Tag Archives: Ethan Allen Institute

The hidden world of nonprofit advocacy

19 Replies

Okay, so today I Tweeted this:

It’s something I’ve been thinking for a long time. There are more and more “nonprofit organizations” whose official mission is “educational” or some such, but whose actual purpose is political advocacy, including activity that ought to be classified as lobbying but it’s not.

This is one reason I’m less exercised than some about the proposed cap on itemized deductions: a lot of “charitable contributions” are being spent politically. Many wealthy people set up their own nonprofit foundations for the purpose of spreading their political beliefs. The Koch Empire is the prime example of this, but there are lots of others. In Vermont, their number includes the Vermont Workers’ Center, VPIRG, Campaign for Vermont, Energize Vermont, Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, the Ethan Allen Institute, and the late unlamented Vermonters First.

That’s a heavy-hitting list of groups trying to influence our politics, and they range from far left to far right. Nobody’s got a patent on this. Although I will say that the quantity of money on the right is much greater than on the lieft. Although although I will say that Vermont is an exception to this rule; our nonprofits lean leftward.

Some of these groups do report direct lobbying activities, but because they are nonprofits, they are not legally obligated to report the source of their revenue. Some voluntarily report to some extent, but as far as I know, none of them provide full donor disclosure. Which would include name, town and state of residence, and amount of donation. (If any group does so, please let me know and I will amend this post.)

I say “Ive been thinking about this for a long time,” so what made me write about it today? Actually, the inspiration was a mistake I made on Twitter, in replying to a Tweet from the corporate-funded folks at “Stop the Vermont Beverage Tax.”

Which brought a quick response from, well, a ready chorus of right-wingers, but let’s stick with the Ethan Allen Institute, Tweeting as @EAIVT:

They’re right. At least they’re partly right. “SPN” is the State Policy Network, which is part of the Koch nonprofit empire. I didn’t lie, though; I mistakenly believed that EAI is Koch-funded. I picked this up from the Center for Media and Democracy’s “Sourcewatch,” which describes SPN thusly:

The State Policy Network (SPN) has franchised, funded, and fostered a growing number of “mini Heritage Foundations” at the state level since the early 1990s.[1] SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country. It is an $83 million right-wing empire as of the 2011 funding documents from SPN itself and each of its state “think tank” members.

Sourcewatch lists the Ethan Allen Institute as the SPN’s Vermont affiliate. There’s where I made my leap of faith. I’ll take EAI’s word for it that they don’t get money from SPN or the Kochs; too bad for them, since a lot of their fellow SPNers are ridin’ that gravy train.

Still, for EAI to pay for the privilege of SPN affilliation… it’s not correct to call them “Koch-funded,” but they’re definitely “Koch-friendly.”

I will freely admit that I sometimes shoot from the hip, as I did in this case. I try to own up when I’m wrong; this isn’t the first time and I’m sure it won’t be the last. But I could have avoided my mistake if we had better disclosure laws; I could have gone to the source instead of poking around for indirect scraps of information.

But the real point isn’t a matter of my convenience. It’s openness and transparency in our politics.

Organized political parties (and the Democrats, haha) will tell you that campaign finance laws are stacked against them. It’s better in a number of ways for donors to go through their own organizations than through parties: there are effectlvely no limits and few disclosure requirements, and they retain control over how their money is spent. That’s why the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess and all those people don’t give much money to the Republican Party; they funnel their wealth through their own organizations. And when those groups are nonprofits, We, the Taxpayers, are underwriting their political activities. Nice work if you can get it.

The point is, in this modern world of political nonprofits, we need better disclosure rules. We need to know who’s spending money for what political purpose, whether they’re going through the Ethan Allen Institute or the Vermont Workers’ Center.

Your First Amendment right to be a complete weenie

3 Replies

A moment of Statehouse drama from Thursday, as captured in a series of Tweets.

First, to introduce the players. Shap Smith, Speaker of the House; Darcie Johnston, political consultant to lost conservative causes; and Shayne Spence, lesser functionary in the Ethan Allen Institute, available for parties and bar mitzvahs whenever Rob Roper has a schedule conflict.

And now, let’s go to the Tweets!

Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 2.08.44 PM

 

Let’s briefly note the self-aggrandizing Tweet from Spence. Ooh! Threatened by the Speaker! What a rush!

That brings us to Shap’s reply, which may be a bit unclear because of Twitter’s unforgiving character limit. What he’s saying is that Spence wasn’t just filming the House chambers — he was doing so from the Senate seats, the row of ornately carved chairs with bright red cushions along the front wall of the House.

Of course, filming from there is “not typically allowed.” The video cameras are typically posted at one end of the balcony, far from the House floor and the podium. Bringing a video camera to the Senate seats is a brazen violation of protocol. But that’s what I’d expect from a self-important James O’Keefe wannabe who thinks he’s the living embodiment of everyone’s Constitutional rights.

And if you think that assessment is a little harsh, here is Spence’s rejoinder to Smith.

Yes indeed, Shayne, keeping the People’s House open is very important. But that has nothing to do with a narcissistic operative taking his camera wherever he damn well pleases.

Every legislative body has rules, procedures, and mores. Partly they help things run smoothly; partly they’re antiquated remainders of tradition. But they do nothing to prevent access, and they should be observed out of respect to the institution.

Let’s just hope he tries the same thing in the Senate, which has tighter rules than the House. He’ll be tossed without a moment’s hesitation.

Rob Roper’s Machiavellian fantasy

Leave a reply

Oh, the Robster spun a tale, he did.

In a brief commentary on the Ethan Allen Institute’s occasionally-good-for-a-laugh website, Roper laid out a cunning plan to land Scott Milne in the corner office.

"I have a cunning plan," whispers Baldrick.

“I have a cunning plan,” whispers Baldrick.

Fasten your seat belts, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

First postulate: Gov. Shumlin’s “single payer healthcare system has been a disaster for Democrats,” which is quite a trick considering his system doesn’t exist yet. What he means is that initial reaction to a possible financing plan has been, as expected, a mixed bag, and that the Democrats lost seats in the Legislature due, so says the Robster, to disillusionment with health care reform.

Which sets the stage, so says the Robster, for Republican momentum leading into 2016. Further GOP gains and maybe a Republican governor.

But, he says, the Dems have a way out: Elect Scott Milne as governor.

That way, they rid themselves of Shumlin and single payer, and have a handy scapegoat for the death of single payer and anything else that goes wrong in the next two years. And since Milne would enter office as a political neophyte who hasn’t made any plans for an administration or a budget, the Legislature could walk all over him.

Quite a temptation for the Speaker (who many think is eyeing a run for governor in 2016 anyway, and this would clear an easier path) and the Senate President Pro Tem as well as the committee chairs.

A Milne governorship, if he does not rise to the occasion, could kill Republican momentum.

Roper finds a shred of “evidence” in support of his fantasy in the fact that “Democrats have not come out in full-throated support for Shumiln in the upcoming legislative vote.”

Well, there’s a much simpler explanation for that: the Democrats know the legislative vote is going to be over and done with very quickly, and there’s no need for them to “campaign” against Milne, who is certain to lose.

I realize that the Robster has to provide regular content to justify his salary at the EAI, but this is… well, it’s the kind of stuff I’d expect to hear from Baldrick.

Pfft! There goes another conservative talking point

Leave a reply

Vermont conservatrives have been making some hay lately by raising fears about Medicare. The idea is that Governor Shumlin is plotting to take over Medicare, and who knows what will happen to your benefits after that.

Well, first of all, Medicare benefits are protected in federal law.

But more importantly, here comes a tidbit from VTDigger’s Anne Galloway: 

Two recent stories about the relationship between Medicare and Green Mountain Care, the state’s planned universal publicly financed health care program – often called single-payer – were inaccurate. The stories were based on statutes on the Legislature’s website that had not been updated.

The stories outlined accusations made by Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Dan Feliciano and Orange County Senatorial candidate Bob Frenier. The same charge has been made in a radio ad produced by the Ethan Allen Institute.

As Galloway explains, the legislature amended the health care law earlier this year, removing the section calling for state oversight of Medicare. And, she says,

State officials have said they are no longer seeking to administer Medicare as part of Green Mountain Care, and the law reflects that change.

The problem, apparently, is that the legislature’s website was not properly updated and still contains the old version of the law. And, as Galloway concludes, the charges about a state takeover of Medicare are “inaccurate.”

This should clear things up, but somehow I can’t see the conservatives dropping a nice juicy talking point just because it happens to be wrong.

El Jefe brings a chicken to the doctor

Leave a reply

Sometimes I wonder if John McClaughry is serious, or if he’s just trolling us all.

I don’t comment on his opinion pieces very often, because he’s so far beyond the pale that it’d be kind of like commenting on an alien civilization. One that considers Ayn Rand a creeping pinko.

Well, this time I’m pretty sure that El Jefe General is under the bridge, snickering. Because his latest effort, dutifully posted by VTDigger, betrays a woeful ignorance of our history. Or at best, a view of our history through coke-bottle-thick rose-colored glasses.

Screen Shot 2013-11-08 at 1.01.59 PMIn it, El Jefe calls for a return to those Good Old Days when health care was a matter of mutual aid instead of government intervention.

We’re not talking the days before Obamacare, or the days before Medicare. We’re talking pre-Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Because as we all know, FDR ushered in the decline and fall of True America. Take it away, El Jefe…

Health care a century ago relied largely on “friendly societies,” that first appeared in the UK as early as 1793. These were self-governing mutual aid societies that promoted ethical behavior, healthy lifestyles, and “the temperate interchange of social feeling” for the afflicted. They also provided medical care, sick pay, and funeral arrangements for members and their families.

… In the U.S. clones of the friendly societies began to appear in the early 1800s under the name “fraternal organizations,” exemplified by the Odd Fellows and the Loyal Order of Moose. These lodges established orphanages, hospitals, banks, schools, retirement homes, newspapers and insurance companies. They sponsored “lodge practice,” where the local lodge members selected and employed a doctor.

Ah yes, the Good Old Days, when all you had to do is join — freely, without a hint of coercion — with your fellows to ensure that all your needs would be met. McClaughry bemoans the repression of these free movements at the hands of the medical establishment, insurance companies, and, of course, the Big Bad Government.

El Jefe paints an attractive picture. Too bad it’s conveniently incomplete. If you were subject to the tender mercies of a “lodge doctor,” before the days of medical regulation and licensing, your life and health were probably in the hands of a quack or a well-meaning tradesman with little or no training.

Let’s just imagine a “lodge doctor,” even a well-intentioned one, trying to cope with the complexities and marvels of modern medicine. (Hey, let’s put him in charge of Ebola containment!)

For more, let us turn to one of my favorite texts: “The Good Old Days — They Were Terrible!” by noted historian/archivist Otto Bettmann, founder of the Bettmann Archives. Published in 1974 and still in print, it’s a breezy, compact deflation of cherished myths about the olden times. Many of which are dearly held by El Jefe.

“The country doctor of old… was actually no more than a venturesome prescriber. Because his diagnosis was based on guesswork his therapy was totally unreliable. Sometimes it cured — often it killed. …general practice in the United States was backward, commercial and often fraudulent.

“The lack of education and proper licensing exposed the sick to hordes of ignoramuses masquerading as doctors. More a trade than a profession, medicine attracted not the sons of the elite — who preferred law or theology — but mediocrities who saw a chance to get rich quickly.” 

Many of America’s “medical schools” were little more than diploma mills, offering a sheepskin after a few months of training.

“Doctors had little professional prestige; indeed many were considered ‘crude, coarse and ignorant, contributing to social butchery by keeping their patients ill.'”

This was American medical care during John McLaughry’s Golden Age of unfettered liberty. Considering all of that, I guess it’s no wonder that John’s little boys’ club, the Ethan Allen Institute, hasn’t hired its own lodge doctor.

Honestly, McClaughry’s essay makes Sue “chicken to the doctor” Lowden look like Anya Rader-Wallack.

 

Shorter Feliciano: Money is Bad, when it’s not mine

4 Replies

One of the lesser pieces of flotsam to hit the beach after Governor Shumlin’s first campaign commercial went on the air was a written statement from Libertarian candidate Dan Feliciano. (I guess Scott Milne was too busy doing… something… to issue a stattement, so Feliciano seized the token-response space.)

And here it is, in all its hypocritical glory:

The reality is Governor Shumlin’s failed leadership is what is hurting Vermonters, but Peter Shumlin will reach into his million dollar war chest and run endless ads spinning a false narrative and trying to convince hard working Vermonters that his big Government programs are the solutions to their problems.

Oh, that’s rich. Dan Feliciano thinks that the Governor will use his big honkin’ bankroll to pull the wool over Vermonters’ eyes.

This, from a guy who believes that money is speech, and there should be no limits on campaign contributions. Stop it, Dan: you’re embarrassing yourself and undermining your own principles.

Your own narrative of the political process should lead you to congratulate the Governor for going out, working hard, and convincing people to give money to his campaign. It’s the American Dream, right?

Reminds me of a time a few years back when I was listening to professional Liberty Puppet Rob Roper flappin’ his gums on WDEV Radio. He was complaining about the imbalance in Vermont’s nonprofit community — that those on the left were far stronger and deeper-pocketed than those on the right. The Robster, at the time, was fronting his own struggling nonprofit, so you might say he had a conflict of interest. But I certainly never heard him complain about the vast Koch Brothers nonprofit network. Nor will he complain about the Kochs’ money underwriting his current gig at the Ethan Allen Institute.

But in the case of Vermont nonprofits, as with gubernatorial warchests, the shoe’s on the wrong foot for our doughty, independent Vermont conservatives. To put it another way, it’s not fair when liberals have the money.