,
13 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
There is a lot of chat (as there has been for a while) about whether or not thinktanks with overtly political positions should declare where their 💰💰💰 comes from.
This story gives some insight into why that's important 👇
This story gives some insight into why that's important 👇
The basic issue is *not* that these organisations lobby for market deregulation. It is *not* that they push a supposedly libertarian ideology. They're 'free market thinktanks'; of course that's what they do. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
As @iealondon states:
“it can hardly come as a surprise that we have published research that calls for deregulation ... we have published research in the past that calls for deregulation in ... different sectors and markets; from financial services, to housing, to childcare.”
“it can hardly come as a surprise that we have published research that calls for deregulation ... we have published research in the past that calls for deregulation in ... different sectors and markets; from financial services, to housing, to childcare.”
The issue here, though, is that those policy positions clearly favour a particular section of society - big industry. And the thinktanks refuse to declare whether or not they are funded by companies that benefit from their work 🤔
Maybe the research is great and totally impartial. But if that's the case, why hide the funding? If that's the case, let the public decide whether or not there is a conflict of interest.
If the goal is for the public to be informed, give them all the information, incl funding.
If the goal is for the public to be informed, give them all the information, incl funding.
Because otherwise, the conversation is muddied by drip-drip revelations like those in this story. And it doesn't look great...
What this story shows is 28 free-market thinktanks received money from tobaccco and fossil fuel companies, and the same 28 free-market thinktanks pushed policy positions that favoured those industries.
Full list here docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
Full list here docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
That there is such incredible crossover is also notable - it suggests the operationalisation of a playbook, a strategy, a mode of influence 🗣 Not just 'impartial research'.
And they're all part of one big network. See all the links here littlesis.org/maps/3794-free…
And they're all part of one big network. See all the links here littlesis.org/maps/3794-free…
We've known for a while that the tobacco disinformation playbook was being used in the climate debate ucsusa.org/center-science…
What this story reveals is that this playbook is being deployed using the same 💵💷💴 too.
What this story reveals is that this playbook is being deployed using the same 💵💷💴 too.
Of the 28 organisations that take tobacco and fossil fuel money, 23 also take Koch brothers money. The Kochs' goals aren't political, they're commercial.
More on the Kochs' philanthropy here desmogblog.com/koch-family-fo…
More on the Kochs' philanthropy here desmogblog.com/koch-family-fo…
And that's the crux of the matter. It may be defensible to hide funding when there is no evidence it influences the material that is put into the public sphere.
But when there is mounting evidence (from the likes of @openDemocracy @NaomiOreskes @UE @JessicaGlenza @SharonKellyEsq @peterjukes @SharonKellyEsq @ChloeFarand @RBrulle @carolecadwalla @DeSmogUK @DeSmogBlog ) that it does affect it, it's possibly time to become more transparent.
That's why people like @mrjamesob @faizashaheen @transparify @StopCorpAbuse @corporateeurope @paulmasonnews @GeorgeMonbiot and now even @afneil are calling for more transparency. It's not a vendetta. It's for the sake of democracy.
