But are they employed because the Institute shares their views and wishes to support them...or do they tailor their views to the wishes of their employers?
All the diffence in the world. Someone has to pay the bills.
The influence of money on opinion and the conclusions of scientists conducting research is always hotly debatable. In the case of Soon and Baliunas, they get most of their support by doing science; they are both physicist/astronomers. But they also write a lot of op-ed pieces for institutes like Marshall, and because they are so vocal in their defense of the positions they take publically, the influence of their opinions (and those of their supporters) on their conduct of science is a concern.
Admittedly that's a concern for "the other side" of the climate science community as well. But I'd say that the number of op-eds authored by skeptical sources is considerably larger than the number authored by the consensus side.
But that's peripheral to the issues. Good luck with ancient_geezer. We have a history.