Brookings Institution

=<a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/exxon-sting-ensnares-think-tanks-with-climate-credentials/">https://www.eenews.net/articles/exxon-sting-ensnares-think-tanks-with-climate-credentials/</a>Exxon sting ensnares think tanks with climate credentialsBy Corbin Hiar | 07/29/2021 In May 2018, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on the geopolitical implications of oil and gas production in the United States. The four witnesses who testified all had one thing in common: Their institutions each had received money that year from Exxon Mobil Corp.The event could hardly have gone better for Exxon, the largest U.S. oil and gas company.The witnesses, including highly credentialed experts from the Brookings Institution and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, extolled the economic and political benefits of the U.S. drilling boom. The Brookings scholar mentioned climate change in passing; the CSIS expert didn’t bring it up at all.Now some experts and congressional investigators are wondering why.
The May 2018 hearing before the Republican-led Foreign Affairs Committee — and other recent scholarships from CSIS and Brookings — has come under new scrutiny following the release last month of a secretly recorded video in which Exxon lobbyist Keith McCoy touted the company’s connections to the centrist research groups.“Brookings and CSIS are the two big think tanks that we work with and that we’re actively involved in,” McCoy said in May to an environmental activist posing as corporate headhunter.Exxon has donated $600,000 to Brookings since 2018 and nearly $2.1 million to CSIS over the same period, according to contributions disclosed by the $240 billion company, some of which were first reported by The New Republic.The think tanks have acknowledged their support from Exxon but say it has no influence over their climate and energy research. Furthermore, they have no control over how the oil company, or anyone else, uses their research once it’s published.Yet some experts think their relationship should be more closely examined. Exxon is one of several oil and gas companies that belong to an exclusive club at Brookings that promises top donors access to the think tank’s leadership and scholars, and CSIS solicits similar entrée to its “corporate partners,” documents show.That’s one reason to look deeper, said Steve Coll, the author of “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power” and dean of Columbia Journalism School.“It creates an appearance of a conflict of interest that warrants investigation into the facts of how the money and the research related to one another,” Coll said. “It’s important because it goes to credibility of research that is being brought to public hearings to influence public understanding and policy.”Rep. Ro Khanna, the chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Environment, is planning to look into Exxon’s ties to think tanks during a broader probe into fossil fuel industry misinformation efforts.“That’s exactly part of the investigation that our committee is launching,” the California Democrat told E&E News shortly before he invited Exxon’s lobbyist in for a transcribed interview with Oversight staffers (Climatewire, July 26).“It would be wrong to impugn a think tank like Brookings just on the basis of one sting operation,” Khanna added. “That said, it raises troubling allegations, and we have to get to the bottom of it. And I think that what McCoy would say under oath probably has much more credibility than what McCoy was saying on the phone conversation.”Exxon’s senior director for federal affairs told the Greenpeace official that the company relies on think tanks to help steer climate policy discussions in Washington.“You control the debate if you have the paper. So if they produce the paper, you can control the debate,” McCoy said in an interview for what he believed was a job with a Middle East oil and gas investment fund (Climatewire, July 2).“You can start to say ‘This is how we think this legislation should look. And that bill that you have over there, here’s our paper of why that won’t work,'” he said, according to an unpublished transcript of the interview obtained by E&E News. “It’s extremely effective in terms of pushing away bad legislation.”Exxon deployed that tactic to help defeat the only major climate legislation that’s ever passed the House, according to Coll’s award-winning book. Proposed by then-Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in the midst of the Great Recession, the bill would’ve capped greenhouse gas emissions and created a trading system for emission credits.Exxon lobbyists told “fence-sitting congresspeople and senators” that the cap-and-trade legislation would “destroy jobs and growth,” Coll reported.The paper they wielded was “a Brookings Institution study that showed the proposal might take about 2.5 percent out of American gross domestic product during the next forty years — the equivalent of one year’s economic growth,” the book said. “That was not a daunting price if climate change was accepted as a grave national danger, but among congresspeople whose constituents in 2009 suffered from personal bankruptcies, mortgage defaults, and even homelessness, it was not an easy trade-off to accept.”While the Brookings study found the Waxman-Markey bill would have virtually no effect on employment outside the fossil fuel industry, “ExxonMobil emphasized those forecasted job losses to members of the Senate from the oil and coal states that would be hardest hit,” Coll wrote.The landmark climate legislation ultimately died in the Senate after Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority and no Republicans were willing to support it (Climatewire, Nov. 27, 2019).“It’s not enough for a company to hire a lobbyist in D.C. to attempt to influence public policy,” said Brooke Williams, a Boston University journalism professor who co-authored a 2016 New York Times series that highlighted corporate influence at Brookings, CSIS and other Washington research institutions. “A company needs a think tank.”‘Seeds of reality’In the years since the defeat of the cap-and-trade bill, Brookings and CSIS scholars have delivered testimony and research that could redound to Exxon’s benefit.At the 2018 hearing on the geopolitical implications of U.S. oil and gas production, for instance, Samantha Gross, the director of Brookings’ energy security and climate initiative, focused most of her comments on the advantages of expanded natural gas use.“Natural gas exports provide clear environmental benefits,” Gross, who Democrats had invited to testify, said in her prepared testimony. “Natural gas has the lowest carbon emissions of any fossil fuel and creates much less local air pollution than coal. When used to generate power, natural gas also complements renewable power sources like wind and solar.”Later in the hearing, former Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee that hosted the event, asked all four witnesses about whether they supported the “free trade” of U.S. energy.Sarah Ladislaw, who at the time was the director of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at CSIS, said “yes” and then made the case for expanding natural gas infrastructure in the northeastern United States, which many environmentalists fear would lock the region into decades of reliance on the planet-warming fuel.Gross added: “It’s really also a no-brainer. It’s a no-brainer from a trade and economic perspective. It’s also a no-brainer from an environmental perspective.”The other witnesses at the hearing were from the Gas Technology Institute and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. In 2018, GTI launched an industry-led collaborative to study methane leaks, which is partially funded by Exxon. The oil company also gave $40,000 to the Baker Institute that year, its annual report of charitable contributions shows.The CSIS and Brookings scholars’ comments at that Foreign Affairs panel three years ago mirror remarks that Exxon CEO Darren Woods made to investors on an earnings call in April. He argued exports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which some studies have shown can in the short term have a carbon footprint roughly equivalent to coal, will be key to the company and global energy system in the coming decades.“I think gas is going to continue to be a really important part as societies and economies grow, and as we move into a lower-carbon future,” Woods said. “The LNG opportunities remain an important part of the portfolio, and we continue to work very closely with the governments around progressing discussions on how we continue to build on the portfolio that we have and expand those opportunities.”The comments that Gross and Ladislaw made at the oil and gas geopolitics hearing “aren’t flat-out wrong,” said Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard University research associate studying the history of global warming politics. “They contain seeds of reality. But they have the overall effect of constructing what we call a ‘fossil fuel savior’ framing of the climate crisis.”In that narrative, Exxon and other fossil fuel companies are cast as “trustworthy reliable innovators who we need to look to for solutions,” he said. “And nice and slowly — nothing too drastic.”That’s significant because the views of experts from Brookings and CSIS matter to policymakers. Scholars from those prestigious think tanks have testified or produced work that’s been cited in dozens of congressional hearings over the last three years.Lawmakers have leaned on Brookings’ research on the growth potential for clean energy jobs in the country and heard a CSIS expert warn about the threat sea-level rise poses to U.S. ports and national security.But other Brookings experts have criticized the Obama administration’s move to force federal agencies to use an internal carbon price in their decisionmaking. And during the 2018 Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing, Ladislaw touted U.S. coal reserves and said if domestic supplies of natural gas stay “in the ground,” then “it doesn’t do anybody any good.”Ladislaw is now a managing director at RMI, a clean energy-focused think tank formerly known as the Rocky Mountain Institute. She denied that her testimony was influenced by Exxon’s financial support for CSIS.“As the body of my work shows, I have dedicated much of my career to the issue of climate change,” she said in a statement from RMI. “Even in this instance, my written testimony, which was submitted for the record to the committee, spoke to the competitive advantage for the U.S. of renewables and advanced technologies, and how the U.S. should not promote oil and gas over carbon-free energy sources.”Think tank experts have “a disproportionate impact” on climate policy, according to a Senate aide, who asked not to be identified to speak candidly. “Even the freshest Hill staffer knows to look at what Exxon is telling them with a little bit of a jaundiced eye. But in contrast, a more seasoned Hill staffer, and member, has a different view when something is from Brookings.”The aide said organizations are viewed on a spectrum, with Congress’ Government Accountability Office on one end and Exxon on the other.“So if GAO is a 10/10 and Exxon is a 1/10, then organizations like Brookings are a 6 or a 7 out of 10, when it comes to having a good reputation,” the Senate staffer said.
‘Donor privileges’ at BrookingsAt Brookings, Gross has examined a variety of climate and energy issues.In January 2020, Gross wrote a paper on local opposition to renewable energy. “There is no perfect way to produce electricity on an industrial scale,” she wrote. “Policymakers must recognize these challenges and face them head-on as the nation transitions to a lower-carbon energy system.”And that June, Gross penned an essay on why fossil fuels are “so hard to quit.” The piece mainly focused on the technical and political challenges associated with the energy transition.“Those pushing to end fossil fuel production now are missing the point that fossil fuels will still be needed for some time in certain sectors,” she wrote. “I fear that magical thinking and purity tests are taking hold in parts of the left end of the American political spectrum, while parts of the political right are guilty of outright denialism around the climate problem. In the face of such stark polarization, the focus on practical solutions can get lost — and practicality and ingenuity are the renewable resources humanity needs to meet the climate challenge.”Meanwhile, Exxon’s lobbyists have been trying to sell lawmakers on the need to keep fossil fuels in the U.S. energy mix.“You can’t completely change the electric grid from coal and gas into wind, and here’s why,” McCoy said, describing his recent conversations on the Hill. “You can’t run the United States off of wind solar and batteries, you just can’t.”McCoy added: “We think natural gas would play a key role in anything — and not just as a bridge fuel. We think it’s a low-emission energy source.”Gross denied that Exxon had steered her energy and climate analyses.“No organization, corporation, or donor influences the integrity of my research or my commitment to finding practical solutions to the climate crisis,” she said in an email. “My work is my own and I stand behind it.”Brookings also pushed back strongly on the notion that Exxon had any direct involvement in shaping the work of Gross or its other scholars.“Brookings categorically denies that its research and policy recommendations are tied to the interests of any individual or corporation,” spokeswoman Andrea Risotto wrote in an email. “The institution and its personnel are governed by robust guidelines on research independence that do not permit any outside parties to undermine or compromise the independence of our research or its recommendations.”Regarding Exxon in particular, the company “has provided general support to Brookings’s Foreign Policy program, which has as its mission scholarship exploring major challenges to international peace and security, and to the institution as a whole through its participation in our Corporate Council,” she said. “Exxon has made no direct contributions to support specific scholars or specific research projects, and its funding is not directed toward any Brookings activity or research related to energy or climate change.”Exxon’s yearly six-figure contributions also make up a relatively small share of the think tank’s annual funding.In 2019, Brookings reported nearly $79.4 million in revenue. That total included gifts exceeding $100,000 from Tom Steyer, who was running for president at the time on a platform that included aggressive action on climate change, and two Rockefeller charities, which have supported climate liability litigation targeting Exxon (Climatewire, May 4).Yet the company’s financial support for Brookings opened doors at the agenda-setting think tank.Exxon is one of four oil and gas companies that have donated at least $100,000 to Brookings in each of the last three years, the think tank’s annual reports show. The others are Royal Dutch Shell PLC, France’s TotalEnergies SE and Equinor ASA of Norway.That level of giving has secured Exxon a place on Brookings’ Corporate Council. The think tank’s website doesn’t explain what the council is, and Risotto didn’t respond to questions about the membership, structure and purposes of the group.But a 2016 menu of “Corporate Council Donor Privileges” promised companies that give Brookings $100,000 or more would receive “a customized program of benefits designed in collaboration with the Senior Director of Corporate & Foundation Relations.”Brookings deleted the document from its website after E&E News asked about it.Other perks include “a private meeting” with the think tank’s president, “opportunities to request briefings with Brookings scholars” and invitations to a series of exclusive Brookings receptions, an archived version of the menu says.Risotto said the document “was removed because it has not reflected the institution’s current practices for some years.”CSIS promotes gas, and Exxon[ pixAbdallah Jum'ah, then CEO of Saudi Aramco has a laugh with Rex Tillerson, then president of Exxon Mobil, left, during a conference on the United States and Saudi Arabia relationship and their interests in energy security, on April 27, 2004, in Washington]At CSIS, Exxon’s millions have gone mainly to general support, building the think tank’s endowment, and regional initiatives focused on Africa and the Americas, according to the oil major’s last three charitable contribution reports.CSIS scholars have followed with a series of high-octane commentaries.In September 2018, Judd Devermont, the director of the CSIS Africa Program, co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs calling on U.S. policymakers to support the construction of new natural gas power plants as part of a broader push for additional energy infrastructure in Nigeria.“Nigeria will require a sensible mix of energy drawing on all of its potential for large-scale solar, wind farms, hydroelectric dams, and natural gas,” wrote Devermont and Todd Moss, who was at the time a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.“It is tempting to envision the future as a solar panel on every roof,” they said. “But the promise of small-scale energy solutions for Nigerian households does not replace the need for a modern grid system that can deliver reliable, affordable power at scale, supporting businesses, industry, and job creation.”That year, the Center for Global Development received $800,000 from Exxon’s foundation to work on “women’s economic empowerment,” according to the think tank’s website.Devermont didn’t respond to a request for comment. But Moss, the article’s lead author, said in an email that the piece aimed “to raise awareness among the US foreign policy community about the impact of energy poverty on Nigeria and how the US might reasonably respond. I never spoke with anyone at the foundation or the company about that article.”Moss, who now leads the Energy for Growth Hub research group, added: “If you are looking for examples of Exxon’s influence at think tanks, this isn’t it.”Last August, Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at CSIS, wrote a commentary about the difficulties Guyana’s new government would face if it sought to renegotiate the previous government’s offshore revenue-sharing agreement with Exxon and its partners. The deal was inked only days before Exxon disclosed an increased estimate for the size of its 8-billion-barrel find, which led some politicians to accuse the oil giant of taking advantage of the new South American petrostate (Energywire, March 25, 2020).“By necessity, frontier countries offer friendly contract terms to attract investment, but things tend to change quickly when companies make large discoveries. When citizens and policymakers become aware of the economic resources at stake, they often call for a reassessment of contracts to better reflect risks and rewards for investors,” said Cahill, who spent more than a decade as an adviser to oil and gas companies before joining CSIS in 2020.“Governments must balance public expectations and the desire for more revenues on the one hand against concerns over contract sanctity and future investment on the other,” he wrote.In an email, Cahill described his Guyana commentary as “a balanced piece of analysis” and said his contact with Exxon at CSIS and his previous jobs was “pretty limited,” aside from events and conference.“The same is true for many other companies,” he added. “I’m an analyst, not an advocate, and I strive to be analytical and unbiased in my writing and other work for CSIS.”Like Brookings and many other think tanks, CSIS offers major corporate donors access to its fellows and leadership. Exxon is one of more than 150 companies that have contributed to CSIS, according to its corporate donor webpage. CSIS reported roughly $45.5 million in revenue in 2019, its most recent publicly available tax filing shows.“Corporate partners are frequently invited to CSIS for private and off-the-record conversations about current affairs and how they relate to their business,” the donor page says. “Members are also invited to monthly briefings to hear from CSIS scholars on current affairs and have the opportunity to schedule private briefings with the Center’s experts to dive deeper on areas of interest.”CSIS didn’t directly respond to questions about the perks it advertises to potential business supporters. But spokesman Andrew Schwartz accused E&E News of “cherry picking pieces of information” and of being similarly conflicted because Exxon is a longtime subscriber.“You are clearly insinuating that CSIS is a shill for ExxonMobil’s interests and nothing could be further from the truth,” he wrote in an email. “Exxon funding is not earmarked for specific scholars, reports, or research. CSIS maintains complete independence over our research, findings, and recommendations.”
‘Shadow groups’ to centrist think tanksMcCoy, the Exxon lobbyist, described the company’s embrace of Brookings and CSIS as part of an evolution in its effort to thwart climate action.“Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes,” he said during Greenpeace UK’s sting. “Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes that’s true. But there’s nothing illegal about that.”Now, McCoy said, “the science has gotten better [and] we’ve gotten smarter.”He didn’t respond to a request for comment.Exxon spokesman Casey Norton said McCoy’s think tank comments “in no way represent the company’s position.” The oil giant similarly has distanced itself from its lobbyist’s remarks on a carbon tax, which he said Exxon only supported as a “talking point” (Energywire, July 6).Exxon also defended the work of Brookings and CSIS, and said it intends to continue supporting them.“We value access to the reports and assessments made by world-class researchers and experts who consider and evaluate public policy alternatives on issues of importance to the energy industries,” Norton said in a statement.But some experts dispute the notion that groups such as CSIS and Brookings can take money from Exxon and not be influenced by the company. Even if the oil company’s contributions are relatively small compared with the think tanks’ annual budgets, they could make up a substantial portion of the salaries of certain scholars.Furthermore, many well-meaning think tank fellows may not fully understand how their climate work is being shaped and weaponized by the oil industry to thwart the actions needed to address the problem, according to Supran, the Harvard history researcher.“People who don’t appear to be intentionally peddling climate denial and delay, I essentially would see them as pawns in Exxon’s propaganda campaign,” he said. “They are essentially being used by the fossil fuel industry to perpetuate a narrative that protects the status quo.”Reporters Nick Sobcyzk and Mike Lee contributed.=an 10 22In June, John R. Allen <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/12/us/politics/john-allen-brookings-resigns.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">resigned from his position</a> as president of the Brookings Institution following allegations that he had secretly lobbied on behalf of the government of Qatar. Journalist Michael Schaffer, in an <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/14/republicans-laws-think-tanks-00061763" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">article published by Politico</a> on October 14, reports that there has been a considerable “uproar” following that controversy — including “a new wave of congressional scrutiny and proposed legislation” that has been “driven largely but not exclusively by conservatives” and “could ultimately complicate life at” think tanks.But Schaffer stresses that right-wing think tanks could be among the ones that such legislation would affect. Schaffer cites Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa on the right and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on the left as two senators who have proposed bills that could affect how think tanks function. Warren’s bill, according to Schaffer, “would require think tanks to disclose donors — not just foreign ones — that pay for lobbying materials, among other things.”“For all the joy that conservative pols have taken at Brookings’ latest turn in the barrel, conversations with people around the industry reveal an irony: Any potential new wave of government-mandated disclosure rules, especially those that go beyond foreign money, would actually represent a bigger cultural change at right-wing organizations, some of which historically have tended to see donations as a form of free speech,” Schaffer reports. “Establishmentarian center-left outfits like Brookings already share significant pieces of that information — thanks in part, it should be noted, to previous funding imbroglios, and their reliance on corporate dollars. The Heritage Foundation, by contrast, says less than two percent of its income comes from corporate sources.”READ MORE: <a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/11/trump-2655520362/" target="self" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">'Barely concealed bloodlust': Claremont Institute laid out detailed plan for using cops to overturn Trump’s election loss</a>Heritage is one of the most famous right-wing think tanks in the United States. Another is the Cato Institute, which has much more of a libertarian outlook than the socially conservative Heritage. Meanwhile, the Claremont Institute is a right-wing think tank that has taken a very MAGA turn in recent years.“It’s also notable that none of the proposals that have been publicized since the tumult at Brookings would have done much about Allen, whose allegedly fishy work for Qatar was done before he took over Brookings and would theoretically be covered by the Foreign Agent Registration Act,” Schaffer writes. “He’s denied improper behavior and hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing. What the scrutiny of Allen did do, though, was re-focus attention on the organization’s broader history with the emirate.”Schaffer points out that different think tanks have different policies when it comes to who they will or won’t accept money from.“Under the status quo,” Schaffer observes, “there are few rules about who a think tank may accept money from and who it has to tell. And there are probably as many internal policies as there are think tanks: The Heritage Foundation doesn’t take any money from governments of any sort, foreign or domestic. Brookings does take money from governments, but only democratic ones. The Center for American Progress also takes foreign money, but not for any specific project. It also discloses donors, unless those donors choose to remain anonymous, something deep-pocketed types occasionally do to avoid being hit up by others.”READ MORE: <a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/09/heritage-foundation/" target="self" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="color: rgb(11, 13, 101); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Top US conservative think tank president blasted for applauding Italy’s election of 'neo-fascist' prime minister</a>=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/the-foreign-policy-money-trail-in-washington-how-middle-eastern-powers-fund-government-think-tanks-and-influence-us-legislation/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/the-foreign-policy-money-trail-in-washington-how-middle-eastern-powers-fund-government-think-tanks-and-influence-us-legislation/</a>The 2016 elections awakened Americans to a startling reality: the country’s political system is ripe for foreign interference. The Russians took full advantage of social media with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">bot armies</a> and through <a href="https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/internet_research_agency_indictment-02-16-2018.pdf?mod=article_inline" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">unregistered</a> foreign agents. While their influence garnered considerable attention and has led to <a href="https://www.law360.com/whitecollar/articles/1126502/fara-enforcement-the-year-ahead" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">increased</a> enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), one area has remained largely off the congressional and media radar screens. Yet it remains a vital part of the way other governments try to influence policy in this country: the foreign funding of think tanks.<div class="p1_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This story originally appeared at <a href="https://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176530/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Tom Dispatch</a>.<div class="p2_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="teadsNative" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Most Americans undoubtedly have little idea what a think tank actually does. Having worked at two of them myself, it’s fair to say that even those of us who have labored inside these basic building blocks for policymaking in Washington are often still trying to figure out just what many of them do. Still, whether you know it or not, you’ve certainly seen think-tank employees on cable news, heard them on the radio, or read their op-ed pieces.<div class="p3_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">After all, think tanks are homes for so many of the “experts” who are the go-to sources for media coverage of foreign and domestic policy topics on just about any day — and are often key go-to sources for those making policy in Washington, too). You know, the former Department of Defense official you caught on <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/rebuffed-iran-diplomacy-trump-getting-more-traction-venezuela-n970861" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">NBC News</a> discussing Iran or the Middle Eastern expert you saw quoted in <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/iran-pompeo-middle-east-human-rights-1287333" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Newsweek</a> critiquing the Trump administration’s policies there. Outside the public eye, members of Congress and executive branch officials rely heavily on think tanks for expertise on a wide range of issues, for key congressional <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA00/20180508/108272/HHRG-115-FA00-Wstate-HarmanJ-20180508.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">testimony</a>, and even for quite <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/#5a59d4a06187" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">literally</a> helping craft public policy.<div class="p4_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Those who run Washington generally trust the inhabitants of think tanks of their political bent to provide the intellectual foundations upon which much of public policy is built. At least in some cases, however, that trust couldn’t be more deeply misplaced, since cornerstones of the ever-expanding think-tank universe turn out to be for sale.<div class="p5_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Every year foreign governments pour tens of millions of dollars into those very institutions and, though many think tanks are tax-exempt non-profits, such donations often turn out to be anything but charitable gifts. Foreign contributions generally come with critically important strings attached — usually a favorable stance toward that country in whatever influential work the think tanks are doing. In other words, those experts you regularly read or see on screen, whose scholarship and advice Washington’s politicians and other officials often use, are in some cases being paid, directly or indirectly, by the very countries on which they are offering advice and analysis. And here’s the catch: they can do so without ever having to tell you about it.<div class="p6_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Money Trail From Foreign Governments to Think Tanks<div class="p7_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“I’ve never had to worry in my years at CAP about an analyst or me saying X, Y, and Z and worry about a funding source. Never thought about it. Never,” explained Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress (CAP). He was speaking at a Middle East Institute (MEI) event in January entitled “The Role of Think Tanks in Shaping Middle East Policy.” MEI President Paul Salem echoed this sentiment, noting that funding, particularly foreign government funding, shouldn’t ever shape a think tank’s work. “Independence,” he proclaimed, “is sacred.”<div class="p8_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Such comments, like the events themselves, are just the norm in Washington think-tank life — unless, that is, you follow the money, in which case they seem both striking and supremely ironic. On any given day, Washington is, in fact, awash in foreign-policy events at think tanks. There, experts convene to publicly discuss just about every topic you’d want to hear about — except one, of course: their funding. And that is what made the Katulis-Salem exchange particularly interesting. What they and their follow panelists never mentioned at an event extolling the importance of think tanks in helping craft political Washington’s Middle East policies was this: both CAP and MEI have received millions of dollars from authoritarian governments in the Middle East.<div class="p9_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MEI has publicly <a href="https://www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/2016%20Contributions.pdf" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">reported</a> receiving millions from Saudi Arabia and lesser amounts from the Persian Gulf states of Oman and Qatar. By far its largest donor, however, seems to have been the United Arab Emirates (UAE), <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/gulf-government-gave-secret-20-million-gift-to-d-c-think-tank/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">reportedly</a> making a “secret” $20 million contribution to that think tank, earmarked to “hire experts in order to counter the more egregious misperceptions about the region” and “to inform U.S. government policymakers.” In other words, in the spirit of that MEI panel title, the UAE’s funding was explicitly designed to shape that think tank’s — and so U.S. — policy considerations.<div class="p10_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">While hardly in that $20 million range, CAP has also <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/our-supporters-2017/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">publicly</a> <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/our-supporters-2016/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">reported</a> <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/about/c3-our-supporters-2014/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">receiving</a> at least $1.5 million from the UAE.<div class="p11_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">And keep in mind that those two think tanks are hardly the only ones receiving donations from countries in the Middle East. The Center for a New American Security, for instance, received <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/07/30/uae-yousef-otaiba-cnas-american-progress-michele-flournoy-drone/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">$250,000</a> from the United Arab Emirates to produce a study on the need for the U.S. to export military-grade drones to countries like… the UAE. That think tank’s subsequent report on the topic notes that the U.S. doesn’t export <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/14/hidden-toll-of-us-drone-strikes-in-yemen-nearly-a-third-of-deaths-are-civilians-not-al-qaida/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">drones</a> to the UAE and other countries, but should because “this reluctance to transfer U.S. drones harms U.S. interests in tangible ways.” Never mind that a third of those killed in drone strikes in the devastating war in Yemen are civilians.<div class="p12_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Brookings Institution <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11275354/saudi-arabia-gulf-washington" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">received</a> a $14.8 million donation from Qatar. In fact, according to a New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-government-contributions-to-nine-think-tanks.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">analysis</a>, nearly all of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington have accepted money from authoritarian regimes in the Middle East or elsewhere. And that, in turn, is just the tip of the iceberg, since think tanks are not legally required to publicly disclose their funding.<div class="p13_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Charity or Influence Buying?<div class="p14_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If think tanks are to be believed, the money they receive from such funders changes little. Recent events at a number of think tanks, including the Center for American Progress and the Middle East Institute, should, however, give pause to anyone who assumes that such institutions are by their nature insulated from the influence of foreign funders.<div class="p15_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Recently, serious questions have been raised about whether CAP’s ties to the UAE, itself a close ally of the Saudi royals, contributed to its awkward response to the brutal murder of Washington Post journalist and Saudi citizen Jamal Khashoggi in that Kingdom’s embassy in Istanbul, Turkey.  Following that killing, CAP released a <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement/2018/10/12/459335/statement-saudi-arabia-must-held-accountable-alleged-murder-jamal-khashoggi-caps-kelly-magsamen-says/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">response</a> condemning the Saudis for their involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, but not calling for specific consequences to punish the Kingdom.<div class="p16_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">According to <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/01/16/center-for-american-progress-cap-uae-leak/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">reporting</a> by the Intercept’s Ryan Grim, such consequences were stripped from the statement by a CAP staffer who just happened to be Brian Katulis. Then, in December, CAP largely sat on the <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/12/23/yemen-war-resolution-vote-senate/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">sidelines</a> as the Senate passed a historic resolution to end U.S. involvement in the devastating Saudi-UAE war in Yemen. At the MEI <a href="https://www.mei.edu/events/role-think-tanks-shaping-middle-east-policy" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">event</a> in January, Katulis dismissed those giving “energy and dynamism” to “the Yemen debate” for ignoring “the full complexity of the challenges.” Jamal Khashoggi’s name wasn’t even mentioned.<div class="p17_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Despite MEI head Salem’s claim that “independence is sacred,” there’s reason to question how independent scholars can be when their work is, at least in part, dependent on foreign funding. In at least one case, for instance, Salem’s institute published the work of Fahad Nazer, who was directly on the Saudi payroll. While earning <a href="https://efile.fara.gov/docs/6389-Exhibit-AB-20161109-1.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">$7,000</a> a month as a <a href="https://efile.fara.gov/docs/6389-Supplemental-Statement-20181112-5.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">foreign agent</a> for Saudi Arabia, Nazer wrote <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/01/registered-foreign-agent-turned-saudi-spokesperson-revolving-door/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">several</a> pro-Saudi articles for both think tanks and mainstream media outlets, including <a href="https://www.mei.edu/publications/mohammed-bin-salman-and-campaign-counter-extremism" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">one</a> for MEI that made no mention of his financial ties to the Saudis. That March 2018 article did, however, encourage yet more U.S. support for the country’s ruling crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who, Nazer wrote, would “be good for Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the world.”<div class="p18_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Just seven months later, bin Salman would reportedly <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-concludes-saudi-crown-prince-ordered-jamal-khashoggis-assassination/2018/11/16/98c89fe6-e9b2-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.f53dedffd47e" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">authorize</a> the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi and, in January 2019, Nazer himself would <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-embassy-of-the-kingdom-of-saudi-arabia-appoints-fahad-nazer-as-official-spokesperson-300783317.html" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">become</a> the official spokesperson for the Saudi Embassy in Washington.<div class="p19_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Blurred Lines and Lack of Transparency<div class="p20_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Nazer’s case also illustrates a growing pattern of interactions between think tanks that receive foreign funding and the registered foreign agents of those countries. In fact, Emirati foreign agents last year reported contacting think tanks at least 85 times, according to an analysis of Foreign Agents Registration Act filings for a forthcoming report on the Emirati lobby in the U.S. by the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, which I direct.<div class="p21_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Perhaps not surprisingly, CAP’s Katulis and MEI were among the top think-tank contacts for UAE’s foreign agents. According to <a href="https://efile.fara.gov/docs/5478-Supplemental-Statement-20181102-31.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">2018</a> <a href="https://efile.fara.gov/docs/5478-Supplemental-Statement-20180521-30.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">filings</a>, Katulis was contacted at least 12 times by the Harbour Group, which the UAE paid more than <a href="https://efile.fara.gov/docs/5478-Supplemental-Statement-20180521-30.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">$5</a> <a href="https://efile.fara.gov/docs/5478-Supplemental-Statement-20181102-31.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">million</a> in 2018 to “influence U.S. policy,” according to the firm’s <a href="https://efile.fara.gov/docs/5478-Exhibit-AB-20171222-28.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">FARA</a> filings. Katulis was a particular focus for them because he was helping to organize a “study tour” in which think-tank experts would take a luxurious trip to both the UAE and Saudi Arabia. That group also contacted MEI at least 14 times on behalf of the UAE, <a href="https://efile.fara.gov/docs/5478-Supplemental-Statement-20181102-31.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">directing</a> most of its efforts towards a “speaking engagement at MEI” for the Emirati ambassador to the U.S., the same man who had directed that “<a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/gulf-government-gave-secret-20-million-gift-to-d-c-think-tank/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">secret</a>” $20 million contribution to the institute.<div class="p22_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Under current law, it is perfectly legal for think tanks that receive funding from foreign governments to also work with foreign agents registered to represent those very governments. FARA includes an <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title22/pdf/USCODE-2009-title22-chap11-subchapII.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">exemption</a> for those engaged in “bona fide… scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits.” Like many parts of the FARA statute, it’s not at all clear what “bona fide” means, but think tanks are presumably exempt from registration if they meet this threshold.<div class="p23_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">While the work done by both think tanks and registered foreign agents can sometimes overlap, the two are worlds apart on one critical score: transparency. Under FARA, registered foreign agents are required to disclose a considerable amount of what they do, including whom they’re working for, how much they’re being paid, and whom they’re contacting, as well as when and where they do it, on behalf of foreign principals like the United Arab Emirates. And most of that information is available <a href="https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">online</a>. Anything they distribute on behalf of a foreign backer must also <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title22/pdf/USCODE-2009-title22-chap11-subchapII.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">include</a> a “conspicuous statement” to let anyone know that what they’re reading is being distributed on behalf of a foreign principal.<div class="p24_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Think tanks receiving funding from foreign sources are, however, not required to do any of the above.<div class="p25_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As is appropriate during tax season, most of this should, in the end, be blamed on the Internal Revenue Service. Think tanks usually operate as tax-exempt organizations and, according to the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-and-availability-of-exempt-organizations-returns-and-applications-contributors-identities-not-subject-to-disclosure" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">IRS</a>, “a tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return.”<div class="p26_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">While MEI and CAP do both disclose their funding sources on their websites — for which they should be commended — many think tanks do not. And few, even among those that do, mention any potential conflicts of interest that might be reflected in their published reports or the speeches and media appearances of their members. Even more worrisome, a Project On Government Oversight <a href="https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/09/foreign-influence-at-the-witness-table/" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">investigation</a> by Lydia Dennett found numerous examples of think-tank experts not reporting or mentioning financial ties to foreign governments when testifying before Congress. Hiding such potential conflicts of interest is likely to leave the public and policymakers with the impression that they’re hearing truly objective experts, when they may, in fact, be taking testimony from someone who is functionally or literally on the payroll of a country with a deep stake in what they’re telling Congress.<div class="p27_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If think tanks are to remain credible sources of foreign-policy expertise, such ties must, at the very least, be laid bare.<div class="p28_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A first step would simply be to require think tanks to publicly disclose any foreign funding they receive, something easily done by amending the IRS code. In addition, just as registered foreign agents are <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title22/pdf/USCODE-2009-title22-chap11-subchapII.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">required</a> to include a “conspicuous statement” letting readers know they’re working on behalf of a foreign power, think tanks should have to fully disclose their funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest in all their written products, as well as at speaking engagements, especially testimony before Congress. It should also be incumbent upon the media to do a better job of vetting sources. Sure, journalists are extraordinarily busy, but if a simple Google search can reveal that the Middle East “expert” you’re quoting is being paid by a country in the Middle East, it behooves you to tell your readers that.<div class="p29_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Finally, transparency is essential, but it’s well past time for think tanks themselves to focus on the track records of the countries they’re getting money from. The Brookings Institution did just that by cutting <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/think-tanks-reconsider-saudi-support-amid-khashoggi-controversy-193104698.html" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">ties</a> with the Saudis shortly after the murder of Khashoggi and, soon after, MEI, too, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/international/411545-washington-think-tank-declines-saudi-money-amid-khashoggi-controversy" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">announced</a> that it would decline any further funding from the Saudi government. More recently, and following the questions raised about CAP’s involvement with the United Arab Emirates, that think tank <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/25/united-arab-emirates-funding-center-for-american-progress" target="blank" rel="noopener" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">announced</a> that it would no longer accept UAE money. As a CAP spokesperson said, “It’s just the right thing to do.”<div class="p30_31" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">CAP, MEI, and Brookings are, however, the exceptions.  Most think tanks haven’t done “the right thing” and dropped funding from autocratic regimes. Nor are they likely to voluntarily increase transparency about that funding. The burden then falls on Congress to enact reforms ensuring that senators and representatives will know when the expert they’re hearing discuss a specific country or the region it’s in is being paid by that very same country. Failure to act could leave Americans asking a simple and uncomfortable question: Which country is buying U.S. foreign policy today?
=<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Domhoff</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/wra50.html">https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/wra50.html</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">50 yrs</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For several reasons, then, enough Middle Americans switched to the Republicans to solidify a corporate-conservative coalition that then got what it wanted from Nixon and future Republican presidents in terms of a National Labor Relations Board that would legitimate outsourcing and in other ways continue to undercut the union movement, a story that once again is best told by Gross (1995). From the point of view of power structure research, it was these crucial power dynamics -- not the sudden organization of the corporate community, as in Vogel's (1989) theory, nor something so general and subsequent as "internationalization" or "globalization," as in some recent theories -- that started the decline of the union movement in the 1970s. This analysis is also supported by the fact that the unions have not declined nearly as far or as fast in Canada and Western Europe.The nationwide white turn to the Republicans also made it possible for the moderate conservatives to make a right turn on other policy issues in the 1970s once inner cities were contained again and corporations were faced with new economic problems due to spiking oil prices, inflation, and rising unemployment, not to mention the challenge to their markets and profits by the German and Japanese corporations they had decided to nurture after World War II in order to solidify a global capitalist system. We know in detail about this decision to turn right because the issues were debated in the policy-planning network, thereby making content analyses of their policy intentions possible. For example, political scientist Joseph Peschek (1987) showed in a study of the policy positions proposed in the 1970s by five different think tanks and policy-discussion groups that centrist groups like The Brookings Institution turned rightward in the face of the new problems and possibilities, with former Democratic appointees leading the way. And sociologists Craig Jenkins and Craig Eckert (2000) looked at both policy-discussion groups and think tanks to show how the various tendencies within the policy-planning network did battle on these issues....
=</div>2x?<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html</a>no many links, docs
How Think Tanks Amplify CorporateAmerica’s InfluenceThink tanks are seen as independent, but their scholars often push donors’agendas, amplifying a culture of corporate influence in Washington.
By ERIC LIPTON andBROOKE WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON — As Lennar Corporation, one of the nation’s largest home builders, pushed ahead with an $8 billion plan to revitalize a barren swath of San Francisco, it found a trusted voice to vouch for its work: the Brookings Institution, the most prestigious think tank in the world.“This can become a productive, mutually beneficial relationship,” Bruce Katz, a Brookings vice president, wrote to Lennar in July 2010. The ultimate benefit for Brookings: $400,000 in donations from Lennar’s different divisions.
Think Tanks Inc.Articles in this series examine how research institutions have become part of the corporate influence machine in Washington.

Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the DayThe think tank began to aggressively promote the project, San Francisco’s biggest redevelopment effort since its recovery from the 1906 earthquake, and later offered to help Lennar, a publicly traded company, “engage with national media to develop stories that highlight Lennar’s innovative approach.”
And Brookings went further. It named Kofi Bonner, the Lennar executive in charge of the San Francisco development, as a senior fellow — an enviable credential he used to advance the company’s efforts.“He would be a trusted adviser,” an internal Brookings memo said in 2014 as the think tank sought one $100,000 donation from Lennar.Kofi Bonner, then a regional vice president for Lennar Corporation, at Hunters Point in San Francisco in 2008. The Brookings Institution named him a senior fellow in 2014. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York TimesThink tanks, which position themselves as “universities without students,” have power in government policy debates because they are seen as researchers independent of moneyed interests. But in the chase for funds, think tanks are pushing agendas important to corporate donors, at times blurring the line between researchers and lobbyists. And they are doing so while reaping the benefits of their tax-exempt status, sometimes without disclosing their connections to corporate interests.Thousands of pages of internal memos and confidential correspondence between Brookings and other donors — like JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank; K.K.R., the global investment firm; Microsoft, the software giant; and Hitachi, the Japanese conglomerate — show that financial support often came with assurances from Brookings that it would provide “donation benefits,” including setting up events featuring corporate executives with government officials, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting.Similar arrangements exist at many think tanks. On issues as varied as military sales to foreign countries, international trade, highway management systems and real estate development, think tanks have frequently become vehicles for corporate influence and branding campaigns. U.S. & POLITICS By A.J. CHAVAR and ERIC LIPTON 1:43‘This Is Thinly Disguised Lobbying’Video‘This Is Thinly Disguised Lobbying’Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, explains how some think tanks engage in “thinly disguised lobbying” to influence lawmakers. By A.J. CHAVAR and ERIC LIPTON on Publish Date August 7, 2016. . Watch in Times Video »
“This is about giant corporations who figured out that by spending, hey, a few tens of millions of dollars, if they can influence outcomes here in Washington, they can make billions of dollars,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, a frequent critic of undisclosed Wall Street donations to think tanks.Washington has seen a proliferation of think tanks, particularly small institutions with narrow interests tied to specific industries. At the same time, the brand names of the field have experienced explosive growth. Brookings’s annual budget has doubled in the last decade, to $100 million. The American Enterprise Institute is spending at least $80 million on a new headquarters in Washington, not far from where the Center for Strategic and International Studies built a $100 million office tower.The shift has occurred as nonprofits in general have been under increasing pressure from their donors to meet specific goals. But for think tanks, that pressure can threaten their standing as independent arbiters in policy debates in Congress, the White House and the news media.“Wouldn’t it be nice to go back to the greatest generation, in the post-World War II era of philanthropy, where they said, gosh, ‘Here is $1 million; spend it how you wish,’” Kimberly Churches, the managing director at Brookings, said in an interview.Think tank executives reject any suggestion that they are tools of corporate influence campaigns and say they are simply teaming up with donors that have similar goals, like helping cities with economic development.“We do not compromise our integrity,” said Martin S. Indyk, Brookings’s executive vice president. “We maintain our core values of quality, independence, as well as impact.”But he acknowledged that the arrangement to appoint the Lennar executive as a senior fellow had created the “appearance of a conflict of interest.” And he said that Brookings, in the interest of transparency, had recently decided to prohibit corporations or corporate-backed foundations from making anonymous contributions.At think tanks like Brookings, the majority of reports and events, with titles like “Five Evils: Multidimensional Poverty and Race in America” or “India at the Global High Table,” have no obvious link to corporate donors.Still, the benefits afforded to corporations looking to cloak themselves with the authority of think tanks are strikingly evident, according to a review of documents from more than a dozen institutions....The likely conclusions of some think tank reports, documents show, are discussed with donors — or even potential ones — before the research is complete. Drafts of the studies have been shared with donors whose opinions have then helped shape final reports. Donors have outlined how the resulting scholarship will be used as part of broader lobbying efforts. The think tanks also help donors promote their corporate brands, as Brookings does with JPMorgan Chase, whose $15.5 million contribution is the largest by a private corporation in the institution’s history.Despite these benefits, corporations can write off the donations as charitable contributions. Some tax experts say these arrangements may amount to improper subsidies by taxpayers if think tanks are providing specific services.“People think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class,” said Bill Goodfellow, the executive director of the Center for International Policy, a Washington-based think tank. “But it’s absurd to suggest that donors don’t have influence. The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.”A group of Democratic state attorneys general is investigating whether Exxon Mobil worked with certain think tanks in past decades to cover up its understanding of fossil fuels’ impact on climate change, in part by financing reports questioning the science, a suggestion the company rejects.
Document: Brookings Institution and Its Corporate DonorsExecutives at Brookings, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and other think tanks say they have systems in place to ensure that their reports are based on scholars’ independent conclusions.“We strongly believe in our model of seeking solutions to some of our country’s most difficult problems,” John J. Hamre, the chief executive at C.S.I.S., said in a written reply to questions. “We gather stakeholders, vet ideas, find areas of agreement and highlight areas of disagreement.”Yet researchers at think tanks are seeing corporate influence firsthand. Rachel Stohl, a senior associate at the Stimson Center in Washington, said she had been quizzed by potential donors as she tried to raise money for research on the military’s use of armed drones.“‘Are you going to say drones are bad?’” she recalled one potential financial backer asking. “‘We are not interested in funding something that says drones are bad.’”
Donations and RewardsThe confidential Brookings spreadsheet had an unassuming title: Corporate Overviews Tracking. It listed nearly 90 corporations, from Alcoa to Wells Fargo, providing a glimpse of the vast electronic file that Brookings maintained on donors and prospects, and the benefits it might offer.The database, along with thousands of pages of emails, solicitations for money and memos on meetings with corporate officials, highlighted Brookings’s practice of assuring that donors would see results from their contributions.The Brookings Institution, which operates on a $100 million annual budget, twice what it was a decade ago. The files included company priorities and a tally of donations. General Electric wanted to fund work on rail networks and clean energy programs — both critical parts of its business — and Brookings then featured G.E. executives, joined by officials from the White House and Congress, at events that focused on these industries.In 2004, Brookings established its Metropolitan Policy Program, devised to stimulate economic growth in cities. As the country was emerging from recession, Brookings bolstered its ties to corporate donors in 2010 by naming Marek Gootman, a lobbyist from Patton Boggs, as its first director of strategic partnerships. He was assigned to work with “a national network of elected, business and civic leaders engaged in city and metropolitan area policy development and implementation.”From the start, the program blended a variety of insights on urban matters, including from corporate, nonprofit and government sources. And Mr. Indyk noted that any reports issued were made public.Donations to the program exploded, from $4.3 million in 2005 to $12.5 million in 2013, nearly 20 percent of Brookings’s overall program spending that year.K.K.R., after starting special funds around 2010 to invest in real estate and other infrastructure projects, donated $450,000 to Brookings, some of it as the institution agreed to set up meetings for a top K.K.R. executive with community leaders in Philadelphia and Detroit, where the company was considering real estate projects. Brookings separately produced a report, published on K.K.R.’s website, promoting one of the company’s infrastructure projects in New Jersey, after the company executive suggested such a piece.In advance of a 2014 event Brookings officials attended with corporate executives including Henry R. Kravis, a co-chairman of K.K.R., one memo marked as confidential noted: “K.K.R. has given a total of $350K to Brookings. Last gift came in on 3/27/2014 for $150K to Metro; Henry has donated $75K to Brookings, most going to the individual unrestricted fund.”The tally demonstrates the important distinction that Brookings makes between “unrestricted” donations, which the think tank can spend on any research, and project-based funding restricted to specific topics that the donor has a particular interest in.
Marek Gootman, center, with Gina Luna, a JPMorgan Chase executive, in April. Formerly a lobbyist at Patton Boggs, Mr. Gootman was appointed in 2010 as Brookings’s first director of strategic partnerships. Credit Erin Hull for The New York Times
Lennar joined Brookings’s Metropolitan Leadership Council, established for the program’s top donors, in July 2010. That month, the company won approval to redevelop Hunters Point in San Francisco, turning the area into a more than 700-acre mix of housing, education and commercial development.
Brookings would later name the project one of the three most “transformative investments in the United States.” 
The San Francisco project generated controversy from the beginning, with critics concerned about toxic waste left by the former Navy shipyard.
Lennar joined with Brookings as protests were escalating in 2010. One complaint, filed by area residents with the Environmental Protection Agency, said the San Francisco Health Department was “conspiring with Lennar Corporation to conceal the health threats of asbestos-laden dust.” The company was busy at the time looking for investors to help it complete the project, known as the San Francisco Shipyard.A spokesman for Lennar, Glenn Bunting, disputed claims that the company had donated to Brookings out of self-interest — and said the alliance was not related to the protests.“There was nothing needed in the way of assistance for Lennar to ‘buy’ from Brookings,” Mr. Bunting said in an email. Brookings, though, continued to promote the project.“San Francisco’s Shipyard project is both physically and economically transformative for the Bay Area and globally significant,” Mr. Katz, the Brookings vice president, said in a news release issued by San Francisco’s mayor in 2011 as Lennar’s hunt for major investors intensified. “This project promises to set a new paradigm for successfully conceiving, financing and delivering transformative infrastructure projects in the United States.”Follow-up memos were more explicit: Brookings, as it sought an additional $50,000 from Lennar in 2014, said it was prepared to “use our convening power, research expertise, network connections and knowledge of innovative practices to help further drive the ultimate impact and success” of Lennar’s project and to “provide public validation of San Francisco’s efforts through national and local media coverage.”
The think tank soon delivered.In a July 2014 document, Brookings sought more money from Lennar while offering to help with its San Francisco project.Mr. Katz made appearances alongside Mr. Bonner, the Lennar executive, to promote the project to government officials and business leaders in California. In 2014, around the time the think tank sought an additional round of money from Lennar, Brookings invited its new nonresident senior fellow, Mr. Bonner, who has a master’s degree in architecture and is a former government planner for several California cities, to appear at an event at its headquarters.“I am working in San Francisco in a fabulous property,” Mr. Bonner said at the event, referring to Lennar’s Shipyard project.In March, at a conference of real estate developers and investors in Cannes, France, Lennar sponsored a session in which Brookings researchers helped the company highlight the Shipyard.“Kofi is what I would describe as the quintessential city builder,” Julie Wagner, a Brookings nonresident senior fellow, said as she introduced Mr. Bonner at an event where projects with no connection to donors were also featured.At least some of the $400,000 Lennar has donated to Brookings since 2010 has come from its SunStreet Energy division, which sells rooftop solar systems, at the same time that Brookings’s metropolitan program has published research on the rooftop solar industry.Mr. Indyk said the collaboration simply reflected shared goals of revitalizing cities. Brookings scholars promoted other real estate projects, he said, involving local governments, universities or even developers that were not donors — including one in Detroit backed by Dan Gilbert, the founder of Quicken Loans, and one in Seattle backed by Paul G. Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft.But Mr. Indyk acknowledged that naming Mr. Bonner, who declined to be interviewed, a Brookings nonresident scholar had “created the impression that because Lennar was giving money, he was getting the title.” His post, which was unpaid, was not renewed.Martin S. Indyk, the Brookings Institution’s executive vice president, said the think tank’s collaboration with Lennar to redevelop Hunters Point in San Francisco reflected a shared goal to revitalize cities. “We do not compromise our integrity,” he said. Credit T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesHitachi has been another large donor to the metropolitan program, giving a total of $1.8 million to Brookings over the last decade, according to Brookings documents. The think tank reviewed the company’s corporate marketing and sales strategy targeting the United States, an internal memo shows. Brookings also organized public events that featured top Obama administration officials and allowed Hitachi executives to promote their products.“Metro has held nine meetings and several conference calls in the past six months with executives from Hitachi’s water, transportation and data business lines and are collaborating more fully on defining what it means to be a ‘Smart City,’” a confidential Brookings memo said.Officials at Brookings said they had not lobbied for Hitachi, and they provided examples of reports that they said included conclusions challenging the company’s position. “Helping a corporation’s for-profit agenda is not in any way our agenda,” Ms. Churches, the managing director, said.Yet Ms. Churches also said the contract language with donors like Lennar and Hitachi was “inelegant,” although not improper.When asked if the documents read like a fee-for-service agreement, she said, “It could be misconstrued.”Mr. Indyk said Brookings had recently changed its policies so that “today, there is no way in which those words would be used in our documents.”
‘Growing the Economy’When JPMorgan offered a major donation to the metropolitan program in 2011, Brookings created the Global Cities Initiative, complete with a new logo that called it a “joint project of Brookings and JPMorgan Chase.”The project was premised on a common interest between the bank and the think tank. Brookings wanted to promote economic growth in cities by encouraging international trade, and JPMorgan wanted to gain new business by offering loans to companies in the same markets.In contract documents, Brookings emphasized that it would control the conclusions of its reports and said it would “not directly or indirectly communicate with any party” to help get JPMorgan business.
Mr. Indyk and executives from JPMorgan said the company and the think tank simply agreed on a worthy agenda.
“This was about growing the economy, and we are incredibly proud of the results of this initiative,” said Peter Scher, the head of the corporate responsibility program at JPMorgan. “We believe it’s had a huge impact in more than 30 cities that are involved.”
At the same time, hundreds of pages of memos — status reports to JPMorgan, internal reports by Brookings staff to prepare for meetings with top bank executives, and formal documents soliciting more money — make clear that Brookings saw the Global Cities Initiative as a branding effort that could help JPMorgan bolster its standing in cities.
“Bottom line: Growing metro economies is good for the nation and for JPMC; also, many U.S. cities are JPMC clients — motivation to support them and their clients,” said one Brookings document dated July 2011, as officials from the think tank met with top bank executives to discuss a planned donation that eventually totaled $15 million.
The Global Cities Initiative, another document written by a Brookings senior fellow explained, “must mean a marriage between JPMC corporate interests” and “Brookings continued thought leadership.”
JPMorgan, in a document dated a month before the agreement was signed, said the pending donation to Brookings “deepens/extends relationships with important client base among business and civic leaders both in the U.S. and abroad.”
And Brookings was ready to do its part.
“Our events, which in part target these audiences,” said an internal 2014 Brookings memo, referring to the Global Cities Initiative and federal and state leaders, “have yielded 100+ media hits, with 97% of them referencing GCI and 90% referencing JPMorgan; by the end of this year, we will have held events in 13 domestic markets and 9 international markets.”
At times, Brookings officials seemed worried they were not doing enough for the bank.
One of hundreds of documents detailing confidential discussions between Brookings and JPMorgan in 2011 as the parties were negotiating a $10 million gift for the Global Cities Initiative.“No one wants to create overt marketing opportunities for JPMC, but we need to carve out roles and thought leadership opportunity for market presidents,” said a 2013 Brookings memo, referring to a dinner with the bank’s executives. “We need to do a better job tying it back to JPMC.”
It remains difficult to assess whether the relationship helped the bank’s business, but Mr. Scher said that was not the goal.
“If the Global Cities Initiative strengthens the economic competitiveness of cities, it’s a win for small businesses, job creation and everyone involved in these communities, including us,” Mr. Scher said in a statement.
Donations from the corporations to Brookings are tax exempt based on the premise that the think tank’s work benefits the public good, not a company’s bottom line.
But two lawyers who specialize in nonprofit law — Miranda Perry Fleischer, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, and Clifford Perlman, a partner at a New York-based firm — said Brookings’s agreements raised questions.
“Tax deductions are subsidies that are paid for by all taxpayers,” Ms. Fleischer said. “And the reason the subsidy is provided is that the charitable organization is supposed to be doing something for the public good, not that specifically benefits the private individual or corporation in the form of providing them goods or services.”
Mr. Indyk said that opinion was “totally unfounded,” noting that Brookings had retained its own lawyers to review the documents and found no problems.
“Brookings’s conclusion that all of these activities it engaged in with these donors primarily benefited the public rather than the donors is consistent with the applicable federal tax standards,” Douglas Varley, one of the lawyers for Brookings, said in a statement.
Close PartnershipsOther think tanks have been even more closely aligned with corporate agendas.FedEx teamed up with the Atlantic Council — a think tank that focuses on international relations, with annual revenue that has surged to $21 million from $2 million in the last decade — to build support for a free-trade agreement the company hoped would increase business.
 Document: Atlantic Council and Corporate DonorsSix months before the Atlantic Council report was issued, FedEx and the think tank worked on plans to use the report as a lobbying tool.
“The impact and reach of the report would be maximized by a rollout event” including a “public report launch with member(s) of Congress from one of the relevant committees,” said a two-page summary drafted by the Atlantic Council months before the study was completed.
FedEx and the Atlantic Council, working with the European American Chamber of Commerce, also told companies being asked to participate in the study that the goal was to “emphasize the positive impact that a comprehensive agreement would have on American and European small businesses.”
When the report came out in late 2014, its conclusions mirrored arguments FedEx had been aggressively pushing on Capitol Hill, including recommending a reduction in trans-Atlantic tariffs and allowing more duty-free shipments.
An executive vice president at FedEx, Rajesh Subramaniam, attended an event at Atlantic Council headquarters in Washington to celebrate the release of the final report. So did a key supporter, Representative Erik Paulsen, Republican of Minnesota.
“This is very exciting,” Mr. Subramaniam said at the event, referring to the potential for more trade. “The upside opportunity is quite large.”
Frederick Kempe, the Atlantic Council president, said that FedEx had donated just $20,000 to help fund the effort and that the staff at the Atlantic Council had handled the research.
A 2013 Atlantic Council brochure detailed the benefits of membership in the think tank’s corporate program.“There is no doubt the work of think tanks has more credibility than the work of lobbyists, but the only way we preserve it is through intellectual independence,” Mr. Kempe said.
‘We Do Not Lobby’General Atomics, the California-based manufacturer of Predator drones, had a clear problem. Prospects for sales were falling as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wound down. The company wanted the Obama administration to change its policy to allow for sales to other countries, a lucrative proposition.“When the budgets are going down in the U.S., you would like to be able to export more,” Frank Pace, the president of the company’s aircraft systems group, told a Reuters reporter in late 2013 at an air show in Dubai.At about that time, the industry turned to the Center for Strategic and International Studies for help, providing money that the think tank used to conduct a study on drone policy, including exports.While defense contracting giants like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have cumulatively donated at least $77 million since 2010 to two dozen think tanks, disclosure records show, General Atomics’s contribution to the Center for Strategic and International Studies was quite small — in the tens of thousands of dollars.C.S.I.S. set up confidential meetings at its headquarters with company representatives, inviting top officials from the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the State Department and the office of the defense secretary, according to emails and other documents obtained by The Times through open records requests.
Document: C.S.I.S. and the Military Drone Maker“Our series will be unique in convening a much broader group of stakeholders than is typical,” Samuel J. Brannen, the think tank’s lead scholar, wrote in an email to Aaron W. Jost, one of the State Department officials in charge of regulating drone exports.As a think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies did not file a lobbying report, but the goals of the effort were clear.“Political obstacles to export,” read the agenda of one closed-door “working group” meeting organized by Mr. Brannen that included Tom Rice, a lobbyist in General Atomics’s Washington office, on the invitation lists, the emails show.Boeing and Lockheed Martin, drone makers that were major C.S.I.S. contributors, were also invited to attend the sessions, the emails show. The meetings and research culminated with a report released in February 2014 that reflected the industry’s priorities.
“I came out strongly in support of export,” Mr. Brannen, the lead author of the study, wrote in an email to Kenneth B. Handelman, the deputy assistant secretary of state for defense trade controls.
But the effort did not stop there.
Mr. Brannen initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations, which also included setting up a new Pentagon office to give more focus to acquisition and deployment of drones. The center also stressed the need to ease export limits at a conference it hosted at its headquarters featuring top officials from the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
Mr. Brannen, who has since left C.S.I.S., declined to comment. The think tank insisted that its efforts to influence administration policy were not lobbying.
“C.S.I.S. will not represent any donor before any government office or entity, including congressional lawmakers and executive branch officials,” Mr. Hamre, the chief executive, said in his statement to The Times. “We do not lobby.”
One thing is clear: The result was a victory for General Atomics.
A Predator drone manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. General Atomics helped fund a study that led the United States to ease restrictions on sales of drones to governments overseas. Credit Sandy Huffaker for The New York TimesIn February 2015, almost one year after the C.S.I.S. report was issued, the State Department announced a clarification of its rules, easing final approval that month for General Atomics’s long-planned sale of unarmed Predator drones to the United Arab Emirates, the first such sale to a non-NATO nation. The think tank report was just one of many voices pushing for the change.
A State Department spokesman said that while the government officials involved in the review had received opinions from think tanks and industry officials, “at the end of the day, this is a considered U.S. government policy.”
Huntington Ingalls Industries had an equally clear objective: to create an elaborate public relations and lobbying campaign to convince Congress that the nation needed to confront an emerging threat from China by building more nuclear-powered aircraft carriers — at a cost of about $11 billion each. The clear beneficiary? Huntington, the lone builder of the ships.
As part of a broader communications effort, Huntington helped finance a think tank report that enhanced the company’s argument for more funding. Bryan McGrath, a former naval officer who had commanded a guided-missile destroyer, approached Huntington Ingalls and offered to write a study on a fee-for-service basis as a private industry expert. The company turned down his offer.
Later, after he had joined the Hudson Institute and helped create the Center for American Seapower, he approached Huntington officials again, and they were interested.
“A think tank has more prestige,” Mr. McGrath said.
Huntington Ingalls paid $100,000 to fund the work, a critical commitment for Mr. McGrath, who said he was paid by Hudson only if he could successfully solicit donations to support his research.Mr. McGrath said he had always been a strong proponent of aircraft carriers, so the company was not buying his opinion.“The Hudson Center makes no secret about being very pro-sea power,” he said. “If a company came that wanted us to write a piece that advocated for something other than that, the answer would be no.”In exchange for Huntington Ingalls’s support, company officials were given regular briefings on the research and the opportunity to suggest revisions to early drafts, Mr. McGrath said. Document: The Aircraft Carrier Industry’s Lobbying and Think Tank Plan“We have an iterative process already laid out in which we will sit down with them and go through drafts and discuss where we are going,” Mr. McGrath said. He added that he had not accepted all of the company’s suggestions.
The report was released in October at the Rayburn House Office Building. Mr. McGrath received an introduction from one of the industry’s most important boosters, Representative J. Randy Forbes, Republican of Virginia, the chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee that oversees the Navy.
The report did not mention that Huntington Ingalls had helped pay for it. Asked about the failure to disclose the contribution, John P. Walters, Hudson’s chief operating officer, called it a mistake. The report was subsequently revised — months after it was released and the congressional event held — to disclose the donation.
A second industry-funded report, prepared by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, came out a month later with a similar urgent call for more money to build more ships and to base more ships abroad, although it did not mention that it had been funded by the Navy League of the United States, a nonprofit group whose large corporate donors include Huntington Ingalls.
“This report is yet another important tool for Navy Leaguers to use in the field when educating local leaders and lawmakers,” Skip Witunski, the Navy League president, wrote to the group’s members late last year.
The strategy — lining up think tank reports as lobbying tools that echoed each other — was backed up with a series of letters to the editor, dozens of posts on Twitter and Facebook, and op-ed pieces.
Mr. McGrath said he, too, wondered if this storm of industry-funded work might be threatening the integrity of the process.
“I see a lot of stuff that comes out in Washington,” Mr. McGrath said, “and I got to scratch my head and say, ‘That guy must be on the payroll."For several reasons, then, enough Middle Americans switched to the Republicans to solidify a corporate-conservative coalition that then got what it wanted from Nixon and future Republican presidents in terms of a National Labor Relations Board that would legitimate outsourcing and in other ways continue to undercut the union movement, a story that once again is best told by Gross (1995). From the point of view of power structure research, it was these crucial power dynamics -- not the sudden organization of the corporate community, as in Vogel's (1989) theory, nor something so general and subsequent as "internationalization" or "globalization," as in some recent theories -- that started the decline of the union movement in the 1970s. This analysis is also supported by the fact that the unions have not declined nearly as far or as fast in Canada and Western Europe.The nationwide white turn to the Republicans also made it possible for the moderate conservatives to make a right turn on other policy issues in the 1970s once inner cities were contained again and corporations were faced with new economic problems due to spiking oil prices, inflation, and rising unemployment, not to mention the challenge to their markets and profits by the German and Japanese corporations they had decided to nurture after World War II in order to solidify a global capitalist system. We know in detail about this decision to turn right because the issues were debated in the policy-planning network, thereby making content analyses of their policy intentions possible. For example, political scientist Joseph Peschek (1987) showed in a study of the policy positions proposed in the 1970s by five different think tanks and policy-discussion groups that centrist groups like The Brookings Institution turned rightward in the face of the new problems and possibilities, with former Democratic appointees leading the way. And sociologists Craig Jenkins and Craig Eckert (2000) looked at both policy-discussion groups and think tanks to show how the various tendencies within the policy-planning network did battle on these issues...http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/mills_address.htmleasterbrook: hhmnJanuary 1986<h1 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><center style="text-align: left;">"Ideas Move Nations"</center></h1><center style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="text-align: left;">How conservative think tanks have helped to transform the terms of political debate</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">by Gregg Easterbrook</div></center>...Today conservative commentators have their liberal counterparts outgunned by a wide margin. Conservative thinking has liberal thinking outgunned as well. In vigor, freshness, and appeal, market-oriented theories have surpassed government oriented theories at nearly every turn. This feat has been accomplished in the main by circumventing the expected source of intellectual developments--the universities. Conservative thinkers have taken their case directly to Congress, the media, and the public--to the marketplace of ideas.
THE NEW NEW CLASSThink tanks are an American phenomenon. No other country accords such significance to private institutions designed to influence public decisions. Brookings, the progenitor of think tanks, began in the 1920s with money from the industrialist Robert S. Brookings, a Renaissance man who aspired to bring the new discipline of economics to backwater Washington. During the New Deal the Brookings Institution was market-oriented--for example, it opposed Roosevelt's central planning agency, the National Resources Planning Board. Only much later did the institution acquire a reputation as the fountainhead of liberalism.Through the 1950s and 1960s, as Americans enjoyed steady increases in their standard of living and U.S. industry reigned over world commerce, institutional Washington came to consider the economy a dead issue. Social justice and Vietnam dominated the agenda: Brookings concentrated on those fields, emerging as a chief source of arguments in favor of the Great Society and opposed to U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In the Washington swirl where few people have the time actually to read the reports they debate, respectability is often proportional to tonnage. The more studies someone tosses on the table, the more likely he is to win his point. For years Brookings held a monopoly on tonnage. Its papers supporting liberal positions went unchallenged by serious conservative rebuttals.Though the force of liberal ideas grew during the Great Society, few liberal think tanks were founded. During this period young men and women on the make in Washington formed consulting companies. Federal consulting was a growth industry, because by hiring consultants agencies could evade Civil Service ceilings and expand even as their official size remained the same. The first big consulting boom was in poverty-fighting. When the environment became the hot issue, many poverty consultants switched to that field. Energy was the next bankable issue, with a related boomlet in Arab studies.But consultants with liberal backgrounds were ill equipped for a transition to the hot issue of the late 1970s, the economy. And as the conceptual emphasis changed, so did the money flow. Poverty, the environment, and energy were fields in which consultants generally argued for increased government authority: the bureaucracy was happy to fund such thinking. Most economic research, however, called for reduced government involvement. Funding for that would have to come from somewhere else.Together with Washington commentators and regulators, liberal consultants were condemned during the 1970s by conservative intellectuals as representing a "new class" of overeducated spongers who performed no productive labor but merely issued edicts regarding the labor of others, while living comfortably off the surplus. With each passing year, warnings about the new class went, the proportion of talkers to doers would increase, and the prestige of talking rather than doing would grow, until U.S. society became so top heavy that paralysis set in.As the 1970s progressed, a core of politically active conservative intellectuals, most prominently Irving Kristol, began to argue in publications like The Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal that if business wanted market logic to regain the initiative, it would have to create a new class of its own--scholars whose career prospects depended on private enterprise, not government or the universities. You get what you pay for, Kristol in effect argued, and if businessmen wanted intellectual horsepower, they would have to open their pocketbooks.
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/polibig/eastidea.htm">http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/polibig/eastidea.htm</a>

Fired Ravitch for 180 on nclb?

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Brookings Institution, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501706_162-57451596/us-russia-sending-syria-attack-helicopters/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">often</a><span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/04/3640803/sen-marco-rubios-foreign-policy.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">described</a> <span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">as a liberal-leaning think tank, has severed its relationship with Diane Ravitch, one of the most important education scholars in the country and an outspoken critic of Mitt Romney's education policy proposals. <span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In fact, Brookings has not been liberal-leaning for a long time, if it ever truly was; rather, it's a voice of the Beltway establishment, and that increasingly means it's right-leaning.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> But that's a crucial point, since reporters are clearly sometimes checking the "get liberal opinion" box in their research by quoting Brookings experts. The Ravitch affair demonstrates how wrong that is.

Education policy one of the areas in which establishment Democrats have most embraced right-wing positions, but Brookings' director of education policy takes it a step beyond that. Grover (Russ) Whitehurst is an education adviser to Mitt Romney, and Ravitch <a href="http://dianeravitch.net/2012/06/11/the-day-i-was-terminated/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">is wondering if there's a connection</a> between Whitehurst's relationship with Romney and Brookings dumping her.

Ravitch writes that she had been affiliated with Brookings in one way or another since 1993, for the last seven years as an unpaid senior fellow. Two years ago, when her book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education was released, she contacted Whitehurst about setting up an event at Brookings to discuss the book. Quite unusually,

<blockquote style="margin: 1.2em 0px; padding: 20px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-color: rgb(226, 226, 225); border-bottom-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(226, 226, 225); border-top-style: solid; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(246, 243, 236);">...he said that I would have to rent the auditorium and pay a variety of expenses, which would amount to thousands of dollars. I decided not to accept this expensive offer, and I soon received a request from Rick Hess to present my book at the American Enterprise Institute.</blockquote>

The Brookings Institution, whose predecessor was founded in 1918 by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Brookings" title="Robert Brookings">Robert Brookings</a>, was probably the first <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tank" title="Think tank" class="mw-redirect">think tank</a> in the USA. tilts right in 80's

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div>

<ul>

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

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#Brookings_positions_on_tobacco_issues">2 Brookings positions on tobacco issues</a></li>

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

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#SourceWatch_resources_on_Brookings_scholars">4 SourceWatch resources on Brookings scholars</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#Board_of_Trustees">4.1 Board of Trustees</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#Cooperation_.26_Affiliation">4.2 Cooperation & Affiliation</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#Related_Articles">4.3 Related Articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

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

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#Articles_and_resources">6 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#Related_SourceWatch_articles">6.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#References">6.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#External_resources">6.3 External resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#External_article">6.4 External article</a></li></ul></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>History</h2>

On its website the organization traces its origins "to 1916, when a group of leading reformers founded the Institute for Government Research (IGR), the first private organization devoted to analyzing public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR's backers, Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two supporting sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school bearing his name. In 1927, the three groups merged to form the Brookings Institution, honoring the businessman from St. Louis whose leadership shaped the earlier organizations."

Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=United_States_Democratic_Party" title="United States Democratic Party">Democratic party</a>, backing <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Keynesianism" title="Keynesianism">Keynsian economics</a>. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Republican_Party_%28USA%29" title="Republican Party (USA)">Republican party</a>. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Right-wing" title="Right-wing">right-wing</a> think tanks such as the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation" title="Heritage Foundation">Heritage Foundation</a>.

The organisation's work concentrates on these research programs: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a>

<ul>

<li>Economic Studies</li>

<li>Foreign Policy Studies</li>

<li>Global Economy and Development</li>

<li>Governance Studies</li>

<li>Metropolitan Policy</li>

</ul>

It also operates the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Public_Policy_Education&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Center for Public Policy Education (page does not exist)">Center for Public Policy Education</a> and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution_Press&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Brookings Institution Press (page does not exist)">Brookings Institution Press</a>, which publishes about fifty books a year.

Interestingly, a 1995 Raleigh News Observer article described Brookings as a liberal think tank.<a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dvg35c00" class="external autonumber" title="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dvg35c00" rel="nofollow">[1]</a>

<h2>Brookings positions on tobacco issues</h2>

In general, the Brookings Institution does not seem to be a pro-tobacco think tank but highlights public health achievements on its website. A list of the U.S. Government's 50 Greatest Endeavors includes a section on <a href="http://www.brook.edu/gs/cps/50ge/endeavors/disease.htm" class="external text" title="http://www.brook.edu/gs/cps/50ge/endeavors/disease.htm" rel="nofollow">reducing disease</a> that cites smoking bans on commercial flights, as well as several Public Health Service acts to reduce heart disease and cancer.

Two 1983 <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tobacco_Institute" title="Tobacco Institute">Tobacco Institute</a> state tax plans (for fighting cigarette taxes in Oklahoma and Texas) describe the Brookings Institute as a "major liberal think tank," in general not a complimentary assessment coming from the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tobacco_industry" title="Tobacco industry">tobacco industry</a>.<a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cld00e00" class="external autonumber" title="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cld00e00" rel="nofollow">[2]</a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/otm01c00" class="external autonumber" title="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/otm01c00" rel="nofollow">[3]</a>

In 1990, the Brookings Institution sponsored and hosted a seminar at the Institute's headquarters in Washington, D.C. titled, "Health Risks to Airliner Occupants: Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Other Pollutants."

Brookings, in a joint venture with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Urban_Institute" title="Urban Institute">Urban Institute</a>, created the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tax_Policy_Center&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Tax Policy Center (page does not exist)">Tax Policy Center</a> which in 2000 compiled a <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/excise/tobacco_rev.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/excise/tobacco_rev.cfm" rel="nofollow">list of tobacco tax revenues</a> for all 50 U.S. States.

A brief search of tobacco industry documents at the <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/" class="external text" title="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/" rel="nofollow">Legacy Tobacco Documents Library</a> showed no mention of Brookings as a tobacco industry ally, and no use of Brookings as a third party research group or other front.

<h2>Funding</h2>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Transparency" title="Media Transparency">Media Transparency</a> lists the Brookings Institution as having received 78 grants totaling $5,711,782 between 1986 and 2003. (Figures unadjusted for inflation). <a href="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=570" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=570" rel="nofollow">[4]</a>

The funding has come from:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation" title="John M. Olin Foundation">John M. Olin Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=F.M.Kirby_Foundation" title="F. M. Kirby Foundation" class="mw-redirect">F. M. Kirby Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Walton_Family_Foundation" title="Walton Family Foundation">Walton Family Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smith_Richardson_Foundation" title="Smith Richardson Foundation">Smith Richardson Foundation</a></li>

</ul>

In 2002, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haim_Saban" title="Haim Saban">Haim Saban</a> pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Saban_Center_for_Middle_East_Policy" title="Saban Center for Middle East Policy">Saban Center for Middle East Policy</a>. To put this Policy Center into perspective one should note:

<ul>

<li>the Brookings Institute is the principal Democratic Party think-tank and all issues, and it is a place where "politicians in-waiting" can bide their time until the next election.</li>

<li>Haim Sabban is a large <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media" title="Media">media</a> mogul, with large interests in the US, and his company is the largest broadcaster in <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Germany" title="Germany">Germany</a> (owns "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ProSiebenSat.1_Media&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="ProSiebenSat.1 Media (page does not exist)">ProSiebenSat.1 Media</a>, putting him in control of a company that owns the rough equivalent of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CBS" title="CBS">CBS</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ABC" title="ABC">ABC</a>, TBS and Nickelodeon")</li>

<li>Saban says "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Israel" title="Israel">Israel</a>".</li>

</ul>

It is difficult to imagine that the Brookings-Saban Center will be a think-tank that will represent or research the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East" title="Middle East">Middle East</a> with the interests of the broad base of the Democratic party in mind.

Source: Andrew Ross Sorkin, "Schlepping to Moguldom", New York Times, September 5, 2004.

Money received July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006

$1,000,000 and above:

<ul>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Annie_E._Casey_Foundation" title="Annie E. Casey Foundation">Annie E. Casey Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ford_Foundation" title="Ford Foundation">Ford Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_William_and_Flora_Hewlett_Foundation" title="The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation" class="mw-redirect">The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Living_Cities,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Living Cities, Inc. (page does not exist)">Living Cities, Inc.</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Bernard_%26_Irene_Schwartz_Foundation_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="The Bernard & Irene Schwartz Foundation Inc. (page does not exist)">The Bernard & Irene Schwartz Foundation Inc.</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_L._Thornton" title="John L. Thornton">John L. Thornton</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_D._Wolfensohn" title="James D. Wolfensohn" class="mw-redirect">James D. Wolfensohn</a></li>

</ul>

$500,000 – $999,999:

<ul>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_L._Bing&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Steven L. Bing (page does not exist)">Steven L. Bing</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Department_for_International_Development,_United_Kingdom&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Department for International Development, United Kingdom (page does not exist)">Department for International Development, United Kingdom</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Catherine_T.and_John_D.MacArthur_Foundation" title="Catherine T. and John D. MacArthur Foundation" class="mw-redirect">The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation</a></li>

<li>The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pew_Charitable_Trusts" title="Pew Charitable Trusts">Pew Charitable Trusts</a></li>

</ul>

Sometimes corporations give directly and sometimes through their <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foundations_and_Funders" title="Foundations and Funders">foundations</a>. Note that money can flow from a corporation to a foundation, then from that foundation to another foundation, and finally to a think tank. Brookings Institution also has categories $250,000 – $499,999, $100,000 – $249,999, etc. A small sampling of others giving these lesser amounts (in order of their listing):

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carnegie_Corporation_of_New_York" title="Carnegie Corporation of New York">Carnegie Corporation of New York</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fannie_Mae_Foundation" title="Fannie Mae Foundation">Fannie Mae Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_S.and_James_L.Knight_Foundation" title="John S. and James L. Knight Foundation">John S. and James L. Knight Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Claude_R._Lambe_Charitable_Foundation" title="Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation" class="mw-redirect">Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Stewart_Mott_Foundation" title="Charles Stewart Mott Foundation">Charles Stewart Mott Foundation</a></li>

<li>Embassy of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Qatar" title="Qatar">Qatar</a></li>

<li>The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rockefeller_Foundation" title="Rockefeller Foundation">Rockefeller Foundation</a></li>

<li>Cheryl and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haim_Saban" title="Haim Saban">Haim Saban</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Taipei_Economic_and_Cultural_Representative_Office&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (page does not exist)">Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=United_Nations" title="United Nations">United Nations</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce" title="U.S. Chamber of Commerce">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_C._Blum" title="Richard C. Blum">Richard C. Blum</a> and Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dianne_Feinstein" title="Dianne Feinstein">Dianne Feinstein</a></li>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil" title="Exxon Mobil">Exxon Mobil</a> Corporation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Farm" title="State Farm">State Farm</a> Insurance Companies</li>

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

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

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

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

<li>Government of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Denmark" title="Denmark">Denmark</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Johnson_%26_Johnson" title="Johnson & Johnson">Johnson & Johnson</a> Family of Companies</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=J.P._Morgan_Chase_Foundation" title="J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation">J.P. Morgan Chase Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shell" title="Shell">Shell</a> Oil Company</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wal-Mart_Stores" title="Wal-Mart Stores">Wal-Mart Stores</a>, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Economic_Forum" title="World Economic Forum">World Economic Forum</a></li>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Altria_Group" title="Altria Group">Altria Group</a>, Inc.</li>

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

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

<li>The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Boeing" title="Boeing">Boeing</a> Company</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BP" title="BP">BP</a> America Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute" title="Cato Institute">Cato Institute</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coca-Cola_Company" title="Coca-Cola Company">Coca-Cola Company</a></li>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ford_Motor_Company_Fund&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Ford Motor Company Fund (page does not exist)">Ford Motor Company Fund</a></li>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=General_Dynamics" title="General Dynamics">General Dynamics</a> Corporation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=W.K._Kellogg_Foundation" title="W.K. Kellogg Foundation">W.K. Kellogg Foundation</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lockheed_Martin" title="Lockheed Martin">Lockheed Martin</a></li>

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

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pfizer" title="Pfizer" class="mw-redirect">Pfizer</a>, Inc.</li>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BellSouth_Corporation" title="BellSouth Corporation" class="mw-redirect">BellSouth Corporation</a></li>

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

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

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

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

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

<li>The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dow_Chemical_Company" title="Dow Chemical Company">Dow Chemical Company</a></li>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goldman_Sachs" title="Goldman Sachs">Goldman, Sachs & Co.</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Honda_North_America,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Honda North America, Inc. (page does not exist)">Honda North America, Inc.</a></li>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Merrill_Lynch" title="Merrill Lynch">Merrill Lynch</a> & Co., Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mitsubishi_International" title="Mitsubishi International" class="mw-redirect">Mitsubishi International</a> Corporation</li>

</ul>

<h2>SourceWatch resources on Brookings scholars</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kenneth_W._Dam" title="Kenneth W. Dam">Kenneth W. Dam</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kenneth_M._Pollack" title="Kenneth M. Pollack">Kenneth M. Pollack</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Singer" title="Peter Singer">Peter Singer</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_B._Steinberg" title="James B. Steinberg">James B. Steinberg</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Strobe_Talbott" title="Strobe Talbott" class="mw-redirect">Strobe Talbott</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>Board of Trustees</h3>

The Brookings Institution – Board of Trustees with Affiliations as of May 2007:<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_L._Thornton" title="John L. Thornton">John L. Thornton</a>, Chair of the Board, The Brookings Institution</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Strobe_Talbott" title="Strobe Talbott" class="mw-redirect">Strobe Talbott</a>, President, The Brookings Institution</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_J._Abernethy" title="Robert J. Abernethy">Robert J. Abernethy</a>, President, American Standard Development Co., Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Liaquat_Ahamed&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Liaquat Ahamed (page does not exist)">Liaquat Ahamed</a>, Former Chief Investment Officer, Fischer Francis Trees and Watts, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_R._Batkin" title="Alan R. Batkin">Alan R. Batkin</a>, Vice Chairman, Eton Park Capital Management</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_C._Blum" title="Richard C. Blum">Richard C. Blum</a>, Chairman and President, Blum Capital Partners, LP</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Geoffrey_T._Boisi" title="Geoffrey T. Boisi">Geoffrey T. Boisi</a>, Chairman and Senior Partner, Roundtable Investment Partners LLC</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arthur_B._Culvahouse" title="Arthur B. Culvahouse">Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr.</a>, Chair, O'Melveny & Myers LLP</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_M._Dachs" title="Alan M. Dachs">Alan M. Dachs</a>, President and CEO, Fremont Group</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kenneth_W._Dam" title="Kenneth W. Dam">Kenneth W. Dam</a>, Max Pam Professor of American & Foreign Law, University of Chicago Law School</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_A._Denning" title="Steven A. Denning">Steven A. Denning</a>, Managing Partner, General Atlantic Partners</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vishakha_N._Desai" title="Vishakha N. Desai">Vishakha N. Desai</a> Ph.D., President and CEO, The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Asia_Society" title="Asia Society">Asia Society</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thomas_E._Donilon" title="Thomas E. Donilon">Thomas E. Donilon</a>, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mario_Draghi&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Mario Draghi (page does not exist)">Mario Draghi</a>, Governor, Bank of Italy</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kenneth_M._Duberstein" title="Kenneth M. Duberstein">Kenneth M. Duberstein</a>, Chairman and CEO, The Duberstein Group, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alfred_B._Engelberg&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Alfred B. Engelberg (page does not exist)">Alfred B. Engelberg</a>, Trustee, The Engelberg Foundation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lawrence_K._Fish" title="Lawrence K. Fish">Lawrence K. Fish</a>, Chairman and CEO, Citizens Financial Group, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cyrus_F._Freidheim_Jr.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Cyrus F. Freidheim Jr. (page does not exist)">Cyrus F. Freidheim Jr.</a>, President and CEO, Sun-Times Media Group, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bart_Friedman" title="Bart Friedman">Bart Friedman</a>, Senior Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel</li>

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

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ann_M._Fudge" title="Ann M. Fudge">Ann M. Fudge</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_W._Greenberg&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Jeffrey W. Greenberg (page does not exist)">Jeffrey W. Greenberg</a>, Chairman and CEO, Aquiline Holdings LLC</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brian_L._Greenspun&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Brian L. Greenspun (page does not exist)">Brian L. Greenspun</a>, Chairman and CEO, The Greenspun Corporation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Glenn_Hutchins&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Glenn Hutchins (page does not exist)">Glenn Hutchins</a>, Founder and Managing Partner, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Silver_Lake_Partners&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Silver Lake Partners (page does not exist)">Silver Lake Partners</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joel_Z._Hyatt&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Joel Z. Hyatt (page does not exist)">Joel Z. Hyatt</a>, CEO, Current Media, LLC</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shirley_Ann_Jackson" title="Shirley Ann Jackson">Shirley Ann Jackson</a>, Ph.D. President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kenneth_M._Jacobs&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Kenneth M. Jacobs (page does not exist)">Kenneth M. Jacobs</a>, Deputy Chairman, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Suzanne_Nora_Johnson" title="Suzanne Nora Johnson">Suzanne Nora Johnson</a>, Senior Director, Retired Vice Chairman, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harold_Hongju_Koh" title="Harold Hongju Koh">Harold Hongju Koh</a>, Dean of Yale Law School, Yale University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_A._Owens" title="William A. Owens">William A. Owens</a>, Chairman and CEO, AEA Investors LLC</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frank_H._Pearl" title="Frank H. Pearl">Frank H. Pearl</a>, Chairman and CEO, Perseus, LLC</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Edward_Porter&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="John Edward Porter (page does not exist)">John Edward Porter</a>, Partner, Hogan & Hartson</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edgar_Rios&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Edgar Rios (page does not exist)">Edgar Rios</a>, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Americhoice</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haim_Saban" title="Haim Saban">Haim Saban</a>, Chairman and CEO, Saban Capital Group, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Victoria_P._Sant" title="Victoria P. Sant">Victoria P. Sant</a>, President, The Summit Foundation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leonard_D._Schaeffer&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Leonard D. Schaeffer (page does not exist)">Leonard D. Schaeffer</a>, Chairman and CEO, North Bristol Partners</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lawrence_H._Summers" title="Lawrence H. Summers" class="mw-redirect">Lawrence H. Summers</a>, Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_F._Swensen&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David F. Swensen (page does not exist)">David F. Swensen</a>, Chief Investment Officer, Yale University</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Larry_D._Thompson" title="Larry D. Thompson">Larry D. Thompson</a>, Senior VP of Governmental Affairs, General Counsel and Secretary, PepsiCo, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_H._Tisch" title="Andrew H. Tisch">Andrew H. Tisch</a>, Co-Chairman of the Board, Loews Corporation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Laura_D%E2%80%99Andrea&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Laura D’Andrea (page does not exist)">Laura D’Andrea</a>, Tyson Professor, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Antoine_W._van_Agtmael" title="Antoine W. van Agtmael">Antoine W. van Agtmael</a>, Chairman, Emerging Markets Management, LLC</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beatrice_W._Welters&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Beatrice W. Welters (page does not exist)">Beatrice W. Welters</a>, Founder, The An-Bryce Foundation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Yergin" title="Daniel Yergin">Daniel Yergin</a>, Chairman, Cambridge Energy Research Associates</li>

</ul>

<h3>Cooperation & Affiliation</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute" title="American Enterprise Institute">American Enterprise Institute</a>, US (AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies; joint conferences, publications, research)

</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wharton_Business_School&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Wharton Business School (page does not exist)">Wharton Business School</a>, US (Brookings-Wharton Papers on Economic Activity; joint research, conferences, publications)

</li>

</ul>

<h3>Related Articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government%27s_50_Greatest_Endeavors" title="Government's 50 Greatest Endeavors">Government's 50 Greatest Endeavors</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution_Project_on_Homeland_Security" title="Brookings Institution Project on Homeland Security">Brookings Institution Project on Homeland Security</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Crabtree" title="John Crabtree">John Crabtree</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>Contact details</h2>

The Brookings Institution

1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 797-6000

Fax: (202) 797-6004

Email: communications AT brookings.edu

Web site: <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/" class="external free" title="http://www.brookings.edu/" rel="nofollow">http://www.brookings.edu/</a>

<h2>Articles and resources</h2>

<h3>Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tanks" title="Think tanks">Think tanks</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#cite_ref-0" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/" class="external text" title="http://www.brookings.edu/" rel="nofollow">Brookings Institution, home page</a>, accessed July 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www3.brookings.edu/admin/2006annualreport/p32-34.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www3.brookings.edu/admin/2006annualreport/p32-34.pdf" rel="nofollow">Annual Report</a>, accessed July 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution#cite_ref-2" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www3.brookings.edu/ea/trustees.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www3.brookings.edu/ea/trustees.pdf" rel="nofollow">Board of Trustees</a>, accessed July 2007.</li>

</ol>

<h3>External resources</h3>

<h3>External article</h3>

<ul>

<li>Sam Husseini, <a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/9811/brookings.html" class="external text" title="http://www.fair.org/extra/9811/brookings.html" rel="nofollow">Brookings - The Establishment's Think Tank</a>, Extra!, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FAIR" title="FAIR">FAIR</a>, November/December 1998</li>

<li>Andrew Ross Sorkin, "<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00E17F83B550C768CDDA00894DC404482" class="external text" title="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00E17F83B550C768CDDA00894DC404482" rel="nofollow">Schlepping to Moguldom</a>", New York Times, September 5, 2004. (This article is also available <a href="http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=8412" class="external text" title="http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=8412" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</li>

<li>IRmep, <a href="http://www.irmep.org/Brookings_Saban.htm" class="external text" title="http://www.irmep.org/Brookings_Saban.htm" rel="nofollow">The Brookings Saban Center- Errors of Ommission</a>, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, June 2003</li>

</ul>

<h1>Brookings Institution History</h1>

The Brookings Institution traces its beginnings to 1916, when a group of leading reformers founded the Institute for Government Research (IGR), the first private organization devoted to analyzing public policy issues at the national level.

</div>

<div id="ctrlContent_columns_0_ctrlMainColumn_maincolumn_1_pnlIntro" class="intro">A Commitment to Effective Government

In 1916, <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/about/History/RobertSBrookings_bio.aspx">Robert S. Brookings</a> worked with other government reformers to create the first private organization devoted to the fact-based study of national public policy issues. The new Institute for Government Research became the chief advocate for effective and efficient public service and sought to bring “science” to the study of government.

Brookings created two sister organizations: the Institute of Economics in 1922 and a graduate school in 1924. In 1927, the institutes and the school merged to form the present-day Brookings Institution, with the mission to promote, conduct and foster research “in the broad fields of economics, government administration and the political and social sciences.”

The Brookings trustees chose the organization’s first president: Harold Moulton, a University of Chicago professor who was known for his study of war debts. Brookings economists played a large role in crafting the 1921 legislation that created the first U.S. Bureau of the Budget. President Warren G. Harding called the bureau, which planned the government’s financial outlays, “the greatest reform in governmental practices since the beginning of the republic.”

War and Peace

In the World War II era, Brookings experts helped the government mobilize for the conflict and manage its aftermath. Leo Pasvolsky, a Brookings expert who also served in the State Department, was instrumental in refining the blueprint for President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s dream of the United Nations and helped shape the Marshall Plan. In 1948, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), praised Brookings for a report that would become “the Congressional ‘work-sheet’ in respect to this complex and critical problem.” (<a href="http://www.brookings.edu/about/History/marshallplan.aspx">Learn more about Brookings's role in the Marshall Plan »</a>)

Shaping the Nation

Nearly a year before the 1960 election, Brookings governmental studies expert Laurin Henry published Presidential Transitions, designed to help the winning candidate —John F. Kennedy or Richard M. Nixon—launch his administration smoothly. The book was followed by a series of confidential issues papers prepared by Brookings experts.

Brookings also had a cameo role in the Watergate saga. President Nixon reportedly told aides to rifle to office of Brookings fellow Leslie Gelb, who had been a Department of Defense analyst with Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times and the Washington Post. One version of events says the break-in was foiled when a Brookings security guard, Roderick Warrick, stopped two men with attaché cases who were trying to sneak into the building on a summer evening in 1971.

The same year, Brookings began a new series of studies on the federal budget, providing in-depth analysis of various programs that helped inform the public and sharpen the spending choices for Congress. Three years later, Brookings pushed for the creation of the Congressional Budget Office. <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/r/rivlina.aspx">Alice Rivlin</a>, a distinguished Brookings economist, was the CBO's first director. She continued to move back and forth between Brookings and the government in the years that followed.</div>

<h3>LBJ at Brookings's 50th, September 29, 1966</h3>

<a href="http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/about/history/critical_intelligence_lbj.pdf"> Read "Government and the Critical Intelligence," President Lyndon B. Johnson's speech to the Brookings Institution »

</a>

</div>

<div id="ctrlContent_columns_0_ctrlMainColumn_maincolumn_1_pnlBody" class="body">On September 29, 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson helped mark Brookings's fiftieth anniversary with an address on public service and the importance of America's cities.

Economic Growth

Joseph Pechman, director of the Economic Studies program at Brookings, pushed hard for comprehensive reform of the U.S. tax code in the early 1980s. His research led to the Tax Reform Act of 1986—a major bill that had a profound impact on the U.S. economy.

In the 1990s, the federal government devolved many of its social programs back to cities and states, and Brookings shaped a new generation of urban policies to help build strong neighborhoods, cities and metropolitan regions. As President Bill Clinton prepared to sign historic welfare reform legislation, <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/h/haskinsr.aspx">Ron Haskins</a>, a former Republican congressional staffer, and <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/s/sawhilli.aspx">Isabel Sawhill</a>, a former official in the Office of Management and Budget for President Clinton, teamed up at Brookings to study the nation’s policies on children and families. In 2001, a proposal by Sawhill and researcher Adam Thomas for a child tax credit became part of major tax legislation.

The ongoing effort to improve the tax system also benefited from the work by Brookings economists <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/experts/g/galew.aspx">Bill Gale</a>, Mark Iwry and Peter Orszag. The scholars made the case that helping Americans save for retirement requires financial incentives for low- and middle-income workers coupled with new corporate practices to make saving easier. The legislation they inspired helped make them three of the most-quoted, and most influential, economists in the United States.

A Global Challenge

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, increased the urgency of developing strategies to address the threat while sustaining America’s role as a force for prosperity and stability abroad and an open society at home. With remarkable speed, Brookings experts produced influential proposals for homeland security and intelligence operations. They also testified before Congress and used the Institution’s outreach capacity, including its in-house television studio, to explain the new global reality to a frightened public.

Governance and Renewal

Confronted with “the Great Recession” of 2008–9, Brookings scholars probed its causes and consequences, shaping debate with a steady stream of analysis and recommendations. When the converging effects of climate change, weapons proliferation, weak and failing states, and other multidimensional issues of our time

demanded complex remedies, teams of experts responded quickly with high-profile events and Institution-wide strategies.

As Brookings approaches its centenary in 2016, the theme of “governance and renewal” unites our five research programs. Successful undertakings that pull together

Brookings’s intellectual resources include the <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/about/ResearchPriorities.aspx">all-Brookings priorities</a> that examine growth through innovation, opportunity and well-being, sound energy and climate

policy and how to manage global change.

Brookings Presidents

Strobe Talbott (2002 - present)

Michael Armacost (1995 - 2002)

Bruce MacLaury (1977 - 1995)

Gilbert Y. Steiner, acting (1976 - 1977)

Kermit Gordon (1967 - 1976)

Robert Calkins (1952 - 1967)

Harold Moulton (1927 - 1952)</div>

</div>

<h1>What's In A Label? - Right-Wing Think Tanks Are Often Quoted, Rarely Labeled</h1>

May 1, 1998

</td><td align="right" valign="top"><a href="http://www.accuracy.org/email.php?articleId=50">Email to a Friend</a>

<a href="http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=50&pf=yes">Print Friendly Version</a>

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

For the third year in a row, conservative or right-leaning think tanks in

1997 provided more than half of major media's think tank citations, according

to FAIR's third annual survey of major newspaper and broadcast media citations

in the Nexis computer database. Think tanks of the right provided 53 percent

of citations, while progressive or left-leaning think tanks received just

16 percent of total citations.

Half of the ten most-cited think tanks are conservative or right-leaning,

including three of the top four. The centrist Brookings Institution held

the top spot as the most widely cited think tank for the second year in a

row. Three right-wing institutions--the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise

Institute and Cato Institute--maintained their respective positions as the

second, third and fourth most cited. The top four think tanks were each cited

more than a thousand times, and provided 46 percent of all think tank citations.*

<h3>Missing Labels</h3>

To see how the top four think tanks were identified, a random 10 percent

of their citations were examined. Surprisingly, all four institutions were

not identified at all in a majority of their respective citations.

The most mentioned think tank, the Brookings Institution, was given no

identification in 78 percent of the 229 citations examined. In another 17

percent, it was identified as being located in Washington, D.C. Twice it

was referred to as "liberal," twice as "non-partisan" and once as "centrist."

The "liberal" label is inaccurate; Brookings has long had a centrist or

center-right orientation. As far back as the mid-1980s, Fortune magazine

(7/23/84) was approvingly noting that "Brookings Tilts Right." Current president

Michael Armacost was undersecretary of state in the Reagan administration

and President Bush's ambassador to Japan. Brookings' two most prominent analysts

served in Republican administrations. Their most visible foreign policy expert,

Richard Haass, is formerly of George Bush's National Security Council. Domestic

political analyst Stephen Hess helped edit the Republican platform in 1976,

and served in the U.S. delegation to the U.N. under Gerald Ford.

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=50&pf=yes

</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

Brookings Institution

Attachments