One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
May 3, 2014 21:55:28   #
Nickolai
 
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
Dec 23, 2013 |By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."

"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

Consistent funders
To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.

Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.

Jeffrey Zysik, chief financial officer for DonorsTrust, said in an email that neither DonorsTrust nor Donors Capital Fund "take positions with respect to any issue advocated by its grantees."

"As with all donor-advised fund programs, grant recommendations are received from account holders," he said. "DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund ensure that recommended grantees are IRS-approved public charities and also require that the grantee charities do not rely on significant amounts of revenue from government sources. DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund do not otherwise drive the selection of grantees, nor conduct in-depth analyses of projects or grantees unless an account holder specifically requests that service."

Matter of democracy
In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.

And for Brulle, that's a matter of democracy. "Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," he said. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square."

Powerful funders, he added, are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise doubts about the "roots and remedies" of a threat on which the science is clear.

"At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."

Editor's Note (12/24/13): This story has been updated to reflect a late comment from DonorsTrust.

This article originally appeared on The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.

Reply
May 3, 2014 22:07:39   #
Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE
 
Nickolai wrote:
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
Dec 23, 2013 |By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."

"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

Consistent funders
To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.

Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.

Jeffrey Zysik, chief financial officer for DonorsTrust, said in an email that neither DonorsTrust nor Donors Capital Fund "take positions with respect to any issue advocated by its grantees."

"As with all donor-advised fund programs, grant recommendations are received from account holders," he said. "DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund ensure that recommended grantees are IRS-approved public charities and also require that the grantee charities do not rely on significant amounts of revenue from government sources. DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund do not otherwise drive the selection of grantees, nor conduct in-depth analyses of projects or grantees unless an account holder specifically requests that service."

Matter of democracy
In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.

And for Brulle, that's a matter of democracy. "Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," he said. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square."

Powerful funders, he added, are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise doubts about the "roots and remedies" of a threat on which the science is clear.

"At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."

Editor's Note (12/24/13): This story has been updated to reflect a late comment from DonorsTrust.

This article originally appeared on The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice... (show quote)


So anonymous donors account for the vast majority of funds for climate change deniers, while government funding accounts for the vast majority of climate changers' funding, interesting, but not surprising.

Reply
May 3, 2014 23:40:05   #
Nickolai
 
Augustus Greatorex wrote:
So anonymous donors account for the vast majority of funds for climate change deniers, while government funding accounts for the vast majority of climate changers' funding, interesting, but not surprising.


There five characteristics to climate science deniers
1. Cheery picking
2.fake experts
3.misrepresentations and logical fallacies
4.immposible expectations of what research can do
5.conspiracy theories

Reply
 
 
May 4, 2014 00:35:09   #
buddy42 Loc: Bonita Springs, Fl
 
Nickolai wrote:
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
Dec 23, 2013 |By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."

"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

Consistent funders
To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.

Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.

Jeffrey Zysik, chief financial officer for DonorsTrust, said in an email that neither DonorsTrust nor Donors Capital Fund "take positions with respect to any issue advocated by its grantees."

"As with all donor-advised fund programs, grant recommendations are received from account holders," he said. "DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund ensure that recommended grantees are IRS-approved public charities and also require that the grantee charities do not rely on significant amounts of revenue from government sources. DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund do not otherwise drive the selection of grantees, nor conduct in-depth analyses of projects or grantees unless an account holder specifically requests that service."

Matter of democracy
In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.

And for Brulle, that's a matter of democracy. "Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," he said. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square."

Powerful funders, he added, are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise doubts about the "roots and remedies" of a threat on which the science is clear.

"At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."

Editor's Note (12/24/13): This story has been updated to reflect a late comment from DonorsTrust.

This article originally appeared on The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice... (show quote)






So I guess some of your main points are the unknown donations and dark monies are not democratic. I tend to agree with you. However, I personally think that it should pertain to all and not for a select few! Please read below.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-fundraising-illegal/2008/09/29/id/325630/

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

Reply
May 4, 2014 00:36:42   #
Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE
 
Augustus Greatorex wrote:
There five characteristics to climate change believers "scientists"
1. Cherry picking
2.Fake experts
3.Misrepresentations and logical fallacies
4.Impossible expectations of what science can prove
5.Conspiracy theories

Reply
May 4, 2014 00:47:37   #
Nickolai
 
buddy42 wrote:
So I guess some of your main points are the unknown donations and dark monies are not democratic. I tend to agree with you. However, I personally think that it should pertain to all and not for a select few! Please read below.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-fundraising-illegal/2008/09/29/id/325630/

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
So I guess some of your main points are the unknow... (show quote)




News Max? News Max has about credibility as the World Nut Daily of Faux News

Reply
May 4, 2014 01:22:07   #
buddy42 Loc: Bonita Springs, Fl
 
Nickolai wrote:
News Max? News Max has about credibility as the World Nut Daily of Faux News



I googled (were there unidentifiable foreign money donations to obama's campaign) and picked the first item on the page. There are 10 pages of addresses for the same google question. Are you claiming the same for all of them? I don't know enough about Drexel University to vouch for them either. I would not doubt it though as all colleges for the last 40 years have brain washed you crazy liberals. You gave your source and I gave mine yet you deny and deny. Typical lib.

Reply
 
 
May 4, 2014 01:45:54   #
Nickolai
 
buddy42 wrote:
I googled (were there unidentifiable foreign money donations to obama's campaign) and picked the first item on the page. There are 10 pages of addresses for the same google question. Are you claiming the same for all of them? I don't know enough about Drexel University to vouch for them either. I would not doubt it though as all colleges for the last 40 years have brain washed you crazy liberals. You gave your source and I gave mine yet you deny and deny. Typical lib.



Despite significant right-wing hype, a report by the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI) on the potential for foreign nationals to illegally contribute to U.S. political campaigns does not actually find any evidence of foreign nationals successfully donating to the Obama campaign. Still, a wide array of conservative and mainstream publications have incorrectly reported that the report documents foreign donors giving to the President’s re-election.
The report notes:Using a collection of online research tools, the Government Accountability Institute analyzed a portion of the foreign links that lead to the Obama campaign website, my.barackobama.com. The Institute found a wide variety of instances in which apparent foreign nationals either received solicitation emails or posted links to my.barackobama.com.

GAI then notes nine examples of foreign bloggers and bloggers in foreign countries — who may or may not be U.S. citizens — who have posted email solicitations or links to a “donate to Obama” page on their blogs. Only one, a Norwegian blogger named Gaupefot, claims to have actually donated to Obama. The blogger’s unverified claim, written in Norwegian, also appears to claim that the CIA funds the Norwegian Labour Party.

The GAI also notes that people from other countries often visit campaign websites and that an array of cyber-squatters have purchased domains that sound like political websites and link them often to legitimate campaign websites. These are even more often visited by users outside of the United States. It also claims that because Obama’s campaign site — and 211 Members of Congress — use a verification system for credit card contributions that does not include asking for a three-digit security code (Card Verification Value), these sites are potentially at greater risk for fraud.

Reply
May 4, 2014 02:42:18   #
Hemiman Loc: Communist California
 
Nickolai wrote:
News Max? News Max has about credibility as the World Nut Daily of Faux News


Yea you get all your information from msnbc. People like you can't stand the truth that's why you hate fox.

Reply
May 4, 2014 11:07:30   #
Nickolai
 
Hemiman wrote:
Yea you get all your information from msnbc. People like you can't stand the truth that's why you hate fox.








Yo have to be careful these days. The internet is full of good or bad or Junk information and one must consider or credibility of if

Reply
May 4, 2014 20:27:16   #
Nickolai
 
Hemiman wrote:
Yea you get all your information from msnbc. People like you can't stand the truth that's why you hate fox.


I watched Faux every evening from 2000 to some time in 2004 even though It was obvious to me that Faux was not a legitimate news channel but a news shaping channel And I could barely stomach the likes of Billo And Hannity. I marveled at Hannity and Colmes, and how they portrayed Hannity as the square jawed all American boy sparing with the wimpy liberal Colmes. All the while claiming to be fair and balanced :"We report you decide" I'd never seen anything like it. The first time I tuned to this channel I thought, "fair and balanced my ass." This channel is a right winger channel. One night my wife couldn't take the breaking swoop and asked me to please turn the channel to CNN. Saying those people over there are so much more intelligent than these Fox people. So I did now day's I tune to Faux only on occasion to catch up with the current propaganda. And All I hear every time Is Obama bashing 24 hrs a day. I tune now and then to Hannity's radio show before he was replaced by Michael Savage and from the day Obama was elected in 2008 he called his show the stop Obama Express. We like to get our news from CBS and ABC . the 24 hr cable news have to scrape for news. In the case of Faux manufacture news to fill the time.

Reply
 
 
May 4, 2014 21:11:24   #
Hemiman Loc: Communist California
 
Nickolai wrote:
I watched Faux every evening from 2000 to some time in 2004 even though It was obvious to me that Faux was not a legitimate news channel but a news shaping channel And I could barely stomach the likes of Billo And Hannity. I marveled at Hannity and Colmes, and how they portrayed Hannity as the square jawed all American boy sparing with the wimpy liberal Colmes. All the while claiming to be fair and balanced :"We report you decide" I'd never seen anything like it. The first time I tuned to this channel I thought, "fair and balanced my ass." This channel is a right winger channel. One night my wife couldn't take the breaking swoop and asked me to please turn the channel to CNN. Saying those people over there are so much more intelligent than these Fox people. So I did now day's I tune to Faux only on occasion to catch up with the current propaganda. And All I hear every time Is Obama bashing 24 hrs a day. I tune now and then to Hannity's radio show before he was replaced by Michael Savage and from the day Obama was elected in 2008 he called his show the stop Obama Express. We like to get our news from CBS and ABC . the 24 hr cable news have to scrape for news. In the case of Faux manufacture news to fill the time.
I watched Faux every evening from 2000 to some tim... (show quote)


You are committed to your own demise ,ok,but one question please,where do you get your information ?

Reply
May 4, 2014 22:11:21   #
Nickolai
 
Hemiman wrote:
You are committed to your own demise ,ok,but one question please,where do you get your information ?


I have already stated we rely primarily on CBS and ABC for news as well as a long list of history books. Such as "The Glory and The Dream" by William Manchester. "The Peoples History of The United States" by Howard Zinn. "500 Nations " An illustrated history of North American Indians, by Alvin Josephy. Various books on the history of the American movement.

Political books such as " Freedom of Choice" by Milton Friedman, "The Road to Serfdom " by Frederic Von Hayek. And Web sites such as Truthout, Alternet, Think POrogtress, politico.

Reply
May 4, 2014 22:27:00   #
Hemiman Loc: Communist California
 
Nickolai wrote:
I have already stated we rely primarily on CBS and ABC for news as well as a long list of history books. Such as "The Glory and The Dream" by William Manchester. "The Peoples History of The United States" by Howard Zinn. "500 Nations " An illustrated history of North American Indians, by Alvin Josephy. Various books on the history of the American movement.

Political books such as " Freedom of Choice" by Milton Friedman, "The Road to Serfdom " by Frederic Von Hayek. And Web sites such as Truthout, Alternet, Think POrogtress, politico.
I have already stated we rely primarily on CBS and... (show quote)

Thanks, it was good of you to respond.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2021 IDF International Technologies, Inc.