Goldwater Institute

=promote primary on koch voucherssee academic bill of rights=see pharma origin BS right to try=<div>bs</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/should-a-light-shine-on-donors-to-nonprofits/">https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/should-a-light-shine-on-donors-to-nonprofits/</a></div><div>
</div><div>aug 2017 kari travis (libtard?)</div><div>
</div><div><div class="the-content the-content--single" style="box-sizing: border-box; min-height: 8em;">paul Gessing wanted to pop the top on the soda tax in Santa Fe, New Mexico. That was all. The president of the libertarian Rio Grande Foundation never planned to file a lawsuit against the city. But when Santa Fe elected officials accused him of violating a campaign finance ordinance and demanded to see his donor list, he thought he had no choice.  Rio Grande’s problem is nothing new. In fact, the John Locke Foundation and dozens of other nonprofits have faced and continue to face similar scrutiny from people and organizations opposing the nonprofits’ mission.Under federal law, organizations classified as 501(c)3 aren’t allowed to engage in political or campaign advocacy, while 501(c)4 entities may participate in lobbying and political campaigning — provided the majority of their work is focused on public policy and issue advocacy.  Although 501(c)3 nonprofits are prohibited from endorsing or opposing any candidate running for elected office, for decades they’ve been subject to much scrutiny under federal and local campaign finance laws.  The trouble for Rio Grande began in March, when Santa Fe Mayor Javier Gonzales proposed a two-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages including soda, energy drinks, sports drinks, juice boxes, and even sweetened coffee. The revenue would fund a Pre-K program for the city, Gessing told Carolina Journal.  The tax was bad news, RGF policy analysts said. Beverage prices would explode. The cost of a soda 12-pack would nearly double. Low-income families would suffer.  On April 6, RGF <a href="http://www.nowaysantafe.com/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s;">released a website and video </a>voicing their concerns. The goal was to tell voters what would happen if they green-lighted the plan.  The same day RGF released the video, Gessing got a letter from the city’s attorneys.  “They said, ‘If you go ahead with this, you’re going to have to disclose your donors.’ And that’s when I kind of freaked out a little bit.” RGF had done nothing illegal by IRS 501(c)3 nonprofit standards, Guessing said. They weren’t campaigning on behalf of a candidate. They weren’t engaged in inappropriate advocacy.  “It was news to me. I was running around with my hair on fire for the next few days trying to figure out what to do going forward, because it was totally unexpected.” RGF violated a city law, passed in 2015, that forces nonprofits to disclose donor information if they campaign around ballot initiatives, city attorneys said. Gessing appeared before the city ethics board, where he was forced to disclose the nonprofit that produced the website and video, as well as the name of the donor who funded the project.  RGF decided to keep the website up but canceled plans for expensive postcard and social media campaigns.  Shortly after, Matt Miller, an attorney from the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, called Guessing.  Santa Fe’s law was unconstitutional, Miller said.  “I told [Gessing] that we could challenge this law in federal court and have a good probability of winning.”  A lawsuit was filed.  The controversy surrounding nonprofit disclosure lawsArguments over nonprofits and donor privacy date back to 1956, when Alabama tried to force the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to turn over its bank records and donor information.  Alabama repeatedly claimed the NAACP was breaking a state law requiring foreign corporations to qualify before doing business in the state.  The nonprofit, based in New York, believed it was exempt from the law. Turning over its donor information would be dangerous to supporters and would deter future contributions, NAACP leaders said. A two-year legal battle ensued, until, in 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NAACP, saying that Alabama’s demand violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.In 2010, Citizens United, a conservative 501(c)4, challenged the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a 2002 law preventing corporations or union-funded political ads from airing within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The law also required “electioneering communications” to display the name and address of the person or group that funded the ad.  The organization was blocked from airing a documentary about Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 presidential primary. Though the film was critical of Clinton, it did not explicitly tell voters to vote against her.  The Supreme Court voted, 5-4, in favor of Citizens United, ruling that government shouldn’t restrict speech for some corporations while exempting other corporations with media affiliations. The court did, however, maintain the BCRA’s donor disclosure requirement.  In 2014, Delaware Strong Families, a 501(c)3 religious nonprofit, planned to distribute a voter guide based on issues of interest. The practice is a common way for organizations to inform voters about where candidates stand on social and economic issues.  Under Delaware law, DSF was required to report the names, addresses, and contribution amounts of its donors, because the voter guide qualified as an electioneering communication. Not only was the state interested in who paid for the voter guide, it also wanted to see the names of any donor who contributed more than $100 to the nonprofit during the election period.  Broadening the ‘media exemption’ to include nonprofits  Both 501(c)3s and 501(c)4s are treated unfairly under campaign finance laws, <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/licensure/An+Informed+Citizenry+w+Imagery+FINAL+.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s;">a recent study</a> on nonprofit privacy shows.  The primary jobs of public policy organizations are analyzing legislation and informing the public of potential outcomes, said Jon Riches, director of national litigation and general counsel for the Goldwater Institute.  Such work is similar to that done by news outlets, but, unlike media organizations, 5o1(c)3s and 501(c)4s don’t receive the exemptions under campaign finance laws.  That’s a double standard, Riches told CJ.  Media organizations write opinions, endorse candidates, and accept money to print campaign ads. All of these activities could be classified as campaign and “electioneering communications.” Yet, to protect First Amendment rights, newspapers and networks aren’t held to account in the same way as nonprofits.  For example, the Gannett-owned Delaware News Journal exercises tremendous influence over public policy and political races. In the 2016 election, the paper endorsed candidates for governor, Congress, New Castle County executive, and Wilmington mayor.  But unlike DSF, which was scrutinized for its “electioneering communication,” the Journal was exempt from Delaware’s campaign finance laws.  Media exemptions protect First Amendment rights, but the criteria for those privileges are outdated, Riches said. Many modern news sources are owned by privately funded nonprofits. Additionally, the public turns to think tanks and public policy nonprofits to gather information, just as they would turn to a news network.  A paradox results. “A small nonprofit organization is subject to often onerous regulations whenever it speaks about policymakers or supports candidates and issues in the run-up to an election — while giant companies like Comcast, CNN, or Fox [News] can make movies, publish reports, and write editorials supporting or opposing those very same issues and candidates without facing any such restrictions whatsoever,” Riches writes in An Informed Citizenry: Broadening the “Media Exemption” to Include Nonprofit Communications.  No principled reason exists to treat public policy nonprofits differently than news organizations, especially since the purpose of the press exemption is preserving the collection and dissemination of information, he said.  That value doesn’t depend on the identity or corporate structure of the outlet.  “Some have argued that the institutional press should receive special constitutional protection not afforded to other corporations or associations because the institutional press is somehow unique,” Riches said. “These arguments are dangerously elitist.” Campaign finance laws enforce transparency and sometimes do, indeed, apply to news networks, countered Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina.  Filing as a 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 doesn’t qualify an organization for a press exemption, Phillips said. Donor disclosures and other privacy regulations are determined by a nonprofit’s activities. For example, if a 501(c)4 campaigns on behalf of a candidate, it should disclose its donors.  Such laws exist to protect the public from corruption, Phillips said.  “The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts throughout the nation have made clear that disclosure laws are a minimal burden on First Amendment activity and that they serve the very important public interest in maintaining a well-informed electorate,” he told CJ.  Courts should continue to apply a balancing test to Constitutional challenges, as in the Citizens United case, Phillips added.  But any law not “strictly tailored to campaign finance needs” is concerning, said Susanna Birdsong, policy counsel for the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.  “As ever we will oppose and challenge campaign finance reform laws that we believe are unconstitutionally overbroad,” Birdsong said. What’s next for the Rio Grande Foundation There’s a good chance RGF will win the lawsuit against Santa Fe, Miller said. On Aug. 24, the city filed an answer to the case, denying the foundation’s conclusion that requiring donor disclosure burdens a person’s right to free speech.   “The Rio Grande Foundation has alleged no facts that indicate that disclosure of its contributors’ names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either government officials or private parties,” wrote Santa Fe attorney Kelly Brennan.  The case is on hold for several months while lawyers on both sides build their defense. No major developments are likely before the beginning of 2018, Miller said.  For now, Gessing and his staff are stuck waiting. “The idea of donor privacy is being totally undermined here,” Gessing told CJ. If foundation contributors sense a threat to their privacy, they will be far less likely to support RGF — or any other nonprofit. That’s a threat to free speech.  It’s one thing to have campaign or candidate oriented finance laws. It’s another to have ballot measure regulations, Gessing said. “You can always argue that there’s a quid pro quo with the candidate, whereas the ballot measure, pass or no pass, isn’t going to give us anything on the backside of the issue. We are purely involved in the ballot measure … because of principle.”  Perception is half the battle for conservative think tanks such as RGF, which are often branded as mouthpieces for the Koch brothers. This can sometimes evoke hostility from Left-leaning politicians.  Mayor Javier Gonzales, a Democrat, doesn’t necessarily have a vendetta against RGF, but the organization’s libertarian label hasn’t helped the situation, Gessing said.  “I think [city officials] were probably more gleeful in their enforcement than they would have been otherwise.”  The Constitution is clear on the issue, Miller said. Governments can’t silence nonprofits by threatening the privacy of their donors.  It is up to individuals to decide whether an organization is honest, he said.  “Groups may choose to make themselves very transparent to gain legitimacy. And it’s totally legitimate for listeners and voters to prefer messages from people who are totally transparent.” And, apparently, Santa Fe residents listened to RGF’s video and website. <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2017-05-01/soda-tax-rivals-spend-to-influence-final-vote-in-santa-fe" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s;">In May, the proposed soda tax fell flat among voters</a>.  Gessing only hopes his organization can continue to work as it should.  “We’ve been active and involved and taken positions on soda taxes before. It’s not like we just rolled out of bed one day and saw this tax and got … a big check from the soda industry and said, ‘OK, now we’ve got to do this.’”  “This is the core of what we do.”</div><div class="content-meta single-article__content-meta mt2" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 2em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">categories: <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/category/business-and-regulations/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">Business and Regulations</a>, <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/category/cj-exclusives/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">CJ Exclusives</a>, <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/category/law-regulation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">Law & Regulation</a>, <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/category/north-carolina/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">North Carolina</a>tags: <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/tag/campaign-finance/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">campaign finance</a>, <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/tag/first-amendment/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">First Amendment</a>, <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/tag/goldwater-institute/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">goldwater institute</a>, <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/tag/naacp/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">NAACP</a>, <a href="https://www.carolinajournal.com/tag/rio-grande-foundation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.15s ease 0s; font-weight: 700;">rio grande foundation</a></div></div><div>
<div>
</div><div>=</div></div>---<a href="https://www.thecollegefix.com/south-dakota-legislature-passes-intellectual-diversity-bill/">https://www.thecollegefix.com/south-dakota-legislature-passes-intellectual-diversity-bill/</a>The College FixOriginal. Student reported. Your daily dose of Right-minded news and commentary from across the nation
FREE SPEECH POLITICSSouth Dakota Legislature passes intellectual diversity billGRAHAM PIRO - STAFF REPORTER •MARCH 14, 2019UPDATEDSponsor says she’s ‘thrilled’ with passageAfter multiple legislative failures, the South Dakota Legislature has passed a bill to promote intellectual diversity on campus. HB 1087 is on its way to the governor’s desk after the House passed the Senate-amended bill, 51-12, on Tuesday.“We are thrilled that South Dakota has become the first state in the nation to adopt legislation requiring universities to promote intellectual diversity and not simply be dominated by the left,” Rep. Sue Peterson, a sponsor of the bill, told The College Fix in an email.She called this leftist domination “a national epidemic which has undermined the education of thousands of students and fueled out-of-control political correctness at the expense of hard-working taxpayers.”South Dakota is not the first state to adopt this type of legislation, however. Colorado and Tennessee both passed similar legislation in 2017.
Of the 12 representatives who voted against the bill, nine were Democrats, and three were Republicans. Seven representatives were excused from voting.The South Dakota Board of Regents had adopted new policies last year intended to promote free expression and debate on campus. Peterson had previously expressed to The Fix that she wanted to lock in these reforms via legislation.The bill forbids any public institution of higher education from discriminating “against any student or student organization based on the content or viewpoint of their expressive activity,” according to its language.[...?]MORE: Push to support intellectual diversity underway in South Dakota

4/5/19: This article was updated to reflect that both Colorado and Tennessee passed legislation protecting speech on campus in 2017, prior to South Dakota’s bill....excess evil or just well covered by cmd?wisconsin Assembly Passes Bill Designed to Chill Campus Protestsby David Armiak | February 12th, 2020 Modeled after a similar measure drafted by the right-wing Goldwater Institute, the bill imposes mandatory disciplinary sanctions on anyone under the jurisdiction of an institution “who engages in violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others.”<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">GOLDWATER INST</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/6/1640698/-New-Student-Protest-Bans-disguised-as-Campus-Free-Speech-are-Backed-by-the-Koch-Network">https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/6/1640698/-New-Student-Protest-Bans-disguised-as-Campus-Free-Speech-are-Backed-by-the-Koch-Network</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><div class="story-intro story-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; letter-spacing: 0.125px;">Ralph Wilson for <a href="http://www.unkochmycampus.org/" target="blank" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">UnKoch My Campus</a>.UPDATED 3/9/2017.In the past month, state lawmakers across the country coordinated an effort to file “campus free speech” bills. These bills make it illegal for students to protest in a way that “disrupts” the speech of anyone who has been invited onto campus.In a familiar twist, the free speech being protected is that of private donors and corporations, rather than students.So far, bills have been filed (in some form) in<a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-062" target="blank" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> CO</a>,<a href="http://ltgov.nc.gov/lt-governor-dan-forest-push-campus-free-speech" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> NC</a>,<a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+sum+HB1401" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> VA</a>,<a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HB0739.pdf" target="blank" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> TN</a>,<a href="http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/bill-actions/ba1329.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> ND</a>,<a href="http://le.utah.gov/_{2017/bills/static/HB0054.html}" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> UT</a>, <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=91&GA=100&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=2939&GAID=14&LegID=104448&SpecSess=&Session=" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">IL</a>, and <a href="http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31316/" target="blank" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">WI</a>, with<a href="http://floridapolitics.com/archives/232665-florida-legislate-free-speech-college-campuses" target="blank" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> FL</a> possibly next. These bills have found bipartisan support, and <a href="https://www.coloradostatesman.com/campus-free-speech/" target="blank" title="" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">very little resistance</a>, sailing smoothly through committee after committee. In Utah and Colorado, the ACLU has come out in support of the bills.Most appear unaware of the origins or expressed intent of this legislation. It is based on a model bill, the “Campus Free Speech Act,” developed by two organizations affiliated with the Koch network; the Goldwater Institute and the Ethics and Public Policy Center.<a href="https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2017/1/30/Campus%20Free%20Speech%20Paper.pdf#page=19" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">See the model bill language here</a>.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 40pt; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Punishing Protesters for “interrupting”</h2>Despite a provision that appears to protect protests and free speech, this bill actually bans protests. It is not a defense of free speech:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); box-sizing: border-box; padding: 30px 60px; margin: 20px 0px; border: none; width: 660px; line-height: 24px; z-index: -1;">Any person lawfully present on campus may protest or demonstrate there. Such statement shall make clear that protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity shall not be permitted and shall be subject to sanction. (<a href="https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2017/1/30/Campus%20Free%20Speech%20Paper.pdf#page=20" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Section 1.4</a>)</blockquote>This would prohibit a plethora of protected expressive acts, for example, a chant, or a song that could be construed as infringing. The authors <a href="https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/02/campus-free-speech-act-way-restore-marketplace-ideas/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">claim</a> "[t]his means no more shouting down of visiting speakers, and no more obstruction of legitimate meetings and events." The model bill stipulates that student demonstrators "shall be subject to sanction." Not only would disruptive protestors be removed as they are now, they would face legal and academic <a href="https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/02/campus-free-speech-act-way-restore-marketplace-ideas/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">sanctions</a>:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); box-sizing: border-box; padding: 30px 60px; margin: 20px 0px; border: none; width: 660px; line-height: 24px; z-index: -1;">the bill would authorize a range of disciplinary sanctions for those who interfere with the speech of others, with particularly strong penalties for anyone who commits a second offense.</blockquote>On campuses that are already overly militarized, this bill calls for harsher policing of students protesters.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 40pt; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">The “Milo Bill”</h2>In another provision that more clearly demonstrates the intended effect of the bill, it would "prevent administrators from disinviting speakers, however controversial, whom members of the campus community wish to hear from."The announcement of the model bill was<a href="https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/02/campus-free-speech-act-way-restore-marketplace-ideas/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> released the morning that Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley</a>. Supporters of the Tennessee bill have called this the MILO bill, and even read a statement from Yiannopoulos at<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/09/milo-bill-filed-in-tennessee-to-ensure-freedom-of-speech-on-college-campuses/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;"> a press conference</a>:We are winning the war. And we will continue to win as long as students, and now defenders of free speech within the government, stand up to ivory tower intellectuals and left-wing administrators intent on shutting up any speech they don’t find convenient.The authors of the model legislation <a href="https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/02/campus-free-speech-act-way-restore-marketplace-ideas/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">describe</a> how it is meant to eradicate campus safe spaces, citing how “trigger warnings” and “speaker disinvitations” are the reason that “the core constitutional value of free speech is now under siege.”The authors <a href="https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2017/1/30/Campus%20Free%20Speech%20Paper.pdf#page=2" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">characterize</a> safe spaces as “idea-free zones staffed by thought police, where disagreement is prohibited,” while their bill literally exemplifies their own criticism.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 40pt; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">The Money Trail</h2>Milo was not a student, nor faculty at UC Berkeley. His talk was <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265678/berkeley-riots-provoked-freedom-center-campaign-matthew-vadum" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">sponsored</a> by David Horowitz's Freedom Center (in Los Angeles).Interestingly, there is a large overlap between the funders of the Freedom Center and the two groups who developed the model legislation; the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Goldwater Institute.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 40pt; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">DONORSTRUST/DONORS CAPITAL FUND</h2>According to 990's, between 2002 and 2014, the Goldwater Institute received $2,357,112 from the Koch network’s DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, while the Ethics and Public Policy Center has received $873,000. The Freedom Center who sponsored Milo’s UC Berkeley talk received $628,000<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 40pt; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">BRADLEY FOUNDATION</h2>The second largest common donor involved was the Bradley foundation, which gave $25,000 to the Goldwater Institute, $7,964,210 to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and $8,438,000 to Horowitz Freedom Center.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 40pt; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">KOCH FAMILY FOUNDATIONS</h2>The Goldwater Institute received $75,000 from Koch family foundations (since 2004), while the Ethics and Public Policy Center has received $199,124 (since 1997).Goldwater is also a member of the State Policy Network, and has received $149,349 from SPN, which itself has received $100,361 from Koch foundations since 1997.<h2 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 40pt; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Paid Speech vs. The First Amendment</h2>The bill’s sponsors use a  flawed assessment where free speech is no longer a universal right, in direct contradiction to the U.S. Bill of Rights. The <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-i" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution</a> protects our freedom of speech, as well as peaceful freedom of assembly:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Much like a campus version of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, these bills bend the definition of free speech to favor corporate funded speech (campus speakers sponsored by outside groups, or corporate funded student groups). Spontaneous protest will be pre-empted by sponsored speakers.Texas A&M made it clear that white supremacist Richard Spencer was <a href="http://www.kvue.com/news/local/tamu-controversial-alt-right-speaker-richard-spencer-not-invited-by-university/355376061" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">invited to campus by an anonymous private citizen</a>, rather than by faculty or students:To be clear, Texas A&M University – including faculty, staff, students and/or student groups - did not invite this speaker to our campus nor do we endorse his rhetoric in any way. In fact, our leadership finds his views as expressed to date in direct conflict with our core values.Private citizens are permitted to reserve space available to the public as we are a public university as is the case here. Public groups must cover all rental expenses so that state resources are not burdened.He was <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/06/students-protest-white-supremacist-texas-m-university/95042666/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">allowed to speak</a>. Spencer’s publication Alternative Right has called for its readers to consider “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">black genocide</a>” as a solution to conflict between Black people and White people.Or in Vermont, at Middlebury College, where the political science department is <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2017/02/26/grave-concerns-raised-controversial-middlebury-speaker/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">standing by an invitation to Charles Murray</a>, a white nationalist most well known for his book, The Bell Curve, which argues that the intelligence of white people is genetically superior to that of minorities.Murray, a favorite <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.b1b1ac551fb9" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">guest of Charles Koch's donor summits</a>, was invited by a student group run by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI, <a href="https://ia601206.us.archive.org/34/items/2010KochSummit/2010%20KochSummit.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">also a favorite of Koch's donor summits</a> and Charles Murray's current employer, AEI has received over $1,807,999 from the Koch foundation, and $25,626,714 from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund since 2002.Since the proliferation of these "Milo" bills, the conservatives behind them have been less than tolerant, ironically <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-cpac-milo-yiannopoulos-tape-235204" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">disinviting Milo</a> from speaking at a recent meeting of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee).  <a class="live-update-link" href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/6/1640698/-New-Student-Protest-Bans-disguised-as-Campus-Free-Speech-are-Backed-by-the-Koch-Network#update-1489103271000" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Thursday, Mar 9, 2017 · 4:47:51 PM PST · UnKochMyCampus</a></div><div class="row" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin-right: -15px; margin-left: -15px; letter-spacing: 0.125px;"><div class="col-sm-12" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; min-height: 1px; padding-right: 15px; padding-left: 15px; float: left; width: 690px;"><div class="story-body story-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class="live-update-wrapper" data-epoch-time="1489103271000" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; margin-top: -45px; padding-top: 45px;"><div class="live-update-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">After speaking with the ACLU in Colorado, I learned that an amended version of the bill removed the controversial provision of legally punishing students for disrupting other speaking events. Here are the different versions of <a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-062" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">CO SB 17-062</a>, the most recent of which was passed out of the House Committee on State, Veteran’s and Military affairs yesterday. I have not heard back from the ACLU in Utah, but their support does NOT appear to have anything to do with the punishment provision, because that provision was not included in UT <a href="http://le.utah.gov/_{2017/bills/static/HB0054.html}" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">HB54</a> as introduced, nor as currently amended.</div></div></div></div></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">---</div><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/31/how-teachers-might-end-beating-back-koch-brothers-plan-privatize-arizona-schools">https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/31/how-teachers-might-end-beating-back-koch-brothers-plan-privatize-arizona-schools</a>The moment Beth Lewis realized the powerful political forces she was up against was when she was seated in the gallery of the Arizona House watching Republican legislators, one-by-one, fall into line to support a new bill she and her fellow teachers had come to the capitol to oppose. Republican Governor Doug Ducey and others “working the bill” on the floor took any wavering members into a back room for a “conversation,” while lobbyists in the wings nodded and hand-signaled with lawmakers to track the bill’s progress. When the bill’s handlers agreed a vote was in order, it passed easily. Then, “it was like a party,” Lewis recalls, with lawmakers high-fiving each other and lobbyists shaking hands and backslapping. “It was sickening,” she says. “I realized our state legislators weren’t at all interested in representing the people.”The bill, which the State Senate also passed and the governor quickly signed, opened up education savings accounts, called Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, to all of the state’s 1.1 million students. The new accounts, previously restricted to students with special needs and students attending schools receiving a grade of D or F on the state’s school report card, would provide $4,400 a year, 90 percent of the amount of money the state would typically send a district for enrolling a student, for a family to spend as they wish on their children’s education. Students with disabilities and poor students would receive more money than other students.For parents to receive the money, on a debit card, they must agree not to enroll their children in a public school—essentially giving up their children’s right to a free public education. Other than that, the program has few regulations and there’s little oversight in how public money is being spent. For that reason, Lewis, an Arizona public school teacher, and others who oppose the bill, call the savings accounts “vouchers” that drain funding from public education.The lobbyists working the House floor that night were from the Goldwater Institute, a right-wing advocacy group based in Arizona with <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Goldwater_Institute" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">extensive connections</a> to the Koch brothers and a number of organizations and networks with close Koch ties including ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), the State Policy Network, and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. For years, Charles and David Koch and their associated foundations have <a href="https://littlesis.org/maps/1397-koch-s-arizona?The_Massive_Koch_Network" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">invested heavily</a> in electing Arizona lawmakers, including Governor Ducey, and expanding the education savings accounts was one of their crowning achievements.Passing the bill was also a moment of triumph for the education agenda of the Trump administration. Shortly after news of the passage of the voucher expansion broke, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos <a href="https://twitter.com/betsydevosed/status/850176497222594560?lang=en" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">tweeted</a>, “A big win for students & parents in Arizona tonight with the passage of ed savings accts. I applaud Gov. @DougDucey for putting kids first.”But in the upcoming Arizona midterm elections, that achievement is at risk, as Lewis and her colleagues with Save Our School Arizona have successfully pushed a referendum onto the ballot, Proposition 305, that lets Arizona voters decide the fate of the bill. Should the initiative fail, the Koch brothers’ plan to expand vouchers would be defeated.Arizona Democrats running for office, including Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Garcia, who is taking on Ducey, have embraced opposition to the voucher program and thrown their support behind teachers who are calling for more funding of public schools.Should pro-education candidates win, and Prop 305 go down in flames, the teachers would have led a remarkable campaign that not only would be a victory for public schools but also would threaten to topple the Koch brothers’ political empire in the Grand Canyon State.Before There Was #RedforEd“The teachers’ protest movement, which calls itself #RedforEd, has transformed the political battleground” in Arizona, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/us/arizona-teacher-protests-midterm-elections.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">says an article in the New York Times</a>.The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/arizona-teacher-walkout.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">weeklong walkouts</a> that happened earlier this year demanded higher teacher pay and more funding for schools. #RedforEd not only won concessions from Ducey and the state legislature; it culminated in placing a referendum on the ballot, called InvestInEd, that would have raised income taxes on individuals and households earning more than $250,000 and directed the increased revenues to public schools. However, the State Supreme Court <a href="https://www.educationdive.com/news/arizona-court-strikes-invest-in-ed-initiative-from-november-ballot/531393/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">struck the initiative</a> from the ballot, for technical questions about its wording.But months before there was #RedforEd, there was the fight against school vouchers.After Lewis and her colleagues watched the statewide voucher expansion pass in the Arizona capitol, they began to meet regularly and formed Save Our Schools Arizona. At first, their effort to overturn the legislation got few supporters, Lewis recalls, even among teachers. Few understood that “scholarships” is just another word for “vouchers” and that “empowerment” actually means parents have to give up the right for their children to receive a free public education.The “turning point,” according to Lewis, was the revelation that citizens could use a petition campaign to refer legislation to a ballot. That gave anti-voucher advocates a specific goal and steps—how many signatures they’d need and how many volunteers they’d need to recruit to circulate the petitions.A Costly Program for Wealthier FamiliesAlso aiding to their communications effort was an <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2018/10/25/prop-305-isnt-helping-poor-kids-escape-bad-schools/1762979002/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">accumulation of evidence</a> of how poorly the voucher program measured up to its purported intention to “save” low-income families from “failed” public schools.Most of the students who participate in the program, 70 percent, come from some of the state’s most highly rated schools—rated A or B on the state report card. Only 7 percent of the money is being used by students leaving D- or F-rated schools. The majority of these families are also not low-income, but instead reside in the wealthier suburban communities in the state.Other analyses have found that the vast majority of parents participating in the program use the money to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/school-vouchers-arizona.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">pay for private school tuition</a>. Given that most private schools in Arizona <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_and_independent_schools_in_Arizona" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">are religious schools</a>, a reasonable conclusion is that the education saving accounts are mostly subsidizing wealthier families’ desires to leave public schools to seek out religious educations for their children.Furthermore, since the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/school-vouchers-arizona.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">average payout</a> from the voucher program is $5,700 per year for children without disabilities, and the <a href="https://www.privateschoolreview.com/arizona" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">average private school tuition</a> in Arizona is $6,126 for elementary schools and $19,162 for high schools, the vouchers are supplementing parents, who may already be able to afford private schools, with a “coupon” that heavily discounts the tuition. Families of students with disabilities, who receive $19,000 in voucher money on average, could even be “profiting” from the program, as there is <a href="https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/16-107_Report.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">very little to no monitoring</a> of how they spend from the accounts.Currently, Arizona’s voucher program drains $141 million from the public school system, and in fact, <a href="https://grandcanyoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/GCI_Policy_Private_School_Program_Costs_2018_Sept_5_2018.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">costs the state</a> an additional $62 million each year—roughly $4,700 per student, adding 75 percent more to what the state pays to educate a regular public school student.Kochs vs. ‘a Bunch of Volunteers’Armed with information about how the voucher program was defrauding the state of millions of education dollars, the SOS Arizona team formed their campaign to get 75,321 signatures to place Prop 305 on the ballot.“We did most of our outreach through social media,” recalls Sharon Kirsch, another leader in SOS Arizona. “SOS never had any money.”Kirsch, a university professor, became interested in overturning the voucher expansion after she saw the bill zoom through the State Senate without serious consideration of what the expansion would do to public schools. Its sponsor was former State Senator Debbie Lesko—a <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00042056&cycle=2018" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">recipient</a> of large campaign donations from the Koch brothers and other conservative donors—who now sits in Congress and is up for reelection in November. Lesko is also Arizona state chairman for ALEC.Relying on a network of volunteers—made up mostly of retired educators, parents, and community activists—SOS Arizona submitted 111,540 signatures in August 2017.After SOS Arizona announced it had successfully gathered more than enough signatures to place the referendum on the ballot, the Koch network intervened again. On the night SOS delivered the signatures for review by the secretary of state’s office, Lewis recalls, they were told “both sides” would be allowed to be present at the review. Who was the other “side”?“All of a sudden all these men in dark suits came into the room,” says Lewis. “They paired up with each examiner from the state and hovered over their shoulders, pointing to signatures they felt should be challenged or thrown out.”The “suits” were from Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing pressure group that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/26/koch-brothers-americans-for-prosperity-rightwing-political-group" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">operates as a political arm</a> of the Koch brothers to advocate and lobby at state and local levels for small government, deregulation, privatization, and anti-labor union policies.“When I investigated what these right-wing organizations were doing to oppose us,” Kirsch explains, “I realized how strategic they’ve been. They’ve been working on their privatization efforts for years. They fund teams to work full-time on the issues. They’re breeding their own PhDs through academic centers they sponsor. And we just have a bunch of volunteers.”Americans for Prosperity, along with the American Federation for Children, formerly led by Secretary DeVos, sued to block the referendum. But in January 2018, a judge dismissed the lawsuit.In the meantime, Governor Ducey <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2018/01/30/doug-ducey-koch-network-school-voucher-law/1078838001/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">was meeting with donors</a> in the Koch network, pledging to go big on passing Prop 305 and asking for their support. “This is a very real fight in my state,” he said. “I didn’t run for governor to play small ball.”“In 2018, Koch donors see Arizona as ground zero in their push,” <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/01/30/daily-202-koch-network-laying-groundwork-to-fundamentally-transform-america-s-education-system/5a6feb8530fb041c3c7d74db/?utm_term=.e9af46aa66ce" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">the Washington Post reports</a>, and Koch brothers’ money has continued to pour into the state through Americans for Prosperity and the Libre Institute, an astroturf group spending “hundreds of thousands of dollars,” <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2017/11/16/roberts-koch-funded-group-launches-six-figure-campaign-sell-arizona-voucher-expansiexpanding-voucher/872630001/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">according to a local news outlet</a>, “targeting Arizona Latino families with ads, mailers and phone calls” urging them to vote “yes” on Prop 305.“We had to bring in Spanish-speaking volunteers to counter the propaganda being spread by the Koch Brothers’ Libre group,” says Kirsch. “We reached out to community organizations like LUCHA (Living United for Change in Arizona),” an Arizona-based grassroots group advocate for social and economic justice in the Latinx community. “They’ve been very helpful in spreading our literature,” Kirsch says.In addition to its stealth campaign in the Latinx community, supporters of school vouchers also created a #YesforEd campaign that mimics the logo of the teachers’ #RedforEd campaign—a blatant attempt to mislead voters about the initiative and convince them to vote yes.“This is the lowest of the low when it gets to political dirty tricks,” <a href="https://www.abc15.com/news/region-northeast-valley/scottsdale/education-supporters-say-political-signs-aim-to-confuse-rock-the-vote" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">says Dawn Penich-Thacker</a> of SOS Arizona. “They are obviously trying to mimic #RedforEd,” and create the false impression that a “yes” vote on Prop 305 supports teachers and public-school funding, when it would in fact do the exact opposite.‘Education Is the Driving Issue’While SOS Arizona has tried to keep its effort to block voucher expansion nonpartisan, its cause has champions running for office in the Democratic Party.In the race for governor, Democratic candidate David Garcia is <a href="https://tucson.com/news/local/candidates-for-arizona-governor-debate-education-border-economy-issues/article_a8a836e3-7751-5d1d-b97f-2fd5bb806340.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">stridently opposed</a> to the voucher expansion and urges voters to vote no. Should Garcia win, he would be the state’s first Latinx governor, but education issues could be what propels him over the top.“A change in education is Arizona’s No. 1 issue,” Garcia <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y8mpqgxq" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">said in a televised debate</a>. “It is my strength, it is Ducey’s weakness, and it’s going to be the difference.”Ducey has extended his small lead in recent polls, but Garcia insists the surveys likely miss a rising new electorate in the state that includes Latinx voters and teachers and pro-education voters energized by #RedforEd and the presence of Prop 305 on the ballot.Someone with insights on both those issues—the rising power of Latinx voters and the significance of education in the Arizona elections—is Alex Gomez, the co-executive director of LUCHA.She tells me LUCHA recently completed an effort to register over 20,000 new voters in the Latinx community and is now canvassing them to ensure they vote. Working with other like-minded organizations, LUCHA’s goal is to turn out 190,000 new voters from the Latinx community in the midterm elections.LUCHA supported the educators who walked out of schools statewide this spring. “The midterms caught its wind after the teacher strike,” says Gomez. “That moment when there were 75,000 people at the capitol was a big part of building momentum. It became so clear that the legislature is more interested in their corporate donors than in doing the right thing for education and moving the state forward.”Gomez expects its support for Garcia’s pro-education platform and opposition to Prop 305 will energize new voters, particularly those in the Latinx community who “are very grateful because no one has ever come to them before.”“Education is the driving issue in Garcia’s campaign,” she says, and “we’re encouraging voters to vote against 305.In many down-ballot races, Democratic candidates are uniting around education and opposition to Prop 305. In the race to unseat Debbie Lesko in U.S. House District 8, Hiral Tipirneni has drawn a sharp contrast to the Republican incumbent on education, <a href="https://hiralforcongress.com/comparison/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">calling Lesko</a>, “the ringleader behind the infamous voucher bill, which takes our tax dollars out of public schools and uses them to pay for private school tuition.” Tipirneni <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/experience/beach/new-hampshire/2018/04/25/hiral-tipirneni-lost-arizonas-special-election-nancy-pelosi-thrilled/550457002/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">nearly defeated</a> Lesko in a special election in April.In state legislative races, two Democratic candidates and LUCHA endorsees, Raquel Terán, running in Legislative District 30, and Gilbert Romero, in LD 21, are <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/696427404064401/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">canvassing</a>and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/1807713972631540/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">phone-banking</a> on Prop 305 and urging voters to vote no.‘No Hiding Behind the Curtain’Those leading the opposition to Prop 305 hope to do more than just defeat the bill; they want to expose the corrupt network behind the effort to privatize Arizona public schools and change the conversation about what would truly help education in the state.“Teachers are carrying the torch against privatization in ways they never did before,” says Lewis. “They have a level of understanding of the issues I’ve never seen before.”“Even if we defeat 305, I know folks at Goldwater are already crafting a new bill to replace the voucher bill with something else,” says Kirsch. “But people are paying attention in ways they never have in the past. They’re changing the conversation to making public schools the priority instead of all these other schemes that take money away from them.”<a style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">“We’re leaving everything out on the field and are really hopeful about the results,” says Gomez. “Even before election day, we’ve already won because we’ve exposed the corruption of the Republican Party. There’s no hiding behind the curtains anymore.”</a><a style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">To learn more about school privatization, check out </a><a href="https://www.alternet.org/education/who-controls-our-schools-how-billionaire-sponsored-privatization-destroying-democracy-and" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Who Controls Our Schools? The Privatization of American Public Education</a>, a free ebook published by the Independent Media Institute.<a style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;" /><a href="https://www.alternet.org/education/who-controls-our-schools-how-billionaire-sponsored-privatization-destroying-democracy-and" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Click here to read a selection</a> of Who Controls Our Schools? published on AlterNet, or <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.alternet.org/images/who_controls_our_schools_pdf_ebook_1_1.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">here to access the complete text</a>.This article was produced by the <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Independent Media Institute.</a><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>alec 5 nola 2018 campus watch</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/08/08/common-cause-exposes-alec-influence-louisiana">https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/08/08/common-cause-exposes-alec-influence-louisiana</a></div><div>
</div><div>ALEC is registered as a tax-exempt charitable organization and claims not to spend any money on lobbying. But according to a new report from Common Cause, a national nonpartisan government reform group, a number of ALEC-backed and -drafted bills have been introduced and enacted by ALEC-affiliated legislators in Baton Rouge in recent years.“<a href="https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/before-annual-alec-conference-new-report-exposes-secretive-groups-political-influence-in-louisiana/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s;">ALEC in Louisiana</a>” uncovers the power that “the secretive special interest lobbying group” has already utilized in the southern state. According to the report, nearly 50 members of the Louisiana Senate and House of Representatives have ties to ALEC.[ now gov john bel edwards ?] Common Cause found that legislative language in Louisiana is commonly copied and pasted from the ALEC “model bills,” making the group’s influence “extremely prominent.”“Shining a light on ALEC’s undemocratic and secretive operations helps voters know who is really calling the shots in their state legislature,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. “ALEC’s history of rigging the rules against everyday Louisianans on behalf of their corporate funders is not how democracy is supposed to work.”ALEC is a powerful corporate-funded pay-to-play organization that brings lawmakers, lobbyists, and other groups in the Koch’s influence machine together to vote side-by-side on bills that legislators then take back and introduce in their home states, usually without any public disclosure of their source. The Center for Media and Democracy teamed up with Common Cause in 2012 to file an IRS <a href="https://www.commoncause.org/resource/alec-whistleblower-complaint/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">whistleblower complaint</a> against ALEC, charging the group with tax fraud and massively underreporting its lobbying activity.This week’s ALEC annual meeting is <a href="https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/08/07/alec-drafts-model-resolution-pat-itself-back/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">chock full</a> of union-busting, gerrymandering, fossil fuel promoting, and school privatizing legislation that benefits the economic interests of ALEC’s patrons.While the exact issues the Louisiana bills address are varied, the bills fulfill ALEC’s admitted purpose, “to strengthen relationships between ‘business leaders’ and legislators” and “satisfy corporate needs,” according to Common Cause.For instance, HB 727, was introduced by <a href="http://ethics.la.gov/CampaignFinanceSearch/ShowEForm.aspx?ReportID=22148" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">dues-paying</a> ALEC member, Sen. Joseph H. Major Thibaut, Jr. Thibaut’s bill shares text with an ALEC model bill, “<a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/bill/HB727/2018" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act</a>.” It was signed into law in May of this year amidst <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/06/bayou-bridge-protesters-arrested-louisiana-advances-bill-toughening-penalties-pipeline-protests" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">growing local opposition</a> to the construction of the Bayou Bridge pipeline, which will bring fracked oil from North Dakota to Louisiana’s Gulf Coast.Senate Bill 364, intended to deal with recent conflicts over controversial speakers on college campuses, is based on ALEC’s “<a href="https://www.alec.org/model-policy/forming-open-and-robust-university-minds-forum-act/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">Forming Open And Robust University Minds (Forum) Act</a>.” In June, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards signed the act into law, after vetoing a similar bill last year.With ALEC’s assistance, similar bills have been pushed and enacted around the country at the behest of the right-wing <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Goldwater_Institute" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">Goldwater Institute</a> and <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/State_Policy_Network" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background: 0px 0px; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">State Policy Network</a>. The American Association of University Professors has <a href="https://www.aaup.org/report/campus-free-speech-legislation-history-progress-and-problems" target="_blank" rel="noopener" style="background: 0px 0px; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">criticized the legislation’s approach</a> as “a political agenda masquerading behind ‘free speech'” and objects to its “preference for punishment as a means for ending protests and disruptions that obstruct free speech.”Meg Logue, a 350 New Orleans activist, told Common Cause that, through ALEC, “our legislators jeopardize our democracy by bending toward the priorities of corporations while undermining the peoples’ right to self-determination and justice.”</div><div>
</div><div></div>

worked w/ alec and heartland on vouchers in az

<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11612">http://www.prwatch.org/node/11612</a>

ironic the actually heir barry jr is climate realist?

==<a href="https://www.alternet.org/trump-peddles-false-hope-terminally-ill-right-try-law" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/trump-peddles-false-hope-terminally-ill-right-try-law</a>... doctors and medical researchers were <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/right-to-try-bill-trump-signing-will-it-help-terminally-ill-patients-today-2018-05-30/" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">casting doubt</a> on Trump’s claims. At best, the Right to Try law will help a few patients suffering from certain terminal illnesses for which there are promising treatments under review, but only if they are wealthy enough to pay for the treatments and the cost of treating any negative side effects, most likely without help from their insurance plan. For this reason alone, the new law is not expected to help nearly as many people as Trump claims.At worst, critics say Right to Try is a <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-very-worst-version-of-the-sham-known-as-right-to-try-is-poised-to-become-law/" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">stealth attempt by libertarian ideologues</a> to undermine patients’ rights and <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-31/right-to-try-author-says-law-s-intent-is-to-diminish-fda-s-power" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">chip away at the FDA’s regulatory authority </a>over chemicals that have yet to be proven safe and effective. Medical experts point out that the FDA already has a program for allowing patients to try drugs that have not completed clinical trials, and the agency approves 99 percent of applications. The Right to Try legislation simply cuts government watchdogs charged with protecting consumer safety out of the process.Of course, the experimental chemicals and devices patients now have the “right” to try must also be effective at treating serious illness without presenting intolerable side effects. According to Vinay Prasad, a doctor and professor of medicine at Oregon State University, this is a feat achieved by only 10 percent of drugs that initially enter clinical trials. Manufacturers must also agree to provide them in the first place.“It isn’t accurate to call these drugs, though, because they are just chemicals, most of which don’t work,” Prasad said.In a series of tweets, Prasad said Right to Try advocates associated with conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Goldwater Institute had created a “misleading narrative” about a large number of patients who had exhausted their options and wanted to try new drugs. (Right to Try advocates routinely campaigned with sick children to pass laws in a number of states, and a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/right-to-try-bill-trump-signing-will-it-help-terminally-ill-patients-today-2018-05-30/" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">young boy battling muscular dystrophy</a> joined Trump as he signed the bill into law.)<blockquote cite="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019613838725120" data-tweet-id="1002019613838725120" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;" /><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Vinay Prasad@VinayPrasadMD</a><a data-scribe="mini_timestamp" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019613838725120" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">30 May</a><a data-scribe="in_reply_to_user_link" href="https://twitter.com//status/1002019612161011713" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Replying to @VinayPrasadMD</a>This group & partners created a misleading narrative where many sick patients had exhausted proven options and wanted to try "drugs" that were still in clinical trials.

It isn't accurate to call these drugs, though, because they are just chemicals, most of which don't work.</blockquote><blockquote cite="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019614967128065" data-scribe="subject" data-tweet-id="1002019614967128065" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;" /><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Vinay Prasad@VinayPrasadMD</a>  In fact, multiple studies show that most of these chemicals do not come to market FOR ANY PURPOSE.
₁₀% come to market FOR SOME USE, but maybe not the use you wanted to "try" it for (i.e. true % chance of benefit, even lower) <a data-pre-embedded="true" data-scribe="" dir="ltr" href="https://t.co/tSb5rrMJAC" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">pic.twitter.com/tSb5rrMJAC</a><a data-datetime="07+0000" data-scribe="full_timestamp" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019614967128065" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">7:51 PM - May 30, 2018</a><a data-scribe="photo" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019614967128065/photo/1" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;" /></blockquote><a data-scribe="photo" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002019614967128065/photo/1" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Companies can still deny requests to “try” their experimental treatments and have plenty of reasons to do so, including fear that a bad outcome could lead to lawsuits and delay or threaten a drug’s ultimate approval. In fact, Prasad and other experts say manufacturers, not the FDA, are the real barrier between terminally ill patients and emerging treatments.</a><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">
Vinay Prasad@VinayPrasadMD</a><a data-scribe="mini_timestamp" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002024324495163392" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">30 May</a><a data-scribe="in_reply_to_user_link" href="https://twitter.com//status/1002023498833772545" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Replying to @VinayPrasadMD</a>The legislation does protect health providers and pharmaceutical companies from legal liability if their experimental products do more harm than good, but manufacturers may not feel protected until that language is tested in court. Despite the “Right to Try” moniker, the law offers no new rights to patients besides the ability to seek treatments that have not been tested and approved by the FDA.<blockquote cite="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002024324495163392" data-tweet-id="1002024324495163392" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Also worth noting that the FDA is not holding back cures in cancer or other serious ailments

In fact, they are rubber-stamping the most toxic, and marginal products

The avg cancer drug approved adds 2 months of life!
in ideal settings
less in real world<a data-expanded-url="//www.nfrank.info/site/ckfinder/userfiles/pdf/Unitended%20Consequences%20of%20Expensive%20Cancer%20Therapeutics.pdf" data-scribe="url" dir="ltr" href="https://t.co/lw3UA91ib2" rel="nofollow noopener" target="blank" title="//www.nfrank.info/site/ckfinder/userfiles/pdf/Unitended%20Consequences%20of%20Expensive%20Cancer%20Therapeutics.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">//www.nfrank.info/site/ckfinder/userfiles/pdf/Unitended%20Consequences%20of%20Expensive%20Cancer%20Therapeutics.pdf …</a><a data-pre-embedded="true" data-scribe="" dir="ltr" href="https://t.co/1Vk1eWK4oG" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">pic.twitter.com/1Vk1eWK4oG</a></blockquote><blockquote cite="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002024688996909056" data-scribe="subject" data-tweet-id="1002024688996909056" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;" /><a aria-label=" VinayPrasadMD)" data-scribe="user_link" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">Vinay Prasad@VinayPrasadMD</a>  I find it interesting to note what the Right to Try bill does not include
No "Right to Have Approved Drugs Be Affordable"
No "Right to Have Pharma make Better Drugs"
No "Right not to go bankrupt from paying for drugs you need"
No "Right to make companies GIVE the drug"<a data-datetime="17+0000" data-scribe="full_timestamp" href="https://twitter.com/VinayPrasadMD/status/1002024688996909056" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">8:11 PM - May 30, 2018</a></blockquote>For these reasons, medical experts argue that the Right to Try law <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1714054" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">will do little for most families facing a terminal illness</a>, all while curtailing the FDA’s ability to control access to investigational drugs. That’s why more than 300 doctors and academics signed <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ryW_bzxzNXC9SAthX09KLOqNMW57qZMq/view" rel="noopener" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">a letter</a> in February urging members of Congress to ditch the legislation, despite pressure from Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.“This legislation sells vulnerable patients and families false hope at the expense of weakening the FDA’s critical role in making sure that all Americans can have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of our medical products,” the authors wrote, adding that their view is shared by the American Lung Association, the Children’s Brain Tumor Foundation, the National Health Council and many other groups.When it comes to policy, Trump has never been concerned with the fine print. That’s a job he leaves up to staffers and members of his cabinet, many of whom come directly from the world of big business or the far right of the Republican Party. The president promotes their policies with broad strokes and bold promises, just as he did on Wednesday as he signed the Right to Try bill and declared a victory during another week of damaging headlines. In politics, however, the devil is in the details, and what Trump wants you to see on TV is not always what you get.=<div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/03/29/alec-legislator-fast-tracks-bill-block-local-campaign-finance-ordinances-arizona/">https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/03/29/alec-legislator-fast-tracks-bill-block-local-campaign-finance-ordinances-arizona/</a></div><div>
</div><div>A state bill that would ban cities and counties from requiring dark money groups to disclose their donors is moving rapidly through the Arizona state legislature. <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/53leg/2r/bills/hb2153p.htm" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">HB 2153</a> would make it illegal for localities to require tax exempt organizations to disclose donors and register as political action committees. The bill introduced by Rep. Vince Leach (R-11) was approved by the House and is waiting a final roll-call vote in the Senate.This state interference in local democracy initiatives is a response to a Tempe ballot measure that passed earlier this month by a 9-to-1 margin which creates an <a href="http://www.tempe.gov/home/showdocument?id=57371" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">ordinance</a> that requires groups that make more than $1,000 in independent expenditures in municipal elections to disclose its financial supporters and details of the organization. The city of Phoenix is <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/03/08/phoenix-may-get-vote-dark-money-donations-city-council/395921002/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">considering</a> revising its charter to curb dark money in a similar fashion.HB 2153 is based on an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) <a href="https://www.alec.org/model-policy/resolution-in-support-of-nonprofit-donor-privacy/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">resolution</a> that was adopted last year which spins campaign finance disclosure as an attack on “donor privacy.” ALEC is a corporate-funded organization that brings lobbyists and state politicians together behind closed doors to rewrite state laws.Rep. Leach is a GOP legislative member of ALEC, and 22 other Arizona representatives and 8 senators have ties to the group.ALEC and its sister organization, the State Policy Network (SPN), have made fighting campaign finance disclosure a central goal. ALEC founded the misnamed “Center to Protect Free Speech,” which produced a <a href="https://www.alec.org/app/uploads/2017/09/ALEC-Donor-Disclosure-Legislative-Toolkit-1.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">Donor Disclosure Toolkit</a> for legislatures that details how lawmakers should respond to donor disclosure laws.ALEC’s toolkit lifts whole sections from an SPN <a href="http://unitedforprivacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Nonprofit-Donor-Privacy-Issue-Guide.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">Donor Privacy Toolkit</a> published on its United for Privacy campaign website. Both toolkits are partially written by Jon Riches, Director of National Litigation and General Counsel for the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Goldwater_Institute" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">Goldwater Institute</a>, Arizona’s SPN affiliate. Goldwater is lobbying for the passage of HB 2153 and sent its vice president for litigation to testify in support of the bill in front of a House committee.If the preemption bill passes by roll-call vote in the Senate, it will head to Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk. Ducey has <a href="https://www.alec.org/app/uploads/2015/10/RSPS_8th_Edition-Final.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">written for ALEC</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYAaWBqe1U" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: inherit; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 500ms ease-in-out; color: rgb(0, 156, 244); text-decoration-line: none;">spoken</a> at ALEC meetings, so the measure trampling local democracy is likely to get his signature.</div><div>=</div><div></div><div>
</div><div><header class="entry-header" style="word-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="entry-title" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; line-height: 54px;">North Carolina Trustees Would “Defend” Free Speech by Attacking It</h1><div class="entry-meta" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 15px;"><a class="author" rel="author" href="https://academeblog.org/author/hankreichman/" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 600; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">Hank Reichman</a> / <a class="entry-date" href="https://academeblog.org/2017/12/12/north-carolina-trustees-would-defend-free-speech-by-attacking-it/" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">December 12, 2017</a></div></header><div class="entry-content" style="border: 0px; margin: 1.5em 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-wrap: break-word;">BY HANK REICHMANThis summer the North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act, passed earlier in the year by the state legislature, went into effect.  Directly inspired by a proposal by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank, the legislation’s premise is that free speech is under attack on American campuses.  Among other provisions, the law mandates strict disciplinary measures against individuals accused of violating the free speech rights of others, says that universities ought to be neutral on public issues, and calls on public universities to issue annual reports on campus free speech.On Friday, December 15, the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina system will vote on the <a href="http://www.northcarolina.edu/apps/bog/doc.php?id=58320&code=bog" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">policy</a> to implement the law across the 17 campuses of the UNC system.  It would make dissent unsafe, will chill healthy academic debate, and creates a preference for some forms of speech over others.  As Michael Behrent, Associate Professor of History at Appalachian State University and Vice President of the North Carolina state conference of the AAUP, <a href="https://academeblog.org/2017/11/03/free-speech-policy-could-chill-protected-speech-on-unc-campuses/" style="font-weight: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">reported on this blog in November,</a> the policy would create new restrictions not found in the law itself, notably by inventing such terms as “acceptable forms of dissent.”  William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law at the UNC School of Law, called the proposed policy “overbroad and will work to chill constitutionally protected speech.”The policy prohibits expression that “substantially interferes with the protected free speech rights of others,” a provision so broadly defined it could potentially be used to discipline any student who disagrees vocally with a speaker, anywhere on campus.  As Behrent reported,<blockquote background="background" rgb="rgb" position="position" relative="relative" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 20px 1.5em 20px -40px; outline: 0px; padding: 20px 20px 1px 80px; vertical-align: baseline;">“Taken literally,” Professor Marshall explained, “this policy means that a student could be sanctioned for protesting (or maybe even just vehemently disagreeing) with an unscheduled speaker (which presumably could mean anybody including a fellow student) almost anywhere on campus—given that the word ‘speaker’ is not defined and most areas of college campuses are nonpublic fora. This means students could be disciplined if they attempted to shout down a speaker outside their dorm room or eating hall.”Professor Marshall added that the “policy and statute are unclear as to what it means to interfere with the rights of others to “listen to expressive activity.’ Is speaking too loudly near an unscheduled speaker sanctionable? Is trying to talk over the speech of another person a possible subject of discipline? The policy discusses actual physical obstruction with access or egress to the location where the speaker is speaking but the language of both the policy and the statute reach far more than physical obstruction.” For these reasons, Professor Marshall fears the policy may be “inconsistent” with the First Amendment. “As the policy purports to recognize,” he says, “the first amendment protects both speech and counter speech. The approach taken by both the policy and the statute, however, creates a preference for only one type of speech that is inconsistent with first amendment principles and treads far too broadly into core first amendment expression.”</blockquote>By focusing on disruption of speakers the policy demonstrates a marked preference for speech over counter-speech, in violation of the First Amendment.  In <a href="http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2017/12/12/unc-board-governors-speech-free-others/" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">a piece published today on NC Policy Watch</a>, Behrendt and Jay Smith, Professor of History at UNC-Chapel Hill, note:<blockquote background="background" rgb="rgb" position="position" relative="relative" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; margin: 20px 1.5em 20px -40px; outline: 0px; padding: 20px 20px 1px 80px; vertical-align: baseline;">“All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others.” This seems to be the motto of the current members of the University of North Carolina’s Board of Governors and their General Assembly backers. Like the dictatorial pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm—who declared “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”—the Board is putting a noble veneer on self-serving and disingenuous arguments. . . .The Board . . . sees higher education as a hostile power. . . .  But even as they champion freedom and diversity of opinion, they subscribe to the troubling notion that every social institution must be ideologically balanced. The idea of critical inquiry has undoubtedly attracted liberals to the academic profession. But academe is not the only institution with pronounced political sympathies. The military, for instance, overwhelmingly votes Republican. Should liberals insist on ideological balance among those to whom we entrust our protection? Yet this is precisely what the Board wants for UNC.The great irony is that the very people who want to make universities “diverse” also embrace the conservative belief that the state always stumbles when it tells society what to do. The Board and the legislature are, in this respect, socialists—precisely in the sense that the Right uses the term. In attempting to inject the “correct” balance of opinion into university life, they are engaging in the kind of social engineering conservatives have always denounced. Reagan famously said that “government is the problem.” On the issue of campus free speech, the Board believes that government is the solution. When it comes to expressing your beliefs, the Board knows what’s best for you.</blockquote>The North Carolina AAUP is collecting signatures from UNC faculty members and friends on an online petition urging the Board of Governors to reject the proposed policy.  It may be accessed <a href="https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/unc-board-of-governors-vote-no-on-your-anti-free-speech-policy" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">here</a>.</div></div><div></div> =<a href="http://www.alternet.org/education/right-wing-billionaires-are-funding-cynical-plot-destroy-dissent-and-protest-colleges" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">http://www.alternet.org/education/right-wing-billionaires-are-funding-cynical-plot-destroy-dissent-and-protest-colleges</a>
As s far-right speakers face loud student opposition at their university speaking gigs, conservative lawmakers in several states are introducing legislation that cracks down on protesters. As <a href="http://www.unkochmycampus.org/mar-1-2017-protest-ban-sold-as-free-speech/" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">uncovered</a> by UnKoch My Campus’ Ralph Wilson, numerous states have borrowed their so-called “campus free speech” bills from the rightwing Goldwater Institute, which is funded by conservative plutocrats including Charles Koch and the Mercer family.The intent of these bills isn’t to protect student speech; it’s actually to suppress it in favor of guest speakers who, at times, support white nationalism, LGBTQ discrimination and other hateful worldviews. By funding the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, wealthy conservatives are enabling the promotion of hate speech while stifling student dissent. Whether or not Koch, for example, agrees with the hate speech he indirectly sponsors, he certainly benefits from a more friendly academic environment for far-right ideologues who often deny climate change and praise his extreme brand of tax- and regulation-free capitalism.The Goldwater Institute’s model bill allegedly ensures “the fullest degree of…free expression,” but it explicitly <a href="https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2017/1/30/Campus%20Free%20Speech%20Paper.pdf#page=20" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">states</a> that “protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity shall not be permitted and shall be subject to sanction.”It goes on to say, “Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled.”Under this code, imagine that a student protests a climate change denier and gets a brief suspension. Then the College Republicans group brings in a full-on white nationalist. Will this student do what she thinks is right and protest a racist who’s given a platform at a respected university, or stay home because she's risking expulsion? This campus "free speech” legislation is essentially an attack on student speech and an elevation of ultra-conservative ideas that many people in university communities think have no place in American society.“These laws would create a chilling effect on students who reject the idea that white supremacists or climate deniers are simply representing an ‘opposing viewpoint’ that should be tolerated, and who are rightfully relying on their first amendment freedoms to stop the rise of fascism and prevent global climate catastrophe,” Wilson, UnKoch’s senior researcher, told AlterNet. The group has been conducting research into Charles Koch’s considerable <a href="http://www.alternet.org/investigations/inside-charles-kochs-plot-hijack-universities-across-america" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">ideological donations</a> to higher education, most of which goes toward free-market programs.Charles Koch Foundation representatives say that conservative views are underrepresented in higher education, and the foundation’s massive university donations—which fund free-market academic centers, professorships, grad students and lecture series—are necessary for academic freedom. This view is shared by other conservative billionaires and higher ed donors including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who recently <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/24/education-secretary-criticizes-professors-telling-students-what-think" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">said</a> to the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “The education establishment [tells you] what to think…the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree.”What the Kochs and their allies really want, by amplifying the voices of far-right professors and guest speakers, is to steer society towards a tax- and regulation-free plutocracy. Charles and David Koch, who together are worth nearly $97 billion, have been working toward this goal for over 40 years.In 2014, Virginia passed the nation’s first <a href="http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?141+ful+HB258" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">law</a> banning so-called “free speech zones,” which restrict protected speech to designated areas often far away from events that students want to protest. The following year, Missouri enacted a <a href="http://www.senate.mo.gov/15info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=165" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Campus Free Expression Act</a> forbidding “free speech zones” without imposing punitive measures.But while more recent legislation bans free speech zones as well, it also restricts student free speech in scenarios where, lawmakers claim, free speech is protected.The protest crackdownLegislators in some states including Illinois and Tennessee have introduced bills in 2017 that explicitly mention sanctions on student protesters. <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=91&GA=100&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=2939&GAID=14&LegID=104448&SpecSess=&Session=" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Illinois’ bill</a>, proposed by two Republicans, lifts this language, and additional passages, nearly verbatim from the Goldwater model. Also sponsored by Republicans, the <a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HB0739.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">bill</a> in Tennessee—nicknamed the “Milo Bill” after an event at the University of California at Berkeley featuring the racist “alt-right” icon Milo Yiannopolous was canceled due to protests—directs universities to enact free speech policies that include “sanctions for anyone under the jurisdiction of the institution who interferes with the free expression of others,” and it gives faculty “the right to regulate class speech.”In North Carolina, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest intends to work with legislators on a <a href="http://ltgov.nc.gov/lt-governor-dan-forest-push-campus-free-speech" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Restore Campus Free Speech Act</a>, which would create “a discipline policy that would punish students who shout down visiting speakers or deprive others of their right to free expression, a tactic commonly known as the ‘hecklers’ veto.'"Last year, Forest floated <a href="http://www.alternet.org/activism/how-campus-free-expression-act-north-carolina-actually-aims-suppress-student-speech" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">a measure</a> calling on the University of North Carolina’s board of governors to create a system-wide policy that would impose harsh penalties, including expulsion, on students, staff and faculty members who disrupt classes, public meetings or events. The Koch-funded Generation Opportunity <a href="https://generationopportunity.org/press-release/new-legislation-protecting-free-speech-on-unc-campuses-to-be-introduced-this-month/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">lauded</a> the effort at the time. Forest has said that yelling at a guest speaker “has never been free speech,” and he’s called campus protest methods “terrorist tactics.” No one introduced a free speech bill that year.Other proposed laws, like <a href="http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0328-03000.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">North Dakota’s</a>, which was introduced by six Republicans, omit sanctions provisions but state that a university may restrict student speech if it blocks entrances to buildings, obstructs traffic or interferes with events. Much of the North Dakota bill comes directly from the text of the Goldwater model legislation. A large group of most Republican legislators in Virginia has a <a href="http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+ful+HR431+hil" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">new bill</a> in play that includes much of the Goldwater language but stays away from restrictions on students.Additional campus free speech bills have been introduced this year in <a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017A/bills/2017A_062_ren.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Colorado</a> (sponsored by two Republicans and one Democrat) and <a href="http://le.utah.gov/_{2017/bills/static/HB0054.html}" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Utah</a> (sponsored by 14 Republican state representatives). <a href="http://floridapolitics.com/archives/232665-florida-legislate-free-speech-college-campuses" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Florida</a> could be next. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has a "free speech" provision in his proposed <a href="http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/scott-walker-s-budget-would-turn-university-of-wisconsin-free/article_f8a221ef-5bd0-558f-b3c2-fc83ab7568fe.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">budget</a>.Big money driving campus 'free speech’ effortsOne of the model bill’s authors, Stanley Kurtz, is a longtime fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, which applies “the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy,” according to its website. The center has received millions of dollars in donations from the foundations of the conservative Bradley, Scaife, Olin and Earhart families, as well as hundreds of thousands from two vehicles for wealthy right-wing donors, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are responsible for more than $9 million in contributions to the two groups from 2006 to 2015, according to the website Conservative Transparency and additional research by this author. Much of the $6.3 million that went to Donors Trust came in 2015. A now-defunct Koch nonprofit, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, donated $190,000 to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the Charles Koch Foundation has given over $9,000.The Goldwater Institute’s James Manley, senior attorney, and Jonathan Butcher, education director, also co-authored the “campus free speech” model legislation. The institute took in nearly $2.5 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund from 2002-2015, according Conservative Transparency and additional research. The Charles Koch Foundation has pitched in $75,000. Manley formerly worked at the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the two Donors funds. Butcher was a research assistant at the heavily Koch-funded Heritage Foundation from 2002 to 2006.Says Wilson, “These bills take Koch's academic presence to the next level, creating protected space to reveal the white supremacist roots of Koch's free market crusade, likeKoch's close friend and white nationalist Charles Murray who has taken to campuses to espouse the genetic superiority of white males.”Another Koch-funded think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, reportedly has student groups at nearly 80 colleges and universities. These groups bring in AEI fellows like the eugenicist Murray to speak on their campuses. Recently, Murray attempted to give a lecture at Middlebury College in Vermont but was stymied by vociferous protests. He had to end his speech early, and he and a liberal professor were attacked on their way out.Students at UC Berkeley and area residents protested Yiannopoulos, whom the College Republicans had invited to speak. The protests led to fires, vandalism, and reportedly, fights. Until recently, Yiannopoulos was an editor at Breitbart News, known as the online “platform of the alt-right,” which happens to be funded by Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, the far-right mega-donors who are major Donald Trump backers and whose family foundation has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Goldwater Institute. The younger Mercer was even a member of Trump’s transition team. Violence against a speaker, a professor or an onlooker is certainly unacceptable. So is inviting a white supremacist to speak at an institution of higher learning, and so is preventing students and faculty from protesting such a speaker. Plenty of right-wing billionaires likely don’t agree with white nationalist ideas, and by funding these so-called campus free speech bills they’re trying to advance free-market principles. But regardless of motivation, this campus "free speech" movement is spreading the hate of white nationalism, the racist “alt-right,” Islamophobia and homophobia—not to mention climate change denial and economic policies that benefit only the very wealthy—on campuses filled with young students. Conservative, corporate millionaires and billionaires are at fault.==

The Goldwater Institute is a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Conservative" title="Conservative">conservative</a> Arizona-based <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tanks" title="Think tanks">think tank</a>.

According to its website the Goldwater Institute "was established in 1988 as an independent, nonpartisan research and educational organization dedicated to the study of public policy in Arizona. Through research papers, commentaries, policy briefings and events, Goldwater scholars advance public policies based on the principles championed by the late Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barry_Goldwater" title="Barry Goldwater">Barry Goldwater</a> during his years of public service--limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility. Consistent with a belief in limited government, the Goldwater Institute neither seeks nor accepts government funds and relies on voluntary contributions to fund its work."

The Goldwater Institute is heir to the legacy of the late Barry Goldwater ... Transcending party lines, the term "Goldwater Conservative" came to be synonymous with the principles that made the United States a beacon of liberty--individual rights, economic freedom, and a government of strictly limited powers," the wesbite states.

"The Goldwater Institute board and staff share a belief in those principles, and work to develop solutions to public policy problems in accordance with them. Some call this philosophy conservative for its commitment to rule of law; others call it libertarian for its commitment to free markets and limited government; and, still others call it liberal for its commitment to individual rights. We believe our philosophy, regardless of the names by which it is known, builds a firm foundation for the free society to which we are dedicated", it states.<a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/category.php/1.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/category.php/1.html" rel="nofollow">[1]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#Areas_of_work">1 Areas of work</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#Funding">2 Funding</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#Personnel">3 Personnel</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#Contact_details">4 Contact details</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#References">5 References</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute</a>

<h2>Areas of work</h2>

They divide their work (their research or reports) into the following areas: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a>

<ul>

<li>Center For Constitutional Government

<ul>

<li>Arizona Supreme Court</li>

<li>Campaign Finance</li>

<li>Private Property</li>

<li>Regulation</li>

<li>U.S. Supreme Court</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>Center for Economic Prosperity

<ul>

<li>Economic Growth</li>

<li>Healthcare</li>

<li>Spending & Budgeting</li>

<li>Tax Policy</li>

<li>Transportation</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>Center for Educational Opportunity

<ul>

<li>AIMS (Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards), Curriculum, Testing</li>

<li>Charter Schools</li>

<li>Early Education, Pre-School, Kindergarten</li>

<li>English Language Learning, Special Education</li>

<li>Higher Education</li>

<li>School Choice</li>

<li>School Finance</li>

<li>Tuition Tax Credits</li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

<h2>Funding</h2>

Income for The Goldwater Institute in 2006 was $1,897,587. 82% of this came from individuals and 10% from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundations_and_Funders" title="Foundations and Funders">foundations</a>. A few of the over 170 contributors:<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeanne_Archer&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Jeanne Archer (page does not exist)">Jeanne Archer</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (page does not exist)">The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chase_Foundation_of_Virginia&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Chase Foundation of Virginia (page does not exist)">Chase Foundation of Virginia</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gleason_Foundation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Gleason Foundation (page does not exist)">Gleason Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Home_Builders_Association_of_Central_Arizona&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Home Builders Association of Central Arizona (page does not exist)">Home Builders Association of Central Arizona</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_G._Koch_Charitable_Foundation" title="Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation" class="mw-redirect">Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matrixx_Initiatives,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (page does not exist)">Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.</a>  [SEC fraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrixx_Initiatives,_Inc._v._Siracusano] sotomayor</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pierce_Farms,Inc.,Las_Vegas_Ranch&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Pierce Farms, Inc., Las Vegas Ranch (page does not exist)">Pierce Farms, Inc., Las Vegas Ranch</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Platt_Photography&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Platt Photography (page does not exist)">Platt Photography</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Southwest_Gas&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Southwest Gas (page does not exist)">Southwest Gas</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>Personnel</h2>

Staff:<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thomas_C._Patterson&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Thomas C. Patterson (page does not exist)">Thomas C. Patterson</a>, Chairman</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Darcy_Olsen&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Darcy Olsen (page does not exist)">Darcy Olsen</a>, President and CEO</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kathleen_Bobbe&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Kathleen Bobbe (page does not exist)">Kathleen Bobbe</a>, Director of Finance and Administration</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clint_Bolick" title="Clint Bolick">Clint Bolick</a>, Director, Center for Constitutional Litigation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matthew_Ladner&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Matthew Ladner (page does not exist)">Matthew Ladner</a>, Vice President of Research</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JuliAnna_Jelinek&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="JuliAnna Jelinek (page does not exist)">JuliAnna Jelinek</a>, Donor Relations and Major Gifts Manager</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Starlee_Rhoades&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Starlee Rhoades (page does not exist)">Starlee Rhoades</a>, Director of Communications</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrea_Woodmansee&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Andrea Woodmansee (page does not exist)">Andrea Woodmansee</a>, Director of Publications</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jess_Yescalis&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Jess Yescalis (page does not exist)">Jess Yescalis</a>, Director of Development and Philanthropy</li>

</ul>

Senior Fellows:<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling" title="Robert C. Balling">Robert C. Balling</a>, Professor of Geography, Arizona State University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Randy_Barnett&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Randy Barnett (page does not exist)">Randy Barnett</a>, Professor, Boston University School of Law</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_D._Gwartney&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="James D. Gwartney (page does not exist)">James D. Gwartney</a>, Director, Stavros Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Economic Education at Florida State University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Charles_Kors&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Alan Charles Kors (page does not exist)">Alan Charles Kors</a>, Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dan_Lips" title="Dan Lips">Dan Lips</a>, Education Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carrie_Lukas&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Carrie Lukas (page does not exist)">Carrie Lukas</a>, Director of Policy, Independent Women's Forum</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_Moore" title="Stephen Moore">Stephen Moore</a>, Editorial Writer, Wall Street Journal</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_G._Natelson&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Robert G. Natelson (page does not exist)">Robert G. Natelson</a>, Professor of Law, University of Montana</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_J._New&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Michael J. New (page does not exist)">Michael J. New</a>, Professor, University of Alabama</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Parker&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Jeffrey Parker (page does not exist)">Jeffrey Parker</a>, Professor of Law, George Mason University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Pejovich&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Steve Pejovich (page does not exist)">Steve Pejovich</a>, Professor Emeritus, Texas A&M University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Schmidtz&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David Schmidtz (page does not exist)">David Schmidtz</a>, Professor of Philosophy and Economics, University of Arizona</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bradley_Smith&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Bradley Smith (page does not exist)">Bradley Smith</a>, Professor of Law, Capital University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vernon_L._Smith" title="Vernon L. Smith">Vernon L. Smith</a>, Professor of Economics and Law, George Mason University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lewis_C._Solmon&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Lewis C. Solmon (page does not exist)">Lewis C. Solmon</a>, President, Teacher Advancement Program Foundation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gordon_Tullock&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Gordon Tullock (page does not exist)">Gordon Tullock</a>, Professor of Law and Economics, George Mason University</li>

</ul>

<h2>Contact details</h2>

Goldwater Institute

500 E. Coronado Road

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Phone: 602.462.5000

Fax: 602.256.7045

Web: <a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org" class="external free" title="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org</a>

<h2>References</h2>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#cite_ref-0" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org" class="external text" title="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org" rel="nofollow">The Goldwater Institute, Research</a>, accessed July 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Files/Multimedia/2006AnnualReport.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Files/Multimedia/2006AnnualReport.pdf" rel="nofollow">Goldwater Institute, Annual Report 2006, pg 24</a>, accessed July 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#cite_ref-2" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/staff.aspx" class="external text" title="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/staff.aspx" rel="nofollow">Goldwater Institute, Staff</a>, accessed July 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute#cite_ref-3" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/seniorfellows.aspx" class="external text" title="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/seniorfellows.aspx" rel="nofollow">Goldwater Institute, Senior Fellows</a>, accessed July 2007.</li>

</ol>

<div class="printfooter">Retrieved from "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldwater_Institute</a>"</div>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Non-Government_Organizations" title="Category:Non-Government Organizations">Non-Government Organizations</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Think_tanks" title="Category:Think tanks">Think tanks</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:United_States" title="Category:United States">United States</a></div>

</div>

Goldwater Institute

Attachments