Think Tanks Quietly Help Write Thousands of Laws Across US

Here is more from USA Today:

Each year, state lawmakers across the U.S. introduce thousands of bills dreamed up and written by corporations, industry groups and think tanks.

Disguised as the work of lawmakers, these so-called “model” bills get copied in one state Capitol after another, quietly advancing the agenda of the people who write them. 

A two-year investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic  and the Center for Public Integrity reveals for the first time the extent to which special interests have infiltrated state legislatures using model legislation.

USA TODAY and the Republic found at least 10,000 bills almost entirely copied from model legislation were introduced nationwide in the past eight years, and more than 2,100 of those bills were signed into law.

Think tanks also play a very significant role in helping write, analyze, and pass (or defeat) legislation at the federal level.

Economist on "Worried Wonks" at Think Tanks in New Trump Era

The Economist magazine has a new piece entitled "Why Think Tanks Are Concerned About a Trump Administration."

Here are some excerpts:

All across the triangle from Dupont Circle to the White House and Capitol Hill, Washington, DC think-tank staff arrived at work on November 9th with bloodshot eyes. The news of a Russian-based internet attack on some of their colleagues in the Brookings Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations was some small consolation that they remained important and relevant to the Cosy Bear hacker group, at least. But the evidence closer to home was less reassuring. There are 397 think-tanks in the city, each incubating ideas for new policies and frequently incubating the policymakers themselves during periods out of power. In the run-up to a vote, they usually provide the fodder for candidate proposals as well as material to condemn ideas from the other side. But in this election, the system stuttered badly, and it has the wonks worried.

The election result was a shock for think-tank fellows because most are left-leaning. For all many think-tanks are meant to be non-partisan to preserve their tax status, their staff live in a liberal town and their fellows usually have post graduate degrees, which means they are part of a group that identifies Democratic 57% to 35%. 

But it is more than that: think-tank employees are part of the American political establishment, and the election season was a repudiation of establishment presidential candidates in the Republican primary as well as in the November general election. That was one reason (beyond the offensive absurdity of many of his statements) why Donald Trump was unpopular even amongst right-leaning policy shops. Danielle Pletka, the vice president of the American Enterprise Institute which is home to Lynne Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, called Mr Trump an idiot. 

The candidate felt no more respect for DC experts than they felt for him. Names of people working to advise Mr Trump on policy proved almost as elusive as the candidate’s tax returns. Numerous attempts by non-partisan think-tanks to engage were ignored or rebuffed by the campaign. Compare the Democratic presidential candidate: “Brookings” appears 1,469 times in the emails from Hillary Clinton’s account released by the State Department and 484 times in the emails from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chair (and former think tank head) that were provided to Wikileaks. Three prominent think-tanks in the city are run by former Clinton staff members. Mrs Clinton's campaign had scores of policy groups, many with scores of members, many from the DC policy community: the campaign’s own best guess on the number of people working on foreign policy proposals alone during the primary was “several hundred.” 

The piece goes on to point out a very serious issue facing a number of think tanks in the new Trump era.  "...They are also worried about their own relevance: a think tanker's job is to influence policy.  What is policymakers don't want to be influenced?"

But the piece also points out that more establishment Republicans in Congress are embracing Mr. Trump, meaning that "Republican establishment figures in think tanks have cover to do the same."

In other words, "life for policy wonks goes on - as will the production of policy papers, op-eds, and blogs," notes the Economist.  The magazine also suggests that the Trump win could make think tanks even more necessary as they rush to fight against many parts of Trump's policies.

Think Tank Watch should note that outside of think tanks like Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, and the Cato Institute, think tank staffers do indeed largely identify as Democrats, as a past US News & World Report analysis shows.

CAP Helps EPA Influence the Media on Climate Debate

This article from Fox News shows how think tanks try (and are often successful) in influencing the public policy debate in the United States:

A prominent left-wing group helped formulate Environmental Protection Agency talking points designed to sell a controversial regulatory scheme to skeptical journalists, internal emails show. 

The emails show Joseph Goffman, the senior counsel of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, circulating talking points from Center for American Progress climate strategy director Daniel Weiss among EPA colleagues attempting to sell the agency's controversial power plant regulations to a New York Times reporter. 

Weiss emailed Goffman in September 2013 with a series of suggestions for convincing the Times' Matt Wald of the commercial viability of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, a vital component of the agency's stringent power plant emissions regulations. 

Five minutes later, Goffman sent an email to five colleagues in his office and the agency's public affairs division. Unredacted language in the email is identical to language in Weiss' list of talking points. 

The Environment & Energy (E&E) Legal Institute obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request. Chris Horner, a senior legal fellow at E&E, said they show extensive behind-the-scenes collaboration between EPA and third-party groups that support the regulations.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) has extremely strong relations with the EPA, and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the think tank.

Current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has given speeches at CAP, including this one in 2014, and this one in 2013.

Think Tank Watch should point out that it is not uncommon for think tank scholars to have close relationships with the White House, federal agencies, and the US Congress.  And since CAP has extremely close relations with the Obama Administration, it is no surprise that CAP helped craft EPA talking points.

And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will likely utilize CAP's ideas and talent.

In related think tank/climate change news, a new study shows that even with the numerous climate change-denialist think tanks, the US may not have the most climate change skeptics per capita.