The Left is far more organized than you might imagine, but a little investigation can turn up some fascinating examples of how they coordinate with front groups and the media to advance their policies. Consider this New York Times editorial. The FCC is attempting to play musical chairs with regulatory authority until they find one that will let them regulate the Internet. A lot of Congressional Republicans and Democrats-in fact, a majority of them-have questioned that move.
On Tuesday, the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes itself as an organization working “to make government transparent and accountable”, released a strange bit of “research” showing that a few of the pro-net neutrality organizations didn’t spend as much money on lobbying the federal government as the companies who were being threatened with regulation. They didn’t even attempt to figure out whether the money was being spent on net neutrality, or how much was spent by relevant organizations that weren’t at one particular meeting. They didn’t mention, or calculate the value of, all the “behind closed door” lobbying that is being done by activist front-groups like Free Press.
Of course, the New York Times just regurgitated their sloppy advocacy. Sunlight used numbers! With decimals! So it must be facts!
But there is something else that the New York Times did not bother to check before writing this editorial about the influence of money in politics.
Who funds the Sunlight Foundation?
It turns out, the Sunlight Foundation’s “research” is funded by organizations who just happen to have a direct interest in net neutrality regulations.
Look at record:
Google, which strongly favors government “neutrality” regulation, has given Sunlight nearly $100,000 during the past two years. And Google executive Kim Scott sits on Sunlight’s board of directors.
But when Big Government exposed ethics violations by Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, who came to the White House from Google and yet continued private email coordination with them about policies effecting the company – possibly violating federal archiving rules – did the Sunlight Foundation investigate? Or even call for more transparency from the White House to prevent such abuses?
Sunlight did not say a word.
The Church Lady would call that “conveeenient.”
Or consider a few other Sunlight Foundation donors:
- George Soros’ Open Society Institute
- The Rockefeller Family Fund
- The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
What do they have in common, besides giving large sums of money to the Sunlight Foundation? They also fund groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge, who lobby for net neutrality regulations.
Of course, the Sunlight Foundation can advocate for Internet regulation. But if they are going to attack organizations for spending money to fight a policy, shouldn’t they acknowledge that they have a major financial conflict of interest when they do?
Maybe that “lop-sided advantage” is due to net neutrality opponents actually reporting their lobbying expenses, while net neutrality advocates run their money through shady foundations and left wing “non-profits” that “forget” to report their lobbying?
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.