What is the deal with this - Big Business in Politics?

[RockHardCore]

A "friend" on the other side pointed me to this? Am I missing something?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588

Excerpt
The Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about $4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1.

The Wildlife Conservation Society, which took in a huge $35-million grant from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, was the top beneficiary on the political left of Fortune 100 foundation giving. It was followed by the Conservation International Foundation ($4.5 million), the National Council of La Raza ($2.9 million) and the Nature Conservancy ($1.9 million).

The American Enterprise Institute received $575,000, which was the largest single Fortune 100 grant to a group on the right, followed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($325,000) and the Employment Policies Institute ($275,000).

[bryant69]

1. It depends on how you define left and right

Giving money to give kids paint and brush for example might be seen as left wing (and probably would be by this survey). But you also have to examine how much of that money is going to specifically partisan causes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RockHardCore]

2. Yeah maybe...

But this still seems way out of whack. I don't think it can be dismissed that easily. Sometimes I really worry that Democratic party is being hijacked by big-money people who are seriously out of touch with doing the right thing. Am I the only one that thinks that?

[bryant69]

3. No - and any time anybody asks "Am i the only one" the answer is no

Just so you know.

It's clear that we need public financing of campaigns to get the money out of politics as much as possible.

That said this is talking about organizations - should such organizations as the Heritage foundation or the Pew Charitable trust be allowed to exist?

Bryant

[GeorgeGist]

4. Bribes?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. "left" = foundations to protect wildlife, help people, etc.

"right" = think tanks

edit: when you get a coultergiest popup ad when you click the link, and Human Events Online is billed as The National Conservative Weekly - you need to look for an unbiased link.

[RockHardCore]

7. Left vs. Right

So is the point basically that "left-wing" groups are not really left-wing? What would a left-wing group be then?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. this is how they 'figure' it...

Capital Research Center produces a range of publications targeting foundations, unions and activist groups that it views as supporting 'liberal' causes.

It also publishes Patterns in Corporate Philanthropy, which documents corporate donations to non-profit groups. CRC also host two other projects:

Green Watch, which it describes as a project dedicated to "monitoring the leadership, activities and funding of the liberal environmentalist movement"; <4> (http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.asp?ID=168) and
Searchlight: "Get the inside scoop: Find information on the philanthropic activities of leading foundations, Fortune 500 companies and non-profits," it claims on its website. <5> (http://www.capitalresearch.org)

The Searchlight database contains a file that lists an 'ideological rating" between 1 and 8, with 1 being "radical left" and 8 "market right".

According to the CRC, groups such as Environmental Working Group <3> (http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=EWG100) the Natural Resources Defense Council <4> (http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=NRD100) and even the Nature Conservancy deserve a 1. <5> (http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=NCO100)

Even the corporate friendly World Wildlife Fund scores a 2. <6> (http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=WWF100) There is no ranking listed for CRC nor any explanation at how such ratings are determined.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Capital_Research_Center

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I think the article explained it pretty well...charity as investment.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. that article is right wing crap

it's listed on newsbusters, savagerepublican, etc.

The article is put out by Capitol Research Center, a conservative think tank.
The Capital Research Center is a conservative think tank whose stated mission is to do "opposition research" exposing the funding sources behind consumer, health and environmental groups.
As part of the conservative campaign to 'Defund the left' the Capital Research Center produces a range of publications targeting foundations, unions and activist groups that it views as supporting 'liberal' causes.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Capital_Research_Center

[JHB]

13. And remeber, for these guys "liberal" means...

"fails to advocate for big-money 'conservative' pet causes without equivocation."

Even wondering if corporations have even so much as token limitations on them is enough to get you labelled as "anti-business" in those circles.

I think the fact that on their political scale both the League of Women Voters and International A.N.S.W.E.R. rate a "1" ("radical leftist") tells you where they're coming from.

One further thing to keep in mind is that a good portion of those donations to the "left" are likely due to policies of matching employee donations (i.e., if an employee donates $50 to the Red Cross or to a public radio station and reports it to the company, the company will also send $50 (from funds it has already budgeted for charitable donations for tax purposes)). Such matching funds add up, but they don't have the same effect as "strategic donating" by the company itself.

[fasttense]

9. Your source is the National Conservative weekly

To trust their research is to trust the bushes when they say there are WMDs in Iraq.

They do not provide a complete listing, just a general description, of who they considered conservative and who they considered liberal.

They don't include giving to political organizations just giving to charitable organizations. They don't include total giving. I bet there are more liberal charitable organizations then conservative ones. And I know for a fact there are more conservative political organizations then liberal ones. If you included all donations, I bet you would see a huge difference in favor of right-wing politics.

[RockHardCore]

11. Then?

Has anyone done that work anywhere? Can we factually refute that thing?

[noneofmybusiness]

14. Easy. We just have to look on page 20.

"In this analysis, we examined only those Fortune 100 companies that operated nonprofit charitable foundations that made grants to groups we identified as on either the political right or left. That reduced the number to 53 corporate foundations. (See page 20.)"

[fasttense]

15. I looked for page 20 and couldn't find it.

But here is a sample of contributions to political organizations:

"Since 1998, oil, gas and related services companies on the Fortune 1000 list gave $13.9 million to Republicans, compared to $3.2 million to Democrats—a ratio of more than four-to-one—according to figures compiled by the Center for Public Integrity."

http://www.public-i.org/report.aspx?aid=123&sid=200

Here is what Stern business writes:

"I classified CEOs as either Republicans or Democrats if a clear majority of their donations were directed to one party’s candidates or organizations. Fifty-five percent of the CEOs appeared to be Republicans and 19 percent, Democrats. An additional 19 percent donated fairly evenly to both parties, and the rest had no record of political donations."

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/Sternbusiness/fall_winter_2004/flights.html

So do you see what I mean by all donations. If you just select out one type of donation, in this case supposed "charitable" donations, you could make it look like anything you want. But it has been clearly established that Fortune 500 companies give more to their repuke friends.

[noneofmybusiness]

12. Your "friend" is delusional.

The "left wing" groups are not (as-?) politically active.

On the left (and $35M out of the $59M, leaving $14M) The Wildlife Conservation Society

1st two sentences of their mission statement:
The Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wild lands. We do so through careful science, international conservation, education, and the **management of the world’s largest system of urban wildlife parks**, led by the flagship Bronx Zoo.
http://www.wcs.org/sw-our_mission

On the Right The American Enterprise Institute
1st two sentences of their mission statement:
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a private, nonpartisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of government, politics, economics, and social welfare. Founded in 1943, AEI is home to some of America's most accomplished **public policy experts**--from economics, law, political science, defense and foreign policy studies, ethics, theology, medicine, and other fields.
http://www.aei.org/about/filter.all/default.asp

I'd like to see the full list of groups.

Your friend needs to learn to read between the lines.

[Vidar]

16. I think it was Harding, most corrupt president prior to W, who said

"The business of America is business."