Colorado’s best-known progressive donors are advancing their political and ideological agenda through a web of advocacy and nonprofit groups, many of which claim nonpartisanship and receive tax exemptions.

The 37 organizations that collectively receive millions at the direction of the Colorado Democracy Alliance (CoDA) serve unique purposes in the progressive power brokers’ toolbox.

They build voting blocs, provide policy research, shape media communications, train progressive leaders or encourage civic engagement, according to the alliance’s organizing documents.

She continues in a second article:

The model, which appears to legally skirt federal regulations that prevent coordination between candidate campaigns and issue groups, has proved so successful at turning a red state blue that it could cause nationwide change as 18 other states prepare to adopt it.

While Ms. Fender might not like the outcome, what is wrong with a nonprofit engaging in politics?

Yes, there are a number of laws that restrict nonprofit behavior in politics. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit — the most restrictive tax designation – cannot support specific candidates for office, contribute to political campaigns, or tell its members how to vote.

However, 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in issue advocacy, sponsor talk by candidates, and attempt to persuade candidates to adopt the organization’s position. Certainly, these are political activities!

]]> http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=4629 0 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4595 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4595#comments Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:42:02 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4595 Today, Senator Inhofe (R-OK) released a report entitled Political Activity of Environmental Groups and Their Supporting Foundations. This document is an expanded version of a document published in 2004. The report’s general argument is that environmental groups are stealth advocates for the Democratic Party despite that environmental organizations claim to serve public interests:

Environmental activism has become a multibillion dollar industry in the U.S. Campaigns to save the whales or stop mining beg average Americans for their support through donation of their hard earned dollars. These environmental campaigns also receive millions from charitable foundations such as the PEW Foundation, Turner Foundation, and Heinz Foundation. But what most don’t know when they donate to a cause to “save the rainforest” or “save the polar bear” is that their money could end up being used for partisan activities that are only tangentially related, if related at all, to the cause for which they are intended…

…Because of the complicated web of 501(c), 527, and PAC organizations, it is clear that individuals who donate to a 501(c)(3) organization intending to contribute to the cause of the organization, have no clear mechanism for verifying that their donation was used for the cause. Unsuspectingly, these donors may be contributing to partisan activities when they originally intended their donation to aide an environmental cause. Additionally, there is not sufficient oversight over these organization to police their political and campaign activities.

Are contributors to environmental groups really so naïve that they do not understand the political implications of the groups they donate to? I doubt it.

…history has shown it [League of Conservation Voters] to consistently favor Democratic candidates. It is closely followed by the Sierra Club, which is currently only giving two percent of its support to Republican candidates this year. The NRDC has gone on television showing its support for a Democratic Senator. EDF has a board comprised of publicly-disclosed advisors and financial supporters to the Senator Barack Obama Presidential Campaign. Greenpeace, aside from being affiliated with all the above organizations, is chaired by a man who is directly associated with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Furthermore, all of these organizations are associated with each other through the Partnership Project, which has consistently supported the Democratic environmental platform.

Perhaps this is because Democratic candidates tend to vote for the interests of the environmental groups mentioned above? This is certainly a plausible explanation!

While some environmental groups lean towards the left, are there not some environmental organizations that tend to lean right? Boone and Crocket Club, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation come to mind.

In conclusion, as we turn to another election year, these environmental groups continue to campaign in much the same manner. With a presidential campaign in full swing, these organizations and foundations are likely to wield an even bigger sword than in years previous. Yet for all of the activities that take place, both those mentioned above and others, these groups remain unchecked. They continue to do business under the scope of charitable organizations. While it is not likely that their partisan habits are going to change, the public should see these nonprofits for what they are, and what they stand for.

Nearly all special interest groups justify their position in the public interest. How are environmental groups any different than other category of group, liberal or conservative?

Is there any chance the resurfacing of this report has to do with the League of Conservation Voters’ dirty dozen campaign? Senator Inhofe is highlighted as having one of the worst environmental voting records. The League of Conservation Voters’ environmental scorecard rubric rated the Senator as follows (0% is lowest possible voting record; 100% is the highest):

110th, 1st Session (2007) 0%

109th Congress (2005-2006) 0%

108th Congress (2003-2004) 4%

107th Congress (2001-2002) 0%

106th Congress (1999-2000) 0%

]]> http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=4595 0 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4584 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4584#comments Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:34:42 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4584 I recently came across an interesting article by Jeffrey St.Clair published in February 2007. St.Clair is a progressive journalist/activist and is an outspoken critic of the effectiveness of environmental NGOs:

A kind of political narcolepsy has settled over the American environmental movement. Call it eco-ennui. You may know the feeling: restlessness, lack of direction, evaporating budgets, diminished expectations, a simmering discontent. The affliction appears acute, possibly systemic…

…this much is clear: the vigor of the environmental movement has been dissipated, drained by the enforced congeniality displayed in our disputes with Clinton and Bush, the Democrats in congress, and the grim, green-suited legions of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Despite the rampages of the Bush administration, the big green groups can’t even rouse themselves into much more than the most reflexive kind of hysteria, fundraising letters printed in bold type…

Once highly regarded (and deeply reviled) as fierce advocates of the “public interest,” environmentalists now are largely dismissed in the living rooms of America as merely another “special interest” group (weaker than most), peddling its meager influence on the Hill, angling for access to the anterooms (never the control room) of power, or, at least, a line item in the federal budget…

The surest sign of decadence in a social/political movement is its engagement in the suppression of internal dissent: such decadence now erodes the moral core of the environmental movement. Stray beyond the margins of permitted discourse, publicly critique the prevailing “strategy,” strike out in an authorized new direction and the overlords of the environmental movement crack down. They enfilade the insurgents with legalistic maledictions, gag orders, and accusations of sedition…

National environmental policies are now engineered by an Axis of Acronyms: EDF, NRDC, WWF: groups without voting memberships and little responsibility to the wider environmental movement. They are the undisputed mandarins of technotalk and lobbyist logic, who gave us the ecological oxymorons of our time: “pollution credits,” “re-created wetlands,” “sustainable development”…

Environmentalism was once a people’s cause, unaligned with any political party and independent from the demands of the shadowy syndicate of mega-foundations (Pew, Rockefeller, Ford) that now hold the mortgage on the movement-those high priests of what Foucault called “condescending philanthropy.” Environmentalism was once driven by a desire for social justice and an unremitting passion for the wild. We need to tap back into those populist currents…

According to this dataset, the number of American’s that belong to an environmental organization correlates with presidential party affiliation; claimed membership is approximately 50% greater during a Republican presidency.

I created the figure by harvesting polling data from six different polls between 1978 and 2005. All six polls roughly ask the same question: do you belong to an environmental organization? The blue points represent the percentage of respondents answering in the affirmative. The percentage is found on the left axis. I was curious how these percentages translated into actual numbers of American citizens. To do this, I multiplied the percentage of affirmative respondents by the US Census’ estimate for each year, which is illustrated by the red points. The number of Americans is found on the right axis.

I am fully aware of the challenges of comparing the results of different surveys. This figure is a back of the envelope calculation to help triangulate relevant trends for my research. While the results are not definitive they certainly are suggestive.

For those interested, the exact polling questions are below:

1978: Do you belong to any national environment organizations such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the National Audubon Society or others like these? (Survey by Resources for the Future)

1982: Do you belong to any of the following types of community organizations?…Environmental groups. (Survey by Continental Group)

1990: Please look carefully at the following list of voluntary organizations and activities and say which, if any, do you belong to?…Conservation, the environment, ecology (Gallup Organization)

1996: We would like to know something about the groups or organizations to which you currently belong. Here is a list of various kinds of organizations. For each type, please tell me whether you belong to any club or organization that fits into that category. Just call off the number of each type you belong to… environmental clubs or organizations (Post-Modernity Project at the University of Virginia)

2000: There are many different kinds of environmental organizations, including large national and international organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, as well as smaller, local organizations. Do you, yourself, belong to any large national or international environmental organizations? (Gallup organization)

2005: There are many different kinds of environmental organizations, including large national and international organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, as well as smaller, local organizations. Do you, yourself, belong to any large national or international environmental organizations? (Gallup organization)

Of little surprise, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is the top revenue generating conservation nonprofit. In 2005, TNC accounted for 25.6% of the revenue generated by the top 50 organizations. I compare the revenue streams of the top 10 in the following graph. TNC is the dark blue line.

The distribution of financial resources can give insight into conservation priorities. Does the allocation of conservation dollars over the eight year per period align with the conservation challenges we face? Are there nonprofit sectors over or under attended to? What does the division of revenue tell us about donors? About nonprofits? About the costs of various nonprofit activities?

As a basis for comparison, The Nonprofit Almanac 2008 (p.102) asserts that the 71,095 active foundations in the United States granted $36.4 billion in 2005 (The most recent year for which data was available to the authors). In 2005, the Gates Foundation granted just over $1.5 billion. Their contribution accounts for more than 4% of the total $36.4 billion foundation dollars granted that year. In 2007, the Gates Foundation donated $2 billion. In short, the Gates Foundation contribution to total foundation giving is likely increasing.

I applaud the extreme generosity of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet. However, their concentrated wealth raises serious democratic and scientific questions. In a June 9th WSJ article, Melinda Gates rightly points out that $20,000 helping “a child who needed a kidney” is “$20,000 that doesn’t go to buy life-saving vaccines” to children in developing countries. These types of decisions can have large social implications, impacting both domestic and foreign policy. For example, if the Gates Foundation were to give $2 billion towards AIDS research, it could potentially shift research efforts away from other worthwhile pursuits. My point is not about effectiveness, which is another important discussion. I am speaking to the influence donors can have.

Who is best suited to make such decisions?

How much influence should one private foundation have? Is it too much for one foundation to control 5%, 10%, 25%, or 50% of total foundation giving?

Is it possible for a single foundation to drive research and programmatic agendas? If so, how much control/influence should a foundation have?