webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

CATO

CATO (note caps for emphasis, not an acronym)

gets tag 6/14, not all done; record tags? 24 4/26 so hub [manh has in 30’s]

no merri

see libertairian

916 capt

see catobak

html endit1

 ===

2025

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1743&context=lawreview

Uncharitable Think Tanks 207

Institution—also led in the earlier one, with only slight shifts otherwise.229 • From 2010 on, the top funders were Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, and the Scaife, Bradley, and Koch family foundations. The Devos family foundations rose to join the ranks of the top ten. • Grants channeled through Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund accounted for 13.7% of the total. • 74% of all contributions came from completely unidentified sources. • }:}:

After AEI, Heritage and Hoover, the largest recipients were Cato, the Manhattan Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Mercatus Center, the Acton Institute, the State Policy Network, the Reason Foundation, Heartland, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. From 2003 to 2018, Brulle and his co-authors tallied total gifts to this cohort of $9.77 billion 230—a sum that refutes the mistaken notion that charitable giving is small dollars, and influential only at the margin. Now for the thought experiment.

west va v epa

7 22 intercept

...Today’s Supreme Court decision marks perhaps the biggest payoff yet for Koch’s decades of plotting against environmental regulations — and the most devastating loss for everyone else. Three of the extremist judges who joined the decision — Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh — wound up on the Supreme Court in large part because of Koch’s activism and contributions.

Americans for Prosperity, an astroturf political group founded by Charles Koch and his brother David, conducted extraordinary campaigns to put all three judges on the highest bench. To support Kavanaugh’s nomination, the group reached out to more than 1.2 million Americans through mail, phone calls, and knocking on doors, according to a flyer released by the organization. The group also pushed hard for Barrett, whose father worked for Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, a powerful trade group for the oil and gas industry. And it campaigned for Gorsuch, whose mother presided — disastrously — over the EPA under President Ronald Reagan. Charles Koch is also closely connected to Leonard Leo, co-chair of the Federalist Society, a conservative organization Koch has supported directly and through his family foundation.

The case itself can also be tied directly to Koch. The challengers are27 Republican attorneys general, who were supported by the Koch-funded Republican Attorneys General Association. At least four Koch-funded entities have filed amicus briefs in the case: the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by Charles Koch; the Competitive Enterprise Institute; the New Civil Liberties Alliance; and Americans for Prosperity. Another foundation that filed an amicus brief, the Landmark Legal Foundation, denied receiving Koch funding, though Jane Mayer reports in her book “Dark Money” that Koch helped subsidize it....

---

---

cave to trump 5 24

am 5 24

many libertarians and Never Trump conservatives have been highly critical of the Libertarian Party for featuring former President Donald Trump as a speaker at its annual convention, which will be held this Saturday, May 25 in Washington, D.C.

These critics have been arguing that Trump's MAGA agenda is diametrically opposed to libertarianism in a variety of ways. Libertarians, for example, often describe themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal — whereas Trump is a close ally of the religious right and far-right evangelical Christian nationalists who favor outlawing abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage.

One of the critics who is speaking out is Peter Goettler, president of the Cato Institute — a libertarian think tank founded in 1977.

READ MORE: Group that created Tea Party dissolves over split between 'MAGA and Never Trump factions'

In a biting op-ed published by the Washington Post on May 23, Goettler argues that featuring Trump as a speaker shows that the Libertarian Party has abandoned libertarian principles.

"It will be the first time in U.S. history that a presidential candidate of a rival party will address the convention of a party that is presumably gathering to nominate its own candidate," Goettler observes. "And this strange turn of events has many libertarians scratching their heads. "

The Cato Institute president continues, "With a razor-thin Electoral College contest in the offing this November, it's clear that any play for incremental support is worth Trump's effort and could make the difference. But what's in it for the National Libertarian Party? The answer, unfortunately, reveals the truth about today's party: It's hardly libertarian anymore."

Goettler goes on emphasize that a "long list" of Trump policies are opposed by libertarians.

READ MORE: The love affair with Ayn Rand ties conservatism to one of the most disturbing killers

"He allowed government spending and debt to continue to spiral upward, increasing the national debt by $8.4 trillion," the Cato president notes. "Federal outlays soared from $4 trillion his first year (2017) to $6.8 trillion in his last year. He persists in railing against immigration and free trade, supports further expansion of presidential power and seeks to crack down on political enemies."

The Libertarian Party's leadership, according to Goettler, has "been taken over by a faction that places it well outside the bounds of libertarianism altogether and appears comfortable with right-wing authoritarianism."

"Some tweets issued from state Libertarian parties and other Libertarian operators can only be described as shockingly racist or antisemitic — the Libertarian Party of Michigan, for instance, posted a cartoon portraying Jews as puppet masters of the Democratic and Republican parties — and would be more welcome on the alt-right than among true libertarians," Goettler warns. "This is not what traditional libertarians represent, and it isn't aligned with the position of most Americans."

READ MORE:'This isn't a joke to us': Far-right evangelicals aim to enlist Trump in 'censorship regime'

*Cato Institute PresidentPeter Goettler's full Washington Post op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).

---

{{PAT MICHAELS:

CATO HAD NO JUICE W/ TRUMP Admin?

see TURNING PT FORK DECISION

lancaster revelle, zuck

~ Mann hockey stick, ~ Hansen, models

covid BS

Cato shut its sci shop (lindzen)

one of few hacks w/ legit creds, but gov asked him to stop calling himself delaware state climatologist?

pal of Happer}}:

---

---

see simon pow

Simon-Ehrlich wager[

Main article: Simon-Ehrlich wager

Julian Lincoln Simon, a Cornucopian economist has argued that overpopulation is not a problem in itself, and that humanity will adapt to changing conditions. Simon argued that in the long run, human creativity would constantly improve living standards, and that the Earth's resources were, in effect, infinite.[27] Ehrlich called Simon the leader of a "space-age cargo cult" of economists convinced that new resources would miraculously appear and re-asserted the idea that population growth was outstripping the earth's supplies of food, fresh water and minerals.[6] This exchange led to the Simon-Ehrlich wager, a bet about the trend of prices for certain metals that he made in 1980 with, and lost to, Julian Simon.[6] Economists later showed that Ehrlich would have won in the majority of 10-year-periods over the last century.[28][29]

---

Simon was skeptical, in 1994, of claims that human activity caused global environmental damage, notably in relation to CFCs, ozone depletion and climate change, the latter primarily because of the perceived rapid switch from fears of global cooling and a new ice age (in the mid-1970s) to the later fears of global warming.[6]

Simon also listed numerous claims about alleged environmental damage and health dangers from pollution as "definitely disproved". These included claims about lead pollution & IQ, DDT, PCBs, malathion, Agent Orange, asbestos, and the chemical contamination at Love Canal.[7]He dismissed such concerns as a mere "value judgement."

But also, to a startling degree, the decision about whether the overall effect of a child or migrant is positive or negative depends on the values of whoever is making the judgment – your preference to spend a dollar now rather than to wait for a dollar-plus-something in twenty or thirty years, your preferences for having more or fewer wild animals alive as opposed to more or fewer human beings alive, and so on.[8]

Influence[

Simon was one of the founders of free-market environmentalism. An article entitled "The Doomslayer"[9] profiling Julian Simon in Wired magazine inspired Danish Bjørn Lomborg to write the book The Skeptical Environmentalist.

==

https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/julian-simon-was-right-half-century-population-growth

==

==

see  Robert Levy, the chairman of the board of the Cato Institute, in beef w/ koch bros? coup?

crit tobacco master settlement, but mebbe just ideol wacko vs good old greed?

FEAF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Levy

180?!  3/20

https://boingboing.net/2020/01/27/galt-underwater.html

Leading libertarian intellectuals are now disavowing the label (Tyler Cowan says he's now a "State Capacity Libertarian") thanks to the total failure of libertarianism to cope with climate change.

John Quiggin (previously) explores how, at the start of the climate debate, libertarians advocated for "market based" solutions, like tradeable emissions credits, something dubbed "free-market environmentalism." The model had been used successfully to fight acid rain, and it was appealing to libertarians as it "would supply incentives to find the most cost-effective path toward reducing emissions."

Climate activists weren't fond of the idea, favoring instead a limit on pollution itself (this traces a similar arc to the debate on smoking, which started with "sin taxes" on tobacco but really only made progress when these were augmented with absolute prohibitions on smoking in most places and strict curbs on the sale and marketing of tobacco products).

But once emissions credits became a reality, libertarians almost unanimously rejected them, and switched from "free market environmentalism" to straight-up climate denial. As Quiggin says, the problem with tradeable emissions is that it rebuts the core tenet of libertarianism: John Locke's idea that property rights arise spontaneously from nature, rather than being created by governments hoping to achieve specific policy goals.

But more deeply, "Affluent white men who don’t like being told what to do are by far the most important constituency for libertarianism. Such men would consider it a dreadful imposition to have to pay, whether directly or indirectly, for the right to drive a car or use air conditioning."

This created a steady-state in which the climate steadily worsened and libertarians steadily denied that their cities were underwater, on fire, or gripped by pandemics, repeating expensive talking points about solar cycles or crooked scientists who were hoping to dismantle capitalism (IOW: "Reality has a well-known leftist bias").

But Trump disrupted the steady state. When he took office, the libertarian frontrunners abandoned any pretense of commitment to anything except more power and money for people who were monied and powerful, leaving the few standards-bearers for the movement with no way forward. Even as the Cato Institute abandoned its climate denial stance, it still argued that the climate crisis couldn't be averted by state intervention, despite the fact that markets had totally failed to come to grips with it.

Quiggin reckons with the incoherence of markets-only thinking in his masterful 2019 book Economics in Two Lessons, which explores the power, limitations and dangers of using markets to solve our problems in a thoughtful and clear way.

Having abandoned intellectual credibility in the fight to stop climate action, libertarianism has no future as a movement. Trumpism will soon swallow up what’s left of its organizational structure. Individuals have a number of choices available, from Niskanen-style “liberaltarianism” to the fantasy of “going Galt.” But the libertarian moment is well and truly over.

Global warming is the ultimate refutation of Lockean propertarianism. No one can pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while leaving “enough and as good” for everyone else. It has taken thirty years, but this undeniable fact has finally killed the propertarian movement in the United States.

Libertarians Can’t Save the Planet [John Quiggin/Jacobin]

CAP-AND-TRADE / CATO INSTITUTE / CLIMATE / CLIMATE CRISIS / DENIALISM VS NIHILISM / FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTALISM / LIBERATARIANISM / PEAK INDIFFERENCE / REALITY HAS A WELL-KNOWN LEFTIST BIAS / STATE CAPACITY LIBERTARIANS

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-international-hotel-will-host-a-climate-denial-conference-5cf2c28b695d/

In late July, climate science deniers will descend upon the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. — located right across the street from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — to attend the Heartland Institute’s annual climate conference. The theme this year is “Best Science, Winning Energy Policies.”

The conference will feature “the courageous men and women who spoke the truth about climate change during the height of the global warming scare,” as the event’s own description puts it. “Now, many of them are advising the new administration or joining it in senior positions.”

Fringe climate science deniers have surrounded and infiltrated the administration since President Donald Trump was elected — from working on Trump’s transition team, to meetings with top EPA officials. Trump himself has said climate change is a Chinese hoax, tweeted repeatedly that winter snowstorms disprove global warming, and said that climate scientists have a political agenda. And many top government officials in this administration deny the science on climate change.

When Trump announced in June 2016 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate deal, representatives from longtime anti-climate action groups likeKoch-funded think tanks the American Energy Alliance, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation were all present in the Rose Garden.

Many of these same think tanks will be attending Heartland‘s conference next month, where speakers will offer up policy ideas “to lead a post-alarmist world in climate realism” as well as discussing “the benefits of ending the Democrats’ war on fossil fuels.”

This denialism is in stark contrast to the reality facing the world. Scientists have long established that climate change is real, is the result of burning fossil fuels, and that its impacts are visible here and now — from more intense hurricanes and wildfires to both increased drought and rainfall depending on the region. The very first line of the government’s own National Climate Assessment released last fall states, “The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country.”

Despite the scientific consensus, the Trump administration has been taking aggressive action to roll back vital environmental protections, often in line with industry demands. Supporting the coal industry, in particular, has been a top priority for the administration.

The Trump International Hotel isn’t just a top choice for climate deniers: Last year, two executives from coal companies close with the administration — Murray Energy and Craft Alliance Partners — were “VIP” guests of the downtown D.C. hotel. Last June, the hotel hosted a reception for industry trade group the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

The hotel — referred to by one Department of Energy staffer as “Republican Disneyland” — has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil, coal, natural gas, and mining interests who come to attend events frequented by administration officials. Last March, the Independent Petroleum Association of America’s (IPAA) annual “Congressional Call-Up” was held at Trump’s hotel.

Oil and gas lobbyists gather at Trump Hotel for annual D.C. meeting

This is at least the third energy industry group to choose the Trump International Hotel.

Meanwhile, Trump has refused to sever ties with the Trump Organization, which holds the lease for the Old Post Office building where the hotel is located.Prosecutors for lawsuits in New York, Maryland, and D.C. argue Trump is illegally profiting off of his presidency; the more guests and events at the hotel, the more the president profits.

But while the fossil fuel industry, and the climate deniers who have received fossil fuel funding over the years, flock to the hotel, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are increasingly starting to recognize the importance of tackling the climate crisis.

For the first time, climate change is a leading issue in the 2020 presidential campaign, and a growing number of Democratic candidates are offering up climate policy proposals. Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently told reporters that the Republican Party needs its own climate plan.

At the same time, coal continues to be on the decline no matter what the administration does to help the industry. More coal plants shut down during Trump’s first two years than during President Barack Obama’s entire first term.

More coal plants shut down in Trump’s first two years than in Obama’s entire first term

The administration's own data reveal coal isn't coming back.

Heartland’s conference comes as the head of the group, former Republican Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp, abruptly stepped down last week, just two years after taking the position, while offering no explanation. The think tank has in recent years faced funding uncertainties, with even ExxonMobil no longer donating to the organization. As head of Heartland, Heulskamp focused on energy policy and promoting coal at the state level as opposed to vocal attacks on climate science as his predecessor Joseph Bast did.

The news of Huelskamp leaving his post comes shortly after another Koch-funded libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, quietly announced it was disbanding its climate denial program, the Center for the Study of Science. A Cato spokesperson at the time, however, said this didn’t change the organization’s stance on human-caused climate change.

==

==

  a group of right-wing think tanks from both sides of the Atlantic published their version of an "ideal" post-Brexit trade deal. Unsurprisngly, it involved slashing regulation.

The document was put together by the Institute for Free Trade (technically called the 'IFT' as it never got official permission to be called an 'institute') in the UK, and the Cato Institute in the US. Both sit at the heart of a network of lobbyists pushing extreme free-trade policies and disinformation on climate change.

But among the usual suspects listed in the acknowledgements (Shanker Singham, the Hertage Foundation, the Institute of Economic Affairs et al) was a lesser known outfit: Politeia.

Politeia is a free-market organisation established in 1995 that aims to act as “a forum for discussing economic, constitutional and social policy”, according to its website.

It lists climate science denier Deepak Lal - who sits on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - among its members. And it is bankrolled by major Tory donor, George Robinson.

Oddly enough, given the subject matter of the post-Brexit trade deal paper, Politeia also has Lib Dem leader and arch-Remainer Vince Cable on its advisory council. I wonder what he makes of the coalition's calls for the NHS to be opened up to foreign companies and advise to trash environmental regulation...?

Read more about Politeia's (mis)deeds in its full profilein our Disinformation Database.Think we've missed something? Get in touch - database@desmog.uk

extensive:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/01/study-newspaper-opinion-pages-feature-science-denial-and-other-climate-change-misinformation/212700

Three Major Newspapers Published Climate Science Denial On Opinion Pages, Led By The Wall Street Journal

Analysis: Three Major Newspapers’ Opinion Pages Published Climate Science Denial And Other Antiscience Claims. Media Matters examined op-eds, editorials, and columns in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, and The Washington Post from January 1, 2015, to August 31, 2016, to determine how often climate science denial and other false statements about climate science appeared on each newspaper’s opinion pages. We found that the Journal, the Post, and USA Todayall published climate science misinformation on their opinion pages, while theTimesavoided doing so. Unlike the Journaleditorial board,which has denied climate science, the editorial boards of the Times, the Post, and USA Today all recognize the scientific consensus around man-made climate change. But our analysis found that theTimeswas the only one of these newspapers that did not publish an op-ed or column containing climate science denial during this time period. *Media Matters,* [Climate Denial/Misinformation Spreadsheet; The New York Times, 4/29/15; The Washington Post, 7/21/15; USA Today, 11/30/15]

punked on op eds by CTT:

Fossil Fuel Front Groups

Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce: Five Op-Eds. During the time period examined in this study, Robert Bryce, who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, authored three op-eds in The Wall Street Journal, one in USA Today, and one in The New York Times. The Manhattan Institute has received at least $800,000 from ExxonMobil and millions from Koch-affiliated organizations. In one Journalop-ed, Bryce presented a false choice between acting on climate change or protecting wildlife, and in another, he falsely claimed the people of Vermont oppose wind energy. *Media Matters*, [Frequent Misinformers Spreadsheet; 7/31/15, 2/8/16, 5/16/16, Manhattan Institute, accessed 9/1/16]

Heartland Institute: Four Op-Eds. USA Today and The Wall Street Journalpublished three op-eds and one op-ed, respectively, written by people affiliated with the climate denial organization Heartland Institute, which has received over $700,000 from Exxon and significant funding from organizations tied to the oil billionaire Koch brothers. Three of the Heartland Institute op-eds peddled climate science denial, and the fourth also contained climate-related misinformation. Heartland Institute’s Marc Morano asserted in a November 30 USA Todayop-ed: “The U.N. summit's goal of limiting the Earth's temperature to a rise of no more than 2 degrees Celsius is also not based on science. … The notion that a U.N. agreement to limit emissions will somehow alter the Earth's temperature or storminess is bordering on belief in witchcraft.” In an April 22 USA Todayop-ed, Heartland’s John Coleman described himself as a “skeptic of man-made global warming” and wrote that "the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears.” Heartland’s Patrick Moore wrote in a September 3, 2015, Journalop-ed that “the real threat” is not global warming but a coming “cooling of the climate.” And in a June 18, 2015, USA Todayop-ed, Heartland president Joseph Bast criticized Pope Francis’ climate encyclical by pushing the myth that climate action harms “the poor and the elderly, the sick, and vulnerable populations in all countries, but especially in Third World countries.” *Media Matters*, [Frequent Misinformers Spreadsheet; Climate Denial/Misinformation Spreadsheet, 7/31/15, 7/6/15; Heartland Institute, accessed 9/1/16, 9/1/16, 9/1/16]

Cato Institute: Three Op-Eds. The Wall Street Journal:{ published three climate- or energy-related op-eds by members of the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and has received millions of dollars from the Koch family. One of the op-eds falsely attacked attorneys general investigations of Exxon, and the other two op-eds promoted climate science denial. In an August 21 op-ed, Cato's Elizabeth Price Foley wrongly claimed that a group of attorneys general, who have committed to holding fossil fuel companies -- including Exxon -- accountable if they obfuscated climate change research in order to protect their financial interests, had pledged to take action against "climate wrongthink." A March 4, 2015, op-ed byCato's Richard Lindzen questioned “the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming,” and criticized world leaders for “demonizing carbon dioxide.” And a January 24 piece byCato's Patrick Michaels, titled “The Climate Snow Job,” was critiqued by Climate Feedback, an organization that publishes scientists’ assessments of the accuracy of news articles and opinion pieces. Ten scientists analyzed the op-ed and in their summary wrote, “Most of the article is devoted to casting doubt over the accuracy of the global temperature record. The author uses detailed technical descriptions to distract readers from the inaccuracies of the article, which involve cherry-picking data to support multiple unsubstantiated and discredited claims.” They rated its scientific credibility to be “low" to "very low.” :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:*Media Matters*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[Frequent Misinformers Spreadsheet:{,}:Climate Denial/Misinformation Spreadsheet:{, }:7/31/15:{; Florida International University Law School, accessed}:9/1/16:{; InsideClimate News, }:3/30/16:{; Climate Feedback, }:1/24/16:{]}:

Competitive Enterprise Institute: Two Op-Eds. Representatives of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which has recently received attention for having peddled climate science denial while receiving funding from Exxon, authored two op-eds during the time period examined in this study, both of which falsely claimed that the Exxon investigations are an attempt to criminalize free speech. In The Washington Post, CEI general counsel Sam Kazman and president Kent Lassman co-authored an op-ed describing the attorneys general investigations of Exxon as an attempt to criminalize “dissent” and “run roughshod” over First Amendment protections. And David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew Grossman -- the lawyers that represented CEI in its response to an Exxon-related subpoena from the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands -- wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal alleging that the attorneys general investigations of Exxon are part of a strategy of “punishing dissent from an asserted ‘consensus’ view” on climate change. *Media Matters*, [Frequent Misinformers Spreadsheet, 4/11/16, 6/27/16; CEI.org, 4/20/16]

==

Center for Constitutional Studies

Center for Educational Freedom

Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity

Center for Representative Government

Troubled Currencies Project

Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies

Center for the Study of Science

Downsizing the Federal Government

Project on Criminal Justice

Project on Social Security Choice

Center for the Study of Science

Federal government involvement in science, particularly physical science, grew during World War II through the Office of Scientific Research and Development, created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941. After the war the OSRD ended; but Vannevar Bush, who oversaw the Manhattan Project and the OSRD, strongly advocated the creation of a peacetime agency to fund and promote scientific R&D, as well as to heavily involve the federal government in research and educational funding for science activities in academia. The result was the establishment of the National Science Foundation, which was soon followed by the development of scientific programs in several cabinet departments. The ensuing government presence creates the potential for politicization by officials with policy goals. The Center for the Study of Science, established by the Cato Institute in 2012, is dedicated to exploring this process. The Cato Institute, which does not accept government funding, has the independence to shine light on this little-studied issue.

==

srcwtch:

The Cato Institute is an non-partisan libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute states that it favors policies "that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace." [1] Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues, and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media.

Where ideology and science part company, Cato favors ideology, as shown by their open letter[2] published in newspapers in 2009[3] disputing the state of the science on climate change.[4]

Contents [hide]

History - Crane and Koch

Cato was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and Charles Koch, [5] the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries known for its financing of the Tea Party and various conservative advocacy organizations. David Koch is currently on Cato's Board of Directors. In 2008 Jane Mayer wrote,

"According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1986 and 1993 the Koch family gave eleven million dollars to the [Cato] institute."[6]

Present

Mayer added,

"Today, Cato has more than a hundred full-time employees, and its experts and policy papers are widely quoted and respected by the mainstream media. It describes itself as nonpartisan, and its scholars have at times been critical of both parties. It has consistently pushed for corporate tax cuts, reductions in social services, and laissez-faire environmental policies."[6]

Positions espoused

Overview

Cato argues for the abolition of the welfare system, against the U.S. government pursuing an interventionist foreign policy, in favor of civil liberties and limits on executive power, and in favor of more relaxed immigration policies and for a more deregulated healthcare system.[7] The Cato Institute is named after Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that Cato's founders claim "helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution."[8] Its stated mission is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by seeking greater involvement of the "lay public in questions of public policy and the role of government."[8]

General philosophy: limit government

In the preamble to its 2006 annual report, Cato's President and CEO, Edward H. Crane and Chairman, William A. Niskanen, argue for a limited role of government. "The list of reasons why it is not smart to turn to government to solve social and economic problems is, if not endless, extensive. Yet, despite a truly horrendous record over the decades, the politicians of both major parties reflexively assume that the state is the proper vehicle for solving problems," they wrote. Crane and Niskanen describe Cato as embodying a "classical liberal/libertarian philosophy."[9]

Other positions advocated by Cato scholars include immigration reform, an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reduced military spending, enhanced civil liberties, drug legalization, and equal rights for gays and lesbians.[citation needed]

Ideological, but nonpartisan

Cato's work has a strongly ideological flavor, but the institute has not consistently aligned itself with either major political party. Although the Institute has close ties with elements of the Republican Party, it has often been critical of Republican officeholders—especially President Bush—in recent years. Cato scholars criticized the 2003 decision by U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq, prosecution of the war on drugs, giving federal money to faith-based organizations, and the decision of President George H.W. Bush to fight the first Gulf war. The Cato Institute has argued repeatedly against the Republican party on spending issues. [10][11][12][13] Democratic politicians have likewise received criticism from Cato scholars. For example, President Obama's stimulus legislation and his health care law have received strong criticism from Cato scholars. [14] Cato scholars have also criticized President Obama for escalating the war in Afghanistan and for continuing Bush-era civil liberties abuses. [15]

Support for Social Security Privatization

The Cato Institute has been a long-time advocate of Social Security privatization. A chief early architect of Cato's thinking on private accounts was Peter J. Ferrara. The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote in February 2005: "The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the Social Security proposal is a major victory for the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the existing Social Security system, a politically sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling for privatization of the system. The article argued that companies that stand to profit from privatization -- 'the banks, insurance companies and other institutions that will gain' -- had to be brought into alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.'"[16]

By early 2005, business groups such as the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers and political groups like Progress for America were devoting millions of dollars to the campaign to get rid of the existing Social Security program. It is worth noting that the website SocialSecurity.org is run by the Cato Institute, under the heading Project on Social Security Choice.

Cato & Civil Liberties - criticised Bush administration

Cato has characterized the Bush administration's encroachments on individual rights as being the actions of an "intrusive federal government."[7] A little over a month after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the Cato Institute republished an adapted version of an article by Charlotte Twight cautioning against proposals by then Attorney-General Ashcroft for greater government surveillance powers.[17] (The original article had been published in 1999 by The Independent Institute.) (Twight, a professor of economics at Boise State University, also had a column on the potential erosion of civil liberties also re-published by Cato in March the following year).[18]

In the months after the September 11 attacks, Cato scholars wrote several articles criticizing the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties. [19] [20] [21] Timothy Lynch, the director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, testified before Congress in December 2001 in opposition to an executive order signed by Pres. Bush on government detention of suspected terrorists. A few months later, Lynch cautioned that "to assuage the wide-spread anxiety of the populace, policymakers make the dubious claim that they can prevent terrorism by curtailing the privacy and civil liberties of the people."[22] Cato scholars gave particular attention to the case of Jose Padilla.[23][24] Proposals by the Bush administration for the Terrorism Information and Prevention System, which aimed to recruit volunteers willing to monitor their neighborhood, also drew a rebuke.[25]

On the eve of the first anniversary of September 11 attacks, Lynch wrote that "on the home front ... President Bush has been doing a poor job of defending freedom. Based upon the official actions he has taken, Bush seems to think that the only part of the Constitution that really matters is the section spelling out presidential powers."[26]

Cato scholars continued to write regularly about the civil liberties issues in the following years. Major reports on the erosion of civil liberties by the Bush administration was published in June 2002, [27], December 2003,[28], and June 2005.[29] Cato scholars also penned numerous op-eds defending civil liberties against encroachments by the Bush administration during this period. For example, senior fellow Robert A. Levy penned 10 op-eds criticizing the Bush administration's conduct of the War on Terrorism in the first two years after the September 11 attacks. [30]

Cato authors seem to have become more voluble on civil liberties issues the more September 11 receded and the more tangible the attacks on individual rights became. Robert Levy, Timothy Lynch, Edward H. Crane, William A. Niskanen[31] and Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.[32] had railed against the Bush administration for its civil liberties record on, for example, the Padilla case, military tribunals, national ID cards, the creeping militarization of domestic law enforcement, border patrol, the drug war, grand jury abuse, the PATRIOT Act, federal surveillance of ordinary Americans, operation TIPS, and mandatory vaccinations against potential bioterror threats.[33]

Perhaps the most comprehensive response was the May 2006 report by Lynch and Cato senior editor Gene Healy on the Bush administration's abuse of power.[34] The same year Cato director of information policy studies Jim Harper did a study, along with Jeff Jonas, criticizing the Bush administration's civil liberties record.[35] A study by Cato staffer Radley Balko attacked the militarized "no knock" raids that often victimize low-income, minority individuals.[36]

ACLU collaboration

Cato has also collaborated on occasion with the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, Nadine Strossen. president contributed a chapter to a 2000 book on President Clinton's civil liberties record,[37] and she delivered the B. Kenneth Simon Lecture at Cato's 2005 Constitution Day event, a speech that was subsequently turned into the lead essay in Cato's Supreme Court Review.[38]

Some writings endorsed Bush's restrictions

Cato scholars have not been unanimous in their defense of civil liberties. Roger Pilon has endorsed some Bush administration's moves to restrict civil liberties as part of the war on terror, sparking disagreement from other Cato scholars. Indeed, the Institute sponsored a rare debate[39] on the Bush administration's domestic wiretapping program, with Cato senior fellow Robert Levy representing the traditional libertarian stance in favor of civil liberties.

Libertarian on gay marriage and sexual privacy

The Cato Institute's libertarian roots have been apparent in their research in other areas, as well. A 2006 study on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have outlawed gay marriage, was titled "Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic."[40] A Cato amicus brief was cited by the Supreme Court when it struck down sodomy laws in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.[41]

Cato & Marijuana - pro-legalization

Cato staffers and scholars have called for legalization of currently controlled substances, on the grounds that the War on Drugs does not work, is expensive, causes crime, is used as an excuse to reduce civil liberties and to pursue overly aggressive policies abroad, and infringes on the principle of personal liberty. [42] The Cato Handbook, which typically represents a consensus view that the Institute as a whole wants to put its political weight behind, suggests that "Congress should repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, repeal the federal mandatory minimum sentences and the mandatory sentencing guidelines, direct the administration not to interfere with the implementation of state initiatives that allow for the medical use of marijuana, and shut down the Drug Enforcement Administration." [43] In its 2006 Annual Report, the Cato Institute lists the Marijuana Policy Project as a foundation funder, though the amount and purpose of the funding is unspecified.[44]

Cato and the tobacco industry - on Philip Morris, RJR "friends" lists

The Cato Institute appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook," and in a less-specific list of "National Allies" dated 2000. [45][46]

R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in a September 2000 document also names Cato Institute as an organization the company could rely upon to help the tobacco industry "shift the debate and framework under which cigarette-related issues are evaluated in the future." In the document, titled "Reframing the Debate Communications Plan," RJR states, "Work with CATO Institute ... to empanel a group to debate legality and future management of cigarette industry. Open forum to media (pitch C- SPAN coverage); issue press release and transcript of remarks to media not in attendance." A subsequent part of the plan says RJR could help sustain public interest in their points of view by encouraging Cato Institute to send [pro-tobacco] columns to the national media.[47]

Against cigarette taxes

Cato scholars have also raised a number of objections to cigarette taxes. Such taxes are frequently justified by the claim that smokers impose unfairly high costs on society, but in a January 10, 1998 commentary published in the Chicago Tribune titled "Smokers Actually Pay their Way," Peter Van Doren, Assistant Director of Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, pointed out that smokers' premature deaths actually save taxpayers money, calling into question the fairness of imposing ever-higher tobacco taxes on them. Van Doren also pointed out that high tobacco taxes are highly regressive, noting that smokers tend to be disproportionately poor and minority.[48]

Robert A. Levy, an independently wealthy businessman who became a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in his 50s,[49] has published numerous editorials criticizing higher tobacco taxes, lawsuits against the Tobacco Institute, and other anti-smoking policies. In one 1999 piece written with Cato fellow Rosalind B. Marimont and published in the Cato magazine Regulation, Levy acknowledged that smoking was a serious health problem but argued that the common estimates of 400,000 smoking-related deaths each year exaggerated the magnitude of the problem.[50] In another 1999 piece published in the Wall Street Journal, Levy decried the Clinton administration's Department of Justice lawsuit against tobacco companies to recoup the federal government's cost for treating sick smokers.[51]

Cato has also criticized the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that 46 U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[52] For example, Levy argued that the 1998 MSA, which he argues effectively created a government-run tobacco cartel for the benefit of large tobacco companies, crated a situation in which tobacco companies no longer need worry about new competitors pushing down tobacco prices.[53] He pointed out that the four largest tobacco companies have managed to maintain a 96 percent market share despite the costs of the settlement, and called the agreement a "sweetheart deal" between state attorneys general and the tobacco industry.

Against restaurant smoking bans

Cato staffer Radley Balko testified before the Washington D.C. City Council in opposition to clean indoor air laws, arguing that smoking restrictions infringe on the liberty of business owners to decide what policies they wish to adopt for their restaurants, and the freedom of smokers. In his testimony, Balko claimed that "the health risks associated with secondhand smoke are debatable." Balko argued that employees worried about the impact of smoking on their health should work elsewhere: "A waiter or bartender who chooses to work for an establishment that allows smoking knows what kind of environment he'll be working in," he stated. As for non-smokers rights, Balko argued that "you don't have the right to walk onto someone else's property, demand to be served food or drink someone else has bought, and demand that they serve you on your terms. Free societies don't work that way," he stated. [54] In his testimony, Balko did not disclose that the Cato Institute received funding from both R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris.[55]

Immigration - pro-liberalization

Cato staff have angered some conservative activists by strongly advocating the liberalization of immigration laws.[56][57] The Cato Handbook calls for expanded immigration quotas and new visa programs for low-skilled as well as high-skilled workers, and for allowing more refugees to enter.[58] The handbook speaks approvingly of a policy of "immigration yes, welfare no" that resolves the tension between low-skilled immigration and the welfare state not by keeping immigrants out, but by letting them in and making them "ineligible for public assistance." It also characterizes the issues of "immigrant welfare use" as "often overstated."[58]

Call for elimination of ballot referendum "donor disclosure" requirements

In March 2007, Cato, along with the Institute for Justice, called for eliminating disclosure requirements for those who contribute funds in support or opposition of ballot measures. One of the primary reasons the two groups cited was the high costs associated with disclosure requirements. At the time, these requirements were already weaker than those required for contributions to a candidate’s political campaign.[59][60]

BISC: Cato's anti-disclosure position is pro-powerful, anti-people

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, an advocacy group in support of ballot initiatives to reach progressive political and policy goals, believe that donor disclosure protects both the voters and the process of direct democracy from secret money and hidden goals. In response to Cato’s position, Kristina Wilfore, the group’s executive director, stated “The problem with being a front group for corporate fat cats like Exxon, Enron, and Howie Rich, is that you are always a little out-of-touch with the public…CATO aligning itself with more corruption in political giving is taking the side of the powerful against the people – and they call themselves libertarian?��� [59][61]

Board member Howard Rich's "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" TABOR initiative

(where should this go?) Howie Rich, a real estate investor and Cato Board Member, had helped to sponsor sixteen different ballot initiatives in 2006. His major effort was the so-called “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” or TABOR, which Rich attempted to place on the ballot in eight states. Courts in five of the states ultimately stripped TABOR from the ballot for numerous reasons, including what one Montana judge called a “pervasive and general pattern of fraud” by Rich and others in their campaign to pass the referendum.[59][62]

Cato and Water Policy - Deregulate water use

The Cato Institute claims that deregulation of water use will more effectively reduce scarcity than will government management. Jerry Taylor, the Director of Natural Resource Studies at Cato, alleges that water shortages are indeed "the product of government mismanagement," and should therefore be regulated through the market. Terry argues that government regulation of water has kept water prices "artificially low -- about half the price of delivery on a national basis -- with over-consumption the inevitable result." [63] If water use was instead treated as a property right, it would create incentives for those holding the rights to use them efficiently, and then transfer the excess to others at a profit. Cato claims that the market regulation of water use that will develop if water rights are treated as property rights will lead to much greater efficiency and fewer problems with water scarcity. Critics point out that this market based approach to water policy concentrates the rights to use water in the hands of a few powerful people, who become even more powerful by controlling the public's use of something as essential as water. Privatization of water could also lead to corruption and loss of local authority. [64]

Cato and Climate Change - amplify contrarian findings

Fellows include contrarian Pat Michaels

Patrick Michaels, a former Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and an outspoken global warming skeptic. On its website, Michaels is listed as Cato's only speaker on global warming. (Three others are also listed in the "Energy and Environment" category -- Jerry Taylor on "gas and oil prices, energy policy, energy conservation and regulation", Peter Van Doren and on "energy regulation, gas and oil prices" and Randal O'Toole on broader environmental policies.)[65] Pat Michaels represented the Cato Institute as a reviewer on Working Group III of the fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC[66]

Michaels's consultancy: NHES, unmentioned on Cato bio

Michaels is Editor of the World Climate Report, a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm"[67] he founded and runs. Michaels's biographical note on the Cato Institute website does not mention his role with New Hope Environmental Services.[68]

Consultancy's mission: publicize contrarianism

In an affidavit in a Vermont court case, Michaels described the "mission" of the firm as being to "publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary."[69] In effect, New Hope Environmental Services is a PR firm. Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are[70], but in 2006 a leaked memo revealed that Michaels firm had been paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), to counter concern about global warming.[71] An affadavit by Michaels also stated that "public disclosure of a company's funding of New Hope and its employees has already caused considerable financial loss to New Hope. For example, in 2006 Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity."[69]

On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker at events organized by leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.[72]

In 2009, Bob Burton noted that "in its returns, Cato reports that since April 2006 they have paid $242,900 for the 'environmental policy' services of Michaels' firm. (In preceding years, New Hope Environmental Services was not listed amongst the five highest paid independent contractors supplying professional services to Cato.) In response to an email inquiry, Michaels stated that the Cato funding "largely supported the extensive background research for my 2009 book, 'Climate of Extremes,' background research on climate change, mainly in the areas of ice melt and temperature histories, and background research required for invited lectures around the world." (Climate of Extremes was published by the Cato Institute in January of this year [2009].) Asked whether the funding came from a specific company, donor or foundation, Michaels wrote via email that there wasn't "for this or for any of my activities." (In case the Cato Institute knew of dedicated funding sources for Michaels work that he was unaware of, I also emailed an inquiry to the think tank's media office. They did not respond.)"[73]

Funding of Cato

Cato is a non-profit group established under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and states on its website Cato states that "in order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding."[74] According to its 2006 annual report, which cover the year to the end of March 2007, the Cato Institute had 2006 expenses of approximately $19.4 million and revenue of $20.4 million. (Expenses, the report states, "have not been finalized as of the annual report’s printing.")[75] The report notes that 74% of Cato's income that year came from individual contributions, 15% from foundations, 3% from corporations, and 8% from "programs and other income" (e.g., publication sales, program fees). (It is worth nothing that some of the foundations are corporate foundations).

Supporters of Cato

In its 2006 Annual report, Cato lists its major corporate, foundation and individual financial supporters. However, it does not list the amount or the purpose of corporate or foundation contributions.[76] (See also Cato Institute financial data.)

In their 1996 book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. "Early on," they wrote, "Cato's bills were largely paid by the Koch family of Wichita, Kansas. Today, most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."[77] Though diversified, Koch Industries amassed most of its fortune in oil trading and refining. [78]

Corporate sponsors

In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters:

By 2008, Cato's corporate support had fallen dramatically, to $187,000, about 1 percent of the institute's revenue for the year. Corporate supporters in 2008 were:

Some positions go against some corporations

Cato's corporate fund raising may be hampered by its scholars' tendency to take positions that are at odds with some of the interests of some large corporations. Cato has published numerous studies criticizing what it calls "corporate welfare," the practice of funneling taxpayer money to politically well-connected corporate interests.[79][80][81][82][83][84][85] For example, in 2002, Cato president Ed Crane and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope teamed up to write an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for the abandonment of the Republican energy bill, arguing that it had become little more than a gravy train for Washington lobbyists.[86] And in 2005, Cato staff Jerry Taylor teamed up with Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club to attack the Republican Energy Bill as a give-away to corporate interests.[87]

Foundation support

The Cato Institute has been supported by:

In its 2006 annual report, Cato listed that it had received funding from 72 foundations during the year, amounting to $3,113,000 or 15% of total income.[88] (See Cato Institute/2006 Foundation Funders for more detail).

Cato funds 25+ "like-minded" think tanks

Aside from its own advocacy efforts, the Cato Institute has become a substantial funder of other "like-minded" think tanks around the U.S. In its 2006 annual report Cato lists 26 organizations and one individual it provided grants totaling $1,243,00 to. Groups the benefited from Cato's generosity were Agencia Americana ($30,000 "to help fund study on S.A. corruption"); the Philanthropy Roundtable ($5,000); the Manhattan Institute ($5,000); the American Enterprise Institute ($5,000); the Fund for American Studies ($10,000); the Bluegrass Institute ($50,000); the Cascade Policy Institute ($25,000); the Ethan Allen Institute ($50,000); the Evergreen Freedom Foundation ($100,000); the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii ($40,000); the Illinois Policy Institute ($50,000); the James Madison Institute ($100,000); the John Locke Foundation ($20,000); the Maine Heritage Policy Center ($50,000); the Maryland Public Policy Institute ($40,000); the Nevada Policy Research Institute ($50,000); the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs ($50,000); the Rio Grande Foundation ($50,000); the Show-Me Institute ($50,000); the South Carolina Policy Council ($90,000); the Sutherland Institute ($40,000); the Tennessee Center for Policy Research ($50,000); the Texas Public Policy Foundation ($100,000); the Virginia Institute for Public Policy ($25,000); the Yankee Institute ($68,000); and the Independent Institute ($60,000). In addition Jim Powell received $25,000 as a Hoiles Fellowship.[89] (note, the Cato annual report refers to the "South Carolina Policy Institute" when the correct name of the think tank is the "South Carolina Policy Council". Similarly, the Maryland Public Policy Institute was misidentified as the Maryland Public Policy Center.)

Personnel

Board of Directors

Former board members

Former board members include:[90]

Notable members in the media

Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller, are fellows at the Cato Institute and the hosts of the Showtime network television show Penn and Teller: Bullshit!. Penn Jillette is an H.L. Menken Research Fellow and writes the "Final Word" column for Regulation magazine. A profile of Penn on the Cato Institute website describes it as a program that "looks to debunk junk science, scares and scams with reason and logic." [91]

Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch previously served on the board of directors of Cato.

Andrei Illiarnov is a senior fellow,and Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow, Health and Welfare. Ted Carpenter is Vice President Defense and Foreign Policy [92]

Contact Information

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20001-5403

Phone (202) 842-0200

Fax (202) 842-3490

Website: http://www.cato.org/

Articles & sources

Related Sourcewatch articles

External resources

Search the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco IndustrySearch the Documents Archives of the Tobacco Industry
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library:

References

  1. ↑ Nonprofit Report: Cato Institute, Guidestar, accessed February 2008.
  2. ↑ Climate Change Reality. Cato Institute (2009-03). Retrieved on 2011-10-30.
  3. ↑ Andrew Revkin (2009-03-25). Cato's Climate Ad Campaign. Dot Earth (NYTimes.com). Retrieved on 2011-10-30.
  4. ↑ (group) (2009-03-24). With all due respect…. RealClimate. Retrieved on 2011-10-30. ��t...a classic red-herring: Ignore the facts you don’t dispute, pick some others that are ambiguous and imply that, because they are subject to some debate, we therefore know nothing. Michaels (and Cato) presumably thinks this kind of nonsense is politically useful and he may be correct. But should he claim it is scientifically defensible, we would have to answer: “With all due respect, Dr. Michaels, that is not true.””
  5. ↑ Cato Celebrates Its 25th Anniversary, Cato Institute, May 2002
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Jane Mayer (2010-09-30). The Billionaire Koch Brothers’ War Against Obama. The New Yorker. Retrieved on 2011-10-30. “When President Obama, in a 2008 speech, described the science on global warming as “beyond dispute,” the Cato Institute took out a full-page ad in the Times to contradict him. Cato’s resident scholars have relentlessly criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive, ineffective, and unnecessary. Ed Crane, the Cato Institute’s founder and president, told me that “global-warming theories give the government more control of the economy.” Cato scholars have been particularly energetic in promoting the Climategate scandal.”
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Cato Institute, "Programs", Guidestar, accessed February 2008.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Cato Institute, "About Cato", undated, accessed January 2008.
  9. ↑ Edward H. Crane and William A. Niskanen, "Message from the President and Chairman", in Cato Institute, 2006 Annual Report, pages 2-3.
  10. ↑ William A. Niskanen, "A Case for Divided Government", Cato.org, May 7, 2003.
  11. ↑ Veronique de Rugy, "The Republican Spending Explosion", Briefing Paper No. 87, March 3, 2004.
  12. ↑ Michael D. Tanner, *Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservativism Brought Down the Republican Revolution*, Cato Institute, February 2007. ISBN 1933995009 and ISBN 978-1933995007.
  13. ↑ Stephen Slivinski, "The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders", Policy Analysis no. 543, May 3, 2005.
  14. ↑ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9901
  15. ↑ http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/wiretapping-internet
  16. ↑ Thomas B. Edsall, Conservatives Join Forces for Bush Plans: Social Security, Tort Limits Spur Alliance", Washington Post, February 13, 2005; Page A04.
  17. ��� Charlotte Twight, Watching You: Systematic Federal Surveillance of Ordinary Americans," Briefing Paper no. 69, October 17, 2001.
  18. ↑ Charlotte Twight, "It's Not Just About Terrorists", The Record (Bergen County, NJ), March 7, 2002.
  19. ↑ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3834
  20. ��� http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8241
  21. ↑ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6329
  22. ↑ Timothy Lynch, Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting Terrorism, Policy Analysis no. 443, June 26, 2002.
  23. ↑ Ted Galen Carpenter, "Protecting Liberty in a Permanent War", The Washington Times, June 25, 2002.
  24. ↑ Robert A. Levy, "Citizen Padilla: Dangerous Precedents", National Review Online, June 24, 2002.
  25. ↑ Robert A. Levy, "United We Stand, but We'll Snoop Divided", Los Angeles Times, July 22, 2002.
  26. ↑ Timothy Lynch, "Hanging on to liberty in a post-Sept.11 world", The Argus, September 10, 2002.
  27. ↑ Timothy Lynch, Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting Terrorism, Policy Analysis no. 443, June 26, 2002.
  28. ��� Gene Healy, Deployed in the U.S.A.: The Creeping Militarization of the Home Front, Policy Analysis no. 503, December 17, 2003.
  29. �� Melanie Scarborough, The Security Pretext: An Examination of the Growth of Federal Police Agencies, Briefing Paper no. 94, June 29, 2005.
  30. ↑ http://www.cato.org/people/pub_list.php?auth_id=225&pub_list=3
  31. ↑ Edward H. Crane and William A. Niskanen, "Upholding Liberty in America", Financial Times, June 24, 2003.
  32. ↑ Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., "Protecting Privacy in the Database Nation", Detroit News, June 22, 2003.
  33. ↑ "U.S. National Security and Foreign Policy > Terrorism and Homeland Security", Cato Institute, accessed February 2008. (This is an archive of articles by Cato personnel on the topic).
  34. ↑ "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush", Cato Institute, May 1, 2006.
  35. ↑ Jeff Jonas and Jim Harper, "Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining", Cato Institute, Policy Analysis no. 584, December 11, 2006.
  36. ↑ Radley Balko, "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America", Cato Institute, July 17, 2006.
  37. ↑ Roger Pilon (ed)The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton: How President Clinton seriously undermined the cornerstone of American democracy -- the rule of law.", Cato Institute, October 2000.
  38. ↑ "Legal Scholars Deplore Setbacks for Federalism", Cato Institute, November/ December, 2005.
  39. ↑ "Cato Scholars Square Off Resolved: The Bush NSA Surveillance Program Is Illegal", Cato Institute, May 5, 2006.
  40. ↑ Dale Carpenter, *The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic*, Policy Analysis no. 570, June 1, 2006.
  41. ↑ "Lawrence Vs Texas: (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded", Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2003.
  42. ↑ James Ostrowski, "Thinking about Drug Legalization", Policy Analysis 121 [1]
  43. ↑ Cato Policy Handbook, 6th ed., Ch. 24. [2]
  44. ↑ Cato Institute, 2006 Annual Report, page 47.
  45. ↑ Philip Morris Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook Index List. October 19, 1999. Philip Morris Bates No. 2080355491/5613
  46. ↑ Philip Morris National Allies List. February, 2000. 2 pp. Bates No. 2077285645/5646
  47. ↑ R.J. Reynolds Reframing the Debate Communications Plan Report/email. September 26, 2000. Bates No. 528985216/5223
  48. ↑ Peter Van Doren, "Smokers Actually Pay Their Way", Unknown newspaper, January 10, 1998. Bates 2074058288.
  49. ↑ Paul Duggan, "Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns", Washington Post, March 18, 2007; Page A01.
  50. ↑ Robert A. Levy and Rosalind Marimont, "Lies, Damn Lies & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths", Regulation, Volume 21, Number 4, 1998. Bates 106039821/9827.
  51. ↑ R.A. Levy, Clinton's Illegal Assault on the Tobacco Industry", Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1999. Bates 106039481.
  52. ↑ Thomas C. O'Brien, "Constitutional and Antitrust Violations of the Multistate Tobacco Settlement", Cato Policy Analysis, No. 371, May 18, 2000.(O'Brien is assistant general counsel to Corning Incorporated.)
  53. ↑ Robert A. Levy, "Tobacco Cartel: Alive and Well", cato Institute, May 11, 2001.
  54. ↑ Radley Balko, "Testimony of Radley Balko, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, before the District of Columbia City Council", District of Columbia City Council, June 14, 2005.
  55. ↑ Radley Balko, "Testimony of Radley Balko, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, before the District of Columbia City Council", District of Columbia City Council, June 14, 2005.
  56. ↑ Daniel Griswold, "Willing Workers: Fixing the Problem of Illegal Mexican Migration to the United States", Trade Policy Analysis, No. 19, October 15, 2002.
  57. ↑ Daniel T. Griswold, "America Needs Real Immigration Reform", Cato Institute, May 18, 2006.
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 "Chapter 65: Immigration", Cato Policy Handbook], 6th ed.
  59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 59.2 "CATO Launches Politically Motivated Assault on Ballot Measure Donor Disclosure System," Cato, March 29, 2007.
  60. ↑ Dick M. Carpenter, *Disclosure Costs: Unintended Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform*, Institute of Justice, March 2007.
  61. ↑ " Money Talks" Ballot Initiative Spending in 2004, Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, May 2006. (This report reviews the money spent to influence ballot measure campaigns).
  62. ↑ Elizabeth Garrett and Daniel A. Smith, "Veiled Political Actors and Campaign Disclosure Laws in Direct Democracy", Election Law Journal, Volume 4, Number 4, 2005. (This report reviews the various methods used by major donors to disguise their interest in policy outcomes.)
  63. ↑ Jerry Taylor, "Drought? Brownouts? Blame the Government" The Cato Institute, August 1999.
  64. ↑ "Water Privatization Overview" Public Citizen website, accessed May 2009.
  65. ↑ "Search for Speakers by Topic: Energy and Environment", Cato Institute website, accessed January 2010.
  66. �� "[3]"
  67. ↑ "New Hope Environmental Services", New Hope Environmental Services website, accessed May 2009.
  68. ↑ "Patrick J. Michaels: Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies", Cato Institute website, accessed January 2010.
  69. ↑ 69.0 69.1 Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, "Affidavit of Dr. Patrick J. Michaels", United States District Court for the District of Vermont, Green Mountain Chrysler et al. v. Crombie et al., Docket No. 02:05-CV-302, July 6, 2007.(Pdf)
  70. ↑ "New Hope Environmental Services" New Hope Environmental Services website, accessed January 2010.
  71. ↑ Stanley Lewandowski Jr., Intermountain Rural Electric Association memo, July 17, 2006.
  72. ↑ "Patrick Michaels CV Plain Text File-Climate Change Guide/Skeptics and Contrarians", Society of Environmental Journalists, accessed May 2009.
  73. �� Bob Burton, "The Cato Institute's Generous Funding of Patrick Michaels", PR Watch, May 24, 2009.
  74. ↑ "About Cato", undated, accessed January 2008.
  75. ↑ Cato Institute, Annual Report 2006, page 46.
  76. ↑ Cato Institute, Annual Report 2006, page 47.
  77. ↑ Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado, No Mercy: How Conservative Think Tanks and Foundations Changed America's Social Agenda, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1996, page 69.
  78. ↑ Koch Industries, Inc. Company Description, Hoovers, accessed July 2009
  79. ↑ James Bovard, "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare", Cato Policy Analysis No. 241, September 26, 1995.
  80. ↑ Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel, "Ending Corporate Welfare As We Know It", Cato Policy Analysis, No. 225, May 12, 1995.
  81. ↑ T. J. Rodgers, "Silicon Valley Versus Corporate Welfare", Briefing Paper No. 37, April 27, 1998.
  82. �� William D. Hartung, "Corporate Welfare for Weapons Makers: The Hidden Costs of Spending on Defense and Foreign Aid", Policy Analysis no. 350, August 12, 1999.
  83. ↑ Dean Stansel and Stephen Moore, "Federal Aid to Dependent Corporations: Clinton and Congress Fail to Eliminate Business Subsidies", Briefing Paper no. 28, May 1, 1997.
  84. ↑ Stephen Slivinski, "The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever", Policy Analysis, No. 415, October 10, 2001.
  85. ↑ Navin Nayak and Jerry Taylor, "No Corporate Welfare for Nuclear Power", Cato.org, June 21, 2003.
  86. ��� http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4090
  87. ↑ Jerry Taylor and Daniel Becker, "Energy Bill Blues", Washington Times, July 30, 2005.
  88. ↑ Cato Institute, Annual Report 2006, page 46.
  89. ↑ Cato Institute, 2006 Annual Report, pages 19-23.
  90. ↑ Ackerman, Forstmann, and Malone Join Cato's Board. Cato (1995). Retrieved on 2011-08-05. “Ackerman, Forstmann, and Malone Join Cato's Board Business leaders Peter Ackerman, Theodore J. Forstmann, and John Malone are the newest members of the Cato Institute's Board of Directors.”
  91. ↑ Penn Jillette, H.L. Mencken Research Fellow, Cato Institute, accessed March 2009
  92. ↑ "[4]"

Other Cato Websites

External articles

This article may include information from Tobacco Documents Online.

==

wiki:

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. Founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Murray Rothbard, Ed Crane and Charles Koch.[6] In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute.[6][7] According to the 2011 Global Go To Think Tank Index, Cato is the 6th most influential US based think tank, ranking 3rd in Economic Policy and 2nd in Social Policy.[8]

The Institute's stated mission is "to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."[9]

Cato scholars were critical of George W. Bush's Republican administration (2001–2009) on several issues, including the Iraq War,[10] civil liberties,[11] education,[12] agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending.[13] On other issues, most notably health care,[14] Social Security,[15][16] global warming,[17] tax policy,[18] and immigration,[19][20][21][22][23] they supported Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.[24][25][26][27]

Cato has criticized President Obama's stances on policy issues since his inauguration, such as fiscal stimulus, healthcare reform, foreign policy, and the War on Drugs,[28][29][30][31] while supporting his stance on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell[32] and liberal immigration policy.[33]

Contents

History

Cato Institute building in Washington, D.C.

The Institute was founded in December 1974 in Wichita, Kansas and initially funded by Charles G. Koch. It changed its name to the Cato Institute in July 1976.[6][34][35] Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard was a core member of Cato's founding group and coined the institute's name. Rothbard served on its board until leaving in 1981 after disagreements with Ed Crane.

The Institute is named after Cato's Letters, a series of British essays penned in the early 18th century by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon expounding the political views of philosopher John Locke, that had a strong influence on the American Revolution's intellectual environment.[36][37] The essays were named after Cato the Younger, the defender of republican institutions in Rome.

Cato relocated first to San Francisco, California in 1977, then to Washington, D.C. in 1981, settling initially in a historic house on Capitol Hill.[38] The Institute moved to its current location on Massachusetts Avenue in 1993. Cato Institute was named the fifth-ranked think tank in the world for 2009 in a study of think tanks by James G. McGann, PhD of the University of Pennsylvania, based on a criterion of excellence in "producing rigorous and relevant research, publications and programs in one or more substantive areas of research".[39]

Publications

The Cato Institute publishes numerous policy studies, briefing papers, periodicals, and books. Its periodicals include Cato's Letter, Cato Journal, Regulation, Cato Supreme Court Review, and Cato Policy Report. The Cato Journal[40][41] and Regulation[42][43] are peer-reviewed academic journals.

Some of Cato's books include Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction, In Defense of Global Capitalism, Voucher Wars, You Can't Say That!: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws, Peace and Freedom: A Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic, and Reclaiming the Mainstream: Individualist Feminism Reconsidered.[44][45] Cato scholars also write books that are published by outside publishers, such as Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz (Free Press), The Age of Abundance by Brink Lindsey (HarperBusiness), and Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy Barnett (Princeton University Press).

Cato published Inquiry Magazine from 1977 to 1982 (before transferring it to the Libertarian Review Foundation), and Literature of Liberty from 1978 to 1979 (before transferring it to the Institute for Humane Studies, where it was ended in 1982). They also had a monograph series called "Cato Papers" that ran 16 volumes from 1979 to 1980.

Ideological relationships

Conservatism

In the years following the Republican Revolution of '94, the Cato Institute was often seen by those with an interest in politics as a standard-bearer of the U.S. conservative political movement[citation needed]. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, credited with reshaping and rejuvenating the Republican Party, and key contributors to the late-20th century conservative movement, were heavily influenced by libertarian ideals[citation needed]. However, the Cato Institute officially resists being labeled as part of the conservative movement because "conservative smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo".[46]

Cato scholars were critical of the expansion of executive power under President George W. Bush[47] and the Iraq War.[48] In 2006 and 2007, Cato published two books critical of the Republican Party's perceived abandonment of the limited-government ideals that swept them into power in 1994.[49][50] For their part, only a minority of Republican congressmen supported President George W. Bush's 2005 proposal to partially privatize Social Security, an idea strongly backed by the Institute. And in the 109th Congress, President Bush's immigration plan – which was based on a proposal by Cato scholar Dan Griswold[51] �� went down to defeat largely due to the eventual opposition of conservative Republican congressmen.[52]

Cato scholars tend to disagree with conservatives on drug liberalization,[30] liberal immigration policy,[33] energy policy,[53] and LGBT rights[54] - including the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.[32] Cato President Ed Crane has a particular dislike for neoconservatism. In a 2003 article with Cato Chairman Emeritus William A. Niskanen, he called neoconservatism a "particular threat to liberty perhaps greater than the ideologically spent ideas of left-liberalism."[55] As far back as 1995, Crane wrote that neoconservatives "have a fundamentally benign view of the state," which Crane considers antithetical to libertarian ideals of individual freedom.[56] Cato's foreign policy team have frequently criticized neoconservative foreign policy,[57] albeit the opposition to neo-conservative foreign policy has not always been uniform.[58]

Liberalism

Cato's scholars also advocate positions that are appealing to many on the left side of the American political spectrum, including support for civil liberties, liberal immigration policies,[33] equal rights for gays and lesbians,[32][54] and drug liberalization.[30] An early example of this effort was the launching of Inquiry Magazine, which was aimed at liberals who shared libertarians' skepticism about concentrated state power.

More recently, in 2006, Markos Moulitsas proposed the term libertarian Democrat to describe his liberal particular position, suggesting that libertarians should be allies of the Democratic Party. Replying, Cato vice president for research Brink Lindsey agreed that libertarians and liberals should view each other as natural ideological allies,[59] but noted continuing differences between mainstream liberal views on economic policy and Cato's "Jeffersonian philosophy." Cato has stated on its "About Cato" page:

The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.[60]

However, there remain significant differences between liberalism and libertarianism on issues such as taxes, gun ownership, and school choice. As a consequence, the Cato Institute has criticized a number of decisions made by President Obama, just as it had regularly criticized decisions made by former President Bush.

Objectivism

Main article: Libertarianism and Objectivism

Relations between the Cato Institute and Objectivist organizations have been strained. Ayn Rand scorned the nascent libertarian movement[61] and her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, has followed her lead, refusing to associate with libertarian organizations, Cato included. Other Objectivist organizations, notably The Atlas Society, have been friendlier. Ed Crane has emphasized that Objectivists and other libertarians are natural allies, and encouraged Objectivists to become more involved in the libertarian movement. Cato Institute leaders have worked for years to improve relations between Objectivists and libertarians.[62] Cato's new head John A. Allison IV is reported to be an "ardent devotee" of Rand who has promoted reading her books to colleges nationwide.[63]

Web projects

In addition to maintaining its own website in English and a version in Spanish, the Cato Institute also maintains some other websites:

Cato positions on current political issues

Following its mission statement, Cato scholars advocate policies that advance "individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace". They are libertarian in their policy positions, typically advocating diminished government intervention in domestic, social, and economic policies and decreased military and political intervention worldwide. Cato was cited by columnist Ezra Klein as nonpartisan, saying that it is “the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life" and it "advocates those principles when Democrats are in power, and when Republicans are in power".[64]

Specific policy proposals advanced by Cato scholars include such measures as abolishing the minimum wage,[65] reforming policies on illegal drugs,[66] eliminating corporate welfare and trade barriers,[67] diminishing federal government involvement in the marketplace,[68] and in local and state issues,[69] enhanced school choice,[70] abolishing affirmative action,[71] and abolishing restrictions on discrimination by private parties.[72] Eric Lichtblau thinks Cato is presently "one of the country’s most widely cited research organizations".[73]

On foreign policy and civil liberties

Cato's non-interventionist foreign policy views, and strong support for civil liberties, have frequently led Cato scholars to criticize those in power, both Republican and Democratic. Cato scholars opposed President George H. W. Bush's 1991 Gulf War operations (a position which caused the organization to lose nearly $1 million in funding),[74] President Bill Clinton's interventions in Haiti and Kosovo, and President George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. As a response to the September 11 attacks, Cato scholars supported the removal of al Qaeda and the Taliban regime from power, but are against an indefinite and open-ended military occupation of Afghanistan.[75]

Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, criticized many of the arguments offered to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. One of the war's earliest critics, Carpenter wrote in January 2002: "Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."[76] Carpenter also predicted: "Most notably there is the issue posed by two persistent regional secession movements: the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south."[76] Cato's Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Christopher Preble, argues in The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free, that America's position as an unrivaled superpower tempts policymakers to constantly overreach and to redefine ever more broadly the "national interest".[77]

On other domestic issues

Cato has published strong criticisms of the 1998 settlement that many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[78] Among other laissez-faire policies, Cato scholars have argued for allowing immigrants to work in the U.S.[19]

The Cato Institute published a study proposing a Balanced Budget Veto Amendment to the United States Constitution.[79]

In 2003, Cato filed an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the few remaining state laws that made private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal. Cato cited the 14th Amendment, among other things, as the source of their support for the ruling. The amicus brief was cited in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion for the Court.[80]

In 2006, Cato published a Policy Analysis criticising the Federal Marriage Amendment as unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic.[81] The amendment would have changed the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage; the amendment failed in both houses of Congress.

Cato scholars have been sharp critics of current U.S. drug policy[66] and the perceived growing militarization of U.S. law enforcement.[82] Additionally, the Cato Institute opposes smoking bans[83] and mandatory use of safety belts.[84]

Criticism of corporate welfare

In 2004, the Institute published a paper arguing in favor of "drug re-importation."[85] A 2006 study attacked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.[86] Cato has published numerous studies criticizing what it calls "corporate welfare", the practice of public officials funneling taxpayer money, usually via targeted budgetary spending, to politically connected corporate interests.[87][88][89][90]

In another example Cato president Ed Crane and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope co-wrote a 2002 op-ed piece in the Washington Post calling for the abandonment of the Republican energy bill, arguing that it had become little more than a gravy train for Washington, D.C. lobbyists.[91] Again in 2005, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor teamed up with Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club to attack the Republican Energy Bill as a give-away to corporate interests.[92]

On environmental policy

Cato scholars have written extensively about the issues of the environment, including global warming, environmental regulation, and energy policy. The Cato Institute lists "Energy and the Environment" as one of its 13 major "research issues",[93] and global warming is one of six sub-topics under this heading.[94] The Institute has issued over two dozen studies on energy and environmental topics in recent years, which is on par with Cato's other research areas.[95]

Some groups[who?] have criticized Cato's work on global warming.[96] Cato has held a number of briefings on global warming with global warming skeptics as panelists. In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy. Michaels, Balling and Christy agree that global warming is, in fact, related at least some degree to anthropogenic activity but that some scientists and the media have overstated the danger. The Cato Institute has also criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive and ineffective:

No known mechanism can stop global warming in the near term. International agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, would have no detectable effect on average temperature within any reasonable policy time frame (i.e., 50 years or so), even with full compliance.[17]

In response to the Worldwatch Institute Report in May 2003[clarification needed] that linked climate change and severe weather events, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor said:

It's false. There is absolutely no evidence that extreme weather events are on the increase. None. The argument that more and more dollar damages accrue is a reflection of the greater amount of wealth we've created.[this ^quote ^needs ^a citation]

Three out of five "Doubters of Global Warming" interviewed by PBS's Frontline were funded by, or had some other institutional connection with, the Institute.[97] Cato has often criticized Al Gore's stances on the issue of global warming and agreed with the Bush administration's skeptical attitude toward the Kyoto protocols.

Cato scholars have also been critical of the Bush administration's views on energy policy. In 2003, Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren blasted the Republican Energy Bill as "hundreds of pages of corporate welfare, symbolic gestures, empty promises, and pork-barrel projects".[98] They also spoke out against the former president's calls for larger ethanol subsidies.[99]

Funding and structure

The Cato Institute is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The Institute performs no contract research and does not accept government funding. For revenue, the Institute is largely dependent on private contributions.

According to its annual report, the Cato Institute had fiscal year 2008 income of $24 million. The report notes that 77% of Cato's income that year came from individual contributions, 13% from foundations, 2% from corporations, and 8% from "program and other income" (e.g., publication sales, program fees).[100]

Shareholder dispute

There have been four shareholders of the Cato Institute. As of March 2012 they were Charles and David H. Koch, president Edward H. Crane,[101] and Kathryn Washburn, the widow of former Chairman Emeritus (and shareholder) William A. Niskanen.[102] In March 2012, a dispute broke out over the ownership of Niskanen's share.[101][102] When Niskanen died, Charles and David Koch filed suit in Kansas, seeking to void his shareholder seat. Crane contended that Niskanen's share belonged to Washburn and that the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into "some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.... It's detrimental to Cato, it's detrimental to Koch Industries, its detrimental to the libertarian movement."[73]

In June 2012, Cato announced an agreement in principle to settle the dispute by changing the institute's governing structure. Under the agreement, a board will replace the shareholders and Crane will retire to be replaced as Chief Executive Officer by former BB&T bank CEO John A. Allison IV.[103][104] The Koch brothers agreed to drop two lawsuits.[105]

Foundation support

In 2008 Cato received 13% of its support from foundations.[100] In 2010, Cato reported contributions by some 60 plus foundations[106] including:

Corporate support

In 2011 Cato received just under 2% of its support from corporations.[107] Corporations providing support in 2011[107] included some of the following:

Criticism of corporate support to Cato
This section requires expansion. (July 2012)

The advocacy group Americans for Nonsmokers Rights accused Cato of being too tied to tobacco industry corporate funders. They reported that Cato received funding from Philip Morris and other tobacco companies in the 1990s and that at one point Rupert Murdoch served on the boards of directors of both Cato and Philip Morris.[108]

Associates in the news

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winners at Cato

The following Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Honorees have worked with Cato:[113]

Milton Friedman Prize

Since 2002, the Cato Institute has awarded the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty every two years to "an individual who has made a significant contribution to advancing human freedom." The prize comes with a cash award of US$500,000.

Past Prize Winners| Year | Recipient | Nationality |

2002Peter Thomas Bauer[114] British
2004Hernando de Soto Polar[115] Peruvian
2006Mart Laar[116] Estonian
2008Yon Goicoechea[117] Venezuelan
2010Akbar Ganji[118] Iranian
2012Mao Yushi[119] Chinese

Board of directors

As of March 2012:[120]

List of scholars

See also

References

  1. ^ Kansas Secretary of State Business Entity Name Search for "Cato Foundation" gives entity no. 0385872, established in Kansas December 19, 1974.
  2. ^ "Cato's Mission". Cato Institute. Retrieved June 30, 2011.
  3. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-BoardofDirectors_2-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-BoardofDirectors_2-1) Cato Institute listing of Board of Directors, accessed September 6, 2012.
  4. ^ Cato Institute website profile of David Boaz, accessed September 6, 2012.
  5. ^ "Charity Navigator Rating - Cato Institute". Charity Navigator. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  6. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-cato_5-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-cato_5-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-cato_5-2) "25 years at the Cato Institute: The 2001 Annual Report". Retrieved July 10, 2009.
  7. ^ "Articles of Incorporation Charles Koch Foundation and Restated Articles of Incorporation". December 19, 1974 and April 30, 1994.. Retrieved March 20, 2012..
  8. ^ "Global Go To Think Tank Index, 2011". January 23, 2012. Retrieved July 12, 2012..[dead link]
  9. ^ "Cato's Mission". Retrieved September 2, 2011.
  10. ^ "General Strategy and U.S. Foreign Policy". Cato Institute. Retrieved December 16, 2010.
  11. ^ "Civil Liberties". Cato Institute. Retrieved December 16, 2010.
  12. ^ McCluskey, Neal. "Feds in the Classroom". Cato Institute.
  13. ^ "Downsizing the Federal Government". Retrieved December 16, 2010.
  14. ^ Cannon, Michael F (October 21, 2009). "Yes, Mr. President, A Free Market Can Fix Health Care". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  15. ^ Allen, Mike (January 23, 2005). "Semantics Shape Social Security Debate: Democrats Assail 'Crisis' While GOP Gives 'Privatization' a 'Personal' Twist". Washington Post: p.��A04.
  16. ^ Biggs, Andrew; Macguineas, Maya (January 6, 2003). "Cutting Corporate Welfare Could Fund a Bush Social Security Plan". CATO Institute.
  17. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-autogenerated1_16-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-autogenerated1_16-1) Michaels, Patrick J. "Global Warming". Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. p. 474. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  18. ^ Moore, Stephen; Kerpen, Phil (October 12, 2004). "Show Me the Money! Dividend Payouts after the Bush Tax Cut". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  19. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-ReferenceA_18-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-ReferenceA_18-1) Griswold, Daniel (December 7, 2004). "Immigration: Beyond the Barbed Wire". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  20. ^ Griswold, Daniel (May 18, 2006). "America Needs Real Immigration Reform". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  21. ^ Griswold, Daniel (April 1, 2004). "Securing Our Borders Under a Temporary Guest Worker Program". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  22. ^ Griswold, Daniel. "Illegal Immigration: Will Congress Finally Solve It?". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  23. ^ Griswold, Daniel. "Immigration Reform Must Include a Temporary Worker Program". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  24. ^ Samples, John (January 15, 2008). "McCain vs. Madison". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
  25. ^ Carpenter, Ted Galen. "John McCain on Foreign Policy: Even Worse Than Bush". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  26. ^ James, Sallie (April 22, 2008). "Hurting the Rich Important to Obama". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  27. ^ Wilkinson, Will. "Obama's Stale New Deal". Cato Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  28. ^ Mitchell, Dan. "Obama’s New Stimulus Schemes: Same Song, Umpteenth Verse". Cato @ Liberty. Retrieved 5 July 2012.
  29. ^ Healy, Gene. "Obamacare is Unconstitutional". Retrieved 5 July 2012.
  30. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-WarOnDrugs_29-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-WarOnDrugs_29-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-WarOnDrugs_29-2) Hidalgo, Juan Carlos. "Barack Obama: The Enthusiastic Drug Warrior". Retrieved 5 July 2012.
  31. ^ "Obama's War Without Policy in Libya". Retrieved 5 July 2012.
  32. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-DADT_31-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-DADT_31-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-DADT_31-2) Preble, Christopher. "Obama Right on "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"". Cato@Liberty. Retrieved 12 July 2012.
  33. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Immigration_32-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Immigration_32-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Immigration_32-2) Shapiro, Ilya. "One Cheer for Obama’s New Immigration Policy". Cato@Liberty. Retrieved 12 July 2012.
  34. ^ Zernike, Kate (October 19, 2010). "Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead". New York Times. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
  35. ^ "Articles of Incorporation Charles Koch Foundation and Restated Articles of Incorporation". December 19, 1974 and April 30, 1994.. Retrieved February 28, 2012..
  36. ^ Mitchell, Annie (July 2004). "A Liberal Republican "Cato"". American Journal of Political Science 48.
  37. ^ Rossiter, Clinton (1953). Seedtime of the Republic: the origin of the American tradition of political liberty. New York: Harcourt, Brace. pp. 141.. Renown historian Clinton Rossiter stated "no one can spend any time the newspapers, library inventories, and pamphlets of colonial America without realizing that Cato's Letters rather than John Locke's Civil Government was the most popular, quotable, esteemed source for political ideas in the colonial period."
  38. ^ Doherty, ibidem, p.446: "The Cato Institute had relocated itelf [sic] to Ronald Reagan's Washington in the early 1980s..."
  39. ^ "The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program 2009". University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  40. ^ Academic Search Complete: Journals & Magazines Only, EBSCO
  41. ^ ProQuest Database: ProQuest 5000 International, ProQuest
  42. ^ Business Source Complete: Journals & Magazines Only, EBSCO
  43. ^ ProQuest Database: ProQuest 5000 International, ProQuest
  44. ^ "Publications". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 12, 2007.
  45. ^ "Books". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 12, 2007.
  46. ^ "About Cato", Cato Institute
  47. ^ Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch, "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush", Cato Institute, May 1, 2006
  48. ^ Christopher Preble, "Exiting Iraq: Why the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against Al Qaeda", Cato Institute
  49. ^ Stephen Slivinski, *Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government*, August 2006
  50. ^ Michael D. Tanner, *Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution*, February 2007
  51. ^ Daniel Griswold, "Willing Workers: Fixing the Problem of Illegal Mexican Migration to the United States", Cato Institute, October 15, 2002
  52. ^ Jim VandeHei and Zachary A. Goldfarb, "Immigration Deal at Risk as House GOP Looks to Voters", Washington Post, May 28, 2006, p. A01
  53. ^ Griswold, Daniel (5 September 2008). "Bipartisan Nonsense on "Energy Independence" and Trade". Cato@Liberty. Retrieved 12 July 2012.
  54. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-LGBT_53-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-LGBT_53-1) Pilon, Roger. "Government Shouldn't Police Morals – or Sexual Practices". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  55. ^ Crane, Edward H.; and William A. Niskanen. "Upholding Liberty in America". Financial Times. June 24, 2003.
  56. ^ Crane, Edward H. "The Government Habit". Cato Policy Report. November/December 1995.
  57. ^ Preble, Christopher and Justin Logan. "Neocons Forced to Face Reality". July 26, 2004.
  58. ^ Lindsey, Brink. "Should We Invade Iraq?". Reason Magazine (January 2003). Reason Magazine. Retrieved 5 July 2012.
  59. ^ Lindsey, Brink. "Liberaltarians". December 4, 2006.
  60. ^ "Cato on "How to Label Cato"". The Cato Institute. Cato Institute. Archived from the original on August 22, 2007. Retrieved February 29, 2008.
  61. ^ "Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism", Ayn Rand Institute,
  62. ^ Robert James Bidinotto[dead link]
  63. ^ Jane Mayer, The Kochs v. Cato: Winners and Losers, The New Yorker, July 3, 2012.
  64. ^ Klein, Ezra (7 March 2012). "Why Do the Kochs Want to Kill the Cato Institute?". Bloomberg. Retrieved 12 July 2012.
  65. ^ William Niskanen, "House Faces the Dumbest Bill of the Year (So Far): A $2.10 Increase in the Minimum Wage", Cato@Libery, June 14, 2006
  66. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-drug_war_65-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-drug_war_65-1) "Drug War". Cato Institute.
  67. ^ "Budget and Taxes: Corporate Welfare", Cato Institute
  68. ^ "Regulatory Studies", Cato Institute
  69. ^ "Constitutional Issues: Federalism". Cato.org. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
  70. ^ "Education and Child Policy: School Choice". Cato Institute.
  71. ^ Gryphon, Marie. "The Affirmative Action Myth". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  72. ^ "Civil Rights", Cato Institute
  73. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Lichtblau_72-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Lichtblau_72-1) Lichtblau, Eric (March 6, 2012). "Cato Institute Is Caught in a Rift Over Its Direction". The New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
  74. ^ Doherty, Brian. Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, pg. 454
  75. ^ Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter (September 14, 2009). "Escaping the "Graveyard of Empires": A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  76. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-cato.org_75-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-cato.org_75-1) Carpenter, Ted Galen. "Overthrow Saddam? Be Careful What You Wish For". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  77. ^ Lozada, Carlos (May 3, 2009). "The Big Idea – The Power Problem". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
  78. ^ Thomas C. O'Brien, "Constitutional and Antitrust Violations of the Multistate Tobacco Settlement", Policy Analysis no. 371, Cato Institute, May 18, 2000
  79. ^ Anthony Hawks, "The Balanced Budget Veto: A New Mechanism to Limit Federal Spending", Policy Analysis no. 487, Cato Institute, September 4, 2003
  80. ^ "539 U.S. 558 LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS No. 02-102. Supreme Court of United". bulk.resource.org. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  81. ^ Carpenter, Dale (June 1, 2006). "The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  82. ^ Radley Balko (July 17, 2006). "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America". Cato Institute.
  83. ^ Lambert, Thomas A. "The Case Against Smoking Bans". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2010.
  84. ^ Yale Brozen: The High Cost of Government Regulation, in: Toward Liberty: The Idea that is Changing the World, ed. by David Boaz, Cato Institute, 2002, p. 131
  85. ^ "Drug Reimportation: The Free Market Solution", Policy Analysis no. 521, Cato Institute, August 4, 2004
  86. ^ Gigi Sohn, "A Welcome Voice on the Right", Public Knowledge, March 21, 2006
  87. ^ James Bovard, "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare", Policy Analysis no. 241, September 26, 1995
  88. ^ Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel, "Ending Corporate Welfare As We Know It", Policy Analysis no. 225, May 12, 1995
  89. ^ Stephen Slivinski, "The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever", Policy Analysis no. 415, October 10, 2001
  90. ^ Stephen Slivinski, "The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses", Policy Analysis no. 592, May 14, 2007
  91. ^ Edward H. Crane and Carl Pope, "Fueled by Pork", July 30, 2002
  92. ^ Jerry Taylor and Daniel Becker, "Energy Bill Blues", July 2, 2005
  93. ^ "The Cato Institute Page on Energy and the Environment". Cato Institute. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  94. ^ "The Cato Institute Official web site page on Global Warming". Cato Institute. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  95. ^ "Energy and Environment". Cato Institute (2008). Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  96. ^ "On *The Big Story*, Cato Institute fellow falsely asserted that IPCC findings contradict Gore's 'beyond shrill' claim". Media Matters. March 22, 2007.
  97. ^ "The Doubters of Global Warming". Frontline. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  98. ^ Taylor, Jerry; Peter Van Doren (November 19, 2003). "Mighty Porking Power Rangers: Scanning the energy bill". National Review Online. Retrieved May 27, 2008.
  99. ^ Taylor, Jerry; Peter Van Doren (January 27, 2007). "Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier". Chicago Sun-Times.
  100. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-2007_report_99-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-2007_report_99-1) Cato Institute *2007 Annual Report*, p. 46 (Figures are for fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.)
  101. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Cato_owners_100-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Cato_owners_100-1) *Koch Brothers File Lawsuit Over The Ownership Of the Cato Institute*, March 1, 2012 01:41 pm ET, AP via The Huffington Post, Retrieved March 1, 2012
  102. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Niskanen_widow_101-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-Niskanen_widow_101-1) *Kochs launch court fight over Cato*, Mike Allen, POLITICO, March 1, 2012 9:48 am EST, Retrieved March 1, 2012
  103. ^ Yadron, Danny (June 25, 2012). "Koch Brothers, Cato Institute Settle Dispute". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 25, 2012.
  104. ^ Cato Institute and Shareholders Reach Agreement in Principle, Cato Institute press release, June 25, 2012.
  105. ^ Lichtblau, Eric (June 25, 2012). "Cato Institute and Koch Brothers Reach Agreement". The New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  106. ^ 2010 Cato Fndn Annual Report p. 37. Retrieved August 5, 2011.
  107. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-2011_report_106-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#cite_ref-2011_report_106-1) "Cato Institute: 2011 Annual Report". Retrieved July 5, 2012.
  108. ^ Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, August 2004
  109. ^ "*Hudson v. Michigan*: Cato Expert Says Court is Wrong on "No-Knock" Police Raids", Cato Institute press release, June 15, 2006
  110. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (November 12, 2007). "Supreme Court May Take Gun Case – New York Times". The New York Times. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
  111. ^ Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, "The Ideas Industry", Washington Post, October 12, 1999, p. A17
  112. ^ Herald Tibune article. Accessed February 14, 2008.
  113. ^ "Nobel Laureates at Cato".
  114. ^ "Peter Bauer, 86; Economist Fought Foreign Aid". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. May 19, 2002. Retrieved December 23, 2010.
  115. ^ Konrad, Rachel (May 6, 2004). "Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto receives Friedman Prize". Associated Press. Retrieved December 23, 2010
  116. ^ "Mart Laar Receives Milton Friedman Prize". Cato Policy Report (Cato Institute). July/August 2006. Retrieved December 23, 2010.
  117. ^ "Student wins $500,000 for challenging Chavez". Associated Press. MSNBC. April 23, 2008.
  118. ^ "Iranian writer Akbar Ganji wins Milton Friedman Prize". Arabianbusiness.com. April 13, 2010. Retrieved April 14, 2010.
  119. ^ 联合早报网 (2012 [last update]). "茅��轼获美国傅利���自由奖". realtime.zaobao.com. Retrieved April 21, 2012.
  120. ^ "Board of Directors". Cato Institute. Retrieved March 6, 2012.
  121. ^ "Robert A. Levy". Cato Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2010.

External links

Critiques

===

jmayer nyt:

In 1977, the Kochs provided the funds to launch the nation’s first libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute. According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1986 and 1993 the Koch family gave eleven million dollars to the institute. Today, Cato has more than a hundred full-time employees, and its experts and policy papers are widely quoted and respected by the mainstream media. It describes itself as nonpartisan, and its scholars have at times been critical of both parties. But it has consistently pushed for corporate tax cuts, reductions in social services, and laissez-faire environmental policies.

When President Obama, in a 2008 speech, described the science on global warming as “beyond dispute,” the Cato Institute took out a full-page ad in the Times to contradict him. Cato’s resident scholars have relentlessly criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive, ineffective, and unnecessary. Ed Crane, the Cato Institute’s founder and president, told me that “global-warming theories give the government more control of the economy.”

Cato scholars have been particularly energetic in promoting the Climategate scandal. Last year, private e-mails of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, in England, were mysteriously leaked, and their exchanges appeared to suggest a willingness to falsify data in order to buttress the idea that global warming is real. In the two weeks after the e-mails went public, one Cato scholar gave more than twenty media interviews trumpeting the alleged scandal. But five independent inquiries have since exonerated the researchers, and nothing was found in their e-mails or data to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming.

===

Edward H. Crane is the President and CEO of the Cato Institute, a Washington D.C.-headquartered libertarian think tank which he founded. In 2006 Crane was paid $124,491 in total renumeration by the think tank.[1]

A biographical note states that he "was at the forefront of promoting personal accounts in lieu of the current Social Security system, and was one of the first national leaders of the term limits movement. Crane is the coeditor of several books, publisher of Regulation magazine, serves on the Board of U.S. Term Limits, and is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society. He is a chartered financial analyst and former vice president at Alliance Capital Management Corp. Crane's writing has been published in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times and Forbes. He has been interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition and Talk of the Nation, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, and other media. Crane holds an MBA from the University of Southern California."[2]

Contents[hide]

Articles and Resources

Sources

  1. ↑ Cato Institute, 2006 Annual Report, page 26.
  2. ↑ "Edward H. Crane: Founder and President", Cato Institute, accessed March 2008.
  3. ↑ Donors and Sponsors, Free Africa Foundation, accessed June 26, 2009.

Related SourceWatch Articles

External links

===

th frank:

Besides, the reign of corruption has taken plenty of right-wing scalps, too. In fact, one of the most interesting comments on the machinery that is making us stupid came from the libertarian Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, after he had temporarily lost his job (he got it back a little while later, don’t worry) for puffing clients of Jack Abramoff in exchange for the lobbyist’s largesse. But what was the big deal? fumed Bandow in a 2006 cri de coeur called “The Lesson Jack Abramoff Taught Me.” Living in Washington was expensive; and besides, everyone was basically on the take:

Many supposedly “objective” thinkers and “independent” scholar/experts these days have blogs or consulting gigs, or they are starting nonprofit Centers for the Study of . . . Who funds their books, speeches or other endeavors? Often it’s those with an interest in the outcome of a related debate. The number of folks underwriting the pursuit of pure knowledge can be counted on one hand, if not one finger.

Doug Bandow was a syndicated columnist with Copley News Service and a senior fellow of the Cato Institute. Following revelations that he had accepted payments from lobbyist Jack Abramoff he resigned from Cato and was suspended from Copley News Service. In late December 2005 it was announced that he had accepted an appointment as vice president of policy at Citizen Outreach. [1]

| Contents[hide] <ul><li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#Background"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Background</span></font></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#Books"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Books</span></font></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#SourceWatch_Resources"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">SourceWatch Resources</span></font></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#External_links"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">External links</span></a>

</font><ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#Biographical_notes_and_archives_of_articles_by_Bandow"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">4.1</span> <span class="toctext">Biographical notes and archives of articles by Bandow</span></font></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#Articles_about_Bandow"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">4.2</span> <span class="toctext">Articles about Bandow</span></font></a></li>

</ul>> </li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#Resources_and_articles"><span class="tocnumber">5</span> <span class="toctext">Resources and articles</span></a>

</font><ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#Related_Sourcewatch_articles"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">5.1</span> <span class="toctext">Related Sourcewatch articles</span></font></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow#References"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">5.2</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></font></a></li>

</ul>> </li></ul> |

Background

Prior to Copley terminating the synidcation of his column Bandow's column was carried by numerous major newspapers. He has also written for magazines such as Fortune. Bandow also speaks regularly in front of students and business groups and frequently appeared as a radio and television commentator.[2]

A former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, he served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. However, he has become a vocal critic of President George W. Bush, calling on him to "apologize to Americans" for his policies in Iraq. Bandow is a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

Bandow is also a member of the Board of Scholars of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.

In December 2005 Businessweek revealed Bandow had "accepted money from Abramoff for writing between 12 and 24 articles over a period of years, beginning in the mid '90s." The articles - for which Bandow was paid up to $2,000 a piece - reflected the interests of Abramoff's clients. [3]

The New York Times reported that Abramoff's clients included the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. "In one column in 2001, Mr. Bandow extolled the free-market system that had allowed the Marianas to thrive, saying that fighting terrorism was no excuse for "economic meddling" - the same position that Mr. Abramoff was being paid to advance," Anne E. Kornblut and Philip Shenon wrote. [4]

In a 1997 column Bandow wrote of the Choctaws gambling interests that "there's certainly no evidence that Indian gambling operations harm the local community." [5]

Books

  • Doug Bandow (coeditor), Perpetuating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World, 1993.
  • Doug Bandow, The Politics of Envy: Statism as Theology, 1994,
  • Doug Bandow, Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World, 1996.
  • Doug Bandow, Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics, Crossway Books, August, 1988, ISBN 0891074988
  • David L. Schindler and Doug Bandow (Editors), Wealth, Poverty, and Human Destiny, ISI Books, August 2003, ISBN 1882926838
  • Ted Galen Carpenter and Doug Bandow, The Korean Conundrum : America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea, Palgrave Macmillan, December 2004, ISBN 1403965455

SourceWatch Resources

External links

Biographical notes and archives of articles by Bandow

Articles about Bandow

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles

References

  1. ↑ Advisory Board, American Council for Kosovo, accessed August 10, 2008.
  2. ↑ Who's Involved, Save Iraqi Christians, accessed August 10, 2008.
  3. ↑ Experts, Campaign for New American Policy on Iran, accessed September 16, 2008.

Categories: Think tanks/personnel | Payola

===

major promulgator of climategate

��

sw; The Cato Institute is a non-partisan libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute states that it favors policies "that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace." [1] Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues, and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media.

Cato was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and Charles Koch, [2] the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries; the largest privately owned company in the United States. Though diversified, the company amassed most of its fortune in oil trading and refining. [3]...

Cato and Climate Change

Patrick Michaels, a former Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and an outspoken global warming skeptic. On its website, Michaels is listed as Cato's only speaker on global warming. (Three others are also listed in the "Energy and Environment" category -- Jerry Taylor on "gas and oil prices, energy policy, energy conservation and regulation", Peter Van Doren and on "energy regulation, gas and oil prices" and Randal O'Toole on broader environmental policies.)[62]

Michaels is Editor of the World Climate Report, a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm"[63] he founded and runs. (Michaels biographical note on the Cato Institute website does not mention his role with New Hope Environmental Services).[64]

In an affidavit in a Vermont court case, Michaels described the "mission" of the firm as being to "publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary."[65] In effect, New Hope Environmental Services is a PR firm. Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are[66], but in 2006 a leaked memo revealed that Michaels firm had been paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), to counter concern about global warming.[67] An affadavit by Michaels also stated that "public disclosure of a company's funding of New Hope and its employees has already caused considerable financial loss to New Hope. For example, in 2006 Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity."[65]

On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker at events organized by leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.[68]

In 2009, Bob Burton noted that "in its returns, Cato reports that since April 2006 they have paid $242,900 for the 'environmental policy' services of Michaels' firm. (In preceding years, New Hope Environmental Services was not listed amongst the five highest paid independent contractors supplying professional services to Cato.) In response to an email inquiry, Michaels stated that the Cato funding "largely supported the extensive background research for my 2009 book, 'Climate of Extremes,' background research on climate change, mainly in the areas of ice melt and temperature histories, and background research required for invited lectures around the world." (Climate of Extremes was published by the Cato Institute in January of this year [2009].) Asked whether the funding came from a specific company, donor or foundation, Michaels wrote via email that there wasn't "for this or for any of my activities." (In case the Cato Institute knew of dedicated funding sources for Michaels work that he was unaware of, I also emailed an inquiry to the think tank's media office. They did not respond.)"[69]...

Cato and Water Policy

The Cato Institute claims that deregulation of water use will more effectively reduce scarcity than will government management. Jerry Taylor, the Director of Natural Resource Studies at Cato, alleges that water shortages are indeed "the product of government mismanagement," and should therefore be regulated through the market. Terry argues that government regulation of water has kept water prices "artificially low -- about half the price of delivery on a national basis -- with over-consumption the inevitable result." [60] If water use was instead treated as a property right, it would create incentives for those holding the rights to use them efficiently, and then transfer the excess to others at a profit. Cato claims that the market regulation of water use that will develop if water rights are treated as property rights will lead to much greater efficiency and fewer problems with water scarcity. Critics point out that this market based approach to water policy concentrates the rights to use water in the hands of a few powerful people, who become even more powerful by controlling the public's use of something as essential as water. Privatization of water could also lead to corruption and loss of local authority. [61]...

...

Cato and the tobacco industry

The Cato Institute appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook," and in a less-specific list of "National Allies" dated 2000. [42][43]

R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in a September 2000 document also names Cato Institute as an organization the company could rely upon to help the tobacco industry "shift the debate and framework under which cigarette-related issues are evaluated in the future." In the document, titled "Reframing the Debate Communications Plan," RJR states, "Work with CATO Institute ... to empanel a group to debate legality and future management of cigarette industry. Open forum to media (pitch C- SPAN coverage); issue press release and transcript of remarks to media not in attendance." A subsequent part of the plan says RJR could help sustain public interest in their points of view by encouraging Cato Institute to send [pro-tobacco] columns to the national media.[44]

Cato scholars have also raised a number of objections to cigarette taxes. Such taxes are frequently justified by the claim that smokers impose unfairly high costs on society, but in a January 10, 1998 commentary published in the Chicago Tribune titled "Smokers Actually Pay their Way," Peter Van Doren, Assistant Director of Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, pointed out that smokers' premature deaths actually save taxpayers money, calling into question the fairness of imposing ever-higher tobacco taxes on them. Van Doren also pointed out that high tobacco taxes are highly regressive, noting that smokers tend to be disproportionately poor and minority.[45]

Robert A. Levy, an independently wealthy businessman who became a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in his 50s,[46] has published numerous editorials criticizing higher tobacco taxes, lawsuits against the Tobacco Institute, and other anti-smoking policies. In one 1999 piece written with Cato fellow Rosalind B. Marimont and published in the Cato magazine Regulation, Levy acknowledged that smoking was a serious health problem but argued that the common estimates of 400,000 smoking-related deaths each year exaggerated the magnitude of the problem.[47] In another 1999 piece published in the Wall Street Journal, Levy decried the Clinton administration's Department of Justice lawsuit against tobacco companies to recoup the federal government's cost for treating sick smokers.[48]

Cato has also criticized the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that 46 U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[49]...

   * Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation)

   * Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation

   * Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation

   * Earhart Foundation

   * JM Foundation

   * John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

   * Koch Family Foundations

   * Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

   * Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

Am Petrol Inst, Walmart, exxon rjr etc etc

it also funds AEI, Manhatt etc

Cato Institute?- US$1,028,400 received from Koch foundations 2005-2008 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2008: US$5,278,400].?The Cato Institute focuses on disputing the science behind global warming and questioning the rationale for taking action. GPeace

Besides the generous support of the Koch family, Cato also gets funding from Altria (Philip Morris), FedEx, R.J. Reynolds, Volkswagon, and Wal-Mart.

koch nyer mayer

In 1977, the Kochs provided the funds to launch the nation’s first libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute. According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1986 and 1993 the Koch family gave eleven million dollars to the institute. Today, Cato has more than a hundred full-time employees, and its experts and policy papers are widely quoted and respected by the mainstream media. It describes itself as nonpartisan, and its scholars have at times been critical of both parties. But it has consistently pushed for corporate tax cuts, reductions in social services, and laissez-faire environmental policies.

When President Obama, in a 2008 speech, described the science on global warming as “beyond dispute,” the Cato Institute took out a full-page ad in the Times to contradict him. Cato’s resident scholars have relentlessly criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive, ineffective, and unnecessary. Ed Crane, the Cato Institute’s founder and president, told me that “global-warming theories give the government more control of the economy.”

Cato scholars have been particularly energetic in promoting the Climategate scandal. Last year, private e-mails of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, in England, were mysteriously leaked, and their exchanges appeared to suggest a willingness to falsify data in order to buttress the idea that global warming is real. In the two weeks after the e-mails went public, one Cato scholar gave more than twenty media interviews trumpeting the alleged scandal. But five independent inquiries have since exonerated the researchers, and nothing was found in their e-mails or data to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming.

Nevertheless, the controversy succeeded in spreading skepticism about climate change. Even though the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently issued a report concluding that the evidence for global warming is unequivocal, more Americans are convinced than at any time since 1997 that scientists have exaggerated the seriousness of global warming. The Kochs promote this statistic on their company���s Web site but do not mention the role that their funding has played in fostering such doubt.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true#ixzz0xjieE4AN

http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#

It began as a fairly straightforward story about a shareholder lawsuit: The Koch brothers, Charles and David, who together own 50 percent of the libertarian Cato Institute, filed suit to recover a 25 percent stake held by longtime chairman William Niskanen, who died last autumn and whose widow has yet to relinquish those shares.

Cato’s shareholder’s agreement is “pretty clear,” according to legal writer Alison Frankel shareholders cannot sell or transfer their shares without first offering them back to the Institute and then to the remaining Cato shareholders. But there’s one legal ambiguity: Cato’s shareholder agreement “doesn’t specifically address what happens when a shareholder dies.”

What started as a rather arcane legal dispute between the Koch brothers and their longtime lieutenant, Cato president Ed Crane, quickly transformed into a PR-manufactured Washington melodrama: the famed and revered (in some quarters) Cato Institute has turned against its Dr. Frankenstein, Charles Koch, attacking its maker with the full range of PR-weaponry that has served Cato effectively over these past four decades. The same pundits who only yesterday fell over themselves defending the billionaire Koch brothers as principled libertarians now denounce their benefactors as venal Republican Party warmongers out to crush the Cato Institute’s “nonpartisan” “independent” “scholarship” for the crime of being, yes, principled libertarians.

It would all be good for a laugh, if the spin hadn’t succeeded in conning the media and confusing the public, even roping in some well-meaning progressives like Common Cause, who defended Cato’s “independence.”

But in order for progressives and others to make an honest and practical assessment about the Cato Institute and its battle with the Kochs, we need to first set the record straight about some of the claims being spun.

Cato Claim #1: The Cato Institute was one of the earliest and most principled critics of the Bush Administration’s wars abroad and attacks on civil liberties at home (here and here).

Fact: The Cato Institute’s actual record during the Bush administration years was anything but principled and far from heroic.

John Yoo, author of the notorious “torture memo,” served on the Cato editorial board for Cato Supreme Court Review during the Bush presidency. At the same time, Yoo was writing the Bush administration’s legal justifications for waterboarding, Guantánamo, warrantless wiretapping and more. Yoo also contributed articles to Cato Supreme Court Review and a chapter to a Cato book titled The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton criticizing President Clinton’s “imperial presidency.”

The “Cato Policy Report” attacked progressive critics of Bush’s “War on Terror” as “Terrorism’s Fellow Travelers“ in its November/December 2001 issue. Former Vice President of Research Brink Lindsey wrote, “Most of the America haters flushed out by September 11 are huddled on the left wing of the conventional political spectrum.”

Another Cato executive, Ted Galen Carpenter, former VP for defense and foreign policy studies, enthusiastically supported Bush’s “war on terror” and called on Bush to invade Pakistan.

The Cato Institute advised the 2002–04 Republican-dominated Congress to commence military strikes in Pakistan in its Cato Handbook for Congress arguing, “Ultimately, Afghanistan becomes less important as a place to conduct military operations in the war on terrorism and more important as a place from which to launch military operations. And those operations should be directed across the border into neighboring Pakistan.”

Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush’s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato’s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute’s “Center for Constitutional Studies,” supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.

While it’s true that compared to other pro-Republican think-tanks, Cato did have periods when it was critical of Bush’s wars and attacks on civil liberties, those attacks weren’t consistent and showed every sign of being subordinated to the Cato Institute’s political demands. The most obvious example of this came in 2005, when Cato suddenly called a halt to its growing criticisms of Bush’s “war on terror” and fired one of its most ardent anti-interventionists (another resigned), sparking a backlash from some prominent non-Cato libertarians like antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo, who wrote: “Now that the majority of Americans have turned against this war, the Cato bigwigs are lining up with the neoconservatives who want to ‘stay the course.’” In 2006, with Bush’s presidency in tatters, Cato restarted its criticism in earnest.

Cato Claim #2: The Cato Institute is independent of the Republican Party establishment and often as much in opposition to the GOP as to the Democrats.

Fact: In reality, the Cato Institute has been one of the leading Republican Party policy and propaganda factories since at least the early 1990s.

In 1995, the *LA Times* described the Cato Institute as the Republican revolution’s favorite hangout, “the hottest think tank in town. On any given day, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas might be visiting for lunch. Or Cato staffers might be plotting strategy with House Majority Leader Dick Armey, another Texan, and his staff. Cato’s constitutional law briefs cross the desks of conservative Supreme Court justices and their clerks.”

In 2005, a Washington Post article observed, “Nowadays, Cato alumni are everywhere in the Bush administration.” Among Cato figures in the Bush administration named in the article: Andrew Biggs, Derrick Max, Charles Blahous, Leanne Abdnor and Carolyn Weaver, who helped launch Cato’s war on Social Security back in 1979.

President Bush’s high-priority Social Security privatization plan was all thanks to lobbying by Cato president Ed Crane and Cato executive José Piñera, a former Pinochet official who heads Cato’s Social Security privatization project.

Cato Claim #3: The Kochs are staging an unprecedented GOP takeover of the Cato Institute by staffing it with Republican Party operatives and backers (here and here).

Fact: The Cato Institute’s board of directors and staff have always been stacked with Republican Party supporters, donors and operatives.

Rupert Murdoch was a Cato board member, serving at least through the early 2000s. When Murdoch first joined Cato’s board, Ed Crane hailed the News Corp chief as “a strong advocate of the free market and a committed civil libertarian.”

So was Murdoch’s longtime US partner, John C. Malone of Liberty Media, whom Al Gore once reportedly called the Darth Vader of cable. Malone is a major GOP donorand the largest private landowner in the United States.

Stephen Moore, longtime Dick Armey sidekick and author of the 2004 hagiography Bullish on Bush: How George W. Bush’s Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger, was director of Cato’s Fiscal Policy Studies and remains a senior fellow.

Other major GOP sponsors on the Cato board before the Kochs’ recent “coup” include K. Tucker Andersen, Howard Rich (funder of the term-limits movement) and Ethelmae C. Humphreys, who along with her son has “doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates.”

Republican operatives in Cato are numerous and include former Phil Gramm staffer and Bush HUD deputy assistant secretary Mark Calabria, director of Cato’s Financial Regulation Studies; and former Senate Republican Policy Committee analyst Michael Cannon, director of Cato’s health policy studies and adviser to Florida Republican Governor Rick Scott. Cannon’s “independent scholarship” includes his famous November 2008 Cato blog post: Blocking Obama’s Health Plan Is Key to the GOP’s Survival. That’s before Obama took office.

Cato Claim #4: Cato’s employees are “independent” scholars free from the corrupting influence of “special interests.”

Fact: The Cato Institute is one of the leading manufacturers of toxic corporate propaganda, cynically undermining science and scholarship to serve the interests of tobacco companies, oil and gas, chemicals, health insurance, financial industry and other Cato donors. 

Cato chairman Robert Levy, who today accuses the Kochs of turning Cato into “a mouthpiece of special interests,” once faithfully served the tobacco industry as a leading tobacco-death denialist. In his article, “Lies, Damn Lies & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths”, Levy claimed, “children do not die of tobacco-related diseases” and “there is no credible evidence that 400,000 deaths per year—or any number remotely close to 400,000—are caused by tobacco.” (In fact, tobacco use kills more than 5 million people a year worldwide.)

Greenpeace labeled Cato a “Koch Industries climate denial front group” that is “focused on disputing the science behind global warming and questioning the rationale for taking action.” Among Cato’s anti-science propagandists: Patrick J. Michaels, called “a serial deleter of inconvenient facts” by ThinkProgress and Steven Milloy, a onetime Cato adjunct scholar on the payroll of Philip Morris, oil companies and others.

Philip Morris listed Cato VP David Boaz as one of its “National Allies;” in a 2000 memo.

In 2001, a British-American Tobacco executive sent a thank-you letter to Levy and the Cato Institute, noting: “I was also pleased to learn after our meeting that our subsidiary company, Brown & Williamson, provided the Cato Institute with funding in 2000.”

So there you have it: a brief look at the Cato Institute’s factual record, which reads nothing at all like the heroic fairytales spun by Cato and its allies about its principled opposition to the Bush Administration’s imperial presidency, or its opposition to the Republican Party, or whatever else Cato’s minions tell us to win our hearts rather than our minds.

In fact, it’s hard to know what, if anything, to believe about Cato—PR and spin are so ingrained in their thinking and their breathing, one wonders if Cato’s own flaks can tell the difference themselves between reality and spin. Lately, they seem to have a hard time keeping track of their numerous and rather careless flip-flops, particularly when it comes to how they characterize their longtime benefactors, the brothers Koch. Most of the same libertarians who attacked the Kochs as unprincipled GOP usurpers of the Cato Institute only yesterday defended the same Kochs as principled patrons of purist libertarian scholarship.

Last October, David Boaz, Ed Crane’s number two in Cato, defended the Koch brothers as principled libertarians under attack for “opposing a president who supports fiscal irresponsibility, the Patriot Act, the war on drugs, and secret wars.” Five months later, Boaz darkly warned that the very same Koch brothers posed a “direct threat to the independence, nonpartisanship and libertarianism of the Cato Institute.”

Slate’s David Weigel—a libertarian graduate of the Kochs’ Reason magazine and the Kochs’ Institute for Humane Studies—defended the Kochs last year during the Wisconsin protests against Scott Walker: “How did the Kochs become the villains of Madison?” Weigel asked. “They have, for decades, bankrolled libertarian think tanks and programs, and they help put on conferences where conservative ideas are spread. Among the ideas they end up spreading are drug legalization and opposition to the Patriot Act.” And last May, during the uproar over a donation by the Charles G. Koch Foundation—with strings attached—to Florida State University’s economics department, Weigel defended the billionaires by way of sneering: “The Koch pushback continues, as non-controversial donation after non-controversial donation is blown up into a controversy—a byproduct of the brothers’ new fame.”

Skip a few months, and the Koch brothers circa 2012 are suddenly, implausibly, the very antithesis of the Koch brothers circa-2011: “If the Kochs win control of his shares, and the Koch-skeptics bolt, a much-less-credible Cato Institute will never be so rude to the Republican Party.” Now, non-controversial donations are suddenly controversial—without explanation. Weigel never explains to his readers why owning 75 percent instead of 50 percent of Cato will turn the Koch brothers from last summer’s principled libertarians into this spring’s evil GOP neocons. His substitution of one unsupported message with its antithesis is confusing—to put it as kindly as possible.

Julian Sanchez is another Cato flip-flopper. Shortly after Jane Mayer’s article on the Kochs appeared in The New Yorker, Sanchez rushed to their defense: “as someone who’s directly or indirectly benefited from Koch largess for most of my adult life—the Koch Fellowship as a student; gigs at Koch-funded Reasonand Cato—I’d expect folks to be justly skeptical of anything favorable I might write about them. …The idea that they’ve poured a hundred million and change into funding libertarian think tanks, advocacy groups, and educational programs over the years in order to line their own pockets or boost the corporate bottom line seems kind of bizarre.”

That was autumn 2010, when the Kochs were still dreamy libertarians. A year and a half later, Sanchez is full of righteous indignation against those same, but now-unprincipled, Koch brothers: “I hereby tender my pre-resignation from Cato, effective if and when the Kochs take command. I’ll be sad to go, if it comes to that, but sadder to see a proud institution lose its autonomy.”

Without explaining his flip-flop, it’s hard to take Sanchez’s “presignation” announcement as little more than a PR stunt.

The more you get to know the real Cato Institute, the more you see a rank, powerful right-wing corporate front group deeply woven into the Republican Party machinery, as unprincipled and cynical in its relentless service of the 1 percent’s interests as it is hostile to the progressive cause.

Ask Naomi Klein. In 2008, the Cato Institute unleashed a full-frontal PR attack on Klein in the form of a twenty-page brochure denouncing and belittling The Shock Doctrine, which offended Cato because it took on two of the think tank’s golden calves: Milton Friedman and Augusto Pinochet, whose onetime labor minister, José Piñera, has been working for Cato since 1995 trying to strip Americans of their Social Security. The Cato attack against The Shock Doctrine was petty, bizarre and remarkably shallow even by PR hack standards—at one point, the Cato brochure attacked Klein for hosting blurbs by fiction writers on the jacket of The Shock Doctrine and implied that those blurbs were evidence that the book was itself fiction.

Klein was left understandably bewildered: “The greatest challenge in responding to the Cato paper is the scope of its dishonesty,” she wrote.

More recently, since the killing of Trayvon Martin, the Cato Institute has been one of the staunchest defenders of the “Stand Your Ground ”laws.

Remember that when you see Cato flaks squaring off against their onetime sugar daddies, the Koch brothers. Until we better understand what they do, and what sort of people they are, and how they’ve actually operated according to the record, rather than responding to what they’re telling us without questioning it, the only sure thing about this Cato-Koch struggle is that whoever comes out on top, Ed Crane or Charles Koch, the rest of us are guaranteed to be the big losers.

Late note: Charles Murray, whose “racial eugenics” book The Bell Curve argued that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to whites, has announced his support for the Cato Institute. Murray, whose racist views influenced John Derbyshire, disclosed, “Ed Crane is a close personal friend.” Murray has also “enjoyed a friendly acquaintance” with both Koch brothers “for more than twenty years.”  ames the nation Murray acolyte busted for racist hispanic IQ in Heritage report on immigration 5/13

Personnel of the Cato Institute include:

Contents [hide]

Adjunct Scholars

As of March 2007 Cato's adjunct scholars are [listed as:

Policy Scholars

The list of Cato 'policy scholars', as of March 2007, is:

Fellows

Cato Institute 'fellows', as at March 2007, include:

Former Fellows

Categories:

A new chapter is being added to the ongoing Kochtopus saga. On March 1 the Washington Post,in a story sure to fill the airwaves for the weeks and months to come, revealed the Kochtopus is suing the Cato Institute for control of the recently deceased and former Cato Chairman William Niskanen's ownership share in the think-tank.

The Koch Empire was recently outed by DeSmogBlog as a key seed funder of the climate change denier think-tank, theHeartland Institute. Heartland's internal documents were recently leaked to DeSmogBlog (see "Heartland Exposed"). 

Billionaire oil baron Charles Koch is now waging war against another entity that was created with Koch seed money decades ago: the Cato Institute.

The Post explained succinctly:

At the heart of the dispute is the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October at age 78 of complications from a stroke. The Koch brothers believe that they have the option to buy Niskanen’s shares, while Cato officials believe that the shares belong to Niskanen’s widow, Kathryn Washburn, according to the complaint.

Cato's Pat Michaels is a key player in the world of climate change denial, "sowing the seeds of doubt" on human-caused climate change.

That said, Cato has also stood up for key libertarian principles in the past that do not fit a partisan framework. Among them: protection of civil liberties, opposition to imperialism, opposition to the war on drugs, opposition to the militarization of domestic law enforcement agencies, and support for gay rights, to name several.

A brief overview of the key movers and shakers behind Cato's ascendancy is important to understand the rise of the Koch Empire and the split between the faux-libertarians and the true libertarians.

Murray Rothbard, the Kochs, the Austrian School and the Rise of Cato  

It all began nearly 40 years ago in Wichita, Kansas, corporate headquarters of Koch Industries, now and then the centerpiece of the potent Kochtopus machine. The Cato Institute was founded in 1974 and originally funded by Charles Koch, of Koch Industries fame and fortune.

The name "Cato Institute" came from "Cato's Letters," which Wikipedia explains were "essays condemning tyranny and advancing principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, [and] were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by [political theorist] John Locke." 

Often left out of the Cato historical discussion, though, is another key libertarian economist, political theorist, historian and former good friend of Charles Koch: Murray Rothbard.

Rothbard was a key thinker and writer advocating for the Austrian School of Economics, a school of thought current Republican Party Presidential candidate,Rep. Ron Paul (TX), alsoembraces. 

Rothbard was also one of the co-founders of the Cato Institute, as explained in a 2008 article written by David Gordon of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

The Austrian School's ideology is best represented today by a think-tank that gets little to no play in the mainstream media, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, currently chaired by former Paul congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, Lew Rockwell, and named after Austrian School economist Ludwig Von Mises, who was Rothbard's professor.

The Von Mises Institute, it turns out, ended up filling the void left behind when Rothbard was strong-armed out of the Cato Institute by Charles Koch in the early 1980's.

Gordon explained Rothbard's departure, writing,

He thought that Cato's primary mission should be scholarship rather than political campaigns and attempts to secure audiences with the high and mighty in Washington. His antagonists emphatically disagreed

...Koch could not tolerate what they deemed blatant disloyalty. Even though Rothbard was the leading theorist of libertarianism and the Cato Institute had been established to promote his views, they expected him to obey the orders sent down from on high.

(Snip)

After Rothbard departed from Cato, he joined forces with the Mises Institute, established in 1982 by Lew Rockwell. The new group was a standing reproach to Koch...since its consistent defense, encouragement, and development of a Rothbardian program were exactly the program that the Cato Institute had betrayed. The Koch forces endeavored to strangle the new group in its cradle.

The main difference between the Rothbardian crowd and the Koch crowd boils down to support for a pure free market vs. what the Rothbardian crowd calls a corporatist" market.

In a 1983 essay, not long after the Cato falling out, Rothbard penned a short essay titled, "The Business-Government Alliance," in which he wrote,

The push for the new corporate state was generated by an alliance between corporatist big-business groups and technocratic intellectuals, eager to help run and to apologize for the new system, which promised them a far plusher niche than did a freely competitive economy.

Perhaps it is no surprise after writing articles with passages like these that Rothbard and the Austrians were exiled from the Kochtopus network.

The term "Kochtopus" was coined by a Rothbard-inspired libertarian, Samuel Edward Konkin III, author of the *New Libertarian Manifesto*, published in 1975.

10 Years Later, Charles Koch Departs Cato

Rothbard's early 1980's exile from Cato meant that the Koch Brothers were running the show there, alongside Edward Crane, the current President and CEO.

When 1991 rolled around, though, Charles Koch jumped ship from Cato and started investing his money elsewhere. Journalist Dave Weigel explained,

...[I]n 1991...Charles Koch walked away. 

"I have strong ideas," Koch...[said in an interview]. "I want to see things go in a certain direction, and Crane has strong ideas. I concluded, why argue with Ed? Rather than try to modify his strategy, just go do my own thing, and wish him well."

That was what happened. Koch took his money to other foundations. Crane kept building Cato. Contact was severed; in a 2010 interview, Crane told me that he never quite understood why Koch bolted.

Twenty years later, Charles Koch and his brother David are resurfacing in the Cato world, but the conflict rages on.

The Kochtopus Sues Cato in a "Power Grab"

In recent years, the Kochtopus is most famous for its funding of the astroturf Tea Party machine Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a tour de force in the world of climate change denial, union-busting, and in the sphere of electoral politics.

The common theme to its AFP front group efforts: sheer corporatism, with a well-lubed GOP machine through which to push its corporate agenda at both the federal- and state-level.

Having funded and turned AFP into a powerful national political animal, the Kochtopus Cato power grab was a logical progression. 

"Mr. Koch's actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda," said Crane of the lawsuit.

Crane went further this week, telling the New York Times:

“This is an effort by the Kochs to turn the Cato Institute into some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.,” said Edward H. Crane, who is president of Cato and co-founded it with Charles Koch. “What he is doing now is detrimental to Cato, it’s detrimental to Koch Industries, it’s detrimental to the libertarian movement.”

There is some irony in the fact that Rothbard left Cato because he felt Crane and Koch had abandoned true Austrian School of Economics libertarian principles, and now Koch is taking it to a new extreme, desiring to transform Cato into a mere tentacle of the AFP political machine.

Equally ironic: AFP, a key piece of the Tea Party "movement," skyrocketed in popularity after it skillfully co-opted the original Ron Paul-led grassroots Tea Party movement.

Coming full circle, it could be said that Rothbard has been vindicated after all.

Cato Employees Peeved and Ready to Fight

Cato will not go down without its guns blazing. Many high-ranking employees other than Crane have come out with strong statements against the Koch maneuver. A "Save Cato" Facebook and Twitter account have also been created.

Robert A. Levy, chairman of Cato’s board, said in an interview with the New York Times:

“We can’t be perceived as a mouthpiece of special interests. The Cato Institute as we know it would be destroyed.”

“We already have major contributors who will say we are not contributing another dollar until we are sure that the Kochs are not calling the shots,” Mr. Levy said. “It is a fund-raising nightmare.”

Gene Healy, a Cato Vice President, stated in an open letter,

"...I can’t begin to understand why Charles and David Koch have chosen a course of action that, if successful, would carelessly, pointlessly, and grievously injure the cause I thought they were fighting for."

Jonathan Blanks, a Cato Research Assistant, wrote on his blog,

"...the Kochs' actions here have demonstrated they have no interest in maintaining it. Cato as a name will be irreparably damaged...and they'll have to start poaching Right-wing shops to fill the vacancies left by the resignations of people who refuse to associate themselves with this naked power grab."

Julian Sanchez, a Cato Research Fellow, went so far as to write a "Preresignation Letter" on his website, saying that if the Kochtopus wins the lawsuit, it's "game over" for him at Cato. He stated,

"I hereby tender my pre-resignation from Cato, effective if and when the Kochs take command. I’ll be sad to go, if it comes to that, but sadder to see a proud institution lose its autonomy."

Stay tuned as the battle rages on.  http://www.desmogblog.com/kochtopus-cato-institute-power-grab-historical-perspective

endit1

Attachments