Am Enterprise Inst / AEI
NO MERRI
SEE TAG
24 red 6/13
616 capt
see AEI 2
===
BW bk:
big booster pvtization
summer 07 AEI merc conf! 377 jcblack end of bk
---
---
2025
https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1743&context=lawreview
Uncharitable Think Tanks 207
Institution—also led in the earlier one, with only slight shifts otherwise.229 • From 2010 on, the top funders were Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, and the Scaife, Bradley, and Koch family foundations. The Devos family foundations rose to join the ranks of the top ten. • Grants channeled through Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund accounted for 13.7% of the total. • 74% of all contributions came from completely unidentified sources. • }:}:
After AEI, Heritage and Hoover, the largest recipients were Cato, the Manhattan Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Mercatus Center, the Acton Institute, the State Policy Network, the Reason Foundation, Heartland, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. From 2003 to 2018, Brulle and his co-authors tallied total gifts to this cohort of $9.77 billion 230—a sum that refutes the mistaken notion that charitable giving is small dollars, and influential only at the margin. Now for the thought experiment.
creditor corinthan with CoV, aei ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/50000-owed-money-by-corin_b_7212134.html
==
==
aipac vs muslim?
==
wiki
The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees was former head of Exxon Lee Raymond, sent letters that The Guardian said "attack theUN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.[45] Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."[10]
==
AEIphylis S aftr MA radcliffe. congress found nearly all $ from GM, ford, chysler and con ed 61 and du pont bro. flondered by GE exec took over (later gen dynamics) who hired barody, who built web of funders. pitched that left brain trusts not an accident, so need ~. in 62 added GE, socony mobil, US steel, kresge and lilly fdn P&G. tried to cast unions as monoply, royal? and did not raise waGES.
==
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business, conservative think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism[1]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute#cite_note-0), and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives.
Contents[hide] |
SW:
History
Originally set up as a spokesperson for big business and the promotion of free enterprise, the AEI came to major national prominence in the 1970s under the leadership of William Baroody, Sr.[2]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute#cite_note-1), during which time it grew from a group of twelve resident "thinkers" to a well-funded organization with 145 resident scholars, 80 adjunct scholars, and a large supporting staff. This period of growth was largely funded by the Howard Pew Freedom Trust [1].
Ronald Reagan said of the AEI in 1988:
"The American Enterprise Institute stands at the center of a revolution in ideas of which I, too, have been a part. AEI's remarkably distinguished body of work is testimony to the triumph of the think tank. For today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks – and none has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute."
In 1986, the Olin and Smith Richardson foundations withdrew their support from AEI because of substantive disagreement with certain of its policies, causing William Baroody, Jr.[3]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute#cite_note-2)[4]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute#cite_note-3)[5]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute#cite_note-4) to resign in the ensuing financial crisis. Following criticism by conservatives that the AEI was too centrist, it moved its programme further to the right and became more aggressive in pursuing its public policy goals. [2]
Work on issues
Iraq
More recently, it has emerged as one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. AEI rents office space to the Project for the New American Century, one of the leading voices that pushed the Bush administration's plan for "regime change" through war in Iraq. AEI reps have also aggressively denied that the war has anything to do with oil.
Tobacco issues
In 1980, the American Enterprise Institute for the sum of $25,000 produced a study in support of the tobacco industry titled, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Regulation: Consumer Products. The study was designed to counteract "social cost" arguments against smoking by broadening the social cost issue to include other consumer products such as alcohol and saccharin. The social cost arguments against smoking hold that smoking burdens society with additional costs from on-the-job absenteeism, medical costs, cleaning costs and fires.[3] The report was part of the global tobacco industry's 1980s Social Costs/Social Values Project, carried out to refute emerging social cost arguments against smoking.
Water Policy
At a conference on water policy hosted by AEI in 2006, William Morris, a Professor at Case Western Law School, argued that "markets are essential in providing people with water," because they "provide more information at a lower cost." Yet Morris also acknowledged the downfall of market water management, in the form of the "inevitable movement of water from poor rural areas to rich urban areas." [6]^(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute#cite_note-5)
Case Studies
NGO Watch
In June 2003, AEI and another right-wing group, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, launched a new website NGOWatch.org/NGOwatch.org to expose the funding, operations and agendas of international NGOs, and particularly their alleged efforts to constrain U.S. freedom of action in international affairs and influence the behavior of corporations abroad. [4] AEI states that "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies, as well as the effectiveness of credible NGOs."[5] Ralph Nader responds with "What they are condemning, with vague, ironic regulatory nostrums proposed against dissenting citizen groups, is democracy itself." [6]
Casting Doubt on Global Warming
In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent." [7]
The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian. [8]
AEI
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute tobacco and GW portals
Lewis Harold Brown (1894 - 1951) was president of Johns-Manville. He was founder of the American Enterprise Institute and founder and Chairman of the Tax Foundation.
Johns-Manville was the largest asbestos manufacturer in the US during the 1930s, and was involved in a massive, 40-year coverup of the severe health risks it causes.
see http://www.ewg.org/sites/asbestos/facts/photocredit.php
In Paul Brodeur's essay, The Asbestos Tragedy, he outlines the cover-up and JM's company policy with respect to informing the work force about their medical condition. Below are a few caveats from the essay, The Asbestos Tragedy (© 1990):
In 1943, Vandiver Brown told representatives of the Union Asbestos & Rubber Company, Paterson, New Jersey, that Johns-Manville did not inform its employees when their chest X-rays showed that they had developed asbestos disease. Brown said that if the workers were told, they would stop working or file claims against Johns-Manville, and that it was company policy to let them work until they quit because of asbestosis, or die as a result of it.
In 1949, Dr. Kenneth Smith, who would subsequently become the medical director of Johns-Manville, sent a memorandum to company headquarters concerning seven asbestos mill employees whose X-rays showed signs of early asbestosis. The memo, which did not come to light until 1976, provided written evidence that Johns-Manville was following a policy of not informing its workers when they developed the disease. "But as long as the man is not disabled it is felt that he should not be told of his condition so that he can live and work in peace and the company can benefit by his many years of experience."
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/American_Enterprise_Institute ppl
AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned
Think Tank Defends Money Offers to Challenge Climate Report
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 5, 2007; A04
A Washington-based think tank has been soliciting critiques of the just-released international assessment of the evidence on climate change, a move that prompted some academics and environmentalists to accuse the group of seeking to distort the latest evidence for global warming.
Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and the Public Interest Research Group questioned why the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has offered $10,000 to academics willing to contribute to a book on climate- change policy, an overture that was first reported Friday in London's Guardian newspaper.
Greenpeace spokeswoman Jane Kochersperger, who noted that AEI has received funding from Exxon Mobil in recent years, said yesterday that the think tank "has clearly hit a new low . . . when it's throwing out cash awards under the rubric of 'reason' to create confusion on the status of climate science. Americans are still suffering the impacts of Hurricane Katrina, and it's clearly time for policymakers on both sides of the aisle to take substantive action on global warming and ignore Exxon Mobil's disinformation campaign via climate skeptics."
AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green -- one of two researchers who has sought to commission the critiques -- said in an interview that his group is examining the policy debate on global warming, not the science.
"It's completely policy-oriented," said Green, adding that a third of the academics AEI solicited for the project are interested in participating. "Somebody wants to distort this."
In July 2006, Green and AEI resident scholar Steven F. Hayward -- both of whom have questioned the need for caps on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gasses linked to global warming -- started soliciting essays from academics on the then-upcoming report on global warming by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The survey's authors, who hail from more than 100 countries, said in their report Friday that they are at least 90 percent certain that human activity accounted for climate change over the past 50 years.
"The purpose of the project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on policy responses to climate change," the two men wrote. "As with any large-scale 'consensus' process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports."
At least two academics -- Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor Gerald North and Texas A&M climate researcher Steven Schroeder -- turned down AEI's offer because they feared their work would be politicized.
Schroeder, who has worked with Green in the past and has questioned some aspects of traditional climate modeling, said in an interview that he did not think AEI would have skewed his results. But he added that he worried his contribution might have been published alongside "off-the-wall ideas" questioning the existence of global warming.
"We worried our work could be misused even if we produced a reasonable report," Schroeder said. "While any human endeavor can be criticized, the IPCC system greatly exceeds the cooperation, openness and scientific rigorousness of the process applied to any other problem area that has significant effects on society."
Faced with such resistance, AEI modified its proposal last month and sent out a new round of offers, asking academics to contribute to a book examining the broad policy options for dealing with global warming.
Hayward and Green wrote that "climate change has tended to be caught in a straightjacket between so-called 'skeptics' and so-called 'alarmists' with seemingly little room left in the middle for people who may have reasonable doubts or heterodox views about the range of policy descriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimensions."
Several environmental activists and climate scientists questioned why AEI would offer a $10,000 honorarium to scientists to critique the IPCC survey. Andrew Dessler, another Texas A&M atmospheric science professor, who has worked with both Schroeder and North, said the move represents an effort by climate skeptics to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of policymakers who are debating whether to limit greenhouse gases.
AEI President Christopher DeMuth issued a letter Friday saying his group will continue to challenge orthodox thinking on climate change: "The effort to anathematize opposing views is the standard recourse of the ideologue; one of AEI's highest purposes, here as in many other contentious areas, is to ensure that such efforts to do not succeed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401213_pf.html
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-enterprise-institute ppl for the Am way
GP
American Enterprise Institute attacks the Third Assessment Report
Early copies of the TAR were leaked long before they were finalised and published, prompting an early attack
by the denial industry.
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research’s69 ($2.1 million from ExxonMobil since 199870)
Kenneth Green was central to this strategy. He wrote several articles over the year before the TAR was
released, attacking the models and labelling the process political.71
He wrote in 2001 that ‘IPCC, a political organisation, produces the policy guidance documents that dominate
international policy discussions. The reports of the IPCC are portrayed as scientific documents. Yet IPCC
reports are outlined by governmental representatives … The process departs dramatically from standard
scientific methodology and publishing procedures. Document architects only selectively include relevant studies.
The peer review process is, at best, a fig leaf.’72
Green called the Summary for Policymakers a ‘derivative document’ which condenses and expresses IPCC
findings ‘in a language suitable for moderately educated readers’.73
According to Green, the summaries were loaded with ‘speculative scenarios’ and not reflective of the full
reports. He argued that the summary document ‘has not been peer-reviewed. Its author is anonymous,
63 IPCC Third Assessment Report Summary for policymakers page 3 http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/
64 Report from Greenpeace participant at the meeting.
65 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/foia_extreme.html document entitled extreme_weather_ceq_10.pdf
66 http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1012
67 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/foia_extreme.html document entitled extreme_weather_ceq_10.pdf page 23
68 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/foia_extreme.html document entitled extreme_weather_ceq_10.pdf page 2
69 http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
70 http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
71 Kenneth Green, ‘Politics foils objective UN Climate Change Report – again’, Tech Central Station, 26 February 2001.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=022601F
72 Kenneth Green, ‘Science Matters – Even for the Environment’, Tech Central Station, 5 February 2001.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/printArticle.aspx?ID=020501E
73 Kenneth Green, ‘Mopping up After a Leak: Setting the Record Straight on the ‘New’ Findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC)’, Reason Public Policy Institute, 29 October 2000. http://www.rppi.org/ebrief105.html
11
the document is created independent of the actual report, and the summary is so short that issues were overly
simplified.’74
Writing in his role as Director of Environmental Programs for another front group, the Reason Public Policy
Institute75, Green summarised what we know as the key denier attacks on the IPCC in an October 2000 briefing
report:76 - attack the models, attack the
greenpeace koch aspen mtg
Michael Barone -- Resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, paid Senior Political Analyst for the *Washington Examiner*, and Fox News commentator.
Barone was formerly a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report, an outlet that has come to the Kochs’ defense, and a member of the Washington Post editorial board. Barone is also the principal coauthor of the Almanac of American Politics, published annually by the National Journal Group. The American Enterprise Institute, which has received $150,000 from Koch foundations and over $2.8 million from ExxonMobil since 1997, has used its American blog since the Aspen meeting to defend Koch Industries.
crypto:
Searching for a Defender of Atrazine on HuffPo
In response, Syngenta CP's Steven Goldsmith sent an email to Josh Gilder of WHWG and Mike Burita at Quinn Thomas :{asking an interesting question:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: (PDF).
"Is there anyone at HP [HuffPo] who we could cultivate on this issue rather than continuing to get bashed by everyone on their payroll?"
WHWG and Quinn Thomas had already been hard at work for six months on an array of tactics to advance Syngenta PR's third party strategy on atrazine.
One was to have Syngenta's chief scientist, Dr. Mike Bushell, ghostwrite a chapter for a book challenging the idea of regulating atrazine by applying the "precautionary principle."
This standard, which is embedded in U.S. and EU consumer law, places the burden of proof on manufacturers to establish that their products are not harmful if science points to significant risks to human health or the environment. WHWG :{said:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: (PDF) it would "find someone else willing to put their name" on Syngenta's "Ghost Author" story about atrazine and challenge the potential embrace of the precautionary principle by the Obama Administration's EPA.
The ghostwritten chapter was for a book to be published in conjunction with someone at the :{**American Enterprise Institute**:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:, a DC think tank that is funded in part by large donations from corporations. It is not known whether Syngenta has funded this think tank or any of its "fellows," directly or indirectly.
Also Needed: An Investigative Reporter to Rattle the EPA's Cages
On December 3, 2009, Syngenta's in-house PR staff held a planning meeting to deal with the fallout from the New York Times investigation, the :{agenda:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: (PDF) was to "[o]btain the services of a well know (sic) investigative reporter to probe around the EPA" and, at a minimum get advice "on what buttons to push and cages to rattle."
As part of the effort to influence EPA's review, another tactic was to identify long-term needs for published materials and which third parties "should be approached/retained."
Unsealed e-mails reveal (PDF) that earlier that same week WHWG had reported to Syngenta that a third party the PR team was in communication with was Jon Entine of the American Enterprise Institute. Entine is a former producer with NBC and ABC News, whose books attacked the idea of socially responsible investing and the precautionary principle (Let Them Eat Precaution).
wiki BS:
Jon Entine is an American author, journalist, think tank scholar and consultant. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at :{George Mason University:(style="background-color:#ed1c24"):}:[1] and a senior fellow at GMU's STATS (Statistical Assessment Service),[2] where he is founder and director of the Genetic Literacy Project.[3] He has been a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C[4] since 2002. He writes a column (since 2001) for the British-based international magazine Ethical Corporation, Forbes.com and contributes to newspapers and magazines around the world. Entine is also the founder of ESG MediaMetrics,[5] which offers crisis management and sustainability WTF consulting in environmental, social and governance areas, and he advises organizations on brand reputation and strategic communications....In 2011, Entine joined the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University as a senior fellow and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, which focuses on the nexus of genetics—human and agricultural—with the media and public policy. He is also a senior research fellow at GMU's Center for Health & Risk Communication. Entine joined the :{American Enterprise Institute:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: for Public Policy Research as an adjunct scholar in 2002, and is now a visiting scholar. His research focuses on science and society and corporate responsibility/sustainability. AEI Press has published three books written and edited by Entine: Crop Chemophobia: Will Precaution Kill the Green Revolution? (February 2011), which analyzes the impact of chemicals in agriculture; Pension Fund Politics: The Dangers of Socially Responsible Investing (2005) on the growing influence of social investing in pension funds and Let Them Eat Precaution: How Politics Is Undermining the Genetic Revolution in Agriculture (January 2006), which examined the debate over genetic modification (GMOs), food, and farming. He has also contributed to numerous academic books on a variety of subjects, including sports, genetics, leadership, and sustainability.
Fossil-fuel-funded AEI fellow Steven Hayward has penned WSJ op-eds with titles like "No: Alternatives Are Simply Too Expensive."
Other conservative think tanks have jumped in the clean-tech-bashing game, too. Take the American Enterprise Institute, recipient of at least $2.8 million in money from fossil-fuel interests like ExxonMobil since 1998. AEI fellow Steven Haywardhas penned Wall Street Journal op-eds with titles like "No: Alternatives Are Simply Too Expensive." [8] Then there's the Institute for Energy Research, an industry aligned [9] nonprofit that has taken money from Exxon and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, one of the Koch family foundations. The institute's president, Thomas Pyle, appeared in a January 2010 *Houston Chronicle* article [10] arguing that the government should not provide tax credits to renewable energy, because it's been proven that they are "not economically viable in the marketplace."...
In October 2011, Bryce did get some flack when an op-ed he wrote [11] for the New York Times bashing California's clean-energy mandate failed to disclose that the Manhattan Institute is supported by oil and gas interests. Checks and Balances, along with a group of 50 journalists and journalism educators, launched a campaign [12] in response, asking the Times to disclose any financial ties of op-ed contributors. The public editor responded with a column calling for more transparency [13] on contributors. kate shepard