CATO Lobbies for Hollywood (Sleazoid Time-Warner funds libertarian think tank)

Media Research Center ^ | January 8, 2005 | Brent Bozell

[AmericanChef]

Libertarians are such contrary little cusses. When there's no judgment, there's just that much more room for chaos.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[austinTparty]

Over three-quarters of Cato's donations come from individuals; they get very, very little funding from corporations. Because they oppose corporate welfare and protectionism and advocate competitive markets, in fact, they tend to be somewhat on the big corporation hit list.

[jackbob]

ping

[Oztrich Boy]

You didn't ezpect cult leader Bozo to be fair and accurate on this subject, did you?

[inquest]

Over three-quarters of Cato's donations come from individuals; they get very, very little funding from corporations. Because they oppose corporate welfare and protectionism and advocate competitive markets, in fact, they tend to be somewhat on the big corporation hit list.

There aren't many organizations that get the bulk of their funding from corporations, but the fact that an organization does get funding from several big-name corporations (as Cato does: Citigroup, Chase-Manhattan, American-Express, among others) indicates well enough that these corporations aren't at variance with its goals.

That said, however, it's not just Cato that isn't what it seems. Check out the donor profile for the Heritage Foundation. Donors such as the F.M. Kirby Foundation (which also donates to Cato), the Hearst Foundation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, and the Brown Foundation all give money to Heritage as well as to various leftist organizations. The bottom line in all of this is that one should never assume that an organization's outward appearance authentically indicates what its goals are. There's a lot more convergence of goals among supposedly adversarial groups than meets the eye.