Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement

[WIP]

In recent years in American politics, there has been an uneasy sense of suspicion about how the oddball assortment of right wing think tanks, pundits, talk show hosts, politicians and bloggers all seem to fall in line so quickly....even when it's issues that they showed little concern for previously: like climate change, Israel and fundamentalist Christianity.

Well, now we have at least part of the answer: Donor's Trust

. And think back a couple of years to all of the spinning and wailing by the likes of Glenn Beck about the Tides Foundation funding a conspiracy to take away our oil and we see that the right follows their tried and true strategy of accusing their enemies of doing what they have been doing all along! And they have a lot more money to do it with compared to what the middle of the road liberal activists funded by George Soros or Bill Gates:

Founded in 1999, Donors Trust (and an affiliated group, Donors Capital
Fund) has raised north of $500 million and doled out $400 million to
more than 1,000 conservative and libertarian groups, according to Whitney Ball,
the group's CEO. Donors Trust allows wealthy contributors who want to
donate millions to the most important causes on the right to do so
anonymously, essentially scrubbing the identity of those underwriting
conservative and libertarian organizations. Wisconsin's 2011 assault on collective bargaining rights? Donors Trust helped fund that. ALEC, the conservative bill mill? Donors Trust supports it. The climate deniers at the Heartland Institute? They get Donors Trust money, too.

Donor Trust's increasingly important role in the conservative
movement is perhaps most evident on the issue of climate change. The
group has funded much of the climate-change denier movement—bankrolling,
for instance, the Heartland Institute, a torchbearer in the denier
movement. (It recently compared
those who believe in climate change to terrorists.) At the same time,
climate-denier funding from family and corporate foundations—say,
Exxon's foundation—has declined, according to Robert Brulle, a
sociologist at Drexel University who studies the climate change
"counter-movement.".....................................................

Across the conservative spectrum, Brulle found that Donors Trust is
playing an ever larger role. In 2003, Donors Trust money was the source
of 3 percent of the funding for more than 100 conservative groups whose
financial records Brulle has studied. By 2010, that percentage had grown
to 24 percent. Brulle surmises that financial underwriters of
the climate counter-movement and the conservative agenda writ large give
through Donors Trust to wipe their fingerprints off donations to
Heartland and others. "We just have this great big unknown out there
about where all the money is coming from," he says. And, in the years to
come, the unknown will only get bigger.

Yep, there getting bigger all right! This is what MJ's Andy Kroll found last week:

Here's what the latest filing shows us: Donors Trust is only getting
bigger. In 2011, the group received more than $39 million in donations,
an increase of $10 million from 2010, and handed out almost $30
million—both record sums. As in years past, recipients of Donors Trust
cash include the biggest players in conservative politics today: the
David Koch-chaired Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Cato
Institute, the FreedomWorks Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, and the influential State Policy Network.

Like all of its previous IRS filings, Donors Trust's 2011 paperwork
does not include a shred of information about the identity of Donors
Trust's bankrollers. That's partly why the nonprofit is increasingly
popular: At a time when conservative donors find themselves singled out
by political candidates and the media, Donors Trust offers anonymity.
When Donors Trust money lands at Heritage or Cato, it doesn't include
the name of the original source of the money; it simply says Donors
Trust. Increasingly, as this latest filing shows, conservative donors
are choosing to funnel their money through Donors Trust instead of
giving it themselves, meaning more of the money fueling conservative
politics is draped in secrecy. "We just have this great big unknown out
there about where all the money is coming from," Robert Brulle, a
sociologist at Drexel University who studies money in the conservative
movement, recently told me.

an article in the Guardian with information provided by Greenpeace US on Donor's Trust's contributions to funding climate change denial show just how important they have become. for some reason the edit says I can't post the graph shown in the article, click the link below if you want to see it:

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science

The problem today is that journalism in the U.S. is almost so firmly in the pocket of the plutocrats that I have to wonder how long investigative journalism that directly challenges them will be able to continue?

[GostHacked]

Investigative journalism died a couple decades ago. All the MSM in North America follow the same talking points for the most part. And it also depends on what you are investigating. That will determine the amount of push back you get from the talking heads.

[sharkman]

This is not anything new. The left has been all singing from the same song sheet since Bush Sr, it seems to be the way things are done there. Remember the recording of a group of media people prior to a Romney press conference during the election? They were strategizing what one would ask and then another to make sure they shaped the outcome, and no one was surprised then either.

I don't care for it at all, but when one side is forming alliances, if the other doesn't, then they lose.

Edit: George Soros is a "middle of the road activist"? An activist is not middle of the road anything. Soros is an extremist based on his actions and the millions he throws around.

Edited February 20, 2013 by sharkman

[Argus]

Anonymous political donations should not be permitted. There is a reason
why candidates have to tell everyone where their money is coming from. This does an end run around the law. It would not be legal in most countries.

[WIP]

This is not anything new. The left has been all singing from the same song sheet since Bush Sr, it seems to be the way things are done there. Remember the recording of a group of media people prior to a Romney press conference during the election? They were strategizing what one would ask and then another to make sure they shaped the outcome, and no one was surprised then either.

I don't care for it at all, but when one side is forming alliances, if the other doesn't, then they lose.

Edit: George Soros is a "middle of the road activist"? An activist is not middle of the road anything. Soros is an extremist based on his actions and the millions he throws around.

First, I don't see any moral equivalency between funding environmental activists, social justice and peace advocates, compared to funding climate change denial & assorted pro-oil propaganda, neocon war strategies working in the interests of military weapons contractors, and right wing reactionary religious movements that are anti-science, want to roll back women's rights and even civil rights for minorities. Where is the moral equivalence first of all? If this is what George Soros is putting his money on, then he is on the right side of human history even if it's by accident rather than design.

And I don't consider the Green Capitalist organizations that advocate piddling, tinkering with the dials of modern economic life to be doing much better than oil-funded interests that want to drive the world into extinction as a business strategy. It's more a matter of how long it takes to get there. Real radicals take on capitalist economics directly and advocate changes that will be necessary to adapt to a no-growth future. Taking a long term view, the plutocrats who have gone on an aggressive campaign to damage and marginalize liberal reformers of the system have set the course for a future violent confrontation between the few with most of the money and resources, and the many who are waiting to be organized into populist movements that will likely react with violence to overthrow present day entrenched interests.

[BubberMiley]

Edit: George Soros is a "middle of the road activist"? An activist is not middle of the road anything. Soros is an extremist based on his actions and the millions he throws around.

What are you referring to?

[Canuckistani]

Edit: George Soros is a "middle of the road activist"? An activist is not middle of the road anything. Soros is an extremist based on his actions and the millions he throws around.

Martin Luther King - extremist? So only the inactive are not extreme?

What is Soros an extremist for or against?

[bush_cheney2004]

George Soros' campaign contributions:

http://newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/George_Soros.php

[WIP]

Anonymous political donations should not be permitted. There is a reason

why candidates have to tell everyone where their money is coming from. This does an end run around the law. It would not be legal in most countries.

Since everything else that America does finds its way to Canada, I would really be concerned about catching this disease also. I'm sure that Harper is doing everything he can possibly think of to take the shackles off of campaign spending and outright bribing of politicians that is happening now in the U.S. I don't believe that the U.S. is a real, functioning democratic state anymore; because a place where money is the legal equivalent to free speech, is a land where those with the most money have the biggest megaphone, and likewise, a system where politicians can retire and immediately call themselves lobbyists to cash in on the IOU's that they have earned while doing the bidding of corporate masters while in office, is a system where the will of the majority gets overruled by the minority with most of the money. It's the money that makes the difference between plutocracy and democracy.

[TimG]

First, I don't see any moral equivalency between funding environmental activists, social justice and peace advocates, compared to funding climate change denial & assorted pro-oil propaganda, neocon war strategies....

Then you have nothing useful to add to the discussion. Environmentalism IS big business. Promoting panic makes many people very rich (look at Al Gore). There is absolutely no moral difference between people who cynically fund environmental causes because it is good for their business and those that oppose the same causes for the same reason. Similarly, there is no moral difference between people who sincerely believe in environmental causes and those who sincerely oppose them because they believe they are morally and economically bankrupt.

Edited February 20, 2013 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

Anonymous political donations should not be permitted. There is a reason

why candidates have to tell everyone where their money is coming from. This does an end run around the law. It would not be legal in most countries.

Why shouldn't anonymous donations be permitted? Isn't it better in some ways if the donor is anonymous? - Seems to me a large donation by a known donor might carry the assumption of an expectation of 'favors.'

[BubberMiley]

What are you referring to?

I knew that would be too difficult a question to answer.

[Canuckistani]

Why shouldn't anonymous donations be permitted? Isn't it better in some ways if the donor is anonymous? - Seems to me a large donation by a known donor might carry the assumption of an expectation of 'favors.'

Duh. The pol getting the donation knows who it's from, it's the public that's not informed. Nobody is going to give a pol a big cheque completely anonymously just because they love him/her so much.

[Guest American Woman]

Duh. The pol getting the donation knows who it's from, it's the public that's not informed. Nobody is going to give a pol a big cheque completely anonymously just because they love him/her so much.

An "anonymous donation" means the donor is anonymous. If the source of the donation is not being disclosed to the public, that's something else; it's not an "anonymous donation."

[Canuckistani]

An "anonymous donation" means the donor is anonymous. If the source of the donation is not being disclosed to the public, that's something else; it's not an "anonymous donation."

Doubt that happesn very often, at least with larger amounts. Or it, it would be "Ahm, sendin y'all a big fat anonymous check. Don't forget me now when it comes time to vote on that bill, y'hear." That, I can see happening all the time.

[sharkman]

What are you referring to?

Are you not aware of Soros and his attempt to direct the outcome of a presidential election? Here's some reading on his donations.

And this just some of the items that have been made public. Soros wrote the book on back room political funding strategies, so for this thread to trumpet Conservative organizing rings pretty hollow. He may be a lot of things, but middle of the road is not one of them.

In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death". He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush "if someone guaranteed it".^[53] Soros gave $3 million to theCenter for American Progress, $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, and $20 million^[54] to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election. On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush^[55] delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

On October 26, 2010, Soros donated $1 million, the largest donation in the campaign, to the Drug Policy Alliance to fund Proposition 19, that would have legalized marijuana in the state of California if it had passed in the November 2, 2010 elections.

According to an article in the Washington Post dated March 10, 2004:

"The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soroswho gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund

Sorry about the messy quoting, having a few issues with it.

Edited February 20, 2013 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

Are you not aware of Soros and his attempt to direct the outcome of a presidential election? Here's some reading on his donations.

My goodness. I didn't realize he was trying to affect the outcome of an election with his donations. How extremist!

[Peanutbutter]

My goodness. I didn't realize he was trying to affect the outcome of an election with his donations. How extremist!

It does seems rather hypocritical to point out the same behavior by the Republicans and jump up and down about that but brush it off as "business as usual" when a Democrat does it.

[BubberMiley]

It does seems rather hypocritical to point out the same behavior by the Republicans and jump up and down about that but brush it off as "business as usual" when a Democrat does it.

Does seems so but I don't trecall "pointing out the same behaviour." Nevertheless, I still don't see evidence that Soros is extremist. Not wanting Bush to win the 2004 election doesn\t seem like evidence of extremism to me. I was hoping Sharkman could explain his position further.

[BubberMiley]

I was hoping Sharkman could explain his position further.

But of course that won't happen because there's nothing to the accusation. Soros has been the subject of a rabid character assassination campaign by the right wing, just because they resent the fact that an insanely wealthy person might hold liberal views. It's funny to watch someone try to justify labelling another person as "extremist" because they didn't want to see Bush re-elected in 2004 though.

[bush_cheney2004]

It does seems rather hypocritical to point out the same behavior by the Republicans and jump up and down about that but brush it off as "business as usual" when a Democrat does it.

Agreed, but it seems that the rich and not so famous are only guilty of this when they champion conservative candidates or party issues. Millions of dollars in campaign contributions are only "bribes" when directed to the "dark side", and are not only acceptable for liberal causes/candidates, but to be encouraged as necessary ammunition against well heeled conservative foes. This rationalization is the gift that separates progressives from the logical but base concepts of conservatism.

[GostHacked]

We have seen and it has been proven, that the left and the right love anon donations. They love donations period, and many have no qualms about where that money is coming from as long as the money keeps flowing.

This is not a left nor right issue. it is a problem with the campaign contributions and lobbyists. Spineless idiots are elected and easily bribed with large sums of cash.

[sharkman]

Does seems so but I don't trecall "pointing out the same behaviour." Nevertheless, I still don't see evidence that Soros is extremist. Not wanting Bush to win the 2004 election doesn\t seem like evidence of extremism to me. I was hoping Sharkman could explain his position further.

Oh, well if you would like a response from other posters, perhaps you should ask them to clarify instead of posting nonsense like this:

My goodness. I didn't realize he was trying to affect the outcome of an election with his donations. How extremist!

(I don't see a question anywhere in there, maybe it's me.)

Soros said in an interview that stopping Bush was a life and death issue for him. Does that not sound like an extremist? He also said he'd spend his whole fortune if someone could guarantee a Bush defeat. How about that? No, of course not, to a leftwinger like you, it's all thumbs up unless it's a conservative.

I say neither side should be able to do it.

Edited February 21, 2013 by sharkman

[WIP]

We have seen and it has been proven, that the left and the right love anon donations. They love donations period, and many have no qualms about where that money is coming from as long as the money keeps flowing.

This is not a left nor right issue. it is a problem with the campaign contributions and lobbyists. Spineless idiots are elected and easily bribed with large sums of cash.

I would agree with you except for the fact that billionaire donors buying liberals is not support for the "left," it's just co-opting the left. As we can see with the way Obama has carried on the war and military spending policies of the Bush Administration, offered no real banking and finance reform, set up a Republican health care plan rather than expanding Medicare or even offering the Medicare buy-in option that was dangled in front of the public, and last but not least, will soon give the go-ahead to finishing the Keystone XL Pipeline after a little gnashing about to pretend to really being more concerned about the environment rather than money.

So, what is really a left wing cause that is supported by any billionaires? Even when they appear to be acting on altruistic reasons like the Gates Foundation, we find that their concept of education reform means that they mean privatizing public schools as charter schools to be run by one of the tentacles of their corporate branches: http://Bill and Melinda Gates's Foundation Helps ALEC Undercut Public Education

[BubberMiley]

Soros said in an interview that stopping Bush was a life and death issue for him. Does that not sound like an extremist? He also said he'd spend his whole fortune if someone could guarantee a Bush defeat. How about that? No, of course not, to a leftwinger like you, it's all thumbs up unless it's a conservative.

I say neither side should be able to do it.

I say both sides should be able to do it. I also don't think that someone spending a fortune to defeat Obama in the last election is necessarily an extremist, even if they felt really strongly about it. Do you? Of course you don't.

Yet you have the nerve to suggest that I am the one with partisan blinders on.