FOUNDATION$

Four sisters?  kochs create foundations as tax dodge, but can also use them to push increased profits and political agenda

=<div>=</div><div><a href="https://theconversation.com/spotting-the-political-calculus-behind-some-acts-of-corporate-charity-95743">https://theconversation.com/spotting-the-political-calculus-behind-some-acts-of-corporate-charity-95743</a></div><div>
</div><div>the past few years, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Da5F3JIAAAAJ&hl=en" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">I have teamed up with</a> fellow economists <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bNZV3-0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">Marianne Bertrande</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zeX6jEMAAAAJ&hl=en" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">Matilde Bombardini</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=m9VHPscAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">Francesco Trebbi</a> to look into one underappreciated way that businesses may attempt to influence politicians: corporate philanthropy.We found that what we call “<a href="http://doi.org/10.3386/w24451" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">politically linked charities</a>” get more money from corporate foundations in general. We also find that when politicians gain leverage on issues tied to a company’s interests, charities in their districts get more gifts from that company’s foundation. For example, a nonprofit is more than four times more likely to receive grants from a corporate foundation if a politician sits on its board.This means, in our view, that some corporate giving may influence members of Congress in both major political parties to a degree – indirectly bending laws and regulations in ways that boost profits rather than serve the public’s interests.<h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">Political charity</h2>Why would businesses rely on charitable donations rather than, say, campaign funds or lobbying efforts, to influence government? One big reason is that there are <a href="https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/04/21/arent-there-limits-on-campaign-contributions-and-other-questions-youre-too-embarrassed-to-ask/" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">limits on campaign contributions</a>, but <a href="https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">effectively no limit on what what corporations may give to charity</a>.And it appears that corporate charity is deployed in ways that look a lot like influencing.Second, companies may support nonprofits that serve the voters of individual politicians’ districts – thereby indirectly helping him or her get re-elected. For example, an investigation by The New York Times of former Democratic Rep. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/us/politics/06charity.html" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">Joe Baca of California</a>concluded that he used his family foundation and its generous giveaways “to run something akin to a permanent political campaign.” But much of the foundation’s largesse was funded by local companies and major corporations “that have often turned to Mr. Baca’s Washington office for help,” not by his family.First, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/business/economy/charitable-giving-corporations.html" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">companies may give to politicians’ pet charities</a>. For example, as detailed in a recent New York Times article highlighting our research, the foundations of AT&T, ConAgra Foods, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Medtronic, Merck, Monsanto, Nationwide Insurance, Principal Financial Group and Rockwell Collins all contributed to either the University of Northern Iowa or the Partnership for a Drug-Free Iowa. Perhaps not coincidentally, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley is a trustee of one of these organizations and an honorary board member of the other.Then there is the stealth factor. It’s relatively easy to look up how much investment management giant BlackRock’s political action committee, or PAC, gave Rep. Carolyn Maloney, in the 2016 election cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets database, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00000078&cycle=2016" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">the New York Democrat got US$10,000</a>. That’s because federal law has required all such <a href="https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/legislation/" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">donations to be publicly disclosed</a> since the 1970s.It’s harder, however, to connect the dots between BlackRock’s charitable giving that indirectly benefits Maloney and her colleagues who have New York City’s financial service businesses as their constituents.<h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">Striking patterns</h2>To uncover potential links between corporate donations and legislative interests, we looked at the grants provided by the foundations of companies in the S&P 500 and Fortune 500 lists that comprise many of America’s largest companies. Because these grants must by law be disclosed on tax returns, we could link most donations to specific nonprofits. That, in turn, meant we could pinpoint in which congressional districts the nonprofits were located.As the Grassley and Baca examples indicate, it is fair to say that corporate foundations are more likely to give to nonprofits tied to politicians if those lawmakers belong to committees that matter to the company.We also have also found that companies’ foundations give more to nonprofits in districts represented by politicians who also get campaign cash from those same enterprises. That suggests that corporate giving does double duty as a form of stealth campaign finance.<h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">What can be done about it</h2>Corporate charitable contributions totaled <a href="https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2015-press-release-giving-usa-americans-donated-an-estimated-358-38-billion-to-charity-in-2014-highest-total-in-reports-60-year-history/" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">nearly $18 billion in 2014</a>, the most recent year that we analyzed in our data. My colleagues and I estimated that <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w24451" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">7 percent of them were politically motivated</a> – about $1.3 billion. At that level, the political donations delivered through charity may be as important as more easily observable channels of influence.For example, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">corporate PACs spent less than $500 million in 2014</a> while <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">lobbying expenditures amounted to $3.3 billion</a>.In light of our findings, we believe that corporate-funded activities of all kinds should require more disclosure, including the donations companies give to charity.</div><div>
</div><div></div>=3/18<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01032018/spending-bill-riders-environment-climate-dark-money-campaign-finance-political-donations">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01032018/spending-bill-riders-environment-climate-dark-money-campaign-finance-political-donations</a><h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.333; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">2 Ways Bills Would Influence Money in Politics </h3>The <a href="https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY2018-FSGG-CHAIRMEN-MARK-BILL.PDF" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Senate version</a> of the massive "omnibus" appropriations legislation that Congress must pass by March 23 to avoid a government shutdown includes a measure that would relax the limits on how much money national parties may spend in coordination with presidential campaigns. This would make it easier for mega-donors to get around the current limits on direct donations to candidates.The <a href="https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-115hr-sc-ap-fy2018-fservices-financialservicesandgeneralgovernment.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">House version</a> of the bill includes language to open the door to campaign spending by churches. President Donald Trump called for Congress to take such action last year when he signed a "religious liberty" executive order.During a failed attempt to attach the provision to the <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122017/tax-bill-vote-renewable-credits-solar-wind-clean-energy-jobs-evs-investment-anwr" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">GOP tax overhaul bill</a> last year, lawmakers expanded it to allow political activity not only by churches but all public charities, including private family foundations like those favored by the Koch brothers and other wealthy donors, and public interest advocates fear that could happen again. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rUjwgqNyMY&feature=youtu.be&t=54m39s" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Joint Committee on Taxation</a> at the time estimated such a measure could result in<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/10/tax-bills-repeal-johnson-amendment-could-cost-taxpayers-more-than-1-billion/852554001/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;"> $1 billion</a>being diverted into churches and charities for political giving—since such contributions would be tax-deductible, unlike giving to political organizations.<div>=</div>FOUR SISTERS: Olin, Bradley, Smith Richardson and Sarah Scaife foundations; early and perennial funders of RWI
could also include coors and others
note, these are often family foundations, in theory charity, but evil b/c tax shelters (~ inheritance tax, thus mod) used to make themselves richer and to promote RW agenda (which supports their delusion their riches are earned/deserved)
The FSFG supports organizations like Accuracy in Academia, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the National Association of Scholars, the Madison Center for Educational Affairs (their "Collegiate Network" links over 70 student newspapers), the Institute for Educational Affairs and others. These organizations work to transform academia toward the right's ideological agenda.In 1979, Michael Joyce entered the world of large-scale philanthropy with assistance from his mentor Irving Kristol, when he assumed the reins of the John M. Olin Foundation from the retiring president, William Simon. At Olin, one of Joyce’s first projects was to organize support for the <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200602270759.asp" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">launching of the Federalist Society.</a> [11] Joyce’s work in creating and fostering the development of the Federalist Society is instructive and foreshadows the role that he has played in current efforts by neoconservatives to restructure American higher education. The Federalist Society, with Joyce’s ongoing support, not only fostered the development of ultra-conservative legal scholars and politicians such as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Samuel Alito, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and Kenneth Starr (all of whom are members) but organized them into a powerful force for reshaping American jurisprudence in support of a larger neoconservative agenda.Also significant in this regard is <a href="http://www.institutefordemocracy.org/pub3.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">a report by Jerome Shestack,</a> [12] former president of the American Bar Association, that the Federalist Society is being increasingly being used as a platform from which to launch ideological attacks on the mainstream legal community. Through the device of the Federalist Society publication, ABA Watch, the society has launched a vicious attack on the ABA. In a special edition of the Watch, U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), co-chair of the society, announced that he would no longer invite the ABA to participate on a pro forma basis in the Senate judicial confirmation process. Employing rhetoric eerily parallel to that being used in the current attacks on the academy, Justice Clarence Thomas openly denounced the ABA, declaring “I am doubtful that the ABA can ever reform itself.”In <a href="http://www.goacta.org/whats_new/IDTestimony1-10-06.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">her testimony</a> [13] before Pennsylvania's Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education, which convened in Philadelphia, Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, expressed a similar sentiment as to the ability of the academy to reform itself. “Faced with growing legislative pressure on this issue, the higher education establishment issued the American Council on Education statement, figured it would pretend to have a quick conversion, endorse intellectual diversity, get those yahoo legislators off their backs and go back to business as usual. DO NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS CHARADE.” In 1985, Michael Joyce left the Olin Foundation to assume the presidency of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, in Milwaukee. During this time, he not only built the Bradley Foundation into the largest and most influential right-wing foundation in the country, he also forged a  formidable alliance among a small group of the nation’s largest, far right-wing foundations so that their resources could be more strategically deployed in support of the developing neoconservative agenda. Included in this alliance are the Koch Foundation (either directly or through its subsidiary the Claude Lambe Foundation), the Castle Rock Foundation (Coors) and the Sarah Scaife Foundations  (either directly or through its subsidiaries the Carthage Foundation and the Alleghany Foundation) which, together with Olin and Bradley, have collectively financed the rise of the neoconservative movement in this country and have done so with an impressive display tactical precision.It is a telling marker of the ideological cohesiveness and extremism of this core group of philanthropies that three of the five founding members, Joseph Coors, David Koch and Harry Bradley, were <a href="http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/reports/tort/Section1.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">members and financial supporters</a> [14] of the John Birch Society. The Scaife foundations, headed by Richard Mellon Scaife, <a href="http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1385" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">are also involved,</a> [15] albeit in less direct ways.===

</blockquote>

ARUNDHATI ROY: Rockefeller. Well, you know, I mean, in this, I’ve talked about the role not just in India, but even in the U.S. For example, how do they even—how do they deal with things like political people’s movements? How did they fragment the civil rights movement? I’ll just read you a part about what happened with the civil rights movement.

</blockquote>

“Having worked out how to manage governments, political parties, elections, courts, the media and liberal opinion, the neoliberal establishment faced one more challenge: how to deal with the growing unrest, the threat of ’people’s power.’ How do you domesticate it? How do you turn protesters into pets? How do you vacuum up people’s fury and redirect it into a blind alley?

</blockquote>

“Here too, foundations and their allied organizations have a long and illustrious history. A revealing example is their role in defusing and deradicalizing the Black Civil Rights movement in the United States in the 1960s and the successful transformation of Black Power into Black Capitalism.

</blockquote>

“The Rockefeller Foundation, in keeping with J.D. Rockefeller’s ideals, had worked closely with Martin Luther King Sr. (father of Martin Luther King Jr). But his influence waned with the rise of the more militant organizations—the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panthers. The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations moved in. In 1970, they donated $15 million to 'moderate' black organizations, giving people grants, fellowships, scholarships, job training programs for dropouts and seed money for black-owned businesses. Repression, infighting and the honey trap of funding led to the gradual atrophying of the radical black organizations.

</blockquote>

"Martin Luther King made the forbidden connections between Capitalism, Imperialism, Racism and the Vietnam War. As a result, after he was assassinated, even his memory became toxic to them, a threat to public order. Foundations and Corporations worked hard to remodel his legacy to fit a market-friendly format. The Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, with an operational grant of $2 million, was set up by, among others, the Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mobil, Western Electric, Procter & Gamble, U.S. Steel and Monsanto. The Center maintains the King Library and Archives of the Civil Rights Movement. Among the many programs the King Center runs have been projects that work—quote, 'work closely with the United States Department of Defense, the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and others,' unquote. It co-sponsored the Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture Series called—and I quote—’The Free Enterprise System: An Agent for Non-violent Social Change.’"

</blockquote>

It did the same thing in South Africa. They did the same thing in Indonesia, you know, with the—General Suharto’s war, which all of us now know about because of The Act of Killing in Indonesia. And very much so in even places like India, where they move in and they begin to NGO-ize, say, the feminist movement, you know? So you have a feminist movement, which was very radical, very vibrant, suddenly getting funded, and not doing—it’s not that the funded organizations are doing terrible things; they are doing important things. They are doing—you know, whether it’s working on gender rights, whether it’s with sex workers or AIDS. But they will, in their funding, gradually make a little border between any movement which involves women, which is actually threatening the economic order, and these issues, you know? So, in the forest, when I went and spent weeks with the guerrillas, you had 90,000 women who were members of the Adivasi Krantikari Mahila Sangathan, this revolutionary indigenous women’s organization, but they are threatening the corporations, they are threatening the economic architecture of the world, by refusing to move out of there. So they’re not considered feminists, you know? So how you domesticate something and turn it into this little—what in India we call paltu shers, you know, which is a tame tiger, like a tiger on a leash, that is pretending to be resistance, but it isn’t.

</blockquote>

</div>

===

mashey list  <a href="http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake2.pdf">http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake2.pdf</a>

===

Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States [Paperback]

Sara Diamond

http://www.amazon.com/Roads-Dominion-Right-Wing-Movements-Political/dp/0898628644

===

older media trans  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funders.php">http://old.mediatransparency.org/funders.php</a>

lambe = Koch

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=5"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile29.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=5">Allegheny Foundation</a></h2>

Please see the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=3">Scaife Foundations</a> page for more information on the Allegheny Foundation and Richard Mellon Scaife.

$ 51,520,996 total assets at end of 2006

$ 2,211,800 grants paid

$ 5,143,784 total revenue

$ 2,724,133 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=31"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile30.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=31">Armstrong Foundation</a></h2>

$ 18,020,705 total assets at end of 2005

$ 781,750 grants paid

$ 1,329,886 total revenue

$ 1,059,897 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=37"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile31.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=37">Ave Maria Foundation</a></h2>

The Ave Maria Foundation is the tax-exempt funding vehicle of <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=1511">Tom Monaghan</a>, the Dominos Pizza magnate who is one of the most influential members of the Catholic Right. An advocate of laissiez-faire economics as well as an ultra-orthodox brand of faith, he has advanced those twin agendas by both his actions and his financial muscle.

The Ave Maria Foundation reported net assets of $153 million in 2004. That same year it made over $91 million in grants, more than double the previous year's giving of $41.9 million. In 2004 the AMF gave $73 million in start-up costs and construction for its new Ave Maria University in Florida.

$ 121,385,829 total assets at end of 2005

$ 33,140,817 grants paid

$ 26,054,430 total revenue

$ 37,203,918 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=26"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile32.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=26">Barre Seid Foundation</a></h2>

$ 3,524,626 total assets at end of 2006

$ 5,033,916 grants paid

$ 2,436,930 total revenue

$ 5,066,481 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=20"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile33.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=20">Bill and Berniece Grewcock Foundation</a></h2>

$ 5,053,397 total assets at end of 2006

$ 474,000 grants paid

$ 263,255 total revenue

$ 493,618 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=35"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile34.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=35">Brady Education Foundation, Inc.</a></h2>

Changed its name from the "W.H. Brady Foundation" in 2003.

$ 13,092,719 total assets at end of 2005

$ 60,000 grants paid

$ 728,280 total revenue

$ 141,282 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=14"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile35.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=14">Castle Rock Foundation</a></h2>

In 1975, the Adolph Coors Foundation was created as a private family foundation and initially was supported financially by the Adolph Coors Jr. Trust. In 1993, the Castle Rock Foundation was created from the [Adolph Coors Foundation's] unrestricted funds, receiving a $36,596,253 endowment. Now, the Adolph Coors Foundation focuses almost exclusively on projects and organizations within Colorado, while the Castle Rock Foundation provides grants to public policy and other organizations nationwide.

$ 59,547,290 total assets at end of 2006

$ 2,473,000 grants paid

$ 1,241,808 total revenue

$ 2,662,009 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=9"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile36.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=9">Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation</a></h2>

David and Charles Koch, sons of the ultraconservative founder of Koch Industries, Fred Koch, direct the three Koch family foundations: the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. David and Charles control Koch Industries, the second-largest privately owned company and the largest privately owned energy company in the nation; they have a combined net worth of approximately $4 billion, placing them among the top 50 wealthiest individuals in the country and among the top 100 wealthiest individuals in the world in 2003, according to Forbes.

Following in the footsteps of their father, a member of the John Birch Society, the Kochs clearly have a conservative bent. Charles Koch founded the Cato Institute, and David Koch co-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) [now FreedomWorks], where he serves as chairman of the board of directors. David also serves on the board of the Cato Institute. The Koch foundations make substantial annual contributions to these organizations (more than $12 million to each between 1985 and 2002) as well as to other influential conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, media organizations, academic institutes and legal organizations, thus participating in every level of the policy process.

$ 76,012,934 total assets at end of 2005

$ 2,625,951 grants paid

$ 30,617,936 total revenue

$ 3,611,046 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=36"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile37.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=36">Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust</a></h2>

$ 4,709,775 total assets at end of 2006

$ 653,542 grants paid

$ 400,514 total revenue

$ 706,143 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=8"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile38.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=8">Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation</a></h2>

For information on the Claude Lambe Charitable Foundation, along with the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=9">Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation</a> and the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=10">David H. Koch Charitable Foundation</a> see the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=9">Koch Foundations page</a>

$ 18,872,126 total assets at end of 2005

$ 3,551,020 grants paid

$ 346,874 total revenue

$ 3,869,727 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=10"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile39.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=10">David H. Koch Charitable Foundation</a></h2>

For information on the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, along with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Claude Lambe Charitable Foundation see the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=9">Koch Foundations Page</a>

$ 3,704,661 total assets at end of 2006

$ 4,340,000 grants paid

$ 3,047,936 total revenue

$ 4,351,123 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=39"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile40.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=39">Dick and Betsy Devos Foundation</a></h2>

One of the DeVos Family Foundations.

$ 33,672,375 total assets at end of 2005

$ 7,014,464 grants paid

$ 14,523,047 total revenue

$ 7,481,362 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=13"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile41.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=13">Earhart Foundation</a></h2>

$ 61,971,515 total assets at end of 2005

$ 11,441,524 grants paid

$ 8,763,530 total revenue

$ 12,735,116 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=23"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile42.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=23">F.M. Kirby Foundation</a></h2>

$ 484,579,224 total assets at end of 2005

$ 22,563,450 grants paid

$ 42,089,654 total revenue

$ 25,756,354 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=32"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile43.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=32">Gilder Foundation</a></h2>

$ 33,159,986 total assets at end of 2005

$ 20,141,077 grants paid

$ 26,725,403 total revenue

$ 20,602,722 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=24"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile44.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=24">Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation</a></h2>

$ 123,364,899 total assets at end of 2005

$ 5,632,754 grants paid

$ 4,014,924 total revenue

$ 6,835,290 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=40"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile45.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=40">Hacked By 1nj3ct.org</a></h2>

Hacked By 1nj3ct.org

$ 0 total assets at end of

$ 0 grants paid

$ 0 total revenue

$ 0 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=28"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile46.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=28">Hickory Foundation</a></h2>

$ 19,679,840 total assets at end of 2005

$ 1,028,500 grants paid

$ 2,409,252 total revenue

$ 1,080,869 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=16"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile47.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=16">Jaquelin Hume Foundation</a></h2>

$ 16,773,578 total assets at end of 2005

$ 6,168,385 grants paid

$ 4,270,042 total revenue

$ 6,432,039 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=11"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile48.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=11">JM Foundation</a></h2>

$ 25,865,369 total assets at end of 2005

$ 1,396,873 grants paid

$ 1,980,486 total revenue

$ 2,096,033 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=7"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile49.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=7">John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.</a></h2>

[Editor's note: The John M .Olin Foundation will be <a href="http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11515">closing its doors</a> in November 2005.]

The New York-based John M. Olin Foundation, which grew out of a family manufacturing business (chemical and munitions), funds right-wing think tanks like the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=19">American Enterprise Institute</a>, the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=153">Heritage Foundation</a>, the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=198">Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research</a>, and the Hoover Institute of War, Revolution and Peace. It also gives large sums of money to promote conservative programs in the country's most prestigious colleges and universities. After <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=28">Michael Joyce</a> left to take charge of the <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1">Bradley Foundation</a>, <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=31">William Simon</a> continued as president at Olin...(Editor's note: William Simon passed away in 2000).

$ 20,037,650 total assets at end of 2005

$ 9,020,275 grants paid

$ 483,180 total revenue

$ 10,689,275 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=29"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile50.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=29">John Templeton Foundation</a></h2>

$ 947,837,251 total assets at end of 2004

$ 29,432,136 grants paid

$ 552,934,433 total revenue

$ 39,752,609 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=33"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile51.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=33">Orville D. and Ruth A. Merillat Foundation</a></h2>

$ 91,859,178 total assets at end of 2005

$ 5,105,902 grants paid

$ 18,441,957 total revenue

$ 6,284,259 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=12"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile52.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=12">Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.</a></h2>

$ 15,449,446 total assets at end of 2005

$ 946,525 grants paid

$ 1,542,300 total revenue

$ 1,186,837 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=21"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile53.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=21">Randolph Foundation</a></h2>

In 2003 a confusing deal, described in The Randolph Foundation's 2003 IRS 990, was made by The Randolph Foundation and <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=6">The Smith Richardson Foundation</a> (SRF). The deal created a new The Randolph Foundation with a new EIN (47-0892971), transferred all of the old The Randolph Foundation's assets - $49 million - to the new entity, renamed the old The Randolph Foundation to the H. Smith Richardson Charitable Trust (HSRCT), and transferred $48 million from the Smith Richardson Foundation to HSRCT (essentially replacing the money given to the new The Randolph Foundation). The agreement setup a deal whereby the HSRCT gave money to the Smith Richardson Foundation each year that the SRF would then disburse - and which would report the grants in its IRS 990. For that reason we will not be including HSRCT grants in our database.

Questions about the curious arrangement were not answered by people either at the new HSRCT or the Smith Richardson Foundation. For example, why would the SRF give $48 million to HSRCT, only to have HSRCT give it back to SRF, year by year, to dispurse as SRF sees fit?

$ 69,027,869 total assets at end of 2005

$ 3,080,933 grants paid

$ 3,730,656 total revenue

$ 4,812,655 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=17"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile54.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=17">Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation</a></h2>

The Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, incorporated in 1970, ranked ninth in total assets ($97,049,407) among the top 20 conservative foundations studied and third in total grants ($26,574,754) in 2001. The foundation's grantmaking has grown dramatically in the past decade, from only $4 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 2001. The foundation is the oldest and wealthiest of the DeVos family foundations, which also include the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation (1990), the Daniel and Pamela DeVos Foundation (1992), and the Douglas and Maria DeVos Foundation (1992). Richard DeVos is co-founder of <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=4">Amway Corporation</a> and owner of the Orlando Magic (2004), and served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee.

$ 51,535,870 total assets at end of 2005

$ 45,391,219 grants paid

$ 50,087,013 total revenue

$ 54,546,854 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=34"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile55.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=34">Rodney Fund</a></h2>

$ 8,555,580 total assets at end of 2005

$ 631,281 grants paid

$ 1,657,802 total revenue

$ 667,894 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=18"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile56.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=18">Roe Foundation</a></h2>

$ 38,553,402 total assets at end of 2006

$ 1,698,000 grants paid

$ 3,482,573 total revenue

$ 2,043,932 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=27"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile57.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=27">Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation</a></h2>

$ 2,589,658 total assets at end of 2005

$ 1,329,750 grants paid

$ 585,515 total revenue

$ 1,617,507 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=22"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile58.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=22">Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation</a></h2>

Though the Noble Foundation gave away more than $63 million in 2005, it only paid $6.8 million in actual grants. Most of its money is given to three operating divisions involved in plant and agricultural research. In 2005 its Agricultural Division spent $14.6 million; the Forage Improvement Division spent $16.3 million, and the Plant Biology Division spent $23 million.

$ 1,269,572,071 total assets at end of 2005

$ 7,911,353 grants paid

$ 136,545,808 total revenue

$ 52,418,537 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=3"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile59.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=3">Sarah Scaife Foundation</a></h2>

Financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman of the foundation. In the 1960s, Richard had inherited an estimated $200 million from his mother, Sarah. Forbes magazine has estimated his personal net worth at $800 million, making him the 138th richest person in the U.S. He controls the Scaife, Carthage and Allegheny foundations. In 1993, Scaife and Carthage reportedly gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative think tanks. As of December 31, 1992, Scaife assets were $212,232,888 and Carthage assets were $11,937,862.

$ 289,533,932 total assets at end of 2005

$ 13,871,000 grants paid

$ 14,998,082 total revenue

$ 16,197,272 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=2"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile60.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=2">Scaife Family Foundation</a></h2>

Note: The Scaife Family Foundation seems to have broken off from Richard Mellon Scaife's control. It moved to Palm Beach, and is no longer listed at the <a href="http://www.scaife.com/">Scaife Foundations' website</a>.

$ 87,465,105 total assets at end of 2006

$ 3,301,777 grants paid

$ 9,332,335 total revenue

$ 4,165,614 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=15"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile61.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=15">Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation</a></h2>

$ 111,311,064 total assets at end of 2005

$ 4,321,614 grants paid

$ 5,619,823 total revenue

$ 5,198,603 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=6"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile62.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=6">Smith Richardson Foundation</a></h2>

Financed by the Vicks Vaporub fortune, this foundation is estimated to have assets of about $250 million. Became active in supporting conservative caues in 1973 when R. Randolph Richardson became president. Funded the early "supply-side" books of Jude Wanniski and George Gilder. The Richardsons are estimated by Forbes to have a net worth of $870 million, making them one of the country's richest families.

$ 498,683,646 total assets at end of 2005

$ 17,249,786 grants paid

$ 42,739,224 total revenue

$ 21,943,515 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=4"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile63.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=4">The Carthage Foundation</a></h2>

$ 30,108,877 total assets at end of 2006

$ 4,227,500 grants paid

$ 5,631,853 total revenue

$ 5,025,690 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=1"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile64.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1">The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.</a></h2>

With $706 million in assets (2005), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin is the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundation. As of the end of 2005, it was giving away more than $34 million a year [The Bradley Foundation 2005 IRS 990 PF].

$ 706,076,838 total assets at end of 2005

$ 34,829,501 grants paid

$ 116,204,016 total revenue

$ 49,187,087 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=38"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile65.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=38">Thomas B. Fordham Foundation</a></h2>

Sister organization to the Thomas B. Fordham Institute

$ 45,288,846 total assets at end of 2005

$ 440,770 grants paid

$ 3,542,364 total revenue

$ 1,991,257 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=25"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile66.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=25">Walton Family Foundation</a></h2>

$ 1,328,793,250 total assets at end of 2005

$ 157,989,927 grants paid

$ 442,936,246 total revenue

$ 161,327,512 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=30"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile67.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=30">William E. Simon Foundation</a></h2>

Also see MT's <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=31">William E. Simon</a> profile.

$ 146,823,188 total assets at end of 2005

$ 8,340,212 grants paid

$ 8,916,766 total revenue

$ 9,758,031 total expenses

<h2><a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=19"><img alt="" src="file:///C:/Users/patmck/webodec3_brain/Files/49FDB4BC-A1FE-8ED2-93B7-52E50C0833D9/PersonalBrain Notes/downloadedimagefile68.gif" class="icon" width="13" height="14" /></a>  <a href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=19">William H. Donner Foundation</a></h2>

$ 128,803,437 total assets at end of 2005

$ 4,990,933 grants paid

$ 12,365,062 total revenue

$ 7,233,028 total expenses

The "Four Sisters"

In 1973, in response to the Powell memo, Joseph Coors

and Christian-right leader Paul Weyrich founded the

Heritage Foundation. Coors told Lee Edwards, historian

of the Heritage Foundation, that the Powell memo

persuaded him that American business was "ignoring a

crisis." In response, Coors decided to help provide the

seed funding for the creation of what was to become the

Heritage Foundation, giving $250,000.(1)

Subsequently, the Olin Foundation, under the direction

of its president, former Treasury Secretary William

Simon (author of the influential 1979 book A Time for

Truth), began funding similar organizations in concert

with "the Four Sisters"--Richard Mellon Scaife's various

foundations, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the

Olin Foundation and the Smith Richardson

Foundation--along with Coors's foundations, foundations

associated with the Koch oil family, and a group of

large corporations. (In this article, I will refer to

this group of funders as the "Four Sisters Funding

Group" or FSFG.)

Following Powell's long-term plan to "build a movement,"

FSFG has funded and built a network of think tanks,

advocacy organizations, and expanded into media,

lobbying, and other areas. The work was slow but

effective. As Christopher DeMuth, president of the

American Enterprise Institute, told a group of

conservative business people, "things take time. It

takes at least 10 years for a radical new idea to emerge

from obscurity."

Creating "Conventional Wisdom"

Now, after 30 years of effort, this core FSFG has built

a comprehensive ideological infrastructure. There are

now over 500 organizations, with the Heritage Foundation

at the hub, all funded by this core group. David

Callahan's 1999 study, $1 Billion for Ideas:

Conservative Think Tanks in the 1990s, found that just

the top 20 of the organizations spent over $1 billion on

this ideological effort in the 1990s.

The right-wing movement's messages are orchestrated and

amplified to sound like a mass "movement" consisting of

many "voices." Using "messaging"--communication

techniques from the fields of marketing, public

relations, and corporate image-management--the movement

appeals to people's deeper feelings and values. Messages

are repeated until they become "conventional wisdom."

Examples include lines like "Social Security is going

broke" and "public schools are failing." Both statements

are questionable, yet both have been firmly embedded in

the "public mind" by purposeful repetition through

multiple channels. This orchestration has been referred

to as a "Mighty Wurlitzer, " a CIA term that refers to

propaganda that is repeated over and over again in

numerous places until the public believes what it's

hearing must be true.

As a study by the People for the American Way, has put

it: "The result of this comprehensive and yet largely

invisible funding strategy is an extraordinary

amplification of the far right's views on a range of

issues. The various funding recipients do not march in

ideological lock-step, but they do promote many of the

same issues to their respective audiences. They have

thus been able to keep alive in the public debate a

variety of policy ideas long ago discredited or

discarded by the mainstream. That, in turn, has been of

enormous value in the right's ongoing effort to reshape

American society. The success of the right-wing efforts

are seen at every level of government, as a vast armada

of foundation-funded right-wing organizations has both

fed and capitalized on the current swing to the right in

Congress and in the state legislatures."

The Money Comes With Strings

The FSFG money comes with ideological strings attached.

Their think tanks are not independent; their

organizations must espouse their ideology. "Cato, for

example," as Gregg Easterbrook pointed out in an article

in the Atlantic in 1986, "flatly states that it will not

release any study that calls for a government program.

The institute's president, Edward Crane, says that he

receives one or two commissioned reports each year that

are 'inconsistent,' and he does not publish them. The

analyst Jonathan Stein lost his job at [the Center For

Strategic & International Studies] CSIS several months

after he published a book highly critical of Star Wars,

the study of which is worth millions to think tanks that

toe the line. (CSIS denies there was any connection.) "

The core group that controls this movement is now

attacking even Republicans who would previously have

been considered "conservatives" for inadequate

ideological purity. Members of the moderate wing of the

Republican Party are derided by the radical right as

nothing more than RINO's -- Republicans In Name Only.

The FSFG is funding efforts to drive these moderates out

of office and out of the party.(2)

The Movement is Coordinated

Currently the core of the "conservative movement" meets

weekly with representatives of the FSFG. As Eric

Alterman has revealed:

Their weekly agenda was hammered out every Wednesday

at a meeting chaired by Grover Norquist, a rightwing

Leninist who believes in an ever-shifting tactical

alliance.… Among those who attend the invitation-only

meetings are spokespeople and representatives of NRA,

the Christian Coalition, the Heritage Foundation;

corporate lobbyists, the top people from the Republican

party and the Congressional Republican leadership, and

chief White House aides. Trusted rightwing journalists

and editors also attend, though the meetings are off the

record.

While the ostensible purpose of the meeting is to

share information and coordinate strategy, they also

give Norquist the opportunity to act as an ideological

enforcer. When one member of the Bush administration

worried to a New York Times reporter that the

administration's plan to repeal the estate tax would

cripple charitable giving, he was publicly warned by

Norquist that this was "the first betrayal of Bush", and

was gone not long afterward. When a conservative pundit

named Laura Ingraham criticised a fellow conservative in

the House of Representatives for overzealousness, she

was immediately informed by Norquist to decide "whether

to be with us or against us". She was no longer welcome

at the meetings.

David Brock, in his book Blinded By the Right, described

from inside this "movement" how different parts of the

right-wing web and their funders interacted during the

attempt to remove President Clinton from office. Brock

writes that funding was supplied by Richard Mellon

Scaife, Federalist Society (funded by Scaife) lawyers

and judges working behind the scenes assisting Special

Prosecutor Ken Starr and supplying information to

(Scaife-funded) American Spectator magazine.

A Case Study

Often it is possible to discern how the timing of a

"Mighty Wurlitzer" chorus relates to a planned

conservative policy initiative. A recent example is the

flurry of articles that hit the press starting in late

November, originating from the Heritage Foundation,

Americans for Tax Reform and the Tax Foundation, which

claimed that the poor do not pay enough income taxes.

The Wall Street Journal even referred to the poor as

"lucky duckies." The paper did not mention that poor

people do pay Social Security taxes. The publicity

appears to have been timed to the release of the

president's latest tax-cutting program.(3)