After Think-Tank Turmoil, Experts Weigh In on How to Curtail Influence of Big Donors

Editor’s Note: An article posted Thursday about the New America Foundation and the debate over the power of big donors failed to meet our standards because it did not include the perspective of New America. Chronicle editors should have made sure that New America’s point of view was fully taken into account before the article was published. We have since updated the story to add more balance.

Barry Lynn says the past few weeks have been the toughest of his career. His organization, the Open Markets Institute, which opposes monopolies, was recently ousted from the New America Foundation, a prominent liberal think tank.

As Mr. Lynn tells it, his group was ejected for its criticism of Google, which Open Markets argues has gained too much power over the flow of information to citizens. New America, which has received ample funding from Google and the executive chairman of its parent company, has disputed that the tech giant was behind the tumult and characterized the kerfuffle as a “personnel issue.”

“At no time did Google, or any funder, suggest New America fire Mr. Lynn,” said Fuzz Hogan, managing editor at New America. “At no time did Google, or any funder, suggest pulling funding from New America over Open Markets’ work. If any funder ever suggested firing a member of the New America staff over intellectual beliefs, they would be categorically refused.”

Regardless of exactly what happened at New America, the story has raised questions about the influence of big donors and the need for greater disclosure of supporter information.

The Chronicle spoke with nonprofit experts about how think tanks and other nonprofits on how to avoid troublesome situations:

Beware of Corporate Money

Donor influence over think tanks is nothing new, and controversies over businesses expecting certain research results spring up fairly regularly, says Andrew Rich, author of Think Tanks, Public Policy and the Politics of Expertise. “The idea that donors are giving their significant resources for the sake of research alone I think is an incomplete understanding of things,” says Mr. Rich, who is also executive secretary of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation and chief executive of Friends of the Truman Scholarship Foundation.

Over the past few decades, as think tanks have proliferated, corporations and philanthropists connected to big business have become larger players in supporting organizations’ research. That comes with clear drawbacks, according Mr. Lynn, who notes that early in his 15-year tenure with New America, the organization mostly declined donations from corporations out of concern that businesses might try to sway research. Mr. Lynn’s new organization will steer clear of corporate money — a move he says creates “freedom from influence.”

Set Boundaries With Supporters

Think tanks and other groups that take corporate money need to make it clear to donors that they will not be able to control the organization’s work, says Phil Buchanan, president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, which produces research on grant makers and advises them on their work.

The organization’s top leaders should be the ones to send that message, he says. Ultimately, directors and nonprofit boards are responsible for determining whose money the organization accepts and what donors should expect.

A nonprofit should be prepared to turn down money that comes with strings attached, he says.

Transparency Is Key

Think tanks and other groups should try to disclose as much as they can about their funding, including, when possible, the names of supporters, Mr. Rich says. Disclosure laws don’t require groups to release donor information, but for the public to assess a group’s research and other projects, it’s important to know who’s footing the bill. “If all they do is what they’re required to do, then it falls short,” he argues.

A think tank’s value is its expertise, he adds. When there’s no firewall between donors and researchers, the groups start to look like business or partisan interest groups. “That’s what they want to try to avoid,” he says.

Mr. Lynn puts it even more bluntly: The public wants to know that “information hasn’t been bought and sold and paid for by somebody else.”

Finding Government Solutions May Be Hard

It may also be time to start having conversations about whether think tanks — and perhaps other nonprofits — should be required to disclose information about their donors, says Stephen Spaulding, chief of strategy for Common Cause, a government watchdog group that advocates for greater transparency in political spending. As it stands now, corporations have various options for giving to — and possibly influencing — think tanks’ work without the public knowing. For instance, a company executive could donate directly to a think tank without disclosing the contribution.

“I think for a long time think tanks have been a tool in the influence industry, for good or bad,” Mr. Spaulding says, noting that many lobbyists often share papers produced by think tanks when meeting with elected officials.

He adds: “At a minimum, there needs to be hearings and a thoughtful discussion” about what research groups and other charities should make public.

The problem, legal experts say, is that it would be very difficult to distinguish groups that are providing legitimate, independent studies from those that are acting on behalf of a big business or other donors. And if action were taken, Congress might have to apply any new disclosure rules to all nonprofits — not just think tanks — to stave off criticism that they were selectively targeting groups.

There are likely no “perfect solutions,” says Sarah Miller, director of advocacy for Open Markets — who was offered her position around the same time Open Markets was ousted from New America. But a key question that should be at top of mind for philanthropy leaders and lawmakers is this: When a massive corporation can pay for research at a think tank, “is it really philanthropy or is it lobbying by other means?”