Think tanks: independent idea generators or policy driven public relations propagators?

Just how close-minded are think tanks? “Universities without students” have turned into lobby markets without scruples. Think tanks are a powerful voice in the political scene, particularly in the legislative branch. They can push a donor’s specific agendas without retribution (although individuals working within a think tank can lose their jobs if they offend a donor). Similar to the decades of pressure that women have faced in the workplace, staying silent simply due to this pressure of power and the fear of losing their jobs, think tankers seem to be up against a similar challenge. In a sense, these atmospheres create a type of reverse whistle-blowing: the inability to both perform and secure one’s job while retaining freedom of speech.

Although accusations have been denied, a recent case of the negative consequences of exercising one’s First Amendment rights involved the leftist think tank New America. Funded largely by Google, New America had undergone a project called Open Markets that explored monopolies and ways to fight against them. The program director openly criticized Google as being monopolistic and soon after, the president of New America closed the Open Markets project down. Both Google and New America attest that the comments had nothing to do with the closing. Funding has devolved from grants, foundations, and discrete millionaires to wealthy business people, more commonly termed now as philanthro-capitalists.

Funding is a matter of survival but think tanks also enjoy the benefits of a tax-exempt status. Corporations share a similar advantage by being able to write off their donations as charitable contributions. Philanthro-capitalists often have specific interests and want to assure that their money is going toward that interest: targeted giving. According to documents containing thousands of internal memos and confidential correspondence obtained by the New York Times and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, the Brookings Institute and mega-corporations like JPMorgan Chase, K.K.R., the global investment firm, Microsoft, and Hitachi, “show that financial support often came with assurances from Brookings that it would provide ‘donation benefits,’ including setting up events featuring corporate executives with government officials.” Unfortunately, this is hardly an isolated happenstance.

Corporative funding of think tanks is an effective way to flip money: donate a few million and reap billions through passed legislation that directly benefit private interests. Think tanks have the ability of selling to donors the fact that they have access to politicians and therefore influence policy. Many have attempted to change the appearance of being bought off by becoming more transparent and refusing to accept anonymous contributions. Transparency is the best way to combat the power between corporations and political blocs. Although the public is well aware that lobbyists influence politics, scholars in think tanks must maintain their credibility as being independent intermediaries of policy.