Pew Trust

---is this one of the fdn that the crc is worried will fall into the hands of young women and go liberal?yup wfb, goldwater ~ FDR [oil $<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/long-before-charles-and-david-koch-these-oligarch-brothers-funded-right-wing-politics/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/long-before-charles-and-david-koch-these-oligarch-brothers-funded-right-wing-politics/</a>no lnx
Long before Charles and David Koch, these oligarch brothers funded right-wing politicsWritten by Alex Henderson September 3, 2019When oligarch David Koch died on August 23 at the age of 79, right-wing politics lost one of its most vocal donors in the business world. Koch, along with his brother Charles Koch, was a consistent supporter of conservative and libertarian causes. But historian Darren Dochuk, in an in-depth essay for Politico, explains that long before the rise of the Koch Brothers, there were the Pew Brothers — who had many things in common with Charles & David Koch.
Dochuk opens his article by asserting, “First, the brothers made a fortune in oil; then, they used it to attack the Democratic president eager to regulate their industry and to elect conservative candidates. They wanted to drive the moderates out of their party, and their money made sure that happened.” It sounds like Dochuk is talking about Charles & David Koch supporting the Tea Party, trying to undermine Barack Obama’s presidency and declaring war on Republicans they believed weren’t fiscally conservative enough. But Dochuk is actually talking about J. Howard Pew and his brother Joseph N. Pew, Jr., both of whom were born in Pennsylvania in the 1880s. And their enemies weren’t Obama, but rather, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and northeastern Rockefeller Republicans.
“From the rise of the Religious Right to the death of the moderate Republican, it’s the Pews whose fingerprints are all over the modern GOP,” Dochuk notes. “The Pews’ political ambition was driven by two bitter hatreds: of Franklin D. Roosevelt and of the Rockefeller family.”
As the Pew Brothers saw it, Dochuk explains, FDR and his New Deal were anti-business — and they believed that the Rockefeller Republicans of the 1930s and 1940s were too favorable to FDR’s policies.
The evangelical Christian Right, as we know it today, gained a lot of momentum when President Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. But long before that, the Pew Brothers combined religion and right-wing politics in their own way.
Dochuk notes that the Pew Brothers believed that the Rockefellers’ moderate brand of Mainline Protestant Christianity “was responsible for the nation’s secular slide” and represented a “modernistic gospel.” When the Pew Memorial Trust was founded in 1948, Dochuk explains, it combined religious, political and economic elements.
In the 1950s, a new star emerged in the conservative movement: William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of the National Review. And the Pew Brothers, Dochuk points out, were among his enthusiastic supporters.
Howard Pew, according to Dochuk, “eagerly funded William F. Buckley, Jr.’s new conservatism. When, in 1955, the junior Buckley released the inaugural issue of National Review, its back cover carried several endorsements, none more glowing than Pew’s.”
Although J. Howard Pew, Dochuk observes, “channeled most of his funds to evangelical Protestant entities,” he also supported some right-wing Catholics — including Buckley. But as right-wing as the Pew Brothers were, they distanced themselves from a group that was even more to the right: the John Birch Society, who Buckley and his colleagues at the National Review were also highly critical of.
In the 1964 presidential election, Dochuk notes, the Pew Brothers were enthusiastic supporters of GOP nominee Barry Goldwater.
“Before his death in 1963,” Dochuk writes, “Joseph Pew would pour countless funds into Goldwater’s emerging campaign, while Howard would prove to be just as ‘overly generous’ — as a Goldwater adviser would gush in a note of thanks — in his support of the candidate.”
But while the Pew Brothers promoted evangelical Protestantism, Goldwater became a blistering critic of the Christian Right in the 1980s and had no kind words for the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Sr. or Pat Robertson. As Goldwater saw it, the Christian Right was terrible for the GOP and the conservative movement.
Dochuk concludes his essay by noting the ways in which the Koch Brothers became a 21st Century equivalent of the Pew Brothers.
“When the Koch Brothers stepped to the fore” in the 21st Century, Dochuk recalls, they championed “a Tea-Party Republicanism that called for patriotic marches on Washington” and “tapped a sentiment running deep in American history — one that the Pews had taken advantage of decades before.”Some senior Republicans who have left the battlefield of electoral politics are starting to go vocal with their worries about their party’s stance on climate change—and to take action to stave off its electoral consequences. They fear, in the words of one GOP operative, “that the party is going to drive itself off a cliff with this.” Conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior adviser on McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign who now heads the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, is working with the climate-policy advocacy group Clean Air-Cool Planet. The New Hampshire-based group has flown Holtz-Eakin to the state several times over the past few months to talk to voters in small living-room meetings about the economic threats of climate change—and the economic benefits of addressing the problem. Another prominent Republican, John Warner, the former senator from Virginia and secretary of the Navy, is a senior adviser to the Pew Project on National Security, Energy, and Climate, which focuses on the need to develop alternative energy to combat climate change and lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Warner, who cosponsored a major cap-and-trade bill when he was in the Senate, now travels the country, including stops at military bases, calling attention to the national-security concerns of climate change and fossil-fuel dependence.Working with Warner on the Pew climate-change project is George Shultz, President Reagan’s secretary of State and an adviser to George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. Last year, Shultz, who is a distinguished fellow at Stanford University, cochaired the “No on Prop. 23” campaign in California, which successfully defended the state’s pioneering cap-and-trade law against an oil industry-led effort to overturn it. “My own opinion is that this problem is very real,” Shultz told National Journal. “I recognize there are a lot of people pooh-poohing it. Whether they like the science or not, there’s a huge problem coming at us. There’s a huge melt coming in the Arctic regions. There’s melting taking place.” Of Perry and other Republicans who deny climate science, Shultz said, “They’re entitled to their opinion, but they’re not entitled to the facts.”Former GOP Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who lost his primary race last year in part because he acknowledged climate change, gives speeches and lectures across the country about the need for conservatives to do likewise and begin working on solutions to the problem. Otherwise, the Republican Party will be labeled antiscience, he warns. Inglis takes his message directly to conservative strongholds such as Federalist clubs and meetings of the Conservative Political Action Conference.<div>alternet</div><div>
</div><div>2) Billionaire John D. Arnold’s attack on public-employee pensions. Have you heard that the biggest problem facing our states, counties and cities is the bloated, lavish, insane level of money that goes to public-employee pensions? Of course you have, and that's partly thanks to billionaire John Arnold. Arnold got his start at Enron trading natural gas derivatives. After Enron he used his Enron money to form an energy-trading hedge fund. Now he is using his fortune to fund various philanthropic causes, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/10-million-gift-to-help-head-start-through-shutdown.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">including helping to keep Head Start running</a> [9] when Republicans recently shut down the government. Unfortunately he has also dedicated part of his fortune to gutting public-employee pensions.In a September report for the Institute for America’s Future, the <a href="http://ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Plot-Against-Pensions-final.pdf" style="">Plot Against Pensions</a> [10] (which has excerpts posted on <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/exposed_enron_billionaires_diabolical_plot_to_loot_worker_pensions/" style="">Salon),</a> [11]David Sirota showed how the Pew Charitable Trusts was working in partnership with (and funded by) Arnold. The findings in Sirota’s report include:<ul dir="ltr" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li>Conservative activists are manufacturing the perception of a public pension crisis in order to both slash modest retiree benefits and preserve expensive corporate subsidies and tax breaks.</li><li>The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation are working together in states across the country to focus the debate over pensions primarily on slashing retiree benefits rather than on raising public revenues.</li></ul>Then last week, in <a href="http://pando.com/2014/02/12/the-wolf-of-sesame-street-revealing-the-secret-corruption-inside-pbss-news-division/" style="">The Wolf of Sesame Street: Revealing the secret corruption inside PBS’s news division</a> [12] at PandoDaily, Sirota revealed how PBS’ WNET had solicited Arnold to fund a two-year series of “news” shows named “The Pension Peril” that would promote cutting the pensions of public employees. In this story, Sirota wrote:<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“In recent years, Arnold has been using massive contributions to <a href="http://blogs.wpri.com/2012/12/11/texas-enron-traders-fortune-helped-fund-engage-rhode-island/" style="">politicians</a> [13], <a href="http://pando.com/2014/02/07/how-a-100000-check-exposes-the-politics-of-pension-theft/" style="">Super PACs</a> [14], <a href="http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/10_2_13_mayor_chuck_reed_state_pension_reform/" style="">ballot initiative efforts</a> [15], <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/pew-trusts-pensions_n_3983654.html" style="">think tanks</a> [16] and <a href="http://blogs.wpri.com/2012/12/11/texas-enron-traders-fortune-helped-fund-engage-rhode-island/" style="">local front groups</a> [13] to finance a nationwide political campaign aimed at slashing public employees’ retirement benefits. His foundation which backs his efforts<a href="http://y.ourfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Plot-Against-Pensions-final.pdf" style=""> employs top Republican political operatives</a> [17], <a href="http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/node/1#calabrese" style="">including</a> [18] the <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2007/05/31/conservative-spotlight-the-patriot-group/" style="">former chief of staff</a> [19] to GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey (TX). According to its own promotional materials, the Arnold Foundation is <a href="http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/pdf/A9RBC84.pdf" style="">pushing</a> [20]lawmakers in states across the country “to stop promising a (retirement) benefit” to public employees.”</blockquote>WNET severed the relationship. According to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/business/media/wnet-to-return-3-5-million-grant-for-pension-series.html" style="">New York Times</a> [21], "WNET, the New York City public television broadcaster, said on Friday that it would return a $3.5 million grant it received to sponsor an ambitious project on public pensions in the face of charges that it solicited inappropriate underwriting for the series.”To its credit the Times’ story gave full credit to Sirota’s reporting,<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Earlier, after <a href="http://pando.com/2014/02/12/the-wolf-of-sesame-street-revealing-the-secret-corruption-inside-pbss-news-division/" style="">a critical report</a> [12] on Wednesday by David Sirota on the website PandoDaily, WNET officials said they were comfortable with the foundation’s funding. Mr. Sirota sharply criticized WNET for accepting the Arnold Foundation money because John Arnold, a former hedge fund manager, has financially backed efforts to persuade municipalities to cut public employee pension benefits."</blockquote>Note that Arnold allies <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/pensions/ci_24864131/san-jose-mayors-california-pension-initiative-cleared-but" style="">are pushing</a> [22] a ballot initiative in California to gut public-employee pensions.</div><h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">

    <font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span dir="auto">Conservatives target the Pew Charitable Trusts</span>

</h1>

        
    
    
        
    
    
                
    <div id="jump-to-nav" class="mw-jump"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
     Jump to: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Conservatives_target_the_Pew_Charitable_Trusts#mw-head">navigation</a>,
     <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Conservatives_target_the_Pew_Charitable_Trusts#p-search">search</a>
    </font></div>
    
        
    <p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The conservative <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Capital_Research_Center" title="Capital Research Center">Capital Research Center</a> (CRC)</span> - which sees attacking foundations that support 'liberal groups' as one strand of the campaign to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Defund_the_left" title="Defund the left">defund the left</a> - has criticised the Pew Charitable Trusts in an article in <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_Watch" title="Foundation Watch">Foundation Watch</a> by the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wise_Use_Movement" title="Wise Use Movement">Wise Use Movement</a> leader <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ron_Arnold" title="Ron Arnold">Ron Arnold</a>.

Arnolf bemoaned that a foundation funded with the proceeds from an oil

company could be spent promoting action on climate change.

Arnold did not disclose that his organisation, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Defense_of_Free_Enterprise" title="Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise">Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise</a> received funding from ExxonMobil in 2003. Nor did CRC disclose that it has received funds from ExxonMobil in 2002 and 2003.<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf">[1]</a><a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf">[2]</a>

In the context of Pew's financial restructuring, a February 2004 editorial page column in the Wall Street Journal,

echoed the complaint that foundations were not complying with 'donor

intent'. "Congress writes the laws that make this possible, but the last

time Congress seriously debated the issue of foundations and donor

intent and the tax breaks that guarantee perpetuity was the famous

Patman hearings of the 1960s. Looks to us as though someone on the

Senate Finance or House Government Reform Committees hasn't been minding

the store," the WSJ wrote. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004724">[3]</a>

<h2>Other SourceWatch resources</h2>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Intimidating_public_interest_groups" title="Intimidating public interest groups">Intimidating public interest groups</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Intimidating_democracy" title="Intimidating democracy">Intimidating democracy</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Intimidating_foundations" title="Intimidating foundations">Intimidating foundations</a></li></ul>

<h3>External links</h3>

<ul><li>Ron Arnold, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/05_04_FW.pdf">The Pew Charitable Trusts: global warming power nexus</a>", Foundation Watch, Capital Research Center, May 2004.</li><li>"<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004724">Trusting Pew: Dubious accounting shouldn't be acceptable in the nonprofit world</a>", Wall Street Journal, editorial, February 22, 2004.</li></ul>---<a href="http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/05_04_FW.pdf">www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/05_04_FW.pdf</a>

LOOKS LIKE ARNOLD:

Pew’s Evolution: Political Agenda

Betrays Founder’s Beliefs

Pew Charitable Trusts has drawn fire

from critics for abandoning the intent of the

original donors. In his book The Great

Philanthropists and the Problem of ‘Donor

Intent,’ Martin Morse Wooster cites J.

Howard Pew’s purpose in establishing the

J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust in 1957: to

acquaint the American people with “the

evils of bureaucracy,” “the values of the

free market,” and “the paralyzing effects of

government controls on lives and activities

of people.”

...

Philanthropy Roundtable in 2002 reported

that Pew’s changes were “raising

concerns over a kind of imperial overstretch

that has led largely unaccountable

foundations to inject themselves into the

governing process and dream up projects

rather than support the work of existing

organizations.”

...

Conclusion:

Behind Claussen’s remarks stand hundreds

of fossil fuel opponents ranging from

the huge and famous Sierra Club to the small

and obscure National Religious Partnership

for the Environment, from the Energy Foundation,

with its MacArthur, Rockefeller,

Packard and Hewlett foundation colleagues,

to the Pew Center for Global Climate Change,

with its Business Environmental Leadership

Council.

And behind them stands the Pew Charitable

Trusts.