Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
In November, I wrote a post titled State Policy Network (SPN)—The “PR Firm” for ALEC and a Right-Wing Agenda. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, SPN “is funded largely by global corporations and by groups and foundations associated with conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch.” Journalist Jane Mayer provided a good description of SPN in her article Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement?—which appeared in The New Yorker this past November.
Mayer:
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— 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 coördinated 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.
The Guardian newspaper has dug up more information about the workings of SPN…and its plans for 2014. The paper published an article on the subject entitled State conservative groups plan US-wide assault on education, health and tax just last week. According to Ed Pilkington and Suzanne Goldenberg, the authors of the article, SPN and its affiliated conservative groups/”think tanks” are planning “a co-ordinated assault against public sector rights and services in the key areas of education, healthcare, income tax, workers’ compensation and the environment…”
Pilkington and Goldenberg:
The strategy for the state-level organisations, which describe themselves as “free-market thinktanks”, includes proposals from six different states for cuts in public sector pensions, campaigns to reduce the wages of government workers and eliminate income taxes, school voucher schemes to counter public education, opposition to Medicaid, and a campaign against regional efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
According to Pilkington and Goldenberg, documents obtained by The Guardian “contain 40 funding proposals” from groups affiliated with SPN in 34 states that provide “a blueprint for the conservative agenda in 2014.” They said their paper partnered with the Texas Observer and the Portland Press Herald in Maine to publish the summary of SPN’s proposals for the coming year in order “to give readers and news outlets full and fair access to state-by-state conservative plans that could have significant impact throughout the US, and to allow the public to reach its own conclusions about whether these activities comply with the spirit of non-profit tax-exempt charities.”
Most of the conservative “think tanks” working in collaboration with SPN “are constituted as 501(c)(3) charities that are exempt from tax by the Internal Revenue Service.” Such groups are “subject to strict restrictions on the amount of lobbying they are allowed to perform.” It was reported, however, that some of “the grant bids contained in the Guardian documents propose the launch of ‘media campaigns’ aimed at changing state laws and policies, or refer to ‘advancing model legislation’ and ‘candidate briefings’, in ways that arguably cross the line into lobbying.”
SPN gathered the grant proposals—monetary requests ranging in size from $25,000 to $65,000—from the 34 states in late July. The requests were then “submitted for funding to the Searle Freedom Trust…” Pilkington and Goldenberg said that the documents show that SPN’s link to Searle was Stephen Moore. (Moore happens to be an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal.) They added that Moore, “who advises Searle on its grant-giving activities, was asked by SPN to rank the proposals in two halves – a ‘top 20’ and ‘bottom 20’.”
Moore claims that he serves as an “unpaid adviser” to the Searle Foundation…and that he has been a lifetime friend of Dan Searle. He also said that “the grant decisions were made by Searle’s sons and grandsons based upon the late businessman’s ‘commitment to the advancement of free enterprise and individual rights’.”
(Link to a document provided by The Guardian—State Policy Network: Searle Tax and Budget Grant Proposals)
Pilkington and Goldenberg claim, however, that the “proposals in the grant bids contained in the Guardian documents go beyond a commitment to free enterprise…” They provided examples of the submitted proposals:
• “reforms” to public employee pensions raised by SPN thinktanks in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania;
• tax elimination or reduction schemes in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska and New York;
• an education voucher system to promote private and home schooling in Florida;
• campaigns against worker and union rights in Delaware and Nevada;
• opposition to Medicaid in Georgia, North Carolina and Utah.
Kenneth Quinnell (AFL-CIO) wrote, that depending upon which 20 proposals Searle chooses to fund, there were “12 ways that SPN could assault the rights of working families in 2014.” Here are some of the examples Quinnell provided:
1. Alabama Policy Institute: Requested $25,725 to fund the “spark plug” for eliminating the state income tax. Such a plan would lead to the cutting of services for working families. (Also requested for tax cuts or elimination: Advance Arkansas Institute, $35,000; Georgia Public Policy Foundation, $40,000; Nebraska’s Platte Institute for Economic Research, $25,000; New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, $30,000; Ohio’s Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, $40,000; and Opportunity Ohio, $35,000).
2. Delaware’s Caesar Rodney Institute: Requested $36,000 to fund strategies to repeal the state’s prevailing wage law, which would lower wages for working families.
3. Florida’s James Madison Institute: Requested $40,000 to fund efforts to promote vouchers (which they call Education Savings Accounts), which would reduce funding for public schools. Lower public education funding would lead to worsening student performance and teacher layoffs. (Also requested on this topic: Oregon’s Cascade Policy Institute, $40,000.)
4. Georgia Center for Opportunity: Requested $65,000 to fund opposition to Medicaid expansion, which would mean fewer residents have health care. (Also requested on this same topic: North Carolina’s J.W. Pope Civitas Institute, $46,500; Texas Public Policy Foundation, $40,000; Utah’s Sutherland Institute, $50,000.)
5. Illinois Policy Institute: Requested $40,000 to fight to change Chicago’s public employee pension system to a defined-contribution plan, which would mean less retirement security for working families. (Also requested on cutting public employee pensions: Arizona’s Goldwater Institute for Public Policy, $40,000; Minnesota’s Center of the American Experiment, $40,000; Missouri’s Show-Me Institute, $25,000; Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Foundation, $35,500.)
6. Maryland Public Policy Institute: Requested $40,000 to push for cuts in corporate tax rates, which would lead to the cutting of services for working families.
Lisa Graves is the executive director of the Center for Media & Democracy, an organization that “has tracked the work of the State Policy Network”—as well as the workings of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). When speaking to The Guardian, Graves said that “such groups are betraying the communities they claim to represent by introducing ‘model legislation’ that undoubtedly are designed to serve the interests of large corporations and the wealthy.” She continued, “They appear to be advocating purely local interests but what they are promoting is part of a larger national template to radically remake our government in a way that undermines public institutions and the rights of workers.”
The difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations (From New Jersey On-Line)
According to the Internal Revenue Service Code, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are nonprofit organizations that are exempt from paying federal income tax. 501(c)(3) organizations are either a public charity, private foundation or private operating foundation with open membership whereas 501(c)(4) organizations are civic leagues or associations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees with limited membership.
When it comes to lobbying and political activity, 501(c)(3) organizations can appeal directly to legislative bodies and representatives and may support issue-based legislation. However, they must notify the IRS of their intent to lobby by filing form 5768, which formally informs the federal government that one has elected to use the expenditure test to have the organization’s lobbying activity measured. Under this test, lobbying capacity is typically limited to spending less than 5 to 20% of the organizational budget on lobbying activities, depending on the size of your organization.
*****
Have you reached a conclusion yet regarding whether or not the activities of the organizations/think tanks written about in this post comply with the spirit of non-profit tax-exempt charities?
SOURCES & FURTHER READING
State Policy Network—The “PR Firm” for ALEC and a Right-Wing Agenda (Jonathan Turley)
State conservative groups plan US-wide assault on education, health and tax (The Guardian)
The Money Behind the Fight to Undermine Medicaid: Documents show how a conservative think tank hinders expansion of health insurance in Texas. (Texas Observer)
New Rules Would Rein In Nonprofits’ Political Role (New York Times)
Guardian Documents Expose State Policy Network Groups’ Intent to Lobby (Center for Media and Democracy)
State Policy Network: The Stealth Network Dramatically Influencing State Law (Center for Media and Democracy)
Stink Tanks: State Policy Network Internal Budget Documents Revealed by The Guardian (Firedoglake)
Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement? (The New Yorker)
Here’s ALEC’s Plan To Bring Right Wing Policies To States Near You (Crooks and Liars)
12 Ways the State Policy Network Could Assault the Rights of Working Families in 2014 (AFL-CIO)
Washington County residents have mixed reactions to plan to eliminate taxes (Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram)
The difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations (New Jersey On-Line)
Treasury, IRS Will Issue Proposed Guidance For Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations (U.S. Department of the Treasury
Blouise,
Massachusetts:
Free-market research group’s climate proposal denounced by host university
Suffolk University says Beacon Hill Institute had not followed rules and that research plans did not match university’s mission
By Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
12/5/13
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/host-university-research-group-climate-suffolk-university
Excerpt:
The host university of the free marketeer Beacon Hill Institute has repudiated its proposal to carry out research with the express purpose of undermining a regional climate change initiative.
The institute, based in the economics department of Suffolk University, had sought $38,825 to carry out an economic analysis that would aid efforts to weaken or roll back a five-year effort by states in the north-east to reduce carbon pollution, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
The proposal from Beacon Hill made no secret of its goal. “Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or repeal RGGI,” the funding proposal said.
In a prepared statement, Suffolk University made clear it had not been consulted about Beacon Hill’s research plans – and would not have authorised the grant proposal if it had been.
“The stated research goals, as written, were inconsistent with Suffolk University’s mission,” Greg Gatlin, the university’s vice-president for marketing and communications, said in an email.
Gatlin went on to write that Beacon Hill had not followed university rules when it submitted its grant proposal, which was presented for consideration to the Searle Freedom Trust, a leading funder of ultra-conservative causes, on Beacon Hill’s behalf by the State Policy Network, a coalition of similar ultra-conservative entities.
“The University has existing protocols in place that require approval for all grant proposals,” Gatlin said. “The Beacon Hill Institute’s grant proposal did not go through the university’s approval process. The university would not have authorized this grant proposal as written.”
Beacon Hill did not in the end see its proposal funded – a setback for an organisation which has specialised in marshalling economic argument to roll back clean energy programmes in the states.
hskiprob,
So how is your Pelton wheel turning out? Got any investors?
Have you figured out a way to scale vertical wind turbines, abiding with your claims?
Have you specifically figured out how to keep you panes from slamming into the vertical shaft structure?
What year is this?
Hey gbk, It’s all about money. I haven’t done anything as the financial motivation is low as wind turbines, have yet to be very cost effective. My partner on the pelton wheel, as you call it has had some financial setbacks, having just short sold his home. Raising funds is increasingly difficult since the 2008 crash. I’ve been acquiring my insurance license to subsidize my real estate income. It appears pretty tough out there unless you work for the government and even the various governments are having a tough time meeting liabilities. It’s going to be a tough road ahead for many.
Bron,
“. . . neither the left nor the right advocate for the common man . . .”
So, you feel you’re the only advocate for the “common man?” Is this a special burden you carry all by yourself?
You are probably not alone, but you should also not cultivate disparities where few exist outside of the vague words which you offer so freely.
You, most of all, should recognize the forces arrayed against the “common man” and question the pale wisdom of this idiom; question the futility of the phrase given the women that perpetuate the “common man.”
What the phuck does “common man” mean, Bron?
Are you daft? Politics is not life.
Elaine,
Lord, the greedy just keep on coming. pdm is right … it’s like Whack-A-Mole.
Thanks for all the good info
Here in Ohio we are dealing with Ohio State Senator Seitz and Ohio Senate Bill 58. ALEC has failed in almost every state and this is their last-ditch effort. Lot’s of people against this bill. I believe the bill is still pending in committee.
OHIO: Koch, ALEC and Dirty Energy Co’s Attack Clean Energy Jobs
http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/10/30/ohio-koch-alec-and-dirty-energy-cos-attack-clean-energy-jobs/
hskiprob,
So nice to see you back.
“What the majority has not learned is that: you cannot just protect rights sometimes.”
Who is the majority, and why can they “just not protect rights sometimes?” Isn’t your whole argument, on every single post on this blog about the protection of rights?
Is this a word game or some of your more serious writings?
I think you should stick with the closing of your essay that you linked to in the following thread, because your conclusion is, well, so insightful:
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/10/13/massive-resistance-and-the-government-shutdown/#comment-703293
to quote:
“At least someone cannot tell me that I’m an poorly educated, because as you see, I have done extensive research and analysis in this area.”
Shurnuf, you are the guiding light.
Elaine,
Nice article!
Keep hammering those ALEC type creeps.
Annie,
“It’s bad enough now that money buys them laws.”
According to some, that’s called democracy in action.
Thanks for the heads up Elaine. I’m glad that these right wing think tanks are not even trying all that hard to hide their agenda anymore. It makes it all the more evident as to what would happen to our country should these people get into serious power. It’s bad enough now that money buys them laws.
OOOOppsss….. sorry for the double post……
for some reason it did not show up when I hit post comment….
so I posted it again……
Please forgive me… 🙂
This is why we NEED Unions…..
————————————————
New York, NY – Employees at Forever 21 are fighting back against a devastating new policy enacted by the fast-fashion retail chain last week. Last week, Forever 21 sent a letter to all non-managerial full time workers, terminating their health insurance, paid time off, and capping their hours as part-time workers, under 30 hours per week. Workers only had few days of advance notice that their health insurance coverage was ending, their benefits were taken away, that they’d get smaller paychecks, and would no longer be able to earn any paid time off.
A Forever 21 employee and member of the Retail Action Project (RAP) has started a public petition on Coworker.org, demanding a reversal to the policy and asking that their hours and benefits are restored immediately. Forever 21 workers have joined the Just Hours Campaign to address the underemployment crisis caused by corporate retailers’ unpredictable, part-time scheduling practices, adding Forever 21 to the campaign’s list of worst players.
Forever 21 joins the Just Hours Campaign’s list of worst players, and members from the Retail Action Project from Forever 21 are uniting to stop these practices. They’ve started a petition on Coworker.org to ask Forever 21 to reinstate family sustaining jobs.
The petition’s author writes:
I just started working at Forever 21 in New York City, but now I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be able to work there, because I need a job that I can actually survive on. When I first applied for the job, I was promised growth and working with the visual team to become a merchandiser. They explained I would be learning and growing and starting off in sales with full time hours. However when I was hired, I suddenly found myself cleaning and organizing the stock room in a part-time position. When I asked what happened with the position I applied for I was brushed off and ignored. I didn’t realize that the company treats their employees like that, and now Forever 21 is essentially ending full-time employment for non-management employees altogether.
Hartley McNeil, another Forever 21 worker and RAP member is also devastated by the news. He is currently a part-time worker who says “Now I know there isn’t an opportunity for me to have a decent job with benefits at Forever 21. I work hard and I’ve really wanted to grow with the company. But the way they’re treating us shows that they don’t value our work or respect our lives. It’s really wrong.”
Sasha Hammad, Interim Director of the Retail Action Project says “The replacement of good full-time jobs with unpredictable part-time positions is fueling a crisis of underemployment. Imagine having a sick child or a chronic illness, then finding out that in a few days, your health insurance will terminated, your paychecks will be smaller, and you won’t have any paid time off to take care of your medical issues – All because you are now part time.”
According to RAP and CUNY Murphy Institute’s 2012 study of retail workers in NYC, “Discounted Jobs,” 49% of employees are scheduled for fewer hours in a week than they would like. 42% of the employees also reported that managers reduce or change their hours without their consent. Nationally, the retail industry is a top growth sector for new jobs, with one in nine workers relying on retail jobs. Yet the industry is also responsible for leaving workers involuntarily underemployed: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of involuntary part‐time workers in the retail sector has more than doubled since 2006.
This is what happens when jobs do not have Unions……
People who want to work and earn their OWN way, are kept from doing so by GREEDY Corporations…..
This would NEVER happen in Sweden or MOST of Europe for that matter……
IN EU we have MANDATORY 5 Weeks paid Holiday….. and health care…..
——————————————————————
New York, NY – Employees at Forever 21 are fighting back against a devastating new policy enacted by the fast-fashion retail chain last week. Last week, Forever 21 sent a letter to all non-managerial full time workers, terminating their health insurance, paid time off, and capping their hours as part-time workers, under 30 hours per week. Workers only had few days of advance notice that their health insurance coverage was ending, their benefits were taken away, that they’d get smaller paychecks, and would no longer be able to earn any paid time off.
A Forever 21 employee and member of the Retail Action Project (RAP) has started a public petition on Coworker.org, demanding a reversal to the policy and asking that their hours and benefits are restored immediately. Forever 21 workers have joined the Just Hours Campaign to address the underemployment crisis caused by corporate retailers’ unpredictable, part-time scheduling practices, adding Forever 21 to the campaign’s list of worst players.
Forever 21 joins the Just Hours Campaign’s list of worst players, and members from the Retail Action Project from Forever 21 are uniting to stop these practices. They’ve started a petition on Coworker.org to ask Forever 21 to reinstate family sustaining jobs.
The petition’s author writes:
I just started working at Forever 21 in New York City, but now I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be able to work there, because I need a job that I can actually survive on. When I first applied for the job, I was promised growth and working with the visual team to become a merchandiser. They explained I would be learning and growing and starting off in sales with full time hours. However when I was hired, I suddenly found myself cleaning and organizing the stock room in a part-time position. When I asked what happened with the position I applied for I was brushed off and ignored. I didn’t realize that the company treats their employees like that, and now Forever 21 is essentially ending full-time employment for non-management employees altogether.
Hartley McNeil, another Forever 21 worker and RAP member is also devastated by the news. He is currently a part-time worker who says “Now I know there isn’t an opportunity for me to have a decent job with benefits at Forever 21. I work hard and I’ve really wanted to grow with the company. But the way they’re treating us shows that they don’t value our work or respect our lives. It’s really wrong.”
Sasha Hammad, Interim Director of the Retail Action Project says “The replacement of good full-time jobs with unpredictable part-time positions is fueling a crisis of underemployment. Imagine having a sick child or a chronic illness, then finding out that in a few days, your health insurance will terminated, your paychecks will be smaller, and you won’t have any paid time off to take care of your medical issues – All because you are now part time.”
According to RAP and CUNY Murphy Institute’s 2012 study of retail workers in NYC, “Discounted Jobs,” 49% of employees are scheduled for fewer hours in a week than they would like. 42% of the employees also reported that managers reduce or change their hours without their consent. Nationally, the retail industry is a top growth sector for new jobs, with one in nine workers relying on retail jobs. Yet the industry is also responsible for leaving workers involuntarily underemployed: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of involuntary part‐time workers in the retail sector has more than doubled since 2006.
Bron,
First, note what Elaine and raff said.
Second, the Constitution is self adjusting. Recall the Eighteenth Amendment, which was repealed once the general populace learned about the Law of Unintended Consequences–not a real “law,” but a law of nature. So, even if an Amendment turns out to be a bad idea, there is still a mechanism in place to repeal it.
If Unions are so bad, then WHY is it that Union Jobs in general pay FAR more than the average job???
You are right in that there is this ALL or nothing mentality in the USA….
If the Right would WORK with the left to make the USA better for the AVERAGE workers and want to LIFT the lower classes up to be able to
earn more…. then the USA would be in a better place….
WHY can’t the Right wing work with the left to balance the Unions???
Instead they just want to abolish Unions entirely….
Personally, I believe that protecting an individuals rights would be to protect what their time is worth via wages…..
Unions exist because the wealthy get VERY greedy and want to pay the workers NOTHING and enslave them….. Prior to Unions, people were being OVER worked and UNDER paid in dangerous conditions….
Had the TOP not been so greedy, Unions would not have been needed….
Bron,
As Elaine informed you, if the amendment was passed legally according to the constitution, it is constitutional.
Seems to me it’s democracy in action. Government is way to large with layers of redundancy. Unions are in bed with government, taking away the right to work and not being realistic about the affects unions have on many businesses. It’s a fight that we should not be really having, if we really protected individual rights. What the majority has not learned is that: you cannot just protect rights sometimes. It all or nothing because once you allow a right to be usurped by the ruling class, you will someday end up with being prosecuted for speaking out against the State. http://govtslaves.info/california-county-suspends-constitution-bill-rights/#respond
Bron,
Do you think that all amendments to the Constitution are unconstitutional…or only the ones you don’t like?
*****
The Constitution of the United States
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
Bron,
“The radical right wing think tank “usurpation” of the progressive monoply in ideas at all levels in our society and in all of our institutions.”
So, argument now is just bullet points of half-baked phrases; strung together into a sentence? Dog whistles that some are trained to hear while others “miss” the context?
You should read what you write. Take a step back. You disagree with yourself much more than you know.
rafflaw:
why did it take from 1787 to 1913 to create it [income tax] by amending the Constitution? If it was Constitutional why would it need an amendment to make it so?
The courts had struck down taxes on income through the 19th century. If it was Constitutional why did they do so?
just a girl:
neither the left nor the right advocate for the common man, they just want to control us. So many drones to do their bidding.
Enjoy: