DOCSLIB.ORG

Form 990-PF Z

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Form 990-PF Z FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE 2004-35 Return of Private Foundation OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990-PF or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable Trust Treated as a Private Foundation Department of the Treasury 2009 Internal Revenue Service Note. The foundation may be able to use a copy of this return to satisfy state reporting requirements. For calendar year 2009, or tax year beginning , and ending G Check all that apply. L_J Initial return L_J Initial return of a former public charity L_J Final return 0 Amended return ® Address change LJ Name change Name of foundation A Employer identification number Use the IRS label. HE SEARLE FREEDOM TRUST F/K/A D&D FNDTN Otherwise , /O KINSHIP TRUST COMPANY 36-7244615 print Number and street (or P O box number if mail Is not delivered to street address) Room/swte B Telephone number or type - 303 W MADISON 1800 312-803-6700 See Specifi City or town, state, and ZIP code C It exemption application is pending, check here Instructions ► H ICAGO , IL 6 0 6 0 6 D 1. Foreign organizations, check here p Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, H Check type of organization: Section 501(c)(3) exem t private foundation check here and attach computation 0 Section 4947 (a)( 1 ) nonexemp t charitable trust 0 Other taxable private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated Accrual I Fair market value of all assets at end of year J Accounting method: Cash under section 507(b)(1)(A), check here ► 0 (from Part ll, col (C), line 16) = Other (specify) F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination 121, 2 9 7 , 5 6 7 . (Part 1, column (d) must be on cash basis) under section 507 (b) ( 1) B), check here Part I Analysis of Revenue and Expenses (a) Revenue and (b ) Net investment (c) Adjusted net d Disbursements (The total of amounts in columns ( b), (c), and (d) may not for charitable purposes necessarily equal the amounts in column (a)) expenses per books income income (cash basis only) 1 Contributions, gifts, grants, etc., received 39,821,590 . N/A 2 Check ► Q if the foundation is not required to attach Sch B 3 Interestvonestmentsan and temporary 1,980,995 . 1,975, 384. 4 Dividends and interest from securities 1,202,951 . 1,202, 951. 5a Gross rents -60,047. -60,047. REC / b Net rental income or (loss) -60,047. - --- - U 6a Net gain or (loss) from sale of assets not on line 10 -1,006,080. M b Gross sales price for all n assets on line 6a 2 , 894 , 831. >a, 7 Capital gain net income (from Part N, line 2) 0. -_ cc 8 Net short-term capital gain UT 9 Income modifications Gross sales less returns 10a and allowances b Less Cost of goods sold c Gross profit or (loss) 11 Other income 3,555,439. 3,555,439. 12 Total. Add lines 1 through 11 45,494 , 848 - 6,673,727 . 13 Compensation of officers, directors, trustees, etc 410 , 200 . 0 . 0. 14 Other employee salaries and wages 108 , 917 . 0 . 0 . 15 Pension plans, employee benefits 88 , 338 . 0 . 0 0 16a Legal fees 11, 705. 0. 0. b Accounting fees CL W c Other professional fees 17 Interest 822, 986. 822,986 . 0. m 18 Taxes 47,203. 43,074. 0. c^.t 19 Depreciation and depletion 21 , 121 . 3 , 8 0 8 . 20 Occupancy 231 , 275 . 0. 0. a 21 Travel, conferences, and meetings 40 , 903 . 0 . 0. O c 22 Printing and publications 10 , 202 . 0 . 0 . z 1,802,396. 2,238,742. 0. co 23 Other expenses C 24 Total operating and administrative LL z a expenses . Add lines 13 through 23 3 , 5 9 5 , 246 . 3,108,610 . 0 . z 0 25 Contributions, gifts, grants paid 12 , 3 6 5 , 616. 12,365,616 . 26 Total expenses and disbursements. C.) M Add lines 24 and 25 15,960,862. 3,108,610. 12,365,616. 27 Subtract line 26 from line 12: 8 Excess of revenue over expenses and disbursements 29 ,533,986 . b Net investment income (d negative , enter -0-) 3 , 5 6 5 ,117 c Adjusted net income (d negative, enter -0-) N/A 0`2-02-'lo LHA For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice , see the instructions . 1 Form 990-PF (2009) ' THE SEARLE FREEDOM TRUST F/K/A D&D FNDTN Form 990-PF (2009) C / O KINSHIP TRUST COMPANY 36-7244615 Page 2 ^chedschedules andamounts mthedescnphon Beginning of year End of year Part ll Balance Sheets A column should be for end-ot-year amounts onty (a) Book Val ue (b) Book Value (c) Fair Market Value 1 Cash - non-interest-bearing -5. 2 Savings and temporary cash investments 1 , 909 , 967. 8 , 139 , 353. 8 , 139 , 353. 3 Accounts receivable ► 359. Less: allowance for doubtful accounts ► 5 , 771. 359. 359. 4 Pledges receivable ► Less: allowance for doubtful accounts ► 5 Grants receivable 6 Receivables due from officers, directors, trustees, and other disqualified persons 7 ether notesand loans receivable ► Less: allowance for doubtful accounts ► r 8 Inventories for sale or use y 9 Prepaid expenses and deferred charges a 10a Investments - U.S. and state government obligations b Investments - corporate stock c Investments - corporate bonds 11 Investments - land,buildinps , and equipment basis ► Less accumulated depreciation ► 12 Investments - mortgage loans 13 Investments - other STMT 10 100 380 511. 123 671 703. 112 929 136. 14 Land, buildings, and equipment basis ► 112 , 532. Less accumulated depreciation $ TMT 51 , 288. 75 017. 61 244. 61 , 244. 15 Other assets (describe ► STATEMENT 12 ) 110 , 968. 167 : 475. 167 , 475. 16 Total assets (to be completed by all filers ) 102 , 482 , 229. 132 , 040 , 134. 121 , 297 , 567. 17 Accounts payable and accrued expenses -1 , 681. 22 , 403. 18 Grants payable u) 19 Deferred revenue •'= 20 Loans from officers, directors , trustees, and other disqualified persons 1 21 Mortgages and other notes payable 22 Other liabilities (describe ► 23 Total liabilities add lines 17 throu g h 22 ) -1 , 681. 22 , 403. Foundations that follow SFAS 117, check here ► and complete lines 24 through 26 and lines 30 and 31. 24 Unrestricted 25 Temporarily restricted co 26 Permanently restricted Foundations that do not follow SFAS 117, check here Po. r_ U. and complete lines 27 through 31. y 27 Capital stock, trust principal, or current funds 0. 0. 28 Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, bldg., and equipment fund 0. 0. a 29 Retained earnings, accumulated income, endowment, or other funds 102 , 483 , 910. 132 , 017 , 731. Z 30 Total net assets or fund balances 102 , 483 , 910. 132 , 017 , 731. 31 Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances 102 , 482 , 229. 132 , 040 , 134. 1 Part III Analysis of Changes in Net Assets or Fund Balances 1 Total net assets or fund balances at beginning of year - Part II, column (a), line 30 (must agree with end-of-year figure reported on prior year's return) 102,483,910. 2 Enter amount from Part I, line 27a 3 Other increases not included in line 2 (itemize) ► 4 Add lines 1, 2, and 3 5 Decreases not included in line 2 (itemize) ► SEE STATEMENT 9 132,017,731. Form 990-PF (2009) 923511 02-02-10 16061109 796085 367244615 2009.04010 THE SEARLE FREEDOM TRUST F/ 36724461 THE SEARLE FREEDOM TRUST F/K/A D&D FNDTN Form 990-PF (2009) C / O KINSHIP TRUST COMPANY 36-72 44615 Page 3 Part IV Capital Gains and Losses for Tax on Investment Income (a) List and describe the kind(s) of property sold (e.g., real estate, (b How acquired (c) Date acquired (d) Date sold Purchase 2-story brick warehouse; or common stock, 200 shs. MLC Co. D Donation (mo., day, yr.) (mo., day, yr.) la b SEE ATTACHED STATEMENTS C d e (f) Depreciation allowed (g) Cost or other Gain or (loss) (e) Gross sales price basis (h) (or allowable) plus expense of sale (e) plus (f) minus (g) a b c d e 2 , 894 , 31. 1 1 3 , 712 , 910. - 818 , 079. Complete only for assets showing gain in column (h) and owned by the foundation on 12/31/69 (I) Gains (Col. (h) gain minus (j) Adjusted basis (k) Excess of col. (i) col. (k), but not less than -0-) or Losses (from col. (h)) (i) F.M.V. as of 12/31/69 as of 12/31/69 over col. (j), if any a b c d e - 818 , 079. If gain, also enter in Part I, line 7 2 Capital gain net income or (net capital loss) If (loss), enter -0- in Part I, line 7 2 - 818 , 079. 3 Net short-term capital gain or (loss) as defined in sections 1222(5) and (6): If gain, also enter in Part I, line 8, column (c). If ( loss ), enter -0- in Part I line 8 3 N / A Part V I Qualification Under Section 4940(e) for Reduced Tax on Net Investment Income (For optional use by domestic private foundations subject to the section 4940(a) tax on net investment income.) If section 4940(d)(2) applies, leave this part blank. Was the foundation liable for the section 4942 tax on the distributable amount of any year in the base periods Yes ® No If 'Yes,' the foundation does not qualify under section 4940(e). Do not complete this part. 1 Enter the appropriate amount in each column for each year; see instructions before making any entries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Agenda Setting: a Wise Giver's Guide to Influencing Public Policy
    AGENDA SETTING MILLER Agenda Setting A Wise Giver’s Guide to Influencing Public Policy Donating money to modify public thinking and government policy has now taken its place next to service-centered giving as a constructive branch of philanthropy. Many donors now view public-policy reform as a necessary adjunct to their efforts to improve lives directly. This is perhaps inevitable given the mushrooming presence of government in our lives. In 1930, just 12 percent of U.S. GDP was consumed by government; by 2012 that had tripled to 36 percent. Unless and until that expansion of the state reverses, it is unrealistic to expect the philanthropic sector to stop trying to have a say in public policies. Sometimes it’s not enough to build a house of worship; one must create policies that make it possible for people to practice their faith freely within society. Sometimes it’s not enough to pay for a scholarship; one must change laws so that high-quality schools exist for scholarship recipients to take advantage of. Yet public-policy philanthropy has special ways of mystifying and frustrating practitioners. It requires understanding of governmental practice, interpretation of human nature, and some philosophical perspective. Public-policy philanthropists may encounter opponents operating from different principles who view them as outright enemies. Moreover, public-policy struggles never seem to end: victories and ZINSMEISTER and ZINSMEISTER one year become defeats the next, followed by comebacks, then setbacks, and on and on. This book was written to help donors navigate all of those obstacles. It draws Agenda on deep history, and rich interviews with the very best practitioners of public- policy philanthropy in America today.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberal Right-Of-Center Left Wing Conservative Green Free-Market Far Left Libertarian Progressive Right-Wing Left of Center Right-Leaning
    LIBERAL RIGHT-OF-CENTER LEFT WING CONSERVATIVE GREEN FREE-MARKET FAR LEFT LIBERTARIAN PROGRESSIVE RIGHT-WING LEFT OF CENTER RIGHT-LEANING Political and Policy-Oriented Giving After Citizens United: An Update to CRC’s 2017 Analysis BY: SHANE DEVINE, MICHAEL WATSON DECEMBER 2020 Political and Policy‐Oriented Giving After Citizens United: An Update to CRC’s 2017 Analysis BY SHANE DEVINE AND MICHAEL WATSON DECEMBER 2020 Summary: CRC researchers find that the le‐wing advantage in elecon funding through public policy and “dark money” groups increased in the 2018 elecons. In the 2018 elecon cycle, liberal grantmakers increased their public policy 501(c) (3) giving by nearly 10 percent to $8.1 billion while conservave giving remained stable at $2.2 billion—increasing the imbalance from nearly 3.4 to 1 in 2014 to 3.7 to 1 in 2018. “Dark money” funding through 501(c)(4) groups flipped from a 3.6 to 1 advantage for conservaves to a nearly 2 to 1 ($81 million to $42 million) advantage for liberals. I. Introduction In February 2018, Michael Hartmann and Michael Watson of the Capital Research Center pub- lished a report summarizing their research into the aftereffects of the January 2010 Citizens United decision, in which the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to limit dona- tions supporting independent political expenditures provided that neither the expenditures nor the communications are formally “coordinated” with any particular candidate’s campaign. Based on the idea that Citizens United and related cases transformed political spending by en- larging existing organizations and spurring the creation of new organizations to influence poli- tics and inform policy, their report sought to answer a question: Did it similarly change philan- thropic support of traditional public policy organizations, effectively displacing and shifting support from those organizations to “Citizens United” groups? CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER 1 II.
    [Show full text]
  • To Protect Your Faculty from Right-Wing Attacks, Follow the Money Isaac Kamola
    Back to Volume Ten Contents Dear Administrators: To Protect Your Faculty from Right-Wing Attacks, Follow the Money Isaac Kamola Abstract At first glance, the large number of recent media controversies concerning public comments made by college faculty appear spontaneous. However, upon closer look, these attacks follow an identical script and originate from the same handful of political and media outlets. Following the money makes it possible to see these attacks on scholars as manufactured by well-funded, well-organized right-wing donors. The Koch brothers, and donors in their orbit, spend considerable money to transform colleges and universities. One part of this strategy includes attacking, marginalizing, and delegitimizing scholars critical of free-market capitalism and white supremacy. This paper examines ten high-profile attacks on faculty, demonstrating the common script across them. It then explores the specific case of Campus Reform’s attack on Professor Johnny Williams at Trinity College in 2017, examining specifically how college administrators focused on the content of Williams’ posts rather than the political motivations behind the attack. I argue that following the money leads to a more successful political strategy for warding off well-funded, ideologically motivated attacks on faculty. Trustees, administrators, alumni, students, and even some faculty might be forgiven for thinking that institutions of higher education have suddenly become bastions for professors who harbor crazy communist views, foment hysterical political correctness and trigger warnings, and coddle the whims of their most fragile Copyright American Association of University Professors, 2019 AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom 2 Volume Ten students. From reading the news, it appears that American higher education has been reduced to a venue for espousing liberal ideology, as charismatic professors urge their students to commit acts of violence against white people.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kingpins of Carbon and Their War on Democracy
    Page 1 The Kingpins of Carbon and Their War on Democracy ©Tim Aubry/Greenpeace Page 2 The Kingpins of Carbon and Their War on Democracy published by: Greenpeace US September 2014 all photos © Greenpeace Written by: Charlie Cray and Peter Montague Charlie Cray is a Research Specialist for Peter Montague, Ph.D., is a journalist and histo- Greenpeace US. Research assistance rian living in New Brunswick, N.J., where he is provided by Skyler Kopko and Connor active in the New Jersey Environmental Justice Gibson. Alliance. He is a member of the National Writer’s Union (UAW Local 1981, AFL-CIO), the NAACP, Greenpeace, and Sierra Club, and a fellow with the Science and Environmental Health Network in Ames, Iowa. © Les Stone /Greenpeace Page 3 The Kingpins of Carbon and Their War on Democracy Abstract Global warming is a potentially devastating problem requiring urgent action by governments. However, to date the U.S. government has remained largely paralyzed. Now new Greenpeace research has shed light on the sources of paralysis, a multi-decade war on democracy by the kingpins of carbon – the coal, oil, and gas industries allied with a handful of self-interested libertarian1 billionaires. Their strategy has aimed to (1) shrink, disable and paralyze progressive government and (2) manipulate the remaining levers of government power by (a) eliminating all restrictions on private money in elections and (b) disenfranchis- ing blacks, Latinos, the young, the elderly, and the disabled, all of whom are presumed to favor Democrats. Since 1975, their strategy has rolled back New Deal programs, weakened labor unions, and reversed victories of the civil rights movement, undermining the strength and cohesion of the middle class, further enriching and empowering a tiny self-interested elite.
    [Show full text]