It is not unreasonable and I suspect that there is Saudi cooperation in this area as well. Do you have any hard data showing trends on such funding since 9/11? Is it going up or down?
Foreign Influence is not a new concept. The first 5 Federalist Papers are entitled with that subject. Our forefathers knew that Republics fail due to the internal conflict sparked by foreign powers. Frankly, your dismissal of the term is the kind of complacency I dread when thinking of the State department.
When the federalist papers were written, the US was a small, fledgling, nascent democracy. Foreign influence and hostilities were a real threat to our small nation, especially given the federal nature of the republic including the possibility that it could divide into several nations based on regional differences. Today, the US is the world's lone superpower. The circumstances today are much different. We also have "entangling alliances" despite Washinton's admonition.
When I think of "Foreign Influence" I think of Clinton taking Chinese political contributions. And Al Gore at the Temple taking money from that Bhudist nun. This isn't academic.
Foreign campaign contributions are illegal and should be prosecuted under the law.
Do you have any hard data showing trends on such funding since 9/11? Is it going up or down?
I believe that it could be described as maintained at an unacceptable and threatening level.
From Feb 2005 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2384
Freedom House's Muslim volunteers went to 15 prominent mosques from New York to San Diego and collected more than 200 books and other publications disseminated by Saudi Arabia (some 90% in Arabic) in mosque libraries, publication racks, and bookstores.
What they found can only be described as horrifying. These writings - each and every one of them sponsored by the kingdom - espouse an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, jihadist, and supremacist outlook. For example, they:
*
Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes "that churches are houses of God and that God is worshiped therein is an infidel."
*
Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam ("should be killed"), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of Shariah in America.
*
See non-Muslims as the enemy: "Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law."
*
See America as hostile territory: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways."
*
Prepare for war against America: "To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government."
Given this content and events happening in London and India, I think the burden of proof is on the other side. Where is the evidence that the State Department takes this seriously?
And this ties to your statement that we are the lone superpower. Our superpower status does not make us immune to the presence of this poisonous foreign influence (see London) and the acknowledged 'big money' influence that the Saudi's clearly have.