Money?? Corrupting politics?? What next?? Water running downhill??

There are 350 tax-exempt, ostensibly non-partisan organizations within the right-wing's activist front, many operating at regional, state, and local levels. They have penetrated the three branches of the federal government, and dominate the political debate. They guide and oversee the agenda that directs White House action (or inaction). Two of these organizations housed the planners who invented the Iraq war.

Forty-three of these have received between $2 - $3 billion over last 30 years. They are tax-exempt.

We've talked a bit in class about money funding politics. Mostly it's been a discussion of corporate bankrolling of political campaigns, the media corporations who benefit from this, and the favors these corporations expect as a result of their generous gifts. There's a pretty good website--White House for Sale--that documents the corrosive influence of corporate money in politics. Media comes into play because they also invest in politicians, looking for favors. In 2000, the broadcasting industry was the biggest campaign donor, because they were fearful of campaign finance reform and how it might limit their revenue. Things turned out okay, largely thanks to Secretary of State Colin Powell's son, Michael, who heads the Federal Communications Commission, and was able to work for relaxing regulations on ownership of media outlets. Things work okay for the large, powerful companies, anyway--not the small independent outlets that might air alternative views and voices.

So there are three general ways money enters the American political meat grinder in massive amounts.

• Campaign contributions (of course, individuals can contribute small amounts, as the Howard Dean campaign showed this year, and make a difference. This is also what moveon.org has done quite successfully).
• Underwriting of lobbyists (lobbyists are paid to influence politicians to vote on legislation that will benefit the lobbyists' employers--they're usually expensive lawyers).
• Public policy think tanks

What is happening in the lobbying end of things has been well-documented in other areas, and has less to do with media. Of course, the media is particularly negligent in reporting the role of lobbying in politics. Perhaps partly because they have their own lobbyists, and large media corporations may be lobbying the government on behalf of a variety of subsidiary companies in different economic sectors? Remember the article 'Citizen GE' by William Greider--that's a good example of how the system works. If you're interested in the seedy underworld of lobbying, and in particular the infamous 'K Street Project,' here's an excellent article in the Washington Monthly by Nicholas Confessore. This discussion will address the role of think tanks (see Callahan's article).

In 1996--eight years ago--the top 20 conservative think tanks spent $158 million (from Callahan). That's in one year. When Clinton was president, and there was a pretty concerted effort to undermine his administration. See Conason's and Lyons' 'The Hunting of the President' if you're interested (I think we have it in the library here). We've discussed some of the biggest--the Cato Institute ('individual liberty, free markets, limited government, and peace'), American Enterprise Institute ('dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom--limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and a strong foreign policy and national defense'), Heritage Foundation ('formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.'), Hudson Institute ('America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges'). There are a couple of important questions to ask:

1. where to these think tanks get their money, and
2. what do they do with it?

Mediatransparency.org has a good article with background on think tanks, where they came from, what they do, how much money they have, and how George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives have used them to reap hundreds of millions of dollars while criticizing liberal billionaire George Soros for contributing $5 million or so to anti-conservative causes.

Sourcing

Remember the importance of sourcing in the propaganda model. Society is complex, news is overwhelming, and media consumers often look to the 'experts' to provide analyses of complex issues, to simplify or translate them, if you will, into language the lay person can understand. One of the principal goals of conservative think tanks is to provide the media access to 'experts' that can be made available to speak on various issues in the news. As we've seen, often times these 'experts,' while they may have a background in the area, are giving slanted views of the topics even as they are presented as impartial observers and commentators (remember the third party technique--putting your words in someone else's mouth, preferably someone with some credibility and the appearance of independence and impartiality. Scientists are good for this. So think tanks with lots of money can hire people to be available when the reporter or TV anchor calls, or for Sunday news shows, those godawful debates on the cable news channels, etc. Conservatives, with the backing of philanthropical organizations giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the cause, are in a much better position to get their messages out and have them presented by an often uncritical media as straight news and objective opinion by scientists and/or policy experts.

Flak

Flak is negative feedback. Don't like the coverage you're getting from the press? Complain. The Pentagon does this. The White House does this. They have leverage--they know that media outlets need access to them to provide the public with stories, so they have to walk a fine line to be able to maintain that access. Media watchdog groups also perform the flak function.

There are different kinds of flak here. The large think tanks provide rebuttals to left-leaning views. For instance, 'scientist Patrick Michaels,' who is affiliated with the conservative think tank the Cato Institute, is brought on as the credible expert to rebut the movie about global warming, 'Day after Tomorrow.' We've seen Michaels also in a video on global warming. He is among the 5% of scientists who take the view that global warming, if it is occurring, is an entirely natural process unaffected by humans burning fossil fuels. Most of the 'greenhouse skeptics' receive money from conservative institutes. As we discussed in class, the conservative strategy is to cast doubt in the public's mind that the experts are on agreement that global warming is occurring and could have disastrous consequences for the planet and the human species. Frank Luntz, who does public opinion polling for the Republican party, laid out in a memo the strategy--accuse scientists of being partisan and using 'scare tactics.' That's flak--negative feedback, accusing the scientific community of voting democratic and trying to scare the public, rather than actually refuting the logic and evidence of the argument.

Influence (third party technique, access to the White House)

Think tanks do policy-driven research. For instance, when Bush laid out the strategy for war in Iraq and the Middle East, he gave the speech at the American Enterprise Institute, where researchers have been involved in the development of the Bush foreign policy. Think tanks that can curry favor with the White House practically get to write public policy; when they're opponents are in the White House, they write more critically.

So, what do these conservative think tanks advocate? Free enterprise for one--let markets do their thing, let corporations create the jobs, leave government out of the equation--they just get in the way. Of course this is all theory and ideology. In reality, size of government has increased under republican administrations--mostly in terms of growth of defense and the military. The conservative ideology says leave corporations alone, but says little about leaving private citizens alone--many believe in fact that the constitution provides no rights to privacy for individuals. Hence we get the Patriot Act, calls for a ban on gay marriage, calls to criminalize a woman's right to choose (to criminalize abortion), etc. Claiming a 'small role for government' is actually a public relations success, and allows for all kinds of arguments for things like tax cuts (which force cuts in government programs--mostly social welfare programs).

The think tanks have different areas of emphases, too. For instance, CATO has a whole page on the privatization of social security--shifting it from a government-run program to one that uses Wall Street. Do they call it privatization? No--it's 'reform.' The American Enterprise Institute has been very influential with republican administrations on foreign policy. Heritage spends a lot of resources on welfare policy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which was called 'the best environmental think tank in the country' by the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal, has a page targeting journalists--making it easy for them to find the 'right' expert for their story.

So where does the money come from?

Some major contributors are conservative philanthropic foundations like the John Olin Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, The Scaife Family Foundations (oil and banking), Koch Family Foundations (oil and tobacco), etc. Media Transparency allows you to search on these foundations and learn about them, as well as find out what kinds of projects and organizations they fund. The amount of money over the last 30 years is over $2 billion, invested in conservative ideas and philosophies and their dissemination in the media.

Why so much money? Well, wealthy families set up non-profit philanthropic organizations so they can claim tax deductions on their massive incomes. The U.S. tax laws underwrite this-these 'philanthropic foundations'--even though they are largely funding political ideology through third parties. This makes the current uproar over moveon.org and George Soros seem laughable--the left wing side of the spectrum has nothing to compare with the large, well-funded organizations. The argument for attacking the liberal-leaning organizations suggests that because they're trying to influence the outcome of elections, they should come under the guidelines of the Federal Elections Commission. This is exactly what the conservative think tanks have been doing for decades, only they've been more clever and indirect about it--remember the third party technique--it's successful public relations. Yet the flak in the media is about the effect of moveon.org on the presidential campaign. Again, think back to who owns the media, what their interests are, etc., and it should come together for you.

Let's look at the think tanks:

On a Tuesday evening in mid-January, a right-wing Washington writer-for-hire named Clark Judge appeared on public radio's Marketplace. In a commentary heard by an estimated five million people, Judge complained that the philanthropist George Soros was engaged in an "unethical" effort to outwit legal restrictions on campaign contributions. Judge huffed that Soros, along with the Democratic Party, was "ponying up" millions of dollars in funding to tax-exempt, liberal advocacy organizations to prevent the re-election of George W. Bush. He labeled Soros and the Democrats "prime abusers," for using barely legal tactics to evade the contribution ceilings of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. Judge was correct when he implied that legal and IRS regulations that are supposed to curb political activities by tax-exempt non-profit organizations are riddled with loopholes. Judge went much farther, though, implying that Soros and the Democrats had cornered the market on cheating. He warned his listeners to "brace...for the biggest tidal wave of political sewage in American history" from these Soros-supported organizations.

Questions? Who's Judge? Managing editor of White House ghost writers' group

Are there no counterweights?

Yes, there are more since the Bush Administration came to power. They include the Center for American Progress, ('progressive ideas for a strong, just and free America'), the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (does research on 'fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals'), 'the Economic Policy Institute ('research and ideas for working people' is their motto), Common Cause ('holding power accountable'). What you'll find is that the conservative foundations are funded heavily by philanthropic organizations tied to industrial and other major corporate interests in the economy. Their research appeals to less government, more latitude for private enterprise and private corporations to conduct business without government intervention.