T Nation

Corporations Donate to the Left?!

Very interesting.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQwNDBlMTIxZjIyMGRkNGQ0NTYxMmQ4ZTRkMmRiOTc=

So Big Business Funds Only the Right, eh? [Iain Murray]

That?s not what David Hogberg and Sarah Haney found when they looked at the donation history of the charitable arms of Fortune 100 companies. Dividing the recipients between ideological left and right, they found that in the last tax year available (2004 in most cases), the left received a whopping $59 million compared to the right?s $4 million. Even taking aside Goldman Sachs? huge $35 million gift to the mildly liberal Wildlife Conservation Society (which still demands taxpayer support of $5 million for its Bronx Zoo), the left still outpaced the right by 6 to 1. Hogberg and Haney comment:

[i] If the Fortune 100 represents corporate America, then the belief that corporate America is more generous to public interest and advocacy groups on the right is clearly wrong. Unfortunately, that misperception is embedded in American consciousness. How often are groups on the left derided as “corporate lackeys”?

Will the pattern change? Corporate foundations could make a start by better monitoring their matching grants. But real change requires that they commit themselves to free-market principles that are the basis for the liberty that lets enterprise grow and prosper. If corporations use their foundations to stifle competition and buy off opponents, there is little hope that they will be bulwarks of freedom?no matter what liberal commentators believe.[/i]

The full details are here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588

They always did. Since when is this news? I’ve been saying this all along, but no one believed me. Corporations are about making money, period. They donate to whatever side they think can make them money.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
They always did. Since when is this news? I’ve been saying this all along, but no one believed me. Corporations are about making money, period. They donate to whatever side they think can make them money.[/quote]

I suppose I eventually wanted to get someone to talk about that silly claim about the mainstream media being conservative solely because it is owned by corporations…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
They always did. Since when is this news? I’ve been saying this all along, but no one believed me. Corporations are about making money, period. They donate to whatever side they think can make them money.

I suppose I eventually wanted to get someone to talk about that silly claim about the mainstream media being conservative solely because it is owned by corporations…[/quote]

The mainstream media is conservative when it fits with them getting ratings. If they can’t get ratings being conservative, then they go liberal. The media is about making money, and ratings equals money. That’s the only real “agenda” in the mainstream media, greed. I never believed that claim. I believe that the corporations control the media and the direction that makes the most money for them, conservative or liberal, gets set by the corporations.

Could it be because many corporations expect the next administration to be democrat? Covering their bases and “buying” up their “friends” in advance? Or am I too cynical?

I remember reading that many corporations (such as Microsoft) where donating to both sides before the election.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Very interesting.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQwNDBlMTIxZjIyMGRkNGQ0NTYxMmQ4ZTRkMmRiOTc=

So Big Business Funds Only the Right, eh? [Iain Murray]

That?s not what David Hogberg and Sarah Haney found when they looked at the donation history of the charitable arms of Fortune 100 companies. Dividing the recipients between ideological left and right, they found that in the last tax year available (2004 in most cases), the left received a whopping $59 million compared to the right?s $4 million. Even taking aside Goldman Sachs? huge $35 million gift to the mildly liberal Wildlife Conservation Society (which still demands taxpayer support of $5 million for its Bronx Zoo), the left still outpaced the right by 6 to 1. Hogberg and Haney comment:

[i] If the Fortune 100 represents corporate America, then the belief that corporate America is more generous to public interest and advocacy groups on the right is clearly wrong. Unfortunately, that misperception is embedded in American consciousness. How often are groups on the left derided as “corporate lackeys”?

Will the pattern change? Corporate foundations could make a start by better monitoring their matching grants. But real change requires that they commit themselves to free-market principles that are the basis for the liberty that lets enterprise grow and prosper. If corporations use their foundations to stifle competition and buy off opponents, there is little hope that they will be bulwarks of freedom?no matter what liberal commentators believe.[/i]

The full details are here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588 [/quote]

Let’s see if I got it straight.
The Wildlife Conservation Society is liberal.
The Bronx Zoo is liberal.

Why is that? Do they hold Republicans in a cage? And show them to the public? With a “no feeding” sign?

Or do you expect them to fund Hillaries election campaign?

You’re a fool BB.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

The Bronx Zoo is liberal.[/quote]

Well some animals are pretty smart, so of course they’re liberal.

If you want conservatives, go to a rock garden.

Uhmmm…this is silly.
Does corporate america currently give more to the right than the left (politically—leaving aside zoos), of course. It’s hilarious how far they went though to make their fake case. And this obviously wouldn’t have any implications on media bias.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
They always did. Since when is this news? I’ve been saying this all along, but no one believed me. Corporations are about making money, period. They donate to whatever side they think can make them money.[/quote]

You think the corporations give money to the left for reasons of money? Traditionally, the left will raise taxes and remove any profit margins the corporations have. So just how would support for the left get anyone who works for a living more money?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Could it be because many corporations expect the next administration to be democrat? Covering their bases and “buying” up their “friends” in advance? Or am I too cynical?

I remember reading that many corporations (such as Microsoft) where donating to both sides before the election.

[/quote]

I think that’s got a lot to do with it – not necessarily any expectation for any particular administration, but covering their bases no matter who is in power. That’s analyzing from the view of the corporation itself.

However, to the extent there are CEOs that direct donations toward pet causes, that could tilt the field as well. When you get to the higher echelons of big corporations, you find a lot of liberals – just as you do in the top 1% of incomes. It’s the people who have money but aren’t too rich to care what their tax rate is who are less liberal.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Very interesting.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQwNDBlMTIxZjIyMGRkNGQ0NTYxMmQ4ZTRkMmRiOTc=

So Big Business Funds Only the Right, eh? [Iain Murray]

That?s not what David Hogberg and Sarah Haney found when they looked at the donation history of the charitable arms of Fortune 100 companies. Dividing the recipients between ideological left and right, they found that in the last tax year available (2004 in most cases), the left received a whopping $59 million compared to the right?s $4 million. Even taking aside Goldman Sachs? huge $35 million gift to the mildly liberal Wildlife Conservation Society (which still demands taxpayer support of $5 million for its Bronx Zoo), the left still outpaced the right by 6 to 1. Hogberg and Haney comment:

[i] If the Fortune 100 represents corporate America, then the belief that corporate America is more generous to public interest and advocacy groups on the right is clearly wrong. Unfortunately, that misperception is embedded in American consciousness. How often are groups on the left derided as “corporate lackeys”?

Will the pattern change? Corporate foundations could make a start by better monitoring their matching grants. But real change requires that they commit themselves to free-market principles that are the basis for the liberty that lets enterprise grow and prosper. If corporations use their foundations to stifle competition and buy off opponents, there is little hope that they will be bulwarks of freedom?no matter what liberal commentators believe.[/i]

The full details are here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588

Wreckless wrote:
Let’s see if I got it straight.
The Wildlife Conservation Society is liberal.
The Bronx Zoo is liberal.

Why is that? Do they hold Republicans in a cage? And show them to the public? With a “no feeding” sign?

Or do you expect them to fund Hillaries election campaign?

You’re a fool BB.[/quote]

A fool eh? You mean a fool like someone who would think he could judge everything from an organization according to its name, including any political leanings it might have? I would think one would look more toward legislation or other policies the organization has supported, but I guess in Belgian logic that would be foolish. Must be all that trappist ale…

Of course, from the article, this may have something to do with it as well:

Jesse Jackson is the master of the corporate shakedown. His tactics are tried and true. Jackson first fires off a letter to a corporation criticizing it for not hiring enough minorities. He demands a meeting. If the corporation defends itself and rejects the demands, Jackson publicly accuses it of racial insensitivity, announces a protest and calls for a boycott. Since corporations recoil at charges of racism, they usually attempt to appease Jackson and agree to a meeting. The upshot is that Jackson can claim a historic breakthrough that also produces a corporate contribution to Jackson?s Rainbow Push Coalition.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Very interesting.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQwNDBlMTIxZjIyMGRkNGQ0NTYxMmQ4ZTRkMmRiOTc=

So Big Business Funds Only the Right, eh? [Iain Murray]

That?s not what David Hogberg and Sarah Haney found when they looked at the donation history of the charitable arms of Fortune 100 companies. Dividing the recipients between ideological left and right, they found that in the last tax year available (2004 in most cases), the left received a whopping $59 million compared to the right?s $4 million. Even taking aside Goldman Sachs? huge $35 million gift to the mildly liberal Wildlife Conservation Society (which still demands taxpayer support of $5 million for its Bronx Zoo), the left still outpaced the right by 6 to 1. Hogberg and Haney comment:

[i] If the Fortune 100 represents corporate America, then the belief that corporate America is more generous to public interest and advocacy groups on the right is clearly wrong. Unfortunately, that misperception is embedded in American consciousness. How often are groups on the left derided as “corporate lackeys”?

Will the pattern change? Corporate foundations could make a start by better monitoring their matching grants. But real change requires that they commit themselves to free-market principles that are the basis for the liberty that lets enterprise grow and prosper. If corporations use their foundations to stifle competition and buy off opponents, there is little hope that they will be bulwarks of freedom?no matter what liberal commentators believe.[/i]

The full details are here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588

Wreckless wrote:
Let’s see if I got it straight.
The Wildlife Conservation Society is liberal.
The Bronx Zoo is liberal.

Why is that? Do they hold Republicans in a cage? And show them to the public? With a “no feeding” sign?

Or do you expect them to fund Hillaries election campaign?

You’re a fool BB.

A fool eh? You mean a fool like someone who would think he could judge everything from an organization according to its name, including any political leanings it might have? I would think one would look more toward legislation or other policies the organization has supported, but I guess in Belgian logic that would be foolish. Must be all that trappist ale…[/quote]

I do think that the categorization was probably off. Mildly liberal seems to mean favors any regulation whatsoever. UN or UNICEF are probably considered liberal. Red Cross? Anything enviromental would probably be thrown to the liberal side. Any science groups that don’t favor intellgent design, which side do they fall on?

I doubt many of these organizations are MoveOn or Socialist Bake Sale groups. Most of the true conservative groups like the Heritage foundation or religious groups are too divisive to fund, same with extreme liberal groups.

I think the take-home message is the often used ‘corporate America in bed with the Right-wing party to abuse power’ phrase needs to be qualified rather than assumed.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think the take-home message is the often used ‘corporate America in bed with the Right-wing party to abuse power’ phrase needs to be qualified rather than assumed.[/quote]

It’s well qualified now. No need to keep assuming.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
They always did. Since when is this news? I’ve been saying this all along, but no one believed me. Corporations are about making money, period. They donate to whatever side they think can make them money.

You think the corporations give money to the left for reasons of money? Traditionally, the left will raise taxes and remove any profit margins the corporations have. So just how would support for the left get anyone who works for a living more money?

[/quote]

It’s not supposed to get anyone who works for a living more money, it’s supposed to get the corporations more money. If you believe corporations give a damn about helping people who work for a living make money, then you never worked for a corporation before.

I don’t even know how you made this leap from corporations making money to actual working people making money. These corporations will outsource the very jobs that the working people are doing for them to third-world countries, just so they can make money. They will donate to the left-leaning causes (generally they are the more charitable causes) to cover up for this type of activity to get good PR so they can keep making money.

lame

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think the take-home message is the often used ‘corporate America in bed with the Right-wing party to abuse power’ phrase needs to be qualified rather than assumed.[/quote]

No, the take home message is that the pigs will lie through their teeth to muddy the waters.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
They always did. Since when is this news? I’ve been saying this all along, but no one believed me. Corporations are about making money, period. They donate to whatever side they think can make them money.

You think the corporations give money to the left for reasons of money? Traditionally, the left will raise taxes and remove any profit margins the corporations have. So just how would support for the left get anyone who works for a living more money?

It’s not supposed to get anyone who works for a living more money, it’s supposed to get the corporations more money. If you believe corporations give a damn about helping people who work for a living make money, then you never worked for a corporation before.

I don’t even know how you made this leap from corporations making money to actual working people making money. These corporations will outsource the very jobs that the working people are doing for them to third-world countries, just so they can make money. They will donate to the left-leaning causes (generally they are the more charitable causes) to cover up for this type of activity to get good PR so they can keep making money.[/quote]

Ok, so while it might hurt them in some anti-big-corporation legislation, corporations will give money to the left just for PR, is that what you are saying?

If so, that is a dangerous road. It may work for PR but not when the left decides to outlaw outsourcing.

The leftist organizations are generally built on begging money.
Think PBS.

The right wingers typically make money. Think FoxNews.

It is part of the big divide between the two.