Maurice Cunningham is a Professor at the University of Massachusetts who writes a blog that”follows the money.” He also happens to be one of the heroes in my new book “Slaying Goliath.”
In this post, he warns that philanthropists are using their vast resources to buy control of the news, in this case, the Boston Globe. You may recall that Eli Broad gave the Los Angeles Times $800,000 a year yo increase its education coverage at the same time that he was trying to buy control of the LAUSD school board and ultimately put half the city’s children in charter schools. Fortunately, another billionaire bought the paper who was not interested in the schools, and Broad’s money went down the drain.
In Boston, as Cunningham explains, the Barr Foundation made a $600,000 gift to the Boston Globe. He explains that the Barr Foundation has a long history in the privatization movement.
This is not an innocent, no-strings-attached gift.
Cunningham writes:
The announcement last week of the $600,000 grant from the Barr Foundation to the Boston Globe was presented as a public spirited philanthropy offering the Globe the means to research our education system’s failures and report back on how to fix them. It is not. It is the dawn of philanthro-interest group journalism.
That’s a mouthful so let me explain. Journalism is easy – the Globe is the most important media outlet in the state. Philanthropy is something that generates positive responses as leading citizens “give back” to the community. What? You’d rather have them buy another yacht? But philanthropies are increasingly acting like interest groups[1] and that is what Barr is doing. It’s expending money to gain influence for its policy preferences on education.[2]
Get over the idea of Barr as a disinterested philanthropy scrupulously pursuing only the public good. It’s an interest group. How so?
Consider the political operating charities Barr has been supporting in the bitter contest between union and civil rights and community groups versus the wealthy interests who wish to privatize public education. Barr’s Form 990 tax returns show it routinely donates to political non-profits that promote privatization.
- In both 2015 and 2016 Barr gave $200,000 to Stand for Children, a beard for privatization interests. (SFC, then funded by members of Strategic Grant Partners, was behind the 2010 charters ballot measure and the 2012 anti-union ballot proposal, both of which ended in compromise legislation).
- In 2016 Barr gave $125,000 and in 2017 $175,000 to Educators for Excellence “to support the launch of E4E’s Boston chapter.” E4E is a faux teachers operation, a company union alternative to real teachers’ unions.[3]
- Barr has contributed to Massachusetts Parents United, the Walton family front that executes privatization activities for the WalMart heirs.[4]
- Just this year Barr funded the rollout of SchoolFacts Boston, a new operating non-profit headed by former mayoral candidate John Connolly, whose candidacy was backed by $1.3 million in dark dollars from Democrats for Education Reform Massachusetts. Connolly recently appeared at a DFER event.
We also can’t ignore the history of the money man behind Barr, Amos Hostetter Jr. (By the way, did Hostetter donate to DFER for the 2013 Boston mayor’s race? We’ll never know. DFER is a dark money front).
- In 2009 Hostetter contributed $32,500 to the Committee for Public Charter Schools, the ballot committee formed by Stand for Children to support a ballot initiative in support of more charter schools.
- In 2016 Hostetter secretly donated over $2 million to Families for Excellent Schools in favor of Question 2 to increase the number of charter schools. Because Hostetter hid his donations behind that dark money front, his largesse was not known until the Office of Campaign and Political Finance ruled that FESA had violated state campaign finance law and ordered it to disclose the true sources of its funding. Hostetter was the fourth largest individual donor to FESA.[5] If not for OCPF, we’d never know.[6]
Keep reading. The Barr Foundation is buying influence. It’s money will be used to point the Globe to ideas favored by Barr and to ignoreodeas that Barr dismisses.
This is a new-dangled kind of corruption.
Lots of billionaires are investing in media companies. With the purchase they get to control a great deal of content including attempting to normalize neoliberalism in the eyes of the public. Many newspapers are financially floundering so billionaires get a convenient tax write off while they spread their message. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/bezos-to-marc-benioff-why-billionaires-are-buying-media-companies.html
America has lost its soul for PROFITS at the expense of our young, our old, our poor, and our middle class, which is going away…sooooooo very SAD and ultimately SO BAD.
“The announcement last week of the $600,000 grant from the Barr Foundation to the Boston Globe was presented as a public spirited philanthropy offering the Globe the means to research our education system’s failures and report back on how to fix them”
What wealthy people are really saying to the public with this is “trust us. Trust us to conduct an open debate with all views presented and to not push our agenda. Trust us because we’re wealthy and trust us because we have determined that we are Good People who want only what’s best for you”
We have to trust them. We don’t get any accountability to transparency from them. We just have to accept their assurances that they’re not buying the debate and excluding voices they disagree with or voices that go against their interests.
I’m sure the people at the Boston Globe are good people and ethical and professional.
But not to even question whether they will be swayed in either overt ways or more subtle ways by these “gifts”? Come on. I would think journalists would at least ask these questions.
Would they accept a grant from the NEA or the AFT to cover education?
All things equal…ethical and professional…maybe.
But, the system is skewed toward the wealthy. Employees know what will butter their bread. Bosses know when they make a hiring decision, who will deliver for them.
While Cunningham has made some useful contributions, some flaws in his research/analysis are mentioned in the comments here:
https://haveyouheardblog.com/family-affair/
His absence of attention to very-dark-money Union influence in, for example, the Walsh/Connolly Mayoral election in Boston, or attention to the mysterious funding relationships between the teachers’ unions here and various “grassroots” groups/nonprofits is also striking… suggesting he shines his flashlight in a very constricted direction.
In any event, here’s an example where I would hope that Diane, Cunningham, the Globe, BTU, Barr Foundation and any interested boy or girl billionaires might collaborate, offering their best capacities to highlight and fix inequities:
“An Evaluation of Equity in the Boston Public Schools’ Home-Based Assignment Policy” (2018)
Its summarized conclusions regarding the city’s Home-Based Assignment Policy:
“Many of the inequities uncovered across neighborhoods and racial groups arose from geographic patterns that existed before HBAP, meaning the policy did not create them, nor did it do anything to ameliorate them. There are ways that the policy could be improved—including accounting for levels of competition for seats across neighborhoods. However, school assignment policies alone will not solve the greater challenge facing BPS, which is the uneven distribution of high quality schools across Boston. If families want their children to attend schools closer to home, as prior research indicates, then the more effective policy solution is to establish a greater number of high quality schools that are more equitably dispersed throughout the city.”
“HBAP, which focused on increasing the likelihood that students attend schools close to home, had very real consequences for school diversity. For both kindergarten and 6th grade there was evidence of diminishing geographic and racial integration across the district. This was a foreseeable outcome given the basic premise of HBAP and the context of a racially and economically segregated city. However, it is an issue that the district as a whole might want to revisit.”
By law, union political contributions must be reported. It is not Dark Money.
Dark Money is defined as money contributed to an election or a cause that hides the identity of the giver and is “anonymous.” When traced, it is always connected to billionaires like the Koch brothers who want to shield their gifts and names.
Have you read Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money”?
Diane: “By law, union political contributions must be reported. It is not Dark Money… Have you read Jane Mayer’s ‘Dark Money’?”
I have not read Jane Mayer’s 2016 book on “Dark Money”, but Wikipedia suggests that: “The term was first used by the Sunlight Foundation to describe undisclosed funds that were used during the United States 2010 mid-term election.”
And starts its Dark Money explanation with this:
“In the politics of the United States, dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations—for example, 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that are not required to disclose their donors.[3][4]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money
In respect to the Walsh/Connolly Mayoral race:
“The Massachusetts database of campaign donations shows the AFT never gave money directly to Walsh’s campaign, which would have been subject to state-imposed contribution limits, or to One Boston, which would have been subject to disclosure requirements.[…]
“In a complicated series of transactions, the AFT first gave the money to One New Jersey, which is not required under New Jersey campaign finance laws to disclose its donors. Then, One New Jersey gave the money to One Boston, a Massachusetts political action committee it set up for the purpose of funding an advertisement on behalf of Walsh. One Boston used the money for the pro-Walsh television commercial.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/28/american-federation-teachers-revealed-funder-behind-mysterious-pro-walsh-pac-during-mayoral-campaign/g58NRCxjp3OMZLtoBQE0yN/story.html
Our Office of Campaign and Political Finance, as a result, issued fines for five different violations:
* Failure to organize as a Political Committee,
* Failure to accurately disclose finance activity accurately,
* Contributions made in a manner intended to disguise the true source of the contributions,
* Contributions and Expenditures made by wire transfer
* Receipt of contributions not raised in accordance with the campaign finance law
I do see now that Cunningham has alluded to some related activity, stating: “The 2013 mayoral race was a bacchanalia of dark money on both sides:”
http://blogs.wgbh.org/masspoliticsprofs/2017/4/12/dark-money-sharks-circled-2013-boston-mayors-race/
My apologies for not having noticed and acknowledged that.
Though I still find no clear explanation by him, or anyone else, of the fiscal interrelationships between our teachers’ unions here and a variety of nonprofits with which it has had intimate ties in its political activities.
Those darn teachers unions, funded by teacher dues. They are surely more powerful than the Waltons ($100 billion +), Bill Gates ($60 billion+), Michael Bloomberg ($60 billion+), the Koch brothers ($100 billion +). Surely those unions are a threat to our democracy (NOT). Let’s let those billionaires just buy it!
Gates and Walton and Bloomberg dissipate their energy, trying to end HIV, polio, hookworm, leishmaniasis, and trypanosomiasis, reduce gun violence, restore the health of the oceans, protect riparian habitat, and on and on and on.
Now, if they were to get together and focus some serious attention on improving the Providence RI schools, perhaps they’d be provided a helpful opportunity to fund years and years of back pay for teachers.
Great idea, Stephen. Unfortunately none of those billionaires has a clue about improving schools. They know how to disrupt and destroy them.
Stephen,
About Gates’s agenda …
The state of Washington failed to pass a carbon emissions law this summer. No protection for planet Earth when its catastrophic, life ending process is predicted in begin in little more than a decade.
The 800 pound. gorilla ran education in the U.S. for decades in a scheme aimed at “brands on a large scale”.
Your aspersions against union “dark money” [not] — notw/standing, (as answered by Diane)– your HBAC research seems to simply reflect that residential segregation by SES/ minority produces nbhd schools segregated by SES/minority. (Who knew? SMH). Charters gonna fix that [aided by deep-pockets contributions to Globe] or what is your point? Charters will help a small %age of kids, & their disenrollment from zoned pubschs will hurt a larger %age of kids. It’s no fix for the district overall. That that no-fix is implemented by folks making a profit off the no-fix at the expense of taxpayers makes it a scam.
The charter theory is to starve the schools that enroll the vast majority of students so as to give extra to the small percentage in charters. They really don’t care about kids. They only care about wiping out public schools.
This is certainly an overt effort to buy a newspaper, but content about education reported as “news” is also routinely purchased via “grants” from billionaires. Here are just two examples.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) has poured $108,157,735 into 86 education grants for 2018 to 2021. Here are a few examples I am editing and summarizing from the newly available database for CZI’s Donor-Advised Fund at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. https://chanzuckerberg.com/grants-ventures/grants/
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative investments for 2018-2021 “COMMUNICATIONS.“ 6 Grants, $1,700,000. To newsmakers who “promote reports on whole child, evidence-based practice, and personalized learning:” Education Post, $750,000; EdSurge, $700,000; The74, $600,000; The Hechinger Report, $520,000; Chalkbeat (operating support, target decision makers) $250,000; BMe Networks, Inc. (black communities) $100,000.
Add 11 grants for EDUCATION PUBLIC POLICY at $5,040,000.
$800,000, American Enterprise Institute. Studies of innovation in K–12 education.
$600,000, North American Council for Online Learning (iNACOL). Promotion of personalized, competency-based learning models.
$350,000, Council of Chief State School Officers. Promotion of instruction and educator workforce to meet individual student needs.
$300,000, KnowledgeWorks. State policy roadmap for personalized learning systems,
$300,000, Policy Innovators in Education Network, Inc. (PIE Network). General operating support for state-level education advocacy organizations.
$300,000, Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Promotion of online instructional resources for resources for high school English Language Arts; teaching based on learning science; and “personalized pacing, particularly in high-need elementary schools.”
$285,000, The Education Trust. Enlisting students of color, low-income students, and their families to promote social emotional development (school, district, and state levels).
$255,000, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. “Cultivate business leaders who focus on learning environments tailored to meet the holistic developmental needs of students and the demands of the future economy. “
$250,000. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (CREDO) at Stanford University. General operating support (charter-centered research).
$200,000. Convergence Center for Policy Resolution (Education Reimagined). Build “a nationwide movement of students, teachers, and education leaders advocating for a learner-centered education system.“
$200,000. National Governors Association. Analyze and publicize education policy trends in governor races.
I have listed only 17 of 86 CZI grants for 2018-2021.
Then look at the content preferences of funders of Education Week (more than 50,000 print copies per week, and 725,000 registered users of the online content). The editors claim they are independent but EdWeek is also supported for covering specific initiatives favored by the following.” supporters.”
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation— Continuous-improvement strategies, EdWeek’s video-production capabilities and technology infrastructure.
The Carnegie Corporation of New York—Designs for school innovation and EdWeek’s video-production capabilities.
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation—Policy, government and politics, and systems leadership.
The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust—Expansion of EdWeek’s video-production capabilities.
The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation—Experiences of low-income, high-achieving students.
The Joyce Foundation—Policy efforts to improve the teaching profession. The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation—Afterschool learning.
The NoVo Foundation—Social and emotional learning
The Noyce Foundation—Science learning and career pathways
The Raikes Foundation—Learning mindsets and skills.
The Schott Foundation for Public Education—Data-driven journalism
The Wallace Foundation—Education leadership, summer learning, social and emotional learning, arts learning, and afterschool.
The Walton Family Foundation—School choice.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative— Whole-child approaches to learning, EdWeek’s technology infrastructure.
This list for EdWeek does not include funders of Quality Counts Reports with metrics that purport to rate states–entire states–states–by a child’s “chance for success.” The arrogance is astonishing in addition to the scheme for stack ratings states based on test scores (NAEP), and many more measures picked as indicators of “Quality.” This project if EdWeek is substantially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates who first funded the “Data Quality Campaign” around 2005.
when “philanthropists” start buying up news outlets, we really should stop using the word philanthropist
We should also stop using the word news.
Particularly since there is nothing “new” about wealthy individuals and corporations buying media organizations and using them to disseminate propaganda.
It’s been going on for quite a while now, which is why the power brokers of the mainstream American media are owned and now operated by just a handful of entities.
Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent 30 years ago and things have just become more consolidated since.
Billionaire News
When billionaires write “news”
The rest of us just lose
Cuz “news” is bought
And truth, it’s not
But really just their views
We certainly live in interesting times.
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” so there can be almost no regulation of news ownership or coverage by the government. That’s the 1st Amendment. News can’t be treated as the public utility it actually is. That’s a big, catch-22 problem when wealthy individuals and corporate conglomerates are able today to control so much of the press, gathering for themselves a monopolistic hold over information. So the press is free in one sense, but in another sense it really isn’t.
There’s only one solution, taxes (and trust busting). It’s not that billionaires and conglomerates shouldn’t be able to buy newspapers and networks; it’s that there shouldn’t be billionaires or conglomerates in the first place. Extreme wealth needs to be broken up so that no one can afford to buy up all the news media. Let newspapers be owned more widely, more publicly. Congress can and should make many laws to tax wealth. That’s the 16th Amendment. That’s the solution. Go Bernie.
And I completely agree and am so fed up with billionaires being called philanthropists while buying control over our democratic institutions. Investments are not acts of charity. They’re not!
You’re right that problems need to be addressed at their root.
The whole idea that some people should have billions or even hundreds of millions of dollars while a large fraction of the people on earth have nothing is just absurd.
The central problem is that economists pretend that economics is somehow “objective”. It’s not.
The assumptions upon which economic systems are based are completely subjective and it is just ridiculous to claim otherwise as economists and the wealthy love to do.
And it is just as absurd that our Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment to mean that Congress can not prohibit independent spending by corporations.
It really makes you wonder about the intelligence of some of the folks we now have serving as Supreme Court justices. It also makes you wonder what (if anything) our law schools (including Yale and Harvard) are teaching.
Before Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman there was the work of Edward L. Bernays
.
Edward L. Bernays is called the father of PR. two works are available on the internet.
One is Crystalizing Public Opinion. The other is called The Engineering of Consent.
Bernays’ work is said to have influenced Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany.
The Wikipedia entry will acquaint you with some of his campaigns. Bernays was an unrepentant self-promoter, and incredibly imaginative in generating what we now call “fake news.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
These papers by Bernays are available on the internet:
The Engineering of Consent http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/politics/bernays_1947.pdf
Crystalizing Public Opinion https://ia802509.us.archive.org/18/items/BernaysEdwardL.CrystalizingPublicOpinion1923noOCR/Bernays%2C%20Edward%20L.%20-%20Crystalizing%20Public%20Opinion%20%281923%29%20%28no%20OCR%29_text.pdf
I also recommend: PR! – A Social History of Spin, 1996, by Stuart Ewen, who interviewed Bernays shortly before he died.
Too right. Spending money on political campaigns should not equate to free speech because it does equate to facilitating anti-democratic propaganda. But let’s face it, with Citizens United and gerrymandering now codified into law, and with the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College having already made American democracy very indirect, favoring the Republicans and the wealthy, it will be a hundred years before speech, not money, will be free again. If something revolutionary doesn’t happen soon, by then democracy will be dead and the Supreme Court will be below sea level.
This week, Huffpo’s Rebecca Klein erroneously described charters as a type of public school. That’s like saying Halliburton which is based in Saudi Arabia is a department
within the Pentagon that has a .gov domain name.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision clarified the issue for journalists like Ms. Klein. Too bad the info. doesn’t influence their reporting.