webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

george mason u bak

bak no red

===

see 2 for newer

tag

capt 917

==

NEW

https://www.desmogblog.com/george-mason-university

Background

George Mason University (GMU) began as the Northern Virginia branch of the University of Virginia in 1957. In 1972 it had grown to the point where it officially separatedfrom its parent institution. [1]

During the 1990s it became a “magnet for right-wing money.” From 1992 through 1994, twelve libertarian foundations invested a combined total of $8.55 million in various academic programs and institutes of George Mason University. This funding helped establish (and continues to support) the University's libertarian “study centers.” [2]

Koch Industries, apart from providing significant funding to GMU, also has personnel connected to the university. Richard Fink, the vice president of Koch Industries, Inc., and the former president of the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, serves on the board of directors of the George Mason University Foundation and the Mercatus Center.

Besides teaching at the university from 1980-1986, Fink has also served on a number of boards at the university including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Center for the Study of Public Choice, the Board of Visitors, and the Student Affairs Committee. [3]

Charles Koch himself is also a member of the Mercatus Center's Board of Directors. [4]

Stance on Climate Change

George Mason University appears to have a conflicted view on climate change, depending on where you look. For example, Bruce Yandle, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Economics at George Mason University's Mercatus Center (housed within the George Mason University) implied there may be benefits to climate change (PDF) in a 2007 Mercatus Center presentation:

“The assumptions do not lead us to conclude that we should venture forth and take costly action to reduce emissions. […] There is a matter of benefits and costs. Is it possible that global climate change is on balance helpful to human populations and the environment? And if not, is it possible that other actions we might take could be more beneficial to human populations and the environment than acting to reduce carbon emissions?”

[45]

Here's another example, in a 2001 “Public Interest Comment” (PDF) released by the Mercatus Center opposing EPA regulations:

“The evidence regarding global warming and human contribution to it is mixed, and as forecasts of anthropogenic warming get more refined, they predict less extreme warming.” [5]

However, a statement from George Mason University's“Centre for Climate Change Communication” suggests that the evidence for man-made climate change is definitive:

“Climate change is the result of human actions and choices. Limiting climate change – and protecting people and ecosystems to the degree possible from unavoidable changes in the climate – will require significant public engagement in the issue so that difficult decisions can be made by members of the public and policy makers. Our center was created to conduct unbiased social science research that will facilitate such public engagement.” [46]

Mercatus Center at George Mason University

GMU's Mercatus Center has consistenlty lobbied against greenhouse gas emission policy, and is largely funded by oil companies and by Koch Industries.

Charles Koch the CEO of Koch Industries sits on the Board of Directors of the Mercatus Center, as well as Richard Fink, Executive Vice President of Koch Industries. [48]

George Mason University vs. George Mason University Foundation

According to correspondence with George Mason University (emphasis added):

“All philanthropic gifts are processed through the George Mason University Foundation, which is the non-profit arm of the university proper. This allows for the university and the donor to both see the greatest benefit from gifts, including tax deductibility (with some exclusions). There are some exceptions, such as contributions that support sponsored research, which would be handled by a designated office on the university side.

The Foundation only accepts gifts which are completely philanthropic — 'no strings attached.' For example, someone creating a scholarship and making a fully tax-deductible gift can have no say in which students receive the awards. The same thing is true for gifts in kind, such as books for the library or donated artwork; donors give up their full rights of ownership and control over that property in order for it to qualify as a tax-deductible gift. Any contribution that has any sort of 'quid pro quo' requirements or allows for the giver to direct the expenditure or use of their donation does not qualify for the tax deduction and will be handled by the appropriate university office. The size of the gift doesn’t matter; it’s the intent that IRS regulations address.”

References to the “designated office” would likely refer to donations going George Mason University as opposed to the Foundation, however these distinctions are not always clear in available 990 tax forms.

many docs/stats

....

$79,610,165$4,861,042$3,850,000$88,321,207

George Mason University Funding

**View the attached .xls file for complete funding for the George Mason University, George Mason University Foundation, and related departments.** Records are based on a combination of Conservative Transparency records and original 990 form research by  DeSmogBlog.

* Note that not all funding records were available for verification by DeSmogBlog.

GMU Departments & Programs

Public 990 tax forms listed a range of grants related to George Mason University. Here is a list of the departments and related foundations mentioned in records for GMU:

Center for the Study of Public Choice

According to tax records, the address for the Center for the Study of Public Choice is:

“George Mason University, 4400 University Drive Fairfax VA 22030”

The GMU Website describes the Center for Study of Public Choiceas “a unique research institution at George Mason University, provides a single location where eminent scholars conduct innovative research, publish their findings and conclusions in a variety of print and electronic media, and teach the science of public choice.” [6]

Led by Dr. Alex Tabarrok, the Center “builds on the groundbreaking economic and political science theories for which Buchanan was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.”

“The Center serves as the institutional home for the Public Choice Research Program, which has developed and matured over the past half-century. Created in 1957 at the University of Virginia , the Center was initially called the Thomas Jefferson Center for Studies in Political Economy. In 1969, the Center was reconstituted at Virginia Tech under its present name. In 1983, the Center shifted its operations to George Mason University. The Center's alumni include 148 doctoral students from George Mason, 113 from Virginia Tech, and 109 from the University of Virginia . From its historical association with three of Virginia 's major universities, the Center's academic footprint is often dubbed the 'Virginia School of Political Economy'.”

WLF Economic Freedom Clinic

The Economic Freedom Clinicis a project of the Washington Legal Foundation, and housed inside the George Mason University School of Law. [7]

According to ExxonSecrets, WLF has been holding the Economic Freedom Clinic at George Mason University since 1999.  [8]

George Mason Environmental Law Clinic

According to their website, “The Free Market Environmental Law Clinic’s purpose is to make lawyers and make (case) law. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable institution working alongside the George Mason University School of Law and other law schools.”

It is registered with a separate EIN (45-1602963) and lists the following address on their website: [9]

The Free Market Environmental Law Clinic

9033 Brook Ford Road

Burke, VA 22015

George Mason University Department of Economics

The GMU Economics Department has developed a particular approach to economics, which they have dubbed Masonomics. According to their website, “Masonomics trusts that the presence of liberty and basic human rights will enable people to create a political-economic system characterized by economic growth, stability and rule-of-law. [10]

George Mason University Econ Journal Watch

According to the Econ Journal Watch (EJW) website, “EJW legally exists within the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. ISSN: 1933-527X.”

“EJW watches the journals for inappropriate assumptions, weak chains of argument, phony claims of relevance, omissions of pertinent truths, and irreplicability (EJW also publishes replications)”

At least one 990 tax form (Atlas Economic Research Foundation, 2008) identifies it as the “George Mason University Econ Journal Watch” with the EIN of 94-2763845 (This EIN is registered to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.) Many of the contacts including Editors, Co-Editors, and Advisory Council members for the EJW are located at George Mason University. [11]

George Mason University ICES

The George Mason University Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science (ICES) is housed inside the George Mason University Department of Economics. ICES was founded by Dr. Vernon L. Smith and “brings together faculty from economics, law, computational science, neuroscience and engineering.”[12]

Vernon L. Smith is a past Professor of Economics and Law at George Mason University (2001 - 2008), and has affiliations with a number of right-wing think tanks. He serves on the Board of Directors at the Mercatus Center. He has been an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute, member of the Academic Advisory Council for the Institute of Economic Affairs (UK), and past president of the Association for Private Enterprise Education.[13]

George Mason University Institute on Political Journalism

The Institute on Political Journalism is a program sponsored by the Fund for American Studies and hosted at the George Mason University Arlington campus. The program is focused on the study of free-market principles as they apply to journalism and communications. The program description is below: [14]

“When you picture your future, do you see yourself covering the campaign trail, reporting on current events or developing a strategic marketing plan for a corporate client? If so, the Institute on Political Journalism (IPJ) is the program for you. Employers are looking for recent graduates with experience, and the best way to stand out after graduation is to complete an internship and make connections now.

With IPJ, you are guaranteed an internship with a newspaper, online publication, public relations firm, television, or radio station. In the classroom, you’ll study free-market principles and the importance of a free, fair and accurate press.”

George Mason University Law and Economics Center

The George Mason University Law & Economics Center was formed in 1974 with the mission to “be a nexus for academic research and education that focuses on the timely and relevant economic analysis of legal and public policy issues confronting policy makers worldwide.”

According to their website, the Center's vision is “hat if policymakers understand economics, they will be more likely to make sound decisions that support the rule of law and the free enterprise system, thus advancing innovation, job creation, and economic growth.” [15]

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets reports that the George Mason University Law and Economics Center received at least $385,000 from ExxonMobilsince 1998. [22]

George Mason University School of Public Policy Research

The George Mason University School of Public Policy (SPP) started in 1990 as an institute inside the George Mason University, and expanded to became a separate school in July of 2000.

According to one description, “The unparalleled quality of the teaching team appeals to more than just exceptional students. It also encourages substantial financial support from major corporate partners and policymakers in all levels of private and public organizations, in the form of grants, contracts and direct contributions. The School is committed to finding new ways to direct these resources back into the community, applying the theories and research developed in the classroom to help make a better world.” [16]

International Foundation for Research in Experimental Economics

The International Foundation for Research in Experimental Economics (IFREE) is a 501(c)(3) public foundation established in 1997 by Dr. Vernon L. Smith to support research and education in experimental economics. The group's mission statement is “To advance the understanding of exchange systems and the testing and application of market-based institutions.” [17]

While it maintains a separate EIN (86-0879713), publicly available tax records have listed IFREE with a shared an address at George Mason University (and, in some cases, the Mercatus Center). For example, according to a 2001 990-PF form of the Earhart Foundation, IFREE's address was the following:

IFREE at Mercatus Center

George Mason University

3301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 450

According to their website, IFREE is currently located at 2122 E. Camino El Ganado, Tucson, AZ 85718. [17]

IFREE's Board of Directors has a number of connections to GMU including Tyloer Cowen (General Director, The Mercatus Center and Holbert C. Harris Chair of Economics, George Mason University), Kevin A. McCabe (Professor of Economics and Law, George Mason University), and Bart Wilson (Department of Economics, George Mason University). [18]

Since 2011, the Center for the study of Neuroeconomics at George Mason University hashosted IFREE-sponsored workshops at their Arlington campus. [19]

James M Buchanan Center for Political Economy

The James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy no longer appears listed on the GMU website, however it is archived on the web as of 2009 where it is described as “an education and research organization at George Mason university emphasizing the interdisciplinary study of economics, law, and the humanities.” The Center was named in honor of its Advisory General Director, Dr. James M. Buchanan. [20]

James M. Buchanan was the director of the Center for Public Choice until his death in 2013. According to an article in *The New Yorker*, the Mercatus Center merged with the Center for Public Choice in 1998 to become the James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy. [21]

Mercatus Center

The Mercatus Center is a conservative think tank located at George Mason University.  It is a sister organization to the Institute for Humane Studies. The Mercatus Center was originally founded at Rutgers University by Richard Fink in the late 1970s, under the name the Center for Market Processes.  [24]

The Mercatus Centerwas formed in the mid-eighties with an influx of funding from Koch Industries, which still finances the center today. Charles Koch and Richard Fink serve on its board of directors. In 1999, the organization was renamed the Mercatus Center and promoted itself as “the world's premier university source for market-oriented ideas—bridging the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems.” [21]

The Mercatus Center believes that a gap exists between economic understanding and real-world decision and policy making. Its mission is to bridge that gap and to provide policy makers with the economic tools to make sense of today’s most pressing issues.” [25]

The Wall Street Journal has called the Mercatus Center “the most important think tank you’ve never heard of,” and SourceWatch identifies the Mercatus Center as “one of the best-funded think tanks in the United States.” [26], [31]

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets reports that the Mercatus Center at George Mason University received $330,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [23]

Institute for Humane Studies

The Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) was founded by F.A. Harper in 1961 and has been associated with George Mason University since 1985.  [27]

The mission of the IHS is “to support the achievement of a free society by discovering and facilitating the development of talented, productive students, scholars and other intellectuals who share a commitment to liberty and who demonstrate the potential to change significantly the current climate of opinion to one more congenial to the principles and practices of freedom.” [27]

According to SourceWatch, the IHS acts as “a libertarian talent scout, identifying, developing, and supporting the brightest young libertarians it can find who are intent on a leveraged scholarly, or intellectual, career path.” In addition to the funding it receives from the Koch Family Foundations, the Institute for Humane Studies also receives donations from conservative foundations such as the Carthage Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. [28]

George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication

The George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communications describes itsmission as to “conduct unbiased public engagement research - and to help government agencies, non-profit organizations, and companies apply the results of this research - so that collectively, we can stabilize our planet's life sustaining climate.”[42]

The Center has published a range ofreports on Climate Change. Below is a list of the team (as of September, 2015)at the GMU Center for Climate Change Communication. [43]

Director

Mason Faculty Researchers

Affiliate Researchers

Mason Doctoral Students

Key People

The following were listed on the George Mason University's websiteas of September, 2015: [29]

Leadership

Executive Council

Deans

Mason Songdo Campus Leadership

George Mason University Foundation

According to the GMU Foundation's most recent 990 form (2014):

Board of Visitors

As of September, 2015: [30]

Members

Faculty Representative

Student Representatives

Faculty Committee Representatives

Faculty Committee Liaison

Leadership (2012)

As of April, 2012: [32]

Board of Visitors (2012)

As of September, 2012: [33]

Other

According to SourceWatch, the following individuals are also associated with the university. Also see DeSmogBlog's Mercatus Center profile for more information. [34]

Actions

March, 2016

The George Mason University School of Law renamed itself after Justice Anotnin Scalia. The new full name of the Arlington, Va., school will be the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University, reports the Wall Steet Journal. [47]

The Wall Street Journalalso reports that George Mason University's name change was announced along with two donations totaling $30 million, inluding a $10 million grant from the Charles Koch Foundation. [47]

February, 2012

Edward Wegman, a statistics professor at George Mason University has been under investigation by GMU for numerous issues regarding his published Wegman Report including potential plagiarism. (See FOIA Facts Series below).

The first charges were laid by University of Massachusetts professor Raymond Bradley who filed a complaint against Wegman in 2010, noting that portions of the report and the CSDA study appeared lifted from one of his textbooks and Wikipedia.

A report by John Mashey found Wegman's report to be guilty of falsifications, misrepresentation and fabricationsthat could give rise to a charge of academic misconduct. When Wegman tried to publish the report in the peer-reviewed journal of Computational Data and Statistics Analysis (CSDA), it was rejected due to possible plagiarism from Wikipedia and textbooks. [39]

George Mason University was criticized by *Nature*for its slow review process, but after 2 years has released their verdict.[40]

Provost Peter Stearns said that one investigation committee unanimously found that “no misconduct was involved” in the 2006 Congressional report. “Extensive paraphrasing of another work did occur, in a background section, but the work was repeatedly referenced and the committee found that the paraphrasing did not constitute misconduct,” he said in the statement. [41]

George Mason University Contact & Location

As of June 2016, George Mason University listed the following contact information on its website: [49]

George Mason University

4400 University Drive

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Phone: 703-993-1000

DeSmogBlog Reporting on George Mason University

FOIA Facts Series:

View John Mashey's complete May, 2013 report (Updated) — “FOIA Facts: Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, George Mason University,” or view individual reporting below.

Other Reporting

Resources/ref

==

ORIGIN?

The big business reaction to Lewis Powell’s judicial and legal strategy was swift. Within a few years, nearly a dozen corporate-funded legal foundations were created. The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) was formed in California in 1973 to counter public-interest law firmsand represent the interests of business and private property holders against environmental regulations. PLF’s prospectus quoted the Powell memo at length. (Kim Phillips-Fein, “Invisible Hands,” p. 162).

When asked for his opinion of the “most critical” area of public interest law, PLF’s then-executive legal director replied, “environmental law,” citing the firm’s support for the use of DDT, the construction of a dam and reservoir project, the use of herbicides in national forests and the use of public grazing lands without environmental impact review. The early cases established a clear pattern for PLF and its followers at the Mountain States Legal Foundation and other regionally named corporate defenders. Environmental cases would be a priority and the foundations’ positions in such cases would invariably be those of their business benefactors, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, Gulf Oil, ARCO, Ford and other companies (Houck, "With Charity for All," pp. 1461-1462). The work of these groups also supported the Wise Use movement; radical property rights activists and corporate front groups that attacked environmental laws and regulations on behalf of landowners, ranchers and the oil industry (Helvarg, The War Against the Greens).

The conservative backlash against alleged liberal influence over the law went well beyond the corporate agenda that grew directly out of Powell’s analysis, but there were also tensions between the two. Corporate legal campaigns were primarily self-interested, practical and designed to get both immediate and longer-term results. The conservative legal movement that got its start in the 1970s was more ideologically driven; its greatest successes would take decades, and sometimes came about through indirect means (Teles, The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement).

At the juncture between these two was the “law and economics” school, with leading proponents such as Richard Posner at the University of Chicago andGeorge Mason University’s Henry Manne. Manne organized seminars for federal judges through his Law and Economics Center, with support from the Olin Foundation, which also backed some of the leading “second generation” conservative public policy law firms, like the Center for Individual Rights. The foundation’s chairman, John M Olin, was inspired by Powell’s memo to write to William Baroody at the American Enterprise Institute: “The Powell Memorandum gives a reason for a well organized effort to re-establish the validity and importance of the American free enterprise system.” (“Invisible Hands,” Kim Phillips-Fein)

For its part, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also eventually followed Powell’s advice by creating two legal groups that have carried out a multi-decade legal strategy -- the National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) and the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR). NCLC served as the Chamber’s law firm, using aggressive and strategic litigation to challenge regulations and laws. Entering 134 new cases of significance to the business community in 2009, for example, the NCLC helped to secure 52 victories.  GP on powell memeo

GP 2013 TT $:   GMU Foundation Law and Econ Center $1,170,000   horner FME?

By Tom Jackman January 9, 2014 Follow @TomJackmanWP

Each of the public universities in Virginia is overseen by aBoard of Visitors,which hires the university president and sets school policy. The governor appoints the members of the board to four-year terms, so perhaps it’s not too surprising that the current 16 members at George Mason University in Fairfax, appointed by Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, donated almost $469,000 to Republican political candidates in the last four years, and slightly less than $9,500 to Democratic candidates, a new report in George Mason’s Fourth Estate student publication shows.

:{

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, shown here testing out an anti-gang video game on the George Mason University}: campus in 2012, received thousands in donations from current members of the Mason Board of Visitors. (

Executive Editor Frank Muraca worked up the numbers from campaign finance reports compiled by the Virginia Public Access Project. The spreadsheet showing each member’s donations is here. In 2010, The Post’s Anita Kumar reported that “It’s common for governors to use board of visitors appointments — the most prestigious appointments they have to offer — as a thank-you to longtime supporters and friends.” It would not be unheard of, then, for the new Virginia governor to install a more Democratic-leaning board, by this logic. Here is the Fourth Estate’s primer on what the Board of Visitors is.

Most of the current members donated to McDonnell’s campaign in 2009 or his inauguration in 2010, withRobert F. Pence giving $25,703 to McDonnell(and another $25,000 last year to Ken Cuccinelli), John Michael Jacquemin (no relation) giving $17,500 to McDonnell and Rector Dan Clemente giving $10,000 to McDonnell’s inauguration and about another $11,000 each to Cuccinelli and Delegate Barbara Comstock. Only Mohammad Siddique Sheikh of Prince William County dared to buck the trend, giving $4,977 to Democrats, $1,700 to Republicans and zero to McDonnell. In addition, the 16 members gave another $163,000 to various PACs or associations, listed as “Other” in the spreadsheet.

The full list of members of the Board of Visitors, which also includes former Fairfax Board Chairman Tom Davis and former Fairfax Supervisor Stuart Mendelson, is here, along with their bios.

In a related note, George Mason has been the beneficiary of some serious donations in recent years from the wealthy Koch brothers, known for their conservative views. According to the Investigative Reporting Workshop, Koch charitable foundations gave more than $30 million to three Mason entities between 2007 and 2011: $16.3 million to the George Mason University Foundation, $10.3 million to the Institute for Humane Studies and $3.7 million to the Mercatus Center, the business school . an economic research center. There are no allegations in the story that any of the funds sent to Mason were used for political purposes, and a Mason official is quoted as such. The Kochs donated to 221 universities in the five-year period, but Mason received by far the most. The full story, headlined “Koch millions spread influence through nonprofits, colleges,” is here.

Disclosure: I teach a class at Mason as an adjunct professor in the criminology department. I have donated to no candidates, and have received no money from the Koch brothers. Also, I initially mischaracterized the Mercatus Center, and have corrected that.

Tom Jackman has been covering criminal justice for The Post since 1998, and now anchors the new "True Crime" blog.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/01/09/study-george-mason-board-of-visitors-members-donated-heavily-to-republicans/

==

Gov. Bob McDonnell(R) announced Thursday that he has appointed several of his biggest supporters and top donors to the board of visitors of four of the state's premiere universities.

Sheila Johnson, co-founder of Black Entertainment Television and one of McDonnell's most prominent black supporters, was appointed to the University of Virginia board. R. Carter Pate, a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers and a major Republican donor who was Sen. John McCain's Virginia finance chairman, was named to the George Mason University board. Suzanne S. Obenshain, a Virginia Tech graduate and the wife of Sen. Mark Obenshain (R), will serve on the Virginia Tech board.

It's common for governors to use board of visitors appointments -- the most prestigious appointments they have to offer -- as a thank-you to longtime supporters and friends.

See below for the full list:

The College of William and Mary

George Mason University:

· Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauerof Oakton, President of MediaSpeaks Strategies, LLC

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University:

The University of Virginia and Affiliated Schools 

JUDGE JUNKETS

Federal Judge Who Halted Walker Dark Money Criminal Probe Attended Koch-Backed Judicial Junkets

The federal judge who ordered a halt to Wisconsin's "John Doe" criminal investigation into spending during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections has regularly attended all-expenses paid "judicial junkets" funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and other ideological and corporate interests.

On May 6, federal District Court Judge Rudolph Randa blocked an ongoing John Doe criminal probe into allegedly illegal coordination between nonprofit groups like Wisconsin Club for Growth, which spent $9.1 million on electoral ads during Wisconsin's recall elections, and the recall campaigns of Governor Scott Walker and state senators. John Doe investigations are similar to grand jury investigations, and Wisconsin Club for Growth -- and its director, Eric O'Keefe, a longtime compatriot of the Koch brothers -- asked the federal court to stop the probe, alleging it violated their "free speech" rights.

Judge Randa sided with O'Keefe,and also ordered prosecutors to destroy all evidence gathered in the investigation, an extraordinary edict in a criminal case made even more astounding by the fact that it came in the context of a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit has blocked this part of his ruling; an appeal of the remainder of his decision is pending.

An analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy shows that Judge Randa attended privately-funded, all-expenses-paid judicial seminars put on by George Mason University in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012, according to publicly-available financial disclosure forms. (The 2013 disclosure form has been requested but has not yet been publicly posted).

The George Mason University seminars are bankrolled by a long list of right-wing foundations, like Koch, Bradley, and the Searle Freedom Trust, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporations like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Dow Chemical. Many of these interests have long opposed limits on money in politics, although it is not known whether campaign finance reform was a topic at the seminars Randa attended.

The seminars amount to a privately-funded all-expenses paid trip for judges, with conference sponsors picking up the costs of a judge's flights, hotel rooms, and meals. One seminar Judge Randa attended was in La Jolla, California, a swanky San Diego suburb that is home to both great golfing and Mitt Romney; the location of other seminars Randa attended is unknown. The content of the seminars has a decidedly pro-corporate bent, and the expensive gifts raise concerns about improper influence when corporate sponsors have a stake in a case before a judge. (Some reports have directly connected the trips to judge's decisions).

No other federal district judges in Wisconsin attended the privately-funded George Mason seminars, according to the Center for Media and Democracy's review of publicly available financial disclosure documents.

Koch and Bradley Bankrolled Junkets Randa Attended

The Judicial Conference of the United States -- which oversees the conduct of federal judges -- has notedthat judges may be "influenced inappropriately" at the privately-funded events, and since 2007 has required that seminar organizers disclose the names of funders.

The disclosures do not specify how much each funder contributed towards the judge's expenses and seminar costs, but for the years that Judge Randa attended the seminars, some donations can be ascertained by foundation tax filings.

According to the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation's tax filings, in 2012 it gave $5.45 million to the George Mason University Foundation, and $51,000 to its "Law and Economics Center." The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave $4.7 million to George Mason in 2010 for "general operating support and education programs," $2.78 million in 2008 for "general operating support," and $350,000 in 2006 for "educational and research programs."

The Koch network also funded Wisconsin Club for Growth, which filed the case before Judge Randa. A full list of the Club's funders is not known, but tax filings show that the Koch-connected Center to Protect Patient Rights (CPPR) funneled $225,000 to Wisconsin Club for Growth in 2011. CPPR also entirely bankrolled the Coalition for American Values, which spent $400,080 on pro-Walker ads in the final weeks of the recall elections. (In California, CPPR was hit with an unprecedented $1 million fine for its involvement in a campaign finance shell game to evade the state's donor disclosure laws.) Other Koch groups, like Americans for Prosperity, have reportedly been subpoenaed in Wisconsin's John Doe investigation.

In 2010, the Bradley Foundation gave George Mason $40,000 "to support educational programs for judges conducted by the Law and Economics Center." It also gave George Mason $40,000 in 2008 "to support the judicial education program," and $35,000 in 2006 "to support education programs."

The Bradley Foundation's President and CEO, Michael Grebe, chaired Scott Walker's 2010 and 2012 gubernatorial campaigns. Walker's 2012 campaign is under investigation in the John Doe for allegedly illegal coordination.

Both Bradley and Koch have long demonstrated antipathy for limits on money in politics, and for years have bankrolled organizations that fight against campaign finance reform, like the Center for Competitive Politics.

Judicial Seminars Reflect Principles in Powell Memo

Some have drawn a direct line between these corporate-funded judicial seminars and the 1971 Powell Memo, a call-to-arms for corporate America to aggressively push back against the "attack on the free enterprise system" -- represented by the likes of Ralph Nader -- by developing a set of institutions to reshape politics and law.

The Powell Memo reportedly sparked the development of a right-wing infrastructure and the formation of groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (better known as ALEC), the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society (with which Judge Randa is affiliated), and others. As the New York Times recently reported, Charles Koch specifically referenced the Powell Memo in a 1974 speech previewing what has become the "Koch network," calling for a "well-financed cadre of of sound proponents of the free-enterprise philosophy" and for business to "undertake radical new efforts to overcome the prevalent anti-capitalist mentality."

Some of the memo's most aggressive language was reserved for the judiciary, which its author, then-tobacco lawyer and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, called “the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.”

As a Supreme Court Justice, Powell would play a key role in decisions like First National Bank v. Bellotti andBuckley v. Valeo, which declared that "money equals speech" and reshaped the First Amendment into a tool to protect the ability of corporations and wealthy individuals to spend on elections.

Privately-Funded Seminar Disclosure Still Spotty

Although the Judicial Conference requires that judges publicly disclose their attendance at privately-funded seminars, and that those who conduct the events publish details about their funders, tracking the reports can be difficult, as the Center for Public Integrity has noted.

The Eastern District of Wisconsin website has a page that is supposed to list all seminars attended by federal judges in that court over the past three years, yet claims that there is "no attendance reported" for any Eastern District judges since 2011. This is contradicted by a review of Judge Randa's 2012 financial disclosure form.

Requesting an individual judge's financial disclosure form can take weeks, although Judicial Watch has postedmany forms online.

Judge Randa reported no travel reimbursement on his 2010 financial disclosure form, but the Center for Public Integrity reports that he attended a 2010 seminar at George Mason titled "The Rule of Law."

George Mason also has apparently tried to dodge the limited donor disclosure rules that do exist. Prior to 2012, it disclosed its list of corporate and foundation seminar funders -- which consistently included Koch and Bradley and corporations like Exxon Mobil -- but in 2012 listed the only funder as "xyz corp," and listed itself as the only donor. In 2013 it returned to providing a full list of donors.

-- Lisa Graves contributed to this article --

==

Millions to George Mason

By far the largest recipient of Koch support is George Mason University, which has a relationship with the foundation dating to 1980. Since 2002, according to publicly available federal tax filings, the foundation has awarded more than$10 million to George Mason through the university's foundation, and about $15 million to the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank that is affiliated with the university (it publishes the Freedom Index,which ranks states according to the extent to which there are regulations on everything from trans fats to mandated family leave policies). Another $6 million has gone to the Institute for Humane Studies,which is housed at George Mason (it offers scholarships to and runs seminars for those with “an interest in liberty”), but it has few formal connections with the university beyond occupying space there.

When asked for copies of the donor agreements, the university referred the request to the foundation, saying that -- since they are held by a private nonprofit organization -- such documents are not subject to freedom of information requirements, a position the foundation confirmed.

The faculty has made similar requests [10] and been rebuffed by the foundation. Spurred by concerns over the relationship with the Koch Foundation, the Faculty Senate has formed a task force to examine the implications of all the funding agreements into which the university has entered.

“If we can’t have access to the agreements, it’s very difficult to determine where the intent lies,” said Peter M. Pober, chair of the Faculty Senate and professor of communications.

While many faculty members at George Mason acknowledged that private foundation support of a university’s academic programs is nothing new, Pober said the important line of distinction is at what point and how the private foundation exerts its influence. It is customary, he said, for a foundation to give money to study a particular discipline, whether it be free market economics or labor studies. But it is something else if the donation is contingent upon a scholar producing research with a predetermined outcome.

“[If it’s] ‘We hope you will find X before the hypothesis is formed,’ the Faculty Senate would be concerned,” said Pober. “That’s not to say I think that’s happening. The concern that it could be happening is what led to the creation of the task force.”

Peter Stearns, George Mason’s provost, said that none of its agreements with the Koch Foundation went so far as to require a predetermined outcome or to give the foundation control over hiring. “When the incident at Florida State occurred, I looked to make sure we had no agreements tying our hands with the hiring of faculty,” said Stearns, “and we have no such agreements.”

Most of the money from the Koch Foundation has supported specific research projects, said Stearns, most of it conducted by doctoral students in law and economics.“There are simply no contractual agreements that specify that this money is supposed to be used for specific ideological purposes,” he said. “Let me say the obvious: donors give to institutions that do things that they like. That doesn’t mean they require specific research agendas. Obviously, Koch has decided we have a batch of economists that it decides that it likes.”

Such cycles of continued private funding and acceptable research are “as old as the academy itself,” said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (and a recipient of Koch support). The responsibility to protect academic freedom and deal frankly with donors rests, he said, with universities.

“In hazier cases where it seems that the donor would prefer the promotion of certain viewpoints, the university must not apply the grant in a way that would violate the free speech or academic freedom rights of its faculty or students,” said Lukianoff, who said that the Koch grants’ requirements, especially those related to research into "appreciation of economic freedom” fall into this hazy category.

Besides, he argued, many departments or fields of study -- from peace studies to human rights law -- have inherent ideological and intellectual assumptions. But that is not, in itself, an academic freedom problem, he said.

“Departments (and entire fields of study) often come with certain limited intellectual assumptions built in, but when these are transformed into mandatory ideological requirements they run afoul of principles of academic freedom,” said Lukianoff. “While I have no doubt that donors -- and universities themselves -- do often favor certain particular sets of ideological beliefs over others, universities have a responsibility to do their best to make sure they maintain their role as a true marketplace of ideas.”

The best way to safeguard a university’s interests and commitment to academic freedom is to be clear about expectations up front, said Rae Goldsmith, vice president for advancement resources at the Council for Advancement and Support of Education.“The gift agreement is in many ways like a prenuptial agreement,” she said. “All issues of institutional and donor control should be laid on the table. In this case, prevention is the best medicine.”

Source URL: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/28/koch_foundation_gifts_to_colleges_and_universities_draw_scrutiny

Links:

Lawyers.Ken Cuccinelli, his Deputy Wesley Russell and his ex-partner Milton Johns (Wegman's lawyer) [38] all got their JD degrees at GMU in the 1990s.  So did David Schnare, of the **:{American Tradition Institute:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [39] (ATI), well-known for FOIA harassment of UVA, Michael Mann, James Hansen, **:{Andrew Dessler and Katharine Hayhoe:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [40].  FOIA has legitimate uses, but can also be employed for harassment.  The reader can decide which **:{these:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [41] are.

Schnare is also an Adjunct Professor who recently **:{taught a :(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:****:{GMU:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:****:{ course :(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:**[42]on how to do FOIAs, use the **:{Data Quality Act:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [43], using this **:{outline:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [44].  it starts:

'This course is an introduction on how to sue the government when it does what it should not do. Citizens, advocates of small government and Tenth Amendment proponents engage

He also offers "externships" to give students practice, via a new 501(c)(3) "public charity," originally (and legally still) the **:{George Mason Environmental Law Clinic.:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [45]  it is now called the **:{Free Market :(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:****:{ELC:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [46], consisting of him and **:{Chris Horner:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [47], as at ATI.  He was :{looking for students:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}: [48] to file FOIAs against some Virginia university, likely not GMU.

:{

}:

see http://fmelawclinic.org/?page_id=9

==

mashey?

Home > Blogs > John Mashey's blog > See No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Others

See No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Others

By John Mashey

Created 2012-08-20 03:00

John Mashey [1]

20 August 12 at 3:00am

See No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Others [2]

The"Wegman Report", led by Edward Wegman [8] of George Mason University (GMU) got criticized in 2010's Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized [9].  Experts called it "obvious" even "shocking" plagiarism.  GMU's i [10]ncompetent handling, mistreatment of complainants and flawed rulings were mostly documented in March [10], but recent FOIAs[11]exposemore [12] untruths.

Is the harsh title fair?  Read on, then study the69-page attachment. [13]

GMU Provost Peter Stearns' February letter to GMU faculty [14] made claims of non-plagiarism that contradicted not only experts, but themselves.  The process consumed almost two years to assess four (4) pages of text.  

Stearns' letter was even more untruthful than previously known.  It  fabricated an imaginary second investigation committee, seemingly to somehow excuse crucial contradictions.   This seemed an attempt to defend the Wegman Report at all costs, even with potential problems from Federal [15] agencies who [16] expect schools to handle misconduct properly.  They fund much of GMU's actual research, done by faculty that to the best of my knowledge are normal, credible researchers.

However, a few groups inGMUare closely, even uniquely enmeshed with people behind the machinery of anti-science, such as**Charles Koch** [17],**Ken Cuccinelli** [18],**David Schnare** [19],**Fred Singer** [20], and**Pat Michaels** [21], plus the**Heartland Institute** [22]and key Washington think tanks.GMUeven has a long history of tobacco connections,**oddly relevant** [23].

Following are a few brief summaries to motivate the title's phrases:

See No Evil:Via FOIA, the onlyinvestigation committee took 200 days to produce a 9-page report. It ruled on Ray Bradley's three complaints based on Canadian blogger Deep Climate [24]'s early discoveries:

But there was more, found by Deep Climate and others:

Speak Little truth: GMU VP Roger Stough rarely told complainants much and when he did, he was often wrong or misleading, now seen more clearly by FOIA replies.  Stearns' letter   fabricated committee(s) and processes that never happened, casting doubt on the credibility of anything there.  GMU never informed Ray Bradley of any result.  GMUacknowledged receipt of other complaints, which then seemed to vanish into limbo. Complainants got no status reports.

Break Rules: FOIA replies exposed large policy-breaking schedule slips, at best poorly explained, at worst misleading.  GMU ignored its policy of pursuing all significant issues -  Stearns said there were no more investigations.   GMU's seemed to maximize discouragement and stonewalling of external complaints, even from distinguished academics like Ray Bradley or Ohio State's Rob Coleman, an experienced misconduct expert.  One can imagine GMU's handling of internal complaints, especially from junior faculty of students.

Blame Others:   GMU violated its "retaliation" policies by making false or misleading claims about Bradley, impugning his reputation and helping incite vitriolic blog attacks against him.   Universities are supposed to guard complainants from retaliation, repair it if need be, not do it themselves.  GMU owes Bradley many apologies.

Why would they do this?FOIAs have revealed actions far outside GMU's own policies, the norms of academe and possibly Federal rules.  Big universities are expected to know how to follow misconduct policies, so mere incompetence seems an insufficient explanation, especially with experienced administrators who should know better.

We cannot know exactly what happened, but GMU has some unusual connections that might help explain this.  No explicit pressure need be assumed, but a few parts of GMUare deeply involved in climate anti-science activities, so it is no surprise that something like the Wegman Report was written almost entirely by GMU faculty and students.

Funding. Charles Koch is by far the largest single foundation funder for each of GMU Foundation, its Mercatus Center and Institute for Humane Studies [30] (IHS).   His donations to these usually exceeded the research grants of most government agencies. His lieutenant Richard Fink [31] cofounded Mercatus and is a  Director of it and IHS. Koch is a Director of Mercatus and Chairman of IHS.

Money comes from other Koch allies, such as Richard Mellon Scaife [32], Searle Freedom Trust, Earhart Foundation, L&H Bradley and  DONORS Trust+Capital, [23] the second largest foundation giver, which anonymizes the real givers' identities.  The recently-discovered Knowledge and Progress Fund [33] seems to send Koch money only toDONORS.  It is a real money maze

.

Governance. Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer [34] is the Vice-Rector of the GMU Board of Visitors. She was a Koch Industries lobbyist and an executive of Americans For Prosperity [35].  The Board also includes Kimberly Dennis [36] (Searle Freedom Trust, DONORS) and Mark McGettrick [37], Executive VP at Dominion Resources, a large utility that has donated well to the campaign of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, as has Koch Industries.

Lawyers. Ken Cuccinelli, his Deputy Wesley Russell and his ex-partner Milton Johns (Wegman's lawyer) [38] all got their JD degrees at GMU in the 1990s.  So did David Schnare, of the **:{American Tradition Institute:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [39] (ATI), well-known for FOIA harassment of UVA, Michael Mann, James Hansen, **:{Andrew Dessler and Katharine Hayhoe:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [40].  FOIA has legitimate uses, but can also be employed for harassment.  The reader can decide which **:{these:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [41] are.

Schnare is also an Adjunct Professor who recently **:{taught a :(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:****:{GMU:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:****:{ course :(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:**[42]on how to do FOIAs, use the **:{Data Quality Act:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [43], using this **:{outline:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [44].  it starts:

'This course is an introduction on how to sue the government when it does what it should not do. Citizens, advocates of small government and Tenth Amendment proponents engage

He also offers "externships" to give students practice, via a new 501(c)(3) "public charity," originally (and legally still) the **:{George Mason Environmental Law Clinic.:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [45]  it is now called the **:{Free Market :(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:****:{ELC:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [46], consisting of him and **:{Chris Horner:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:** [47], as at ATI.  He was :{looking for students:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}: [48] to file FOIAs against some Virginia university, likely not GMU.

Conclusion.We cannot know whether the strange process and absurd rulings came from overt pressure or implicit GMU culture.  A few parts of GMU form a very large gear in the machinery of anti-science and they defended Wegman at all costs.

Public funding of research depends on credibility, of which little is found in GMU's handling of this case.  Maybe it is time for a first-ever institutional debarment from Federal funding until they rebuiild a track record of normal behavior.  Given the credibility problems of key people, this may require outside teams.

Finally, people might recall thepotential felony issues raised here [49]  and wonder if this process might add more obstruction of justice to the mix.  The old saying may apply: "It's not the crime - it's the cover-up."

renegades?

The Joint Fire Science Program and US Geological Survey awarded $194,000 to William Sommers (Mason Center for Climate and Society), Susan G. Conard and Stanley G. Coloff to investigate fire regimes and climate dependent ecosystem characteristics as a basis for understanding 21st Century climate change impacts. http://researchfocus.gmu.edu/climate

The Center for Climate and Society

http://climate.society.gmu.edu/

George Mason University and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Climate Change and Society (EVPP 991(002)/692(002)) f09

THE RISE OF THE CONSERVATIVE LEGAL MOVEMENT: THE BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF THE LAW, by Steven M. Teles. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. 385pp.  Cloth. $35.00/£19.95.  ISBN: 9780691122083.

Reviewed by Roy B. Flemming, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University.  Email: roy [at] politics.tamu.edu.

Sure, it was a coincidence but the timing could not have been better.  The morning before I sat down to write this review, I received a solicitation letter from the Federalist Society asking me for a donation.  The letter signed by Eugene B. Meyer, the organization’s president, pointedly quoted Steven Teles’ comment from his book that the “Federalist Society represents, without a doubt, the most vigorous, durable, and well-ordered organization to emerge from . . . modern conservatism’s political strategy.”

When Teles set out to document the stumbles, turning points, and successes of the conservative counter-mobilization against legal liberalism, his “first real breakthrough” came after Meyer let him loose to rummage through the Society’s internal documents. Other entrepreneurs in the conservative legal movement like Henry Manne, William “Chip” Mellor, and Clint Bolickfully cooperated with Teles, answering his questions and providing him with background documents.  Equally important, pivotal financial patrons of the movement, like the Olin Foundation, followed suit.  Finally, Teles decided to organize his research around the themes of strategy and entrepreneurship which he credits to conversations with Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation. No published study about the conservative legal movement of which I am aware can compete with the information, detail, perspectives, and stories that Teles has packed into his book.

Teles’ major stories pivot around the formation and evolution of the Federalist Society, the emergence and institutionalization of law and economics as part of law school curriculums, the Center for Individual Rights, and the Institute for Justice.  Nested within these narratives are vignettes of other players and organizations that illustrate how patrons and entrepreneurs learned from their mistakes and redirected their strategies.  Teles quickly alerts his readers that he not concerned with organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice that have been involved in religious or social conservative litigation.  Nor is he interested in the thicket of conservative think tanks that sprouted up during the past three decades or in the proliferation of litigating groups with traditional pro-business agendas or interests in tort reform.  The price of Teles’ tight focus, however, is easily off-set by the many benefits generated by his in-depth discussions.

The idea for a conservative legal counter-mobilization first surfaced in Lewis Powell’s  confidential memorandum to the US Chamber of Commerce in 1971 shortly before Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court.  (Powell’s memo can be found at [*633] www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/print/sources_document13.html).  Entitled “Attack of [sic] the American Free Enterprise System,” Powell argued America’s economic system was under “broad attack.”  The “most disquieting” attacks were not those made by the usual left-wing or socialist suspects but those from “the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.”  Powell urged the Chamber to confront the criticism especially in universities and colleges (including a “balancing of faculties”) and redirect the public agenda by creating incentives for “independent scholars who believe in the system” to publish more often and more widely.  In a very real sense, Powell’s ideas foreshadowed Manne’s campaign to create law and economics centers in law schools and the Olin Foundation’s initiatives aimed at the elite schoolsas well as the network of conservative faculty and students created by the Federalist Society.

In a section called a “Neglected Opportunity in the Courts,” Powell cautioned that liberal and far left groups had been “far more astute” in recognizing the “judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change.”  This could be a “vast area of opportunity” for the Chamber and the soon-to-be associate justice recommended that it hire “highly competent” staff attorneys to file amicus briefs in the Supreme Court or under special circumstances retain “lawyers of national standing and reputation” to participate in Chamber-sponsored law suits.  The American Civil Liberties Union, civil rights groups, and liberal public interest law outfits like those created by Ralph Nader, offered off-the-shelf templates that conservatives could use to organize their counter-mobilization.  As Teles explains, Powell implied that the fundamental problem was an imbalance in the interests appearing in courtrooms and that it could be righted by recruiting pro-business if not conservative “repeat players” and by a revival of “judicial restraint” on the bench.

Things did not play out as simply as Powell intimated.  Following the formation of the Pacific Legal Foundation in 1973 with the support from the California Chamber of Commerce, several other regional foundations were soon created under the auspices of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI).  This network was organized geographically, not functionally, and held together by interlocking directorships.  The result was “organizational turmoil” because as one insider told Teles “NLCPI had all the structural flaws of the Articles of Confederation” (p.63).  Equally telling, the emphasis on filing amicus briefs displaced coherent litigation strategies and put the foundations on fund-raising treadmills. Most damning of all for Powell’s business-led strategy were unexpected tensions between business interests and conservative ideology.  As Adam Smith cautioned long ago, business interests are not synonymous with the public interest however it is defined.

Teles’ cameo study of the Mountain States Legal Foundation illustrates the point.  With reliable funding from Joseph Coors, a long-time patron of right-wing causes, effective leadership in the early years by James Watts who later became President Reagan’s Interior [*634] Secretary, and a shared sense of grievance arising from the “Sagebrush Rebellion” in the Western states over the control of federal lands, the Mountain States Legal Foundation had several built-in advantages.  Nevertheless it faltered because its business allies expected returns on their “investments” and the foundation often filed amicus briefs in response to particular contributions or to encourage new ones. Matters came to a head when the foundation challenged on First Amendment grounds Denver’s grant of an exclusive cable television franchise to a local businessman, a grant widely supported by the Mile High City’s business community.  As an insider explained to Teles, the foundation’s suit “gored very powerful interests there, well connected to the Republican Party . . . Joe Coors resigned from our board [saying] . . . ’I founded MSLF . . . to take on the Sierra Club, not to do this sort of thing’” (p.65).

Soul-searching about the strategy behind the first generation of public interest firms began in the late 1970s whenMichael Horowitz (subsequently chief counsel of the Office of Management and Budget during the first Reagan administration) submitted a highly critical report to the Scaife Foundation.  The Horowitz Report redefined the goals of the legal counter-mobilization. Litigation alone could not dislodge legal liberalism.  Ties to business interests tethered conservative public interest firms and held them back from taking the moral high ground. Amicus briefs were “pufferies intended for naïve audiences of donors and not truly doing meaningful work” (p.71).  The aversion to basing organizations in Washington, D.C. had to be jettisoned in order to confront liberalism on its own turf.  Most important of all, the movement needed to redefine itself along clear, consistent libertarian lines with long-term strategies that would appeal to underdogs caught up in unresponsive legal institutions like black beauticians struggling under state regulations or lower middle class whites whose houses were threatened by eminent domain.  Conservatives had to become idealistic “good guys” limiting government and empowering civil society. 

The Horowitz Report doused cold water on patron enthusiasm for funding conservative public interest law firms but in time the foundations used the report to restructure how these firms operated  Two of these second generation firms are the subject of a separate chapter in which Teles compares the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), best known for its battles against affirmative action policies at the University of Texas and University of Michigan, and the Institute for Justice (IJ) whose fame soared after it turned defeat in KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON into a public policy success.  While the two firms differ significantly in many ways, they share important similarities.  For one thing, judicial activism no longer is a dirty word.  Instead both firms see judicial activism as a means of reviving old rights to protect the conservative goal of limited government; property rights and eminent domain offer just one example.  Clint Bolick (2007), co-founder of the Institute for Justice, recently argued in favor of judicial activism in a new book published by the libertarian Cato Institute.  The firms, seeing the value in an activist bench, are accordingly more strategic in the cases they select and [*635] keep a steady eye on whether a case has the potential to change the public policy agenda or the law.

Horowitz, like Powell, stressed that a “key site” to contest legal liberalism was the university.  In three chapters, Teles traces the winding, upward path of the law and economics movement and the seemingly inexorable growth of the Federalist Society.  The law and economics story has two parts.  The first deals with constructing the “mother ship” at the University of Chicago and the travails of Henry Manne to build law and economic centers at other universities and his final success at George Mason University.

Chicago legitimized law and economics.  The JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS, the sub-field’s first journal, started there and was later edited by Ronald Coase who won a Nobel Prize for his work.  Chicago’s highly influential Anti-Trust Project provided fellowships supported by the Volker Fund, attracted law professors like Robert Bork, and revolutionized the field. Richard Posner with impeccable establishment credentials (Harvard Law and former Supreme Court clerk for Justice William Brennan) wrote ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (published in 1973 and now in its seventh edition) in which he challenged myriad shibboleths in traditional legal research.  In the meantime, Manne spread the gospelby pushing for new centers at other universities, aggressively marketed law and economics with help from the Liberty Fundby holding regular conferences that identified ambitious scholars and brought them into the conservative fold, and through the Economics Institute for Federal Judgesintroduced numerous judges to the fundamentals of micro-economics.

The second part of the story focuses on the Olin Foundation’s strategic deployment of its largesse aimed directly at faculty and students in elite law schools (most of Manne’s centers were at lesser-ranked schools) which solidified the stature of the law and economics sub-field and raised its status as a distinctive alternative to traditional and contemporary legal scholarship.  Law and economics was not Olin’s first choice, however.  As an official explained to Teles: “I would have preferred to do something in constitutional law but . . . [i]f you said to a dean that you wanted to fund conservative constitutional law, he would reject the idea out of hand . . . Law and economics is neutral, but it has a philosophical thrust in the direction of free markets and limited government.  That is, like many disciplines, it seems neutral but it isn’t in fact” (p.189).  Olin’s gamble on law and economics paid off handsomely in ways that Lewis Powell would have applauded.  At Harvard, Olin’s support for law and economics provided money, academic panache, and camouflage for Harvard’s president who wanted to stymie the critical legal studies movement and mollify angry alumni in corporate law firms upset by the havoc they felt the “crits” were creating within the profession.  Law and economics raised the research bar for hiring and tenure decisions and offered alternatives to law schools that altered the balance of power in their faculties.

The Federalist Society rang repeated alarms within the legal profession that Harvard Law was “out of control” and [*636] from its beginning the Society has been concerned generally about the placement of conservatives in law schools and out of them.  Teles maintains in his chapter on the Society, however, that over the course of its twenty-five year history the Federalist Society has carved out an influential niche for itself bylimitingits attention to creating and fostering complex networks of lawyers, faculty, law students, and foundation patrons that are held together by an emphasis on serious debate and discourse over ideas that challenge legal liberalism while avoiding right-wing factionalism.  Eschewing the establishment of an in-house litigation center early on, the Society also decided not turn itself into a conservative clone of the American Bar Association despite earlier feelings that perhaps it should and despite its persistent criticisms of the ABA.  These strategic choices (there were others at critical moments) were made by a stable, self-perpetuating cadre of long-serving leaders, including Eugene Meyer, who were present at the Society’s founding and are aligned with foundation executives and senior figures from the legal community.

Teles neither constructs a theory of the rise of the conservative legal movement nor tests one.  Conceptual references are employed at various times but largely to locate the study within the existing literature.  This by no means diminishes Teles’ accomplishment.  Each of his multiple interlocking stories of the pas de troisbetween different conservative entrepreneurs, their patrons and financiers, and the institutions they either created or tried to change took place over several years and demanded clear precise detailing, which they duly received.  Teles’ book is an important reference and the chief departure point for anybody seriously wanting to understand one of the most important transformations in contemporary legal history and politics.

REFERENCES:

Bolick, Clint. 2007. DAVID’S HAMMER: THE CASE FOR AN ACTIVIST JUDICIARY. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.

Posner, Richard. 1973. ECONOMICS OF LAW.  Boston: Little Brown and Company.

CASE REFERENCE:

KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

*********************

Roy B. Flemming.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/teles0708.htm

Pro-business organizations sponsor expense-paid seminars for federal judges

By Chris Young, Reity O'Brien and Andrea Fuller, Center for Public Integrity    March 28, 2013 2:33pm

PRINT

Conservative foundations, multinational oil companies and a prescription drug maker were the most frequent sponsors of more than100 expense-paid educational seminars attended by federal judges over a 4 1/2-year period,according to a Center for Public Integrity investigation.

Among the seminar titles were “The Moral Foundations of Capitalism,” “Corporations and the Limits of Criminal Law” and “Terrorism, Climate & Central Planning: Challenges to Liberty & the Rule of Law.”

Leading the list of sponsors of the 109 seminars identified by the Center were the conservative Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, The Searle Freedom Trust, also a supporter of conservative causes, ExxonMobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and State Farm Insurance Cos. Each were sponsors of 54 seminars.

Other top sponsors included the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (51), Dow Chemical Co. (47), AT&T Inc. (45) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (46), according to the Center’s analysis.

Critics complain that many of the privately funded conferences serve state and federal judges a steady dose of free-market, anti-regulation lectures that could influence judges’ rulings from the bench.

Sponsors pick up the cost of judges’ expenses, which often include air fare, hotel stays and meals. The seminars in the Center’s investigation took place from July 2008 through 2012.

The Center identified 185 federal district and appeals court judges who reported attending one or more of the seminars over the period, according to disclosure forms, or about 11 percent of the more than 1,700 federal judges in the United States.

Among the participants: U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana. One of the two seminars he attended in 2009, “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct,” was sponsored by theAmerican Petroleum Institute and other business interests. Barbier is now presiding over the BP oil spill trial.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jerry A. Brown, who serves in the Eastern District of Louisiana, also attended two seminars: “Economics Institute for Judges” in 2009 and “Antitrust Law and Economics Institute for Judges” in 2012.

Two schools — George Mason University, located in Virginia just outside Washington, D.C., and Northwestern University based in Evanston, Ill., — hosted more than two-thirds of the seminars.

Roughly three-fourths of the more than 800 sponsors listed in documents were individuals, including a number of judges who took trips, raising the possibility that they may have offset the cost of the sponsorships with their donations. Most of the remaining underwriters were companies and foundations.

Determining exactly how much was paid by which sponsor is difficult to determine — amounts are not required to be reported under the disclosure rules.

Judicial conferences are billed as educational retreats intended to improve judges’ understanding of the law and economics. Judges and seminar hosts say the conferences, which feature lectures and panel discussions, provide helpful information that refines their legal expertise.

But they’ve long drawn scrutiny for how they are funded and organized.

Since the 1990s, critics have complained that many of the privately funded conferences serve state and federal judges a steady dose of free-market, anti-regulation lectures that could influence judges’ rulings from the bench.

Those concerns quieted in 2007, when the Judicial Conference of the United States, a group of senior circuit judges who oversee the U.S. Courts, implemented a policy requiring judges and seminar hosts to disclose information about the conferences.

Well-traveled jurists

The most-traveled judges, according to reports filed online by the judges, were U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle of the Southern District of Iowa and Chief Judge Thomas B. Bennett of the Northern District of Alabama Bankruptcy Court. Each reported attending nine seminars.

Wolle is a “senior status” judge, meaning he is semi-retired. He did not respond to requests for comment.

The next-most-traveled judges were:

O’Scannlain declined to comment for this story. In an email, Kaplan wrote that the “seminars offer a valuable opportunity for new judicial appointees to enhance their knowledge and skills in complex areas of the law,” including economics.

Wolle, Real and O’Scannlain are all listed as seminar sponsors, though records do not indicate how much they contributed.

The Center identified instances where judges who attended seminars underwritten by certain firms and trade groups later issued rulings in the funders’ favor.

EPA loses case

In April 2009, for example, Jolly traveled to Northwestern University to attend the “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct” seminar sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 13 other funders.

Last August, Jolly wrote the majority 2-1 opinion declaring that the Environmental Protection Agency broke the law when it rejected a Texas emissions cap generally supported by the fossil fuels industry.

“It looks as if [corporations] are buying influence, even if it’s not true.” — Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor

Jolly, who did not respond to requests for comment, sided with two of the petitioners in the suit — the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber.

Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor who specializes in judicial ethics, is skeptical that rulings are directly influenced by corporate sponsors of seminars, but noted, “in a cynic’s view that would smack of corruption.”

“Even if it has no effect in terms of the decisions judges make, the perception of influence matters a great deal,” he says. “It looks as if [corporations] are buying influence, even if it’s not true.”

Another attendee of the 2009 “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct” seminar was Barbier, the Eastern District of Louisiana jurist presiding over a high-profile BP civil trial, which is being held without a jury in New Orleans.

Barbier is in charge of considering whether BP owes billions of dollars in fines for gross negligence leading to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil platform explosion and spill. The disaster killed 11 people and contaminated a large swath of the Gulf Coast.

In 2011, Barbier dismissed a wrongful-death claim in a suit brought against ExxonMobil and Chevron USA by the widow of a worker who was exposed to radioactive materials found on the companies’ equipment.

Barbier’s ruling in favor of the oil companies came two years after he attended the corporate conduct seminar, funded in part by ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents. The judge did not respond to requests for comment.

Politics investigations in your inbox: Sign up for The Center for Public Integrity’s Watchdog email

Related: Key Findings

Related story: Judicial seminar backed by ex-president of Bolivia

Related: Free ‘Consider the Source’ e-book

Corporate U?

George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center hosted 45 seminars while Northwestern University’s Judicial Education Program hosted 29. A total of 136 federal judges reported attending conferences conducted by the schools during the 4 1/2-year period analyzed by the Center for Public Integrity.

The remaining top five conference hosts, including The Sedona Conference and the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), collectively organized 28 conferences.

The Koch Foundation and The Searle Freedom Trust supported most of the conferences organized by George Mason and Northwestern. The energy industry was a sponsor in roughly three-fourths of the conferences hosted by Northwestern.

Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, major supporters of conservative causes, and their foundations have given millions to George Mason University. As the Center recently reported, the George Mason University Foundation received $4.4 million in 2011 from the Charles Koch Foundation, making up 15 percent of its revenue that year.

The school is the top recipient of Koch foundation money since 1985. George Mason also houses several free market and libertarian research centers, including the Institute for Humane Studies, which received $3.7 million from the Koch foundations, and the Mercatus Center, whose board of directors includes Charles Koch.

Officials from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation did not return phone calls seeking comment for this report.

The Judicial Conference disclosure policy doesn’t require seminar hosts to reveal how much donors contribute to conferences. But corporate-giving reports and nonprofit tax records shed some light on the costs.

Oil industry support

In 2011, for example, ExxonMobil reported giving $20,000 to George Mason specifically for its judicial training program. The oil company gave an additional $30,000 to the university’s Law & Economics Center, which hosts the conferences. Between 2003 and 2007, the ExxonMobil Foundation gave the think tank $150,000.

ExxonMobil officials did not respond to requests for comment.

“It’s the funders that create the problem … The money comes from interests that have matters before the courts, and they’d like to have those matters settled in their favor.” — Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics

Another seminar funder, Donors Trust, gave George Mason’s Law & Economics Center nearly $450,000 in general support in 2010. As the Center reported, Donors Trust helps conservative foundations and individuals give money anonymously to nonprofits that may take controversial positions.

A representative of Donors Trust declined to comment for this story.

The :{Searle :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:Freedom Trust, a foundation advocating “economic liberty” that regularly donates to conservative groups like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, contributed a combined $400,000 to George Mason’s judicial education programs in 2010 and 2011.

The school conducted conferences on antitrust law as well as “Corporations and the Limits of Criminal Law,” both funded by AT&T, BB&T, BP America, Cigna, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, FedEx Corp. and others.

“The Moral Foundations of Capitalism” was funded by the same group, and was the most popular George Mason conference, drawing at least 10 federal judges.

BP spokesman Scott Dean says the company has no record of ever directly contributing to the seminars but he did say BP gave the law school and the Law & Economics Center more than $37,000 between 2001 and 2008.

Seminars at Northwestern are hosted by the school’s Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth. The think tank, according to its website, was founded in 2006 thanks to a “generous grant” from Daniel C. Searle, the late pharmaceutical industry executive.

In 2009, the foundation gave $200,000 to Northwestern’s Searle Center for its judicial education program.

Another Northwestern seminar funder, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation — a major supporter of conservative organizations, including the Heritage Foundation — gave $210,000 to the Searle Center between 2008 and 2010.

Records show corporate sponsorship at Northwestern was highest from 2008 through 2010, when a man named Henry Butler — now in charge of George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center — ran the Searle Center.

Daniel Rodriguez, dean of Northwestern University’s School of Law, says corporate sponsorships at the school “ended the moment Butler left.” Rodriguez, who became the dean of Northwestern’s law school last year, says the school recently decided to terminate the programs. He says he’s against corporate sponsorship of judicial seminars.

“These programs should be free from any real or perceived conflict of interest,” he says.

Related: Find a judge

Related story: Judges often ignore trip disclosure rules

Related: Methodology

Some history

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, advocacy groups andmedia outlets raised concerns about judges attending privately funded conferences conducted in vacation destinations like Arizona, Montana and Florida.

Critics claimed that the undisclosed trips created conflicts of interest and cast doubt on the ability of judges to decide cases without bias.

Seminars hosted by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) attracted the most attention.

FREE, a Montana-based think tank championing “free-market environmentalism,” drew criticism for its ideologically conservative seminars. In 2011, for example, FREE hosted “Terrorism, Climate & Central Planning: Challenges to Liberty & the Rule of Law.”

Critics complained that judges spent their free time golfing, fishing and horseback riding at the conference’s Montana resort location. They worried that judges were being wined, dined and entertained by FREE’s funders, which included Koch Industries and Texaco Inc. (now part of Chevron Corp.).

Media scrutiny prompted members of Congress in 2000 to introduce legislation that would prohibit judges from accepting “anything of value in connection with a seminar.” The bill, which died in committee, was opposed by the Judicial Conference, which claimed it restricted judges’ free speech rights.

Similar legislation failed again in 2003.

In 2007, the Judicial Conference implemented a policy designed to provide “greater transparency” by setting up disclosure requirements for both judges and seminar hosts.

“Instead of banning anything,” says Geyh, the policy “was a way to mollify those who recognized the perception problem without causing the ones who treat [the conferences] as a First Amendment issue to go ballistic.”

Buying influence?

Even with the new policy, the seminars still have critics.

“These seminars are taking place because large corporate interests are hoping to influence the outcome of cases involving themselves or likeminded entities,” says Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal organization that first raised concerns about judicial education conferences in a 1993 report titled “Justice for Sale.”

Russell Wheeler, former deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, an education and research agency for the federal courts, says it’s possible that funders could be truly dedicated to improving judges’ understanding of the law.

But, he says, “You’ve got to be pretty naïve to believe that.”

“It’s the funders that create the problem,” says Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics. “The money comes from interests that have matters before the courts, and they’d like to have those matters settled in their favor.”

“I’m not going to be snowed by anybody’s presentation.” — Chief Judge Thomas B. Bennett of the Northern District of Alabama Bankruptcy Court

Many of the seminars are conservative in nature, especially those hosted by George Mason. But there are a few exceptions. A June 2010 conference sponsored by the Open Society Institute, a foundation founded by liberal investor George Soros, focused mainly on human rights law. (The Center for Public Integrity and The Lens have received funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundations.)

Events hosted by the Sedona Conference, a nonprofit whose seminars address legal issues like antitrust law and intellectual property, have been funded primarily by law firms.

Speaking from the right

According to The Center for Public Integrity’s analysis, the person who spoke at more judicial conferences than any other was Butler, a professor and prominent conservative formerly of Northwestern and now executive director of George Mason’s Law & Economics Center.

He has taught judicial seminar courses with titles like “Economic Thinking” and “Economics of Insurance.” A former Republican candidate for Congress — he lost a 1992 bid — Butler was a “Koch Distinguished Professor of Law and Economics” at the University of Kansas.

Butler’s resume cites his “professional affiliations” with the conservative Federalist Society and the Mont Pelerin Society, which decries society’s loss of freedoms “fostered by a decline of belief in private property and the competitive market.”

Butler declined to be interviewed for this story. In response to emailed questions about George Mason’s judicial seminars, he wrote, “You seem to have a well-established theme to your story, accordingly we don’t see any advantage in collaborating with you.”

Daniel Polsby, dean of the George Mason University School of Law, also declined to answer questions for this story other than to say via email: “We’re very proud of the activities and programs of the Law & Economics Center.”

Another frequent seminar instructor is Terry L. Anderson, president of the Property and Environment Research Center, a conservative think tank “dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.”

Anderson, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, has regularly led “Free Market Environmentalism” lectures at conferences hosted by both George Mason and Northwestern.

Green energy’s ‘false promise’

In January 2011, Anderson was one of four lecturers who spoke at George Mason’s “Advanced Institute on Environmental Economics” conference, which was funded in part by ExxonMobil, BP America and Shell Oil.

The other three speakers were Andrew Morriss, co-author of the book “The False Promise of Green Energy”; Robert K. Fleck, an economics professor who has received thousands of dollars in research grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; and Jason Johnston, a former fellow with the Koch-funded, Anderson-led Property and Environment Research Center and a critic of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“I don’t express views” during lectures, says Anderson. He says his talks are based strictly on economic analysis. “None of my lectures are aimed at changing any judge’s opinion” about a case before them in court.

George Mason law professor Todd J. Zywicki, another regular judicial program speaker, has taught judges about issues like mortgage markets and consumer credit.

He is a senior scholar at the school’s conservative Mercatus Center, and has ties to the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is “dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty.” Zywicki did not respond to a request for comment.

George Mason “is known to stage conferences that have a conservative economic perspective,” says Gillers, the NYU law professor.

One frequent attendee of George Mason’s judicial seminars, Judge Bennett of Alabama bankruptcy court, told the Center “I’m not going to be snowed by anybody’s presentation.” He said he finds the seminars “infinitely invaluable.”

“You can accumulate information much more quickly than if you sit in your office and read stuff,” he says.

Bennett dismisses criticism of George Mason’s judicial conferences — even though he acknowledges that they often feature conservative voices.

“I believe they put on a fairly balanced program,” he says, noting that he doesn’t pay attention to who funds the conferences. “I’ve been to George Mason seminars where they’ve had people who are not conservative. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.”

Stacked panels?

Northwestern’s 2009 seminar titled “Criminalization of Corporate Conduct” included a speaker panel that was very corporate-friendly — something George Mason’s Henry Butler openly acknowledged during his presentation summing up the day’s events.

Butler noted “a question can be raised” about the panels’ balance and “do we have enough people here that are representing the prosecutor’s perspective.” (His remarks are posted onYouTube./maxresdefault.jpg).) “And I certainly can plead guilty to that accusation.”

“On the other hand,” he continued, “I have to explain to you that we’ve had difficulty in the past getting the U.S. attorneys to participate in these programs.”

The December 2010 “Climate Change Litigation” session hosted by George Mason’s Law & Economics Center was sponsored in part by BP America, ExxonMobil and Shell Oil, and featured four speakers.

Two were attorneys who have represented corporate clients like Koch Industries and ExxonMobil. A third speaker, Johnston, the former Property and Environment Research Center fellow, spent part of his presentation criticizing the American civil courts system for making American companies less competitive on the international stage.

Butler, who moderated the panel, acknowledged the imbalance as he introduced a last-minute replacement for the fourth panelist.

“Eric Mayer is going to be pro-public nuisance, climate-change litigation cases, and the other three are basically going to express some skepticism,” Butler said in his introduction, identifying Mayer, a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs as well as corporate defendants.

The announcement drew laughs from panelists and audience members.

“This may seem unbalanced,” Butler continued, “but Eric is not daunted by this challenge at all.”

Donor names disappear

The “transparency” policy regarding judicial trips may be weak, but the names of the corporations, foundations and individuals that pay for the conferences at least are available to the public.

Now, even that bit of sunshine is clouding over.

In 2012, George Mason’s Law & Economics Center began listing “xyz corp.,” as a sponsor before listing itself as the only donor on official disclosure documents. However, the think tank does provide a list of donors on its website.

The 2007 Judicial Conference policy allows such reporting if the support comes from general revenues or from endowments or gifts “not raised for the particular educational program or for the purpose of educating judges.”

Geyh, the Indiana University law professor, says the policy enables conference hosts to shield their donors and make it tough for judges to identify potential conflicts before attending seminars.

“It does raise transparency issues,” he says. “It strikes me as some semantic game-playing with the rules.”

This story was originally published by The Center for Public Integrity, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. It was reported and written byChris Young, Reity O’Brien and Andrea Fuller; John Dunbar contributed.

Copyright 2013 The Center for Public Integrity

Published on DeSmogBlog (http://www.desmogblog.com)

Home > Blogs > John Mashey's blog > See No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Others

See No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Others

By John Mashey

Created 2012-08-20 03:00

 [1]

John Mashey [1]

20 August 12 at 3:00am

See No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Others [2]

The "Wegman Report", led by Edward Wegman [8] of George Mason University (GMU) got criticized in 2010's Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized [9].  Experts called it "obvious" even "shocking" plagiarism.  GMU's i [10]ncompetent handling, mistreatment of complainants and flawed rulings were mostly documented in March[10], but recent FOIAs[11]exposemore [12] untruths.

Is the harsh title fair?  Read on, then study the69-page attachment. [13]

GMU Provost Peter Stearns' February letter to GMU faculty [14] made claims of non-plagiarism that contradicted not only experts, but themselves.  The process consumed almost two years to assess four (4) pages of text.  

Stearns' letter was even more untruthful than previously known.  It  fabricated an imaginary second investigation committee, seemingly to somehow excuse crucial contradictions.   This seemed an attempt to defend the Wegman Report at all costs, even with potential problems from Federal [15] agencies who [16] expect schools to handle misconduct properly.  They fund much of GMU's actual research, done by faculty that to the best of my knowledge are normal, credible researchers.

However, a few groups in GMU are closely, even uniquely enmeshed with people behind the machinery of anti-science, such as Charles Koch [17], Ken Cuccinelli [18], David Schnare [19], Fred Singer [20], and Pat Michaels [21], plus the Heartland Institute [22] and key Washington think tanks.  GMU even has a long history of tobacco connections, oddly relevant [23].

Following are a few brief summaries to motivate the title's phrases:

See No Evil:Via FOIA, the only investigation committee took 200 days to produce a 9-page report.  It ruled on Ray Bradley's three complaints based on Canadian blogger Deep Climate [24]'s early discoveries:

But there was more, found by Deep Climate and others:

Speak Little truth: GMU VP Roger Stough rarely told complainants much and when he did, he was often wrong or misleading, now seen more clearly by FOIA replies.  Stearns' letter   fabricated committee(s) and processes that never happened, casting doubt on the credibility of anything there.  GMU never informed Ray Bradley of any result.  GMU acknowledged receipt of other complaints, which then seemed to vanish into limbo. Complainants got no status reports.

Break Rules: FOIA replies exposed large policy-breaking schedule slips, at best poorly explained, at worst misleading.  GMU ignored its policy of pursuing all significant issues -  Stearns said there were no more investigations.   GMU's seemed to maximize discouragement and stonewalling of external complaints, even from distinguished academics like Ray Bradley or Ohio State's Rob Coleman, an experienced misconduct expert.  One can imagine GMU's handling of internal complaints, especially from junior faculty of students.

Blame Others:   GMU violated its "retaliation" policies by making false or misleading claims about Bradley, impugning his reputation and helping incite vitriolic blog attacks against him.   Universities are supposed to guard complainants from retaliation, repair it if need be, not do it themselves.  GMU owes Bradley many apologies.

Why would they do this?FOIAs have revealed actions far outside GMU's own policies, the norms of academe and possibly Federal rules.  Big universities are expected to know how to follow misconduct policies, so mere incompetence seems an insufficient explanation, especially with experienced administrators who should know better.

We cannot know exactly what happened, but GMU has some unusual connections that might help explain this.  No explicit pressure need be assumed, but a few parts of GMU are deeply involved in climate anti-science activities, so it is no surprise that something like the Wegman Report was written almost entirely by GMU faculty and students.

Funding. Charles Koch is by far the largest single foundation funder for each of GMU Foundation, its Mercatus Center and Institute for Humane Studies [30] (IHS).   His donations to these usually exceeded the research grants of most government agencies. His lieutenant Richard Fink [31] cofounded Mercatus and is a  Director of it and IHS. Koch is a Director of Mercatus and Chairman of IHS.

Money comes from other Koch allies, such as Richard Mellon Scaife [32], Searle Freedom Trust, Earhart Foundation, L&H Bradley and  DONORS Trust+Capital, [23] the second largest foundation giver, which anonymizes the real givers' identities.  The recently-discovered Knowledge and Progress Fund [33] seems to send Koch money only to DONORS.  It is a real money maze

.

Governance. Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer [34] is the Vice-Rector of the GMU Board of Visitors. She was a Koch Industries lobbyist and an executive of Americans For Prosperity [35].  The Board also includes Kimberly Dennis [36] (Searle Freedom Trust, DONORS) and Mark McGettrick [37], Executive VP at Dominion Resources, a large utility that has donated well to the campaign of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, as has Koch Industries.

Lawyers. Ken Cuccinelli, his Deputy Wesley Russell and his ex-partner Milton Johns (Wegman's lawyer) [38] all got their JD degrees at GMU in the 1990s.  So did David Schnare, of the**American Tradition Institute** [39](ATI), well-known forFOIAharassment ofUVA, Michael Mann, James Hansen,**Andrew Dessler and Katharine Hayhoe** [40].FOIAhas legitimate uses, but can also be employed for harassment.  The reader can decide which**these** [41]are.

Schnare is also an Adjunct Professor who recently**taught a****GMU****course**[42]on how to do FOIAs, use the**Data Quality Act** [43], using this**outline** [44].  it starts:

'This course is an introduction on how to sue the government when it does what it should not do. Citizens, advocates of small government and Tenth Amendment proponents engage in this kind of litigation practice to address the imbalance between federal authorities and state and individual sovereignties.'

He also offers "externships" to give students practice, via a new 501(c)(3) "public charity," originally (and legally still) the**George Mason Environmental Law Clinic.** [45]it is now called the**Free Market****ELC**http://www.webcitation.org/69s2LDIj7[46], consisting of him and Chris Horner [47], as at ATI.  He was looking for students [48] to file FOIAs against some Virginia university, likely not GMU.

Conclusion.We cannot know whether the strange process and absurd rulings came from overt pressure or implicit GMU culture.  A few parts of GMU form a very large gear in the machinery of anti-science and they defended Wegman at all costs.

Public funding of research depends on credibility, of which little is found in GMU's handling of this case.  Maybe it is time for a first-ever institutional debarment from Federal funding until they rebuiild a track record of normal behavior.  Given the credibility problems of key people, this may require outside teams.

Finally, people might recall the potential felony issues raised here [49]  and wonder if this process might add more obstruction of justice to the mix.  The old saying may apply: "It's not the crime - it's the cover-up."

Source URL: http://www.desmogblog.com/see-no-evil-speak-little-truth-break-rules-blame-others

Links:

[1] http://www.desmogblog.com/bio/484/john-mashey

[2] http://www.desmogblog.com/see-no-evil-speak-little-truth-break-rules-blame-others

[3] http://twitter.com/share

[4] https://secure.repost.us/syndicate/create

[5] http://www.desmogblog.com/print/6467

[6] http://www.desmogblog.com/printmail/6467

[7] http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/pinoccio.shutterstock_77732134.jpg

[8] http://www.desmogblog.com/edward-wegman

[9] http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm

[10] http://www.desmogblog.com/see-no-evil-george-mason-university

[11] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/405453-foia-request-gmu-hunt-4-9-2012.html

[12] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/405454-foia-response-gmu-hunt-4-26-2012-usa-today-foia.html

[13] http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/see.no_.evil_.speak_.little.truth_.pdf

[14] http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/02/george-mason-university-reprimands-edward-wegmand-/1

[15] http://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary

[16] http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/oig12002/oig12002.pdf

[17] http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-manifestation-kochtopus-empire

[18] http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-and-well-informed-denial

[19] http://www.desmogblog.com/david-schnare

[20] http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

[21] http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels

[22] http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

[23] http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax

[24] http://deepclimate.org/

[25] http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/wegman-bradley-tree-rings-v20.pdf

[26] http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/wegman-bradley-ice-cores-corals-v3.pdf

[27] http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/wegman-social-networks-v-2.pdf

[28] http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/wegman-social-networks1.pdf

[29] http://www.desmogblog.com/wegman-report-not-just-plagiarism-misrepresentation

[30] http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-and-george-mason-university

[31] http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-fink

[32] http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-denial-palooza-sponsors-have-received-67-million-exxonmobil-koch-and-scaife-foundations

[33] http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Summary&EIN=541899251&

[34] http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-inc-lobbying-activities

[35] http://www.desmogblog.com/americans-prosperity

[36] http://bov.gmu.edu/bios/dennis.html

[37] http://bov.gmu.edu/bios/mcgettrick.html

[38] http://www.desmogblog.com/curious-coincidences-george-mason-university-ed-wegman-milton-johns-and-ken-cuccinelli

[39] http://www.desmogblog.com/american-tradition-institute

[40] http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/07/climate-science-attack-group-turns-sights-on-texas-professors.html

[41] http://www.webcitation.org/69s2LDIj7  env law ctr archived?

[42] http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/academics/schedule/2012/summer/SCHNARE_FederalismLitPrac-S.pdf

[43] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Quality_Act

[44] http://www.webcitation.org/69x9WhoYW

[45] http://fmelawclinic.org/?page_id=36

[46] http://fmelawclinic.org/

[47] http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner

[48] http://www.webcitation.org/6A48o5bgk

[49] http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony

[50] http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-516637p1.html

[51] http://www.shutterstock.com

[52] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3593

[53] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4902

[54] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6727

[55] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3361

[56] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2176

[57] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/9980

[58] http://www.desmogblog.com/media/general

[59] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5044

[60] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/22

[61] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4608

[62] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8628

[63] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8624

[64] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/8627

[65] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2813

[66] http://www.desmogblog.com/location/us

[67] http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4857

[68] http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/reply/6467#comment-form

[69] http://www.desmogblog.com/subscribe-newsletter

The Department of Communication at George Mason University houses the new Center for Health and Risk Communication (CHRC)

http://chrc.gmu.edu/scholars.html

Statistical Assessment Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Statistical Assessment ServiceStatistical Assessment Service
Legal statusNon-profit
HeadquartersWashington, D.C.
PresidentS. Robert Lichter
Parent organizationGeorge Mason University
AffiliationsCenter for Media and Public Affairs
Websitehttp://stats.org/

Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) is a non-profit educational organization, based in Washington, DC, which analyzes and critiques the presentation of scientific findings and statistical evidence in the news media.[1]

Contents

Overview

STATS was founded in 1994 by S. Robert Lichter, a professor of communications at George Mason University. According to the organization's website, to which it posts the majority of its research, its goal is to help correct "scientific misinformation in the media resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies".[2] As Lichter related to the Baltimore Sun in 1998, "journalists are deluged with numbers representing findings in fields they're not familiar with".[3] Its sister organization is the Center for Media and Public Affairs, also affiliated with George Mason.[3]

Personnel

Lichter serves as the organization's president.[1] Other personnel include director of research Rebecca Goldin, a professor of mathematical sciences at George Mason and the Ruth Michler Fellow at Cornell University,[4] and STATS.org editor Trevor Butterworth, who is also listed as a senior fellow, and writes for the :{Huffington Post:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:.[2] As of 2010, other senior fellows include Maia Szalavitz, a contributor to Reason magazine, and Stephen Rose.[2][5] The first director of STATS was David Murray, who previously worked for the Heritage Foundation and was later chief scientist for the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy.[6]

[SW: 

David Murray (ONDCP)

Dr. David Murray holds the title of chief scientist at the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). In that role, he has testified against legalizing medical marijuana.

Before joining ONDCP, Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service, a conservative think tank. He has also been affiliated with other conservative think tanks including the Heritage Foundation and the Independence Institute.

Biography

Prior to assuming the directorship of STATS, Murray was an assistant professor of anthropology at Brandeis University. He subsequently went to work as a "Bradley Scholar" at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, where he won the favor of former Reagan Education Secretary William J. Bennett by writing an article for the foundation's Policy Review. Titled "Poor, Suffering Bastards," it argued that government welfare programs are undermining the foundations of western civilization by encouraging women to have babies out of wedlock. "America is becoming a nation of bastards," Murray wrote. "When American society experiments with ever-higher numbers of illegitimacies and single adults, we risk being crushed by our own roof. ... Our future depends on stopping welfare from continuing to subsidize illegitimacy."[1]

Murray also editorialized in favor of the religious right, calling it a movement of "Americans who dare to affirm individual merit, hard work, faith and personal responsibility in the political arena ... America's liberal elites are at war, not with the religious right per se, but with the cultural tradition it represents. ... They honestly believe Western culture is evil, responsible for war, racism, homophobia, sexism, social injustice and centuries of human cruelty. They would rather see America's moral order -- its customs, habits, values and beliefs --- reoriented toward something a little more 'progressive,' such as state socialism."[2]

In 1994, Murray moved from the Heritage Foundation to the Independence Institute, another right-wing think tank located in Golden, Colorado, where he took up the defense of The Bell Curve, the controversial book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray (no relation). David Murray rejected accusations that the book was racist, argued that it "brilliantly put a contradiction in American life out on the table where it can't be ignored," and called for an end to affirmative action.[3]

In 1996, Murray used the murder of a 13-year-old boy as a pretext to rail against the "liberal Hollywood elite," asking, "Where's Whoopi Goldberg and Ed Asner and maybe Norman Mailer? Why aren't they here, hitting this hard, pointing out the miscarriage of justice? ... They're always there to protest when some butcher on Death Row is facing the chair. Always there to denounce the system, demand justice. Disinterested 'civil libertarians,' serving the underdog. ... Ed? Whoopi? You got an answer for this, or are you busy preparing your next rally against capital punishment? ... Why don't you go home, please, and shut up."[4]

References

  1. ↑ David Murray, "Poor, Suffering Bastards," Policy Review, Spring 1994.
  2. ↑ David Murray, "'Liberal Elites' Are at War with U.S. Tradition of Moral Values," Buffalo News (New York), October 9, 1994, p. 9.
  3. ↑ Michelle Mahoney, "The Bell Curve: Skip Race Findings," Denver Post, November 3, 1994, p. E-01.
  4. ↑ Jeff Jacoby, "A killer lives; a child dies," Boston Globe, January 12, 1996, p. 17.] end insert

Fundraising

The organization's operating budget comes from politically conservative charitable foundations including the Carthage Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,[7] Earhart Foundation, and the Castle Rock Foundation.[8] STATS does not accept funding from private companies.[3][9] [[ so ^says ^Whelan too, ^sort of]

Activities

STATS produces an annual list called the "Dubious Data Awards", highlighting egregious factual inaccuracies in news reporting. In 2006, it challenged a study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, used by The New York Times and Forbes, which claimed that almost half of the alcohol industry's revenue came from underage drinkers. According to STATS, American teenagers who drink alcohol would each have to consume more than 1,000 drinks per year for this to be true.[10] STATS has also disagreed with recommendations from Time that parents should discontinue use of soft vinyl toys, teethers, and similar products containing **phthalates**, pointing out that phthalates in children's toys have been cleared for use by both the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the European Union's Institute for Health and Consumer Protection.[10] The annual list has received coverage from The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, among other news organizations.[3][11]

During election years, STATS is often quoted in newspaper articles about the use of statistics in political rhetoric. During the presidential election of 2004, the organization challenged claims by both George W. Bush and John Kerry at the request of the Associated Press.[1]

In 2001, Lichter and his staff published It Ain't Necessarily So, a book about the media's coverage of a range of topics from crime statistics to the 2001 anthrax attacks. The Philadelphia Inquirer called it "a solid critique of the way data-based reports and studies are presented in the media",[12] while Salon.com felt that thebook employed “the very same tactics that it finds so objectionable when used by journalists and publishers”.[13]

In 2007 STATS sponsored a survey of climate scientists, [metero?]which was conducted by Harris International. The survey found that most climate scientists believe that human-induced global warming is occurring, although there is disagreement about its consequences, and few trust the popular media coverage of climate change.[14]

A 2009 article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel argued that STATS's coverage of the chemical :{Bisphenol A:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}: verged on advocacy for the chemical industry.[7][15] On the STATS website, Lichter posted a detailed response disputing the Journal-Sentinel article, calling its reporting and logic "flawed".[16]

References

  1. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-FuzzyMath_06_0-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-FuzzyMath_06_0-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-FuzzyMath_06_0-2) "Numbers get a workout in campaign sport of Extreme Math". Associated Press. 9 April 2004.
  2. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-About_1-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-About_1-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-About_1-2) "About Stats". 12 July 2010. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
  3. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-BSUN_98_2-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-BSUN_98_2-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-BSUN_98_2-2) d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-BSUN_98_2-3) Scott Shane (30 October 1998). "Making sure the figures don't lie; Statistics: The tiny staff of the Statistical Assessment Service specializes in debunking press reports that hinge on numbers. Its director denies any political agenda.". The Baltimore Sun.
  4. ^ "Ruth I. Micheler Memorial Prize of the AWM". awm-math.org. Association for Women in Mathematics. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
  5. ^ "Maia Szalavitz". Reason Magazine. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
  6. ^ "Testimony of Dr. David Murray". house.gov. Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 12 July 2007. Retrieved 26 July 2010.
  7. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-Sentinel_6-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-Sentinel_6-1) Rust, Susanne; Meg Kissinger (22 August 2009). "'Watchdog' advocates for BPA". Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
  8. ^ "Conservative Transparency". mediamatters.org. 14 July 2010. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
  9. ^ "Predatory Reporting? STATS Study Questions Media Criticism of 'Predatory' Payday Loans" (Press release). PR Newsire. 22 July 2006.
  10. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-Ascribe_06_9-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Assessment_Service#cite_ref-Ascribe_06_9-1) "Sex-Crazed Teens, Overhyped Abductions and Booze Bunk: Worst Science Journalism of 2006" (Press release). Ascribe Newswire. 29 December 2006.
  11. ^ Robert Holland (21 January 1998). "This is Your Brain… on White House Data". Richmond Times Dispatch.
  12. ^ Neill Borowski (2 August 2001). "Media's statistics don't add up, critics say". The Philadelphia Inquirer.
  13. ^ David Appell (2 July 2001). "It Ain't Necessarily So". salon.com. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  14. ^ Marianne Lavelle (23 April 2008). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". usnews.com. Retrieved 21 July 2010.
  15. ^ Gina Kolata (30 June 2009). "Flaws in the Case Against BPA". TierneyLab (The New York Times).
  16. ^ Robert S. Lichter (2009). "Dorothy Parker Meets The Marlboro Man: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's BPA Conspiracy Theory". stats.org. Statistical Assessment Service. Retrieved 26 July 2010.

External links

===

Samuel Robert Lichter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (November 2009)

S. Robert Lichter is Professor of Communication at George Mason University, where he directs the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media, and the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), which works to improve the quality of statistical and scientific information in the news.

Contents

Academia

Lichter has taught political science at Princeton, Georgetown, and George Washington universities, and he was a research faculty member at Yale University and Columbia University. He was also a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at Smith College and held the DeWitt Wallace Chair in Mass Communications at the :{American Enterprise Institute:(style="background-color:#fff200;"):}:. He received his Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University and his B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Minnesota. He has received a Goldsmith Research Award from Harvard University and the Solimene Award of Excellence from the American Medical Writers Association's New England Chapter.

Scholarly work

Lichter has authored or co-authored fourteen books and over a hundred scholarly articles and monographs on the news and entertainment media. His best-known work, The Media Elite, (written with Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter) argued thatjournalists, on average, held more liberal political views than the general public, and that their backgrounds and outlooks affect their coverage of the news.

This claim was extended by conservative pundits as evidence for a liberal bias in the media. It also provoked widespread debate among journalists and their critics. The Media Elite was based on interviews with major media journalists and content analysis of their work.

Lichter and his co-authors have also written on the social and political perspectives of popular culture, in books such as Prime Time and Watching America, as well as on news coverage of science and health issues, in Environmental Cancer—A Political Disease and It Ain't Necessarily So. His most recent books (written with Stephen Farnsworth) are The Nightly News Nightmare: Television Coverage of Presidential Elections (2006, 2nd ed.); and The Mediated Presidency: Television News and Presidential Governance (2005). These works use content analysis to examine the media's coverage of government and election campaigns.

In 1986 Lichter and his late ex-wife, sociologist Linda Lichter, established the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a non-profit organization that sought to influence public debate on the media by publishing frequent studies of media coverage using the social scientific tool of content analysis. This was the first time this type of academic research was used on a regular and systematic basis to affect the general public's view of the media. Since then other groups have followed suit, including the Annenberg School for Communication and the Pew Foundation's Project for Excellence in Journalism. In 2004 the CMPA became affiliated with the George Mason University.

Bibliography

Journal articles

Criticism and Response

Some critics, such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and the Columbia Journalism Review, have criticized Lichter and the CMPA for holding a conservative bias of their own or for being funded by conservative foundations.

Nonetheless, major media outlets regularly carry stories based on the CMPA's studies, and the organization was described by the Los Angeles Times' Tom Rosenstiel as "non-partisan" in an interview in the D.C.-based City Paper (2/30/90). USA Today (6/28/91) also described Lichter's methodology as "non-partisan", and Newsday (3/4/92) characterized his research as "non-ideological." After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as "conservative," the Post published a "Clarification", which concluded, "The center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators." (2/9/00)

sw

S. Robert Lichter is president of the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs and Professor of Communication at George Mason University. Until 2008 he was a paid contributor to the Fox News Channel [1].

Contents[hide]

Biography

According to the CMPA website, "Dr. Lichter previously taught at Princeton, Georgetown, and George Washington universities. He also served as a Postdoctoral Fellow in Politics and Psychology at Yale University, Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University, and National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at Smith College, and he held the DeWitt Wallace Chair in Mass Communications at the American Enterprise Institute. He received his Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University and his B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Minnesota. " [2]

Furthermore, until 2008 he was a paid contributor to the Fox News Channel.

Robert Lichter's criticisms of Peter Arnett

Lichter has repeatedly criticised Peter Arnett.

According to FAIR [3], at a conference sponsored by Accuracy In Media after thefirst Gulf War, Lichter was reported by AP (4/27/91) to have said "...he was disappointed in statements by [Peter] Arnett upon his return from Baghdad that he was in the enemy capital on behalf of all CNN viewers, not just Americans. 'I see a trend toward journalists seeing themselves as citizens of the world' rather than patriotic Americans, Lichter said."

Lichter had another go at Arnett in the second Gulf War, during the media feeding frenzy following Arnett's remarks in an interview with Iraqi state television. An April 1, 2004 Washington Post article quoted Lichter saying: "If ever there was a poster boy for bias, it is now Peter Arnett." [4]

SourceWatch Resources

External links

===

Koch and George Mason University

Funding and Connections

Since 1985, George Mason University (GMU), and its associated institutes and centers, has received more funding from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations than any other organization--a total of $29,604,354.  The George Mason University Foundation has received the most funding, $20,297,143, while the Institute for Humane Studieshas been directly given $3,111,457, the Mercatus Center $1,442,000, and George Mason University itself has received $4,753,754.

In addition to financial ties, Koch also has personnel involved with the university.  Richard Fink, the vice president of Koch Industries, Inc., and the former president of the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, serves on the board of directors of the George Mason University Foundation and the Mercatus Center.  Fink's connection to George Mason University is strong.  Besides teaching at the university from 1980-1986, Fink has also served on a number of boards at the university including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Center for the Study of Public Choice, the Board of Visitors, and the Student Affairs Committee.

The Institute for Humane Studies

The Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) was founded by F.A. Harper in 1961 and has been associated with George Mason University since 1985.  The mission of the IHS is "to support the achievement of a free society by discovering and facilitating the development of talented, productive students, scholars and other intellectuals who share a commitment to liberty and who demonstrate the potential to change significantly the current climate of opinion to one more congenial to the principles and practices of freedom."  The Institute for Humane Studies provides $600,000in scholarships each year.

According to SourceWatch, the IHS acts as "a libertarian talent scout, identifying, developing, and supporting the brightest young libertarians it can find who are intent on a leveraged scholarly, or intellectual, career path."  In addition to the funding it receives from the Koch Family Foundations, the Institute for Humane Studies also receives donations from conservative foundations such as the Carthage Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

IHS Internships

Charles Koch is the chairman of the Institute for Humane Studies.  Every year the IHS hosts the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program which offers an internship in public policy.  The internship is a ten-week program that includes an opening seminar, the internship, and a closing seminar.  The opening seminar involves lectures on public policy analysis, classical liberalism, and "persuasive communication."

The internship entails working at a public policy think tank, either at the state or national level.  Placement organizations include the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Mercatus Center, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Institute for Justice.  Policy interns may tackle a number of issues including environmental policy.

The Institute for Humane Studies also offers a journalism internship for which it seeks "writers for liberty."  No formal training in journalism is required and the internship offers a choice of three program areas: investigative, print, and broadcast.

The internship starts with a week-long seminar on journalism and free society, followed by a placement at different locations.  Previous placements for print journalist interns have included thePittsburgh-Tribune--owned by Richard Scaife, who is considered to be one of the founding fathers of the conservative movement in the U.S.  Placements for interns in broadcast journalism have included FOX News.

The Institute for Humane Studies and Politopia

The Institute for Humane Studies also runs the website Politopia: The Land of Custom-Made Government.  The purpose of this website is to promote a new political model that is different from the "old" left/right political model.  In this model, politics are placed in the magical land of Politopia where, depending on where you live (north, west, east, or south), the politics of the land are different.

Politopia is presented as an unbiased educational tool.  However, in its model, the role of the government in economic affairs decreases as one moves into the north, and increases as one moves farther south.  Similarly, the government's role in an individual's daily affairs decreases as one moves west and increases as one moves east.

Historically, the geopolitical terms "west" and "north" have been identified with prosperity, freedom, affluence, industry, and development; whereas the terms "east" and "south" have been associated with poverty, oppression, communism, failure, disease, and insignificance.  Interestingly, Politopia places libertarian and conservative values in the more "ideal" regions of the world.

SW has lots:

Related to global warming

Notable attendees and alumni

Related to global warming

ALEC publishes its own materials as well, including a "Climate Change Overview for State Legislators" which downplays the science and risks of global warmingand exaggerates the costs of addressing it. The Overview was written by Daniel Simmons, who moved from ALEC to become AEA's Director of State Affairs. Simmons was at the Mercatus Institute before ALEC and is a graduate of the George Mason University School of Law.

Daniel Simmons.300 Former Director of the Natural

Resources Task Force at American Legislative Exchange

Council (ALEC).

Simmons is now AEA’s Director of State Affairs.

HEIDELBERG: The document itself was promoted in the USA through Philip Morris's then-private public relations firm, APCO & Associates and a few of their associated newsletter operations. They also organized a seminar promoting various aspects of the associated scientific claims which was "co-sponsored" by SEPP and the George Mason University's International Institute (funded by Philip Morris).

Law School has demo and eco club, but also

TheMason Law Republicans is a politically oriented organization comprised of conservative students at George Mason University School of Law. The goals of the organization include the shaping and influencing of the Republican Party at local, state, and national levels. Also, the group will inform the law school community of relevant social or political issues addressed by the party, the organization, or the school.

Website: http://www.law.gmu.edu/org/republicans/

and The Federalist Society is a group of students dedicated to the founding principles of our polity: that governments exist to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to the Constitution, and that it is the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

GMU $n – George Mason University (-) 501(c)3

www.gmu.edu 3401 Fairfax Dr, Arlington, VA

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Mason_University

dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/541/541603842/541603842_200806_990.pdf

dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/546/546063258/546063258_200806_990.pdf

GMU has both a large GMU Foundation, and a much smaller Instructional Foundation, both 501(c)3.

Unlike most organizations listed here, GMU is clearly not generally an anti-science advocacy organization.

For example, [YAL2009] seems useful work. The GMU-heavy composition of the WegmanPanel makes

it relevant and Singer was long associated with one of its Institutes. GMU, InstHumn (Institute for

Humane Studies) , Mercatus Center, and STATS receive funding from foundations listed in A.2.

See also SIPP1993, organized by Singer with GMU‘s Internationa l Institute, of which GMI Board

member Moore was Director. www.sepp.org/Archive/conferences/conferences.html

Michaels has recently become a Distinguished Senior Fellow.

David Riggs is the Executive Director of Green Watch, a project of the conservative think-tank, the Capital Research Center.

"David Riggs joined CRC in June, 2002. He is director of the CRC Green Watch project, www.green-watch.org, and the CRC Education Watch project, www.educationwatch.org. An expert on environmental issues, organizations and public policy, David is also adjunct faculty at George Mason University and formerly worked as Director of Land and Natural Resource Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, his biographical note states.

Government and politics

Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, Prime Minister of Somalia

[](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anna_Escobedo_Cabral,_official_Treasury_photo.jpg "Enlarge")

Anna Cabral Treasurer of the United States

Karl Rove Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush

[](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kathleen_L._Casey_official_portrait.jpg "Enlarge")

Kathleen Casey Commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason_University

Department of Economics

James M. Buchanan, Nobel Prize-winning economist

Vernon L. Smith, Nobel Prizewinning economist

Gordon Tullock, Developed the Public Choice theory

==

School of Public Policy

Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA

College of Science

wiki:

Slavery

George Mason was one of the largest slaveholders in Fairfax county (possibly second only to George Washington) and had thirty six slaves at the time of his death. Like some of his contemporary slave owners (e.g. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington), Mason conceded that the institution was morally objectionable, once calling it a "slow Poison" that "is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People."[14] Mason favored the abolition of the slave trade, but he did not advocate for the immediate abolition of slavery. Like Jefferson, he owned slaves whom he did not manumit.

Two of Mason's stated reasons for opposing the U.S. Constitution were seemingly contradictory: on the one hand, he said that the draft Constitution did not specifically protect the right of states to let slavery continue where it already existed, and on the other hand he also said that the draft Constitution did not allow Congress to immediately stop the importation of slaves.[14][15] Mason's immediate concern was to prevent more slaves from being imported, and to prevent slavery from spreading into more states.[16] He was not eager to ban slavery where it already existed: "It is far from being a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them."[16] Mason ostensibly balanced his anti-slavery argument that importation should stop, with a pro-slavery argument that the draft Constitution should protect slavery from being taxed out of existence; however, the latter argument had already been incorporated into the Constitution according to James Madison.[17]

Because of his efforts to stop the spread of slavery, and his recognition of the undesirability of slavery, some historians have said that Mason should be categorized as an abolitionist.[18] Other historians have disagreed.[18]

James C. Miller III (born June 25, 1942 in Atlanta, Georgia) is a former U.S. government official and economist who served as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission between 1981 and 1985 and as Budget Director for PresidentRonald Reagan between 1985 and 1988. He also ran for United States Senate in Virginia, losing the Republican nomination at the convention to Oliver North in 1994 and losing the nomination in the primary to John Warner in 1996.[3][4][5]

Biography

Miller was born in Atlanta and grew up in Conyers, Georgia. He earned a B.B.A. in economics from the University of Georgia in 1964 and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia in 1969.

Between 1977 and 1981, Miller was a Resident Scholar at the Center for the Study of Government Regulation at theAmerican Enterprise Institute. From 1978 to 1981, he served as co-director of the center.

Miller was the first Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (April - October 1981) and the Executive Director of Vice President George H. W. Bush's Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief. From 1981 to 1985, he chaired the Federal Trade Commission. From October 1985 to October 1988, Miller was director of the United States Office of Management and Budget.

He is a distinguished fellow at theCenter for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.[6] He is also a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.[7]

He has been counselor to and a board member of the former Citizens for a Sound Economy[8] (1988–2002), a Member of the Boards of the Tax Foundation and the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and a member of the Board of Visitors of George Mason University and the U.S. Air Force Academy. In addition, Miller has been a Director of LECG Economics-Finance, a Member of the Board of Independence Air, a Member of the Board of Washington MutualInvestors Fund, a Member of the Board of the Tax-Exempt Fund of Maryland, a Member of the Board of the Tax-Exempt Fund of Virginia, a Member of the Board of the J.P. Morgan Value Opportunities Fund, a Member of the Board of Clean Energy, a consultant to Freddie Mac, and Chairman of the Board of Economic Impact Analysts, Inc. (family-held consulting firm).[9]

From 2003 to 2006, Miller was chairman (or chairman emeritus) of the Capital Analysis Group (CapAnalysis), a division of the international law firm Howrey LLP. Currently, he is a senior advisor to international law firm of Husch Blackwell Sanders (merger dated March 1, 2008)[10] He was a member of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service (2003-2012), where he was elected chairman in 2005, 2006, and 2007.[11][12]

On November 9, 2009, it was announced that Miller was picked by the then Premier of the Cayman Islands WilliamMcKeeva Bush to lead an independent task force to examine new revenue options for the Cayman Islands Government. The Cayman Islands has no direct taxation although that may change as a result of an agreement with the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK FCO allowed the Cayman Islands Government to borrow additional funds to meet capital and operational expenses as long as the Government agreed to look at ways in which to increase and stabilize its revenue base—direct taxation being the preferred solution.

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "James Clifford Miller" (fee, via Fairfax County Public Library). Almanac of Famous People. Gale. 2011. Gale Document Number: GALE|K1601049770. Retrieved 2013-01-21. Gale Biography In Context. (subscription required)
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "James C. Miller" (fee, via Fairfax County Public Library). Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale. 2008. Gale Document Number: GALE|H1000068712. Retrieved 2013-01-21. Gale Biography In Context. (subscription required)
  3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Janofsky, Michael (June 3, 1994). "North Staff Not Taking A Victory As Assured". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
  4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Daley, Steve (June 5, 1994). "Gop Nominates North In Virginia Senate Race". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2013-01-21. "At a rollicking convention crowded with 15,000 delegates, North got 55 percent of the vote, defeating former Reagan Budget Director James C. Miller for the right to challenge Democratic Sen. Charles Robb this fall."
  5. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Janofsky, Michael (June 13, 1996). "G.O.P. Debates Meaning of Warner's Victory". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
  6. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Adjunct and Visiting Scholars". Center for Study of Public Choice. George Mason University. Retrieved 2013-01-21. "...distinguished fellow since 1988"
  7. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "James C. Miller III". Hoover Institution. July 10, 2012. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
  8. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Citizens for a Sound Economy - Staff Listing". Archived from the original on 2004-10-24.
  9. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "STATEMENT OF JAMES C. MILLER III before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY POLICY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES". March 12, 2002. Archived from the original on 2004-11-14. Retrieved 2013-01-21. "Counselor to Citizens for a Sound Economy and John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow at Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation"
  10. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "James C. Miller III". Husch Blackwell LLP. Retrieved 2013-01-21..
  11. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Federal Times http://federaltimes.com/index2.php?S=593903 |url= missing title (help).[dead link]
  12. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;user-select:none;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Reilly, Sean (November 30, 2012). "Number of empty chairs on Postal Service board increasing". Federal Times. Retrieved 2013-01-21. "James Miller, who headed the Office of Management and Budget during part of the Reagan administration, was on the board from 2003 until last year..." (blog)

External links