NEO PHILANTHROPY: How The Left Funds Voter Registration PAGE 32 NEO OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS MACARTHUR FORD ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: The Environmentalist 5 Who Hates Humans Terror-Tied Group’s Abysmal Analysis of 11 “Hate” Funding The Clinton Foundation’s 25 Foreign Influencers www.CapitalResearch.org Want to know more about the donors, foundations, nonprofits, activists, and others working to influence public policy? Visit: INFLUENCE WATCH.ORG Launched by Capital Research Center in August 2017, InfluenceWatch w i l l bring unprecedented transparency to the history, motives, and i n t e r conn ect ions o f all entities invo lve d in the advocacy m o v ement. Today, our growing website includes over 6,800 pages and over 1,200 full profiles, with more added each week. L ear n mor e a t In f l uen c e Wa t c h .o r g ISSUE 5, 2019 CONTENTS 3 GREEN WATCH 5 Anti-Humanist Environmentalism COMMENTARY By Ken Braun Partisan Gerrymandering: Courts Should Keep Out of the Debate ORGANIZATION TRENDS By Hans von Spakovsky & 11 CAIR Parodies Itself with New Michael Watson Islamophobia Report By James Simpson Capital Research is a monthly publication of the Capital Research Center (CRC), a nonpartisan education and research organization, classified by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity. FOUNDATION WATCH CRC is an independent, tax-exempt Book Excerpt: By Hook or By Crook: institution governed by an independent 25 The Shady Past and Disturbing Future board of trustees. We rely on private financial support from the general of the Clinton Foundation public—individuals, foundations, By Martin Morse Wooster and corporations—for our income. We accept no government funds and perform no contract work. CRC was established in 1984 to promote a better understanding of charity and philanthropy. We support the principles ORGANIZATION TRENDS of individual liberty, a free market NEO Philanthropy: How The Left economy, and limited constitutional 32 government—the cornerstones of Funds Voter Registration American society, which make possible By Hayden Ludwig wise and generous philanthropic giving. CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER 1513 16th Street NW Washington, DC 20036 202.483.6900 CapitalResearch.org [email protected] Internship inquiries are welcome. Publisher, Scott Walter Editor-in-Chief, Kristen Eastlick Editor, Christine Ravold Photo Editor, Gayle Yiotis Cover design: Lori Schulman You’ve helped Capital Research Center achieve so much, supporting investiga- tions and reporting that exposes the ugly truth about the Left. We’re grateful for A Great all you’ve done for us. Now, there’s a new way you can support Capital Research Center, while also benefiting yourself. It’s through making a tax-free transfer directly to us from New Way your Individual Retirement Account. You can transfer up to $100,000 to 501 (c )(3) organizations like to Expose ours in this way… tax-free! Here are the benefits to you: • Your IRA Charitable Transfer is excluded from gross income on your the Left federal income tax Form 1040. This can help keep you in a lower tax bracket. Support Capital • Your transfer also counts towards your required IRA minimum distribution. • And your Charitable Transfer is not taxed. Research Center Here are the requirements to give: with an IRA • You must be 70 ½ years or older at the time of the gift to qualify. • You must make your IRA Charitable Transfer directly to Capital Charitable Transfer Research Center from your traditional IRA account. • Your IRA Charitable Transfer must be outright to Capital Research Center rather than to a donor-advised fund or charitable gift fund. Interested in giving in this way? Do you have any questions? If so, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact Dan Thompson in our office at [email protected] or 202-464-2043 to talk through the process further. Thank you for your commitment to exposing the Left, and your interest in giving in this way. Checks can be mailed to Capital Research Center, 1513 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036. Capital Research Center’s federal tax ID number is 52-1289734. Please note: You’ll want to check with your financial advisor before making any such gift. This information is not intend- ed as tax or legal advice. IRA Charitable Transfer_Ad.indd 1 7/23/19 11:42 AM COMMENTARY PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING: COURTS SHOULD KEEP OUT OF THE DEBATE By Hans von Spakovsky & Michael Watson Surprise: The supposedly nonpolitical bill to change how districts are drawn would . help Democrats. For the past few years, liberals have been pushing the courts to declare that partisan redistricting—the consideration of politics when drawing the boundaries of legislative dis- tricts—violates the Constitution. In fact, we are awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue in two cases out of Maryland and North Carolina. We hope that the Court will refuse to involve itself in the https://bit.ly/31XGXeY. License: Geography. Credit: political thicket of the redistricting process. Engaging in politics does not violate the Constitution. Besides, the solution to gerrymandered districts should come from state legislatures, not the courts. The allocation of representatives in a state legislature or in the U.S. House of Representatives is a fundamental political question that cannot be resolved without political con- For the past few years, liberals have been pushing the courts to siderations. Democrats know this, which is why they are declare that partisan redistricting—the consideration of politics demanding major revisions to the way elections are held for when drawing the boundaries of legislative districts—violates the U.S. House of Representatives in their H.R. 1 bill— the Constitution. major revisions they could exploit to increase their polit- ical power. Funny, they never complained about partisan redistricting that favored the Democratic party when they A recent report by the Capital Research Center (CRC), controlled a majority of state legislatures. “The Myth of Nonpartisan Districts,” which one of us authored, demonstrates this using H.R. 1, the For the People Act of real-world election results for the 2019, passed the House in March on House of Representatives. CRC a party-line vote. It would take away Engaging in politics does not investigators applied a simplified ver- the constitutional authority of state sion of the procedure many countries legislatures to draw the boundaries violate the Constitution. use to allocate their representatives of their congressional districts and to the European Parliament, a proportional representation would require states to set up supposedly “independent” formula known as the “D’Hondt method.” redistricting commissions. The Democrats and their allies claim that this provision would ensure that congressional If one takes the stated view of H.R. 1’s authors, then a state redistricting, when considered on a statewide basis, would with multiple congressional seats “should” elect a delegation not “unduly favor or disfavor any political party.” of representatives whose Democratic-to-Republican ratio more or less matches the proportion of the total votes cast It wouldn’t? A purportedly “independent” redistricting com- mission already draws congressional districts in California, and that state’s “citizens redistricting commission”—explic- Hans von Spakovsky is a former member of the FEC. itly “grandfathered” by H.R. 1—drew more unrepresentative Michael Watson is Capital Research Center’s research districts than did partisan Republicans in Texas. director and managing editor for InfluenceWatch. CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER 3 map drawn in one party’s favor might end up backfiring— the “dummymander.” In 2018, that fate befell New Jersey Republicans. Their formerly helpful district maps with sub- urban voters distributed in many districts returned four more Democrats than a proportional vote would have, as suburban voters who had previously supported Republicans defected to Democrats amid a changed political environment. While discussion in the metropolitan-elite press has focused on Republican-controlled states such as North Carolina, Democrat-drawn district lines in Connecticut and Mas- We hope that the Court will refuse to involve itself in the sachusetts successfully prevented the GOP from winning political thicket of the redistricting process. Besides, the solution a single seat in either of those states for an entire decade, to gerrymandered districts should come from state legislatures, https://bit.ly/2g7Pgy0. License: for Justice. Center Brennan Credit: despite vote proportions suggesting the Republicans not the courts. “should” have won seats in those states each year. Now, this is not to recommend actually adopting Europe- an-style proportional representation, which violates fun- in the state for Democrats and Republicans. In other words, damental principles of American democracy and provides liberals are pushing the idea that the Constitution guaran- political parties with more rights than individual voters. If it tees proportional representation to the political parties—an were actually used in a real-world U.S. election, that change absurd notion. would probably cause voters to change their behavior. If pro- But going with that argument, how did California, long a portional representation were adopted, both parties would model for left-of-center electoral “reforms”—including inde- probably splinter unpredictably into competing independent pendent redistricting commissions, top-two primaries, and factions, creating even more gridlock. extended voting periods—perform on that standard? Excep- tionally badly, election after election. In all the election cycles studied, California returned more Democrats than would be proportional, by at least 9 percentage points—five Liberals are pushing the idea that the of its 53 seats—in each election. Constitution guarantees proportional In its 2018 election, California produced a dramatically representation to the political parties— disproportionate result: It returned the Democrats an “extra” ten seats relative to the statewide vote proportion, a boost an absurd notion. of 18 percentage points to Democrats compared with their vote share.