Who Funds the Left?

Fox ^ | 1/16/03 | Radley Balko

[hoosierskypilot]

A reader of this column e-mailed an interesting question a few months ago: "We hear all about Richard Mellon Scaife," he wrote, "but we never hear about who funds the left. Who's bankrolling the vast left-wing conspiracy?"

It's an interesting question, and you'll probably be surprised at the answer. The oddest source of the left's money comes from the rich. The really rich. The Washington Times recently reported that the richest 1 percent of Americans give disproportionately more to Democrats than to Republicans. Republicans, on the other hand, get more money from the richest fifth of income earners.

That makes sense, when you think about it. Ted Turner can afford to support high-tax policies because he can fork over half the millions he makes every year and still have enough left over to buy the state of Oregon.

A tax cut makes more sense however, to say a family of four making $150,000, with two kids in college. Both are taxed at the highest bracket, but Ted can afford to be a little more generous in support of the way the government spends your money.

Much of the remainder of the left's financial backing comes from coercion. That is, they take money without asking for it, often from people who would rather not give it to them.

Taxes are the best example. Each time Congress creates a new government program, it gives birth to a fresh litter of Democrats. That's because each government program needs to be staffed by people who, naturally, don't want to lose their jobs. So they vote Democrat, the party most likely to continue government programs. And with the exception of certain corporate welfare and farm subsidy programs, the people who benefit from those vote Democrat too, for the same reason.

In most cases, employees of the federal government are required to join the union that represents federal employees, and pay dues. Your taxes fund it all.

[hoosierskypilot]

There you have it, kids. The left is funded by an entirely corrupt apparatus (the Democratic party) which needs to be dismantled and outlawed.

[Support Free Republic]

It would be a Bummer if you didn't contribute your share!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[rudehost]

A fantastic point on the likes of Ted Turner. Of course you are for tax increases if you have 1 billion in the bank. No tax rate will have any meaningful impact on your lifestyle.

[OBone]

You are absolutely correct. This needs to be said again and again. Every new government program breeds a new Dem treasure trove.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Great post. I hope you don't mind my posting the entire article w/ the valuable source links. Bookmarked.

Who Funds the Left? Thursday, January 16, 2003 By Radley Balko  A reader of this column e-mailed an interesting question a few months ago: "We hear all about Richard Mellon Scaife," he wrote, "but we never hear about who funds the left. Who's bankrolling the vast left-wing conspiracy?" It's an interesting question, and you'll probably be surprised at the answer. The oddest source of the left's money comes from the rich. The really rich. The Washington Times recently reported that the richest 1 percent of Americans give disproportionately more to Democrats than to Republicans. Republicans, on the other hand, get more money from the richest fifth of income earners. That makes sense, when you think about it. Ted Turner can afford to support high-tax policies because he can fork over half the millions he makes every year and still have enough left over to buy the state of Oregon. A tax cut makes more sense however, to say a family of four making $150,000, with two kids in college. Both are taxed at the highest bracket, but Ted can afford to be a little more generous in support of the way the government spends your money. Much of the remainder of the left's financial backing comes from coercion. That is, they take money without asking for it, often from people who would rather not give it to them. Taxes are the best example. Each time Congress creates a new government program, it gives birth to a fresh litter of Democrats. That's because each government program needs to be staffed by people who, naturally, don't want to lose their jobs. So they vote Democrat, the party most likely to continue government programs. And with the exception of certain corporate welfare and farm subsidy programs, the people who benefit from those vote Democrat too, for the same reason. In most cases, employees of the federal government are required to join the union that represents federal employees, and pay dues. Your taxes fund it all. That brings me to my second example: unions. In most states today, most blue-collar jobs are "closed-shop." That means if you want to be an electrician or a carpenter or a welder, you've no choice but to join the union -- and pay dues. A portion of those dues then goes to political efforts -- "get out the vote" drives, for example -- and those efforts almost always benefit the Democrats. In its famous Beck decision in 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that unions must make the portion of union dues used for political efforts refundable to members. But for eight years, that decision was unenthusiastically enforced by the Clinton administration. Today, unions of course make acquiring such a refund far more trouble than it's worth. A third, less-known example of leftist coercion is Ralph Nader's nationwide army of Public Interest Group chapters on college campuses across the country. PIRGs are notorious for surreptitiously conning college students into donating one, three, sometimes as many as five dollars to the organization each time they register for classes. When I was an undergraduate at Indiana University, PIRG representatives came into my fraternity with a petition. They told us they were a "completely apolitical" organization that "represents the interests of college students." Funny. I was a college student at the time. "Ensuring fair and affordable insurance," "asking the EPA for tougher diesel engine standards" and forcing industries to pay into a pollution cleanup fund -- all taken from the PIRG Web site -- weren't at all causes I would have found to be "in my interest." The Indiana University chapter also sought to fund itself through a sneaky "reverse check" system, whereby each and every college student on campus automatically donated three dollars to the organization each time he registered for classes unless he specifically sought out the donate box and unchecked it. PIRG chapters today employ a wide variety of shady funding schemes, but very little of the money extracted from college students actually stays on campus. Most of it goes to PIRG's national headquarters, and is then redistributed. College campuses are also notorious for mandating that students pay "activity fees," which are collected into a general fund, then redistributed, usually by student government representatives, and almost always disproportionately to leftist causes. Leftists often respond that yes, unions and some colleges often divert mandatory fees to the left, but that corporations are just as guilty when they divert shareholders' money to the right. Not quite the case. In fact, corporations -- and particularly their philanthropic wings -- unfortunately give copious amounts of money to causes directly in opposition to their interests. Washington D.C.'s Capital Research Center has documented this bizarre trend of self-loathing advocacy for almost 20 years. This is in part because the philanthropic wings of corporations and corporate foundations are often staffed by people interested in philanthropy, not business. And those people lean disproportionately left. But it's also because corporations are regular made to feel guilty by shakedown schemes like Jesse Jackson's now-legendary "Wall Street Project," where he threatened big corporations with bad race-based publicity unless they open their checkbooks for his causes. And even if corporations did give disproportionately to the right, the comparison doesn't hold up. Shareholders are free to invest in companies whose politics are more in line with their own. But if you're a Republican electrician in a state that mandates union membership, your options are simple: Pay the dues demanded of you, or find another line of work. So to answer our original question, there really isn't a Richard Mellon Scaife of the left. There are a few Ted Turners and Barbara Streisands -- people so rich that they can afford to be generous with your money. But much of the rest of the money that funds leftist causes comes from unwitting autoworkers, from reluctant taxpayers and from the oblivious parents of college students. Yes. It comes from you. Radley Balko is a writer living in Arlington, Va. He also maintains a weblog at www.theagitator.com. Respond to the Writer

[MeekOneGOP]

Good article. Thanks for the post and the pingaroo !

And even if corporations did give disproportionately to the right, the comparison doesn't hold up. Shareholders are free to invest in companies whose politics are more in line with their own. But if you're a Republican electrician in a state that mandates union membership, your options are simple: Pay the dues demanded of you, or find another line of work.

So to answer our original question, there really isn't a Richard Mellon Scaife of the left. There are a few Ted Turners and Barbara Streisands -- people so rich that they can afford to be generous with your money. But much of the rest of the money that funds leftist causes comes from unwitting autoworkers, from reluctant taxpayers and from the oblivious parents of college students.

Yes.

It comes from you.

[StriperSniper]

Here's another sneaky way:

ABOUT US

Founded in 1996, Cucumber Communications is one of the nation's most rapidly expanding communications companies today. Headquartered in Lakewood , New Jersey, Cucumber Communications stands for simple, long-distance services coupled with excellent customer support. They have developed one of the industries most scalable and reliable communication networks within the United States.

Cucumber Communications makes it easy for busy people to support causes they care about. Through our long distance services, customers can generate donations for progressive nonprofit groups just by doing what they do every day. Best of all, it does not cost a penny more.

Cucumber Communications is a division of Oorah. ALL our profits go to nonprofit groups working for human rights and children's education. With Cucumber, every call you make builds a better world.

They have goofy sounding commercials on WABC Radio in NYC, so I wondered who they were. Who this 'Oorah' is, I don't know. It all just seems like so much identity laundering.

[tiki]

JUst from reading the title I had the answer. We do. We pay for abortion, affirmative action , every liberal program around with our tax dollars whether we agree with them or not.

[happygrl]

This article glossed very lightly over the impact that foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation have in supporting left-wing causes, especially get-out-the-vote i.e. Democratic vote.

Also, they support a wide variety of leftist NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) almost all of which are leftist in orientation.

[Momaw Nadon]

Who Funds the Left?

[okie01]

"Also, they support a wide variety of leftist NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) almost all of which are leftist in orientation."

The enviro-whackos are importantly funded by government contracts and grants from..., you guessed it, the EPA. For example, the American Lung Association got an $800K grant from the EPA for the express purpose of suing the EPA, "forcing" it to implement tougher air-quality standards.

Similarly, for example, labor-oriented NGOs are funded by...the Department of Labor.

PETA gets money from...the Department of Fish & Wildlife.

In truth, the federal government is the biggest source of funding for the leftist NGOs. Which means the taxpayers are footing their bills. That is, to be specific, us.

Slowly, but surely, the Bush administration has been cutting off contracts and grants, defunding the rascals.

Which is one of the little noted reasons for all the panicked screaming coming from the loony left...

[Domestic Church]

And the NEA and its educational machine is the main funder of the DNC...until the kids are taken out of the public system or the public system is greatly pared down with a competing private system that is totally unaffected by the educational machine, we can't stop the breeding of the "Dem treasure trove."

[Robert_Paulson2]

George Bush?

---

apparently so:

Bush funds new programs to pay for minority education at tax PAYER'S expense

Let's not blame the dems... we are are fast "taking on as our very own" every item in their platform...

Thank God, for the thousands of points of blight... your wallets, as we pay for more and more social spending and big brother government programs.. "all for da widdle chidrun."

Who is funding the left. Apparently W wants us to.

puke.

[AuntB]

Too late...the left already bought Oregon!

[Eva]

Our newspapers have been quoting Bill Gates father on opposition to the inheritance tax. It's so stupid that it makes me laugh every time I read it. Of course he opposes it. Bill Gates doesn't need any more money and he is an only child.

[DoughtyOne]

There you go again, you're just another one issue flunkie...

Robert, you and I can't stop this subversion as long as we have people in public office who are not well grounded in Conservatism.

The reference to "one issue flunkie" seeks to make light of the folks who continually damn others for disagreeing on one issue with Bush, as if there weren't a mountain of them surfacing.  Sadly, the folks we used to think were Conservatives, are outing themselves as nothing more than cheerleaders for the current home team on the field.  "Oh look, they come from Republican High.  Give me an "R", give men an "E", give me a "P"...  It's disgusting.

Dropping the two theater theory of defense...
Eliminating 75% of our remaining nuclear deterent...
Allowing our borders to remain wide open...
Allowing immigration to continue from middle-eastern nations who's citizens are trianed from birth to destest us, destroy us...
Allowing the issuance of educational visas to foreign nationals to continue...
Pandering to illegal immigrants that do not have our nation's best interests at heart...
Trying to eliminate our borders altogether...
Not canning department heads, and agency directors when they allow known terrorists to infiltrate our nation...
Increasing funding to government departments that have declared war on Conservatism, the Department of Education et al...
Developing a program to filter federal funds to Marxist NGOs through the faith based welfare innitiatives...

I could go on.  Why bother?

Look bud, you know what's going on.  I'm glad to see it.

Like you I will continue to support Bush when I can, but I will not capitulate on actions he has taken that are clearly and dangerously detrimental to our nation's best interests.

When I mentioned the phrase "people who are well grounded on Conservatism" I did it for a reason.  Nobody should have to remind any Conservative that criminal behavior should be revealed and punished.  Nobody should have remind any Conservative that increasing the DoE budget by $40 billion was the wrong thing to do.  Bedrock core issues don't have to be explained.  Conservatives simply know better than to further the left's grip on those issues by any means.

We will not have our heads in the game until we refuse to elect any more RINOs to public office.  And until we do get our head back in the game, we are going to lose more and more of what made this nation great once upon a time.  The A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies should reveal why we cannot give an inch.  Whatever furthers the left's interests, furthers the grip these very folks have on this nation.  End it today.  Death to the liberal/marxist agenda once and for all.  NO MORE COMPROMISE!

[Revolting cat!]

The revelation, some years back (after 1989), that the late great Soviet Union had channeled millions of dollars to CPUSA and more millions through the Friend to the Presidents Armand Hammer, was met by one big yawn by the Left and the Right in this country. Water under the bridge, who cares, let's elect Bob Dole this year, etc, etc. Who's funding the Anti War movement today? Ted Turner, Brbra, sure, who else? Who wants to know? Who's not afraid to ask and be accused of "Orwellian McCarthism"?

[VRW Conspirator]

Every new government program is a like winning a trifecta for the lefties. They get to buy votes from the beneficiaries, from the employees of the new administration and the unions that organize the employees. There is sooooo much resistance to consolidate government programs and eliminate waste. If they cut government by these means the politicians would lose their base.

I will say it unitl I am blue in the face. Defund the left...defund the left...defund the left.