I have been writing about “the Global Disinformation Index” produced by a British group funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which itself is funded by the federal government. That includes a recent column in The Hill. The NED receives a massive $330 million budget through the U.S. State Department. The NED contacted me today after the column ran and informed me that it will no longer fund the GDI.
The columns suggest that this effort should be included in the broader investigations by Congress, so we can have the full facts on what is being done to score or to censor speech. We also do not know the full role or knowledge of the federal government in such efforts.
The GDI used allegedly biased analysis to target conservative and libertarian sites as spreaders of dangerous disinformation. Indeed, all ten of the most “risky” sites are some of the most popular sites for conservatives, including a site offering legal analysis from conservative and libertarian law professors. The group warns advertisers that supporting these sites could damage a company’s reputation and brand.
My concern is how this index contributes to a broader effort to target opposing views or speakers on the Internet and why further congressional investigation is warranted:
“After yielding to an outcry over the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, the Administration disbanded it. It never mentioned that a far larger censorship effort was being carried out with an estimated 80 federal employees in targeting citizens and others. While the GDI effort is smaller in comparison and effect, it is an additional facet of this effort. It is not known if the Administration has other programs of this kind and the Democrats continue to vehemently oppose any investigation into these free speech concerns.”
After the Hill column ran, I was contacted by the NED.
NED wanted to make clear that the decision to fund GDI was its own choice and not directed by the Biden Administration. While the columns do not say that this funding was directed by the government, the NED felt it could be implied for readers. That is, of course, a fair point of clarification and I immediately added it to the columns on the blog. However, it does not alter the underlying concern over federal support for an organization, including the NED, that funds work inimical to free speech.
The NED confirmed that “given our commitment to avoid the perception that the NED is engaged in any work domestically, directly or indirectly, we will no longer provide financial support to GDI.”
The decision is commendable but there remain unanswered questions and I have asked the NED for clarification on a number of points. That includes a reference to a possible different donor supporting the GDI effort. It is not clear if the NED raised this money as part of a more general disinformation initiative and whether federal funds are used in such grants. The NED website has various references to its work to combat disinformation.
It is also not clear how the federal funds are committed by the NED. The email states that the State Department does not exercise control over the Endowment’s grant making. I have asked for an explanation how it uses discretion in the commitment of the federal funds. For example, could federal funds have been used for the GDI and is the source of the funding expressly stipulated as part of the grant? I also asked for confirmation on whether the NED informed the government of its funding of the GDI or similar disinformation efforts.
The concern is still obvious that a congressionally-created and federally funded 501c3 organization like the NED would be engaged, directly or indirectly, in this type of controversial scoring system given its implications for free speech. It is not clear if the NED secured specific funding for this effort from other donors and, if so, why it did so. It is also not clear if the NED could use federal funds and private funds on an interchangeable and discretionary basis.
It is also not clear what type of review the NED exercised over this work.
Finally, I asked to be able to post the entirety of the NED email with this blog. I have not heard back on these queries. I will update the blog if I can share additional information.
I appreciate the NED supplying the information and the clarification on this funding. With thousands of grants, this may be an unfortunate anomaly. The NED clearly does important and laudable work around the world. However, given the federal support for the NED, it would useful to have greater transparency on these issues.
Why do our tax dollars support these types of nefarious organizations in the first place? No worries, as the ballooning national debt is past the point of no return, within most of our lifetimes (maybe not mine) the federal government will only be funding three things: medicaid, medicare, and interest on the national debt.
Debts, Defense and General Welfare
“That’s All, Folks!”
______________
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
Oldman, I agree. Why fund the NED at all? How, specifically, does it generate more value for US taxpayers than it costs? The House needs to purge its appropriations bills of all these extravagant expenditures, as well as earmarks. And defence needs to be reduced too, starting with the Ukraine quagmire. Cutting discretionary expenditure to the bone is the first step in a longer run return to sanity.
I hope there is an eventual return to sanity. I don’t think that’s guaranteed. For one thing, US and NATO are zombie-walking the West into a nuclear war with Russia. The coastal elites will not be immune from the consequences of that.
$330 million saved from the federal budget. A good start. How many other useless anti-American programs do our taxes support and who’s loking at it for more savings?
The NED is NOT funding the GDI for $330 million. The NED is STIll getting funding from the state department. The NED gave PART of a $330,000 grant to GDI with one other non-profit.
Gee Svelaz, now the NED is not giving the GDI any money. Are you questioning the judgement of the NED. As usual your always smarter then they are. What we have here is the NED dropping the GDI like a hot potato and Svelaz won’t eat his humble pie. Svelaz, you need to sit at that table until every crumb of that humble pie hits the pit of your stomach.
“The NED receives a massive $330 million budget through the U.S. State Department.”
– Professor Turley
______________
Understanding that providing support for the NED was an act to nullify constitutional rights and freedoms, the Supreme Court must have struck down the executive branch’s “massive $330 million” contribution by exercise of its power under the doctrine of Judicial Review. What exactly is the Supreme Court doing? It is clear what it is not doing. The Supreme Court is guilty of the crimes of high office as gross and egregious abuse of power, usurpation of power, dereliction of duty, et al.
Under Judicial Review, the Supreme Court must have declared secession irrefutably constitutional in 1860. Slavery must have ended and national reunification started by constitutional means. The singular American failure has been and continues to be the Supreme Court, notwithstanding Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s valiant attempt against the suspension of habeas corpus in 1861, and the more recent act by the court to strike down an absent constitutional right to abortion, and the attendant gross corruption of the high-criminal Supreme Court of 1973.
Franklin et al. surely gave Americans a republic they could not keep – certainly not from the heinous machinations of the anti-Constitution zealot Lincoln.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
– Blaise Pascal
_____________
“The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail.”
– Abraham Lincoln
_______________
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs
Judicial Review in the United States
Annotation
The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.
Abstract
The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Marbury v. Madison: Primary Documents in American History
The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, 1803, established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. The unanimous opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.
– Library of Congress
Another leach, sucking blood off of America’s A$$. Too bad the new SOH Kevin, (the male counterpart for Karens) is all bark and no bite. What else does this lib-ned, “money-pit”, finance?
This is just another example of a Run-Away Bureaucracy with unlimited funding, and a hidden ledger. Secrecy has infected the government, for and by the people is now passé, being replaced with what the overlords’ feel is appropriate to be known by the masses.
Is there a concern that by NED canceling GDI support so quickly after JT columns and posts, that GDI has not been afforded an adequate and fair opportunity to respond to the criticisms and that public debate and exchange of views regarding funding GDI has been effectively shut down before it got going?
No.
“The NED contacted me today after the column ran and informed me that it will no longer fund the GDI.”
**************************
Thanks for doing the Lord’s work, JT.
That doesn’t mean the GDI goes away. They are getting funding from somewhere else.
Biden Admin and NED got caught and now they say they will not provide funds, via NED. Look for new ways they try to shift funds to GDI nd other so called disinformation firms??? I have little trust Biden Admin and NED. The House needs to investigate.
Aren’t they liable for lost revenue?
Defunding conservatives while funding left bias can’t be shown to be accidental.
The National Endowment for Democracy was quick to disavow GDI. I bet they got a call from some of their donors who are not among the woke. Their worried about their funding flying out the door. Professor Turley has a lot of questions that need to be answered. If he gets the answers I’m sure he will share them with us. I’m looking forward to it.
“ The National Endowment for Democracy was quick to disavow GDI.”
Tit, as usual keeps on lying. The NED did not disavow the GDI. All they did was stop giving them the small grant they gave them. It was less than $330,000 since the total amount was from two non-profits. Not just NED.
Svelaz. So I guess the decision by the NED to discontinue funding GDI in your book constitutes a ringing endorsement. Why is it that you are so intent on having censorship be the norm? What interest do you have in more censorship? You do understand that this is what you are defending. Yes you understand it all too well and we understand who you are all too well.
Stopping funding is not a disavowal. The GDI is not censorship. You don’t understand anything about what the GDI does. It’s an index. Please learn the distinction.
“It was less than $330,000 . . .”
Actually, it was some $550,000 over two years. But the specific amount is irrelevant. It’s the principle.
Professor Turley, this post is the best news that I have heard in some time. We thank you and commend you for your steadfast dedication to preserving the values upon which our country was founded. You are a powerful voice for freedom of speech at a time when a misguided group is having an “outsize” corrosive impact on our country. Thank you!!!
Catherine Cassidy: you are the most amazinng example of total discipleship I’ve seen so far–praising Turley for “preserving the values upon which our country was founded”. Turley said literally nothing, which, if you weren’t a disciple, you’d recognize. But Turley knows that you don’t notice little qualilfiers like the following that prove he is saying nothing:”The columns SUGGEST that this effort should be included in the broader investigations by Congress, so we can have the full facts on what is being done to score or to censor speech. We also do not know the full role or knowledge of the federal government in such efforts.The GDI used ALLEGEDLY BIASED analysis to target conservative and libertarian sites as spreaders of dangerous disinformation.” Turley doesn’t know whether the things he claims are happening, and he knows YOU don’t understand that the qualifiers he uses to fan the flames of the Fox (fake) News narrative that the federal government is censoring “conservative” speech by proxy prove he is truly saying nothing at all. All he has to do is imply censorship and you believe it, because YOU ARE A DISCIPLE.
Do you believe there is some perceived “right” to spread the Big Lie by someone who enlisted the help of a hostile foreign government he needs to borrow money from to cheat his way into office? You call Turley a “powerful voice for freedom of speech”–you mean like the following speech: “It’s just one person coming from China” ….”Frankly we DID win this election”….”fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”….”stand down and stand by”….”there’s good people on both sides”….”Mexicans are rapists, murderers, criminals and animals”….”grab them by the puxxy”…..I just need you to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have”….”15 cases will soon be 0 cases”….”you’ll be back in church for Easter”? Is this the sort of speech that shouldn’t be flagged?
Gigi, a swing and a miss. Your first paragraph is just nitpicking. Your second paragraph is a tired recitation of TDS talking points. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your “opinion,” but Catherine correctly points out the Professor carried the day, and that’s a substantive loss for your side.
Turley said this: “We also do not know the full role or knowledge of the federal government in such efforts.” TURLEY DOESN’T KNOW by his own admission. This piece is a nothingburger, yet the disciples are on board with the concept of “censorship by proxy”.
Talk about a disciple or cult member, Gigi you can’t be beat.
Wiseoldlawyer,
I would go with zealot.
NUTCHACHACHA, is a wholly undeserving, dependent and parasitic beneficiary of unconstitutional welfare and affirmative action as a good communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) and comrade.
They need to be sued for interfering in free speech as well as commercial enterprise. Damages need to be paid.
Congratulation professor!
A job well done!
If I could, I would send you a fruit basket!
Is your arm broken? (Not that he doesn’t deserve it, but those seem like empty words in this day and age of online ordering.)
Creekan,
I had three back to back to back $1,000 emergencies towards the end of last year, one that almost resulted in a house fire.
Just today, I had to drop $924 on a new stand up freezer as the old one died unexpectedly, and I am trying to save 150lbs of my own pork. I have a large cooler filled with pork, sitting outside. About 20 minutes ago, I tossed in two snow shovels of snow to keep the meat cool till the new freezer comes do to temp.
As with most farmers, money is tight. It always is, more so in the land of Bidenflation.
Thank you.
• The United States government should not be giving any money to organizations that then choose other organizations to distribute “their” dollars to.
• The United States government should be using taxpayer dollars to pay for services NOT advocacy of any kind.
Thanks Jonathan, That was another missing link We have been looking for.
“leave no stone unturned”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/leave-no-stone-unturned
“The National Endowment for Democracy To Cut Off Further Support for the Global Disinformation Index”
Sure they have, after the fact! The damage has already been done and there’ nothing they can do to change that fact. The ends justifies the means.
The United States government should defund the National Endowment for Democracy, period.
My question: Why are taxpayers funding the National Endowment for Democracy (and National Endowment for Humanities, and National Endowment for the Arts, and …)? These are charities, and there are plenty of folks with lots of money who can make charitable donations if they wish. I don’t wish to do so, but “the government” makes a “donation” for me, instead, and this is where we wind up.
Federalist Paper # 10 warned against “democracy,” thus, the importance of a “republic.” Douglas Hyde, a prominent, former member of the British Communist Party shared in his memoir, “I Believed,” the rationale for pushing “democracy” in other European countries as a necessary precondition for socialism, especially the Communist version. The people would democratically vote in support of socialist promises.
Well done, Professor! And I’m very pleased to know that you are following up on this.
My sentiments exactly, trocantor. Looks like a big win for Professor Turley and free speech.
Keep up the good work, Professor Turley. The best is yet to come 🙂
And that is an example of why free speech, rather than government-guided speech, is so important if we want a government answerable to the governed.
The federal government personnel behind this endeavor are ruining this country.