The Educational Charities That Do PR for the Rightwing Ultra-Rich

Search form

The Educational Charities That Do PR for the Rightwing Ultra-Rich

The Educational Charities That Do PR for the Rightwing Ultra-Rich
Thu, 2/21/2013 - by George Monbiot
This article originally appeared on The Guardian

Conspiracies against the public don't get much uglier than this.

As the Guardian revealed last week, two secretive organizations working for US billionaires have spent $118 million to ensure that no action is taken to prevent manmade climate change. While inflicting untold suffering on the world's people, their funders have used these opaque structures to ensure that their identities are never exposed.

The two organizations – the Donors' Trust and the Donors' Capital Fund – were set up as political funding channels for people handing over $1 million or more. They have financed 102 organizations which either dismiss climate science or downplay the need to take action.

The large number of recipients creates the impression of many independent voices challenging climate science. These groups, working through the media, mobilizing gullible voters and lobbying politicians, helped to derail Obama's cap and trade bill and the climate talks at Copenhagen. Now they're seeking to prevent the US president from trying again.

This covers only part of the funding. In total, between 2002 and 2010 the two identity-laundering groups paid $311 million to 480 organizations, most of which take positions of interest to the ultra-rich and the corporations they run: less tax, less regulation, a smaller public sector.

Around a quarter of the money received by the rightwing opinion swarm comes from the two foundations. If this funding were not effective, it wouldn't exist: the ultra-rich didn't get that way by throwing their money around randomly. The organizations they support are those that advance their interests.

A small number of the funders have been exposed by researchers trawling through tax records. They include the billionaire Koch brothers(paying into the two groups through their Knowledge and Progress Fund) and the DeVos family (the billionaire owners of Amway). More significantly, we now know a little more about the recipients. Many describe themselves as free-market or conservative thinktanks.

Among them are the American Enterprise Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, Hudson Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Mont Pelerin Society and Discovery Institute. All pose as learned societies, earnestly trying to determine the best interests of the public. The exposure of this funding reinforces the claim by David Frum, formerly a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, that such groups "increasingly function as public relations agencies."

One name in particular jumped out at me: American Friends of the IEA. The Institute of Economic Affairs is a British group that, like all the others, calls itself a free-market thinktank. Scarcely a day goes by when its staff aren't interviewed in the broadcast media, promoting the dreary old billionaires' agenda: less tax for the rich, less help for the poor, less spending by the state, less regulation for business. In the first 13 days of February, its people were on the BBC 10 times.

Never have I heard its claim to be an independent thinktank challenged by the BBC. When, in 2007, I called the institute a business lobby group, its then director-general responded, in a letter to the Guardian, that "we are independent of all business interests." Oh, really?

The database published by the Canadian site DeSmogBlog shows that American Friends of the IEA has (up to 2010) received $215,000 from the two secretive funds. When I spoke to the IEA's fundraising manager, she confirmed that the sole purpose of American Friends is to channel money to the organization in London. She agreed that the IEA has never disclosed the Donors' Trust money it has received. She denied that the institute is a sockpuppet organization: purporting to be independent while working for some very powerful US interests.

Would the BBC allow someone from Bell Pottinger to discuss an issue of concern to its sponsors without revealing the sponsors' identity? No. So what's the difference? What distinguishes an acknowledged public relations company taking money channeled by a corporation or a billionaire from a so-called thinktank, funded by the same source to promote the same agenda?

The IEA is registered with the Charity Commission as an educational charity. The same goes for Nigel Lawson's climate misinformation campaign (the Global Warming Policy Foundation) and a host of other dubious "thinktanks". I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is outrageous that the Charity Commission allows organizations that engage in political lobbying and refuse to reveal their major funders to claim charitable status.

This is the new political frontier. Corporations and their owners have learned not to show their hands. They tend to avoid the media, aware that they will damage their brands by being seen to promote the brutal agenda that furthers their interests. So they have learned from the tobacco companies: stay hidden and pay others to do it for you.

They need a network of independent-looking organizations that can produce plausible arguments in defense of their positions. Once the arguments have been developed, projecting them is easy. Most of the media is owned by billionaires, who are happy to promote the work of people funded by the same class. One of the few outlets they don't own – the BBC – has been disgracefully incurious about the identity of those to whom it gives a platform.

By these means the ultra-rich come to dominate the political conversation, without declaring themselves. Those they employ are clever and well-trained, with money their opponents can only dream of. They are skilled at rechanneling public anger that might otherwise be directed at their funders: the people who tanked the economy, who use the living planet as their dustbin, who won't pay taxes and demand that the poor must pay for the mistakes of the rich.

Anger, thanks to the work of these hired hands, is instead aimed at the victims or opponents of the billionaires: people on benefits, trade unions, Greenpeace, the American Civil Liberties Union.

The answer, as ever, is transparency. As the so-called thinktanks come to play an ever more important role in politics, we need to know who they are working for. Any group – whether the IEA or Friends of the Earth – that attempts to influence public life should declare all donations greater than £1,000.

We've had a glimpse of who's paying. Now we need to see the rest of the story.

Article Tabs

It seems the people of the world are factually correct when they label the United States the greatest threat to peace in the world.

In a new study released last week, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty tracked laws in 187 cities over the past five years and found an uptick in nearly every type of anti-homeless ordinance.

After winning 1.2 million votes, Spain's newest political party wants to raise minimum wages, abolish tax havens, nationalize banks rescued with public funds and establish a guaranteed minimum income.

Labeled a “hate group” by progressive social and political organizations, the Alliance has amassed a substantial track record marginalizing LGBT equality efforts and attacking women’s reproductive rights.

The Premier of the Province, Kathleen Wynn, is being given another chance to respond to growing calls from the Indigenous community to protect their Territorial Rights.

In the 80s and 90s they called them "IMF Riots" – but what the biggest international investment organizations and consultants now see happening looks a whole lot bigger.

Posted 4 days 12 hours ago

The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist interviewed Harvard professor and MayDay SuperPAC founder Lessig Lawrence about his plans to break the hold of big money on American elections.

Posted 6 days 11 hours ago

A New York shell fisherman is fighting back against retribution for speaking out against environmental violations.

Posted 6 days 11 hours ago

Part 3: Chris Hedges interviewed Harvard professor and MayDay SuperPAC founder Lawrence Lessig about his plans to break the hold of big money on American elections.

Posted 4 days 12 hours ago

Patient details were shared with organizations including private health insurance companies, many based in the United States.

Posted 4 days 12 hours ago

Our nation's mayors are acutely aware of the impact of predatory lending.

Where have all the merrymakers gone?

Occupy, you had your moment, but it takes more than that to create a movement. Democracy is politics - you have to get involved in order to change it.

The most visible manifestation of surveillance in the environmental movement has been a rash of undercover agents who blurred the lines between police work and entrapment -- and now every experienced green group has a policy for dealing with them.

A journalist explores the tense climate in Greece where, after the coalition government, a neo-Nazi party holds the second largest share of the votes -- and they don't exactly welcome him in to observe their activities.

A protest over deadly police shootings in Albuquerque turned from a peaceful demonstration to “mayhem,” as officers in riot gear clashed with protesters.

Sign Up