Think Tanks: Corporate Stealth Campaigns
By Phil Tajitsu Nash

I love the Saturday paper. Whenever someone in Washington wants to dump a story on a day when few people are reading the paper or watching TV, they wait until late on Friday afternoon. They miss the Friday newscasts, go public too early for the Sunday headlines, and end up in that graveyard of journalism: the Saturday morning newspaper.

I always make a point of reading the Saturday paper, even if I am away for the weekend or shuttling between soccer games and birthday parties, because that is where the stories are that not everyone wants me to see.

Last Saturday, January 29, was no exception. I saw a story that has appeared before in The Nation and other progressive journals, but this is the first time I have seen this many details in a daily as prominent as The Washington Post. The story had to do with a connection between right-wing think tanks and corporate funders.

Who shapes opinion in the nation’s capital? Sure, President Clinton can summon reporters to the White House, and Congressional leaders can hold press conferences. But others also hold sway here who are not elected or appointed officials.

Corporate lobbyists provide over-stretched legislative aides with information on why one type of phone service is better than another. Non-profit groups speak on behalf of crime victims or environmental issues. Academics are called in to testify on the merits or demerits of many legislative proposals.

Whether you are for or against affirmative action, immigration law reform, or other key issues, a minimum rule of the game is that you make clear who is behind you and your proposals. Legislators have been known to gain an advantage by holding so-called objective hearings on issues they care about, and skewing the witness list to favor speakers with views similar to their own. However, it would be considered unfair by most observers to secretly pay someone else to convey your message, using the cover of an “objective” research strategy and advocacy campaign.

Unfortunately, an important story by Dan Morgan in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-01/29/166l-012900-idx.html) shows that this is exactly what has been happening. Corporate groups with potentially unpopular causes have funded non-profit groups that conduct research and do lobbying that advance the for-profit group’s agenda.

Calling them “Corporations’ Quiet Weapon,” Morgan shows how “think tanks” have received corporate dollars to fund studies and lobbying that advances the cause of the donor. While both donors and think tanks deny that there is any quid pro quo (“this for that”) going on, the net effect is pretty transparent.

Asian Americans have also experienced the effects of corporate funding of a particular point of view. One of the most quoted and most published Asian Americans, Dinesh DíSouza, is a scholar at one of these think tanks -- the American Enterprise Institute. Because of the funding his foundation receives (and there is nothing illegal or improper about it, under current disclosure laws), Mr. DíSouza is able to hire a research staff and be available to write books, appear on talk shows, and call into newspaper editors to get his conservative positions out to the public.

Through this assistance, and his own “mediagenic” style, a man with only a B.A. degree and little ongoing contact with the Asian American community is one of our community’s de-facto spokespersons.

The Washington Post describes how corporations fund think tanks by citing the example of how a multi-billion dollar federal plan to restore the Florida Everglades was derailed by Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), a conservative think tank that fights for smaller government. This D.C.-based non-profit agency received $700,000 in contributions from Florida’s three biggest sugar enterprises, which would have lost thousands of acres of land if the reclamation plans had proceeded. The sugar money was never publicly disclosed, although it was detailed in internal CSE documents.

CSE also received $1 million from Philip Morris Companies when CSE was opposing cigarette taxes; $1 million from U.S. West when CSE pushed deregulation that would let U.S. West offer long-distance service; and millions from companies such as Exxon and Hertz under circumstances that presented similar conflicts of interest.

When corporations make political contributions or hire lobbying firms, they are free to make their case, and the legislators listening to the arguments are aware of the subjective nature of the arguments. According to the research done by the Post, however, groups such as CSE add an air of authority and impartiality to corporate arguments, because of their “independent” analyses, TV ads, polling, and academic research. This is especially true when the source of funds for those ads and that research is hidden. Non-profits are not required to identify donors to their lobbying work, nor do they register publicly like lobbyists who directly represent corporations or other entities.

According to the Post, Citizens for a Sound Economy has a foundation that can take tax-deductible contributions for “educational” campaigns, speaking as “citizens for [name the issue].” It also has a non-profit arm that does lobbying, and a new political action committee (PAC) to raise money to support favored candidates.

One example of the interconnectedness of the operations was visible last year, when Microsoft committed $380,000 to CSE’s tax-exempt foundation. Although CSE says they opposed the antitrust case even before the contribution, several months later, CSE officials lobbied in Congress to limit the Justice Department’s budget for antitrust enforcement.

To be fair, not every think tank takes money for specific projects from interested corporate groups. The Heritage Foundation specifically does not accept money for specific projects in order to prevent such conflicts. The Cato Institute, on the other hand, takes earmarked money, but identifies the source (as in the insurance giant AIG, which is underwriting the Cato study of Social Security privatization that most certainly would help AIG). And in response to the influence of corporate money, some unions have provided seed money for the Economic Policy Institute that researches wage and work issues.

For Asian Americans, as for all Americans, it is important to ask the source of the information we are receiving. And in an age where money buys advertising and other necessities for swaying public opinion, it is even more important to ask the source of the money.