CRC 3 scott walter influencewatch

===

MERRI OK

ATTACK DOG // ENFORCER HIT MAN OPPO RES

SEE GINNI 600k$

THIS IS CRC 3

SEE TWO ANTIFA HUNTER BS

see mtg doge

see testimony

money LAUNDER TO GINNI 2023 CLETA

SEE CAP RES CTR

fake watchdog boost defend dark $

see WH ANTIFA BS 10 25 HOMELESS BS TERROR 3 BS

DEFUND LEFT ARABELLA

ATTACK UNKOCH, DEFEND KOCHADEMIA}REGENT U HILLSDALE: }:}:

ANTI-COMMIE}:

ATTACK DIVEST CLIMATE JUSTICE

gerry VA

VOTER SUPPRESS

ZELDIN

RUSSIA-GATE BS

scott walter paleo-cath OPUS DEI? CRISIS MAG STRAUSS

:{:{RUBBER GLUE BS ATTACK: Unclear Funding for UnKoch: Masking Funders Through}:

federal ID number is 52-1289734 ...}:

note BIG LABOR GREEN NGO PHILANTHOPY ETC ETC

wow ~ brulle

Climate Dollars

In a widely cited study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle claimed to expose a vast network of organizations executing “a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect debate and distort the understanding of climate change.” As a result, Brulle insisted, the public is uncertain about the alarmist claim that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing severe climate change, and the government in turn has failed to enact the kind of restrictions on emissions Brulle favors.

By Brulle’s calculations, from 2003-2010 the conspirators enjoyed a combined average annual income of over $900 million.

Read the Brulle Study

---

8 26 RANDOM YT RECOMM

Who Funds That? EP 17: Against Nuclear Energy, Against Humanity

Who Funds That? EP 17: Against Nuclear Energy, Against Humanity

64 views Aug 12, 2026 Who Funds That?

Do environmentalists—and the rest of the progressive left that includes combating climate change as part of its “Omnicause”—care more about saving the planet or replacing market capitalism, private property, and pluralist living arrangements with socialist tower-blocks connected by overcrowded light rail (on which there will be no enforcement of fare payment, naturally)? There’s a tell—opposing nuclear-powered electric generation, which emits no point-source carbon emissions whatsoever. And my colleague Ken Braun, author of Capital Research Center’s comprehensive report on the environmentalist movement’s “Enemies of Energy,” has updated his extensive list of left-wing groups opposed to nuclear energy—the ones that clearly privilege making a New Soviet Man over making the Earth better for people. Links: https://capitalresearch.org/article/o...https://www.influencewatch.org/influe...https://capitalresearch.org/article/t...https://capitalresearch.org/article/n...

0:09

Hello, I'm Michael Watson and this is

0:10

Capital Research C Center's Who Funds

0:12

That podcast. Do environmentalists and

0:15

the rest of the progressive left that

0:16

includes combating climate change as

0:18

part of its omni cause care more about

0:20

saving the planet or replacing market

0:22

capitalism, private property, and

0:24

pluralist living arrangements with

0:25

socialist tower blocks connected by

0:27

overcrowded light rail on which there

0:29

will be no enforcement of fair payment.

0:30

Naturally, there's a tell opposing

0:33

nuclearpowered electric generation which

0:35

emits no point source carbon emissions

0:37

whatsoever. My colleague Ken Brun,

0:40

author of Capital Research Center's

0:41

comprehensive report on the

0:42

environmentalist movements enemies of

0:44

energy, has updated his extensive list

0:46

of left-wing groups opposed to nuclear

0:47

energy, the ones that clearly privilege

0:49

making a new Soviet man over making the

0:52

Earth better for people. Uh, Ken,

0:54

welcome back.

0:55

I'm glad to be here. That's a heck of an

0:57

introduction. I loved it. [laughter]

1:00

I may have engaged in some mild red

1:02

baiting in that introduction, but it has

1:06

a point, right? I You know, nuclear

1:08

energy is nuclear energy is a pretty

1:10

unfettered good unless you're a

1:13

communist and specifically not a French

1:15

communist because they don't mind the

1:16

fact that their state-run energy company

1:18

has nuclear energy.

1:20

There's actually a good joke on that. Um

1:22

there was a what's the difference

1:24

between why did the French get like 60%

1:28

of their electricity or more from a

1:29

nuclear power and the the Americans

1:31

don't? And uh the answer which is hardly

1:34

a joke says well you have to understand

1:36

two two points. number one that uh in

1:39

France they have you know 700 varieties

1:42

of cheese and only one nuclear reactor

1:46

design. In the United States we have one

1:48

variety of cheese and 700 nuclear

1:50

reactor designs. Each one is built brand

1:52

new as if it's a new work of art. And

1:54

also in France the communists see it as

1:57

a jobs program. So uh they're actually

1:59

in favor of it. [laughter] So having

2:02

established that French communists are

2:04

in favor of nuclear energy, who's

2:06

against it and why?

2:08

Well, in the United States, uh it's what

2:10

you have written as the uh everything

2:13

left leftism omnicause. Um it's there's

2:17

at least $3.5 billion is the new number.

2:20

3 billion5 billion dollars of annual

2:23

revenue if you combine it. This isn't

2:25

just all of the what I call the

2:26

anti-energy groups, the groups that like

2:28

to call themselves climate nonprofits.

2:30

You know, the environmental defense fund

2:32

is at the top of this list, but all the

2:34

way down to, you know, the League of

2:37

Women Voters has an anti- an opposition

2:40

to nuclear energy going back decades. U

2:43

NAACP, you can name them all. So, it's

2:46

not just EDF.

2:47

What's the There's a there's a law of

2:49

politics named after somebody. I want

2:51

want to say it's O Sullivan's that all

...

HATE AM PROSPERITY, ROCKY MTN

Opposition to Nuclear Energy - Influence Watch

NRDC 180? IOWA?

Some of the largest nonprofits opposing nuclear energy, as measured by the revenue reported in their most recent filings with the IRS (as of January 2025) included the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute (WRI), the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Sierra Club, the Rocky Mountain Institute, Grid Alternatives, and the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).

Some of the largest known contributors to the anti-nuclear-energy groups have included Bloomberg Philanthropies, ^5 the Foundation for the Carolinas (FFTC) / Fred Stanback, ^6 ^7 ^8 the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, ^9 the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation ^10 the Sixteen Thirty Fund (1630 Fund) / Arabella Advisors ^11 and the Tides Foundation. ^12

Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and from 1990 until 2021 accounted for 20 percent of American electricity production—the largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. ^13 An October 2018 proposal from The Nature Conservancy noted that zero-carbon nuclear plants produced 7.8 percent of total world energy output and recommended reducing carbon emissions by increasing nuclear capacity to 33 percent of total world energy output. ^14 A 2020 analysis from Our World in Data reported that nuclear energy “results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.8% fewer than coal; 99.7% fewer than oil; and 97.6% fewer than gas,” making it “just as safe” as wind and solar power production. ^15 The U.S. Department of Energy has concluded that “nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source” and that it would require “more than 3 million solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines.” ^16

Background on U.S. Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and from 1990 until 2021 accounted for 20 percent of American electricity production—the largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. ^13 An October 2018 proposal from The Nature Conservancy noted that zero-carbon nuclear plants produced 7.8 percent of total world energy output and recommended reducing carbon emissions by increasing nuclear capacity to 33 percent of total world energy output. ^14 France obtained 63 percent of its electricity from nuclear fuel in 2022, and an average of more than 75 percent of French electricity came from nuclear during the period from 1989 through 2016. ^17

A March 2021 analysis posted on the U.S. Department of Energy’s web page concluded that “nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source.” ^16

“To put that in perspective,” claimed the Department of Energy report, “you would need more than 3 million solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines (capacity factor not included).” ^16

An April 2021 analysis from Bloomberg News estimated that a “conventional 1-gigawatt reactor operating on 1,000 acres produces the same amount of energy as a wind farm spanning 100,000 acres.” Land use of 1,000 acres is equivalent to 1.56 square miles, while 100,000 acres is equal to 156 square miles, or 18 square miles larger than the land area within the city borders of Detroit, Michigan. ^18 ^19

A 2020 analysis from Our World in Data reported that nuclear energy “results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.8% fewer than coal; 99.7% fewer than oil; and 97.6% fewer than gas,” making it “just as safe” as wind and solar power production. ^15

Uranium is currently the most widely used fuel in nuclear reactors. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, it “a common metal found in rocks all over the world.” ^20

A 2009 analysis of nuclear fuel supplies posted by Scientific American estimated that the “economically accessible uranium resources” known to the U.S. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) at that time would have been enough to run all of the nuclear reactors on Earth for “more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.” The report also predicted that “exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.” ^21

“Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself,” concluded the Scientific American analysis. “Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs [light water nuclear reactors]. Breeder reactors could match today’s nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.” ^21

A 2021 U.S. Department of Energy tutorial on nuclear power production reported that nuclear energy “produces minimal waste” and that all of the spent nuclear fuel “produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!” The tutorial also noted that nuclear waste “can also be reprocessed and recycled, although the United States does not currently do this” and that “some advanced reactors designs being developed could operate on used fuel.” ^16

Group Petitions Against Nuclear Energy

Nonprofits and other groups opposed to the use of nuclear energy have jointly endorsed open letters and other statements expressing their position.

Letter to House and Senate Democratic Leadership (August 2022)

There were 650 signatories on an August 2022 letter organized by People vs Fossil Fuels that was addressed to the “Democratic Leadership” in Congress. The letter was titled: “Opposition to Fossil Fuel Project Approvals and Permitting Reforms Conditioned on the Inflation Reduction Act.” ^22

The letter portrayed as “false solutions” carbon sequestration, carbon-free nuclear energy and all sources of energy not approved as “renewable” by the signatories: “Relying only on large scale investments in renewable energy and environmental justice alone will not stave off climate disaster if Congress simultaneously puts its legislative foot on the gas to expand fossil fuel production and false solutions like carbon capture, hydrogen, biomass, biofuels, factory farm gas, and nuclear power.” ^22

Signatories included Church World Service, California Environmental Justice Alliance, Oxfam America, CASA, NDN Collective, Center for Climate Integrity, Bend the Arc, the Clean Air Council, and New York Lawyers for Public Interest.

Letter to U.S. Senate Regarding Build Back Better Act (December 2021)

In December 2021, more than 100 groups co-signed an open letter opposing the nuclear power production tax credits offered in HR 5376, the House of Representatives draft of the Build Back Better Act. The groups identified nuclear power as a one of several “unproven and unnecessary technologies” and “harmful energy sources” that “would extend demand for fossil fuels.” ^23

The letter urged the Senate to remove nuclear power from the list of energy sources eligible for the tax credits. The cosigners included the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy, Center for Economic Democracy, the New Economy Coalition, UPROSE, GreenFaith, Just Transition Alliance, MADRE, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Gender And Radiation Impact Project, Oil & Gas Action Network, Women’s Environment and Development Organization, Citizens Awareness Network, the Eco-Justice Collaborative, the Ecological Options Network, Florida Rising, Flint Rising, the Romero Institute, the Native Movement, and the Sane Energy Project. ^24

Opposition to EU defining nuclear as sustainable energy (2021)

A proposal by the European Commission to allow nuclear energy to count as a “sustainable” energy option within its “net zero” goals was opposed by both the World Wildlife Fund and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

In April 2021 WWF registered its opposition to a final draft of proposed rules regarding what the European Union would consider “green taxonomy” energy investments. The World Wildlife Fund statement declared that “fossil fuels and nuclear power are unsustainable” and that the final rules needed “to make clear that gas and nuclear will not be part of the green taxonomy once and for all.” ^25

In July 2022, CDP issued a news release that opposed a decision by the parliament of the European Union to allow nuclear energy to be counted as acceptable within the EU’s net-zero carbon emissions taxonomy. The CDP news release said the EU decision “risks the integrity of the EU’s sustainable finance action plan, its obligations under the Paris Agreement and will severely hinder Europe’s efforts to adhere to its own European Climate Law, which sets a legally binding target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” ^26

Letter to President Joseph R. Biden (April 2021)

An April 2021 letter to President Joe Biden from more than 250 nonprofits and other groups asked the administration to promote weather dependent wind and solar power systems and “end the fossil fuel era.” The letter also advised the president to “Phase out nuclear energy as an inherently dirty, dangerous and costly energy source.” Signatories included the Center for Biological Diversity, the California Teachers Association, Polar Bears International, the Center for Environmental Health, Health Care for All, the Resource Renewal Institute, the Bank Information Center and the Alliance for Affordable Energy. ^27

Petition for Renewable Energy Standard (May 2021)

In May of 2021, 715 groups and businesses cosigned on a letter to the leadership of the U.S. House and Senate that referred to nuclear energy as a “dirty” form of energy production and a “significant” source of pollution. The letter asked federal lawmakers to reduce carbon emissions by creating a “renewable electricity standard” that promoted production of weather dependent power sources such as wind turbines and solar panels. ^1

Some examples of the co-signers included representatives from the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Oil Change International, the Center for Popular Democracy, the Environmental Working Group, the NAACP, Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, 350.org (plus many state and local affiliates such as 350 Philadelphia), Free Press Action and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. ^1

American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020 (November 2020)

More than 100 co-signatories endorsed a November 2020 letter to the U.S. Senate that expressed opposition to S. 4897, the “American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020.” The letter stated that nuclear power “amplifies and expands the dangers of climate change” and denounced it as an example of “false solutions to the climate crisis that perpetuate our reliance on dirty energy industries.” ^2

Some examples of the co-signers included representatives from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, the League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen, Beyond Extreme Energy, the Institute for Policy Studies, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch, and Clean Water Action. ^2

Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change (January 2019)

More than 600 co-signing organizations endorsed a January 2019 open letter to Congress titled “Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change.” The signatories declared their support for new laws to bring about “100 percent decarbonization” of the transportation sector but denounced nuclear power as an example of “dirty energy” that should not be included in any legislation promoting the use of so-called “renewable energy.” ^28

Some examples of the co-signers included representatives from the League of Women Voters, CODEPINK, CREDO, Extinction Rebellion (XR), GRID Alternatives, Hip Hop Caucus, Rainforest Action Network, Sunrise Movement, the Sustainable Economies Law Center, and Surfrider Foundation. ^28

Largest Anti-Nuclear Nonprofits

A July 2025 analysis from the Capital Research Center examined more than 300 nonprofits that opposed nuclear energy and conservatively estimated that the total combined annual revenue of the American opponents of nuclear power exceeded $3.3 billion. ^4

As of July 2025, the most recent reported annual revenue of 21 nonprofits known to oppose nuclear energy exceeded $30 million.

World Wildlife Fund ($374.8 million) ^29

World Resources Institute ($357.8 million) ^30

Church World Service ($283.8 million) ^31

Environmental Defense Fund ($247 million) ^32

California Teachers Association ($220.7 million) ^33

Sierra Club ($173.4 million) ^34

Rocky Mountain Institute ($164.7 million) ^35

Oxfam America ($83.1 million) ^36

League of Conservation Voters ($67.5 million) ^37

GRID Alternatives ($63.3 million) ^38

Southern Environmental Law Center ($62.8 million) ^39

American Friends Service Committee ($48.2 million) ^40

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ($43.6 million) ^41

Greenpeace ($40.2 million) ^42

Carbon Disclosure Project – CDP ($38.4 million) ^43

National Parks Conservation Association ($35.1 million) ^44

Center for Biological Diversity ($34.5 million) ^45

Taproot Earth ($32.8 million) ^46

Movement Strategy Center ($32.3 million) ^47

Earth Island Institute ($30.9 million) ^48

Major Donors to Nuclear Energy Opponents

Large left-leaning donor foundations have been some of the major supporters of groups that oppose the use of nuclear energy.

Bloomberg Philanthropies

From 2020 through 2023, Bloomberg Philanthropies (also known as the Bloomberg Family Foundation) gave at least $80 million in grants to nonprofit groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients during the period included the Sierra Club Foundation, the NRDC, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the Hip Hop Caucus, 350.org, the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthworks. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). ^5

Bloomberg Philanthropies is a giving vehicle for left-leaning billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor New York City and a former candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Fred Stanback (Foundation for the Carolinas)

From 2020 through 2023, the Foundation for the Carolinas (FFTC) gave at least $80 million in grants to nonprofit groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). ^6

FFTC is a donor-advised fund that manages funds for 2,700 separate charitable individuals, families and organizations. ^49 One of FFTC’s largest known account holders has been North Carolina billionaire Fred Stanback. ^8 Stanback was characterized in an April 2018 Knoxville News report as a “known proponent of anti-humanist environmentalism [. . .] the belief that protecting the environment hinges on population control.” ^50 Thirty-nine percent of FFTC’s donations from 1999-2017 ($825 million) were given to organizations favoring the Stanback policy agenda: left-leaning environmentalism, abortion, population control, or immigration restrictionism. ^51

Stanback’s total commitment to his FFTC account through all years is not known, but the Los Angeles Times reported a single $397 million donation from Stanback to FFTC that took place in 2014. ^8 A September 2020 report from the Washington Free Beacon revealed that just one of the anti-nuclear nonprofits, the Southern Environmental Law Center, had received more than $200 million from Stanback, through FFTC, during the preceding two decades. ^52 Stanback has regularly been thanked for six and seven-figure annual donations in annual reports and other public documents put out by the Sierra Club Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Working Group, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Waterkeeper Alliance. ^53 Annual reports from some of these groups, such as RMI, have also credited Stanback’s son and daughter-in-law with comparable-sized donations. ^7

During the 2020-2023 period, FFTC donations to left leaning groups that opposed nuclear energy exceeded $80 million and included the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the NRDC, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, the Environmental Working Group, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC-WARN), the Dogwood Alliance, the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Sierra Club Foundation, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Rachel Carson Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network, and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. ^6

MacArthur Foundation

From 2020 through 2023, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (MacArthur Foundation) gave at least $60 million in grants to nonprofit groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients included the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club Foundation, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, the World Resources Institute, Earthworks, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP North America), the NRDC, the U.S. Climate Action Network (US-CAN), and Voices for a Sustainable Future (a project of the Labor Network for Sustainability). The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). ^9

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

From 2020 through 2023, the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation gave at least $45 million in grants to nonprofit groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients included the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, the NRDC, Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental Defense Fund. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). ^10

Gordon Moore is the founder of Intel.

Sixteen Thirty Fund (1630 Fund)

From 2020 through 2023 the Sixteen Thirty Fund (1630 Fund) gave at least $29 million in grants to groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients included the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, the NRDC Action Fund, the Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund, the League of Women Voters, the Sunrise PAC (a political committee aligned with the Sunrise Movement), People’s Action, and the People’s Action Institute. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). ^11

Sixteen Thirty is part of a group of left-of-center lobbying and advocacy organizations administered by Arabella Advisors. In 2020, Arabella’s nonprofit network boasted total revenues exceeding $1.67 billion and total expenditures of $1.26 billion, and paid out $896 million in grants largely to other left-leaning and politically active nonprofits. ^54 Identifying specific contributions to specific donors within the Arabella network is challenging. According to FoundationSearch records, Sixteen Thirty received at least $141.7 million in support from public foundations during the 2020-2023 period, of which $113.5 million came from the New Venture Fund—another nonprofit run through Arabella. ^55 FoundationSearch records show that New Venture received more than $1.4 billion in support from public foundations during the period, with at least $333 million of that coming from donor advised funds that do not generally publicly identify the names of contributors. ^56 A November 2021 profile in The Atlantic identified Arabella as a “massive progressive dark-money group you’ve never heard of” and Sixteen Thirty as “the indisputable heavyweight of Democratic dark money” which funneled “roughly $61 million of effectively untraceable money to progressive causes,” making it the “second-largest super-PAC donor in 2020.” ^57 Similarly, a May 2021 New York Times analysis identified Sixteen Thirty as one of the “leading dark money spenders on the Left.” ^58

Tides Foundation

From 2020 through 2023 the Tides Foundation gave at least $27 million in grants to groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients included the NRDC, the World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club Foundation, the NAACP, Public Citizen, Public Citizen Foundation, Amazon Watch, People’s Action, the People’s Action Institute, the Center for Popular Democracy, the NRDC Action Fund, Green America, Dream Corps, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Movement Strategy Center, and the Sunrise Movement Education Fund. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). ^12

The Tides Foundation is a center-left grantmaker and a pass-through funder to left-leaning nonprofits. FoundationSearch records show that the Tides Foundation received more than $351.5 million in support from public foundations during the 2020-2023 period, with $40 million coming from the Tides Center (another nonprofit aligned with the Tides Foundation), and an additional $133 million from four donor advised funds that do not generally publicly identify the names of contributors. ^59

Alphabetical List of Anti-Nuclear Groups

...

---

series

Who Funds That? EP 17: Against Nuclear Energy, Against Humanity

Capital Research Center

64 views

•

2 days ago

21:08

Who Funds That? EP 16: Big Labor’s Leftist Investments

Capital Research Center

73 views

•

10 days ago

28:41

Who Funds That? EP 15: Congress Considers Nonprofit Regulation

Capital Research Center

126 views

•

2 weeks ago

25:32

Who Funds That? EP14: The Foreign Funding Election Loophole

Capital Research Center

94 views

•

3 weeks ago

23:49

Who Funds That? EP13: Organizing the DSA Revolution

Capital Research Center

127 views

•

1 month ago

27:51

Who Funds That? EP12 Trump Can Say "You're Fired"

Capital Research Center

74 views

•

1 month ago

29:55

Who Funds That? EP11: What to Make of AI Opposition

Capital Research Center

113 views

•

1 month ago

27:44

Who Funds That? EP10: The Experts Weigh in on Fixing Higher Ed

Capital Research Center

79 views

•

1 month ago

18:26

Who Funds That? EP9: Poisoned Ivies with Rep. Elise Stefanik

Capital Research Center

99 views

•

1 month ago

35:34

Who Funds That EP7: Hasan Piker in the Doghouse?

Capital Research Center

112 views

•

2 months ago

25:08

Who Funds That? EP8: Enemies of Energy

Capital Research Center

68 views

•

2 months ago

35:34

Who Funds That? EP6: Can Treasury Fix Nonprofit Tax Returns

Capital Research Center

113 views

•

2 months ago

35:34

"Who Funds That?" EP5: Ohio’s Medicaid Millions

Capital Research Center

143 views

•

2 months ago

26:59

Who Funds That? EP4: Democrat Union Bosses, Republican Workers

Capital Research Center

96 views

•

3 months ago

35:53

Who Funds That? EP 3: Justice Samuel Alito (with Mollie Hemingway)

Capital Research Center

113 views

•

3 months ago

26:24

Who Funds That? EP2 with Corey DeAngelis: Maryland Lawmakers and the Teachers Unions vs. Parents

Capital Research Center

105 views

•

3 months ago

33:54

Who Funds That EP1: Cutting Class for the Radical Left

Capital Research Center

177 views

•

3 months ago

-=-=

-=-=

• Jacob Wendler @ Politico: A small conservative group rises in influence under Trump 2.0

Republicans are increasingly turning to the Capital Research Center’s work in their investigations into nonprofits.

A small conservative group rises in influence under Trump 2.0

Republicans are increasingly turning to the Capital Research Center’s work in their investigations into nonprofits.

The Capital Research Center is having a breakout moment under President Donald Trump's second administration. | AFP via Getty Images

:{By Jacob Wendler06/20/2026

A Trump administration effort to dial up scrutiny on philanthropies and other nonprofit organizations is creating a breakout moment for one of Washington’s many watchdog groups and think tanks.

While President Donald Trump has directed his ire at state attorneys general, law firms and elected officials, a steady number of tax-exempt groups are also landing in legal trouble for alleged partisanship. The campaign has been a boon for the Capital Research Center, whose nondescript name fits neatly into the city’s cottage industry of policy analysis and opposition deep-dives.

But the conservative watchdog stands out for its particular specialty: studying nonprofits, particularly those it suspects of having connections with Democratic donors and advocacy networks. That alignment has positioned CRC to be a go-to source for information on nonprofits Republicans hope to investigate, a unique role even its competitors acknowledge.

Some of CRC’s critics say its work is biased and superficial, and many of its targets, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, are well-worn bogeymen for the right. Yet its lengthy dossiers about pro-Palestinian groups and climate advocacy organizations have recently been cited in the footnotes of at least half a dozen congressional committee documents and a letter the Justice Department used in going after Democratic megadonor George Soros.

“We’re the intel operation for the conservative movement as a whole,” CRC President Scott Walter, a former George W. Bush adviser, said in an interview. “This is not a sexy collusion story. We are simply educating them, and they decide what to do with our public research.”

CRC, which was founded in 1984 and has just over 30 staffers, is far less influential than conservative titans like the Heritage Foundation or even newer players like the America First Policy Institute that are jockeying to sway Trump administration policy. But its recent popularity shows how much of a free-for-all the world of Washington influence has become under an administration that widely surveys the conservative media ecosystem for investigation targets, especially if a group has a niche that aligns with White House priorities.

Administration officials including Vice President JD Vance have promised to target left-leaning groups. | Getty Images

Walter has increasingly become a sought-after witness for House Republicans, testifying before four congressional committees in the past year — and Senate Democrats asked the IRS in October to divulge whether it has used CRC’s research to identify “targets” for possible investigations. Some groups that do similar work aren’t surprised CRC is gaining traction.

“I think their stuff is trusted” among the right, said Peter Flaherty, chair and CEO of conservative advocacy group National Legal and Policy Center,which focuses on government and corporate ethics. “People look to them when it comes down to the granular information about particular left-wing groups.”

Walter has been briefing Trump administration officials on the group’s research about specific nonprofits with suspected ties to the Democratic Party for months, as The New York Times first reported. He told POLITICO he’s met with senior officials from the White House and federal agencies as recently as last month and said he has distributed materials on ActBlue and the Southern Poverty Law Center — two groups that have attracted renewed attention from Republicans.

Conservatives have long expressed interest in targeting left-leaning groups and donors, but vows to investigate prominent organizations and individuals took on new fervor after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last summer. A range of administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance,promised to “go after” groups like Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation that they accused, without evidence, of helping foment violence.

A spokesperson for the Ford Foundation did not respond to requests for comment.

A week after Kirk’s killing, CRC staffer Ryan Mauro into Open Society, the nonprofit funded by Soros’ family, was designed to “equip the Trump administration with what they need in order to take action.” Days after his comments, a senior Justice Department official reportedly directed a group of federal prosecutors to investigate Soros, linking to CRC’s report in their letter.

Walter later admitted the report did not prove Soros or his nonprofit network had committed any crimes, as suggested by the DOJ.

“The claims in the Capital Research Center report are false and politically motivated attacks meant to enable the Trump Administration to target those it disagrees with and silence constitutionally protected free speech,” Open Society said in a statement. “When the government abuses its power to take away rights from some, it puts everyone’s rights at risk.”

Jack Schlossberg on Trump, RFK Jr. and the future of the Democratic Party

The statement added that Open Society unequivocally condemns “all forms of violence” and requires its grantees “to agree to comply with the law in order to receive funding.”

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The White House said in a statement that “the administration regularly meets with a variety of organizations on important topics” but did not answer questions about whether CRC had met or shared materials with specific administration officials.

The Capital Research Center’s work was cited in a letter the Justice Department used in going after Democratic megadonor George Soros. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Walter insists his input is solicited, saying administration officials regularly text and email him asking for briefings and information about CRC’s research. One former Trump official granted anonymity to discuss private dynamics told POLITICO that CRC is “one of the first places you would turn if you wanted outside help” digging into nonprofits.

“When I talk to Hill committees, I always ask if they know InfluenceWatch,” Walter said, referencing his group’s online database. “One Senate committee staffer laughed and said, ‘Scott, when I open my browser, a tab with InfluenceWatch opens.’”

Most Read

1. Senate Republicans say it’s time to give Trump a reality check
2. Judge blocks Trump admin’s database of Americans’ Social Security numbers and citizenship status
3. Judge scraps SNAP junk food rules, dealing a blow to MAHA
4. ‘Blatantly unlawful’: Judge blocks DOJ subpoenas aimed at Tim Walz
5. Justice Department attempted to force national security reporters to testify before grand jury

The site, which boasts that it provides “information on more than 15,500 public policy influencers on demand,” features Wikipedia-style dossiers on prominent political donors and nonprofit groups, detailing their controversies and political connections.

One group of mutual interest is ActBlue, the fundraising platform for Democratic candidates. Three Republican House committee chairs issued subpoenas to the organization in April, while House Administration Committee Republicans grilled its CEO, Regina Wallace-Jones, last week about how the platform vets for foreign donations.

Spokespeople for House Administration and Oversight committees did not respond to requests for comment. The House Judiciary Committee didn’t comment on whether CRC played a role in its probes of nonprofits, including ActBlue, which have Democrats threatening to investigate its GOP counterpart, WinRed. ActBlue declined to comment on the record.

“Republicans in Congress keep relying on this organization for ‘expert’ advice and testimony, but CRC’s record of spreading lies in service of the Trump Justice Department’s retribution campaign should disqualify them from being treated as anything more than a partisan disinformation shop,” said Kyle Herrig, senior adviser at the Congressional Integrity Project, one of many watchdog groups that’s landed on CRC’s InfluenceWatch.

Another longtime target of CRC’s is voter registration groups it accuses of abusing their tax-exempt status. The administration has taken note.

Just days after Walter suggested to POLITICO that those groups were likely to attract scrutiny for presenting themselves as nonpartisan organizations, one in Ohio said their offices were raided by the FBI as part of an active fraud-related investigation.

The Ohio Organizing Collaborative — which called the raid a “a full-out assault” on civil rights groups — has attracted scrutiny for its ties to the Voter Registration Project, a nonprofit group focused on mobilizing under-represented voters. OOC has denied any wrongdoing.

A group of Republican lawmakers from Michigan specifically cited CRC’s research into groups like VRP in a March letter to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi asking the DOJ to investigate VRP and similar groups for potential tax fraud.

The FBI, OOC and VRP did not respond to requests for comment about the raid.

Like many of the nonprofits it criticizes, CRC doesn’t disclose its donors. But publicly available documents show the group has received money through DonorsTrust and the Bradley Foundation, two funds that help clients direct charitable giving to conservative causes. Walter said he’s consistently opposed mandatory donor disclosure, arguing it would chill free speech by opening donors to harassment.

DonorsTrust spokesperson Lawson Bader told POLITICO in a statement that “DonorsTrust accountholders have recommended grants to Capital Research Center for many years, and they will likely continue to make grants into the foreseeable future.” A spokesperson for the Bradley Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.

CRC drew scrutiny in 2023 when The Washington Post reported that the group allegedlychanneled nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations to a group controlled by Ginni Thomas — the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Walter insists the arrangement was above board, noting that CRC chose to disclose the donations. Thomas’ attorney told The Post at the time that there was “no plausible conflict of interest issue with respect to Justice Thomas.”

“It’s clear that the role CRC has been playing is as a sort of information-gathering arm to supply the administration with rationales to go after certain groups,” said Michael Clauw of the watchdog group Campaign for Accountability, another nonprofit targeted by CRC. “And many times it’s been revealed that those stated rationales don’t really hold any water and don’t stand up to scrutiny.”

CRC scored another major win in April when the IRS announced plans to revise its 990 form, the primary reporting mechanism for tax-exempt organizations. The IRS has not yet specified what the changes will entail, but it said in an initial announcement the changes were intended to “provide clearer reporting” on nonprofits’ fiscal sponsorship arrangements and government funding. It’s something the group has championed for years, including in an article published by CRC staffer Robert Stilson shortly after Trump returned to office last year. The Treasury Department said at the time the forthcoming changes are “intended to detect misconduct and hold wrongdoers accountable.”

Bob Carlstrom, executive director of the conservative Prosperity for Us Foundation, said he doesn’t view CRC as the main driver of the GOP’s efforts to go after certain nonprofits. But he’s not surprised Republican officials seek out Walter’s counsel.

“When you deal with people that you know and that you respect, you reach out to them,” Carlstrom said.

He said while some other groups pursue similar work, CRC is “the most intense” with regard to scrutinizing nonprofits.

“They’re very much appreciated by the conservative [movement],” Carlstrom said.

*Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

ref 1 gaza

10.6.25-Letter-to-IRS

...Introduction One of the most well-known organizations supporting antisemitism is American Muslims for Palestine (“AMP”). AMP is a Virginia-based nonprofit, 12 which claims to educate, organize, and mobilize the Muslim-American community, as well as allies in other communities, to advance Palestinian rights.13 However, this group, in coordination with its 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation (“AJP”) and its 501(c)(4) advocacy organization called Americans for Justice in Palestine Action,14 is an organization with ties to organizations previously associated with terrorist activity and possible financial links to Hamas. Additionally, AMP through AJP provides funding for Students for Justice in Palestine (“SJP”), which has organized and supported extensive antisemitic protests that have resulted in harassment, assault, property vandalization, and trespassing, among other illegal activities. 15 Ties to the Holy Land Foundation and Hamas For example, three individuals formerly associated with the Holy Land Foundation – an organization now designated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury as a terrorist organization for providing funding to Hamas – have worked for or on behalf of AMP.16 Additionally, four individuals previously linked to the Islamic Association for Palestine – another organization previously found civilly liable for supporting Hamas – have worked for or on behalf of AMP as well.17 Further, at least one individual formerly associated with another organization which coordinated with Hamas leaders and contributed to affiliated organizations, KindHearts for Charitable Development, is also linked to AMP.18 Investigation and Ongoing Litigation Involving AJP, AMP, and SJP In October 2023, Jason Miyares, the Virginia Attorney General, announced that they are opening an investigation into AMP and their fiscal sponsor AJP.19 In July 2024, Attorney General Miyares announced that a court ordered AJP to produce records that he requested by a Civil ...

ref 2 climate sher edling

2026-04-28-jdj-dei-to-sher-edling-sher-re-eli

April 28, 2026

Mr. Vic Sher Partner Sher Edling, LLP. 100 Montgomery St #1410 San Francisco, CA 94104

Dear Mr. Sher: The Committee on the Judiciary is investigating allegations of improper attempts by the Environmental Law Institute (“ELI”) and its Climate Judiciary Project (“CJP”) to influence federal judges.1 ELI has stated that “CJP does not participate in litigation, provide support for or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule on any issue or in any case.”2 However, evidence has emerged that raises questions about whether ELI, CJP, or one of its affiliates have coordinated with your law firm, Sher Edling LLP, on climate-related litigation, lectures for judges, or other activities aimed at predisposing judges to side with plaintiffs in climate-related cases. Over the past decade, your law firm has filed several lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging that they are responsible for harms from adverse weather. 3 At the same time, ELI established the CJP as a “first-of-its-kind resource” with the goal of providing “judges and the judiciary with reliable, up-to-date information . . . about the legal and scientific issues in the climate litigation of today and tomorrow.”4 The CJP, which claims to give “neutral, objective...

---

Capital Research Center - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica

2024

Revenue

$7,522,866

Expenses

$7,950,331

Net Income

-$427,465

Net Assets

$11,897,266

Compensation

• View fewer people

Document Links

990

Filed on Nov. 14, 2025

Primary tax return for a nonprofit’s activities, finances, and governance

Vie

YOUTUBE

CHANNEL

~ PALESTINE STUDENT PROT

Who Funds That? EP9: Poisoned Ivies with Rep. Elise Stefanik

Capital Research Center

STAFFER, TT

72 views Jun 16, 2026 Who Funds That?

Since the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023, the Everything Leftist Omnicause has turned its Eye of Sauron toward aggressive support for Palestinian nationalism—support for Palestinian nationalism that all too frequently crosses the line from a political position to antipathy towards American Jews. Nowhere has the latter been more visible than on the most elite college campuses, where administrations that have been perfectly happy to suppress speech they didn’t like about mainstream political issues have allowed Palestinian nationalist demonstrators to impose their wills on campus. Today’s guest used her position to ask the presidents of three of America’s most prestigious universities how that came to be; the resulting incoherent responses started a firestorm that culminated in her new book, Poisoned Ivies: The Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America's Elite Universities. Joining us today to discuss higher education and the rot within it is U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik of New York.

[### Scott Walter

Capital Research Center

https://capitalresearch.org › person › swalter](https://capitalresearch.org/person/swalter/)

Scott Walter is president of Capital Research Center. He served in the George W. Bush Administration as Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.Read more

Missing: walters ‎| Show results with: walters

[### CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER - Updated June 2026

Yelp

https://www.yelp.com › biz › capital-research-center-wa...](https://www.yelp.com/biz/capital-research-center-washington)

1513 16th St NW. Washington, DC 20036. Logan Circle. Directions. (202) 483-6900 ... Meet the Manager: Scott W. Walter is president of the Capital Research ...Read more

Missing: walters ‎| Show results with: walters

The Capital Research Center was established in 1984 to examine how foundations, charities, and other nonprofits spend money and get involved in politics and advocacy, often in ways that donors never intended and would find abhorrent. From the start, CRC has exposed how those organizations are "captured" by interest groups and used to undermine Americans' freedoms. Today, we study unions, environmentalist groups, and a wide variety of nonprofit and activist organizations. We also keep an eye on crony capitalists who seek to profit by taking advantage of government regulations and by getting their hands on taxpayers' money.

[### Foreign Influence: Scott Walter's testimony to the House ...

Capital Research Center

https://capitalresearch.org › article › foreign-influence-s...](https://capitalresearch.org/article/foreign-influence-scott-walters-testimony-to-the-house-ways-and-means-committee/)

Feb 11, 2026 — Foreign Influence: Scott Walter's testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee -Capital Research Center ... 1513 16th Street, NW Washington, DC ...Read more

[### Climate Lawfare: Scott Walter's Oral Testimony to the ...

Capital Research Center

https://capitalresearch.org › article › climate-lawfare-sco...](https://capitalresearch.org/article/climate-lawfare-scott-walters-oral-testimony-to-the-senate-judiciary-subcommittee/)

Jul 1, 2025 — Print this Page. Scott Walter's Testimony to Senate Judiciary ... 1513 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 483-6900 (202) 478 ...Read more

[### Scott Walter's Oral Testimony to House DOGE Subcommittee

Capital Research Center

https://capitalresearch.org › article › scott-walters-oral-t...](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-oral-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/)

Jun 6, 2025 — Foreign Influence: Scott Walter's testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee ... 1513 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 483-6900 ( ...Read more

[### Transcript of Scott Walter's Testimony Before the Senate ...

Capital Research Center

https://capitalresearch.org › article › transcript-of-scott-...](https://capitalresearch.org/article/transcript-of-scott-walters-testimony-before-the-senate-budget-committee/)

Jun 22, 2023 — Foreign Influence: Scott Walter's testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee ... 1513 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 483-6900 ( ...Read more

---

Robert Simpson Woodward House is a former residence located at 1513 16th Street, NW in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C. From 1904 until 1914, it was a home of geologist Robert Simpson Woodward (1849–1924), the first president of the Carnegie Institution and a highly regarded scientist and science administrator. The building currently serves as the Capital Research Center headquarters. It was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1976 and designated a contributing property to the Sixteenth Street Historic District in 1978.^[3][4]

[### Robert Simpson Woodward House: This Washington home ...

DC Historic Sites

https://historicsites.dcpreservation.org › items › show](https://historicsites.dcpreservation.org/items/show/40)

From 1904 to 1924, late-19th century geologist and mathematician Robert Woodward lived in this rowhome. Woodward was well-respected in the science community ...

[### Silverstone Group nearing another deal to convert historic ...

The Business Journals

https://www.bizjournals.com › Washington, D.C. › News](https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2026/01/20/silvertone-group-capital-research-center-condos.html)

Jan 20, 2026 — Silverstone Group is buying 1513 16th Street NW for $2.01 million. · The developer will convert it into nine luxury condos. · Units will be priced ...Read more

Missing: 20036 ‎| Show results with: 20036

---

Capital Research Center is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, and contributions are tax-deductible for income, gift and estate taxes. Our federal ID number is 52-1289734. If you prefer to make a gift by mailing a check, it should be made payable to Capital Research Center and mailed to 1513 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Attention: Development. If you prefer to make a gift by phone or in some other manner, or have questions about your gift, please contact Development at 202-483-6900, or at donate@CapitalResearch.org for additional information. State Registration Disclosures

Labyrinth unironically Required Charitable Disclosure Statements - Labyrinth | www.labyrinthinc.com boilerplate?

404 charity-solicitation-registration-white-paper

---

RUBBER GLUE BS ATTACK: [### Unclear Funding for UnKoch: Masking Funders Through ...

Capital Research Center

https://capitalresearch.org › article › unclear-funding-pa...](https://capitalresearch.org/article/unclear-funding-part-2/)

Jun 6, 2018 — The Ford Foundation alone gives ten times what the Koch Foundation does in a year to higher education. Yet the Left is not urging universities ...Read more

Unclear Funding for UnKoch (Full Series)

Campus Activists Create a Boogeyman| Masking Funders Through Essential Information| Live and Let Them Give

[Disclosure: The author participated in the Charles Koch Institute’s Koch Associate Program in 2015-2016, which is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation. The Capital Research Center is a partner in both the Koch Internship and Koch Associate Programs.]

{Summary:UnKoch My Campus prematurely claimed a victory in May when donor agreements between George Mason University and the Charles Koch Foundation revealed the extent to which the foundation controls its university investments through grants. But before UnKoch My Campus throws stones about “dark money,” it needs to come clean about its funding and agenda.*}:

VID

DESTROY GOLDEN RICE 3RD W; SLOPPY REPORT GMU; WAPO; SHEILD ACADEMIA FROM FRE SPEECH BEN AND JERRY; INFLUENCEWATCH PODCAST CHRISTINE REVOLTING

Watch our video about UnKoch’s hypocritical maneuvers to suppress intellectual diversity[]

Because UnKoch is legally a project of Essential Information and not its own nonprofit, it does not file a distinct tax return (known as a Form 990) with the IRS. Looking at its parent organization doesn’t tell the public much about who is pulling UnKoch’s financial strings. But it offers a few clues.

According to Foundation Search, since 2014, Essential Information has received grants from the Tides Foundation, which is famous for its ability to funnel money from influential donors to radical organizations while protecting the identity of the original giver. CMD has also received gifts from Tides and similar pass-through funding vehicles; when conservative and libertarian donors employ such methods, CMD denounces the contributions as “dark money.”

Tides isn’t the only such entity contributing to Essential Information: The group has received gifts from the Bank of America Charitable Gift Fund as well. In 2015, UnKoch also received a grant from the Solidaire Network, which funds progressive direct-action organizations and has close ties to the liberal donor network Democracy Alliance. Solidaire has a number of giving vehicles to help donors fund new organizations and put infrastructure into fledgling movements.

UnKoch also solicits individual donations on its website. An old “join us” page on the UnKoch Website directs donors to a 404 error page—the defunct URL shows: “https://centerformediaanddemocracy.salsalabs.org/unkochmycampus/index.html.” This suggests that at some point, Center for Media and Democracy was handling at least some of the funds for the UnKoch campaign. At the bottom of this page, UnKoch dubiously mentions:

*Anybody listed on our Staff page as an employee of a partner organization, such as Greenpeace USA or the Center for Media and Democracy, is paid by their respective employer and not by any grants made to UnKoch My Campus.

Your support goes directly to people solely focused on this campaign. Thank you!

Donations in Context

Education is one of America’s favorite philanthropic sectors. Giving to higher education exceeds $40 billion a year. When UnKoch and its Greenpeace, union, and CMD “partners” denounce the influence inherent in charitable giving, they fail to put CKF’s generous $60 million in context with the rest of American higher education gifts. The Ford Foundation alone gives ten times what the Koch Foundation does in a year to higher education. Yet the Left is not urging universities to reject grants from Ford. REALLY?

Perhaps that’s because Ford funds the “right” kind of programs. The Ford Foundation pioneered the first women’s studies programs by giving gifts to colleges and universities. The first wave of grants were successful, but many educators wanted more. Feminists wanted the coursework sprinkled throughout the curriculum. So, in 1989 Ford gave away another $800,000 in grants to universities to “integrate research and teaching on American minority women into undergraduate courses in the liberal arts.”

In light of this obviously ideological philanthropic strategy by one of the largest liberal foundations in existence, on what grounds should Charles Koch, who supports classical liberalism and free markets, be prohibited from funding centers and programs exploring these very ideas? Economics is the most overlooked subject in undergraduate curricula, and programs like the Koch-supported ones at George Mason are poised to reduce the very real crisis in American economic illiteracy.

Likewise, left-wing education groups (like, to choose one at random, the American Federation of Teachers) decry decreases in government education spending, but when the wrong entrepreneur gives back to higher education, they cry foul and instigate protests at the expense of a campus’s academic freedom and intellectual diversity.

:{:{UnKoch maintains that CKF is hostile to academic freedom and what’s worse, that the foundation subscribes to a shadowy theory of social change. (UnKoch may want to update their website, because CKF has a new and better articulated public website describing how the foundation views societal problems—and their solutions.)}:

Of course, the Ford Foundation—which made grants to Essential Information as recently as 2015—alsois interested in strategic giving and creating theories of social change. So does the Solidaire Network. (“Social change” is, frankly, just a buzzword used by philanthropy wonks for ideologically motivated changes to public policy.) Given its penchant for economic study, CKF has a slightly wonkier vision, but it is far from malicious, and is no cause for universities to turn away opportunities to expand their offerings or enhance their campus’s reputation for producing research.}:

*In the conclusion of Unclear Funding for UnKoch, learn why the academy is better off with all points of view represented on college campuses.

Tags: Unclear Funding for UnKoch

---

PT1 NO HEADER

Unclear Funding for UnKoch: Campus Activists Create a Boogeyman -Capital Research Center

Usually, few object to philanthropists contributing to support American higher education. But if a university or individual faculty member receives support from the Charles Koch Foundation (CKF), then it suddenly becomes grounds for a conspiracy theory involving so-called “dark money.” All it takes is a small group of Marxist leaders and help from a few left-wing mainstays like Greenpeace, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

Leftist interests organized under the “UnKoch My Campus” banner target the Charles Koch Foundation, which is associated with classical liberal philanthropist Charles Koch. The left-wingers claim to see malicious intent from Koch and its “corporate interests” to take over higher education. Most recently, suspicious students with the support of the UnKoch network demanded copies of donor agreements made between CKF and George Mason University (GMU), believing that CKF exerts undue influence at the public university. Scrutiny fell most heavily on the Mercatus Center, an independent, market-oriented economic research center which has a close relationship to GMU’s famed economics department.

The university released expired donor agreements, which GMU President Angel Cabrera claimed “fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet.” The editorial board of the Washington Post went a step further and urged George Mason to release all the gift agreements made between the university and the Charles Koch Foundation, since the expired donor agreements appeared to show the Koch Foundation’s grants gave the foundation a say in hiring or firing decisions at the university. However, the Post was forced to “clarify” that the grants only allowed the foundation a say in hiring or firing positions at the Mercatus Center—which operates independently from the university and does not receive taxpayer funds. As Jim Geraghty noted in National Review, the story of malign influence and threats to academic freedom spun by the far-left groups backing UnKoch fell apart upon close examination.

Many public universities have agreements with donors similar to those between GMU and CKF. Ironically, UnKoch My Campus is unconcerned about the influence of illiberal-left organizations, which easily outspend the Koch Foundation in higher education grants. It seems that UnKoch My Campus only objects to big-dollar donors when those donors fail to meet a certain ideological test—a test predicted by UnKoch’s staff background and organizational partners.

Anti-Capitalist Sentiment and Organizational Allies

This apparent discrepancy makes more sense when one considers that UnKoch My Campus is deeply integrated with organizations on the far left and staffed by radical anti-capitalists. Legally, UnKoch My Campus is a project of Essential Information—a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1982. Essential Information’s projects focus on “providing provocative information to the public on important topics neglected by the mass media and policy makers.”

UnKoch My Campus has a small staff. Three of the four staff members co-founded the organization in 2014: Lindsey Berger, Connor Gibson, and Ralph Wilson. The fourth member, Samantha Parsons, founded Transparent GMU—which spearheaded the lawsuit against GMU demanding public release of donor agreements between the university and the Koch Foundation.

The three founders have professional left-wing pedigrees, including internships and jobs with the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Center for Media and Democracy, which has previously received generous gifts from George Soros’s Foundation to Promote an Open Society. Rather conveniently, Greenpeace and CMD are public partners of UnKoch My Campus alongside the American Federation of Teachers government worker union.

This alliance of leftist organizations is intentional. Ralph Wilson, the apparent prime mover of the UnKoch movement, posted on his Facebook Page in 2014 that Koch made a perfect target to unite the interests of unions, environmentalists, and anti-capitalists.

Earlier in 2012, Wilson addressed Florida State University’s (FSU) Center for Participant Education (CPE), an on-campus organization with a history of far-left activism, with which Wilson was heavily engaged. A available online shows Wilson giving a “class” denouncing the Koch Brothers—all but forming the future talking points of UnKoch. It’s worth noting that the CPE receives university funding for its activities as a bureau of the FSU student government. That means that taxpayers incubated UnKoch My Campus and paid for this partisan programming and its vacuous “alternative curriculum.”

Wilson makes no secret of his openly Marxist sympathies. While involved with CPE, the organization hosted events on “The Five that Survived—Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and Democratic Korea,” highlighting the Communist regimes which outlasted the Soviet Union, and a screening of the liberal documentary, Koch Brothers Exposed. Wilson associates with leaders from explicitly Marxist organizations, including the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and participated in Occupy Tallahassee. In a 2014 interview with the socialist publication Liberation, Wilson admits that his Marxist ideology motivated his attacks against the Koch Foundation.

Wilson may have been the architect for UnKoch, but his other two cofounders brought professional activism, organizing, and research to help him build a campaign with national influence.

Co-founder Lindsey Berger spent two years at CMD as a campaign strategist and researcher. In 2016, UnKoch and the CMD jointly released a report criticizing the Koch Foundation’s campaign for criminal justice reform. Lisa Graves, senior fellow and former executive director of CMD, serves on the advisory board of UnKoch.

In addition to cultivating Lindsey Berger, Greenpeace appears to have incubated investigative researcher Connor Gibson. Gibson’s work for Greenpeace, specifically his research into the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the State Policy Network (SPN), and the Koch Foundation, as well as “the surge of requests from college students,” led him to the conclusion that American universities should purge Koch support. However, the relationship between Greenpeace and UnKoch is a bit cozier than it looks. After all, Gibson is paid by Greenpeace to do work that directly feeds into his position with UnKoch. A page on Greenpeace’s website makes it clear that UnKoch became independent from Greenpeace in 2017, leading one to wonder how close the relationship was prior to 2017.

*In the next installment ofUnclear Funding for UnKoch, learn how UnKoch My Campus’s funding lacks the transparency they demand from right-of-center foundations.

---

Unclear Funding for UnKoch: Masking Funders Through Essential Information -Capital Research Center

PT 2

... Because UnKoch is legally a project of Essential Information and not its own nonprofit, it does not file a distinct tax return (known as a Form 990) with the IRS. Looking at its parent organization doesn’t tell the public much about who is pulling UnKoch’s financial strings. But it offers a few clues.

According to Foundation Search, since 2014, Essential Information has received grants from the Tides Foundation, which is famous for its ability to funnel money from influential donors to radical organizations while protecting the identity of the original giver. CMD has also received gifts from Tides and similar pass-through funding vehicles; when conservative and libertarian donors employ such methods, CMD denounces the contributions as “dark money.”

Tides isn’t the only such entity contributing to Essential Information: The group has received gifts from the Bank of America Charitable Gift Fund as well. In 2015, UnKoch also received a grant from the Solidaire Network, which funds progressive direct-action organizations and has close ties to the liberal donor network Democracy Alliance. Solidaire has a number of giving vehicles to help donors fund new organizations and put infrastructure into fledgling movements.

UnKoch also solicits individual donations on its website. An old “join us” page on the UnKoch Website directs donors to a 404 error page—the defunct URL shows: “https://centerformediaanddemocracy.salsalabs.org/unkochmycampus/index.html.” This suggests that at some point, Center for Media and Democracy was handling at least some of the funds for the UnKoch campaign. At the bottom of this page, UnKoch dubiously mentions:

*Anybody listed on our Staff page as an employee of a partner organization, such as Greenpeace USA or the Center for Media and Democracy, is paid by their respective employer and not by any grants made to UnKoch My Campus.

Your support goes directly to people solely focused on this campaign. Thank you!

Donations in Context

Education is one of America’s favorite philanthropic sectors. Giving to higher education exceeds $40 billion a year. When UnKoch and its Greenpeace, union, and CMD “partners” denounce the influence inherent in charitable giving, they fail to put CKF’s generous $60 million in context with the rest of American higher education gifts. The Ford Foundation alone gives ten times what the Koch Foundation does in a year to higher education. Yet the Left is not urging universities to reject grants from Ford.

Perhaps that’s because Ford funds the “right” kind of programs. The Ford Foundation pioneered the first women’s studies programs by giving gifts to colleges and universities. The first wave of grants were successful, but many educators wanted more. Feminists wanted the coursework sprinkled throughout the curriculum. So, in 1989 Ford gave away another $800,000 in grants to universities to “integrate research and teaching on American minority women into undergraduate courses in the liberal arts.”

In light of this obviously ideological philanthropic strategy by one of the largest liberal foundations in existence, on what grounds should Charles Koch, who supports classical liberalism and free markets, be prohibited from funding centers and programs exploring these very ideas? Economics is the most overlooked subject in undergraduate curricula, and programs like the Koch-supported ones at George Mason are poised to reduce the very real crisis in American economic illiteracy.

Likewise, left-wing education groups (like, to choose one at random, the American Federation of Teachers) decry decreases in government education spending, but when the wrong entrepreneur gives back to higher education, they cry foul and instigate protests at the expense of a campus’s academic freedom and intellectual diversity.

:{:{UnKoch maintains that CKF is hostile to academic freedom and what’s worse, that the foundation subscribes to a shadowy theory of social change. (UnKoch may want to update their website, because CKF has a new and better articulated public website describing how the foundation views societal problems—and their solutions.) Of course, the Ford Foundation—which made grants to Essential Information as recently as 2015—alsois interested in strategic giving and creating theories of social change. }:

So does the Solidaire Network. (“Social change” is, frankly, just a buzzword used by philanthropy wonks for ideologically motivated changes to public policy.) Given its penchant for economic study, CKF has a slightly wonkier vision, but it is far from malicious, and is no cause for universities to turn away opportunities to expand their offerings or enhance their campus’s reputation for producing research.}:

*In the conclusion of Unclear Funding for UnKoch, learn why the academy is better off with all points of view represented on college campuses.

---

PT 3

Unclear Funding for UnKoch: Live and Let Them Give -Capital Research Center

...

If UnKoch My Campus is genuine in its concern for outside influence in public education, then it’s seriously underestimated the scale of the problem. Charles Koch’s money is only a fraction of a percent of all private giving to higher education. The Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and plenty of individual givers have just as much “undue influence” in American universities and it would be impractical and downright feckless to forego funding that expands opportunities for students across the country.

But, of course, the group’s concern probably isn’t genuine. Backed by the furthest fringes of the professional Left, UnKoch exists to silence business and free-market interests, making the group’s accusations that CKF threatens academic freedom risible hypocrisy. The only threat Koch-funded research centers and economic departments pose on campus is to the incumbent left-wing intellectual orthodoxy. In truth, it is the Center for Media and Democracy, Greenpeace, and the American Federation of Teachers (through the UnKoch campaign) who are advocating against open intellectual debate.

Certainly, those running and funding UnKoch have their own agenda, to which they are entitled. The fact that they are affiliated with known illiberal and leftist organizations may be coincidental and secondary to the message they espouse. The lack of transparency around their funding (which Ralph Wilson erroneously described as grassroots and organic) shouldn’t be used to discredit their organization—just as those in conservative and libertarian circles shouldn’t be tarred and feathered over associations or relationships. However, UnKoch is happy to use such fatuous relationships to discredit and cow the Charles Koch Foundation and its grantees.

Until UnKoch and its partner organizations are willing to fully disclose their donors and funding sources, they should instead consider that they benefit from the same rights and protections they accuse the Koch Foundation of exploiting.

---

Christine Ravold

Christine is the Capital Research Center’s Communications Officer. She writes, edits, and serves as a press contact. She is a graduate of Rosemont College in Pennsylvania.

Philanthropy

In Memoriam: David Koch

Article on August 23, 2019 by Christine Ravold

Deception & Misdirection

2020 Contender Steve Bullock Benefited From Shady Funding

Article on May 29, 2019 by Christine Ravold

Special Report

A New Policy Agenda for the “Regressive Resistance”: The Republic’s Norms

Article on May 21, 2019 by Christine Ravold, Michael Watson

Special Report

A New Policy Agenda for the “Regressive Resistance”: The Trouble of Voting

Article on May 21, 2019 by Christine Ravold, Michael Watson

Special Report

A New Policy Agenda for the “Regressive Resistance”: If You Can’t Beat ’em, Pack ’em

Article on May 21, 2019 by Christine Ravold, Michael Watson

Special Report

A New Policy Agenda for the “Regressive Resistance”: What Happened to Civil Liberties?

Article on May 21, 2019 by Christine Ravold, Michael Watson

Deception & Misdirection

Identity Politics Is Democrats’ Weapon of Mass Distraction in Redistricting Campaign

Article on March 6, 2019 by Christine Ravold

Deception & Misdirection

Cross Examining the 2020 Census

Article on January 24, 2019 by Christine Ravold

Special Report

CRC Looks Back at 2018

Article on January 7, 2019 by Christine Ravold

Deception & Misdirection

NJ Redistricting Plan Too Partisan for National Democratic Redistricting Committee

Article on December 26, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Deception & Misdirection

Political Law Personified: Marc Elias & Perkins Coie

Article on December 13, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Deception & Misdirection

Political Law Personified: Marc Elias & Perkins Coie Take on Redistricting

Article on December 13, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Special Report

An Interview with Mark Janus, Right-to-Work Hero

Article on November 28, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Special Report

An Interview with Mark Janus, Right to Work Hero

Article on November 28, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Special Report

An Interview with Mark Janus, Right to Work Hero

Article on November 28, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Deception & Misdirection

Shoddy Scholarship for Shoddier Motives

Article on October 22, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Philanthropy

Robust Discussion of Donor Intent Hosted by Philanthropy Daily

Article on August 31, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Labor Watch

CRC Adds Its Voice to New Rule Ending the Dues Skim

Article on August 10, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Organization Trends

Trump’s SCOTUS Pick to Continue Justice Kennedy’s Legacy on Free Speech

Article on July 20, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Organization Trends

ACLU Abdicates Its Role in Defending Civil Liberties

Article on July 6, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Organization Trends

Seattle Head Tax Meets Reality

Article on June 18, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Organization Trends

Unclear Funding for UnKoch: Campus Activists Create a Boogeyman

Article on June 6, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Organization Trends

Unclear Funding for UnKoch: Masking Funders Through Essential Information

Article on June 6, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Organization Trends

Unclear Funding for UnKoch: Live and Let Them Give

Article on June 6, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Green Watch

Zoned For Homelessness

Article on May 31, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Deception & Misdirection

Spiteful Seattle Jobs Tax Won’t Help the Homeless

Article on May 21, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Deception & Misdirection

Forget Graduation—For Division I Football Players the Draft Is the Finish Line

Article on May 7, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Organization Trends

Is Facebook Enlisting Users To Police “Hate Speech”?

Article on May 1, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Philanthropy

How the Author of “Dark Money” Killed the Freedom Project

Article on April 4, 2018 by Christine Ravold

Featured Items

Behind the Book: An Interview with Author Martin Morse Wooster

Article on March 28, 2018 by Christine Ravold

+ See All Content byChristine Ravold

---

---

Southern Poverty Law Center suddenly shoves lesson plans for school children down the memory hole

by Kali Fontanilla on April 29, 2026

---

by Chace Paulson

September 12, 2017

• Share on X
• Share on Facebook
• Print this Page

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) president Richard Cohen offered the Washington Examiner the SPLC’s views on Antifa, a violent, far-left movement responsible for many recent attacks on free speech.

They’re merely “wrongheaded” for using violence to achieve their ends, Cohen says. “We oppose these groups and what they’re trying to do.” But he won’t label Antifa a hate group, despite the group’s efforts to censor conservative speakers and disrupt lawful protests, because they don’t discriminate according to race, sex, religion, or other factors. Cohen offers flimsy reasoning:

There might be forms of hate out there that you may consider hateful, but it’s not the type of hate we follow.

Cohen’s euphemistic idea of “hate” conveniently allows the SPLC to avoid condoning Antifa violence without offering any real challenge to the far-left, but it can’t erase Antifa’s actions. Antifa, or “anti-fascist action,” has its origins in the 1920s and 1930s during the resistance to the rise of fascism in Italy and Spain, and National Socialism in Germany, but it quickly died out as a political movement after World War II.

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election triggered a new wave of so-called “anti-fascists,” who used the name “Antifa” to lend their terrorist movement an artificial legitimacy with the mainstream media. The black-clad group is known for damaging property, inciting riots, and assaulting individuals who doesn’t support their extreme agenda. Antifa is responsible for smashing windows and setting fires during protests at the University of California, Berkeley, and inciting a protest at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany that left 196 officers injured.

Naturally, Cohen’s refusal to identify Antifa as a hate group prompted outrage, but it’s consistent with the group’s strategy of assailing organizations which don’t hold to the SPLC’s ideology. Founded to combat legitimate hate groups, the SPLC initially earned respect by winning legal battles which helped to bankrupt groups the Ku Klux Klan. But it soon became a victim of its own success as hate groups largely died out and far-left leadership took over—prompting the SPLC to seek new, non-hate group targets such as the Family Research Council (FRC), a respected Christian charity. The group’s slander has inspired the hate crimes it was founded to prevent – as in 2013, when Floyd Lee Curtiss II assaulted FRC headquarters intending to shoot its employees and “smear [] Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in [their] faces.” Curtiss later cited the SPLC’s hate group label as the reason he attacked the FRC.

Today’s SPLC is drastically different from its predecessor. With a gift shop sporting SPLC-branded water bottles and postcards and net assets topping $315 million, the organization has morphed into a moneymaking venture aimed at targeting conservative nonprofits by labeling them “hate groups” on its ever-growing HateWatch list. By lumping legitimate organizations in with neo-Nazis, SPLC’s smears have damaged numerous groups which dared to disagree with its leftist agenda. Politico’s Ben Schreckinger notes the strategy’s effectiveness:

SPLC’s hate group and extremist labels are effective. Groups slapped with them have lost funding, been targeted by activists and generally been banished from mainstream legitimacy. This makes SPLC the de facto cop in this realm of American politics, with all the friction that kind of policing engenders.

Criticism of the organization is widespread. William Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell and critic of the SPLC, says, “Time and time again, I see the SPLC using the reputation it gained decades ago fighting the Klan as a tool to bludgeon mainstream politically conservative groups.” Jacobson adds:

For groups that do not threaten violence, the use of SPLC ‘hate group’ or ‘extremist’ designations frequently are exploited as an excuse to silence speech…taint[ing] not only the group or person, but others who associate with them.

Ken Silverstein, a liberal journalist and avid critic of the SPLC, attributes SPLC’s issues to their insatiable greed for donations. Silverstein writes, “The organization has always tried to find ways to milk money out of the public by finding whatever threat they can most credibly promote.”

As CRC’s Jacob Grandstaff notes, inventing hate crimes is lucrative:

In 2015, the organization spent $20 million on salaries, but only spent $61,000 on legal services. This, despite boasting of a staff of 75 lawyers for the purpose of litigating on behalf of “children’s rights, economic justice, immigrant justice, LGBT rights, and criminal justice reform.”

Labeling Antifa a hate group simply doesn’t fit the SPLC’s self-serving narrative—or its bottom line.

{Capital Research Center is proud of our part in encouraging Guidestar, the nonprofit monitor, to drop its use of the SPLC’s slanderous and deceptive “hate group” labels. Read CRC president Scott Walter’s comments to FOX News on the SPLC here.}:

Watch our short video on how the Southern Poverty Law Center lost its way and became a hate group* :*}:

Tags: Antifa, Family Research Council, Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

---

REPORT: When Charities Betray America: How “Pro-Palestinian” Protest Groups Promote Anti-Americanism

by Ryan Mauro on May 5, 2025

GERRY VA ATTACK

In April, voters in Virginia narrowly approved a constitutional amendment that—barring judicial intervention—will suspend the state’s independent bipartisan redistricting commission and allow the Democrat-controlled General Assembly to draw new federal Congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The aggressively gerrymandered map which has been proposed could yield a U.S. House delegation of ten Democrats and just one Republican. Virginia’s current delegation consists of six Democrats and five Republicans.

The ballot measure was by far the most expensive in the state’s history. Both sides raised tens of millions of dollars, though public disclosures reveal that the new map’s supporters were significantly better-resourced than its opponents. Here is what is known about their respective finances and funders.

Supporters

The campaign in favor of the gerrymandering amendment was led by a committee called Virginians for Fair Elections. Data compiled by the Virginia Public Access Project as of May 4 reported that it had raised a total of $66,121,864, while official state campaign finance disclosures reported $65,121,496 worth of large contributions from February 6 through April 24. Of these large contributions, $63,240,000 was in cash, with the remainder being in-kind. The vast majority (94 percent) of these in-kind contributions came from the Democratic Party of Virginia and the activist group New Virginia Majority.

Just five groups—all of which are organized as 501(c)(4) nonprofits—accounted for over 96 percent of all large cash contributions reported by Virginians for Fair Elections from February 6 through April 24:

• House Majority Forward ($39,300,000): an advocacy group that is formally affiliated with House Majority PAC—the self-described “only Super PAC solely focused on electing House Democrats.”
• The Fairness Project ($11,725,000): a group that supports left-of-center ballot measures nationwide, and whose major funders have included the SEIU United Healthcare Workers West labor union, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, and the Hopewell Fund.
• Fund for Policy Reform ($5,000,000): a 501(c)(4) that exists within the Open Society network funded by George Soros. It is also the sole source of funding for the Open Society Action Fund, which conducts the network’s more explicitly political grantmaking.
• American Opportunity Action ($3,500,000): a new nonprofit that received its 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status from the IRS in September 2025. No public financials for the group are yet available, though an April 2026 New York Times article described the group as “perhaps the newest big player in dark-money politics.”
• Global Impact Social Welfare Fund ($1,500,000): a 501(c)(4) that exists under the Global Impact Ventures organizational umbrella, and which receives major funding from an associated 501(c)(3) called Global Impact.

Opponents

The largest committee formed to oppose the gerrymandering amendment was Virginians for Fair Maps RC. The Virginia Public Access Project’s data as of May 4 reported that it had raised a total of $21,833,564, while official state disclosures reported $24,065,000 worth of large contributions from March 2 through April 20—all of which was in cash. Nearly all (over 97 percent) of this money came from a separate but identically named group called Virginians for Fair Maps. This makes it impossible, at least for now, to trace the funding trail further.

Opponents of amendment also operated through a second committee called Justice for Democracy. The Virginia Public Access Project’s website reported as of May 4 that Justice for Democracy had raised $7,670,000, while official state disclosures listed $10,170,000 worth of large contributions from March 10 through April 24—all cash. Over 95 percent of these large contributions came from a 501(c)(4) nonprofit called Per Aspera Policy Inc. Little information is available regarding Per Aspera’s funding. It raised $2.9 million in 2024, but just $92,399 in 2023. Though billionaire Peter Thiel has reportedly contributed to the group in the past, a source told Mother Jonesthat he has had “nothing to do with it” for years and was not among Per Aspera’s current donors. If true, this would make Virgina attorney general Jay Jones’ public claim that Thiel was “spending millions in Virginia” on the redistricting measure a false one.

Looking Ahead

As of this writing, the Supreme Court of Virginia has not ruled on pending legal challenges to the amendment, though it is expected to do so soon. Multiple other states have also embarked on mid-decade redistricting efforts. One illustrative battleground is Missouri, where a Republican-led effort could potentially face a ballot referendum in November. Some of the very same groups and networks that supported the Democrat-driven gerrymandering in Virginia (including American Opportunity Action, the Fairness Project, the Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, and the Open Society Action Fund) are currently opposing it Missouri. Such is the hypocrisy of politics.

Tags: American Opportunity Action, Fund for Policy Reform, Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, House Majority Forward, New Virginia Majority., redistricting, The Fairness Project, Virginians for Fair Elections

---}:

INFILTRATED: THE IDEOLOGICAL CAPTURE OF HOMELESSNESS ADVOCACY -Capital Research Center

Capital Research Center report–Infiltrated: The Ideological Capture of Homeless Advocacy–demonstrates how a growing number of organizations in the homelessness policy space are aligned with radical—even extremist— worldviews, ranging from anti-police and anti-capitalist movements to groups that express support for foreign terrorist organizations. These actors have exploited structural vulnerabilities in the nonprofit sector—lax oversight, complex funding channels, and even the legal system —to push ideas that are not merely unorthodox but deeply destabilizing.

A PDF of the report is linked below.

PDF Download (11.2MB)

This article is available in PDF form for offline reading.

Ryan Mauro

Ryan Mauro is an investigative researcher for Capital Research Center. He is also an adjunct professor at Regent University and the former director of…

+ More by Ryan Mauro

Ken Braun

As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org. He previously worked…

+ More by Ken Braun

Robert Stilson

Robert runs several of CRC’s specialized projects. Originally from Indiana, he has a B.A. from Hanover College and a J.D. from University of Richmond School of Law, where he graduated…

+ More by Robert Stilson

---

crc is root of bs?

Reid Hoffman and Disinformation -Capital Research Center

Michael Watson

November 15, 2021

reid Hoffman and Disinformation

Michael Watson on Newsmax

Jenn Pellegrino interviews Michael Watson on Newsmax on November 3, 2021.

by Michael Watson

November 15, 2021

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook

Good Information is a project backed by big liberal donors, including George Soros and Reid Hoffman. Hoffman has a history of Democratic political causes and disinformation efforts, including American Emergent Technologies, which ran a fake news campaign modeled on tactics Russian government cutouts allegedly used during the 2016 presidential election. Good Information looks like another disinformation project in the Left’s war on the free speech rights of conservatives.

See also:

• “Onetime Disinformation Donors Back Left-Wing Propaganda Targeting Disinformation” by Michael Watson, October 21, 2021.

Tags: disinformation, George Soros, Good Information, Reid Hoffman

Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch. A graduate of the College of William and Mary, he previously worked for a…

+ More by Michael Watson

ref

Onetime Disinformation Donors Back Left-Wing Propaganda Targeting Disinformation -Capital Research Center

oct 2021

on Tuesday, political media outlet Axios reported on the latest project of controversial Democratic operative Tara McGowan, best known as head of the ACRONYM network of Democratic-aligned political committees and political investment vehicles including Shadow, which created the phone-voting application that crashed during the Iowa Democratic Party presidential nominating caucuses in 2020. McGowan will head Good Information, a nominally for-profit “public benefit corporation” venture “to fund and scale businesses that cut through echo chambers with fact-based information” and “to invest in local news companies.” The venture supersedes an earlier reported effort to create a nonprofit along the same lines.

Backers

Axios’s reporting indicates that McGowan’s project will be funded by major Democratic donors including George Soros. That is not surprising, but another name said to be funding this “anti-disinformation” effort should raise eyebrows because he has supported purveyors of disinformation in the past: Reid Hoffman, billionaire founder of LinkedIn.

Since 2016, Hoffman has provided substantial funding to Democratic political causes, among them McGowan’s ACRONYM, through his Investing in US vehicle. But one of those causes should give the lie to Hoffman’s claims of concern about disinformation. Investing in US funded American Emergent Technologies, one of a handful of Democratic groups that allegedly ran a literal fake news campaign modeled on the tactics Russian government cutouts allegedly used to influence the 2016 presidential election in order to defeat a Republican candidate in an Alabama race.

While Hoffman denies having known that American Emergent Technologies was engaging in a disinformation operation, the fact that he funded a group that would consider doing such a thing should be a giant red flag against Good Information’s and McGowan’s claim that they will provide “fact-based information.”

Courier, New

As part of the creation of Good Information, the group is acquiring McGowan’s former liberal agitprop network, Courier Newsroom. Courier Newsroom was a front for ACRONYM, operating what the left-leaning OpenSecrets called “a network of websites emulating progressive local news outlets. Courier has faced scrutiny for exploiting the collapse of local journalism to spread ‘hyperlocal partisan propaganda.’” As CRC president Scott Walter described:

Courier’s Wisconsin site UpNorthNews can lightly rewrite a Democratic candidate’s press release, and then the real money kicks in as the disinfo machine advertises the fake news story across multiple social media sites, in hopes of swaying Badger State voters who assume they’re reading news, not a political ad. Tobias Hoonhout reported for National Review on a number of such efforts and found that “at least 74 percent of the group’s spending has been allocated to boosting vulnerable Democrats competing in 14 competitive House races.”

McGowan reportedly told Axios that Good Information “could make investments in entities across the political spectrum,” citing Bill Kristol’s The Bulwark, which I recently characterized as a repository of liberal cable-news-contributing former Republicans who seemingly exist solely to support whatever the liberalism of the moment demands, as “as an example of the type of center-right news outlet [Good Information] could fund.”

The Greater “Disinformation” Trojan Horse

Billionaire liberals who have backed disinformation in the past supporting a “efforts that tackle disinformation” is not new. In his piece describing how Courier false-flags national Democratic press releases as “local news,” Walter described the “Commission on Information Disorder,” the Aspen Institute project that placed PACRONYM donor Kathryn Murdoch and Katie Couric in charge of “combating America’s urgent mis- and disinformation challenge.” Couric recently admitted omitting liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s interview comments critical of Colin Kaepernick’s anti-national anthem protests.

Also targeting supposed “disinformation” is Frances Haugen, the “Facebook Whistleblower.” In fact, her campaign has all the hallmarks not of whistleblowing but of political public relations: *Politico*reported that Pierre Omidyar (a notable funder of Kristol’s network of anti-Trump and anti-conservatism advocacy groups) funded Whistleblower Aid and Center for Humane Technology, both nonprofits working with Haugen. Center for Human Technology’s public relations flack is Bill Burton, late of the Obama White House. Haugen appeared on Burton’s podcast. Larry Lessig—a Harvard academic, erstwhile Democratic politician, and critic of the legal decisions that undergird conservatives’ organized political advocacy—has provided Haugen with legal and communications work pro bono.

Taken together, it looks like McGowan, Hoffman, and Soros’s latest effort for “Good Information” over “disinformation” is yet another front in the Left’s war on conservative speech rights.

It probably is exactly what it looks like.

Tags: ACRONYM, Center for Humane Technology, Commission on Information Disorder, Courier Newsroom, disinformation, election integrity, Frances Haugen, George Soros, Good Information, Investing in US, Iowa, Kathryn Murdoch, Katie Couric, PACRONYM, Reid Hoffman, Whistleblower Aid

//

Deception & Misdirection

Transgender medical symposium showcases radical quackery

by Parker Thayer on October 7, 2025

Deception & Misdirection

The Southern Poverty Law Center is biased — and extraordinarily wealthy

by Robert Stilson on September 22, 2025

Deception & Misdirection

The top financiers of the U.S. Intifada

by Ryan Mauro on September 16, 2025

---

---

REF BY WFB DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW YOU MAKE MONEY FIGHTING DISINFO

Chuck Ross

June 3, 2021

A leftwing initiative launched this week aimed at monitoring conservative "disinformation" has ties to a progressive billionaire linked to several of the sort of disinformation projects he is now trying to combat.

LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman’s investment fund donated an undisclosed amount to Indivisible, an advocacy group launching the new effort to track conservative disinformation. The fund, Investing in US, has also financed a group that created fake social media personas to suppress Republican voter turnout in Alabama's 2017 special Senate election. Indivisible thinks its "Truth Brigade" can help flag misinformation better than social media algorithms, according to Forbes.

Social media platforms have increased their efforts to contain "disinformation" in recent months, often with mixed results. Until recently, Facebook flagged posts claiming the coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab, even as the theory gained traction in the scientific community. LinkedIn, the only American social network in China, recently censored a China critic based in the United Kingdom who referred to the Chinese government as an "oppressive dictatorship."

Critics say Hoffman’s involvement casts doubt on the Truth Brigade’s ability to effectively police disinformation. "A man who invests in social media projects aimed at hardball political disinformation is not one whose allies can be trusted," said Scott Walter, president of Capital Research Center, which tracks liberal dark money groups.

The Alabama special election wasn’t Hoffman’s only run-in with disinformation. Facebook investigated whether a Hoffman-backed initiative called News for Democracy published misleading information targeting Republican voters during the 2018 election.

The New York Times reported in 2017 that Hoffman was a major donor to Indivisible, which was founded in 2016 by two former congressional staffers. Dmitri Mehlhorn, Hoffman’s partner at Investing in US, identified Indivisible as one of the company’s grantees in a December 2018 post on Medium. Mehlhorn did not disclose how much funding went to Indivisible.

In 2017, Indivisible members registered as Republicans in a Utah congressional primary in order to boost a moderate candidate to replace outgoing representative Jason Chaffetz.

Indivisible press secretary Emily Phelps told the Washington Free Beacon the group has not received funding from Hoffman since 2019, and that he "doesn't have any connection" to the work of the Truth Brigade. Investing in US did not respond to a request for comment.

While Indivisible bills itself as a grassroots organization, its donors are among the wealthiest supporters of the progressive movement. In addition to Hoffman, organizations directed by billionaire financier George Soros and the late banking magnate Herb Sandler have given millions to Indivisible.

Soros’s Open Society Foundations gave $2.6 million to Indivisible from 2017 to 2019. Democracy PAC, which was formed by Soros, gave $500,000 last year to Indivisible’s political action committee, Indivisible Action. Strategic Victory Fund, a super PAC formed by the Soros-backed Democracy Alliance, contributed $150,000 to Indivisible Action last year.

The Sandler Foundation gave $2.25 million in 2018 and 2019 to Indivisible Civic Engagement, an offshoot of Indivisible.

Walter questions whether Indivisible is forming the Truth Brigade to fight disinformation, or as a fundraising ploy.

"If you are these people you want thousands of folks regularly interacting with you. That’s a great way to fundraise," said Walter, whose watchdog group published a report on Indivisible in 2018.

Indivisible is no stranger to political controversy. The group also supported defunding police departments and packing the Supreme Court. It has partnered with the Women’s March, the left-wing resistance group whose leaders have a long history of anti-Semitism.

Published under: Facebook , George Soros , Open Society Foundations , Social Media

C

GGL AI 6 25

In 2023, the Capital Research Center (CRC), a conservative think tank led by its president Scott Walter, was involved in facilitating nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations to "Crowdsourcers for Culture and Liberty," a group led by Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Key facts about this relationship:

• Fiscal Sponsorship: The donations were channeled through CRC via a "fiscal sponsorship" arrangement. This allowed Crowdsourcers to receive and use these funds without establishing its own nonprofit status and disclosing donor information publicly.

• Purpose: Crowdsourcers was formed to battle "cultural Marxism" and wage a cultural fight against the left.

• Conflict of Interest Concerns: Some critics argue that this arrangement raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, especially considering Ginni Thomas's relationship with a Supreme Court Justice and the fact that CRC had business before the Supreme Court around the time the donations were funneled.

• CRC's Mission: CRC describes itself as an "investigative think tank" that examines how foundations, charities, and other nonprofits spend money and get involved in politics. It often focuses on uncovering anonymously funded influence campaigns by left-leaning organizations.

• Ginni Thomas's Role: Ginni Thomas has a history of conservative activism and engagement in political matters, and has been the most politically active spouse of any current Supreme Court Justice.

Scott Walter's Role:

• President of CRC: Scott Walter has been the president of the Capital Research Center.

• Funneling Donations: According to reports, Walter was involved in funneling the anonymous donations to Ginni Thomas's group.

• Controversial Statements: Walter has also been noted for making or defending statements that some find offensive regarding race, gender, and sexual orientation.

---

ggl 6 25

[### Activist group led by Ginni Thomas received nearly ...

_The Washington Post_

https://www.washingtonpost.com › ... › Investigations](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/03/28/ginni-thomas-crowdsourcers-anonymous-donations/)

Mar 28, 2023 — In 2019, anonymous donors gave the think tank Capital Research Center ... Its president is Scott Walter, a former aide to President George W.

[### Scott Walter

Capital Research Center

https://capitalresearch.org › person › swalter](https://capitalresearch.org/person/swalter/)

Scott Walter is president of Capital Research Center. He served in the George W. Bush Administration as Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

Missing: ginni ‎| Show results with: ginni

[### Marjorie Taylor Greene accused of assembling 'rogues' ...

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com › us-news › jun › marjori...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-hearing)

5 hours ago — Walter leads the Capital Research Center, “a secretive organization that won't disclose its donors while attacking others for lacking ...

[### Fix the Court

Capital Research Center

https://capitalresearch.org › tag › fix-the-court](https://capitalresearch.org/tag/fix-the-court/)

In the second quarter of 2023, CRC reported on new investigations into the groups targeting Clarence Thomas ... Scott Walter Testifies to a Senate Judiciary ...

---

626 items?!

Articles

Testimony

Scott Walter’s Written Testimony to House DOGE Subcommittee

Written testimony by Scott Walter submitted to the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

by Scott Walter on June 4, 2025

Scott Walter’s Written Testimony to House DOGE Subcommittee -Capital Research Center

pix red tie name tag

scott Walter’s Written Testimony to House DOGE SubcommitteeWritten Testimony: HTML or PDF (House website)

Full Subcommittee Hearing (House website)

---

Written Testimony to the House Oversight and Government ReformSubcommittee Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, chair

Hearing on “Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild”

Scott Walter

President, Capital Research Center

June 4, 2025

Congresswoman Greene, Ranking Member Stansbury, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the honor of testifying. I’m president of the Capital Research Center, where we study nonprofits every day.

Americans are proud of our nonprofit sector, which has long led the world, because they love real charities that actually help people here and abroad. They don’t think of the nonprofit sector as the plaything of billionaires and politicians.

Yet all too often, that is the reality of our Nongovernmental Organizations, or NGOs, for two reasons. First, many NGOs—over 35,000 according to one study—receive most of their money from government, not citizens.[[1]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn1) Second, many NGOs serve the Big Government political agenda that fights to centralize power in Washington for the benefit of the Left’s preferred political party.

The Solidarity Center

:{:{:{From countless egregious examples, consider the Solidarity Center.[[2]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn2)

This nonprofit child of the country’s largest union federation, the AFL-CIO, is chaired by the AFL-CIO’s president. Solidarity Center doesn’t just boost unions, which are major allies of one U.S. political party. It also champions radical agendas in support of DEI and “climate justice.”[[3]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn3) It’s suing the current administration because DOGE recommended that Solidarity’s federal funding end. }:}:

It’s received over $86 million from the federal government since 2008; $61 million of that $86 million was given under President Biden, doubtless encouraged by three Solidarity employees who went into his Labor Department.[[4]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn4) Solidarity receives 99 percent of its total revenue from American taxpayers[[5]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn5) and serves the AFL-CIO, which gave 86% of its 2024 political donations to Democrats.[[6]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn6)}:

Other Labor Department Grantees

:{:{:{The Solidarity Center is by no means the only Labor Department grantee that deserves scrutiny by this Subcommittee and the Department of Government Efficiency. My Capital Research Center colleague Robert Stilson surveyed recent grants by the Department for our website TheDogeFiles.org and found other grantees of obvious political value to the Biden administration’s policy agenda and re-election campaign.[[7]](

https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn7) For instance, NextGen Climate America (aka, NextGen Policy) was awarded $6 million in 2024 for apprenticeship programs. This 501(c)(3) “charity”[[8]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn8) is part of a network of nonprofits and PACs of similar name launched by Democratic megadonor Tom Steyer.[[9]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn9)}:}:

After the 2024 election, NextGen’s executive director put out a statement declaring that the group was “incredibly disheartened” by Trump’s victory and that “clearly, this was not the outcome we hoped for.” Instead, he pledged the group would “fight for progressive policy change to address environmental, social, racial, gender, and economic inequities in California through justice-centered legislative advocacy, grassroots partnerships, and democratic civic engagement.”[[10]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn10)}:

Another Labor Department grantee of political value to the last administration is UnidosUS, which in 2024 alone was awarded $4 million and has also received multimillion-dollar grants from several other departments. Calling itself “the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy program,” UnidosUS insists American immigration laws are rooted in racism, advocates gun control and abortion, and opposes school resource officers. Its 501(c)(4) sister organization endorsed Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024.

One more Labor Department grantee worth noting is TransLatin@ Coalition, a transgender advocacy group awarded $750,000 in 2024 (it was also awarded $600,000 from the Justice Department and another $600,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2023). It hopes to achieve “a radical shift in the approach to Trans Liberation” and advocates ensuring youth access to puberty blockers, the decriminalization of various offenses it calls “survival crimes,” and expansive abortion access in part because “carrying a child creates bodily changes that can cause dysphoria and prohibit trans men from ‘passing.’” It also supports abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and calls the abolition of police an “ideal” outcome.[[11]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn11) Majorities of Americans, of course, would reject their tax dollars going to support this radical agenda.

:{:{Still more Labor Department political grantees include the National Day Laborer Organizing Network,[[12]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn12) which was awarded $807,624 in grants from 2021 through 2024.[[13]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn13) The Network regularly attacks Republican politicians in vicious terms. For instance, it helped its government paymasters when Donald Trump selected J.D. Vance as his running mate by having its general counsel write a blog post calling Vance “reprehensible,” a “menace,” and a “Trump-certified white nationalist.”[[14]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn14)}:

Similarly, the National Urban League was awarded a remarkable $80.3 million worth of grants between 2021 and 2024 by the Labor Department, in addition to monies from several other departments, and so in 2023 government grants accounted for 40 percent of its total revenues.[[15]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn15) As my colleague Robert Stilson reports, the League is a reliable ally of the radical left-wing agenda.

It has characterized our criminal justice system as plagued by “brutality,” praised President Biden’s death row commutations, described voter ID laws—which are supported by every racial group[[16]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn16)—as “racially-targeted voter suppression tactics,” attacked objections to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies as “white supremacist,” urged new gun control legislation such as a federal assault weapons ban, and called the overturning of Roe v. Wade“horrifying.”[[17]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn17) Naturally, the League’s president was rewarded with a featured speech to the 2024 Democratic National Convention, which the League boosted over its social media even though it is a 501(c)(3) charity forbidden to intervene in elections.[[18]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn18)}:

Today’s Democratic Witness

:{:{Today’s Democratic witness, Diane Yentel, provides further examples of nonprofits serving Big Government. One of her typical tweets attacked DOGE and defended the radical Vera Institute of Justice,[[19]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn19) which in 2023 received $207 million—or 79 percent—of its $263 million total revenues from government. The Vera Institute is a hard-left, George Soros-backed group whose priorities—soft-on-crime policies and the legal defense of illegal aliens—are opposed to the views of America’s democratic majority.[[20]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn20)}:

Its biggest vendor in its last IRS filing was Blue State Digital,[[21]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn21) which began life as President Barack Obama’s digital campaign team and is now a for-profit serving the Left’s nonprofits. But Blue State still brags that its 2012 presidential campaign for Obama “mobilized tens of millions of voters, raised an unprecedented $690 million online, and won 332 electoral votes on Election Day.”[[22]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn22) This answers the question of whether the Vera Institute, or its cheerleaders, have any shame about their politicized agenda.}:

Ms. Yentel was hired at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Obama administration.[[23]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn23) The Chronicle of Philanthropycalls her a “D.C. Insider” and reports President Biden considered her for a cabinet post.[[24]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn24) Her previous job was leading the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an NGO that advocates for ever-more federal spending by HUD[[25]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn25) and uses identity politics to justify its agenda.[[26]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn26)

In her current job leading the National Council of Nonprofits, Ms. Yentel quickly sued the Trump administration over budget cuts.[[27]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn27) What lawyers did she turn to? The Democracy Forward Foundation, whose board includes President Biden’s notorious chief of staff Ron Klain and is chaired by Marc Elias, the Democratic “super-lawyer” whose partisanship is unrivaled.[[28]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn28)

:{Ms. Yentel claimed the Republican tax bill “would hand unchecked power to the Trump admin[istration] to punish nonprofit orgs that don’t fall in line with … its ideology by labeling them as terrorist-supporting groups.”[[29]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn29):{ That is false. As an honest, left-leaning law professor explained in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, “a despot seeking to silence nonprofits would be weakened, not empowered” by the legislation.}:[[30]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn30)

The professor carefully spelled out the many ways the legislation provides far more ways for nonprofits to resist the loss of their tax exemptions than exist under current law, but an honest assessment of this proposal would not help activists who want to pretend they’re innocent lambs at the mercy of a cruel wolf of an administration. Politically speaking, it’s much more savvy to tell the public the President is being mean to your group than to tell the public, “You taxpayers need to keep handing us large amounts of your taxes.”}:

No wonder nonprofit expert Bill Schambra warned that Yentel’s partisanship at a major nonprofit membership group may erode public support for nonprofits by suggesting “nonprofits are just like the other major institutions of American society, fighting fiercely to maintain the status quo against necessary reforms.”[[31]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn31)

Statistics to Scare Members of Congress

:{It’s understandable, though not admirable, that status-quo nonprofit leaders are scared at the prospect of DOGE examining their government funding. :{Many leaders will use an Urban Institute study designed to scare Members of Congress with statistics like, “Government grants support nonprofits in every … congressional district.}:”[[32]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn32)

No one explains why it’s wonderful that so many nonprofits are addicted to government cash. The same study stresses how larger nonprofits are especially dependent on tax dollars. But while big nonprofits are often less effective at helping people compared to smaller neighborhood groups, they certainly are more powerful at lobbying government in the service of Big Government, Big Philanthropy, and their preferred political party.}:

They are also good at suing government. My Capital Research Center colleagues found 15 government-funded nonprofits suing the Trump administration in just its first month. These groups had enjoyed at least 1.6 billion tax dollars from their political allies in the Biden Administration. NOTE NO NAMES NUMBERS CITE

Funding Environmentalist Political Allies

:{:{:{Another witness today will dive deep into the morass of federal funding of politically active environmentalist groups, but I want to note an especially egregious example of an NGO benefiting from significant federal funds and pursuing a radical agenda: the Environmental Law Institute. The Institute has received awards from the Environmental Protection Agency and from the Department of Homeland Security.}:}:

[[33]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn33) It operates the controversial Climate Judiciary Project,[[34]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn34) which seeks to “educate”—from a left-wing perspective—federal and state judges about climate change and related litigation designed to extract billions of dollars from oil and gas companies for alleged climate harms. These trainings attempt to influence the very judges who are hearing these cases, using a curriculum developed in part by individuals assisting with that litigation.[[35]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn35)}:

The last administration’s largest effort to subsidize its environmentalist allies came via the Inflation Reduction Act, whose centerpiece was the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The current administration is struggling to retrieve at least some of these monies, led by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin,[[36]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn36) and I await a forthcoming study of the Fund by my friends at the Foundation for Government Accountability, whose president, Peter Schweizer, declares, “The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is the most corrupt slush fund in U.S. history.”

Funding Immigration Activists

:{:{Still another of today’s witnesses will focus on NGOs in the field of immigration that were the last administration’s political allies and received extensive federal funds, but I want to commend recent testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability by my friend Mike Howell, executive director of the Oversight Project. Howell argues that what he calls the border invasion “could not have been accomplished without a colossal ‘partnership’ between the government and NGOs.”}:

The Biden administration drove “an estimated $6 billion to a conglomerate of 15 UN agencies and 230 NGOs, as recently calculated by the Center for Immigration Studies.” The Oversight Project in turn “purchased the ad tech cell phone data of approximately 30,000 devices found at border NGO facilities” and tracked those devices’ movements during January 2022. The Project “found these devices traveled to 431 different congressional districts,” proving that “every town is a border town.” Howell urges Congress to audit “the over $6 billion spent by our government to promote a border crisis” and to investigate as well the “continuing trend of NGOs working against the national interest to assist illegals in evading ICE.”[[37]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn37)}:

Subsidizing the Ideological Capture of Professional Societies

Our friends at Open the Books have drawn attention to another series of federal grants driving a left-wing agenda: the subsidies delivered to professional societies. These groups “set the atmosphere and guidelines for practitioners in their fields, and they can have hundreds of thousands of members,” which means that if they are ideologically captured, “the impact will be felt across society.”[[38]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn38)

Examples that Open the Books gives include the Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE), which represents over 200,000 physical education teachers and has received over $2.5 million since 2020. It currently pushes sex education standards that many of the Americans supplying it with tax dollars would strenuously reject. Similarly, the North American Association for Environmental Education has received $16 million from four different federal agencies since 2020. It urges teachers to use resources from the highly dishonest Southern Poverty Law Center, which guarantees children will learn ideology, not science, in environmental classes.

Another federal grantee promoting Southern Poverty Law Center propaganda is the National Council for History Education, which has received several million federal tax dollars from the Education Department, National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Library of Congress, including a Library grant in April of this year.

Open the Books warns that all the professional societies profiled in its report “have ongoing grants that have not been cut by DOGE.”

The Long and Winding Funding Road

The problem of federal tax dollars propping up the Left’s radical agenda is so complex and sprawling that no one can even map it all out. A perfect example appears this past week in a Daily Callernews story, which used a public records request to unveil a classic funding stream. First the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gave an HIV grant to the Philadelphia School District. The District then paid the NGO Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania nearly $40,000 “to provide up to 70 trainings which decry biological sex as a ‘myth,’ support medical child sex-changes and normalize men in women’s sports.”[[39]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn39) Those positions are at odds with large majorities of American taxpayers, but their tax dollars still wound their way to a politicized NGO that works hard to keep its government paymasters in their jobs and able to keep the tax dollars coming.

The Long History of Politicized Pseudo-Charity

All this politicized pseudo-charity, aimed at boosting government and seizing political power, goes back decades. In 2011, for instance, President Obama’s political appointees at the Department of Health and Human Services outraged career staff by yanking grant dollars away from Catholic charities, which had provided valuable aid to victims of human trafficking, and giving the money to political allies at Planned Parenthood, who had never assisted such victims. The infuriated staffers leaked this to the Washington Post and took their case to the department’s Inspector General.[[40]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_edn40) No one even pretended the victims would be better served by the new grantee.

When these ugly stories of tax dollars, cronyism, and political scheming come under attack, the classic corrupt NGO response is to camouflage their misdeeds by invoking moving stories of the real heroes of America’s charitable sector. Object to Planned Parenthood pushing boys into girls sports and you’ll be told how you’re imperiling food for orphans. Express doubt that tax dollars should go to radical nonprofits pushing abortion and gun control and you’ll be called an opponent of lifesaving medical care.

No reasonable person should fall for these sob stories. Business-as-usual with federal tax dollars sent unaccountably to big nonprofits disserves both government and the nonprofit sector. The deficit-plagued federal government needs to waste a lot less of our money, and a nonprofit sector addicted to government funding needs to leave the political trenches and learn to refocus on real acts of charity.

---

Notes

[[1]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref1) Cathleen Clerkin, Anna Koob, and David Wolcheck, “How Reliant Are Nonprofits on Government Grants?,” Candid, February 6, 2025, https://blog.candid.org/post/how-many-nonprofits-rely-on-government-grants-data/.

[[2]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref2) Officially, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity.

[[3]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref3) See InfluenceWatch, “American Center for International Labor Solidarity (Solidarity Center),” https://www.influencewatch.org/labor-union/american-center-for-international-labor-solidarity-solidarity-center/.

[[4]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref4) Tyler O’Neil, “Labor Department Confirms Bureaucrat on Leave amid Woke Conflict of Interest Questions,” Daily Signal, June 2, 2025, https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/06/02/union-activist-group-got-millions-grants-after-former-employee-went-work-grant-making-agency/.

[[5]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref5) See American Center For International Labor Solidarity, IRS Form 990, 2023, p. 9, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521984713/202443189349306369/full.

[[6]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref6) OpenSecrets, “AFLCIO,” https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/afl-cio/recipients?id=d000000088.

[[7]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref7) Robert Stilson, “DOGE and the Department of Labor,” January 9, 2025, https://capitalresearch.org/article/doge-and-the-department-of-labor/.

[[8]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref8) InfluenceWatch, “NextGen Policy (NextGen California),” https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/nextgen-policy-nextgen-california/.

[[9]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref9) InfluenceWatch, “Steyer Network,” https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/steyer-network/.

[[10]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref10) Arnold Sowell Jr., “NextGen California Issues Statement on 2024 General Election,” NextGen Policy, November 7, 2024, https://www.nextgenpolicy.org/nextgen-california-issues-statement-on-2024-general-election/.

[[11]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref11) See TransLatin@ Coalition, “Trans Policy Agenda 2024: Our Fight for Equity,” https://www.translatinacoalition.org/s/TLC_Trans_Policy_Agenda_2024.pdf.

[[12]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref12) InfluenceWatch, “National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON),” https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-day-laborer-organizing-network/.

[[13]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref13) USAspending.gov, “National Day Laborer Organizing Network,” https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=f3357f3ad15903504e2c3c5ce2d20ed5.

[[14]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref14) National Day Laborer Organizing Network, “NDLON Reaction to Vance,” July 15, 2024, https://web.archive.org/web/20250216115120/https://ndlon.org/ndlon-reaction-to-vance/.

[[15]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref15) National Urban League Inc, IRS Form 990, 2023, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131840489/202402999349302015/full.

[[16]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref16) 82% of Black and 83% of Hispanic voters favor photo ID laws. Honest Elections Project, https://honestelections.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/July_2023_HEP-_Polling_Memo.pdf.

[[17]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref17) Citations for all quotations are in Robert Stilson, “DOGE and the Department of Labor,” Capital Research Center, January 9, 2025, https://capitalresearch.org/article/doge-and-the-department-of-labor/.

[[18]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref18) National Urban League, X, August 19, 2024, 7:02 PM, https://x.com/NatUrbanLeague/status/1825669578451546573.

[[19]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref19) National Urban League, X, April 16, 2025, 6:06 PM, https://x.com/dianeyentel/status/1912628724656112011.

[[20]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref20) InfluenceWatch, “Vera Institute of Justice (VIJ),” https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/vera-institute-of-justice/.

[[21]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref21) See Vera Institute of Justice Inc, IRS Form 990, 2022, p. 8, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131941627/202411369349319281/full.

[[22]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref22) Blue State, “Obama 2012,” https://www.bluestate.co/case-studies/obama-for-america-2012/.

[[23]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref23) Diane Yentel, LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/in/diane-yentel-8221466/details/experience/.

[[24]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref24) Eden Stiffman, “An Outspoken CEO Rises to Defend Nonprofit Sector in Turbulent Times,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, April 29, 2025, https://www.philanthropy.com/article/an-outspoken-ceo-rises-to-defend-nonprofit-sector-in-turbulent-times.

[[25]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref25) National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Federal Budget & Spending,” https://nlihc.org/federal-budget-and-spending.

[[26]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref26) National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Racial Equity and Fair Housing,” https://nlihc.org/explore-issues/policy-priorities/fair-housing.

[[27]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref27) Diane Yentel, X, January 28, 2025, 11:57 AM, https://x.com/dianeyentel/status/1884284681115279821.

[[28]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref28) InfluenceWatch, “Democracy Forward Foundation (DFF),” https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/democracy-forward-foundation/.

[[29]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref29) Diane Yentel, X, May 12, 2025, 5:52 PM, https://x.com/dianeyentel/status/1922047204300321206.

[[30]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref30) The professor was discussing the 2024 version of the provisions, as found in H.R. 9495. See Darryl K. Jones, “The ‘Nonprofit Killer Bill’ Seems Scary—but Current Law Is Worse,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 23, 2025; https://www.philanthropy.com/article/the-nonprofit-killer-bill-seems-scary-but-current-law-is-worse?sra=true.

[[31]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref31) Eden Stiffman, “An Outspoken CEO Rises to Defend Nonprofit Sector in Turbulent Times,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, April 29, 2025, https://www.philanthropy.com/article/an-outspoken-ceo-rises-to-defend-nonprofit-sector-in-turbulent-times.

[[32]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref32) Laura Tomasko, “Government Funding Cuts Put Nonprofits at Risk Across the Nation,” Urban Wire, February 21, 2025, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/government-funding-cuts-put-nonprofits-risk-across-nation.

[[33]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref33) USAspending.gov, “Environmental Law Institute, The,” https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/3413a724-2716-df59-d50e-32a1ab90cdd8-R/latest.

[[34]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref34) Climate Judiciary Project, https://cjp.eli.org/. See also Thomas Catenacci, “Judge Presiding over Big Oil Climate Change Lawsuit Reveals Connection to Plaintiff’s Eco Lawyers,” Fox News, May 19, 2023, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-presiding-over-big-oil-climate-change-lawsuit-reveals-connection-plaintiffs-eco-lawyers.

[[35]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref35) Andrew Mark Miller, “Climate Justice Group Has Deep Ties to Judges, Experts Involved in Litigation amid Claims of Impartiality,” Fox News, December 13, 2024, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/climate-justice-group-deep-ties-judges-experts-involved-litigation-claims-impartiality.

[[36]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref36) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Administrator Zeldin Terminates Biden-Harris $20B ‘Gold Bar’ Grants,” March 11, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-zeldin-terminates-biden-harris-20b-gold-bar-grants.

[[37]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref37) Mike Howell, testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, March 11, 2025, https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-03-11-HRG-OIA-Testimony-Howell37.pdf.

[[38]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref38) OpenTheBooks, “Ideological Capture at Professional Societies,” May 22, 2025, https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/ideological-capture-at-professional.

[[39]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref39) Megan Brock, “Planned Parenthood Used Your Tax Dollars To Train Educators That Biological Sex Is A ‘Myth,’” Daily Caller, May 30, 2025, https://dailycaller.com/2025/05/30/exclusive-planned-parenthood-tax-dollars-train-educators-biological-sex-myth/.

[[40]](https://capitalresearch.org/article/scott-walters-written-testimony-to-house-doge-subcommittee/#_ednref40) Jerry Markon, “Health, Abortion Issues Split Obama Administration and Catholic Groups,” Washington Post, October 31, 2011, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/health-abortion-issues-split-obama-administration-catholic-groups/2011/10/27/gIQAXV5xZM_story.html.

Tags: and inclusion (DEI), diversity, DOGE Files, environmentalists, equity, Labor Department, nongovernmental organization (NGO), nonprofit, testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, UnidosUS

Scott Walter

Scott Walter is president of Capital Research Center. He served in the George W. Bush Administration as Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and was vice president at…

+ More by Scott Walter

---

---

PPL 6 25

Board of Trustees

Sarah Humphreys Atkins

President, JP Humphreys Foundation

Robert E. Challey

Chairman of the Board, The Park Place Group

Gordon Cummings

Philanthropic Advisor

Hon. Edwin Meese III

Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Edwin Meese III, the prominent conservative leader, thinker and elder statesman, continues a quarter-century formal association with The Heritage Foundation as the leading think tank’s Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus.

In that capacity, Meese oversees special projects and acts as an ambassador for Heritage within the conservative movement.

Meese was chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies from its founding in 2001 until what he calls his “semi-retirement” on Feb. 1, 2013.

He joined Heritage in 1988 as the think tank’s first Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow — the only policy chair in the country to be officially named for the 40th president. His work focused on keeping President Reagan’s legacy of conservative principles alive in public debate and discourse.

The legal center now bears his name, in recognition of Meese’s contributions to the rule of law and the nation’s understanding of constitutional law. Its mission is to educate government officials, the media and the public about the Constitution and legal principles — and how they affect public policy.

Perhaps best known as U.S. attorney general during Reagan’s second term, Meese’s service to the conservative icon stretched from the California governor’s mansion in 1966 to the White House in 1981 before he went to the Department of Justice four years later.

His Heritage “hats” kept Meese among the major conservative voices in national policy debates at an age when most men and women enjoyed quiet retirements.

William Meyersohn

Real Estate Consultant

Eric O’Keefe

Chairman, Citizens for Self-Governance

Thomas S. Winter

Editor-in-Chief, Human Events

Marion G. Wells†

1926-2016

Gil Collins

Trustee emeritus. Trustee, Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Newsletter Signup

AA CRT BS

Kali Fontanilla

Senior Fellow

Dr. Steven J. Allen

Distinguished Senior Fellow

Michael E. Hartmann

Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Strategic Giving

Martin Morse Wooster†

1957-2022

National Advisory Board

Dr. Larry P. Arnn

President, Hillsdale College

Dr. John A. Baden

Chairman, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)

Midge Decter†

1927-2022

Christopher Long

Trustee, Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Adam Meyerson

Former President, The Philanthropy Roundtable

Kate O’Beirne†

1949-2017

P.J. O’Rourke†

1947–2022

Dr. Walter Williams†

1936-2020

Robert L. Woodson, Sr.

Founder & President, National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise

---

Podcast

InfluenceWatch Podcast #366: Harvard and Tax Exemptions

The second Trump administration has conducted an aggressive campaign against Harvard University, targeting its use of racial considerations in admissions and hiring and its apparent lack of concern for the…

by Sarah Lee, Michael Watson on June 4, 2025

Labor Watch

Disunited Steelworkers and the U.S. Steel Deal

Before Americans broke for the Memorial Day weekend, President Donald Trump announced that he would allow a proposed investment by Japan-based Nippon Steel into the struggling company U.S. Steel that…

by Michael Watson on June 3, 2025

Philanthropy

A Conversation with IPS’s Helen Flannery and OSU’s Brian Mittendorf (Part 1 of 2)

The think-tank fellow and accounting professor talk to Michael E. Hartmann about their research and writing on donor-advised funds (DAFs) in general and why they’re controversial—along with different kinds of…

by Michael E. Hartmann on June 2, 2025

a-conversation-with-ipss-helen-flannery-and-osus-brian-mittendorf-part-2-of-2

This article first appeared in the Giving Review on May 22, 2025.*

Tags: Big Philanthropy, donor intent, donor privacy, donor transparency, donor-advised fund, philanthropy

PT 2

Helen Flannery is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Research (IPS), for which her research and writing focuses on charity reform. Prior to coming to IPS, she worked for nonprofit clients at both the Target Analytics and ROI Solutions software-development firms.

Brian Mittendorf is the H.P. Wolfe Chair in Accounting at The Ohio State University’s Max M. Fisher College of Business. He specializes in nonprofit accounting and teaches courses on financial statements for nonprofit and governmental organizations, among other things. Prior to coming to Fisher College, he was an associate professor at the Yale School of Management.

Flannery and Mittendorf often collaborate on research and co-author articles about nonprofit finance—most recently including the fascinating “Charitable Objectives or Donor Benefits? What Sponsor Language Reveals about Donor-Advised Fund Priorities and Resource Flows,” forthcoming in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.For the article, acknowledging that donor-advised funds (DAFs) “are not a homogenous monolith, and seeking to understand what distinguishes sponsoring organizations from each other,” on the basis of DAF sponsors’ own specific language and descriptions of their offerings and activities, Flannery and Mittendorf “develop a measure of DAF sponsor priorities and examine if it is predictive of behavior,” as they put it.

Highlighting one interpretation of their findings, Flannery and Mittendorf continue, because DAFs sponsored by “community foundations tend to have missions that are firmly rooted in specific localities, sponsors and donors are unified around shared expectations and priorities.” On the other hand, DAFs with

[n]ational sponsors, which have no locally unifying missions, may instead attract different donors depending on how much they emphasize extrinsic benefits—and this, in turn, may affect both the types of contributions they receive and the speed with which they disburse grants. Consistent with this notion, we find that national sponsors who put a greater emphasis on donor benefits in their website language have greater assets, are more apt to receive donations that are more tax favored, and are more apt to be slow in distributing grants than those national sponsors whose language emphasizes charitable impact.

Flannery and Mittendorf believe their “findings may also help policy makers identify circumstances where DAF sponsors warrant additional scrutiny,” they add in the article. “That is, even if the average sponsor exhibits characteristics that suggest limited intervention, observable and predictable variation across sponsors may justify oversight of or guardrails placed on at least some of them, particularly as it pertains to their payout practices.”

Previous, also-informative articles by the two include last year’s “Reshaping Charity Channels: How Assets Flow into and out of Donor-Advised Funds” and “Are Donor-Advised Funds Facilitating Opaque Giving to Politically Engaged Charities?”...

Philanthropy

A Conversation with IPS’s Helen Flannery and OSU’s Brian Mittendorf (Part 2 of 2)

The think-tank fellow and accounting professor discuss ways to think about any potential legal and regulatory reforms of donor-advised funds.

by Michael E. Hartmann on June 2, 2025

Green Watch

Renewable Energy . . . or Maybe Not

The richest American environmental nonprofits are strong promoters of weather-dependent energy. Nearly all of their webpages have images of wind turbines and solar panels, visually demonstrating how much land they…

by Ken Braun on May 30, 2025

Organization Trends

InfluenceWatch Friday

The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties to use this research in future reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.

by Jonathan Harsh on May 30, 2025

Green Watch

Drive Clean Indiana: Archetype of the Populist “NGO”

Drive Clean Indiana (DCI) is a smallish nonprofit that touts itself as a champion of green transportation. As a member of the Clean Cities Coalition (a Department of Energy grant…

by Parker Thayer on May 29, 2025

Deception & Misdirection

The Letter, a COVID-Era Public Health Infamy

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an open letter signed by 1,288 alleged “public health professionals" promoted differential treatment of left-wing BLM protests and right-wing anti-lockdown protests. The defenses of that letter…

by Michael Watson on May 29, 2025

Organization Trends

Capital Research, April/May 2025

In the April/May 2025 special issue of Capital Research magazine, begin examining one side of the great political alignment, the Lincoln Project separating anti-Trump marks from their money, the Bulwark…

by CRC Staff on May 28, 2025

PG 2

Green Watch

Clean-Burning Natural Gas

In 2010, Ernest Moniz, an MIT physics professor, was the lead author on a report that predicted the United States would lower its carbon dioxide emissions by switching from coal…

by Ken Braun on May 27, 2025

Podcast

InfluenceWatch Podcast #365: Bulwark Backstory

At one point, in the minds of its writers and supporters, perhaps The Bulwark really was about providing a “bulwark” for “conserving conservatism” in opposition to the right-populism of once…

by Sarah Lee, Ken Braun, Michael Watson on May 27, 2025

Blog

Memorial Day 2025

Memorial Day 2025…

by CRC Staff on May 26, 2025

Philanthropy

A Wipeout for Those Refusing to Consider Much-Needed Reform of Tax-Exempt Sector

The House Ways and Means Committee budget bill has a number of items regarding the tax-exempt sector. In general, they are a wipeout for the sector and those refusing to…

by Dean Zerbe on May 23, 2025

Organization Trends

InfluenceWatch Friday

The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties to use this research in future reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.

by Jonathan Harsh on May 23, 2025

Organization Trends

Never Trump Media Pundits: David Frum

Never Trump pundits who have previously identified as conservatives have had many homes within the regime media. Some have behaved in ways that make it hard to imagine them ever…

by Ken Braun on May 22, 2025

Organization Trends

Never Trump Media Pundits: Robert Kagan

Turning trees to cringe wasn’t always what readers expected from The Atlantic. Just prior to Trump’s first run for office, it was still a serious ideas journal. Since then, the…

by Ken Braun on May 22, 2025

Organization Trends

Never Trump Media Pundits: Jennifer Rubin

Former Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin also concluded she couldn’t endure working there after the newspaper’s non-endorsement. Rubin was considered right-leaning when hired by the Washington Post in 2010. By…

by Ken Braun on May 22, 2025

Organization Trends

Never Trump Media Pundits: David French

David French, a Never Trumper, has called the New York Times editorial page his home since January 2023. French’s columns betray an obsession with Trump, but in a way that’s…

by Ken Braun on May 22, 2025

Green Watch

The Rising Seas

In "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006) film, former Vice President Al Gore proposed the Greenland ice sheet might melt, causing a 20-foot rise in sea levels, flooding Florida among other places.

by Ken Braun on May 22, 2025

PG 3

Organization Trends

Episcopal Church Refuses to Help White South Africans

In a shockingly brazen mask-off moment, the Episcopal Church is ending its longstanding refugee program partnership with the U.S. government rather than help white Afrikaner farmers flee real persecution in…

by Kali Fontanilla on May 21, 2025

Foundation Watch

Meet Another Batch of Big Philanthropy–Funded Leftist Loons: The “Health Policy Research Scholars”

The quietly radical Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has a Health Policy Research Scholars program that provides doctoral students interested in health policy with annual grants up to $30,000 over the…

by Michael Watson on May 20, 2025

Podcast

InfluenceWatch Podcast #364: Bullies Unite Here

In an era when fewer than six percent of private-sector workers are union members, it’s easy to forget how forceful Big Labor’s activists can be when they’re out rooting for…

by Sarah Lee, Michael Watson on May 20, 2025

Philanthropy

Professional-Class Liberalism’s “Philanthropic Governance”

"Mastery and Drift: Professional-Class Liberals Since the 1960s" collects an interesting set of scholarly essays about “professional-class liberalism,” and some of that which it has wrought, during the past six…

by Michael E. Hartmann on May 19, 2025

Organization Trends

InfluenceWatch Friday

The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested parties to use this research in future reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.

by Jonathan Harsh on May 16, 2025

Green Watch

Nuclear Energy: Rich Climate NGOs Have Nuked Clean Power

The Trump administration wants to quadruple American nuclear power output by 2050. There is no physical challenge to this goal, as France—now the world’s seventh largest economy—launched an aggressive buildout…

by Ken Braun on May 15, 2025

Philanthropy

IRS Revokes Sierra Club’s (c)(3) Status, in 1966

Earlier this month, there were rampant rumors that President Donald Trump was going to sign an executive order revoking the nonprofit status of environmental organizations. Since no president can really just revoke…

by Michael E. Hartmann on May 15, 2025

Organization Trends

The Bulwark: Birth of The Bulwark

The Bulwark was founded in 2019 and since then has become the main media rampart of the Never Trump movement. Today, The Bulwark is growing and—unlike nearly all previous political…

by Ken Braun on May 14, 2025

Organization Trends

The Bulwark: From Nonprofit to Profits

The DDT Institute tax filing for 2019, really the first year DDT Institute received serious money, lists total revenue of $3 million and expenditures of $1.6 million, nearly all of…

by Ken Braun on May 14, 2025

Organization Trends

The Bulwark: Making a Business of Trump Derangement

But in practice, “the Never-Trump ethos is crucial to [The Bulwark], especially at a time when liberal media outlets feel snakebit by the perceived overreach of resistance-style journalism.” The Bulwark…

by Ken Braun on May 14, 2025

---

:{:{nwsltr FOR}:

Fix the Court

Featured Items

Capital Research, April 2024

In the April 2024 issue of Capital Research—a special issue on nonprofit journalism—the landscape of journalism is changing. The Left is building a nonprofit journalism empire. Fact checkers provide cover…

by CRC Staff on May 21, 2024

Special Report

The Rise of Left-Wing Nonprofit Journalism

The decline of traditional metropolitan “objective” media outlets has affected the news landscape dramatically. Those outlets were more liberal and less objective than they pretended, and their business model, which…

by Scott Walter on May 7, 2024

CRC in the News

Best of CRC Media Hits for Second Quarter of 2023

In the second quarter of 2023, CRC reported on new investigations into the groups targeting Clarence Thomas and the Supreme Court, published a massive new election integrity report on charities…

by Sarah Lee on September 25, 2023

Podcast

InfluenceWatch Podcast #271: Fix the Court’s Foul-Up

If I could provide just one piece of free advice in public advocacy, it’s this: Don’t openly say you messed up on an on-record call with a reporter—you might as…

by Parker Thayer, Michael Watson on May 26, 2023

Organization Trends

Fix the Court May Have Financial Disclosure Problems

Fix the Court is one of many organizations on the Left that works tirelessly to attack the Supreme Court and undermine its legitimacy. Yet Fix the Court's tax disclosures appear…

by Parker Thayer on May 15, 2023

Deception & Misdirection

Highlights from Scott Walter’s Answers to Questions for the Record from Sen. Whitehouse

“It is immoral for government to force citizens’ support of public causes to be made known to persons—in government and outside it—who would use the information to harass those citizens,”…

by Scott Walter on April 15, 2021

Featured Items

Scott Walter Testifies to a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on “Dark Money”

My preferred definition of “dark money” came from a witty man who said: Dark money is support for speech the Left wants to silence. That definition reveals how “dark money”…

by Scott Walter on March 11, 2021

Featured Items

Scott Walter’s Written Statement Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee

At Capital Research Center, where I work, we’re in our fourth decade of studying the sort of money flows discussed in the Captured Courts report issued by the Democratic Policy…

by Scott Walter on March 11, 2021

---

an 6 25

Government watchdog Congressional Integrity Project (CIP) is slamming the new Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) subcommittee under U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). The group calls the subcommittee a “rogues" gallery of extremists, conspiracy theorists and C-team political operatives” promoting President Donald Trump’s clampdown on certain non-government organizations (NGOs).

The Guardian reports far-right firebrand Greene will launch hearings this week on “Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild”, purporting to expose the use of federal funds by NGOs to advance “radical” agendas such as “open borders and the Green New Deal scam.”

But a (CIP) memo condemns the hearing as “political theater” and “weaponized government oversight.” The memo also describes the hearing as extreme hypocrisy considering the substantial federal funding Republican allies and rightwing groups receive.

READ MORE: The MAGA death cult’s entire game was just exposed by one clerical error

“Their own networks have systematically benefited from government contracts, subsidies, and loans worth billions of dollars,” the memo states, according to the Guardian.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Personalities contributing to the committee display this week on Capitol Hill include personalities such as Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which the Southern Poverty Law Center designates a hate group. Krikorian has made statements that Haiti’s problems today stem from the nation being one of the first in recent history to throw off the yoke of slavery and not be.” VID]

The memo adds that CIS received more than $700,000 in PPP loans and is now under investigation by the justice department for potentially lying to obtain at least one of them.

“That’s right, Republicans chose as their star witness on government waste someone who may have committed fraud to secure government money for his organization,” the memo claims.

READ MORE: The rift we didn’t see coming: MAGA elites could be turning on Trump 'lickspittles'

Another participant is Power the Future founder and Executive Director Daniel Turner, who the CIP describes as a career political operative who worked for the Charles Koch Institute before founding Power the Future. Power the Future is a climate-denial organization that attacks environmental groups for receiving federal grants, says CIP. It added that Turner’s former employer, billionaire Charles Koch, has received more than $750 million in government subsidies, even as Greene claims to be rooting out government waste.

“Turner … represents everything wrong with this sham hearing,” CIP told the Guardian. “He’s a junior varsity Republican operative masquerading as an objective analyst while advancing the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry – the same interests that have systematically profited from the very government largesse he now pretends to oppose.”

Read the full Guardian report at this link.

REF

The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has assembled a “rogues’ gallery of extremists, conspiracy theorists and C-team political operatives” to promote Donald Trump’s crackdown on non-government organisations (NGOs), a congressional watchdog has claimed.

The House of Representatives’ Delivering on Government Efficiency (Doge) subcommittee, chaired by Greene, is due to hold a hearing on Wednesday entitled “Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild”.

The subcommittee said in a press release that the hearing will “expose” the use of federal funds by NGOs to advance “radical” agendas such as “open borders and the Green New Deal scam”. It frames its work as an investigation of the alleged funneling of taxpayer dollars to politically motivated groups while “lining the pockets of their friends and allies”.

But a memo from the Congressional Integrity Project (CIP), obtained by the Guardian, condemns the hearing as “political theater”, “weaponized government oversight” and an exercise in hypocrisy, given the substantial federal funding received by Republican allies and rightwing groups.

While attacking civil society organisations for receiving federal grants, the memo says, “their own networks have systematically benefited from government contracts, subsidies, and loans worth billions of dollars”.

Wednesday’s hearing on Capitol Hill will feature witnesses Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies; Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of Power the Future; and Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center.

The CIP describes Greene’s lineup as “rogues’ gallery of extremists, conspiracy theorists and C-team political operatives masquerading as government watchdogs”.

It notes that the Center for Immigration Studies has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and regularly circulates content from “white nationalist and antisemitic writers”.

Krikorian has made statements including that Haiti’s problems stem from not being “colonised long enough”.

The memo adds that CIS received more than $700,000 in PPP loans and is now under investigation by the justice department for potentially lying to obtain at least one of them. “That’s right, Republicans chose as their star witness on government waste someone who may have committed fraud to secure government money for his organization.”

The CIP describes Turner as a career political operative who worked for the Charles Koch Institute before founding Power the Future, a climate-denial organisation that attacks environmental groups for receiving federal grants. Yet Turner’s former employer, Charles Koch, has received more than $750m in government subsidies.

The memo states: “Turner, who calls ‘climate change the slippery slope to socialism’ and promotes conspiracy theories about climate science, represents everything wrong with this sham hearing.

“He’s a junior varsity Republican operative masquerading as an objective analyst while advancing the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry – the same interests that have systematically profited from the very government largesse he now pretends to oppose.”

Walter leads the Capital Research Center, “a secretive organization that won’t disclose its donors while attacking others for lacking transparency”, the CIP alleges.

“His organization’s fiscal arrangements appear designed to shield activities from public scrutiny, yet he positions himself as a watchdog exposing liberal ‘dark money’.”

In 2023, according to the memo, Walter helped funnel nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations to supreme court justice Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas’s group while his organisation had business before the supreme court, creating conflicts of interest.

Walter also has a history of making or defending offensive statements about race, gender and sexual orientation. He publicly defended a university professor accused of making racist statements, said average Americans have “disgust at homosexual practice” and in the 1990s mused that one good thing from the Monica Lewinsky scandal might be “that feminism will die, that sexual harassment laws will fizzle”.

The memo adds: “This hearing represents weaponized government oversight at its worst, with Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene assembling hate group leaders, conspiracy theorists, and dark money operatives to attack civil society organizations while the very people crying about government waste have pocketed billions in federal contracts and subsidies.”

---

---

fail

desmog

An Israeli private investigator wanted by U.S. authorities for allegedly carrying out a hack-and-leak operation commissioned on behalf of ExxonMobil is fighting against his extradition to a Brooklyn, NY, detention center.

During a packed hearing last week at London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court attended by DeSmog, lawyers for Amit Forlit used a legal strategy that one climate accountability advocate is referring to as “bizarre.”

The defense is arguing that Forlit, who is accused of being hired by the Washington D.C.-based public relations and lobbying firm DCI Group to illegally hack into the emails of environmental activists and others involved with climate change litigation against Exxon, shouldn’t be extradited on the grounds that the charges against him are politically motivated.

Last Wednesday was the first time Exxon and DCI were officially named in connection with the allegations – part of the defense’s claim that Forlit is “a form of collateral damage” in the legal pursuit of ExxonMobil.

To support his case, Forlit’s lawyers sought to present evidence from “expert” witness Scott Walter, president of a conservative U.S. think tank called the Capital Research Center (CRC) that for years publicly argued that the science of climate change is faulty and uncertain – including publishing a post last year disputing that “climate change” is “settled science.”

In his affidavit, Walter claimed that current efforts to hold ExxonMobil accountable in court for lying to the public about the dangers of climate change are at their core a political project connected to the U.S. Democratic Party.

Forlit is facing up to 45 years in prison for allegedly carrying out cyberattacks and hacking against groups and individuals involved with efforts to file lawsuits against ExxonMobil for misleading the public over the impact of burning fossil fuels on the earth’s climate, and spearheading public communications efforts to undermine the science.

Drawing on Walter’s affidavit, Forlit’s UK-based lawyer Rachel Scott stated in court, “we submit that these lawsuits are politically motivated.”

“It’s a bizarre strategy,” said Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the nonprofit Center of Climate Integrity, which has been involved with climate litigation. “Trying to claim that this guy is facing political persecution when, in fact, he was allegedly paid large sums of money to execute a massive hacking operation aimed at hundreds of employees at environmental nonprofit organizations and even those people’s spouses and kids.” Davies was one of the 128 individuals targeted by the hackers.

‘Opinion presented as fact’

On a grey January day, journalists packed into the London courtroom gallery where prosecutors representing the U.S. Department of Justice argued that Forlit should be extradited to New York. Upon his extradition, Forlit faces a federal indictment charging him “with three offences consisting of conspiracy to commit computer hacking, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud,” according to prosecution documents. “The maximum sentences are five, 20, and 20 years’ imprisonment, respectively.” The indictment has not been made public.

Wearing casual trousers and a blue shirt, Forlit watched from the side of the courtroom as lawyers argued about the political implications of his case. Acting on behalf of U.S. authorities, lawyer Adam Payter, with the firm 6KBW, took aim at the affidavit from CRC’s Walter, calling it “opinion presented as fact” and arguing that it was “inadmissible” as evidence.

Payter presented written material from the CRC’s website claiming that “environmentalist groups” and others are attempting to “undermine Americans’ freedoms.” The lawyer pointed out that CRC has on multiple occasions professed skepticism about human-caused climate change and advocated against solutions to the crisis by publishing a newsletter titled “Green Watch,” which outlines these positions. Payter then informed the court that, according to publicly available filings, Walter’s group has previously received funding from ExxonMobil – a conflict of interest Walter did not disclose in his affidavit.

In a blow to Forlit’s defense, District Judge John McGarva ruled that Walter’s affidavit could not be admitted as evidence.

Contrary to the defense’s claims that the charges against Forlit are politically motivated, Forlit “has been sought to be prosecuted for straight-forward criminal allegations that he orchestrated the hacking of persons for money,” the prosecution argued in a legal document submitted to the court.

“That Forlit, as the alleged orchestrator of a hacking scheme designed to politicise Climate Change Litigation,” should claim that he cannot be extradited and prosecuted because this Climate Change Litigation is politicised, “may be thought ironic,” stated Payter in a written submission to the court.

While the judge dismissed Walter’s statement, he agreed to consider supplementary reports and other material provided by Walter. This supplementary material included a report by Christopher Horner a former senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), another group whose representatives have historically expressed climate skeptic viewpoints. According to publicly available data, CEI received at least $2.1 million in funding from ExxonMobil between 1997 and 2006. In 2018, when CEI published Horner’s report, five of CEI’s eleven board members had links to groups funded by present or historic players in the fossil fuel industry.

In court, Payter stated that he would like to add further context on CEI on the final day of the hearing scheduled next month.

Paid $16 million

The allegations against Forlit come from a Department of Justice investigation started in 2018. According to federal investigators, Forlit was the leader of several Israeli-based intelligence-gathering firms that specialized in “offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, including computer intrusions.”

In a court filing, Payter alleged that Forlit’s firms were paid $16 million between 2013 and 2018 by a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm, which, in turn, was acting on behalf of one of the world’s biggest oil companies, a company based in Irving, Texas, that wanted to undermine groups connected to climate litigation.

Scott, the lawyer representing Forlit, filed papers that named the names that Payter, the U.S.government’s lawyer, did not; she wrote that the hacking effort “is alleged to have been commissioned by DCI Group, a lobbying firm representing ExxonMobil…”

Some of the specific hacking initiatives were led by another Israeli private investigator named Aviram Azari, who oversaw hackers in India who in turn illegally accessed the electronic accounts of environmental campaigners. Azari was arrested in 2019, and sentencedto 80 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to computer hacking, identity theft, and wire fraud. (Azari’s sentence incorporated lengthy time in pre-sentence custody, and on January 3, he was released from prison and briefly transferred to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, after which he was sent to Israel.)

IFrame Content

Prosecutors contend that DCI provided the hacked documents to Exxon and selected media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal. Exxon has used the allegedly stolen materials – which include a proposed legal strategy against the company – in its defense against ongoing climate litigation in Hawaii.

Both ExxonMobil and DCI have previously stated that they were not involved in the hacking operation.

Forlit was arrested in April 2024 under an Interpol Red Notice at London’s Heathrow Airport as he was attempting to board a flight to Israel. He was released on bail, forced to surrender his passport and make a security payment of £200,000 ($257,370).

The allegations in this case suggest oil and gas producers are willing to go to extreme lengths to discredit their environmental opponents, explained Robert Brulle,visiting research professor of environment and society at Brown University.

“The climate change countermovement is a sophisticated effort, involving multiple organizations engaging in a wide variety of strategies to obstruct climate mitigation efforts and to maintain business as usual,” he wrote in an email to DeSmog. “Climate litigation represents a threat to the business model of fossil fuel corporations, and so opposition to it is a core part of their efforts.”

The hearing will continue in early February.

*Rebecca John is a research fellow at the Climate Investigations Center founded by Kert Davies, who is mentioned in this story.

---

==

Witnesses

Dr. Naomi Oreskes

Henry Charles Lea Professor Of The History Of Science

Harvard University

Download Testimony

Ms. Christine Arena

Founder And Producer

Generous Films

Download Testimony

Mr. Richard Painter

S. Walter Richey Professor Of Corporate Law

University of Minnesota Law School

Download Testimony

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.

Professor Of Environmental Studies

University of Colorado Boulder

Download Testimony

Mr. Scott Walter

President

Capital Research Center

Download Testimony

Walter chairman Whitehouse ranking member Grassley distinguished members of the committee thank you for the honor of

testifying I'm president of the capital Research Center and we've studied political money debates for decades

40:02

including of course Mr chairman your speeches and writings dark money isn't really mysterious

unless you count that rumor that Leonard Leo invented dark money in a lab in Wuhan

no to say that a group uses dark money is like saying the group uses telephones it's a universal technology oddly the

people who most often use the term never Define it with legal Precision even when they're speaking in a Judiciary

Committee hearing or Senate Finance hearing where that would seem necessary but if you're trying to scare others

with a boogeyman best to keep the monsters outline shadowy now if dark money be a monster it's not

a large one

the biggest number I can find is open Secrets one billion dollars in 2020 which sounds big until you see

open Secrets number for the hard dollars disclosed to the FEC which makes the dark money Boogeyman about seven percent

of election spending so dark money is universal in politics and not a large part of politics but

dark money is not equally or if I were a man of the left I'd say fairly distributed

uh it tilts strongly toward the Democratic party

a few simple stats open Secrets totals for dark money in the

2020 election showAlmost a two and a half to one advantage for the Democratsin just the presidential race Mr Biden

enjoyed six times the dark money of his opponent the Democrats had a dark money advantage

in the 2022 cycle 2020 2018. here's another example Mr chairman the

conservative judicial activist you especially Target received in 2021 a 1.65 billion donation to a C4 dark money

group but just weeks after that story broke a left-wing billionaire gave about twice that amount to a dark money group

on the left a better comparison for that 1.65 billion is the money raked in by the

left's biggest non-profit Network the Empire run byArabella advisors

it raised almost exactly the same amount the same year the year before it raised 1.7 billion dollars so what the

Chairman's special Target enjoyed as a once in a lifetime windfall it's just the yearly take for Arabella

again I'm arguing C4 dark money is not a big deal in American politics but if

anyone insists it pollutes our politics then the big polluter is the Democratic party and the strongest drivers of big

pollution are environmentalists for instance the Arabella network was founded by environmentalist Eric Kessler

who's deeply tied as well to the dark money League of conservation voters which is both the biggest source of

campaign contributions to the chairman and also quote a dark Money Heavyweight says the Center for Public Integrity

another strong environmentalist tie at Arabella the Sierra Club helped launch arabella's 1630 fund quote the

indisputable heavyweight of democratic dark money says the Atlantic arabella's

environmentalist ties do have an unusual and especially disturbing feature foreign dark money

one of arabella's top donors for two decades is the environmentalist Hans Georg vis a foreign National who's

admitted violating bans on foreign money in American politics in the past and now

funds arabella's Network to influence our politics still dark money and all money in

politics is simple people who believe in causes raise money for those causes start groups for those

causes collaborate with each other buy ads to persuade the public support their

Champions criticize their opponents when the chairman takes money from the league of conservation voters

that doesn't mean the league has captured him it means they agree with him the people on the other side of the

issues operate the same way using the same kind of but a lot less of various

types of political money so to act outraged that somebody is using dark

money reveals the real definition of dark money support for speech the left wants to

silence trying to silence one's opponents is the opposite of democracy but it's

understandable given how unpopular some of the lefts especially environmentalists agenda items are

the ESG movement for example funded with Millions from billionaires like George Soros and millions from the Arabella

network is currently trying to have Banks stop loans to any company related to fossil fuels which would mean

Americans couldn't buy gas for their cars and trucks and might have an effect on the federal budget

trying to stifle speech with the boogeyman of dark money drives debate away from the substance of issues to

issues of money I urge the committee instead to focus on the substance of issues like climate change

thank you thanks very much um the ranking member has stepped out

for a second but I'm going to go ahead and proceed with my questions at mazorski let me go back to the quote

about the threat of climate change that you use in your testimony sometimes it takes a few Calamity howlers to wake

people up to the fact that there are serious problems and to arouse people to the point where they're willing to do

something about it I think we are at that point now again who said that

Lead You Bridge the science advisor to president Richard Nixon in 1969

Scott Walter

President at Capital Research Center

Capital Research Center

Georgetown University

Washington, District of Columbia, United States  Contact info

500+ connections

Message

Follow

More

ActivityActivity

1,683 followers1,683 followers

Scott hasn't posted latelyScott hasn't posted lately

Scott’s recent posts and comments will be displayed here.Scott’s recent posts and comments will be displayed here.

Show all activity

ExperienceExperience

Capital Research Center logo

PresidentPresident

Capital Research CenterCapital Research Center

Feb 2016 - Present · 7 yrs 5 mosFeb 2016 - Present · 7 yrs 5 mos

Washington D.C. Metro AreaWashington D.C. Metro Area

Established in 1984, CRC is an investigative think tank based in Washington, D.C., known for connecting the dots between the radical Left and activist groups, labor unions, foundations, and other nonprofits. It specializes in exposing cronyism and corruption. Established in 1984, CRC is an investigative think tank based in Washington, D.C., known for connecting the dots between the radical Left and activist groups, labor unions, foundations, and other nonprofits. It specializes in exposing cronyism and corruption.…see more

PresidentPresident

Campion ConsultingCampion Consulting

2009 - Present · 14 yrs 6 mos2009 - Present · 14 yrs 6 mos

Clients have included Booz Allen Hamilton, U.S. Special Operations Command South, the George W. Bush Presidential Library, Koret Foundation, Huthwaite, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Catholic University of AmericaClients have included Booz Allen Hamilton, U.S. Special Operations Command South, the George W. Bush Presidential Library, Koret Foundation, Huthwaite, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Catholic University of America…see more

Capital Research Center logo

Executive Vice PresidentExecutive Vice President

Capital Research CenterCapital Research Center

May 2012 - Jan 2016 · 3 yrs 9 mosMay 2012 - Jan 2016 · 3 yrs 9 mos

Washington D.C. Metro AreaWashington D.C. Metro Area

Becket logo

Senior FellowSenior Fellow

The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyThe Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Sep 2008 - May 2012 · 3 yrs 9 mosSep 2008 - May 2012 · 3 yrs 9 mos

Director of developmentDirector of development

Berman & Co.Berman & Co.

2007 - 2008 · 1 yr2007 - 2008 · 1 yr

Show all 8 experiences

EducationEducation

Georgetown University logo

Georgetown UniversityGeorgetown University

A.B., governmentA.B., government

1981 - 19851981 - 1985

Bearden High SchoolBearden High School

SkillsSkills

Non-profitsNon-profits

Endorsed by Stephanie Saroki de García and 2 others who are highly skilled at thisEndorsed by Stephanie Saroki de García and 2 others who are highly skilled at this

Endorsed by 3 colleagues at Capital Research CenterEndorsed by 3 colleagues at Capital Research Center

16 endorsements16 endorsements

WritingWriting

6 endorsements6 endorsements

EditingEditing

Endorsed by Mark O'Keefe and 2 others who are highly skilled at thisEndorsed by Mark O'Keefe and 2 others who are highly skilled at this

Endorsed by 3 colleagues at American Enterprise InstituteEndorsed by 3 colleagues at American Enterprise Institute

17 endorsements17 endorsements

Show all 39 skills

InterestsInterests

Top VoicesTop Voices

CompaniesCompanies

GroupsGroups

SchoolsSchools

Bjorn Lomborg profile picture

Bjorn LomborgBjorn Lomborg

• 3rdThird degree connection

President at Copenhagen Consensus CenterPresident at Copenhagen Consensus Center

300,731 followers300,731 followers

---

People also viewedPeople also viewed

Ashlyn Covington profile picture

Ashlyn CovingtonAshlyn Covington

• 3rd+Out of network connection

Research and Communications Intern at Capital Research CenterResearch and Communications Intern at Capital Research Center

Priscila Duarte profile picture

Priscila DuartePriscila Duarte

• 3rdThird degree connection

Brazilian Portuguese Language and Culture Instructor | Foreign Service Institute/U.S. Department of StateBrazilian Portuguese Language and Culture Instructor | Foreign Service Institute/U.S. Department of State

Kate Holloway profile picture

Kate HollowayKate Holloway

• 3rdThird degree connection

Business ProfessionalBusiness Professional

Roger CleggRoger Clegg

• 3rdThird degree connection

President and General Counsel at Center for Equal OpportunityPresident and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity

Angie Herron profile picture

Angie HerronAngie Herron

• 3rd+Out of network connection

Deputy Director of Marketing at ExcelinEdDeputy Director of Marketing at ExcelinEd

Sarah Hough profile picture

Sarah HoughSarah Hough

• 3rd+Out of network connection

Educator, Advocate, Book Nerd, & Life-long LeanerEducator, Advocate, Book Nerd, & Life-long Leaner

Matthew Daversa profile picture

Matthew DaversaMatthew Daversa

• 3rd+Out of network connection

Research Associate at Investment Company InstituteResearch Associate at Investment Company Institute

Feng Zhang profile picture

Feng ZhangFeng Zhang

• 3rdThird degree connection

Software EngineerSoftware Engineer

Michael MobbsMichael Mobbs

• 3rdThird degree connection

Counsel to the Inspector General at a Regional Transit Authority Counsel to the Inspector General at a Regional Transit Authority

Beth Canha profile picture

Beth CanhaBeth Canha

• 3rd+Out of network connection

Owner, Canha Consulting, LLCOwner, Canha Consulting, LLC

===

https://www.swscottfoundation.org](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Scott%20Walter%20campion%20philanthropy+site:www.swscottfoundation.org&atb=v353-1)}:

Home | Suzanne & Walter Scott Foundation

Guided by the commitment to philanthropy established by the founders, the primary mission of the Suzanne & Walter Scott Foundation is to support charitable and educational projects that develop our community, invest in the next generation of leaders and empower youth through higher education. Vision Be a catalyst for positive change. Values

https://campionadvocacyfund.org › foundation

Foundation - Campion Advocacy Fund

Campion Foundation takes a rigorous and highly focused approach to our grantmaking. Our grantmaking is grounded in strategy, targeted for maximum leverage, and by invitation only. We drive change on tough issues by making targeted investments in high impact 501(c)(3) public charities, leaders, and partnerships. ...

===

https://crisismagazine.com/author/swalter

RECENT ARTICLES

Crises, Tidings, and Revelations: Undemocratic Vistas at the New York Times

In Wheeling, West Virginia, on February 9, 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy launched himself into the spotlight with a warning to the nation that the Department of State employed 205 Communists. He declined to offer those names to the public. On November 28, 1994, Brent Staples revealed on the New York Times editorial page that our … Read more

:{in Wheeling, West Virginia, on February 9, 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy launched himself into the spotlight with a warning to the nation that the Department of State employed 205 Communists. He declined to offer those names to the public.

On November 28, 1994, Brent Staples revealed on the New York Times editorial page that our nation’s democracy is gravely imperiled by the “sinister vogue” of the latepolitical philosopher Leo Strauss. Mr. Staples declined to offer the public one quoted word from, or reference to, Strauss’s vast oeuvre. He later told the Jewish Forward that he never studied with Strauss or his students: “He said the main sources for his column were attacks on Strauss in the New York Review of Books and the Times Literary Supplement.” Among numerous other charges, Staples alleged (a) that Strauss was an enemy of the Enlightenment’s “democratic” attachment to equality and reason, from which Strauss thought “Hitler had sprung full blown”; and (b) that Strauss “viewed the status quo as an expression of divine will.”}:

For Mr. Staples, the evil Strauss did lives after him. Entitling his attack “Undemocratic Vistas,” Staples argues that Strauss’s “undemocratic” — or perhaps one should say, “unAmerican” — views were “elitist” and thus engendered a callous disregard for the poor in Strauss, his students, and all those influenced by them. That last group, according to Staples, includes Thomas Sowell, Robert Bork, Allan Bloom, William A. Henry, “the conservative elite,” “college professors,” “political ideologues,” “conservative think tanks,” and “writers, economists, and jurists who were schooled at [the University of] Chicago.” The sinister group also includes, if I read Staples’ insinuations correctly, Charles Murray, Newt Gingrich, and anyone who voted Republican in the last election. Staples concludes that the “antidote” to the disease being spread is “fresh and frequent reading of the Declaration of Independence.”

The only difficulty with Mr. Staples’ argument is “the extraordinary medley, in every sentence, of outright ignorance, malicious calumny, and near-paranoiac fantasy,” as someone who both knew and even read Strauss puts it. Indeed, while Staples claims Jefferson’s Declaration for his own, had he so much as glanced at the cover of Strauss’s best-known work, Natural Right and History, in its standard paperback edition, he would have seen that it is entirely covered by the Declaration. Had Staples risked the book’s first paragraph, he would have discovered why the publisher chose such a design: Strauss begins the work by quoting the Declaration’s most famous passage and asks with some concern whether this nation still holds “those ‘truths to be self-evident’?”

Similarly, Staples asserts that Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind “parrots Strauss’s view that higher education ought to be the province of the golden few.” Had Staples made it to page 82 of Bloom’s book, he would have found Bloom lamenting the class distinctions that still exist “poisonously” in English universities. Staples adds that he, “black and poor,” fits “Strauss’s notion of rabble that didn’t know its place,” yet Terence Marshall, an admitted Straussian (and contributor to Crisis), recalls how Strauss encouraged his students “to study and write on black political thought over 30 years ago, well before it became an academic fad.” In fact, before the nation’s first black studies department was founded, Herbert J. Storing, a student and then colleague of Strauss at Chicago, devoted himself to the careful and respectful study of the political thought of black Americans. Marshall also remarks that Strauss often spoke to, and many of his students taught in, “the adult education program at Chicago for persons who, because of poverty, had not been able to obtain earlier the education in classical learning that their abilities allowed.”

If Staples cared to learn Strauss’s and Bloom’s views on liberal democracy, he might also have turned to the first two pages of a collection of Strauss’s essays entitled, Liberalism Ancient and Modern. In the book’s Foreword Bloom writes, “Leo Strauss is sometimes reviled as an enemy of liberal democracy by defensive and dogmatic liberals who cannot tolerate friendly criticism and who cannot be bothered to read what he wrote. Strauss, however, cautions us in this book that ‘we are not permitted to be flatterers of democracy precisely because we are friends and allies of democracy.’ . . . He would recall us to the original understanding of such founders of modern democracy as Spinoza, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Jefferson that democracy with its orientation toward universal freedom is nonetheless meant to be a regime of virtue and even ‘an aristocracy which has broadened into a universal aristocracy.’ Strauss is therefore indeed a friend of liberal democracy when he summons true liberals to counteract [what he calls] the perverted liberalism that forgets quality, excellence, or virtue.”

Again, a mere perusal of the opening chapter of Bloom’s 1990 Giants and Dwarfs would have found Bloom insisting, “I have always been a supporter and a beneficiary of the movements toward practical equality.” The chapter closes with Bloom sadly surveying the undemocratic vista he sees in “the dominant schools in American universities,” which tell students “that rationalism has failed, that they should study non-Western cultures, and that bourgeois liberalism is the most despicable of regimes.”

As a student of several of Strauss’s students, I learned that both they and he teach the value of reason, the nobility of the Declaration, and the desirability of our liberal democracy. If one seeks fomenters of anti-democratic sentiment — persons who hanker after, in Staples’ words, “rule by a privileged elite” — one place one might consider is the New York Times itself, which published Walter Duranty’s deceitful apologies for Stalin’s rule and Herbert Matthews’ deceitful apologies for Castro’s rule. More recently, there is the editorial page’s already-infamous December 11 paean to the “counterculture” of the 1960s, whose relation to Jefferson’s Declaration may be summarized in one word, Amerika. And certainly there is a whiff of Orwell’s Thought Police in Staples’ reckless disregard for the truth. Nor, balefully, is his fanatical obscurantism unpopular: he assured the Forward that his colleagues’ reaction to his attack was “overwhelmingly favorable,” and those same colleagues did not permit any of Strauss’s distinguished students to challenge Staples’ lies. Staples also showed the Forward a letter he had received from Alfred Kazin praising his editorial and regretting that Staples had been, in Kazin’s words, “tactful about the influence of Strauss on Jewish neo-cons.”

But perhaps the best place to seek undemocratic vistas would be in the works of that great critic of the Enlightenment Martin Heidegger and his fashionable epigones, whose antipathy to reason and Western democracy is reflected in prestigious universities as well as prestigious newspapers. In this connection, we should question Staples’ assertion that Strauss called the Enlightenment the cause of the Holocaust. Challenged by the Forward as to where Strauss made this claim, Staples said it was in his “study of Spinoza.” Since Strauss wrote Spinoza’s Critique of Religion years before Hitler came to power, Staples presumably refers to the Preface he appended to the work’s 1962 English translation. In the intervening years Strauss, as a Jew, had had to leave Germany. And so, looking back, he does not fail to notice that in the 1930s the citizens of the liberal Weimar Republic gave way to Hitler. But in the Preface he notes that “the weakness of liberal democracy in Germany explains why the situation of the indigenous Jews was more precarious in Germany than in any other Western country.” Strauss was grateful to America for providing religious liberty and refuge, and in Natural Right and History he is concerned that Americans are abandoning the Declaration’s principles for “German thought.”

As Strauss notes in the Spinoza Preface, German thought continued to be hostile to liberal democracy even after the war: “in 1953, Heidegger could speak of ‘the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism.'” Similarly, in the opening chapter to Giants and Dwarfs, Bloom recalls Heidegger’s “Nazism” and goes on to remind readers of the influential “Paul de Man, who introduced deconstructionism into the United States,” and who wrote, “as a young man, pro-Nazi articles.”

One could safely wager with Mr. Staples that present-day admirers of Heidegger and Paul de Man are more likely to read the New York Times editorial page than the works of Leo Strauss. There is no doubt, however, what Strauss thought of the Times. He once wrote a friend that his latest article had been written for his students: “I wanted to show them with an exemplary case what sort of rubbish is praised by idiots in The New York Times.”

Scott Walter is executive vice president of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. He also heads Campion Consulting, which provides philanthropic consulting for donors in the fields of education, civic literacy, and aid to the underprivileged; and customized writing for nonprofits and businesses. A graduate of Georgetown University, Scott lives with his wife, Erica, and their four children in Maryland.

Talking with Mr. Percy

Walker Percy was certainly a gentleman, but not necessarily the last one. He probably thought it a gentleman’s duty to try to ensure he’s not the last, and so he was magnanimous enough to leave a legacy to his fellow travelers in the cosmos: six novels, three books of non-fiction, and now, thanks to editors … Read more

The Wodehouse World: Low Comedy and the Incarnation

(with apologies to P.G. Wodehouse) “I say, Jeeves, these Wodehouse books are ripping. He’s got the stuff, what?” “Indubitably, sir.” “These dashed critics, complaining he writes the same thing over and over. Well, what I want to know is, what sort of a beef is that?” “Man is an ungrateful animal, sir.” “I mean, with … Read more

Out of the Ruins: The Poor Old Pope? Seduced Nuns? Nazis and the New York Times? Walker Percy Explains

Conversions have figured prominently in Walker Percy’s life. He trained as a physician, but contracted tuberculosis during his internship and found himself confined him to bed for three years. While convalescing, he read widely and, as his friend and admirer Flannery O’Connor put it, “he and St. Thomas became friends.” His reading converted him first … Read more

Facing the Facts: Is Phillip Berryman Losing Faith in Liberation Theology?

Partisans of liberation theology have accepted Phillip Berryman’s Liberation Theology (Pantheon, 1987) as a strong statement of their own beliefs. Yet in that book Berryman makes a crucial admission. He writes of liberation theologians: “If their social theory is fundamentally wrong, their whole enterprise is in jeopardy.” The liberation theologians did not develop this social … Read more

How Not to Debate Liberation Theology: Avoid the Real Argument

I have worked with Michael Novak on five books and countless articles, speeches, and columns. Like my predecessors, I occasionally wonder whether reviewers are reading different versions of Novak’s books than mine. Criticizing his, or anyone else’s views is usually helpful; such debate is the essence of civilization. But little is served by ignoring or … Read more

Nicaragua’s Cheerleaders

[The U.S. under Carter] tried very hard to build that new relationship [with the Sandinistas]. But the effort failed, principally, I believe, because the Sandinistas could not live with a positive image of the U.S. government. They did not try at all. And many in the United States cheered them on. (Lawrence E. Harrison, “We … Read more

===

2014

here are the charity watchdogs in L.A.? An ugly story from the City of Angels reminds us once again of how dangerous “public-private partnerships” can be, especially that worst of all such partnerships: government employee unions in bed with government officials.

The government of Los Angeles has long granted a monopoly to the Department of Water and Power (DWP), which in turn has long had the overwhelming majority of its workers represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 18. Partnering against the public at large, the local government pols have enjoyed many millions in campaign donations made possible by the union’s hoovering of dollars from the paychecks of its members, who have little choice in the matter. In return, the pols have granted ever-so-generous paychecks and benefits to the IBEW folks by allowing DWP to charge higher rates than necessary.

Matters became even dirtier in 2000, when the DWP realized it needed to slash its payroll costs (wonder why those were a problem?). To buy the acquiescence of union leaders, who ended up partnering with management against their own members, the DWP apparently offered a deal: It would set up a new “nonprofit” entity, the Joint Safety Institute, to be run by representatives from the union and the utility, who would enjoy a few million dollars a year fleeced from the ratepayers to fuel this hybrid nonprofit – and neither workers, ratepayers, nor pols would quite know where the millions of dollars went,

a Thirsty City – Sources of Water for Los Angeles

LADWP Should Focus on Providing Abundant, Affordable Water to its Customers

Two years later, a second such entity, the Joint Training Institute, would be set up in exactly the same way, with the identical persons on its board. As long as the pols kept quiet about this cozy arrangement, Angelenos heard little about any of this. In fact, the union’s boss, Brian D’Arcy, successfully schemed to have the state government exempt the nonprofits from a law that requires records and meetings to be made public. But a year ago, despite the union bosses’ best efforts to use their members’ dues to buy a new set of compliant pols (IBEW 18 poured $4 million into a losing candidate for mayor), a few officials were elected who vowed to look into these two nonprofit honey pots, which by now have devoured 40 million ratepayer dollars. Give the L.A. Times credit, too, for writing about the situation and turning it into a political football.

All questions of where the tens of millions have gone provoke outrage and obstruction from the union bosses, who continue to fight disclosure in court despite repeated rebuffs from judges.

The two nonprofits do make public their IRS tax filings each year, but those filings tell the public little. As the L.A. Times observes, the filings…

“…show more than $360,000 spent on travel from 2009 to 2011 and nearly $2.4 million spent on “other.”

The groups are legally established, not under the usual “public charity” 501(c)(3) designation, but under 501(c)(6), the designation used by business leagues like the Chamber of Commerce and the NFL. I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that (c)(6) groups can spend their money on politics with far fewer restrictions than (c)(3) groups.

Back in January, longtime IBEW 18 boss D’Arcy had a date to sit down with DWP officials and bring them the real books for the two nonprofits, so that a public audit could begin.

But D’Arcy was a no-show that day and instead lawyered up to keep the public’s eyes out of this public-private partnership’s check book (city officials had asked to see what checks for $1,000 or more had been written). The courts to date have repeatedly refused to buy D’Arcy’s argument that this public-private partnership is just like a private company that’s a vendor to DWP, say, a health insurance provider. That’s nonsense, of course, because DWP can change vendors at will, whereas a trust document requires that DWP take money out of every dollar it receives from ratepayers and transmit the cash to the nonprofits.

The situation has deteriorated so badly that D’Arcy, notoriously publicity shy, wrote an L.A. Times op-ed pleading his case and even went so far as to release an internal financial statement and a “report” on each of the nonprofits (available here, here, here, and here).

So, how much real disclosure of spending has he made? Well, the reports give brief blurbs on various contracts the “institutes” have made with outside vendors from 2001 to November 2013. And if you total every dollar figure in the reports, you’ll find out where $ 10.6 million of the total $40 million has gone — or about one-quarter of the loot. Local blogger and CPA Paul Hatfield read the financials and turned up another $11.8 million. That sums sits unused in the cash balances of the two nonprofits:

“This stash of cash is over three times the annual operating expenses, so its purpose must be more than a rainy day fund. Then what is it for? …

Subpoenas should be issued for all the board members as well as the accountants and the trusts’ managers. Make them testify under oath.”

D’Arcy’s reports on the two different joint institutes have duplicate language, suggesting there’s not much difference between them, which begs the question why two were established.

The report on the newer institute doesn’t even have a section labeled “Results,” but its older brother has a brief paragraph with that heading. There one finds the only concrete claim put forward for the value of either nonprofit:

“In 1999 the total number of Lost Workdays at LADWP was more than 15,000, equating to nearly 70 employees off work every day due to work-related injury or illness. By 2005, that number had been reduced to less than 5,000 Lost Workdays.”

While a drop in injury and illness is obviously a good thing, one wonders why the last year cited in the statistics is almost a decade past? Have any results occurred in the past 18 nonprofit-years of the two groups’ work?

Then there’s the question of whether the nonprofits had much to do with the old improvement. Even D’Arcy’s report admits that the group…

“…cannot take credit alone for such improvement, but it is widely believed that the focus, drive and partnering effort the JSI provides has been a major part of that change.”

Actually, it is not all that “widely believed.” Joseph Tsidulko of LA Weekly retorts:

“DWP already expends $127 million a year conducting in-house training of its workers, including millions on employee-safety programs.”

Speaking of the LA Weekly, it first exposed these nonprofits in 2005, when they’d already made $12 million disappear, and more recently it reported on how the IBEW’s nemesis, the newly elected Mayor Eric Garcetti, has played along for years as a city council member who had no desire to upset the IBEW or its public partner, the DWP.

So, to review the bidding, we’ve got tens of millions of ratepayer dollars going for over a decade into a murky sinkhole with a crude sign over it labeled “Nonprofits at Work.”

Following a classic pattern, the union bosses involved never showed much concern for members who were going to lose their jobs, largely because of the excessive wages and benefits the bosses demanded the company pay. Nor did the union bosses shed a tear for (a) the many workers who would never get a job in the first place, thanks to the high costs of hiring new workers, or (b) the poor and middle-class citizens served by the DWP, who were paying significantly more for their basic utilities than they should have. No, the bosses just focused on helping themselves and ensuring that any remaining union members would have outsized compensation.

How outsized? Well, DWP personnel who aren’t laid off enjoy an average salary of over six figures, as well as $17,000 per year in health insurance, an amount 50% to 70% higher than other city workers. Plus a few lucky union and DPW officials supplement their pay with the million dollars a year the two nonprofits pay their staff.

It would have been nice if charity watchdogs had barked over this mess earlier (Nonprofit Quarterly did run one item last November). And it would be even nicer if left-of-center folks in and out of the nonprofit sector could admit that a lot of money is wasted, and the poor oppressed, by government officials in bed with government unions (Rick Cohen, my friend, call your office).

Let’s give the last word on this public-private partnership to Steve Lopez of the L.A. Times:

“With DWP, it’s always about power and politics, with D’Arcy having had his way for years, bankrolling political candidates who showed their love by delivering spectacular contracts in return, making D’Arcy one of the most powerful players the city has ever known. D’Arcy bet wrong last year, throwing millions behind Wendy Greuel for mayor, and now he’s trying to prove he won’t be pushed around just because of a bad bet.

Let’s not let City Hall off the hook, though, because D’Arcy would be powerless if not for it. Mayor and former councilman Eric Garcetti didn’t stand in the way of D’Arcy’s power grabs over the years. And as this paper has reported, Garcetti’s appointment of a new DWP assistant GM who was involved in a financial scandal years ago while overseeing DWP, and was also there when the nonprofits were established, is a head-scratcher.

Business and politics as usual in L.A.”

FOOTNOTE: Perhaps the worst public-private partnership of all time involved groups that helped cause the housing collapse that launched the Great Recession, a topic I wrote about here. For more on the outrages involving IBEW 18, read the coverage provided by CityWatch.

About the Author: Scott Walter is executive vice president of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C.  This post originally appeared in Philanthropy Daily and is republished here with permission from the author.

===

duck 6 23

1. https://capitalresearch.org › person › swalter

Scott Walter -Capital Research Center

Jun 22, 2021Scott Walter is president of Capital Research Center.

2. https://www.linkedin.com › in › scott-walter-6148198

Scott Walter - President - Capital Research Center | LinkedIn

Scott Walter - President - Capital Research Center | LinkedIn Scott Walter President at Capital Research Center Washington, District of Columbia, United States 2K followers...

3. https://capitalresearch.org › article › scott-walter-testifies-before-the-arizona-senate

Scott Walter Testifies Before the Arizona Senate - Capital Research Center

March 18, 2021 On Monday, March 15, 2021, Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, testified (virtually) before the Committee on Government of the Arizona Senate on private funding of the 2020 Arizona elections by the Center for Tech and Civic Life. Hearing video (Walter's testimony at 42:40) Testimony before the

4. https://philanthropydaily.com › scott-walter

Scott Walter -Philanthropy Daily

Scott Walter is President of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. He also heads Campion Consulting, which provides philanthropic consulting for donors in the fields of education, civic literacy, and aid to the underprivileged; and customized writing for nonprofits and businesses.

5. https://hillsdalecollegian.com › 2022 › 02 › qa-scott-walter-capital-research-center

Q&A: Scott Walter, Capital Research Center - Hillsdale Collegian

Feb 10, 2022Scott Walter is president of the Capital Research Center, a research organization in Washington, D.C., that studies how foundations and nonprofit groups spend their money. What is the goal of modern education? In my day, in the 1980s at Georgetown University, my good professors would complain that the kids thought education was a means to an end.

6. https://capitalresearch.org › article › scott-walter-testifies-before-the-senate-budget-committee

Scott Walter Testifies Before the Senate Budget Committee -Capital ...

1 day agoOral Testimony To Senate Budget Committee Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman Scott Walter President, Capital Research Center June 21, 2023 Scott Walter's Testimony before Senate Budget Committee - June 21, 2023 Watch on Scott Walter answers question about "dark money" from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA):

7. https://californiapolicycenter.org › people › scott-walter

Scott Walter | California Policy Center

Scott Walter is executive vice president of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. Latest by Scott Walter Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power - Unions vs. Ratepayers

8. https://www.zoominfo.com › p › Scott-Walter › 45863560

Scott Walter - President - Capital Research Center | ZoomInfo

Mar 18, 2023Scott Walter is the President at Capital Research Center based in Washington, D.C., District of Columbia. Previously, Scott was the President at C Read More Scott Walter's Phone Number and Email Last Update 3/18/2023 4:37 AM Email s***@capitalresearch.org Engage via Email Contact Number (202) ***-**** Engage via Phone Mobile Number (***) ***-****

9. https://capitalresearch.org › tag › scott-walter

Scott Walter -Capital Research Center

by CRC Staff on January 10, 2018 Featured Items CRC President Scott Walter Featured on FOX News As CRC President Scott Walter recently explained, Guidestar - the nonprofit whose massive database contains a wealth of information on other nonprofits and charities across America - has backed… by CRC Staff on June 28, 2017 Blog

10. https://capitalresearch.org › article › scott-walter-in-the-wall-street-journal-the-dark-money-that-funded-dark-money

Scott Walter in the Wall Street Journal: The Dark Money That Funded ...

Scott Walter is president of Capital Research Center. He served in the George W. Bush Administration as Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and was vice president at… + More byScott Walter

2

---

11. https://twitter.com › capitalresearch › status › 1671896380644917254

Capital Research Center on Twitter: ""Republicans also invited Scott ...

"Republicans also invited Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, whose testimony centered on proving Democrats were as susceptible to "dark money" influence as those in the GOP." 22 Jun 2023 15:02:14

12. https://www.apollo.io › people › Scott › Walter › 54a3d6757468693209361617

Scott Walter - President - Capital Research Center - Apollo.io

View Scott Walter's business profile as President at Capital Research Center. Find Scott's email address, mobile number, work history, and more.

13. https://twitter.com › capitalresearch › status › 1672258332671737859

Capital Research Center on Twitter: "Watch as CRC President Scott ...

TodayWatch as CRC President Scott Walter gives testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in regard to dark money and climate change: 23 Jun 2023 15:00:30

14. https://capitalresearch.org › article › highlights-from-scott-walters-answers-to-questions-for-the-record-from-sen-whitehouse

Highlights from Scott Walter's Answers to Questions for the Record from ...

Highlights from Scott Walter's Answers to Questions for the Record from Sen. Whitehouse Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, March 10, 2021. Credit: U.S. Senate. by Scott Walter April 15, 2021

15. https://thenewamerican.com › capital-research-center-president-scott-walter-freedomfest-2021

Capital Research Center President Scott Walter | FreedomFest 2021

Sep 16, 2021Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, details how the Center, through its books, reports, websites, and animated cartoons exposes Marxist fallacies and the fake...

16. https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov › imo › media › doc › 210312_Capital Research Center letter.pdf

:{:{PDF:(style="background-color:#d0d0d0ff"):}: President Capital Research Center 1513 16th Street, NW}:

March 12, 2021 Mr. Scott Walter President Capital Research Center 1513 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Walter, As you know, I have long championed funding disclosure measures that would bring transparency to dark-money spending on both sides of the aisle.

17. https://www.crisismagazine.com › author › swalter

Scott Walter - Crisis Magazine

Scott Walter is executive vice president of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. He also heads Campion Consulting… Scott Walter is executive vice president of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C. He also heads Campion Consulting, which provides philanthropic consulting for donors in the fields of… Skip to content 0 Menu Menu

18. https://capitalresearch.org › article › featured-interview-scott-walter-in-the-washington-times

Featured Interview: Scott Walter in the Washington Times

Capital Research Center president Scott Walter was cited in the Washington Times on January 21 on athlete Colin Kaepernick's decision to fund the far-left group Advancement Project, which describes itself as a "multi-racial civil rights organization." CRC has described the organization as a "key left-wing agitation group that organizes opposition to voter identification laws."

19. https://capitalresearch.org › article › crc-president-scott-walter-interviewed-by-one-america-news-network-about-soros-funded-open-society-policy-centers-lobbying

CRC President Scott Walter Interviewed by One America News Network ...

CRC President Scott Walter Interviewed by One America News Network about Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center's Lobbying byCRC Staff. October 22, 2019 ... Capital Research Center 1513 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 483-6900 (202) 478-1855 (fax) [email protected] Resources About Archive Magazine Tags Podcast

20. https://www.sourcewatch.org › index.php?title=Capital_Research_Center

Capital Research Center - SourceWatch

Apr 18, 2023The Capital Research Center (CRC) is a right-wing "investigative think tank" established in 1984 to examine the influence of money in politics. CRC focuses on "unions, environmentalist groups, and a wide variety of nonprofit and activist organizations." [1] CRC says, "We do have a specific point of view.

21. https://www.legis.state.pa.us › WU01 › LI › TR › Transcripts › 2021_0075_0011_TSTMNY.pdf

:{:{PDF:(style="background-color:#d0d0d0ff"):}: Testimony before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives State ...}:

Scott Walter President Capital Research Center April 15, 2021 Should Pennsylvania's Elections Be Privatized? Chairman Grove, Representative Davidson, distinguished Members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing me to testify. I'm Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C., a

---