Wednesday, August 31, 2016

AEI Moves Next to Brookings, Carnegie

The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has just moved into the Daniel A. D'Aniello Building at 1789 Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, DC, right next to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution.

The new location is only a few blocks away from its previous address of 1150 17th Street, NW and is the first permanent home in AEI's 78-year history.  In the past, AEI has always leased office space.

Think Tank Watch first wrote about the move in 2013, the same year that AEI purchased the building from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.  In 2014, we noted that the new headquarters was estimated to cost $50 million.  A large portion of the cost was funded by Daniel A. D'Aniello, for whom the building is named after.

Mr. D'Aniello, who is Vice Chairman of AEI's Board of Trustees and Chairman and Co-founder of The Carlyle Group, gave a generous $20 million to the think tank.

Pictures of AEI's swanky new headquarters can be found here.  And here is a picture of the outside of the building with AEI's flag (and a closer view of the flag).  It seems like some Brookings scholars are already getting think tank flag envy, although the center-left think tank has warmly welcomed AEI to the block.

Here is a picture of AEI head Arthur Brooks and his colleagues exploring their new home.  It looks like everyone got new AEI water bottles and Post-It notes with the phrase "A Competition of Ideas" on the side.

Fun fact: The address of AEI's new headquarters used to be 1785 Massachusetts Ave. but the think tank was able to get it renumbered to 1789.  [Another fun fact: RAND Corporation's address in Santa Monica, California is 1776 Main Street.]

Here is a little about the farewell toast for AEI's new headquarters, via Politico.

Think Tank Quickies (#232)

  • Did a think tanker tell Joe Scarborough that Donald Trump asked why we can't use nukes?
  • In Detroit economic speech Trump quotes opposite extremes in think tank world: EPI and Heritage.
  • Trump's favorite think tank wants him to stop talking.
  • Has Washington and its hundreds of think tanks reached "peak geek." 
  • Think tank papers with more charts and diagrams = more influential?
  • Flashback: Presidential transitions and think tanks.
  • Cato event: The world according to Star Wars.
  • Japanese industry "bombarded" with calls from US think tanks trying to confirm comments about yen from Keidanren official. 
  • A simple test to check research papers for errors. 
  • North Carolina needs a nonpartisan think tank. 
  • CSIS hosts over 2,000 events per year, from major public speeches to small briefings.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Think Tanks Pounded by Cyber Attacks

August 2016 has been the month of hell for US think tanks.

First was the damning New York Times exposé that uncovered widespread pay-for-play at major US think tanks.  And now, think tank land has been hit with a major cyber attack.

Here is more from Defense One which broke the story:

Last week, one of the Russia-backed hacker groups that attacked Democratic computer networks also attacked several Russia-focused think tanks in Washington, D.C., Defense One has learned.
The perpetrator is the group called COZY BEAR, or APT29, one of the two groups that cybersecurity company CrowdStrike blamed for the DNC hack, according to founder Dmitri Alperovitch. CrowdStrike discovered the attack on the DNC and provides security for the think tanks.
Alperovitch said fewer than five organizations and 10 staffers researching Russia were hit by the “highly targeted operation.” He declined to detail which think tanks and researchers were hit, out of concern for his clients’ interests and to avoid revealing tools and techniques or other data to hackersCrowdStrike alerted the organizations immediately after the company detected the breaches and intruders were unable to exfiltrate any information, Alperovitch said.
Defense One reached out to several think tanks with programs in Russian research, one of which was the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS. “Last week we were under attack, but our small staff was very responsive. Beyond that, I’m not going to discuss the details because it is under active investigation,” the H. Andrew Schwartz, CSIS Senior Vice President for External Relations, said in an email.
James Andrew Lewis, Senior Vice President and director, strategic technologies program, at CSIS said, “It’s like a badge of honor — any respectable think tank has been hacked. The Russians just don’t get the idea of independent institutions, so they are looking for secret instructions from Obama. Another benefit is they can go to their bosses and show what they took to prove their worth as spies.”

Russia's RT suggests propaganda warfare.

Besides CSIS, other big US think tanks that have Russia programs or Russia researchers include:

  • Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  • Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
  • Brookings Institution
  • Atlantic Council
  • Hudson Institute

It is not a surprise that hackers are targeting think tanks.  Think Tank Watch noted back in June that hackers targeting the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were also targeting think tanks. And over the years Think Tank Watch has documented the fact that nearly every major think tank has been hit by hackers.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Reaction to NYT Series on Think Tanks & Corporate Influence

The reaction to the New York Times series on think tanks and influence of corporate money has been one of shock, disappointment, and disbelief.

Thank Tank Watch will be aggregating the reaction in the coming days and weeks and will update this post often.  Here is what we have so far:

 
Think Tanks:
  • Brookings, which took the brunt of the criticism, issued a quick rebuttal to the NYT piece.  Brookings said the article "fundamentally misrepresents" its mission and distorts how it operates.  Brookings says that the article "cherry-picked" information and "ignored a large body of evidence" made available to the reporters.  Here is an updated rebuttal with testimonials included.  Brookings says that in the coming days it will provide a point-by-point rebuttal of the allegations made in the article.  Brookings released its 15-page point-by-point rebuttal the afternoon of August 11.
  • The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) issued a statement on August 10 defending its policies but saying that "broader questions being raised by the NYT are legitimate."
  • American Enterprise Institute (AEI) issued a statement on August 8, saying it "long ago instituted and regularly evaluate, policies and procedures to assure the intellectual quality of independence of our work."  The conservative think tank said "it does not believe" a violation of its research integrity standards has occurred.
  • The conservative think tank Hudson Institute has issued a statement in an attempt to clarify some of its corporate funding.
  • Middle East Forum (MEF) has also issued a statement saying it accepts no pay-to-play funds from businesses.  
  • Institute for Policy Studies (IPS): It is "unfortunate" that the NYT series did not name the subset of think tanks like IPS that don't solicit contributions from governments and large corporations, and whose donors don't benefit financially from the research they support. 
  • The conservative Heritage Foundation issued a statement on August 12 saying "it stands for freedom and not special interest," adding "we will not accept research for hire from corporations who wish to pay for particular research projects...In fact, less than 5 percent of our annual revenue is from corporations."

Reporters:
  • Eric Lipton (co-author of series): "The more we looked, the more surprised we were at just how many think tank scholars had other for-profit lives."
  • Eric Lipton: We had to sue State Department to get simple set of email exchanges with think tank scholar.  Why is FOIA so broken? 
  • Eric Lipton discusses think tanks and corporate influence on C-Span the morning of August 11. Says CSIS issued statement about lack of disclosure of corporate ties to event only after he made inquiry.  "I happened to call them on it that one day...but how frequently does that happen?"  Adds: "We did a survey in late 2015 of 25 think tanks and asked them about their policies on conflicts of interests, etc., and even as we were asking those questions the think tanks started to change their policies."
  • Eric Lipton prediction: "I think there is going to be a fair amount of change on outside work that scholars can have as consultants/lobbyists and at same time have a think tank title."
  • Eric Lipton: "I admire Brookings and the work it does but if there are problems at Brookings, it suggests a systemic problem at think tanks." 
  • Eric Lipton: "The term think tank has been somewhat degraded in Washington over the last decade because all the small places that call themselves think tanks but are really advocacy shops." 
  • Eric Lipton: "No real discussion on changing tax-exempt status of think tanks but more disclosure rules in both Congress and the executive branch are possible."
  • Eric Lipton: The think tank series took us two years to write.
  • Nick Confessore (another co-author) says: "If you doubt what you're seeing, ask yourself why companies don't just publish their own reports." 
  • Brooke Williams (co-author) on Majority Report talking about her piece. 
  • Ezra Klein says: "This is tremendous, unnerving reporting by the NYT on pay-for-play within the think tank world."
  • Ryan Evans (War on the Rocks) has 14-point tweetstorm on NYT piece.
  • Michael Tracey, a VICE columnist, says: "Very good look into the scam of taxpayer-subsidized think tanks like Brookings acting as de facto lobbying orgs."
  • Scott Shane of NYT says: "Reminder to journalists seeking unbiased expertise: Be careful of think tanks!" 
  • Michael Tackett of NYT says: "Some think tank scholars wear a second hat: registered lobbyist."
  • Timothy Noah of Politico says: "I wonder whether Brookings understands how devastating a blow this story is to its hard-won credibility." 
  • Jane Mayer of New Yorker: "Times' expose is great, but as I write in Dark Money, many think tanks have long been Big Donor stink tanks." 
  • Lee Fang (The Intercept): "NYT shows how lobbyists/biz consultants find gigs at think tanks to add an academic veneer to influence peddling."
  • Dan Froomkin (The Intercept): NYT discovers "stink tanks."
  • Brad Heath (USA Today): "Totally normal.  Also, gross."
  • Murtaza Hussain (The Intercept): Fits reality that there are few institutions extant people can really trust. 
  • Dan Simpson (Pittsburgh Post Gazette): Think tanks, in the tank
  • Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias talk "soft corruption" at think tanks and the NYT piece.

Media:
  • Politico Influence: "In conversations with downtowners about the NYT think tanks' bombshell, the popular quip was that everyone is shocked, shocked to find out that pay-to-play is going on in Washington.  But it's all too easy to shrug off what everyone already knew once its blown out in the open, and no amount of quoting 'Casablanca' will change the fact that the stories will dim the credibility of think tank research in the eyes of reporters and policy makers."
  • Here is some reaction from Gawker. 
  • Mic says: "A Major DC Think Tank Has Sold Out to Corporations."
  • Observer has an opinion piece entitled "Think Tank Smells Like Corporate Money for Clinton." 
  • Politico's Morning Energy covers the energy angle from the NYT piece. 
  • Forbes: Why think tanks now have a credibility problem
  • CorpWatch on General Dynamics funding of think tanks mentioned in NYT piece. 
  • Inside Philanthropy: The Fall of the Think Tank - Policy Wonks and the Hard Realities of Interested Monies. 
  • TPM: Deep Lobbying. 
  • SFGate: "Warning: Dangerous Think Tanks Ahead." 
  • Daily Caller: "Defense scholars caught lobbying for contractors." 
  • Daily Caller: "Net Neutrality Policy Analysts Caught Red-Handed on Big Tech's Payroll."
  • Philadelphia News: Our trust deficit keeps growing.
  • Washington Business Journal: Brookings pushes back against NYT. 
  • Nonprofit Quarterly: Devastating.

Scholars:
  • Elizabeth Joh of UC Davis says: "This investigation into corporate influence at think tanks = huge warning for academics relying on their research." 
  • Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute: I've always imported journalism rules to my think tank work, but maybe time to develop more explicit norms?
  • Miranda Perry Fleischer (University of San Diego): Think tanks must reject donations that cloud their purpose.
  • Carter Price (RAND Corp.): Moonlighting as a lobbyist is not ok.  Shame "revising" COI policy came only after exposed.
  • Dan Drezner (of Tufts) in the Washington Post: What do we know about the independence of think tank research that we didn't a week ago?  [Kelsey Atherton aggregates Drezner's tweetstorm.]
  • Alan Tonelson in response to Drezner: "Laughable claim by Dan Drezner that corporate-funded think tanks are dealing seriously with the transparency issue."
  • Jim Harper (of Cato): "Think tanks trade credibility for corporate support.  So be it.  Watch out if the fix is regulating their funding!" 
  • Heath Brown (a think tank expert at CUNY): "Given NYT coverage of think tanks, perfect timing for Megan Tompkins-Stange new book "Policy Patrons."
  • Amy Liu of Brookings has called the series "misleading." 
  • Kevin Boland Johnson of MSU: "Will C-Span continue to give think tanks generous air time?"
  • Harvey Cox (Harvard): "Their reputation for impartiality has been severely damaged.  Can I ever again trust the reports these think tanks issue?"
  • Rory Medcalf (Australian National University): "Sounds like NYT articles on think tanks say more about the state of journalism than that of think tanks."  [Matt Goodman of CSIS agrees.]
  • Alejandro Chafuen: Brookings should expose interests of corporate owners of NYTimes and compare with NYT editorial positions. 
  • Kathleen Hicks (of CSIS): Great, thoughtful response on the relationship between think tanks  - and all nonprofits - and corporations.

Others
  • David Rockefeller Fund: Tax-exempt think tanks should NOT be advancing narrow corporate interests.  Kudos for the vital reporting.
  • Jeffrey Sachs says: "As I have said months ago, Brookings has sold its name, and not only to corporations but to foreign governments. 
  • Robert Reich says: "Always, always follow the money. When expert think tanks issue reports, find out who funds the reports and be..."
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) weighs in.
  • Graham Brown-Martin's piece on Medium: "Brookings, Seriously?" 
  • Robert Faturechi of ProPublica: Journalists need to be more skeptical of experts.
  • Diane Ravitch says it is very sad
  • Bruce Bartlett (former think tanker): "Washington 'think tanks' are cesspools of ethical corruption.  At least lobbyists are honest whores."
  • Zero Hedge: It's one gigantic lawless crime scene
  • Matt Stoller (Senate Budget Committee staffer): Government has gutted its independent research. 
  • Gene Takagi (NEO Law Group): Think tanks need a certification program to establish transparency.
  • David Sullivan: "Is there an industry association for think tanks?" 
  • Triple Pundit: "Reader Beware: Think tanks and universities increasingly for hire by companies." 
  • KQED debate on think tanks with Eric Lipton, James McGann (UPenn) and Bruce Katz (Brookings).
  • Greg Fischer (Mayor of Louisville), Andy Berke (Mayor of Chattanooga), Michael Nutter (former Mayor of Philadelphia), R.T. Rybak (former Mayor of Minneapolis): "We read your characterization of the work of Brookings with great dismay...our cities have had a fruitful, meaningful experience working with Brookings."
  • Ben Myers (in NYT letter to editor): Let's classifiy think tanks as lobbyists and revoke their nonprofit, tax-exempt status. 
  • Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR): "NYT Reveals Think Tank It's Cited for Years to Be Corrupt Arms Booster." 
  • Tom Jeffrey of Think Tank Review: Think tanks need a principled approach to funding and conflicts of interest. 
  • Lou Hoffman: Brookings is not using traditional PR to punch back at NYTimes; running PPC campaign to amplify its voice for relevant searches.

If you have any reaction or links to any reaction, please send it to info (at) thinktankwatch.com.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Wilson Center Accused of Orchestrating Turkey's Coup


Think tanks just can't seem to get a break this week.  First the New York Times published two hard-hitting pieces that will likely damage the reputations of some major think tanks for years to come.

Among other things, it was revealed that the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) fired three scholars for violating conflict of interest policies.

Now, John Hudson of Foreign Policy has this piece out this evening:
The Turkish government has arrested or detained tens of thousands of soldiers, police officers, academics, and journalists in the wake of last month’s failed coup attempt. Some supporters of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have a new target: a prominent Washington think tank.
The Woodrow Wilson Center, a nonpartisan organization founded in 1968, is facing a wave of criticisms over its alleged — and wholly unproven — role in orchestrating last month’s failed putsch, which killed more than 200 people and injured more than 1,000. Erdogan retained power and has spent the past weeks carrying out purges of institutions across Turkish society.
The accusations against the Wilson Center, appearing on the front page of mainstream newspapers linked to Erdogan, prompted the think tank to take the unusual step of issuing a statement of concern about “possible reprisals” to researchers and scholars that attended a July conference in Turkey organized by the think tank. The conspiracy theories against the Wilson Center were sparked, in part, by the fact that its July 15-17 event occurred on the exact same weekend as the coup attempt.

The article goes on to note that reports in Turkey are blaming Henri Barkey, the director of Wilson Center's Middle for Program, for the botched coup.

Here is the full statement from Wilson Center stating its concerns about reprisals against Turkish colleagues.

In a tweet, FP's John Hudson (who broke this story) writes: "When think tank life stops being boring and starts getting scary..."

David Rothkopf writes: "Love the idea of a think tank orchestrating a coup attempt.  Most struggle to put on wine and cheese receptions."

In a similar vein, Alykhan Velshi writes: "Wilson Center has come a long way since my internship at AEI, when they could barely host a decent lunch."

Readers of Think Tank Watch may remember the violence that erupted earlier this year on Think Tank Row in Washington, DC amid a visit to the Brookings Institution by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan.

Peterson Institute Fires Three Scholars Due to Conflicts of Interest

The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), one of the world's top economic think tanks, has recently fired three scholars for violating conflict of interest policies.  Here is more from the New York Times (in collaboration with the New England Center for Investigative Reporting), which has just published a two-part series highlighting the lack of independence at many major US think tanks:
Adam S. Posen, the president of the Peterson Institute, considered the world’s pre-eminent think thank on global economics, has a commanding view of the construction of the new headquarters for the American Enterprise Institute, as well as the main office of Brookings. From his grand office, he recently had a series of uncomfortable conversations with three scholars he had decided to let go.
After much internal debate, Mr. Posen decided to formally prohibit Peterson’s scholars from holding outside jobs that directly related to the field they wrote about on behalf of the think tank.
The three who had such outside engagements were terminated.
Mr. Posen noted that the change did not imply the researchers had done anything wrong. But tighter rules are needed, he said, to respond to a growing sense he shares with the Peterson board that the think tank industry must reassert its commitment to impartiality.

PIIE is reportedly updating its conflict-of-interest policies in the wake of recent reports shining a light on think tank independence.

Think Tank Quickies (#231)

  • Center for American Progress (CAP) founder John Podesta has no interest in being Hillary Clinton's chief of staff.
  • Fethullah Gulen, the reclusive Muslim cleric accused of inspiring Turkey's failed coup attempt, has bred a global network of think tanks.  Carnegie has written about those think tanks, including the Rethink Institute and Foundation for Political, Economic, and Social Research.
  • Brookings: How do political conventions actually work? 
  • Michael Levin leaving CFR to join White House staff as Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Economic Policy on the National Economic Council (NEC) staff.
  • Department state lawmakers in Oklahoma launch conservative think tank.
  • Brookings 2016 spring catalogue of new publications and books. 
  • China, suspicious of groups like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), detain foreign non-profit chiefs. 
  • Disclosure paradox: Does revealing think tank bias make one more likely to take their advice.
  • Rosa Balfour and Sudha David-Wilp of GMF try to defend the European Union (EU).
  • William Beach, VP for Policy at Mercatus Center, was "instrumental in developing the state-of-the-art econometric models" Heritage Foundation uses.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

NYT Rips Into Think Tanks for Pay-to-Play Schemes

A new expose entitled "Researchers or Corporate Allies?  Think Tanks Blur the Lines," rips into think tanks, including the world's #1 think tank Brookings Institution, for essentially being the mouthpieces of corporations.

It was written by Eric Lipton of The New York Times (NYT) and Brooke Williams, a reporter at the New England Center for Investigative Reporting (NECIR) - a small nonprofit outlet that equally collaborated with NYT for the series.

They were the same duo (along with Nicholas Confessore) who wrote the hugely popular 2014 piece entitled "Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks."

The piece was written based, among other things, on more than 2,600 documents secretly obtained from Brookings Institution's internal files.

The second part of the so-called "Think Tanks Inc." series was released the afternoon of August 8.  That piece is entitled "Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant?  It Depends on the Day."

In that piece, NYT/NECIR note that the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) has recently fired three scholars for violations of its conflicts-of-interest policy.

Reaction so far:

  • Jeffrey Sachs says: "As I have said months ago, Brookings has sold its name, and not only to corporations but to foreign governments. 
  • Robert Reich says: "Always, always follow the money. When expert think tanks issue reports, find out who funds the reports and be..."
  • Ezra Klein says: "This is tremendous, unnerving reporting by the NYT on pay-for-play within the think tank world."
  • Nick Confessore says: "If you doubt what you're seeing, ask yourself why companies don't just publish their own reports."
  • Michael Tracey, a VICE columnist, says: "Very good look into the scam of taxpayer-subsidized think tanks like Brookings acting as de facto lobbying orgs."
  • Elizabeth Joh says: "This investigation into corporate influence at think tanks = huge warning for academics relying on their research." 
  • Scott Shane of NYT says: "Reminder to journalists seeking unbiased expertise: Be careful of think tanks!" 
  • Michael Tackett of NYT says: "Some think tank scholars wear a second hat: registered lobbyist."
  • Timothy Noah of Politico says: "I wonder whether Brookings understands how devastating a blow this story is to its hard-won credibility. 
  • Graham Brown-Martin's piece on Medium: "Brookings, Seriously?" 
  • Ryan Evans has 14-point tweetstorm on NYT piece. 
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) weighs in.
  • Here is some reaction from Gawker. 
  • Mic says: "A Major DC Think Tank Has Sold Out to Corporations."
  • Observer has an opinion piece entitled "Think Tank Smells Like Corporate Money for Clinton." 
  • Politico's Morning Energy covers the energy angle from the NYT piece. 
  • Forbes: Why think tanks now have a credibility problem
  • CorpWatch on General Dynamics funding of think tanks mentioned in NYT piece. 
  • Inside Philanthropy: The Fall of the Think Tank - Policy Wonks and the Hard Realities of Interested Monies. 
  • TPM: Deep Lobbying. 
  • SFGate: "Warning: Dangerous Think Tanks Ahead." 
  • Daily Caller: "Defense scholars caught lobbying for contractors." 
  • Daily Caller: "Net Neutrality Policy Analysts Caught Red-Handed on Big Tech's Payroll."

In response to the NYT/NECIR piece, the conservative think tank Hudson Institute has issued a statement in an attempt to clarify some of its corporate funding.

And Brookings has now weighed in, issuing its own rebuttal to the NYT/NECIR piece in Medium.  Brookings said the article "fundamentally misrepresents" its mission and distorts how it operates.  Brookings says that the article "cherry-picked" information and "ignored a large body of evidence" made available to the reporters.  Here is an updated rebuttal with testimonials included.

Brookings says that in the coming days it will provide a point-by-point rebuttal of the allegations made in the article.

In February 2016 Brookings chief Strobe Talbott and Kimberly Churches, Managing Director at Brookings, wrote a piece entitled "Safeguarding Independence in an Era of Restricted Giving."

Middle East Forum (MEF) has also issued a statement saying it accepts no pay-to-play funds from businesses. 

More will be coming soon, including further reaction and our favorite excerpts from the piece...

Thursday, August 4, 2016

New Tool to Track Think Tank "Dark Money"

The Center for Public Integrity released a new tool this week that allows searches of  "dark money" grants between nonprofit groups, including think tanks.

Using the new tool, Think Tank Watch has searched a number of the largest, most powerful think tanks to help track down often undisclosed sources of money.  Following are some of our findings so far:

  • The Brookings Institution has received millions of dollars over the past five years from other nonprofits, including a number of universities such as University of Pittsburgh, Johns Hopkins University, and George Washington University.  Brookings has also received money from the Financial Services Forum, Blackstone Charitable Foundation, Unite Here, Jewish Communal Fund, and Carter Center.  Most interestingly, the think tank has also received funds from Good Ventures for support of research projects and events on marijuana policy. 
  • The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank, has received large amounts from the Jewish Communal Fund, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA).  It has also received grants from American Petroleum Institute (API), American Insurance Association, and the Charles Koch Institute, among others.  Interestingly, AEI has received a $74,000 grant from the liberal think tank Center for American Progress (CAP).
  • The Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank, has received more than $10 million from the Sandler Foundation over the past five years.  It has also received money from the American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), United Steelworkers, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), AFL-CIO, Oxfam-America, National Association of Letter Carriers, and the Aspen Institute.

Stay tuned for more...