http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052Executive Summary
A Report by the People For the American Way Foundation, 1996
Each year, conservative foundations pour millions of dollars into a broad range of conservative political organizations. These foundation gifts are remarkable for two principal reasons: first, their sheer size and concentration; second, the willingness of the foundations to promote a highly politicized agenda by funding a broad range of organizations.
The following report examines the funding patterns of a number of significant conservative foundations and their grantees. The report demonstrates:
* Right-wing foundations have developed a truly comprehensive funding strategy, providing grants to a broad range of groups, each promoting right-wing positions to their specific audiences. The grants have created and nurtured an enormous range of organizations all bent on promoting a far-right-wing agenda. Recipients of foundation largesse include the right-wing media; national "think tanks" and advocacy groups; a budding network of regional and state-based think tanks; conservative university programs; conservative college newspapers; conservative scholars and more. In many of these funding areas, progressive and mainstream foundation giving lags far behind.
* Five foundations stand out from the rest: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Koch Family foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Scaife Family foundations and the Adolph Coors Foundation. Each has helped fund a range of far-right programs, including some of the most politically charged work of the last several years. For example, the American Spectator magazine, which led the charge on President Bill Clinton's state trooper contretemps and launched a slash-and-burn strategy targeting Anita Hill, is a prime recipient of foundation support.
* Public debate on a number of issues has been transformed by foundation largesse. For example, the Wisconsin-based Bradley Foundation has supported a range of pro-voucher efforts in its home state, sowing the seeds for that state's first-in-the-nation school vouchers program in Milwaukee. Other such case studies are presented in the report.
Two points stand out in an examination of these foundations' giving patterns. First, the size of their grants: large grants, often in excess of $1 million, are commonplace in conservative circles, while comparatively rare among liberal political groups. Second, the nature of their funding strategies: conservative foundations have overt political and ideological agendas and invest comprehensively to promote a given issue on every front. In the words of the director of one foundation, the right understands that government policies are based on information from "a conveyer belt from thinkers, academics and activists,"<1> and provides funding accordingly.
Indeed, the foundations are supporting the work at every station on the conveyer belt. They fund national conservative "think tanks" to package and repackage conservative issue positions; state think tanks to lend a local flair to these issues; national political groups to lobby in Washington and shape national media coverage; state-based groups to do the same in the states; grassroots organizations to stir up local activism; national and state media to report, interpret and amplify these activities; scholars to record the history of such activities and push the intellectual boundaries of the issues; graduate students to form the next wave of scholarship and movement leadership; and college newspapers to shape the milieu in which America's next generation of political leaders comes to their political awakening. Individual donors also contribute greatly to this conveyer belt, and will be the subject of a subsequent report from People For the American Way.
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.
These trends also stand in sharp contrast to the giving patterns of the large "progressive" foundations. A glance at a single program area makes the point. A recent article written by In These Times associate publisher Beth Schulman, published in EXTRA! magazine, revealed that
right-wing foundations had poured some $2.7 million into four conservative publications (The New Criterion, National Interest, Public Interest, and American Spectator), while their progressive counterparts (The Nation, The Progressive, Mother Jones, and In These Times) received less than ten percent of that amount in foundation grants.<2> That enormous funding gap permits the conservative publications to focus more of their energies on "reporting" and marketing their stories to mainstream press, and less on fundraising and advertising sales.
Not content with these advantages, and having already vastly outspent and outgunned their progressive counterparts, these right-wing foundations are now pushing to
"defund the left." On Capitol Hill, the effort has been led by Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), whose top staffer on the issue is Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. No less than the Wall Street Journal described the initiative as "A G.O.P. effort to cripple advocacy groups with whom they
have ideological differences."<3> Leading "Contract with America" strategist Grover Norquist was still more direct: "We will hunt down one by one and extinguish their funding sources."<4> Aiding in this endeavor are the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and other foundation-backed organizations.<5> The effort has targeted a number of organizations, but two seem to be at the top of the G.O.P. hit list: the American Association of Retired Persons and Planned Parenthood.<6> Legislation pushed in 1995 by the congressional majority would have placed severe restrictions on the advocacy activities of organizations receiving federal grants beyond a certain threshold, as well as on their affiliated organizations.
In the case of Planned Parenthood, the ethical and legal advocacy of the group's lobbying arm would have been curtailed if the group continued to receive federal grants. Effectively, Planned Parenthood would have had to choose between lobbying and service delivery. True enough, A.A.R.P. and many Planned Parenthood affiliates receive federal grants -- not for general support or to fund advocacy, but to provide specific services to the public that Congress and the president have deemed to be in the public interest and worthy of grant monies. And why would such legislation not similarly threaten conservative groups? One reason is that while progressive groups commonly provide direct services to the poor, disabled or disadvantaged, conservative groups rarely do. Progressive groups, local and national, have over the years sought to fill in the gaps in the ever more frayed social safety net. Conservative groups have invested their resources, by and large, in efforts to further shred that net. As a consequence, comparatively few conservative organizations receive federal dollars for service delivery, and therefore are far less likely to rely on federal grants to support a significant share of their core program.
That same absence of interest in service delivery helps the conservative foundations focus their resources on political objectives, as well. Though both outsized and outnumbered by large centrist foundations such as the Ford, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations and others, conservative foundations' aggressive promotion of an ideological agenda and alignment with the Republican Party magnify their influence far beyond their endowments. "Their effort to shape debates is not diluted by concerns with ameliorating any other problems," says one journalist, while progressives underwrite a broad range of social programs such as "relief of poverty, domestic violence, AIDS, environmental abuse."<7>
* * * * * * * *
The report that follows barely scratches the surface of the right wing's funding operation, but it does paint a picture of the enormous amount of money being pumped into some of these political groups, and of the comprehensive approach the conservative foundations have employed.
The report examines the foundations and their grantees from three interrelated perspectives. Part One examines the different types of grants made by right-wing foundations. Part Two focuses on several of the larger foundations and their impact. Part Three comprises a handful of case studies on how the right-wing foundations have used their grants to influence particular issues in the political arena.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2055
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(78 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
