Horowitz Funding Sources

Meghann asked me to identify and discuss the groups that fund the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC). The list of funding organizations came from David Horowitz, the founder of CSPC. The reason for this request is to gain background information about Senate Bill 24, sponsored by Senator Mumper. Senate Bill 24 would require every nonprofit higher education institution to adopt an “academic bill of rights” and a grievance procedure for violations of those rights. Generally, the “academic bill of rights” requires that students not be graded based on beliefs but solely on their knowledge of the subject area.

This memo will provide a brief introductory section regarding the CSPC and its strategy regarding the academic bill of rights. The memo has a short section on some controversial comments by David Horowitz, and continues by individually discussing CSPC’s major funding organizations, as provided by Mr. Horowitz. For every organization, this memo provides as much background information as possible on the organization, although some organizations do not have a web presence nor are they discussed in news reports. Additionally, the memo will discuss any lawsuits in which the organization was involved and end with a summary of the current financial status of the organization.

Senate Bill 24 is part of an extensive nationwide effort by CSPC and its founder, is David Horowitz, who recently testified before the Senate Education Committee. See David Horowitz, Why an Academic Bill of Rights Is Necessary: Testimony Before the Education Committee of the Ohio Senate (Mar. 15, 2005), at http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org /archive/2005/March2005/DHohiotestimony031505.htm. CSPC was created in 1989 and has received over $13 million in grants from private sources through 2003. See Center for the Study of Popular Culture, at http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results /info_on_any_recipient.php?63 (last visited Apr. 1, 2005).

The CSPC has three departments: (1) FrontPage magazine; (2) The Wednesday Morning Club; and (3) The Individual Rights Foundation. See Departments, at http://www.cspc.org/. Frontpage magazine is an online magazine featuring columns by conservative pundits, such as Ann Coulter, and a blog by Mr. Horowitz. See FrontPage Magazine, at http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp. The Wednesday Morning Club is a lunch forum that provides a conservative outlet focused on the entertainment and media industries. See About the Wednesday Morning Club, at http://www.cspc.org/AboutWMC.html. Past speakers include Vice President Cheney, Senator Bill Frist, Representative Newt Gingrich, and Judge Robert Bork. Id. “The Individual Rights Foundation is the legal arm of [CSPC].” See The Individual Rights Foundation, at http://www.cspc.org/IRF.html. This department essentially grew out of the Matt Drudge Defense Fund, which was set up to support Mr. Drudge against a libel claim. See id.; DAVID BROCK, THE REPUBLICAN NOISE MACHINE: RIGHT-WING MEDIA AND HOW IT CORRUPTS DEMOCRACY 102 (2004).

An offshoot of CSPC called “Students For Academic Freedom” (SAF) appears to coordinate grassroots “academic bill of rights” efforts. See http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/; see also How to Research Faculty Party Affiliations, at http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/essays/research_protocol.html (referencing CSPC as an easily accessible source of information). SAF identifies itself as a “national coalition of student organizations whose goal is to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge ,” Their website bulletin board, however, only has 666 posts in the past 15 months. See STUDENTS FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM, About Us, at http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/about.html. SAF claims over 150 nationwide chapters at educational institutions. See SAF Chapters and Contacts, at http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/. Of these 150 chapters, there are four chapters in Ohio (Bowling Green State University, Columbus State, Miami University and University of Toledo). Id. The website does not give any numbers as to how many students are actually involved in these campus groups. Id. Finally, SAF has an extensive handbook available online. Notable items include: (1) How to create a campus organization; (2) How to research campus abuses; and, (3) How to research faculty party affiliations; See, e.g., Mission and Strategy, at http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/essays/pamphlet.html.

While this section could likely be lengthy, I understand that you have a significant amount of information on Mr. Horowitz. I have uncovered some interesting information which may not be easily accessible.

The most explosive piece that I have found on Mr. Horowitz is that he “has argued that blacks benefited from slavery.” DAVID BROCK, THE REPUBLICAN NOISE MACHINE: RIGHT-WING MEDIA AND HOW IT CORRUPTS DEMOCRACY 102 (2004). While the author of the book does not provide a specific citation, I believe he was referencing a Horowitz article from 2000. See David Horowitz, 10 Reasons Why Reparations For Blacks Are a Bad Idea For Blacks and Racist, Too, FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE (May 31, 2000), available at http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo /1999/08/16/naacp/index1.html (discussing that the relative wealth of modern African-Americans compared to Africans is a benefit of slavery).

Mr. Horowitz’ rebirth as an arch-conservative led to Jack E. White, a columnist for Time magazine, labeling Mr. Horowitz “a real, live bigot” in a 1999 article. Jack E. White, A Real Live Bigot, TIME (Aug. 30, 1999). Mr. White’s views stemmed from a Horowitz article entitled “Guns Don’t Kill Black People, Black People Do.” David Horowitz, Guns Don’t Kill Black People, Black People Do, SALON.COM (Aug 16, 1999), available at http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/08/16/naacp/index1.html (blaming the high crime rate among African-Americans on the African-American community in general, rather than on any white influences.)

As a final note, Mr. Horowitz received $310,000 in compensation from CSPC in 2003 and $252,000 in 2002. CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF POPULAR CULTURE, IRS FORM 990 (2003), available at http://12.39.246.46/954/954194642/954194642_200312_990.pdf (last visited Apr. 6, 2005); CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF POPULAR CULTURE, IRS FORM 990 (2003), available at http://12.39.246.46/954/954194642/954194642_200212_990.pdf.

The Bradley, Olin, Sarah Scaife and Smith Richardson (now called Randolph) Foundations “are often called the ‘Four Sisters’ for their tendency to fund similar projects, publications and institutions[te1] .” Phil Wilayto, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Mar 21, 2000), at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm; see also PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, BUYING A MOVEMENT 3, available at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052 (discussing that these foundations, plus the Adolph Coors Foundation (now Castle Rock) stand out from the other Foundations for their funding for “far-right programs, including some of the most politically charged work of the last several years.”)

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation was founded in Milwaukee in 1942 but did not become a major factor outside Milwaukee until 1985. See THE LYNDE AND HARRY BRADLEY FOUNDATION, About the Foundation, at http://www.bradleyfdn.org/about.html; Phil Wilayto[1], The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Mar 21, 2000), at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm (noting that sale of the Allen-Bradley Company for $1.651 billion raised the funds in the foundation from $14 million to $290 million.) “Although [the Foundation] has no direct ties to the Allen-Bradley Company, the purpose of the Foundation is to commemorate Lynde and Harry Bradley by preserving and extending the principles and philosophy by which they lived and upon which they built the company.” Id.; see also See THE LYNDE AND HARRY BRADLEY FOUNDATION, About the Foundation, at http://www.bradleyfdn.org/about.html. This is interesting for two reasons: (1) While women worked at the Allen-Bradley plant from 1918 onward, they weren’t paid the same as male workers until a federal court held that the Allen-Bradley discriminated against women regarding pay. See Pozorski v. Allen-Bradley Co., 377 F.Supp 1288, 1290 (E.D. Wis. 1974); and (2) Allen-Bradley was one of the last major Milwaukee employers to create a racially integrated workforce. Phil Wilayto, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Mar 21, 2000), at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders /bradley_foundation.htm. By 1968, the company had 7,000 workers, including only thirty-two African-Americans and fourteen Latinos. Id. After public pressure was applied, the company eventually adopted an affirmative action plan in 1969. Id.; see also, James Groppi, Campaign Against Allen-Bradley Company (1969) (I have not been able to check this document since it is in a Milwaukee library).

The majority of this memo’s information on the Bradley Foundation is based on the work of Phil Wilayto. Mr. Wilayto is currently the head of Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality, in Richmond, VA. See generally DEFENDERS FOR FREEDOM, JUSTICE & EQUALITY, at http://defendersfje.tripod.com/index.html. While the Bradley Foundation has been critical of Mr. Wilayto’s work, see Fn. 1, his efforts in examining details of the Foundation have been unusually extensive and seemingly thorough. Furthermore, his overall view of the importance of the Bradley Foundation for conservative ideas and their standing as a major factor for conservatives is reinforced by other sources. The People For the American Way’s report, BUYING A MOVEMENT, echoes Mr. Wilayto’s view that the Bradley Foundation is the major conservative Foundation. See PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, BUYING A MOVEMENT 16-17, available at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052; see generally DAVID BROCK, THE REPUBLICAN NOISE MACHINE: RIGHT-WING MEDIA AND HOW IT CORRUPTS DEMOCRACY 64-66 (2004).

The overall goal of the foundation is to return “to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force.” Phil Wilayto, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Mar 21, 2000), at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders /bradley_foundation.htm. The Foundation gives considerable money to various organizations within Milwaukee, “most of which are not political in character.” Id. However, the national grants are to “organizations and individuals that promote the deregulation of business, the rollback of . . . social welfare programs, and the privatization of government services.” Id. “[T]he list of Bradley grant recipients reads like a Who’s Who of the U.S. Right,” including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Id. The American Enterprise Institute is the “literary home” of Charles Murray (author of The Bell Curve) and Robert Bork.

After the influx of money from the 1985 sale of Allen-Bradley, the Foundation “strategically funded the authors and writers who could set the terms for national debate on key issues of public policy, the think tanks that could develop specific programs, the activist organizations that could implement those programs, and the legal offices that could defend those programs in court.” Id. To these ends, the Foundation is a major funding source for various entities that are focused on conservative causes. Examples of funded sources include the Center for Individual Rights, which brought the lawsuit that eventually ended affirmative action at the University of Texas Law School. Hopwood v. State of Texas, 236 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Phil Wilayto, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Mar 21, 2000), at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm. The Foundation also funded the National Association of Scholars, which played a key role in the 1996 anti-affirmative action referendum in California. See Phil Wilayto, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Mar 21, 2000, at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm.

As noted above, the Foundation also funds authors. In 1992, the Foundation gave $11,850 to author David Brock for the publication of The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story, which attacked Hill’s credibility, along with the aforementioned Charles Murray who published Losing Ground when “working out of the Bradley-funded Manhattan Institute in New York City.” Id. The premise of Losing Ground is that poverty is not a result of plant shutdowns, periodic recession or discrimination, but of individual failings. Id. Therefore, Murray argues, government-sponsored anti-poverty programs are ill-conceived and should be eliminated. Id. From 1986-89, Murray received an annual grant of $90,000 from the Foundation. Id. “By 1991, [the Foundation] was paying Murray $113,000 per year.” Id. In response to criticism of Losing Ground, the president of the Foundation (who has subsequently retired) said, “Charles Murray, in my opinion, is one of the foremost social thinkers in the country.” Id. After the publication of The Bell Curve, the Foundation “raised Murray’s annual grant to $163,000.” Id. For the reply of the Bradley Foundation to Mr. Wilayto’s report, see Michael S. Joyce, Statement, at http://www.educationforthepeople.org/ (denying the accusations completely). For further information regarding this dispute, see PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, BUYING A MOVEMENT 18, available at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052.

An example of a think tank supported by the Foundation is a $175,000 grant to the Hudson Institute “to support a study of welfare reform in Wisconsin.” Id (citing the Foundation 1995 annual report). This study resulted in the 1996 passing of “Wisconsin Works,” a welfare replacement plan. This plan slashed welfare rolls by ninety percent. Id. However, while a few women have found better jobs and income, “many more have found themselves strapped into a life of low-wage, dead-end jobs.” Id. Meanwhile, “privately operated [Wisconsin Works] agencies have made huge profits, while local businesses and ‘non-profits’ have found free labor for their enterprises.” Id.

Finally, the former president of the Bradley Foundation believed that “investment in academia is vital to the long-term success of the conservative movement, and [ ] directed millions toward academic research and program development.” PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, BUYING A MOVEMENT 18, available at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052. To this end, the Foundation “has helped pay for the work of approximately 600 graduate students over the years.” Id. The former president said of this strategy, "That's like building a wine collection." Id. When “explaining the reason Bradley concentrates its money on programs at prestigious universities, [the former president] stated: ‘Elite opinion is formed in America at the top of a pyramid...elite institutions [are] important in the shaping of public policy.’” Id.

As far as I have been able to discover, the Foundation has only been a named party in one reported case. This case arose from the sale of stock in the Allen-Bradley Company, in which the Foundation became one of the trustees for a portion of the proceeds. The court held that the trustees had broad powers and did not abuse those powers regarding the distribution of income and principal amounts. In re Jane Bradley Uihlein Trust, 142 Wis.2d 277 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).

A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the Allen-Bradley Company to Rockwell International provided the bulk of funding for the Foundation in 1985. Phil Wilayto, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Mar 21, 2000), at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders /bradley_foundation.htm. As of December 2003, the Foundation had assets of $578 million and granted various organizations $25 million during the year. See THE LYNDE AND HARRY BRADLEY FOUNDATION, 2003 ANNUAL REPORT 34, 40 (2003), available at http://www.bradleyfdn.org /publications.html (last visited Apr 2, 2005) (asset accounting provided by Deloitte & Touche). The asset value fluctuates due to investment gains or losses; its grants have historically remained around $25-30 million per year. See Phil Wilayto, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Mar 21, 2000) at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders /bradley_foundation.htm; c.f. THE LYNDE AND HARRY BRADLEY FOUNDATION, ANNUAL REPORTS, available at http://www.bradleyfdn.org/publications.html; (showing asset values of $476 million in 2002 and $579 million in 1998). The Foundation gave $345,000 to CSPC in 2003, $350,000 in 2002, and $975,000 in 2001. Id. (the annual report for 2001 is not online, the 2001 figure was derived from a different source on the Foundation’s website, see THE LYNDE AND HARRY BRADLEY FOUNDATION, 2001 List of Grants, at http://www.bradleyfdn.org/01AR/~GrantsFrameSet01.html. Finally, the Bradley Foundation “has been accused of underreporting the grant amounts that it gives to many of the right-wing organizations that it supports.” PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY, Bradley Foundation, Lynde and Harry, at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11219.

The Bradley Foundation “works in concert with a number of [other foundations] to develop, maintain and promote a right-wing intelligencia that can play a major role in the manipulation of public opinion and the formulation of public policy.” Phil Wilayto, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Mar 21, 2000), at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders /bradley_foundation.htm. While the Bradley Foundation is part of the “Four Sisters,” Bradley has the largest assets of the conservative foundations, plus national connections and a focused political agenda. Accordingly, the Bradley Foundation “plays a leading role in the conservative movement.” Id. For an even more aggressive attack on the Bradley Foundation, see Salim Muwakkil, Neocon Convergences, IN THESE TIMES (Jun. 6, 2003), available at http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=216_0_3_0_C.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation is chaired by Richard Scaife (formerly known as Richard Mellon Scaife). See Scaife Foundation, at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders /scaife_foundations.htm. Richard Scaife also controls the Allegheny and Carthage Foundations. Id. In 2003, Richard Scaife was #224 on the Forbes list of the richest people in the world, with an estimated value of $1.1 billion. See The Forbes 400, FORBES MAGAZINE (Sept. 18, 2003), available at http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/17/rich400land.html.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation grants are “primarily directed toward public policy programs that address major domestic and international issues.” SARAH SCAIFE FOUNDATION, 2003 ANNUAL REPORT (2003), at http://www.scaife.com/sarah03.pdf. Like the Bradley Foundation, the list of grant recipients is heavily weighted toward conservative causes or organizations Id. Included in the 2003 grants are: $425,000 to Accuracy in Media, $700,000 to the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, and $800,000 to the Heritage Foundation. Id.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation had assets of $288 million at the end of 2003. SARAH SCAIFE FOUNDATION, 2003 ANNUAL REPORT (2003), at http://www.scaife.com/sarah03.pdf. The major investments are stock ($191 million) and government securities ($77 million). Id. In 2003, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $14 million in grants, including $250,000 to CSPC. Id. Additionally, the Scaife Foundation gave $125,000 to CSPC in 2002 and $300,000 in 2001. SARAH SCAIFE FOUNDATION, 2002 ANNUAL REPORT (2002), at http://www.scaife.com/sarah02.pdf.; SARAH SCAIFE FOUNDATION, 2001 ANNUAL REPORT (2001), at http://www.scaife.com/sarah01.pdf.

The Carthage Foundation had assets of $24 million, primarily in stock, at the end of 2003. THE CARTHAGE FOUNDATION, 2003 ANNUAL REPORT (2003), at http://www.scaife.com/cartha03.pdf. In 2003, the Carthage Foundation gave a total of $5 million in grants, including $125,000 to CSPC, along with $125,000 in 2002. Id.; THE CARTHAGE FOUNDATION, 2002 ANNUAL REPORT (2002), at http://www.scaife.com/cartha02.pdf. The Foundation is did not give money to CSPC in 2001. See THE CARTHAGE FOUNDATION, 2001 ANNUAL REPORT (2001), at http://www.scaife.com/cartha01.pdf.

The Allegheny Foundation had assets of $39 million, almost entirely in stock, at the end of 2003. THE ALLEGHENY FOUNDATION, 2003 ANNUAL REPORT (2003), at http://www.scaife.com/allegh03.pdf. In 2003, the Allegheny Foundation gave a total of $1.36 million in grants, including $50,000 to CSPC, with another $50,000 to CSPC in 2002. Id.; THE ALLEGHENY FOUNDATION, 2002 ANNUAL REPORT (2002), at http://www.scaife.com/allegh02.pdf. The Allegheny Foundation did not give money to CSPC in 2001. See THE ALLEGHENY FOUNDATION, 2001 ANNUAL REPORT (2001), at http://www.scaife.com/allegh01.pdf

In total, Richard Scaife-controlled foundations gave $425,000 to CSPC in 2003, and $300,000 per year in 2001 and 2002.

I can’t find much information on the Randolph Foundation. The Foundation was funded under the will of H. Smith Richardson and has approximately $50 million in assets. Randolph Foundation v. Appeal From Probate Court of Westport, No. X05CV980167903S, 2001 WL 418059 (Conn. Super Ct. April 3, 2001).

Heather Richardson Higgins is the chairman of the Foundation. PHILANTHROPY ROUNDTABLE, About Us, at http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/directors.html. From 1998-2002, the Foundation gave $245,000 to CSPC. Recipients By Amount Granted By the Randolph Foundation, at http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/recipientsoffunder.php ?providerID=21. Ms. Higgins’ involvement with the Philanthropy Roundtable is notable because other directors include the chairmen of the Bradley Foundation and the Olin Foundation. PHILANTHROPY ROUNDTABLE, About Us, at http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org /directors.html; see also PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, BUYING A MOVEMENT 16, available at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052 (The Roundtable was “established to help conservative foundations and corporations coordinate their activities and strategy.”)

The history of this foundation is interesting, if somewhat difficult to convey. Prior to May 8, 2003, the H. Smith Richardson Charitable Trust was known as The Randolph Foundation. See H. SMITH RICHARDSON CHARITABLE TRUST, IRS FORM 990-PF (2003), available at http://fdncenter.org/cgi-bin/findershow.cgi?id=RICH009. On that date, the former Randolph Foundation transferred all of its assets (with a fair market value of $49 million) to the new Randolph Foundation which is treated as a successor organization for tax purposes. Id. After the transfer, the original Randolph Foundation was renamed the H. Smith Richardson Charitable Trust and received an initial grant of $48.5 million from the Smith Richardson Foundation. Id. As far as I can tell, this reorganization was tax-related but I’m not sure.

The Randolph Foundation has been involved in a handful of lawsuits. Randolph Foundation v. Duncan, No. 00Civ.6445, 2002 WL 32862 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 11, 2002) is a case brought by the Foundation against their attorney for breach of fiduciary duty. There is no reported outcome in this case.

The Randolph Foundation was also involved in a legal dispute as the Smith Richardson Foundation. Randolph Foundation v. Appeal From Probate Court of Westport, No. X05CV980167903S, 2001 WL 418059 (Conn. Super Ct. April 3, 2001). This is a consolidation of five cases which ultimately determined that the Foundation is not a legal entity and does not have standing to sue or be sued in Connecticut.

The Olin Foundation was founded in 1953. JOHN M. OLIN FOUNDATION, INC., History & General Purposes, at http://www.jmof.org/history_purposes.html. An interesting feature of this Foundation is that it has announced its intention to shut down operation. Id. (“John Olin did not intend for his foundation to exist in perpetuity, but rather to close its doors by the time those trustees who best knew his philanthropic ideals had retired.”) To effectuate the plans to disband the Foundation, the Foundation no longer takes unsolicited applications. Id.

Much of the Olin Foundation’s focus is on university program funding. PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION, BUYING A MOVEMENT 18, available at http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052. Harvard, University of Chicago, University of Virginia, MIT, and Johns Hopkins are all recipients of substantial Olin grants. Id.

In accordance with the Foundation’s plans to disband, its grant totals have decreased from 2001-2003. JOHN M. OLIN FOUNDATION, INC., Schedule of Grants, at http://www.jmof.org/grants_1996.html (showing grants totaling $20 million per year from 1998-2001, $17 million in 2002 and $11 million in 2003.) The Foundation gave $300,000 in 2003, $150,000 in 2002 and $365,000 in 2001 to CSPC. Id.

I am unable to find much information on the Pope Foundation. The Foundation is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina and was recently in the news for debate over a grant to the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill. See, e.g., Jane Stancill, Funding Source Rankles, THE NEWS & OBSERVER (Raleigh, NC), Nov. 16, 2004, available at http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1833763p-8149527c.html. The conservative nature of the Foundation was a primary reason for the protests. Id.

I am unable to find much information on the Krieble Foundation. The namesake made his money through the invention of an industrial adhesive for bonding metals. See Bronwyn Chester, Krieble Gift Advances Trottier Building, 33 MCGILL REPORTER 15 (Apr. 19, 2001), available at http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/33/15/krieble/.

The Foundation has $12 million in assets as of 2003. See VERNON K. KRIEBLE FOUNDATION, IRS Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation (2003), available at http://fdncenter.org/cgi-bin/findershow.cgi?id=KRIE002. In 2003, the Foundation granted $55,000 to CSPC, with a total grant program of approximately $1 million for the year. Id.

The Castle Rock Foundation is a separate entity created from unrestricted funds originally in the Adolph Coors Foundation. See Castle Rock Foundation, at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/castle_rock.htm. The “restricted” funds in the Adolph Coors Foundation were designated for use in Colorado. See id. Therefore, Castle Rock is a nationwide foundation.

The Coors family provided $250,000 in start-up funds for the creation of the Heritage Foundation and also helped to found the Free Congress Foundation. Id. Castle Rock continues to provide substantial funding to Heritage and Free Congress. Id.

“The Coors name was tarnished during a 10-year boycott instigated by the AFL-CIO in 1977. Since that time, the family and corporation have received condemnation from a variety of minority, gay and women’s rights groups, environmental activists and student associations for their support of conservative organizations and their often overtly racist and homophobic comments.” Id. It is argued that the establishment of Castle Rock, while the Coors Foundation has started funding less controversial projects, is “a clear façade being created by the family.” See, e.g., id. In fact, the Board of Directors for both Foundations is identical. Compare CASTLE ROCK FOUNDATION, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, available at http://www.castlerockfoundation.org/Board.asp with ADOLPH COORS FOUNDATION, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, available at http://www.adolphcoors.org/Board.asp.

“[T]he Coors family is highly influential in shaping the activities of three organizational pillars of the New Right–the Heritage Foundation, the Free Congress Foundation and the Council for National Policy–that constitute an influential force in Washington, D.C. Involvement with these key groups provides the Coors family with a conservative political base. From this base, the family is connected to prominent activists in other New Right organizations, to groups on the Religious Right, and to allies in governmental agencies and in Congress.” See Castle Rock Foundation, at http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/castle_rock.htm (citing PROJECT TOCSIN, Questions for the Coors Company and the Translesbigay Community, at http://www.rthoughtsrfree.org/tcnfredcrs.htm (link no longer works)).

In 2003, Castle Rock provided a total of approximately $2 million in grants while maintaining approximately $50 million in assets. See CASTLE ROCK FOUNDATION, 2003 ANNUAL REPORT (2003), available at http://www.castlerockfoundation.org/CR2003AR.pdf. Interestingly, the annual report does not list CSPC as a grant recipient. Id. Nor is CSPC listed on the Castle Rock website as a grant recipient. See CASTLE ROCK FOUNDATION, List of Grant Recipiants[sic], at http://www.castlerockfoundation.org/links.asp.

There is not much available information about the Hooper Foundation other than the fact that Bruce Hooper is the chairman of the foundation. See MARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, Board of Trustees, at http://www.mcuf.org/board_hooper.asp.

The Foundation had $13 million in assets as of June, 2004. See ELIZABETH S. HOOPER FOUNDATION, IRS FORM 990-PF (2003), available at http://fdncenter.org/cgibin /findershow.cgi?id=HOOP001. The Foundation awarded nearly $2 million in grants, with $9,000 to CSPC during the year. Id.

There are 12 foundations that are called, in some way, the Jacobs Family Foundation. See Foundation Finder Query, at http://lnp.fdncenter.org/cgi-in/findersearch.cgi ?foundationname= jacobs&foundationcity=&foundationstate=&submit=Find (last visited Apr. 4, 2005). The information that follows is the only Jacobs Family Foundation that gave money to CSPC.

The Foundation was created in 1988. See JACOBS FAMILY FOUNDATION, About Us, at http://www.jacobsfamilyfoundation.org/about_us.html. The main emphasis of the Foundation is an area of San Diego called the “Diamond Neighborhoods.” Id. The Foundation is headquartered in this neighborhood and has a “sunset clause” that will cause the Foundation to cease operations in about 25 years. Id.

The Foundation has approximately $40 million in assets. See JACOBS FAMILY FOUNDATION, Statements of Financial Position, at http://www.jacobsfamilyfoundation.org/financial_report.html. While there is no mention on the Foundation’s website of any contribution to CSPC, the Foundation claimed a $10,000 grant on their 2004 IRS Form 990-PF. Compare JACOBS FAMILY FOUNDATION, Cash Grants, at http://www.jacobsfamilyfoundation.org/grant_summary.html with JACOBS FAMILY FOUNDATION, IRS FORM 990-PF (2004), available at http://fdncenter.org/cgi-bin/findershow.cgi?id=JACO075. It seems to be a consistent $10K annual grant to CSPC. See, e.g., JACOBS FAMILY FOUNDATION, IRS FORM 990-PF (2002 & 2003), available at http://fdncenter.org/cgi-bin/findershow.cgi?id=JACO075.

[1] Phil Wilayto is a freelance investigative journalist. His most well-known report is The Feeding Trough: The Bradley Foundation, the Bell Curve and the Real Story Behind Wisconsin’s National Model for Welfare Reform (1997). This report was dismissed as inaccurate by the President of the Bradley Foundation who denied influencing the Foundation’s writers (i.e. Charles Murray) in their thoughts and ideas. The author of this memo is awaiting a more detailed biography from Mr. Wilayto and will submit his biography when it is received.

[te1]This sentence doesn't made sense to me. What are the Bradley, Olin, etc? Are the individuals? Organizations?