How big business bankrolls the left

National Review, March 10, 1989 by William T. Poole

In the Sixties, radical groups trashed Big Business,

they still do, only now they expect Big Business to pick up the tab. And it doe, s with corporate foundations giving

twice as much to their enemies as to their friends.

The foundation exists and thrives on the fruits of our economic system. The dividends of competitive enterprise make it all possible. A significant portion of the abundance created by U.S. business enables the foundation and like institutions to carry on their work. In effect, the foundation is a creature of capitalism-a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many Of the institutions . . . that are the beneficiaries of the foundation's grant programs.

IT MAY COME as a surprise to learn that these were not the sentiments of some anti-establishment activist, but of the thoroughly establishment Henry Ford II.

They were written when Ford resigned from the board of trustees of the Ford Foundation, having served on that board from 1943 to 1976; and it probably would be impossible to find another passage that better captures the essence of what is wrong with American philanthropy.

The organization for which I work, the Capital Research Center (1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 704, Washington, D.C. 20006), has for two years been engaged in an examination of corporate philanthropy in the United States. The first volume based on this study, Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy: Public Affairs Giving and the Forbes 100, written by Marvin Olasky of the University of Texas, was published in 1987; this year's edition, written by Roger Meiners and David Laband of Clemson University, has been expanded to include the Forbes 250. The results of both surveys are sobering. They indicate-in clear violation of what most would assume is both common sense and simple self-interest-a pattern of preference for causes of the moderate to less-moderate Left rather than for organizations and programs dedicated to the perpetuation of economic freedom under capitalism.

Olasky found that in 1985 (the most recent year for which data were available) $7 of every $10 contributed to public-affairs groups by the top 25 American companies was directed to "liberal or radical organizations."

Meiners and Laband found that, for the 131 firms on which they were able to obtain information, the largest single recipient classification in 1986 (Left/liberal) received almost 20 per cent of the total; that the four most Leftoriented classifications received 26 per cent; and that the four most conservatively oriented classifications received only 3 per cent. Overall, 5.5 per cent went to groups in the center, while 36 per cent went to groups ranked to the right of center and 59 per cent went to those ranked as left of center.

The patterns one finds are often odd-almost schizoid. During 1985, Exxon gave $125,000 to the Urban Institute and $130,000 to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which generally take sharply differing positions on political and economic questions; in 1986, the amounts were less balanced: $75,000 for the Urban Institute and only $10,000 to AEI. Exxon also donated $95,000 to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which sues corporations to force affirmative action, and $96,000 to conservative, public-interest law firms, which defend them on the same issue; the totals for 1986 were, respectively, $65,000 and $49,000.

Similarly, AT&T and General Electric each contributed $40,000 in 1985 to the Brookings Institution, probably the quintessential liberal Washington establishment institution, and another $40,000 to AEI, a principal source of talent for successive Republican Administrations. In 1986, American International donated $125,000 to Brookings and $150,000 to AEI, while Ameritech gave $5,000 to the relatively liberal, detente-oriented Council on Foreign Relations and a like amount to the more conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies.

But this is not the pattern one finds so disturbing. Both Brookings and AEI, as well as other organizations like the Heritage Foundation or the Council on Foreign Relations, are generally seen as part of the political and policymaking power structure in this country, so that contributing to both sides can be explained in terms of simple political prudence-the time-honored practice of covering one's bets.

What is alarming is the pattern of corporate-foundation support for organizations not of the establishment, but of the hard anti-corporate Left.

Aetna, for example, has supported the National Council of Churches-sponsored Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), which attacks corporate involvement in the Strategic Defense Initiative, nuclear power, and arms production generally. Companies like Mobil and General Electric, which have relatively liberal giving records, are far from immune from ICCR attacks; Mobil is singled out for doing business in South Africa, and GE is condemned for "sustaining the arms race."