Print Print

Meet The Right Wing Charity Cartel

by Karoli on October 18, 2009

Cato Institute
Image via Wikipedia

In the eyes of the right wing, charities are only worthwhile when they’re controlled by trustworthy stewards of conservative sacred cows for the sole purpose of amassing funds in order to wage war, oppress societies, gain access to oil, or support fundamentalist religious zealots. But when a liberal dares to fund charities, the right wing rises and puffs up, declaring the ruination of democracy and liberal efforts to overtake the world. Just ask Brian Leach, who writes:

The Tides Foundation’s central tenet is “healthy societies rely fundamentally on respect for human rights, the vitality of communities and a celebration of diversity.” Seems quite harmless at first glance but upon further inspection of this organization, the group’s motivation becomes quite clear: the promotion of radical leftist beliefs on the American public through any means possible.

Mr. Leach is scrupulous in his efforts to mention the Terrible Trigger for the right wing: ACORN. He uses that mention, along with Terrible Terms like “fundamentally transform” to make a case that the evil liberals are poised to turn our country into a bunch of lazy do-nothing charity-case socialists.

“Fundamentally transform” that is certainly a popular catchphrase with the Obama administration and we’re seeing these radical changes proposed and forced through Congress with little input from the public. All that has stood in the way of socialized medicine is an outpouring of opposition at August town hall meetings throughout the country.

Are you afraid yet? As usual, the tactic of the right is to make people afraid of that which is good or does good for people in a way that differs from the conservative approach, with the ultimate goal of influencing people to act against their own interests. Please remember this phrase. It’s important and will continue to be in the years to come.

Mr Leach concludes with this:

…the vast majority of Tides Foundation grants only go to politically motivated projects.

He also muses over how ‘interesting’ it would be to view a donor list. I have some news for Mr. Leach: It’s not all that difficult to figure out who donates to these organizations if you’re willing to do the work. Foundations don’t have to disclose donors. Individuals do not have to disclose donations to charities. But foundations and other charities do have to disclose their grants on an annual basis. If Mr Leach is interested, the information is out there.

Given Mr. Leach’s barely disguised disdain for a charity daring to fund politically motivated organizations, I decided to take a closer look at the Right Wing Charity Cartel (Scaife, Koch, Coors, and Olin) and the causes they fund.

Scaife Family Foundations (Carthage, Allegheny and Sarah Scaife Foundation)

  • 1959-1999 – $340,000,0001
  • 1985-2005 – $433,900,0002
  • 2006-2008 – $ 57,100,0003

Total: $831,000,000

Castle Rock Foundation (Coors Family)

  • 1995-2005 – $27,000,0004
  • 2006-2008 – $ 8,300,0005

Total: $35,300,000

Koch Family Foundations: Charles G. Koch, David H. Koch, Fred C and Mary R Koch, Lambe Family Foundations

  • 1986-2004 – $120,000,0006
  • 2005-2007 – $ 32,400,0007

Total: $152,400,000

John M. Olin Foundation, Inc

  • 1985-2004 – $316,692,1808
  • 2005-2007 – $ 23,000,0009

Total: $349,092,180

Grand Total: $1,367,792,180

That total, again, is One Billion, three hundred sixty seven Million, seven hundred ninety two Thousand, one hundred eighty dollars. 1.3 Billion and change.

What organizations were funded with such generous donations? The Koch funds established and continue to fund the Cato Institute and Americans for Prosperity, among many others. Scaife funds established the Heritage Foundation, fund the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Citizens for a Sound Economy (now FreedomWorks), lately famous for the teaparty funding, stoking, and associated bus tour, the Hoover Institution, and various organizations created to skew newspapers, television and other media sources toward a conservative point of view. The Olin Foundation, along with other tobacco-funded charities, established and contributed to many of the same conservative organizations as the others.

In fact, all of the organizations I’ve listed here contributed to the organizations named in the tobacco strategy memo I wrote about last week. This time, they’re funding those organizations with a goal of defeating health care reform. Here’s a spreadsheet I’ve prepared (not yet complete, but close) with donor detail to those very same organizations who participated with Big Tobacco to bring down Bill Clinton’s health care reform effort.

By comparison, even Mr. Leach acknowledges Tides Foundation contributes to organizations who actively assist people — that’s why he objects. He fears that helping them is a secret, subtle, insidious way to immerse people in that “radical leftist belief structure”. Beliefs like access to health care being a right rather than a privilege. Those radical beliefs. While the Tides Foundation does engage in public advocacy, the Advocacy Fund is less than 1/100th of the amounts donated by the Gang of Four. The balance of Tides’ giving appears to be going to actually assist people in need.

My message to Brian Leach and anyone else who dares to utter a whine about the Tides Foundation? Take the mote out of your own eye before trying to remove your brother’s, or anyone else’s.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. – 1Cor 13:13 KJV

Notes:
1 Washington Post
2 MediaTransparency.org (via Archive.org)
3 2006, 2007 and 2008 990 filings available on the Scaife Foundations website
4> 1995-2005 MediaTransparency.org via archive.org
5Castle Rock Foundation 990PF 2006-2008 available online
6 1986-2004 MediaTransparency.org – Aggregate Koch Family Foundation Contributions
7 2005-2007 Lambe 990PF, Chas. G 990PF, David H 990PF (not considered in total, since gifts directed toward medical research grants), Fred/Mary 990PF
8MediaTransparency.org Olin Foundation Aggregate Contributions (note: This foundation closed in 2005, still distributing remaining funds)
92005,2006,2007 990PF

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tagged as: advocacy, Brian Leach, charity, conservative, dishonesty, Education, liberal, non-profits

  • disgustedbyyourblog
    I received a few responses to my questioning Karoli about her authorship on this post. Karoli explained herself, and that clears it for me.

    The responders commented on my user name. It is strong. It was not passive aggressive when I registered to reply to Karoli's blog. I was so appalled with her coverage of a finger biting incident she witnessed that the name just completed the very 'active/aggressive'?? response I sent as a reply to her post.
    I've since followed Karoli's blogs. They help me to better understand how those from the progressive ideology reasons and thinks. I've kept the name for continuity. My name bothers you, but if we get what progressives are asking for at the federal level, my name still applies and I will be disgusted with the results.
  • txvoodoo
    Maybe you can clarify something for me?

    I can understand being disappointed, upset, and even angry at legislative results. But disgusted implies a level of over-emotionalization that just shouldn't be happening here.

    Consider, also, that you're tarring about half of all americans with the "disgusting" brush. Your neighbors, friends, and probably some family.

    I think one of the problems with discourse is that we forget that our "opposition" is comprised of people we actually know and like, and in some cases, love.
  • disgustedbyyourblog
    HI Lisa,

    Perhaps you will be disgusted with the results of government run health insurance if it does in fact become part of our federal legislation. Perhaps not. And, you will not use harsh words to describe it's effects. So be it.

    I haven't brushed anyone as disgusting, I am brushing the ideology that's leading many Americans down a path that will crush our economy and reduce the medical care we now enjoy. I love America and Americans and I am 'disappointed, upset, and even angry' at what's being pushed for our country right now. Okay, I've said it your way, will you now rethink what you are promoting for those you love?
  • txvoodoo
    No, I won't. Because I've had the experience of dealing with the nightmare that is our current insurance system.

    These companies, with no competition, have completely changed how healthcare is provided to us. I am old enough to remember when my DOCTOR, in conjunction with me, made decisions about my healthcare. In the past 5 years, I have had innumerable episodes of fighting with my insurance company to have basic, needed tests paid for, or even approved in the first place. I've had to pay out of pocket for things that were arbitrarily deemed unnecessary (yet later found to be life-saving).

    What's being pushed now, as you say, is the chance for us to return to no 3rd-party functionaries inserting themself in my healthcare for profit.

    I think what you say is merely fearmongering, and you've been ginned up by organizations run by these same for-profit companies. You're fighting against your own interest, and you're too deluded to know it.

    I feel very sorry for you.
  • disgustedbyyourblog
    Hi Lisa,

    Boy I hope you're right. When you look at history and the effects of government run entities, the results you expect just aren't there. No matter, I think we will find out soon enough. The left has the majority, and they will pass something.

    I chuckled at your statement. "What's being pushed now, as you say, is the chance for us to return to no 3rd-party functionaries inserting themself in my healthcare for profit." I think, you will find that you will not be getting what your statement declares (the government will be the 3rd-party functionary). Let's hope that your statement is true and I'm only delusional about history.

    I like this one too. "These companies, with no competition..." Once the government gets their hands into the health insurance business that you are calling for, competition will not be there. And, just in case you might be unhappy with the results of the government running health insurance, and you find you are even more frustrated than now, you will not have a competitor to consider in order to shop around for a better deal. But hey what the hell, I'm sure the altruistic government will never let you suffer. They are there just to pay your bills and make paperwork easier for you. According to your expectations, you will be able to get any arbitrary necessary or unnecessary test and/or treatment you want, because you got those nasty ole insurance companies out of the way...
    Boy I hope your right.

    Reform is needed. Absolutely! Government controlled, dominated health insurance? No thanks.

    Your response like many others like you are very eager to make life easier for yourselves. Anything has to be better than this. Right? Unfortunately, I don't see where you've done your homework to see the pros and cons of reforming private health insurance or giving up your choices to government. Unfortunately, there are alot of Americans out there like you who are easily persuaded to give up essential principles for ease and convenience. This has been done before and the results speak for themselves. Due to your side's simple minded solutions, our country will suffer. (Oops, fear mongering again). What about all the books and documents regarding free markets vs government control? What about our ancestors (mine anyway) who came here to come out from under an opressive government? (Oops, fear mongering again).

    Oh well...we will soon find out as this same old tired story plays itself out one more time.
  • txvoodoo
    In your perusal of gov't-run entities, I think you're forgetting Medicare. As my GOP mother would tell you, it works wonderfully.

    Chuckle all you like. A gov't entity wouldn't be motivated by profit,and wouldn't have the same impetus for recissions, denials, etc. Fact.

    You are confused. The gov't isn't going to "(get) their hands into the health insurance business..." There isn't going to be privatization of existing entities. Insurance co's aren't going away. So that negates your whole lovely fear-mongering there.

    "...you will be able to get any arbitrary necessary or unnecessary test and/or treatment you want, because you got those nasty ole insurance companies out of the way..."

    You're making assumptions not born out by facts, and not supported by any knowledge of me. 3 weeks ago, my insurance company denied payment for a CT scan. Said scan prevented my having to have immediate surgery to determine if a condition existed. With my doctor's office, I was finally able to get payment approved, thereby saving myself from unnecessary surgery, and the insurance company for a 10 times greater bill.

    "Your response like many others like you are very eager to make life easier for yourselves."

    Oh, I see where you're going. I want free everything right? No, dude, I want the ins. co. I have now, which I pay for (quite expensively, I guarantee), to live up to its contractual obligations, and not attempt to weasel out of its responsibilities.

    "Unfortunately, there are alot of Americans out there like you who are easily persuaded to give up essential principles for ease and convenience."

    Yadda yadda, Ben Franklin, yadda. Yeah, you're using the wrong analogy.

    "Due to your side's simple minded solutions, our country will suffer"

    Wanna back that up with, ya know, FACTS, rather than liberatarian blatherings and posturings?

    "What about all the books and documents regarding free markets vs government control? "

    What about them? Just invoking their existance doesn't prove you actually know anything about them.

    "What about our ancestors (mine anyway) who came here to come out from under an opressive government? "

    You're from a communist nation? Bravo. My ancestors came here between 1880 & 1902. My grandfather gained his citizenship through service in WWI - something that's not available to current immigrants.

    I could write you a tome on how the conditions they faced are not applicable for analogy today.
  • I went to the AT&T store to buy a new case for my iPhone today. I paid
    cash. Before they rang up my purchase, they requested my cell phone
    number, business name, and the last 4 digits of my business ID
    number. It was almost not worth it for a $20 phone case. When I hear
    the argument against government invasiveness, I wonder why the same
    argument is not made against corporate entities. Why should AT&T have
    to know my account number to sell me a case for my phone? Why should
    the pharmacy be tracking not only my prescription purchases, but my
    shampoo choices? Why should the bookstore have a database of
    everything I've read?

    Don't even get me started on credit scores and banks...I can rant for
    days on that one. What is it about for-profit entities that makes it
    okay for them to be invasive? Are they any more trustworthy than the
    government? I hardly think so. This argument is a red herring.

    Here's something interesting. On my call with Senator Merkley today,
    he discussed public insurance plans that have a proven track record.
    Oregon, it seems, has had a 'public option' for Workers' Compensation
    for 20 years. Their costs today are half of what they were 20 years
    ago. That strikes me as pretty compelling evidence for a public option.
  • leftsideout
    Perhaps I am seriously missing some salient points, which is never out of the question, but you seem to assume a single payer system as being imminent. From all that I've read and researched that doesn't appear to be on the horizon. At least not within the foreseeable future. I wish that was the case, but I don't think it's at all likely. A public option alternative to the corporate insurance
    system is another thing, however. And that will provide some less-than-fully-for-profit options to those who choose to utilize it or who have few other resources from which to choose.

    One issue that I don't see covered much in any discussion is how the insurance industry can essentially stifle job mobility. Many, like me, are pretty much held captive in our work positions, even if those environments are otherwise terrible, for the simple reason that we cannot afford to lose our insurance benefits. There are virtually no affordable non-group insurance options available for the majority of us. If, for instance, I leave my job for another there is little likelihood that I would be entitled to full medical benefits without a large time gap--in many cases up to a year after hire. Financially getting non-group insurance is out of the question for most of us, as well as having those exclusionary pre-existings as a consideration. COBRA is one option, but again, financially prohibitive. My partner, however, is on Medicare -- one of those government controlled and implemented programs you
    reference so negatively. She is not limited in her work choices by concerns of losing her insurance, and even has the option of fulfilling self employment if she so chooses.

    Yes, we have government run/controlled programs that fail us. But we have many more that work relatively seamlessly: fire and police service, public works, public education, the military. And those are only a few examples. Education, in my opinion, is the best analogy here. There is a public option for education but
    one always still has the private sector option, as well. If you don't like the way one is implemented you can choose another path with no penalty for some kind of pre-existing issue, and no delay in continuation of education.

    The physical health of a nation's citizens would seem to be one of a government's first priorities. Until this health care initiative push, it has truly appeared the opposite in this nation.

    Fear mongering, as some have referred to your voicing of some of your concerns, may or may not be appropriate labelling. What I know is appropriately called fear is the tightwire dance so many of us live our lives performing because of the corporately manufactured enthrallment to the whims of insurance providers.
  • Indeed, leftsideout. Not only does it squash job mobility, but it
    discourages entrepreneurship and the creation of small businesses.
    What person in their right mind would ever choose self-employment over
    the security of employer-provided group health insurance, particularly
    if they've ever had any health issue that insurers deem a future
    liability.
  • If what you say is true, why is Medicare so popular?
  • disgustedbyyourblog
    It's free and easy...
  • This is an excellent expose on the metahypocrisy of the fear mongering right wing. Thank you for your research and for the ammunition you have provided to me others. I plan on using this often.
  • disgustedbyyourblog
    Karoli, did you actually write your recent posts? There's such a profound change in your presentation from a few months ago.

    Just curious. . .

    Also, are you authoring the responses tagged with your name Karoli?

    Again, just wondering. . .
  • As someone who has known Karoli for more than ten years, I can attest that unless she says otherwise, if something is on her blog, she wrote it.

    You must be so proud of yourself with your handle and snide comment.
  • txvoodoo
    What an incredibly passive-aggressive comment, starting with the snide username to the "just wondering."

    And for someone questioning whether Karoli's writing her own words, and using her net-nom de plume, you've sure picked a doozie of an insulting psuedonym.

    Signed,
    Lisa Rowe.
  • PS. Everything I write, whether a comment, a tweet, or a post that has my name on it without any embellishment (I suppose there is the possibility of a twitter impersonator) is mine. My comments tend to be off the cuff. My posts tend to be more edited, thought out. Tweets are 140 characters of instant thought. Yes, they're all mine.
  • Part of me wants to really smack back for that insult, but I will simply offer my political blog, which I used to keep separately but which I have now merged in, as evidence of my writing.

    No one writes posts for this site but me, and once in awhile, a guest post by my daughter. The only difference between now and a few months ago is that I decided to merge the political writing with the personal writing.

    Here is the link to my political blog: http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/


    Here are a few samples just in case you don't feel like picking through my liberal rants: http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/01/wher... (on 401k hysteria)

    http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2007/01/is-t... (on Iran's non-threat)

    and, the Yes on 8 bus tour post

    http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2008/10/yes-...

    The only difference between now and a few months ago is the location of the post.
  • disgustedbyyourblog
    Thanks for the explanation. I was introduced to your blog through the Finger Biting post. That post was your own personal witness and opinion. Your history of blogs was attached to the web page. I looked at a few and saw a lot of personal posts, poems, dialogue with friends.
    I was not aware that you had a political blog also. So, when your history links went away and these political only blogs with links to everything progressive began to show up on a regular basis, and the MSNBC video port appeared, I wondered what happened to the Karoli I was introduced to.
    Didn't mean to insult you at all, just wanted to know why things were different.
  • I'm in the process of redesigning the site, which is why it's
    difficult right now to find certain things, though you can use the
    navigation links at the top or the search function to find them. As I
    finalize the design, you'll see more of the other posts emerging, and
    in the meantime my photography is being posted on http://karoli.posterous.com
    right now. As my time unemployed continues into its 10th month and
    the reason is usually related to age and the cost of health insurance
    for me and my family, I have decided that I need to make my own
    future. I hope it will involve being employed in a cause-based role
    either as a researcher, reporter, community manager on the web. If
    nothing materializes, I may make my own proposal and pitch it for
    funding.

    I'm glad we were able to clear that up.
  • I just quickly did some math, so take this with a grain of salt, but that $1.3 billion dollar figure is from a period of 50 years, or an average of $27 million per year.

    For some perspective, George Soros ALONE donated $23,581,000 to defeat George W. Bush in 2004. All of that money was donated to tax exempt "charities" as well. Altogether, George Soros's foundations spend over a half billion dollars every year, a large percentage of that is political.

    I see no difference. People should be able to use their money as they please. If people want to donate money to Media Matters (which I think is the most despicable organization on the internet), I say they should damn well be able to. If I were to send $100 to ThinkProgress, I should be able to. If I want to send it to Heritage instead, same thing. And that should still be allowed even if I was rich.
  • With the exception of Scaife, who has the 50-year timeline, the rest of them contribute and fund (collectively) around 35 million/year.

    I am not arguing that anyone can use their money as they see fit. It just struck me as more than a little intellectually bereft to criticize the Tides Foundation (rather than, for example, Soros or his related foundations) for the work they do, and to insinuate that there was some deep and illegal tie between them and Obama without acknowledging the very, very deep valley that right-wing charitable giving has funded.

    FYI, the reason he didn't call out Soros Charitable Foundation or related entities? The absence of five letters: ACORN. At least, that's how it looks to me.
  • Excellent point--it's selective outrage. Of course conservatives find the activities of liberals more outrageous than those of conservative groups and vice versa. Of those conservative groups you mentioned, I'm willing to bet that there is good amount of money being used for non political activities.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: