Follow The Money - PATownhall

A week or so ago, I stumbled across this website.  It's "PaTownHall - Pennsylvania's marketplace of ideas" and it describes itself as:

PA Town Hall is a cooperative project involving over 20 center/right organizations and columnists from throughout Pennsylvania. It is a "one stop shop" for readers to view the latest policy papers, news releases, newsletters, polls, blogs and columns as well as listen to radio programs produced by participating organizations.

The site piqued my curiosity, to say the least.  Where did it come from?  Who hosts it?  Who's paying for it?  And finally, HOW MUCH SCAIFE MONEY IS ENTWINED IN THE PROJECT?

So let's follow the money.

On the "About" page we learn that:

PA Town Hall is owned and operated by the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research, Inc. The Lincoln Institute is a 501c3 nonprofit educational foundation based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The mission statement of the Lincoln Institute commits the organization to "the conduct of an extensive public information and educational program designed to foster federal and state public policy based upon traditional American values."

Ah, The Lincoln Institute.  According to the Bridgeproject, the Institute has received overall $1.428 million dollars over the last 20 or so years - 68% of which ($980,000) came from the Scaife controlled Allegheny Foundation.

But what about those "20 center/right organizations" that make up the project?

Let's take a look.  Here's the page titled "Member Groups".  Alot of the list is made up of individuals, so let's set them aside and just concentrate on the some of groups on the "Member Group" page that have received Scaife funding (all info from the BridgeProject):

• Allegheny Institute: $6.484 million total, 89% ($5.8 million) from Scaife foundations
• Commonwealth Foundation: $7.523 million total, 35% ($2.667 million) from Scaife foundations
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: $9.865 million total 14.7% ($1.45 million) from Scaife foundations

And so on.  I note that our good friend Salena Zito is also on the "Member Groups" list.  She's a staff writer and editorial columnist for the Tribune-Review

Here's a thought experiment: What would PATownhall look like had it never received 68% of it's foundation funding from the Scaife Foundations?  What would the political geography of the state look like without all that money coming from those three sources all controlled (until recently, of course) by one very rich white guy?

Here's a couple more: The next time Salena Zito mentions anyone else (individual or organization) on the PA Townhall "Member Group" (for example Senator Toomey) will she, in the spirit of full disclosure, mention their common membership on that list?  

Next time Lowman Henry is so lovingly profiled by the Tribune-Review, will they point out that their former owner shuttled hundreds of thousands of dollars Henry's way to fund the Lincoln Institute?

Follow the money.

The Commonweath Foundation

Found in The Nation:

The Commonwealth Foundation, a right-wing think tanks in Harrisburg, is plotting to go after public sector employee unions. In a letter from Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) on behalf of the Foundation, the think tank announced “Project Goliath,” a new effort to make Pennsylvania the next Wisconsin or Michigan. The Commonwealth Foundation is one of a fifty-nine-state network of similar think tanks that have vastly expanded since 2009. The letter makes clear that conservatives believe that right-wing political infrastructure—the organizing institutes, the partisan media outlets, the rapid response efforts—has helped turn the tide against labor unions.

The piece posts (and quotes) the letter and you can read it for yourself here.

There's something I want to add to the piece (but this isn't a criticism of the writers reporting - he was looking at a particular section of the story and so there's no reason he had to include anything else).  If it's a warning for PA residents about an upcoming effort by the legislature to undermine the state's labor unions, then we can probably expect to see some reporting about it by the Tribune-Review.

And if Toomey's letter lauds the Commonwealth Foundation (a right-wing think tanks in Harrisburg) and if the Trib covers the story in some way, then we want to get out front to point out (yet again) Trib owber Richard Mellon Scaife's financial connections to the Commonwealth Foundation.

Check out this page from the Bridge Project.  It lists all the foundational support given to Commonwealth.  By my math and at this time it adds up to a little over $6.6 million dollars (unadjusted for inflation from 1988 to 2011).  Of that foundations controlled by Scaife make up more than a third ($2.5 million out of $6.6 million).  In fact, in the first five years of foundation support all but $25,000 of it came from foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife ($450K out of $475K).  In the first ten Scaife's foundations constituted about 57% of all the foundational support ($900K out of about $1.6 million).

The fun part is to look at Toomey's letter itself or more specifically the Commonwealth document attached to it.  Included in the letter are some accolades about the Commonweath Foundation from some other conservative think tanks.  There's praise from:

• Cato Institute ($2.4 million in Scaife money)
• Competitive Enterprise Institute ($3.6 million in Scaife money)

So whenever the Trib starts reporting on the Commonwealth Foundation's efforts (or the legislature's efforts spawned from it) to pass any sort of "right to work" legislation, we should keep in mind the millions Scaife's already spent on it.

Corbett, TANF, and The Welfare Waiver Myth

As usual, we start with an editorial at the Scaife-owned Tribune-Review:

In no uncertain terms, Gov. Tom Corbett has rejected the Obama administration’s re-election-year pander allowing states to dispense with the work requirement under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

Note that the Scaife's braintrust uses the verb "to dispense with" in its description of the TANF work requirement.

Too bad that description just isn't true.  The work requirement under TANF is not being "dispensed with".  How do I know?

Factcheck.org.  In its discussion of the now-debunked Romney ad on TANF, they say:

Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement. [Emphasis added.]

If you're not a fan of factcheck, how's about CNN?  They called the debunked Romney ad "nuts."

So the braintrust's frame is simply wrong.  But guess what we find when we dig just a little deeper?

First the Trib:

Moreover, of six states that have reduced their welfare rolls during the recession, four match work requirements with time limits, writes Elizabeth Stelle for the Commonwealth Foundation.

Never a mention of the millions Scaife's given to the Commonwealth Foundation.

The Trib Brain Trust Just Can't Help Itself

Today, I thought I'd try something new. Here's the whole "Sunday Pops" column from today's Tribune-Review:

So, would those arguing that the federal judge who struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage has a "conflict" because he has a gay partner argue that a federal judge with a wife who upheld the ban is similarly conflicted? ... How can the Keystone Research Center's "independent" Budget and Policy Center claim to be "independent" when its parent is an arm of organized labor? ... After years of speculation over whether he was a natural-born U.S. citizen, President Barack Obama finally released his birth certificate indicating he was born in Hawaii. But given Mr. Obama could have nipped the matter in the bud years ago, why did he wait so long to do so? ... Donald Trump is taking credit for forcing the president to release his birth certificate. But he might have a "birther" problem of his own. We're told some tabloid is about to report that Mr. Trump was born on Mars ... or Venus ... or was it Mercury? ... Lest we forget, the whole "birther" controversy was started by supporters of Hillary Clinton after she lost the Democrats' 2008 presidential nomination. So much for the shibboleth that this was a "right-wing operation." [Bold in original.]

A mixture of spin and just plain silly (and one they get right). Let's go point by point.

Point 1 -

So, would those arguing that the federal judge who struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage has a "conflict" because he has a gay partner argue that a federal judge with a wife who upheld the ban is similarly conflicted?

Ok, so I have no problem with this one. They even got the irony quotes right. Only one thing: it's obvious that they're assuming that the hypothetical federal judge in that last phrase is male. (A teensy bit of sexism that should be pointed out.) If she were female then the meaning of the sentence is completely changed, doncha think?

So Let's move on.

Point 2 -

How can the Keystone Research Center's "independent" Budget and Policy Center claim to be "independent" when its parent is an arm of organized labor?

Seeing this on the Scaife-funded Trib, I chuckled. Especially when I found this from Commonwealth Foundation:

Everyone loves to hate "special interests." They spend millions of dollars in electing and lobbying public officials in order to gain political or legislative favor.

So it was no surprise when groups like PennFuture and the Keystone Research Center's Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center joined with Common Cause PA and the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters to attack individuals affiliated with the natural gas industry for giving $2 million in state campaign contributions over the past 10 years. Nor was it surprising that they called for a severance tax to punish this "special interest."

But someone forgot to tell these organizations living in glass houses that they ought not to throw stones.

Indeed, the $2 million in contributions given over 10 years by natural gas interests is dwarfed by the contributions of the labor unions that run the Keystone Research Center's Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (KRC/PBPC). Union political action committees gave $27 million in state races in 2007-08 alone and $60 million over the last three election cycles. Of course these special interests expect special favors in return for their "investments." [Emphasis added for dramatic effect]

How much money has Scaife funneled to the Commonwealth Foundation, the foundation that attacks the KRC for being in the pocket of it's "special interest" donors? About $2 million.

Of course the editorial board writers of the Scaife owned paper would never mention this.

Point 3 -

After years of speculation over whether he was a natural-born U.S. citizen, President Barack Obama finally released his birth certificate indicating he was born in Hawaii. But given Mr. Obama could have nipped the matter in the bud years ago, why did he wait so long to do so?

I want you to note the grammatical lack of clarity of that first sentence before we look at its rhetorical misdirection. Was it Obama who was speculating that he wasn't born in Hawaii? Surely looks that way. But the rhetorical misdirection is the greater sin here. In order for this phrase "Obama finally released his birth certificate indicating he was born in Hawaii" to be true, the official birth certificate released 3 years ago has to be something other than an official birth certificate. All they did was to move the goal posts from "he's not one of us." to "what's he hiding by waiting for so long?"

Except he didn't wait. See what the Trib did there?

Point 4 -

Donald Trump is taking credit for forcing the president to release his birth certificate. But he might have a "birther" problem of his own. We're told some tabloid is about to report that Mr. Trump was born on Mars ... or Venus ... or was it Mercury?

The "on what planet was The Donald born?" is actually a Karl Rove talking point. I heard him use it the other night. Other than that, this is just silly.

Point 5 -

Lest we forget, the whole "birther" controversy was started by supporters of Hillary Clinton after she lost the Democrats' 2008 presidential nomination. So much for the shibboleth that this was a "right-wing operation."

THAT'S RIGHT! It's a lib'rul plot! Spread by the lib'rul media best represented by:

• World Net Daily
• Rush Limbaugh
• Sean Hannity
• Michael Savage
• Jerome Corsi
• Michelle Geller
• Orly Taitz
• Alan Keyes
• G. Gordon Liddy
• Jim Quinn
• Rose Tennant
• Chuck Norris
• And about half (depending on how you slice it) of the GOP.

So of course it's NO RIGHT WING OPERATION! Of course not.

That's just silly.

They Did It Again

From today's Tribune-Review:

As director of policy research for the nonprofit Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Nathan A. Benefield has researched and written on issues ranging from taxes and government spending to health care policy and economic development. He frequently has testified before Pennsylvania House and Senate committees on issues such as the state budget, transportation funding, privatization and education.

The topic today is the film tax credit.

Of course, there's no mention of the financial support given to the Commonwealth Foundation by the owner of the paper that's interviewing him, Richard Mellon Scaife.

In case you missed any of our coverage, here's some numbers:

• In 2009, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $130,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $140,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $140,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $130,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2005, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $130,000 to the CFPP.
• In 2004, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $120,000 to the CFPP.

That's about $700,000 in 6 years.

According to mediamatters, Scaife's foundations have given more cash to the CFPP than any other foundation. About $2 million.

And yet no mention of all that money, all that support in the interview.

Someone has to say it - the circle jerk continues.

More Tribbing At The Trib

Or maybe it's the same tribbing, who knows? Anyway on today's editorial page, Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust writes:

Capping 7 1/2 long years of unrelenting temerity toward taxpayers, lame-duck Gov. Ed Rendell will go out the same way he came in: as a big spender.

Under legislation to boost the state's debt ceiling by $600 million -- ensuring still more reckless spending -- the guv will get $298 million to seal his spendthrift legacy.

Philadelphia's former mayor reportedly will spend about a third of his brotherly love on his favored city. Among recipients will be the Arlen Specter Library Project Center.

"At least call it 'The Taxpayers Library' or 'The Pennsylvania State Debt Center,'" writes Nathan Benefield of the Commonwealth Foundation.

We've seen the Commonwealth Foundation before haven't we?

Yes we have. Richard Mellon Scaife has supported the Commonwealth Foundation to the tune of about $2 million.But take a closer look at what they braintrust did. Here's the reference again:

"At least call it 'The Taxpayers Library' or 'The Pennsylvania State Debt Center,'" writes Nathan Benefield of the Commonwealth Foundation.

And then search for the phrase "taxpayers library" at the Commonwealth Foundation you'll find this. It's a blog post about another piece at Capitolwire - something that requires a subscription to read.

Looks to me like the braintrust is using its vast media influence to get the word out (from behind a subscription wall, no less) about some tidbit from the Commonwealth Foundation. All with no mention of the $2 mil Scaife spent on Commonwealth while his editorial board gleefully touts its research.

The circle jerk continues.

Another Two-Fer At The Trib

From today's Editorial Page at Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Extended federal unemployment benefits, set to run out June 2, aren't putting people to work. Left unchecked, they "help" those who are gaming the system.

Of course they'd say that. But what's the data to support it? Where does it come from?

No surprise here, either:

Notes David Littmann, senior economist for the free-market Mackinac Center for Public Policy, those federal checks -- for up to 99 weeks -- don't reduce unemployment but the incentive to find work.

It's no wonder Pennsylvania struggles to maintain its unemployment compensation fund when it's second only to California in what it pays out, according to the Commonwealth Foundation.[emphasis in original]

We all know where this is headed, right?

• The Mackinac Center is a Michigan-based conservative think tank that received $100,000 from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation in 1999-2000.
• The Commonwealth Foundation is a Pennsylvania-based conservative think tank that's received about $2 million from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Allegheny, Carthage and Sarah Scaife foundations over the last 2 decades.

And yet no mention of any of that money in an editorial critical of extending unemployment benefits.

The circle jerk/tribbing continues.

Interesting.

I want to go further on this.

The Mackinac Center is a member of something called the State Policy Network. The SPN describes itself as:

State Policy Network is the capacity building service organization for America's free market, state-focused think tank community. We advance a free society by providing leadership development, management training and networking opportunities for think tank professionals and by promoting strategic partnerships among market-oriented organizations.

So it's an organization of conservative state-based think tanks, fair enough.

Guess who else is a member?

• Commonwealth Foundation (approx $2 million Scaife money over the years)

Associate Members

• Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (approx $4 million Scaife money over the years)
• Accuracy in Media (approx $4.3 million Scaife money over the years)
• Capital Research Center (approx $4.5 million in Scaife money over the years)

Just to name a few. The Heritage Foundation's a member, as is Judicial Watch and Freedomworks and so on. All recipients of vast amounts of Scaife money. How many of these Scaife-funded foundations does his editorial board use as "informational" sources?

Tell me again how there's no vast right-wing conspiracy.