charles Koch Foundation. In 1981, it moved from San Francisco to the heart of American political power — Washington, D.C.

Ever since, the Cato Institute has tirelessly fought against campaign finance laws it considered antithetical to its philosophy of small government and largely unencumbered speech.

“We stand against campaign finance laws in general,” Cato Institute research fellow Trevor Burrus said. “We believe that most campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. They are clear impediments of political speech.”

For the Kochs, was Cato an ideological enterprise or vehicle for self-interest? Both, to some degree. Avowed libertarians, the Kochs control a vast empire of heavily regulated companies that would undoubtedly benefit from less government intrusion. Coloring the political system red instead of blue has practical, financial implications for the Kochs, who overwhelmingly support Republican candidates and causes.

The nation’s campaign money system largely stood unchanged until 2002, when Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, named for its two Senate sponsors. The law curtailed a variety of political activities and included a ban on unlimited “soft money” contributions — corporate and union cash — given to political parties.

It also attracted an immediate backlash by foes of campaign finance legislation. Twelve suits brought by more than 80 plaintiffs — were consolidated as McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, named for Mitch McConnell, a U.S. senator from Kentucky and current majority leader, who has long been in favor of liberalizing restrictions on campaign contributions.

‘McConnell’ et. al.

Those joined together under McConnell included the National Rifle Association, the Republican National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

Generally, the backers of these campaign finance case litigants are well-known, but not always.

And some are surprising.

Take the ACLU. Despite its reputation as an unabashedly liberal organization, the ACLU has routinely aligned itself with libertarians and conservatives in recent legal fights against campaign finance regulations. Who are the top donors to the ACLU?

Tops is the left-leaning Sandler Foundation, having given more than $24 million to the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation since 2001, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax records.

Other known funders of the ACLU’s 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit arms include the ACLU Foundation; Equal Justice Works; Proteus Action League; GLBTQ Legal Advocates; and the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties. Together, they’ve given more than $856,000 since 2010, tax filings show.

Proteus Action League is an affiliate of Proteus Fund, a left-leaning philanthropic organization. It also creates and oversees grants aimed at limiting money and politics, according to its website. Between 2013 and 2015, the Proteus Fund and the Proteus Action League have together given $306,000 to the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation.

Publishers Clearing House money has infused the LuEsther T. Mertz Charitable Trust, which in turn has contributed more than $6.6 million to the ACLU Foundation for various initiatives, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s review of available tax documents from 2005 to 2015.

The National Rifle Association is prominent for its passionate support of firearms rights, and more recently, the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. But it, too, began supporting campaign finance deregulation in earnest at the time of the McConnell case.

One of the NRA nonprofit’s more notable funders is the Cabela’s Outdoor Fund, a social welfare organization connected to the famous outdoor outfitter Cabela’s, which is also a major firearms retailer.

From 2012 to 2015, the fund gave the NRA $1.3 million. Richard Cabela, the now deceased founder of Cabela’s, was a passionate supporter of the NRA. The company, which Bass Pro Shops acquired earlier this year, had about $4.1 billion in revenue last year, according to its annual report.

Koch-connected organizations have also been quite active.

Cato intervened by filing an “amicus brief” in McConnell, as did the Institute for Justice, a group that got its start thanks to the Kochs.

The Supreme Court, for the most part, upheld the “soft money” and political advertising restrictions of the McCain-Feingold law but struck down the age restrictions on minors’ ability to contribute money to politicians as a violation of free speech rights.

The mixed ruling gave pro-political speech advocates fuel to continue challenging campaign laws, and the chipping away of the reforms began in earnest.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC in 2007 further eroded the McCain-Feingold law by allowing certain nonprofit groups to air political issue ads within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc., a nonprofit advocacy group, wanted to run ads that would ask voters to call their senators urging them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees.

Emerging as a national figure in this case after working for years in lower courts was James Bopp, who was counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life.** A bevy of organizations intervened in the case, many arguing for religious freedom of speech. The American Civil Liberties Union, a regular stalwart opponent of limits on free speech, had its say, as did a number of Koch-connected organizations.

Among them, the Center for Competitive Politics (now the Institute for Free Speech), the Cato Institute, the Goldwater Institute and the Institute for Justice.

The Goldwater Institute is a public interest legal organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, named after former U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. Timothy Sandefur, vice president for litigation for Goldwater, said its primary mission is “to defend constitutional principles, through direct litigation and amicus participation.” Donors Capital Fund, the Mercer Family Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation are among its most generous funders with a combined total of $4.2 million.

‘Citizens United’

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations, unions and certain nonprofits could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against politicians. The enormity of the impact of the decision would not be realized for months, even years.

But those who argued the case and participated in it were well aware of its importance. The usual liberal reform groups chimed in, as well as a cadre of Koch-backed crew members, including: the Cato Institute, the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice.

A few months later, a federal court ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC allowed for the creation of “independent expenditure-only committees” — political groups soon nicknamed “super PACs.” These super PACs could themselves accept unlimited money from corporations, labor unions and even 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofits and business trade associations that themselves could keep their donors secret.

Four years later in *McCutcheon v. FEC*, the Supreme Court axed limits on how much money a person could give, in aggregate, to political parties, candidate committees and PACs. The practical effect: people are now allowed to directly pump hundreds of thousands of dollars more into party and candidate coffers.

Among the organizations involving themselves in the case? The Cato Institute, the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice.

Institute for Justice

The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, libertarian public interest law firm headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, with satellite offices in states including Florida, Minnesota and Arizona.

It was co-founded in 1991 by former Department of Energy Deputy General Counsel Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick, a former assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch provided $350,000 in seed money for the organization.

IFrame Content

The players who have shaped campaign finance »

The Center for Public Integrity combed through tax information for the Institute for Justice and found some of its top donors include the Claws Foundation, Dunn’s Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking, Searle Freedom Trust and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, totaling about $19.8 million since 1998. But the largest donor identified for the Institute for Justice was the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust, giving more than $15.5 million since 2003, according to tax records.

Wilson was a notable hedge funder and philanthropist who jumped to his death from his New York apartment in 2013.

Donors Trust, a Virginia-based free-market charity and “donor advised” fund that distributes money to charities across states has been the Institute for Justice’s most consistent supporter.

Tax records show that Donors Trust has contributed to the Institute for Justice every year since 2004, giving it more than $1.6 million. Charles Koch’s foundation is one of the heavyweights that holds an account with Donors Trust. Koch’s organization also directly gave the Institute for Justice $9,600, according to 2014 and 2015 tax records. The David H. Koch Foundation gave $250,000 in 2001, according to records.

The Jewish Communal Fund, another donor advised fund, has given $317,050 to the Institute for Justice since 2010, according to tax records. The John Templeton Foundation, an avid promoter of free market ideas, gave $900,000 between 2013 and 2014, according to a review of tax records.

One of its other generous donors, however, is the National Christian Charitable Foundation, which gave almost $2.8 million since 2007.

This donor advised fund typically gives to Christian churches and ministries with a mission of “mobilizing resources by inspiring biblical generosity.”

The political leanings of organizations such as the Institute for Justice are not a basis of scrutiny for the National Christian Charitable Foundation, and they’re mostly unknown to the foundation, Chief Creative Officer Steve Chapman said.

“NCF doesn’t have any stance on campaign finance issues,” he said in a statement. “We don’t hold positions on such political topics, and we don’t hold stances on whether charities to which we make grants should or should not be active on that issue.”

Richard Uihlein, a wealthy conservative donor who increased his political giving after the *Citizens United* decision, gave the Institute for Justice $17,500 between 2014 and 2015. But, he wasn’t the only well-known donor to contribute. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which usually contributes to global health and economic development causes, donated $600.

The Institute for Justice has more than 8,000 donors, said Paul Sherman, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice who specializes in First Amendment litigation. No one donor provides more than 8 percent of its budget. In its most recent fiscal year, donations comprised more than 96 percent of its income, while the rest came from court-ordered awards of attorneys’ fees.

But that doesn’t mean those donors shape the Institute for Justice’s work, Sherman said.

“IJ’s donors give to us because they support our mission,” he said, noting that the organization has litigated in the same areas for more than over 25 years. “We have never taken a case or passed on a case because of pressure from a donor.”

Other notable contributions to the Institute for Justice include $90,000 from the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation, which was started by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her husband in 1989. The foundation has given yearly since 2004, except for 2012 and 2014.

‘SpeechNow.org’ victory

The Institute for Justice notched a win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a critical lower-court case.

In the case, the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics represented David Keating, who now serves as president of the newly renamed Center for Competitive Politics.

Together, the groups questioned whether the federal government had the legal right to make Keating’s SpeechNow.org group register as a political committee — forcing it to adhere to contribution limits for political committees.

The court ruled in SpeechNow.org’s favor, thereby allowing it to raise unlimited amounts of money to independently advocate for or against political candidates. Limits on how much it could receive were found to be in violation of the First Amendment. It was the first time the Citizens United decision was applied in federal courts.

And it gave birth to a kind of political committee that would soon be dubbed a “super PAC.”

Although the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice have no formal affiliation, they are “allies in the fight to defend political speech from government regulation,” Sherman said.

Sherman said both organizations have supported each other’s work with amicus briefs, and SpeechNow.org v. FEC was a great match of their strengths.

“CCP’s people had extensive experience with practice before the FEC, and IJ’s people had extensive experience litigating in federal court,” he said. “And we all knew one another. The world of libertarian public-interest lawyers is not huge.”

But the Institute for Justice isn’t always taking up the long, arduous process of going to court. Like other groups that want to provide suggestions and expertise to courts on matters, it has done so through amicus briefs in McConnell, Wisconsin Right to Life, McCutcheon and Citizens United.

The positions that the Institute for Justice has taken on campaign finance issues are made clearer when looking at who funds their endeavors, which include many donor advised funds and conservative-leaning family foundations and charitable groups.

While the Institute for Justice has some history with big money and politics because of its founding relationship with the Kochs, the Center for Competitive Politics can also be counted among the names of Koch beneficiaries.

Center for Competitive Politics

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics in 2005, lamenting the extent of federal regulation on political activity.

The Center for Competitive Politics has waged war against the FEC as litigators, and it has represented others when political free speech is under attack.

David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said the organization is simply honoring the guarantees of the First Amendment more so than political ideology or deregulation.

IFrame Content

The players who have shaped campaign finance »

The Center for Competitive Politics prides itself on being part of changing the scope of campaign finance laws since its founding, while noting that there is still more freedom to be sought, especially when it comes to contribution and disclosure rules.

“Our country didn’t have campaign contribution limits until the 1970s,” he said. “I don’t see there’s any evidence that it’s made people we’re electing better than they were before the 1970s.”

Keating said government should make it easier for average citizens to become politically involved and, therefore, it should rethink contribution laws.

While the Center for Competitive Politics has not objected to disclosure by candidates and PACs, it is not in favor of pushing for more disclosure. Doing so, said Keating, would result in more difficult fundraising for groups and misleading disclosure information.

“Disclosure is where a lot of the action is right now,” he said. “That’s going to be in the courts and we may well be the ones representing the plaintiffs.”

Because the Center for Competitive Politics’ mission is the protection of free political speech, its legal argument in Wisconsin Right to Life, McCutcheon and Citizens United cases are just part of that mission.

The terrain of money and politics has the Center for Competitive Politics’ opponents questioning whether its ideals are truly its own — or if it’s just the mouthpiece for its wealthy benefactors.

Although the Center for Competitive Politics does not disclose the identity of its donors, the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax and other financial records indicates the group is funded by a bevy of right-leaning organizations.

Since 2006, the Center for Competitive Politics has received more than $5.3 million from Donors Capital Fund, $1.3 million from the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust and $511,000 from the Ed Uihlein Family Foundation — itself funded in full by Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein — and $440,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

As far as its Koch alliances? The Charles Koch Institute gave $20,700 from 2014 to 2015, and the Charles Koch Foundation donated over $57,000 from 2012 to 2015, the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax and other records shows.

A Koch spokeswoman declined to answer specific questions about the brothers’ giving. In a statement, spokeswoman Tonya Mullins said the Charles Koch Foundation “gives to non-profit organizations and more than 300 colleges and universities around the country that are exploring diverse ideas to meet the challenges of our day.”

The majority of the Charles Koch Institute money goes toward a fellowship program between the Center for Competitive Politics and the Charles Koch Institute, in which both organizations split the cost to pay for the fellow’s compensation, Keating said. The fellowship seeks to groom future free enterprise workers. The Charles Koch Institute provides support for internships and job placement for free-market professional hopefuls.

Keating said the Center for Competitive Politics’ donors give because they’re genuinely concerned with protecting free speech and they have a right to maintain their privacy.

If the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics are just mere soldiers in an overall battle plan to charge against reform, their success makes them among the most decorated and skilled in the field.

War on disclosure?...

===

// fedsoc?

taxi medallions gotta be uber

// pac leg small gubmint pretends to be little guy champion but works for corps?

https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/transportation/

https://ij.org/

The Town of Eagle (which is separate from the Village of Eagle), a small municipality where most of the 3,500 residents live on multi-acre tracts of land, has weaponized its code enforcement to punish local residents and to produce a profit. With the help of the Municipal Law & Litigation Group—a private law firm that is paid by the hour to prosecute code violations—the town uses its codes to retaliate against citizens who speak out against town officials, to fine citizens tens of thousands of dollars for minor violations, and to pass the attorneys’ fees on to unwitting citizens. The law firm has even threatened citizens with jailtime if they can’t pay up. The town subverts basic constitutional rights, devastating the residents unfortunate enough to be caught in the town’s crosshairs.

wilmington pvt co grabs and scraps cars? but no problem w/ feds?

online shrink across state lines, corp engr w/ no lic testify in son atty case

https://ij.org/pillar/first-amendment/?post_type=case

prez

anthony Sanders is the Director of theInstitute for Justice’s Center for Judicial Engagement (CJE), and a senior attorney. He joined IJ in 2010. As CJE’s director, he educates the public about the proper role of judges in enforcing constitutional limits on the size and scope of government. As a senior attorney he litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting economic liberty, private property, freedom of speech and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts across the country.

One area of Anthony’s expertise is on using state constitutions to protect individual rights. He has litigated several cases in various state courts on state constitutional protections. He has also written several law review articles on state constitutional law, and other subjects. His work has appeared in publications such as the Iowa Law Review, Minnesota Law Review, and Rutgers Law Review, and has published opinion pieces in leading media outlets across the country. Most recently, he published two articles about “Baby Ninth Amendments,” provisions in state constitutions that protect rights beyond just those that are enumerated. He has also spoken on various subjects, including judicial engagement, free speech, civil forfeiture, and the continuing importance of Magna Carta.

Prior to joining IJ-MN, Anthony served as a law clerk to Justice W. William Leaphart on the Montana Supreme Court. Anthony also worked for several years in private practice in Chicago.

===

chls gantt maga action jan 6 comm grift

[[https://campaignintegritywatchdog.org/

huh?

Campaign Integrity Watchdog offers 3 tiers of service:

1) Watch over your campaign finance filings to ensure strict compliance & deter lawsuits

2) Guard your campaign against frivolous campaign finance complaints and legal attacks

3) Tenaciously preserve the integrity of the law by doggedly pursuing and prosecuting campaign finance violations

Our mission is to ensure campaign integrity in your campaign (guard and watch) and hold violators accountable to the law (watch, deter, and pursue).

Please note that Campaign Integrity Watchdog is not a law firm, nor are any of our consultants attorneys.  The information contained herein does not constitute legal advice.  If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney.

Media Coverage of Campaign Integrity Watchdog Appellate Victory over Colorado Pioneer Action

Posted on June 26, 2019 by :{:{Director:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}::(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Campaign Integrity Watchdog’s stunning underdog victory against the legions of lawyers defending “Both-Ways Bob” Beauprez’s ‘Colorado Pioneer Action’ group in the Colorado Court of Appeals (case 2017CA883, decision issued 30 May 2019) nearly two years after CIW’s stunning upset victory …:{Continue reading →}:

===

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/coloradans-for-a-better-future-v-campaign-integrity-watchdog-pro-bono-legal-services-are-not-campaign-contributions

in  2012, Colorado’s Republican voters faced a choice in the campaign for Colorado University’s Board of Regents: Brian Davidson or Matthew Arnold? The campaign made headlines after Arnold admitted to lying about his educational credentials. And in the heat of this debate, Coloradans for a Better Future (CBF)—a 527 political organization—ran two radio ads, one promoting Davidson and one criticizing Arnold.

Arnold lost the race. Unfortunately for CBF, Arnold would go on to become the most prolific complainant under Colorado’s system of private campaign-finance enforcement. Under that system, “[a]ny person” can file a private lawsuit to enforce the state’s campaign-finance laws. And since 2014, Arnold has filed over 70 complaints, either personally or through a company he founded, called Campaign Integrity Watchdog (CIW).

Following his electoral defeat, Arnold started filing complaints against CBF, alleging various violations of campaign-finance law. After weathering Arnold’s third lawsuit, CBF filed a termination report with the Colorado Secretary of State. But this only prompted a fourth lawsuit by CIW, claiming that CBF failed to properly report the value of the time spent by an attorney filing the termination report as a campaign “contribution.”

CIW lost before the Office of Administrative Courts, but the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding that free or reduced-cost legal services to political organizations like CBF qualified as contributions either as undercompensated services under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-45-103(6)(b) or as “gifts” under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-45-103(6)(c)(I).

Represented by the Institute for Justice, CBF sought review before the Colorado Supreme Court. The Court granted review and on January 29, 2018, unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is a straightforward application of well-established principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the canon against surplussage and noscitur a sociis.

With regard to section 1-45-103(6)(b), concerning undercompensated services, the court noted that the value of these services is established in an amount “as determined by the candidate committee.” Based on this language, the court reasoned that the provision applied only to services rendered to candidate committees; otherwise, the phrase “as determined by the candidate committee” would be surplussage. The court rejected CIW’s argument that this interpretation led to absurd results, holding that “it is not absurd to make contribution laws stricter for candidate committees than for other entities.”

As for section 1-45-103(6)(c)(I), concerning “gifts” to political organizations, the court held that the word “gift” referred only to monetary gifts. To support this interpretation, the court looked to the other terms surrounding “gift,” which included “payment, loan, pledge, . . . advance of money, [and] guarantee of a loan.” Invoking the “familiar principle of statutory construction that words grouped in a list should be given related meaning,” the court had no trouble concluding that “gift” did not extend beyond monetary gifts. This interpretation also avoided surplussage in another subsection of the law, section 1-45-103(6)(c)(III), which regulates gifts of property.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling will provide important protection for political speakers in Colorado. Campaign-finance law is notoriously difficult to comply with, and those compliance problems are only exacerbated by Colorado’s unique system of private campaign-finance enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in Coloradans for a Better Future v. Campaign Integrity Watchdog ensures that political speakers can seek the legal help they need to navigate Colorado’s law without fear that doing so will open them up to retaliatory lawsuits from their political opponents.

Paul Sherman is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.

===]]

===

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/betsy-devos-foundation-funds-right-wing-propaganda-operation-tax-filing/

no lnx

Betsy DeVos’ foundation funds right-wing ‘propaganda operation’: tax filing

Written by Igor Derysh / Salon December 19, 2019

The family foundation of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her billionaire husband, Dick, gave more than $1 million to purportedly “independent” right-wing groups that have helped boost her assault on public education, according to a recent tax filing obtained by the government watchdog group Allied Progress and shared with Salon.

The 2018 filing shows that the couple put $5 million into the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation while doling out more than $11.6 million in contributions and pledges. As in previous years, much of the funding went to Christian charities and local initiatives in and around Grand Rapids, Michigan, and the couple’s home. But more than $1 million went to supposedly independent right-wing think tanks and groups like the American Enterprise Institute and the National Review Institute, which have heaped praise on Secretary DeVos and helped promote her agenda.

“Secretary DeVos is effectively funding an outside propaganda operation to help her bash teachers’ unions and promote private voucher schemes that undermine public education,” said Jeremy Funk, communications director for Allied Progress, a nonpartisan watchdog organization.

The DeVos Foundation contributed $500,000 to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for public policy research last year and pledged another $250,000 in future payments to the organization, according to the filing.

AEI, whose board includes Dick DeVos, is a libertarian think tank that maintains a “close relationship with incoming Republican administrations,” according to The Guardian, and assists them with “staff and readymade policies.

AEI officials have repeatedly publicly praised DeVos and her policies.

Frederick Hess, AEI’s director of education policy studies, recently backed DeVos’ push to gut the Borrower Defense Rule, which allows defrauded students to seek debt relief. Hess praised DeVos’ proposal to base debt forgiveness on student income as “clearly better for colleges, taxpayers, and students” in a National Review op-ed. A judge later blocked the initiative, although DeVos is now implementing new rules that again seek to restrict the amount of debt that can be forgiven to students defrauded by for-profit colleges.

AEI senior fellow Peter Wallison also praised DeVos’ controversial changes to Title IX, which made it harder to report sexual abuse on campus, in an op-ed last year. Wallison wrote that DeVos’ rule change puts “sexual harassment rules back into compliance with the Constitution and laws” and “should be an example for other administrative agencies.”

The DeVos Foundation also donated $10,000 to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group whose top officials have publicly backed DeVos’ proposal to require colleges to allow cross-examination of sexual assault and harassment accusers that advocates say would discourage victims from coming forward.

FIRE later promoted DeVos’ comments at the Independent Women’s Forum earlier this year, where she criticized Title IX.

“FIRE has long expressed sentiments much like that of Secretary DeVos” on Title IX, the group said, and its leadership was “heartened by the positions signaled in Secretary DeVos’ speech.”

The DeVos Foundation also made a $350,000 contribution to the Mackinac Center, according to the filing.

The Mackinac Center is a longtime opponent of teacher unions that urged teachers to opt out of their unions after the Supreme Court ruled that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public-sector unions.

Secretary DeVos herself attended Supreme Court arguments in the case. DeVos is a longtime supporter of “efforts to reduce the power of public-sector unions”and previously made a $125,000 donation to a Michigan group that opposed collective-bargaining rights, according to The Washington Post. Employees at the Department of Education employees have also accused DeVos of “gutting a long-standing labor agreement” and enforcing a new deal that was “roundly rejected” by their union, according to the Post.

The DeVos Foundation also contributed $100,000 to the National Review Institute,whose board of trustees includes Dick DeVos, according to the filing.

After receiving the donation in 2018, the National Review Institute hosted Secretary DeVos at its 2019 Ideas Summit in March, where she vowed to make school choice a “top priority.”

That same month, The National Review praised DeVos’ school choice plan and her Education Freedom Scholarship program, a tax-deductible private scholarship program similar to school vouchers that critics say will reduce tax revenue that could otherwise pay teacher salaries. The National Review hailed it as a “bold” plan and a “huge step in the right direction.”

The DeVos Foundation also contributed $10,000 to the Institute for Justice, according to the filing, a group that funds a “variety” of lawsuits defending school vouchers and tax credit programs supported by DeVos, according to The Times.

Prior to the contribution, DeVos met with the group’s top officials so they could “suggest a few areas where the department could facilitate school-choice efforts and offer the [secretary] help in those areas,” The Times reported.

Earlier this year, the Education Department hosted a blog post by the Institute for Justice’s Tim Keller in which he promoted school choice efforts.

The foundation’s 2017 filings showed similar contributions that included nearly $3.2 million to conservative nonprofits that favor school choice and promote other right-wing policies.

Along with giving or pledging $1 million to AEI in 2017, the DeVos Foundation also contributed or pledged $1 million to the Alliance for School Choice, which Secretary DeVos previously chairedbefore joining the Trump administration. DeVos also chaired the American Federation for Children, which controls the Alliance for School Choice. The federation has continued to lobby the Education Department even after DeVos took over.

Along with contributing to right-wing organizations that promote education policy, the DeVos Foundation has also contributed to numerous advocacy groups that oppose abortion and deny climate change.

The DeVos Foundation and the Education Department did not immediately return a request for comment. Dick DeVos told MLive in 2017 that the majority of their donations are not political.

“These are not political organizations that are advocating or advancing any political agenda. They are trying to serve people,” he said.

Mark Brewer, the former longtime chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, dismissed the other contributions as “nothing more than a smokescreen to divert attention away from the disclosures of the political contributions.”

Lonnie Scott, the head of progressive advocacy group Progress Michigan, told NPR that the family foundation’s contributions are an example of how conservatives wield their charitable foundations’ checkbooks for political power.

“I think what we see overall is really the purchasing of political power that crosses the spectrum of political and foundation giving,” he said. “The right is very quick to use foundation funding in a way that the left does not in supporting specific policies.”

See the DeVos Family Foundation’s full 990 tax filing below:

DeVos Foundation 990 2018 by Igor Derysh on Scribd

Igor Derysh is a New York-based political writer whose work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Herald and Baltimore Sun.

==

==

Founded in 1991 by Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick, the Institute for Justice is a US libertarian public interest law firm. John Blundell was also a founder director.[1]

"In pursuit of its goal of a radical laissez-faire capitalism, the Institute has initiated a number of lawsuits aimed at ending government regulation of business. While the lawsuits generally involve small businesses, often in communities of color, the goal is to set a legal precedent for the deregulation of big business in general. Utilizing both litigation and public advocacy, the Institute has also played a critical role in the groundbreaking school voucher programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland."[1]

The Institute offered two amicus briefs in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case in favor of Citizens United.

However, aside from providing legal assistance to businesses, the Institute has occasionally given help to individuals against government oppression. One example was in the Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich, the Institute issued an amicus curiae brief on behalf of a medical marijuana patient.[2]

In a addition to litigation, "the Institute [takes its cases] to the court of public opinion with a blitz of editorials and op-eds in leading local and national newspapers."[3]

One of the target of the Institute is campaign finance reform. The Arizona chapter has filed a lawsuit challenging the "Clean Elections Act".

The Institute operates two additional projects: the Castle Coalition, described as a "nationwide grassroots property rights activism project" aimed at fighting eminent domain, and Congress Shall Make No Law, a "free speech blog."

Contents[hide]

Funding

The initial funding for the Institute came from the Koch Family Foundations, which also fund the libertarian Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Charles and David Koch were named "Cornerstone Supporters" in 2001. [4]

Other notable funders include the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation, which funds religious right groups and advocates school choice the conservative Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, the school privatization-supporting Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, which also backs charter schools and vouchers. A complete list of funders can be found at the Media Matters Action Network Conservative Transparency website. [5]

Officers and Executives

Former staff

Board

Contact details

Institute for Justice

901 N. Glebe Road

Suite 900

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone: 703.682.9320

Fax: 703.682.9321

Web: http://www.ij.org/

Odd bedfellows

The Institute for Justice rubs shoulders with two intelligence firms: Blackwater offshoot Total Intelligence Solutions occupies the adjacent (or perhaps same) office, at Suite 901, and one floor below, in Suite 810, lies MZM (of Mitchell Wade and Duke Cunningham fame) offshoot Athena Innovative Solutions. Towers Watson has two floors of the building, and a sister building in the same complex houses the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

State chapters

Arizona[2]:

398 S Mill Avenue Ste 301

Tempe, AZ 85281

Phone: (480) 557-8300

Fax: (480) 557-8305

Minnesota[3]

527 Marquette Avenue Ste 1600

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Phone: (612) 435-3451

Fax: (612) 435-5875

Texas:[4]

816 Congress Ave, Suite 960

Austin, TX 78701-2475

Phone: (512) 480-5936

Fax: (512) 480-5937

Washington (State):[5]

101 Yesler Way Ste 603

Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: (206) 341-9300

Fax: (206) 341-9311

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ The LSE Hayek Society, "Capitalism", The LSE Hayek Society, archived from January 2003. (Scroll down to see the section on John Blundell).
  2. ↑ Arizona. Institute for Justice. Retrieved on 2010-05-04.
  3. ↑ Minnesota. Institute for Justice. Retrieved on 2010-05-04.
  4. ↑ Texas. Institute for Justice. Retrieved on 2010-05-04.
  5. ↑ Washington. Institute for Justice. Retrieved on 2010-05-04.

External resources

External articles

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Justice

==

Attachments