Showing posts with label Donors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donors. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Big donors may give even more under court"s ruling

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Big donors may give even more under court"s ruling

Big donors may give even more under court"s ruling







Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., right, followed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. leave a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, where they talked about the Supreme Court decision in the McCutcheon vs. FEC case, in which the Court struck down limits in federal law on the aggregate campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties, and political action committees. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)





Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., right, followed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. leave a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, where they talked about the Supreme Court decision in the McCutcheon vs. FEC case, in which the Court struck down limits in federal law on the aggregate campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties, and political action committees. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — The Supreme Court ruling Wednesday erasing a long-standing limit on campaign donations will allow a small number of very wealthy donors to give even more than is currently the case, according to students of the complex campaign finance system, and could strengthen the establishment in both parties.


While Republicans cheered the ruling on philosophical grounds and Democrats criticized it, there was a general agreement that the decision itself was unlikely to benefit one party over another.


“This is not a decision that advantages one party over the other. It advantages wealthy people over everybody else,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.


On a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down a limitation on the amount any donor may give to candidates, committees and political action committees combined.


Only 646 out of millions of donors in the election cycle of 2011-2012 gave the now-defunct legal maximum, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the current election cycle, the limit is $ 123,200, broken down as $ 48,600 to all candidates combined and $ 74,600 to all party committees and political action committees in total.


The ruling will “mean there will be much greater emphasis by the campaigns and the parties on those donors with the biggest checkbooks who can make those very large contributions,” said Bob Biersack, who works for the CRP and is a 30-year veteran of the Federal Election Commission.


“Whether that’s good or bad depends on your perspective on how this whole system should work, but it absolutely means that the small number of people who can give at those levels” will be asked to give more, he added.


The ruling leaves unchanged a parallel system in which individuals donate unlimited amounts, sometimes undisclosed, to certain outside groups. Biersack said the same small group of 646 donors gave a total of about $ 93.4 million in the last campaign. Their largesse will still be avidly sought, as Republican presidential hopefuls recently demonstrated by travelling to Las Vegas to meet with casino magnate and conservative donor Sheldon Adelson.


In the realm of limited donations, Cleta Mitchell, an election lawyer for Republicans, said the court’s ruling means that various party committees and candidates no longer will have to vie for money from the same contributors. The law permits a donor to contribute $ 5,200 for the primary and general election combined to any candidate, and if they did so, could donate only to nine office-seekers before reaching the $ 48,600 limit to all federal office-seekers.


Similarly, while Republicans and Democrats in Washington each maintain a national party committee, a Senate campaign committee and a House campaign committee, a donor could give the maximum allowable amount to only two of the three without violating the overall limitation the court discarded.


Now, Mitchell said, “the donors get to choose obviously, but the committees don’t have to feel like they’re pinching another party’s donors.”


In all, she described the ruling as “a positive for the parties.”


The court’s ruling also means that donors will be able to give $ 10,000 a year to as many state party committees as they want, so-called joint committees, in which a lawmaker can now solicit funds simultaneously for their own campaign, their own political action committee, their party and for an unlimited number of other candidates without donors exceeding the old limits.


Biersack cited House Speaker John Boehner’s fundraising efforts as an example, said he would now be able to use a joint fundraising committee for hundreds of Republican House candidates simultaneously, greatly expanding their ability to receive funds.


In theory, this ability could once more allow parties and their leaders to assert more discipline over rank-and-file lawmakers, who have become increasingly beholden to outside groups in recent years.


Ryan Call, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party and a campaign finance attorney, said the court’s ruling will be a boon to state parties, which he said have been neglected previously because donors hit the overall spending limit before they could distribute funds lower on the political food chain. “We have lots of optimism that this new decision would enable people who want to support us to do so,” he said.


Under the court’s ruling, a donor could donate the maximum $ 10,000 a year to each of their party’s 50 state committees, or a total of $ 1 million — and still donate to candidates as well as national party committees and political action committees.


Matt Canter, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called the ruling a “win for national party committees” and said it will “greatly enhance our ability to raise resources to support our voter contact and field program … in states across the country.” He referred to a new field project to boost turnout in certain states with key Senate races this year.


While there was general agreement about the short-term impact of the ruling, there was a strong divergence of opinion on the wisdom of the court’s conservative majority. The case was the latest in which the justices found that many limits on contributions violate the givers’ constitutional free-speech rights.


Republicans who backed the suit challenging the overall limits cheered the ruling.


Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who filed a brief in support of the challenge, said the court “has once again reminded Congress that Americans have a constitutional First Amendment right to speak and associate with political candidates and parties of their choice.”


He added that court’s ruling makes it clear that it is the “right of the individual, and not the prerogative of Congress, to determine how many candidates and parties to support.”


Democrats said the ruling must be viewed in the context of earlier ones that they said strengthened the power of the wealthy.


Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former state attorney general, criticized the court’s majority in unusually sharp terms, saying the majority seems interested in “aligning political power in this country with political wealthy.”


Schumer said a Senate committee he chairs would hold hearings on the issue.


___


Associated Press writers Philip Elliott and Kenneth Thomas in Washington and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



Big donors may give even more under court"s ruling

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Why Donors Just Spent $25 Million To Support Undocumented Students

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Why Donors Just Spent $25 Million To Support Undocumented Students

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Texas Republicans Lose 3 Major Donors in 2013


The deaths this year of three major Texas Republican donors could signal a generational change for party kingmakers in the nation’s largest GOP stronghold.


Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who died Saturday, helped transform Texas to a Republican stronghold. Two other major contributors, homebuilder Bob Perry and businessman Leo Linbeck Jr., also died this year.


Republican operatives say it leaves a question mark for Republican candidates and political organizations that have relied on them in the past.


The deaths also come as six of the state’s top seven officeholders are moving on.


Experts say the changes are expected to help grass-roots and tea party activists battle for control of the Texas GOP beyond 2014. They also note that oil discoveries are producing a whole new generation of wealthy Republican donor.


© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.




Newsmax – Politics



Texas Republicans Lose 3 Major Donors in 2013

Monday, December 2, 2013

Happy Valentine"s & Generosity Day to our donors!

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Happy Valentine"s & Generosity Day to our donors!

Thursday, October 24, 2013

GOP Donors Pressuring Party on Amnesty


GOP Donors Pressuring Party on Amnesty


“Some big-money Republican donors, frustrated by their party’s handling of the standoff over the debt ceiling and government shutdown, are stepping up their warnings to GOP leaders that they risk long-term damage to the party if they fail to pass immigration legislation,” the Wall Street Journal writes.


“Some donors say they are withholding political contributions from members of Congress who don’t support action on immigration, and many are calling top House leaders. Their hope is that the party can gain ground with Hispanic voters, make needed changes in immigration policy and offset some of the damage that polls show it is taking for the shutdown.”


Revealed: Obama to Lift Restrictions on Libyans Studying Nuclear Science


House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) have obtained an internal Department of Homeland Security draft final regulation prepared by the Obama Administration that would lift the longstanding prohibition on Libyans to come to the U.S. to work in aviation maintenance, flight operations, or to seek study or training in nuclear science. This draft final regulation could go into place without prior notice and comment. The prohibition was put in place in the 1980s after the wave of terrorist incidents involving Libyans. The Administration justifies lifting this ban by claiming the United States’ relationship with Libya has been ‘normalized,’” says a news release today by the two Congressmen.


Obama to Make Immigration Speech Today


“As the White House struggles to fix the problem-plagued rollout of its healthcare reform law, President Barack Obama on Thursday will try to focus attention on another policy priority – immigration reform – with a call for congressional action. The president, who listed immigration as one of three priorities for this year after the 16-day government shutdown concluded, will make a statement at 10:35 a.m. (1435 GMT) at the White House urging lawmakers to finish work on measures to strengthen U.S. borders and provide a pathway toward citizenship for millions of people who are in the United States illegally,” the Huffington Post says.




Immigration Reform BlogPost id = does not exist.



GOP Donors Pressuring Party on Amnesty

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Organ solution? More donors


Murnaghan family



Sarah Murnaghan, 10, shown with her parents Janet and Francis Murnaghan, has cystic fibrosis and needs a lung transplant. A judge last week ruled that she could be more easily considered for adult lungs.




By JoNel Aleccia, Senior Writer, NBC News


As soon as word spread that little Sarah Murnaghan needed a lung transplant, the offers started rolling in.


Not from the families of deceased donors who might save the life of the 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl with cystic fibrosis, but from concerned strangers who saw or heard the child’s plight in national news stories and wanted to do something — anything — they could.


“I was looking at her picture and that just touched my heart and I got tears,” said Daniel Barr, 60, an ex-Marine from Cecil, Ark., who offered to volunteer his own lung for Sarah. “I just wanted to jump up and say, ‘Here, take it!’”


Hundreds of people shared Barr’s sentiment, even though the girl’s family said that she wasn’t suitable for a living lung donation. What many may not have shared is Barr’s longtime designation as an organ donor — and not just for Sarah.


“I’ve been one just about forever,” said Barr, who lost his own daughter, Kelly Nichole, in 1991, and donated her heart and eyes. “I wish more people would. You could really cut the backlog of people waiting – and dying.”


Only about 45 percent of adults in the U.S. — nearly 109 million people — are organ donors, a figure that donation and transplant experts say seems tragically low when the public’s attention is riveted on the lack of organs for a child such as Sarah.


“We have millions of people that are concerned or outraged about this particular situation, yet 55 percent don’t sign up to donate,” said David Fleming, the president and chief executive of Donate Life America, a transplant advocacy agency that tracks U.S. donors.


The proportion of adults signed up as organ donors varies surprisingly widely across the U.S., from Montana, where 82 percent of people older than 18 are designated donors, to New York, where 20 percent are signed up. In Vermont, the figure is only 5 percent.



People typically sign up for organ donation when they acquire or renew driver’s licenses, and state motor vehicles departments keep track of the records. But it’s also possible to register online any time, driver’s license or no. 


The biggest barrier to registering is procrastination — tempered with a little denial, said Sharon Ross, a spokeswoman for the San Diego affiliate of Donate Life.


“I think we, as a nation, as a whole, don’t think about death or want to think about death,” she said. “Many of our deaths are unexpected and sudden and we just don’t take the time to sign up.”


But when a situation like Sarah Murnaghan’s arises, it suddenly commands attention. 


“It really puts a face on the need,” said Fleming. “I have a 10-year-old daughter. If my 10-year-old daughter needed an organ,  I would be doing anything in my power to save her life.”


More than 118,000 people are waiting for organs, including nearly 76,000 who actively need them now, according to OPTN. About 18 people die every day awaiting transplants.


“People sometimes believe that organ allocation is the primary issue, when in reality, the crisis is the lack of supply of organs for transplant,” Fleming said.


Indeed, the focus for two weeks has been on the complicated two-tier system that governs the way children and adults receive organs. Created by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN, it limits kids younger than 12 to organs from other children of similar age and size and gives teens and adults first chance at adult organs – even if the youngest kids are sicker.


Transplant experts say the 2005 rule replaced a first-come, first-served system and cut waiting list deaths by 40 percent.


But Sarah’s parents challenged the rule, saying it denied their child the chance to compete for an adult organ based on the severity of her illness instead of her age.


They launched a massive PR campaign that garnered headlines, political backing and, on Wednesday, a judge’s rule ordering Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to direct OPTN to put the child on the adult list.


By Thursday, another child awaiting a lung transplant, 11-year-old Javier Acosta, had been bumped up by the court as well.


Surgeons and ethicists objected to the move, saying it undermined a system designed to be impervious to individual cases and that it allowed non-doctors to make medical decisions.


“The whole point of having rules is to avoid special pleading,” said Art Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center and a frequent NBC News contributor.


Making exceptions to the system also reinforces a common suspicion that celebrities, the wealthy and people with the right ties have an inside track on organ transplant, Fleming said. “If it continues on this path, it is setting a dangerous precedent.”


Donation advocates say there’s one certain way to avoid what Sebelius described as the “incredibly agonizing” situation of having to ration organs: Get people to donate.


“We certainly believe that if everyone were a registered donor, it could double the number of transplants each year,” said Fleming, noting it would boost last year’s 28,000 transplants to more than 56,000.


John Makely / NBC News



Detail of a New York state driver’s license organ donor mark.




That wouldn’t erase the waiting list, but it would go a long way toward satisfying the need. Each person who agrees to donate organs can help as many as eight recipients, experts say.


No one knows for sure the size of the pool of potential donors, Fleming said. Organs are harvested from people who are brain dead, or in certain cases, whose hearts have stopped, but conditions from disease to the manner of death can render many potential transplants useless.


Less than 1 percent of the 2.5 million people who die each year in the U.S. may provide viable organs, experts say. That makes it even more crucial to encourage every possible registration, a task that has occupied transplant centers and donation advocate for decades.


They work hard to rebut common myths about organ donation designation, including this one: ER doctors won’t work as hard to revive potential donors in a crisis.


“We hear that all the time,” said Fleming. “I have friends who are registered donors who wink and say, ‘Will they really try to save me?’”


Minority groups including blacks, Hispanics and Asians are often reluctant to donate, primarily because of religious or cultural reservations, experts say. White people account for about two-thirds of all organ donations.


There are strong regional leanings as well. All across the rural West — Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana — organ donation designations are high, 74 percent or higher.


“There are some areas of the country that have a very strong sense of community and commitment to your neighbor,” Fleming said. “In some urban centers, you may not know your neighbor.”


OPTN executive members plan to meet Monday to consider the way pediatric lungs are allocated. The outcome may or may not help Sarah Murnaghan and other children like her, but organ experts say one thing will.


“The real message is this,” Fleming said. “If you feel discomfort or outrage for this young woman, the real response, the way to provide hope to people like Sarah is to become an organ donor.” 


Related stories: 






Organ solution? More donors

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Meet Donors Trust: The Little-Known Group That Lets the Wealthy Secretively Fund Right-Wing Causes

Editor"s note: The following is a transcript of a Democracy Now! segment on Donors Trust, a little known group funding the Right"s agenda. 

When it comes to the wealthy funders of right-wing causes, the big names are well known: billionaires like the industrialist Koch Brothers and the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, super PACs like Americans for Prosperity and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS. Now, through them, hundreds of millions of dollars have poured into right-wing causes and candidates. But now it turns out this web of dark-money donations is even more secretive than we previously thought. That’s because the operations of a largely unknown group have now come to light. They’re called Donors Trust, a nonprofit charity based in Virginia.

Since 1999, Donors Trust has handed out nearly $ 400 million in private donations to more than 1,000 right-wing and libertarian groups. The fact Donors Trust has been able to quietly do so appears to explain why it exists: Wealthy donors can back the right-wing causes they want without attracting public scrutiny. Donors Trust is classified as a “donor-advised” fund under U.S. tax law, meaning its funders don’t have direct say in where their money goes. That in turn allows them to remain largely anonymous.

AMY GOODMAN: But the most detailed accounting to date shows Donors Trust funds a wish list of right-wing causes, prompting Mother Jones magazine to label it, quote, “the dark-money ATM of the right.” Donors Trust recipients include the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a mechanism for corporate interests to help write state laws; the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a media outlet that unabashedly promotes right-wing causes; and the State Policy Network, a number of right-wing think tanks that push so-called “free-market” policies.

But the major focus of Donors Trust appears to be funding the denial of global warming. More than a third of Donors Trust donations—at least $ 146 million—has gone to think tanks and other groups that challenge the science of climate change. Later in the broadcast, we’ll take a closer look at that funding of climate change denial, but first we turn to an overview of Donors Trust and look at why it’s been able to evade public scrutiny until now.

Joining us from Washington, D.C., is John Dunbar, politics editor at the Center for Public Integrity, worked on the group’s months-long investigation into Donor’s Trust. We did ask Donors Trust to join us, but they declined our request.

John Dunbar, lay out just what Donors Trust is.

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, they’re essentially a pass through. What they do is, is they act as a kind of a middleman between what are very large, well-known private foundations created by—mostly by corporate executives, like the Kochs, for example, and they direct the money of those contributions to a very large network of right-leaning, free-market think tanks across the country, including those that you’ve named. By doing—by running it through the middleman, it essentially obscures the identity of the original donors, of the folks who have provided the funds themselves. And the organization itself actually makes that clear on its own website, essentially saying people who give money to the organization can avoid being identified or being connected with potentially controversial issues.

AARON MATÉ: And John Dunbar, so the figure is $ 400 million since 1999. Why is it that all this is just coming to light now?

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, we kind of stumbled onto it, to be honest with you. We’ve been, at the Center for Public Integrity—that’s publicintegrity.org if you’d like to read our full report on it—we were looking at activities at the state level, and we were noticing a certain continuity. There was a certain sameness to what was going on in various states on these issues. And we have been looking at the American Legislative Exchange Council for quite some time, and we were looking for how these organizations were funded. And this Donors Trust organization kept popping up, and it seemed to be such an amorphously named organization. We couldn’t really figure out where it was. So we got to wondering, “Well, who’s funding Donors Trust?” And then we backed it up a step, and then we started looking at some of the more better-known right-wing, free-market foundations, particularly those run by the Koch brothers—the Searle Freedom Trust, for example, is another one; the Bradley Foundation—these are all very well-known right-leaning foundations—and found that an enormous amount of the funds that came into Donors Trust came from those—from those organizations.

AMY GOODMAN: John Dunbar, in your report, you speak with the Donors Trust president and CEO, Whitney Ball. She says much of the group’s focus is on the state level because of, quote, “gridlock” at the federal level of government means donors see, quote, “a better opportunity to make a difference in the states.” Ball also sits on the board of the State Policy Network. Can you talk about this focus on activity at the state level?

JOHN DUNBAR: Yeah, I think that—I don’t think anybody would argue with her point that it’s hard to get anything done in Washington these days. They have been a lot more successful at the state level. And I think that in Washington we have a tendency to sort of get tunnel vision: We don’t think that anything that happens outside of Washington really matters, when in fact the laws that are passed in the states are extremely important. Some of the focus of the Donors Trust recipients have been on specific state issues that, you know, affect all of us. You know, some of their favorite issues are right-to-work laws in the states; climate issues; renewable energy, as you’ll hear from Suzanne and The Guardian, which has done such great work on that; and as well as, you know, tax issues, etc. People tend to look at states and what’s happening in a particular state in isolation; they don’t look around and see that the same thing seems to be happening in other states. And it’s—this is clearly a coordinated effort to create state-based think tanks. There’s 51 of them that they’ve funded all across the country to push legislative issues. And then they created their own media empire to support—they even support the ideas behind those issues.

AARON MATÉ: Well, John Dunbar, if you could follow up on that, this media group, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. They receive 95 percent of their funding from the Donors Trust?

JOHN DUNBAR: Right, and that was kind of shocking, actually. You know, we—that is a foundation-financed reporting organization. I have to say that the Center for Public Integrity is also a foundation-financed reporting organization, so—however, we do not get 95 percent of our funding from any individual donor. Franklin does. The difficulty with that is that, first of all, you have to wonder what—whether the reporting is going to be influenced by that single donor. Secondly, they are a (c)3, which is—which means donations to them are tax deductible, and they don’t pay taxes themselves. That’s a public trust, by the way. That’s—the Donors Trust is in the same position. If they were not a publicly financed nonprofit, they would lose their nonprofit status. By getting all of their money or most of their money through Donors Trust, they’re able to maintain their (c)3 status as a, quote, you know, “publicly financed charity,” unquote. And if all that money came from one person, for example, they would lose that exemption, or they would be part of—they would have to be absorbed by whatever foundation it was that was funding them.

AMY GOODMAN: John, in 2009, Republicans, bloggers, conservative think tanks began to cite a report that the Obama administration had pumped billions of stimulus funds into phantom congressional districts, suggesting money intended to create jobs and shore up the economy had been misused or lost. One of the key websites to report this was newmexicowatchdog.org, which is almost entirely funded by Donors Trust. The story was picked up by Fox News, like in this report from Stuart Varney.

STUART VARNEY: Take a look at this map, please. The government is claiming jobs created in nine Oklahoma congressional districts; problem: There’s only five. Jobs in eight districts of Iowa; big problem: There’s only five. Jobs in eight districts in Connecticut; again, there’s only five. Jobs in three congressional districts in the Virgin Islands; there is only one. And as you point out, Bill, Puerto Rico, the government claims 17,544 jobs created or saved in six congressional districts; there is only one congressional district in Puerto Rico.

BILL HEMMER: I don’t know if we should be laughing or crying over this.

STUART VARNEY: No.

BILL HEMMER: I mean, Puerto Rico alone, 99th Congressional District, 98th Congressional District, a no-number congressional district.

STUART VARNEY: Yes.

BILL HEMMER: I mean, good lord!

STUART VARNEY: Yes, yes, yes. Raise your eyebrows, please. Look, it’s very bad, very unreliable statistics, and it really undermines all of these claims, these gross claims of job creation from stimulus.

AMY GOODMAN: That Fox News report was based on a report by newmexicowatchdog.org, one of the many so-called watchdog websites that are almost entirely funded by the Donors Trust. John Dunbar, your response?

JOHN DUNBAR: Well, I think that the implication of that report was that there were millions and millions of dollars that were being misspent, when the reality was it was data errors. I don’t think anyone would defend the government’s ability to create accurate databases. They clearly didn’t do a very good job on that front, at least on the Recovery Act. However, the implication that all of this money was going into a black hole was actually nonsense. It was kind of a phantom issue about phantom districts, as the Associated Press had reported. A lot of the reporting by these different watchdog organizations that are funded by Franklin has been called into question, including by the Nieman Center at Harvard that’s called it a lack in context and in some cases actually distortions of facts.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, John Dunbar, politics editor at the Center for Public Integrity, works on this months-long investigation into the Donors Trust called “Donors Use Charity to Push Free-Market Policies in States.” When we come back, Suzanne Goldenberg will also join us, of The Guardian, who’s been investigating the funding of climate denial groups. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.

Tue, 02/19/2013 – 09:35  
AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed


Meet Donors Trust: The Little-Known Group That Lets the Wealthy Secretively Fund Right-Wing Causes