Sunday, November 17, 2013

The Mantra Of Righty Think Tanks: "Some Assembly Required"

A visit to the State Policy Network web site provided the identities of two Lone Star affiliates; Texas is too big for one group of scammers: Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute (mostly headed by right-wing members of the Texas Legislature) and Texas Public Policy Foundation (headed by Jeff Sandefer, scion of a West Texas oil fortune and abetted by several former Texas conservative legislators). Both think tanks regularly are represented in the Op-Ed pages of the major Texas newspapers with the same blather: federal government is bad, no government involvement is best. These think tanks are — ironically — the agitprop specialists for the conservative movement. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery and the agitprop output of the right-wing think tanks is equal to the Big Lies told by the Soviets and the Nazis. The slimy think tanks in our midst are no better than the Big Lie artists of the previoous century. Actually, when this blogger hears the phrase, "Conservative Movement," he longs to hear a following flushing sound that washes the Movement away to the sewer. If this is (fair & balanced) appeal to avoid the political equivalent of digestive illness, so be it.

[x New Yorker]
Is Ikea The New Model For The Conservative Movement?
By Jane Mayer

Tag Cloud of the following piece of writing

created at

In every state in the country, there is at least one ostensibly independent “free-market” think tank that is part of something called the State Policy Network (SPN)—there are sixty-four in all, ranging from the Pelican Institute, in Louisiana, to the Freedom Foundation, in Washington State. According to a new investigative report by the Center for Media and Democracy, a liberal watchdog group, however, the think tanks are less free actors than a co√∂rdinated collection of corporate front groups—branch stores, so to speak—funded and steered by cash from undisclosed conservative and corporate players. Although the think tanks have largely operated under the radar, the cumulative enterprise is impressively large, according to the report. In 2011, the network funnelled seventy-nine million dollars into promoting conservative policies at the state level.

Tracie Sharp, the president of the SPN, promptly dismissed the report as “baseless allegations.” She told Politico, “There is no governing organization dictating what free market think tanks research or how they educate the public about good public policy.”

But notes provided to The New Yorker on what was said during the SPN’s recent twenty-first-annual meeting raise doubts about Sharp’s insistence that each of the think tanks is, as she told me, “fiercely independent.” The notes show that, behind closed doors, meeting with some eight hundred people from the affiliated state think tanks, Sharp compared the organization’s model to that of the giant global chain IKEA.

At the annual meeting, which took place in Oklahoma City this past September 24th through 27th, Sharp explained what she called The IKEA Model. She said that it starts with what she described as a “catalogue” showing “what success would look like.” Instead of pictures of furniture arranged in rooms, she said, SPN’s catalogue displays visions of state policy projects that align with the group’s agenda. That agenda includes opposing President Obama’s health-care program and climate-change regulations, reducing union protections and minimum wages, cutting taxes and business regulations, tightening voting restrictions, and privatizing education. “The success we show is you guys,” she told the assembled state members. “Here’s how we win in your state.”

Sharp went on to say that, like IKEA, the central organization would provide “the raw materials,” along with the “services” needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. “Pick what you need,” she said, “and customize it for what works best for you.”

During the meeting, Sharp also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization’s often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. “The grants are driven by donor intent,” she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, “the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.” She said that the donors also sometimes determined in which states their money would be spent.

The SPN operates as a tax-exempt nonprofit, allowing it to take tax-deductible contributions that it does not have to publicly disclose. According to the study by the Center for Media and Democracy, the donations include more than a million dollars run through the organizations DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, which serve to erase the donors’ names, operating, as Mother Jones put it, like a “dark-money ATM for the conservative movement.” Numerous wealthy conservative individuals and foundations pass money through those two groups. In addition, according to the Center for Media and Democracy study, corporate donors to the SPN have included many of America’s largest companies, such as Facebook, Microsoft, A.T. & T., Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Philip Morris and Altria Client Services (both subsidiaries of Altria), GlaxoSmithKline, Kraft, and funds from various entities linked to the fossil-fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch. Melissa Cohlmia, the director of corporate communication for Koch Companies Public Sector LLC, told me, “We think State Policy Network is a worthy organization that is focussed on creating more opportunity for everyone, thereby making people’s lives better.”

Asked about the IKEA model and her contention that each state’s think tank was an independent entity, free to pursue its own scholarly research, Sharp answered with a prepared statement. In it, she stressed that “State Policy Network (SPN) is a 501(c)3 service organization dedicated to providing state-based, free-market think tanks with the academic and management resources required to run a non-profit institution. Because we are legally and practically organized as a service organization (not as a franchise), each of the 64 state-based think tanks is fiercely independent, choosing to manage their staff, pick their own research topics and educate the public on those issues they deem most appropriate for their state.”

The statement went on, “Every think tank, however, rallies around a common belief: the power of free markets and free people to create a healthy, prosperous society. They eschew a top-down DC-centric approach to running peoples’ lives.”

Lisa Graves is the executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy (which discloses many of its own donors, including one grant from the Open Society Institute, funded by the liberal billionaire George Soros). “Perhaps surprisingly, I would agree with Sharp’s analogy that SPN is like an IKEA catalogue, where its state affiliates reproduce the same bad policies across the country,” Graves said, when I reached her in Madison, Wisconsin. Many of these legislative measures “divert Americans’ tax dollars away from our state public institutions and into the coffers of out-of-state, and even out-of-country, for-profit corporations, enriching C.E.O.s and Wall Street speculators at the expense of working families,” she said.

Graves conceded that “Sharp’s claim that the states’ think tanks are independent is true as a legal matter.” Still, she said, “in practical terms, the Center for Media and Democracy has documented how these groups have promoted... carbon-copy claims, identical language, and distorted statistics, differing only through the state label placed at the top of a particular report.” Far from being independent, “they are intensely subservient to the wishes of the most powerful few.” But she did draw one distinction between SPN and IKEA. Because, she contends, the bills that SPN backs divert millions of taxpayer dollars from government to the private sector, “they are hardly cheap.” Ω

[Jane Mayer has been a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine since 1995. Mayer is a graduate of Yale University, where she was a stringer for Time magazine. Mayer has also contributed to the New York Review of Books and American Prospect and co-authored two books—Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas (1994) (written with Jill Abramson), a study of the controversy-laden nomination and appointment of Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court, and Landslide: The Unmaking of the President, 1984–1988 (1989) (written with Doyle McManus), an account of Ronald Reagan's second term in the White House. Mayer's The Dark Side (2008) — addressing the origins, legal justifications, and possible war crimes liability of the use of interrogation techniques to break down detainees' resistance and the subsequent deaths of detainees under such interrogation as applied by the CIA — was a finalist for the National Book Awards. Mayer is the granddaughter of the late historian and biographer Allan Nevins.]

Copyright © 2013 Cond√© Nast Digital

Creative Commons License
Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves by Neil Sapper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.

Copyright © 2013 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

No comments:

Post a Comment

☛ STOP!!! Read the following BEFORE posting a Comment!

Include your e-mail address with your comment or your comment will be deleted by default. Your e-mail address will be DELETED before the comment is posted to this blog. Comments to entries in this blog are moderated by the blogger. Violators of this rule can KMA (Kiss My A-Double-Crooked-Letter) as this blogger's late maternal grandmother would say. No e-mail address (to be verified AND then deleted by the blogger) within the comment, no posting. That is the (fair & balanced) rule for comments to this blog.