DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplementary Online Material Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplementary Online Material Table of Contents Supplementary Online Material Table of Contents S-1 Coding Instructions – U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations 2 S-2 Coding Sheet – U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations 3 S-3 U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations 4 S-4 U.S. National Climate Change Counter-movement Income Data 2003 – 2010 5 S-5 U.S. National Climate Change Counter-movement Income Distribution 2003 – 2010 36 S-6 Foundation Funding of U.S. National Climate Counter-movement By Foundation and Year 39 S-7 .Foundation Funding of U.S. National Climate Counter-movement By Organization and Year 43 S-8 Foundation Funding of U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations – By Foundation 45 S-9 Foundation Funding of U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations – By Recipient 79 S 10 Climate Change Counter-movement Network Dimensions 113 S 11 Climate Change Counter-movement Network - Relative Node Strength 114 S 12 Climate Change Counter-movement Network - Relative Node Degree 115 Figure S-1 116 Methods Appendix 117 1 S-1 Coding Instructions – U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations The purpose of this organizational coding is to identify the organizations that make up the climate counter-movement in the United States. Definition of climate counter-movement – organizations that advocate against government policies to take substantive action to mitigate climate change. Specifically, this movement opposes mandatory restrictions on GHG emissions, either through regulations or a carbon fee. The advocacy of this community contains several different arguments, such as: 1. Climate change is not occurring. 2. Climate change is occurring, but it is not due to humans. 3. Climate change is occurring, and it is due to humans. But it does not pose a sufficient threat to justify large scale action or climate change will be beneficial. 4. Climate change is occurring, and it is due to humans. But it is too expensive to deal with. 5. Climate change is occurring, and it is due to humans. However, voluntary actions will be sufficient to address this issue. Your task is to review information about this organization, and assign a code that describes the role of this organization in this movement. There are four codes that you can assign to the organization: 1. Climate Counter-movement single focus organization - climate change sole focus 2. Climate Counter-movement multiple focus organization – climate change substantive focus, but not sole focus 3. Climate Counter-movement Peripheral Organization – climate change minor focus 4. Not Climate Counter-movement Organization Coding Steps To code an organization, the first step is to examine its participation in several well-known climate counter-movement events or coalitions. These are participation or sponsorship of the ICC conference, or participation in the Global Climate Coalition, Alliance for Climate Strategies, or the Cooler Heads Coalition. Generally, participation in these coalitions signifies a minimum coding of 3 for this organization. Information about participation in these events or coalitions is available on the organization Excel spread sheet. Enter the results of this review in the External Activities blocks on the coding sheet. The second step is to do a Google search of the organization. Generally, this will turn up the site of the organization, and in a large majority of cases, a Wikipedia site, and organizational description sites developed by both “Source Watch” and Greenpeace. You should read these descriptions and first enter the type of organization in the Nature of Organization box on the coding sheet. You then need to decide if there is evidence that this organization is generally perceived to be part of the climate counter- movement. You should enter the results on the External Web Site Descriptions blocks. The fourth step is to go to the organization’s web site. You should read the organization’s mission (usually listed in the tab labeled “about us.”) Then look over the web site, looking for statements regarding the extent and nature of the organization’s involvement with climate change. You should answer the questions on the coding sheet under the headings of Organization Web Site Review, Nature of Arguments Presented Regarding Climate Change, and Actions Advocated to Address Climate Change. The fifth step is to review the most recent copy of the organization’s IRS 990 form. Go to www.guidestar.org, and enter the organization’s name. This will bring up information regarding the organization, as well as links to the IRS forms of the organization. Open the most recently available IRS 990 form, and fill out the blocks in the IRS 990 Review section of the coding form. The final step is to code the organization into one of four categories. Based on the information obtained about the organization, enter a code of 1-4 in the block Organizational Coding. 2 S-2 Coding Sheet – U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations Climate Change Counter-movement Organization Coding Sheet Name of Organization ____________________________________________________________________ Nature of Organization 1. Advocacy Org 5. University Affiliated Research Institute 2. Think Tank/Research Institute 6. Professional Association 3. Trade Association 7. Foundation 4. Coalition 8. Other ____________________________________ External Activities No Yes 1. Has the organization sponsored the Heartland Conference? 2. Has a representative from this organization spoken at the Heartland Conference? 3. Did the organization belong to the Global Climate Coalition? 4. Does the organization belong to the Alliance for Climate Strategies? 5. Does the organization belong to the Cooler Heads Coalition? External Web Site Descriptions 1. Is the org described on a Wikipedia Site? If so, does it appear to be a counter-movement org? 2. Is the org described on a Source Watch page? If so, does it appear to be a counter-movement org? 3. Is the org described on a Greenpeace page? If so, does it appear to be a counter-movement org? Organization Web Site Review 1. Is global warming/climate change mentioned in the orgs purpose statement, mission, or objectives? 2. Are there other issues mentioned in the organization’s purpose/mission/objectives? 3. Are statements, issue advisories, editorial statements or reports available on the web site regarding global warming/climate change? Nature of Arguments Presented Regarding Climate Change Absent Present 1. Climate change is a hoax/not happening 2. The science of climate change is uncertain 3. Climate change is not caused by human activities 4. Climate change is caused by human activities, but it is not of concern 5. Climate change will be beneficial for humans 6. Addressing climate change is too expensive 7. There are other problems that should be addressed before climate change 8. Other Actions Advocated to Address Climate Change Absent Present 1. No action 2. Voluntary action 3. Expansion/increase use of carbon energy sources 4. Technology research 5. Energy efficiency 6. Price on Carbon (Carbon Tax or Cap & Trade) 7. Carbon Regulations 8. Government Investments 9. Government Subsidies IRS 990 Review No Yes 1. Is global warming/climate change mentioned in the organization’s mission? (Line 1, page 2) 2. Is there a separate statement on global warming /climate change in the organization’s achievements? (Line 4, page 2) 3. Is there a specific funding amount listed that is identified as being spent on global warming/climate change activities? (Line 4, page 2) 4. If funding on global warming/climate change is listed, enter amount. 5. What are the total expenses reported for the most current year IRS 990? (Line 18, page 1) Organizational Coding 1. Climate Counter-movement Single Focus Organization 2. Climate Counter-movement Multiple Focus Organization 3. Climate Counter-movement Peripheral Organization 4. Not Climate Counter-movement Organization Coded By _________________ Date __________ Entered By_________________ Date __________ 3 S-3 U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations 60 Plus Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow International Climate And Environmental Change Advancement Of Sound Science Center Inc. The) Competitive Enterprise Institute InternationalAt PjtClimate (I) Science Coalition Alliance For Climate Strategies (ACS) Congress Of Racial Equality International Policy Network American Coal Foundation Consumer Alert/National Consumer Coalition James Madison Institute American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) Consumer Energy Alliance John Locke Foundation American Conservative Union Foundation Cooler Heads Coalition Landmark Legal Foundation American Council For Capital Formation Cornwall Alliance For The Stewardship Of Creation Manhattan Institute For Policy Research American Council For Capital Formation Center For Policy Research Edison Electric Institute Manhattan Libertarian Party American Energy Alliance/Institute For Energy Research Energy Citizens Media Research Center American Energy Freedom Center Energy Makes America Great Mercatus Center, George Mason University American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research Environmental Literacy Council Mountain States Legal Foundation American Farm Bureau Federation For American Coal, Energy And Security National Association Of Manufacturers American Friends Of The Institute Of Economic Affairs Free Enterprise Action Institute/Free Enterprise Education Institute National Center For Policy Analysis American Gas Association Freedom Action National Center For Public
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record—Senate S5011
    July 12, 2016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5011 The clerk will report the bill by title. COMMENDING THE TENNESSEE experienced its warmest June on record The senior assistant legislative clerk VALLEY AUTHORITY ON THE ever. Already this year there have been read as follows: 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNI- eight weather-related and climate-re- A bill (S. 2650) to amend the Internal Rev- FIED DEVELOPMENT OF THE lated disasters that each caused at enue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross in- TENNESSEE RIVER SYSTEM least $1 billion in damage. Globally, it come any prizes or awards won in competi- Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask was found that 2015 was the hottest tion in the Olympic Games or the year on record, and so far this year is Paralympic Games. unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. on track to beat last year. We can’t There being no objection, the Senate 528, submitted earlier today. even hold the record for a year—2016 proceeded to consider the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The has been as hot as Pokemon GO—and Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask clerk will report the resolution by anyone watching the Senate floor to- unanimous consent that the bill be title. night who is younger than 31 has never read a third time and passed, the mo- The senior assistant legislative clerk experienced in their life a month where tion to reconsider be considered made read as follows: the temperature was below the 20th and laid upon the table, and that the century average.
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerated Attacks on Clean Energy by Koch Bros
    Checks and Balances Project Documents: Accelerated Attacks on Clean Energy by Koch Bros. $192 Million to 72 Groups Associated with Opposition to Clean Energy Solutions and Climate Change Denial from 1997-2013 $108 Million to At Least 19 Groups to Fight State Renewable Energy Policies 2011-2013 (Over 18 months, Checks and Balances Project conducted the first in-depth investigation into Koch Industries, Inc. AND what we call the Koch Advocacy Network. Over 350 low-profile regulatory disclosures and more than 8,000 legal disclosure forms drawn from over 60 public agencies, databases and courts were examined. Research was completed prior to the 2016 election.) In August 2015 President Obama singled out the “massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests, or conservative think tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards or prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding.” The President described these anti-clean energy efforts as “rent seeking and trying to protect old ways of doing business and standing in the way of the future.”1 Charles Koch responded that, “We are not trying to prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding” and warned against “subsidizing uneconomical forms of energy — whether you call them ‘green,’ ‘renewable’ or whatever.” He continued, “And there is a big debate on whether you have a real disease or something that’s not that serious. I recognize there is a big debate about that. But whatever it is, the cure is to do things in the marketplace, and to let individuals and companies innovate, to come up with alternatives that will deal with whatever the problem may be in an economical way so we don’t squander resources on uneconomic approaches.” 2 The defense outlined by Charles mirrors the strategy of the network he oversees.
    [Show full text]
  • Threat to Public Education Now Centers on Massachusetts
    THREAT TO PUBLIC EDUCATION NOW CENTERS ON MASSACHUSETTS May 2016 Preface This document updates and expands on Threat from the Right, an MTA task force report issued in May 2013. During the intervening years, the threat to public education, organized labor and social justice has grown substantially. Massachusetts is now in the crosshairs, with the forces behind charter schools, privatization and other attacks on the public good coalescing on Beacon Hill and throughout the state. That is reflected in the title of the 2016 edition, Threat to Public Education Now Centers on Massachusetts. No one should doubt the danger of the challenges outlined in these pages or the intensity of the forces behind them, which are national in scope. Nevertheless, winning the many fights we face is well within the power of the MTA and our allies — parents, students and other members of communities across Massachusetts and the nation. Understanding our opponents is an important step, and this report is intended to help us move toward meaningful victories as we continue to organize, mobilize and build the power we need to realize the goals of our Strategic Action Plan. Contents Introduction Elements of the Charter Campaign The Massachusetts Alignment ......................................................................................................7 Great Schools Massachusetts.......................................................................................................9 Families for Excellent Schools ....................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Return of Private Foundation
    I ^ I FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE 2004-05 Return of Private Foundation OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990-PF or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable Trust ^O Department of the Treasury Treated as a Private Foundation Internal Revenue Service Note. The foundation may be able to use a copy of this return to satisfy state reporting requirements. For calendar year-2012 or tax year beginning , and ending Name of foundation A Employer identification number THE SEARLE FREEDOM TRUST C/O KINSHIP TRUST COMPANY 36-7244615 Number and street (or P 0 box number if mail is not delivered to street address ) Room1sulte B Telephone number 303 W MADISON 800 312-803-6700 City or town, state, and ZIP code C if exemption application Is pending, check he ► CHICAGO, IL 60606 G Check all that apply, L_J Initial return initial return of a former public charity D 1. Foreign organizations, check here EJ Final return Amended return 85% test, 0 Address change Name change 2 chec here and attach computation H Check type of organization: LXJ Section 501(c)(3) exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated = Section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust 0 Other taxable private foundation under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here I Fair market value of all assets at end of year J Accounting method: Cash L_J Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination (from Part ll, col. (c), line 16) = Other (specify) under section 507(b)(1)(B), check here ► $ 111, 5 7 8 , 6 41 .
    [Show full text]
  • Olin Foundation in 1953, Olin Embarked on a Radical New Course
    THE CHRONICLE REVIEW How Right­Wing Billionaires Infiltrated Higher Education By Jane Mayer FEBRUARY 12, 2016 ​ If there was a single event that galvanized conservative donors to try to wrest control of higher ​ education in America, it might have been the uprising at Cornell University on April 20, 1969. That afternoon, during parents’ weekend at the Ithaca, N.Y., campus, some 80 black students marched in formation out of the student union, which they had seized, with their clenched fists held high in black­power salutes. To the shock of the genteel Ivy League community, several were brandishing guns. At the head of the formation was a student who called himself the "Minister of Defense" for Cornell’s Afro­American Society. Strapped across his chest, Pancho Villa­style, was a sash­like bandolier studded with bullet cartridges. Gripped nonchalantly in his right hand, with its butt resting on his hip, was a glistening rifle. Chin held high and sporting an Afro, goatee, and eyeglasses reminiscent of Malcolm X, he was the face of a drama so infamous it was regarded for years by conservatives such as David Horowitz as "the most disgraceful occurrence in the history of American higher education." John M. Olin, a multimillionaire industrialist, wasn’t there at Cornell, which was his alma mater, that weekend. He was traveling abroad. But as a former Cornell trustee, he could not have gone long without seeing the iconic photograph of the armed protesters. What came to be ​ ​ known as "the Picture" quickly ricocheted around the world, eventually going on to win that year’s Pulitzer Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • Threat from the Right Intensifies
    THREAT FROM THE RIGHT INTENSIFIES May 2018 Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Meeting the Privatization Players ..............................................................................3 Education Privatization Players .....................................................................................................7 Massachusetts Parents United ...................................................................................................11 Creeping Privatization through Takeover Zone Models .............................................................14 Funding the Privatization Movement ..........................................................................................17 Charter Backers Broaden Support to Embrace Personalized Learning ....................................21 National Donors as Longtime Players in Massachusetts ...........................................................25 The Pioneer Institute ....................................................................................................................29 Profits or Professionals? Tech Products Threaten the Future of Teaching ....... 35 Personalized Profits: The Market Potential of Educational Technology Tools ..........................39 State-Funded Personalized Push in Massachusetts: MAPLE and LearnLaunch ....................40 Who’s Behind the MAPLE/LearnLaunch Collaboration? ...........................................................42 Gates
    [Show full text]
  • EXPOSED:The State Policy Network
    EXPOSED: The State Policy Network The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY | ALECEXPOSED.ORG November 2013 ©2013 Center for Media and Democracy. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photography, recording, or by information exchange and retrieval system, without permission from the authors. Center for Media and Democracy ALECexposed.org | PRWatch.org | SourceWatch.org 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 Madison, WI 53703 | (608) 260-9713 (This publication is available online at ALECexposed.org) CMD, publisher of ALECexposed.org, PRWatch.org, and SourceWatch.org, has created a clearinghouse of information on the State Policy Network at sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:State_Policy_Network and a reporter’s guide to SPN at prwatch.org/node/11909/. Please see these online resources for more information. This report was written by Rebekah Wilce, with contributions by Lisa Graves, Mary Bottari, Nick Surgey, Jay Riestenberg, Katie Lorenze, Drew Curtis, and Sari Williams. This report on SPN is also part of a joint effort with Progress Now called www.StinkTanks.org, which includes information about what citizens can do in response to SPN's secretive influence on the state laws that affect their lives. Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 SPN’s Founding and Role in the National Right-Wing
    [Show full text]
  • US Mainstream Media Index May 2021.Pdf
    Mainstream Media Top Investors/Donors/Owners Ownership Type Medium Reach # estimated monthly (ranked by audience size) for ranking purposes 1 Wikipedia Google was the biggest funder in 2020 Non Profit Digital Only In July 2020, there were 1,700,000,000 along with Wojcicki Foundation 5B visitors to Wikipedia. (YouTube) Foundation while the largest BBC reports, via donor to its endowment is Arcadia, a Wikipedia, that the site charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and had on average in 2020, Peter Baldwin. Other major donors 1.7 billion unique visitors include Google.org, Amazon, Musk every month. SimilarWeb Foundation, George Soros, Craig reports over 5B monthly Newmark, Facebook and the late Jim visits for April 2021. Pacha. Wikipedia spends $55M/year on salaries and programs with a total of $112M in expenses in 2020 while all content is user-generated (free). 2 FOX Rupert Murdoch has a controlling Publicly Traded TV/digital site 2.6M in Jan. 2021. 3.6 833,000,000 interest in News Corp. million households – Average weekday prime Rupert Murdoch Executive Chairman, time news audience in News Corp, son Lachlan K. Murdoch, Co- 2020. Website visits in Chairman, News Corp, Executive Dec. 2020: FOX 332M. Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Fox Source: Adweek and Corporation, Executive Chairman, NOVA Press Gazette. However, Entertainment Group. Fox News is owned unique monthly views by the Fox Corporation, which is owned in are 113M in Dec. 2020. part by the Murdoch Family (39% share). It’s also important to point out that the same person with Fox News ownership, Rupert Murdoch, owns News Corp with the same 39% share, and News Corp owns the New York Post, HarperCollins, and the Wall Street Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Briefs with Which the Court Has Been Showered
    NO. 19-7 In The Supreme Court of the United States _________ SEILA LAW LLC, Petitioner, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Respondent. ________________________ On Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit _________________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE U.S. SENATORS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, AND MAZIE HIRONO IN SUPPORT OF COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE STEPHEN D. SUSMAN Counsel of Record AMANDA BONN RAKIM H.D. BROOKS SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 SIXTH AVENUE, 32ND FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10019-6023 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae JANUARY 22, 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 2 I. Congress Sought To Immunize The CFPB From The Very Influences That Now Seek To Undermine Nearly A Century Of Administrative Law. ..................... 2 II. This Challenge Is The Product Of A Long-Term Effort By Regulated Industries To Hobble Independent Agencies. ......................................................... 12 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 23 APPENDIX A ............................................................ 1a ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Bowsher v. Synar 478 U.S. 714 (1986) ............................................. 14 Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
    [Show full text]
  • Computer-Assisted Detection and Classification of Misinformation
    1 Computer-assisted detection and classification of 2 misinformation about climate change 1 2 3,4,* 1 3 Travis G. Coan , Constantine Boussalis , John Cook , and Mirjam O. Nanko 1 4 Department of Politics and the Exeter Q-Step Centre, University of Exeter, United Kingdom. 2 5 Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. 3 6 Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Monash University, Australia. 4 7 Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, USA. * 8 Corresponding author email: [email protected] 9 ABSTRACT A growing body of scholarship investigates the role of misinformation in shaping the debate on climate change. Our research builds on and extends this literature by 1) developing and validating a comprehensive taxonomy of climate misinformation, 2) conducting the largest content analysis to date on contrarian claims, 3) developing a computational model to accurately detect specific claims, and 4) drawing on an extensive corpus from conservative think-tank (CTTs) websites and contrarian blogs to 10 construct a detailed history of misinformation over the past 20 years. Our study finds that climate misinformation produced by CTTs and contrarian blogs has focused on attacking the integrity of climate science and scientists and, increasingly, has challenged climate policy and renewable energy. We further demonstrate the utility of our approach by exploring the influence of corporate and foundation funding on the production and dissemination of specific contrarian claims. 11 Organised climate change contrarianism has played a significant role in the spread of misinformation and the delay of 1 12 meaningful action to mitigate climate change. Research suggests that climate misinformation leads to a number of negative 2 3 4 13 outcomes such as reduced climate literacy, public polarization, canceling out accurate information, reinforcing climate 5 6 14 silence, and influencing how scientists engage with the public.
    [Show full text]
  • To: Board of Directors1 From: Larry Kramer Re: Beyond Neoliberalism: Rethinking Political Economy
    To: Board of Directors1 From: Larry Kramer Re: Beyond Neoliberalism: Rethinking Political Economy We launched the Madison Initiative to tackle the problem of democratic dysfunction, which we have addressed with a strategy focused on the practice of politics — looking for levers to reduce or mitigate the tribalism that prevents our elected officials from working together effectively. The unexpected election of Donald Trump — a rebuke by voters of the establishment on the right and the left, following a campaign of unusual vitriol with the new specter of digital disinformation — led us to reassess our analysis. That process, which took place throughout 2017, for the most part corroborated our original diagnosis of the fraying of key democratic institutions amid political polarization. But it also exposed some blind spots. We address these now with two related proposals for new funding. The first proposal, which seeks to make a small but important addition to the Madison Initiative, is presented in a separate memorandum. It focuses on information — or, more specifically, on how citizens are being misinformed about politics via the internet and social media platforms. There are compelling reasons to incorporate concern for digital disinformation into the Madison Initiative: Propaganda and misinformation are being used to stoke voters’ emotions in ways that threaten the very idea of political community and make it harder for government to act. Equally important, any progress we make in repairing politics will come to naught if citizens are misled about what has been done and deceived about whether it works. 1 These materials were prepared as part of the Hewlett Foundation’s internal planning process and have been lightly edited for clarity.
    [Show full text]
  • Summaries of Bradley Foundation Grants to State Policy Network Groups Center for Media and Democracy August 29, 2017
    Summaries of Bradley Foundation Grants to State Policy Network Groups Center for Media and Democracy August 29, 2017 Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the source for the numbers below are Bradley Foundation “ Grant History” documents. The State Policy Network divides membership into two groups: affiliate and associate. According to its website, an affiliate member “operates as a full service, state-based think tank addressing a variety of relevant policy issues. They operate independently within their state, and not as part of a state chapter, franchise, or other effort of a separate organization.” Associate members, “are think tanks or other organizations committed to developing and advancing market-oriented public policy,” and are “national in scope and are not necessarily oriented toward a single state.” State Policy Network 2016: (Recommended) $50,000 to support general operations. This grant would bring the total amount of Bradley funding to SPN to $350,000. “Five years ago, SPN attempted to enhance its policy mobilization efforts. For example, it provided support to the Bradley supported MacIver Institute during Wisconsin’s attention getting public policy scuffles over employee rights in general and public employee collective bargaining in particular flying communications operatives and labor policy experts into Madison. SPN continues to try providing similar support to its other member organizations elsewhere. It has increased the resources available to its think tanks and amplified the impact of policy solutions they develop, including by building connections between its members and local grassroots policy activists.” 2015: $50,000 to support general operations. 2014: $35,000 in support of its state based strategy to advance free enterprise.
    [Show full text]