search forgrantsrecipientsfunderspeoplewebsite
researcharound the webhot topicsissuesconservative philanthropyresources

RELATED LINKS

Internal Links

Grants to:

Acton Institute For The Study of Religion and Liberty

Profiles:

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Scaife Family Foundation
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Acton Institute For The Study of Religion and Liberty
Cato Institute

Related stories:

Original MT Report The Corporate/Think Tank Complex

Other internal:

Original MT Report Religious Sector Organizations
Original MT Report Faithbased Watch

External Links

Health Care Without Harm website

Cursor.org

MediaTransparency.org sponsor

More stories by Bill Berkowitz

PERC receives Templeton Freedom Award for promoting 'enviropreneurs'

Neil Bush of Saudi Arabia

Newt Gingrich's back door to the White House

American Enterprise Institute takes lead in agitating against Iran

After six years, opposition gaining on George W. Bush's Faith Based Initiative

Frank Luntz calls Republican leadership in Washington 'One giant whining windbag'

Spooked by MoveOn.org, conservative movement seeks to emulate liberal powerhouse

Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action jihad

Tom Tancredo's mission

Institute on Religion and Democracy slams 'Leftist' National Council of Churches

Media Transparency writers

Andrew J. Weaver
Andrew J. Weaver &
Nicole Seibert

Andrew J. Weaver, et. al.
Bill Berkowitz
Bryan G. Pfeifer
Dave Johnson
David Domke
David Neiwert
David Rubenstein
Dennis Redovich
Eric Alterman
Jerry Landay
Mark & Louise Zwick
Max Blumenthal
Michael Winship
Phil Wilayto
Rob Levine

Fundometer

Evaluate any page on the World Wide Web against our databases of people, recipients, and funders of the conservative movement.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Bill Berkowitz
December 14, 2003

Corporate captives

The Acton Institute attacks Health Care Without Harm and environmentally conscious religious activists

Health Care Without Harm is a Washington, DC-based environmental group that has taken more than its share of heat from the chemical industry over its campaigns against the use of mercury in medical equipment, the incineration of highly toxic medical waste and the use of pesticides, cleaners and disinfectants.

In recent weeks, a conservative religious public policy group has attacked not only the organization, but also religious leaders that support the group's campaign against the use of PVC, or vinyl plastic - the most widely used plastic in medical devices which Health Care Without Harm maintains is "harmful to patients, the environment and public health."

The Rev. Gerald Zandstra, director of the Center for Entrepreneurial Stewardship at the Acton Institute, has authored a far-ranging broadside warning religious leaders to be on their guard against "being used by radical environmental, leftist, organizations to whom they lend moral legitimacy," for their anti-corporate campaigns.

In an essay entitled "Religious Leaders and Social Activism: Prophets or Captives?" the Rev. Zandstra, an ordained pastor in the Christian Reformed Church in North America, maintains that "Religious leaders are always in danger of being 'captured' by someone with a cause" because they have become important players, often lending "moral legitimacy" to a particular campaign.

The Rev. Zandstra and the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty have been imparting their own "moral legitimacy" to corporations for more than a decade. In May of this year, the Rev. Zandstra and Father Robert Sirico, the president of the Grand Rapids, Michigan-based Institute, spoke against environmental and human rights resolutions brought by a number of religious organizations at the oil company's annual shareholders meeting.

At the meeting, the Rev. Zandstra - who in his current piece unapologetically acknowledges speaking against the "captured" priests and nuns - claimed that the religious activists were trying to "set the ethical tone for Exxon Mobil because [they believe] you [the company] cannot do it for yourselves." Religious activists believe that "our nation (sic) business leaders must be soulless, heartless creatures who, if left to their own devices would merely rape and pillage." He also praised the company for its "excellent" record "in human rights" and its "excellent" record in the environment.

In another recent article, the Rev. Zandstra pointed out that Protestant pastors responding to his survey overwhelmingly concurred with the statement "Without close government supervision, corporations will abuse their power." While admitting that the Enron and WorldCom scandals may have fueled suspicion of corporations, the Rev. Zandstra believes that corporate leaders are falsely characterized as being predominantly concerned with profit-making, the bottom line and adding to their personal portfolios.

At a recent weekend getaway with corporate leaders from a number of countries, the Rev. Zandstra found that these leaders were mainly concerned with "value creation," how to "add economic value to their companies for the benefit of shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers and society."

But why is the Acton Institute waging war against religious social activists?

"I think the attack points to our success in working with the religious community," Stacy Malkan, Communications Director for Health Care Without Harm told me in a telephone interview. "We have been very successful mobilizing the religious community for our campaigns because they are deeply concerned with health care issues and the environment. Our religious partners would no doubt be insulted by charges that they are dupes of the organization and the campaign."

Here's a little background on the Acton Institute: Founded in 1990 by Father Sirico and Kris Alan Mauren, the Institute has become an important player in public policy debates and helps lead the attack against socially responsible clergy. Father Sirico has advised President Bush on "charitable choice" and was an early supporter of "welfare reform"; he edited a book for the Vatican aimed at reordering the Catholic Church's tradition of social justice teachings; and he helped launch the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), a coalition of right-wing religious leaders aiming to counteract liberal environmental groups.

Since its founding, the Institute has been fed handsomely by a gaggle of right wing foundations: Between 1991 and 2001, it received more than $2.5 million in grants from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Earhart Foundation, the Scaife Family Foundation and John M. Olin Foundation, according to Media Transparency, a website that tracks "the money behind conservativemedia."

In a recent op-ed piece in the Detroit News Father Robert Sirico, the Acton Institute's president, spelled out his philosophy: "Unnecessary regulation" and forcing companies "to cede their corporate governance to national and supra-national authorities" forces "creative initiative" to be "replaced with passivity...rather than innovation." In the end, this "results in less competition, loss of market share, higher consumer prices and increased unemployment."

While the Rev. Zandstra supports the involvement of religious leaders in social issues, he warns that they need to question the agenda of the organizations they work with. "If the ideas being proposed stem from sound theological commitments, then the religious spokesman stands on sure ground," the Rev. Zandstra writes. "If, however, the cause is basically secular, the religious leader can be seen as simply trying to inject religious language into a non- (or even anti-) religious agenda."

What are the Rev. Zandstra's problems with Health Care Without Harm, Building In Good Faith - one of the anti-PVC campaign partners - and the environmental health movement? They start "from a largely secular environmental philosophy, and seek to import religious justification," and, he argues, "this campaign to phase out vinyl building materials is just one piece of the greater anti-vinyl movement." The actual agenda of Health Care Without Harm is the elimination of PVC from healthcare facilities, in effect harming patients who need the materials, says the Rev. Zandstra. "This is quite simply an ideological crusade based not on concerns for human beings, but rather on an irrational bias against all things 'artificial,'" the Rev. Zandstra charges. "This is where the secular and naturalistic agenda of these groups becomes apparent."

"The tragic part is that many of these religious leaders intend to do good," the Rev. Zandstra writes. "Unaware of economic or scientific realities, they fail to calculate the 'unintended consequences' of the policies that they advocate. They risk being used by more sophisticated people on the hard left who wrap their agenda around religion. Religious leaders need to be more careful not to lend moral legitimacy to harmful economic and environmental policies that, if put into full effect, would have devastating consequences."

The subtext of the Rev. Zandstra's agenda is less about environmental and health care realities and more related to protecting industry. In late October, the Acton Institute's report entitled "Health Care Without Harm - or Harming Health Care?" written by Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist, maintained that "a long running campaign to rid hospitals and other health care facilities of medical vinyl products...has dangerously overstated the risks associated with vinyl use and diverted attention from much more serious health threats."

Health Care Without Harm counters that the US Food and Drug Administration and National Toxicology Program have warned that DEHP, a toxic additive that leaches from vinyl medical devices, can be harmful to certain patients, including sick infants and pregnant women undergoing high risk procedures. "Why should the most vulnerable patients be exposed to potentially dangerous devices when non-vinyl plastic devices that don't leach toxic additives are available?" Stacy Malkan said.

The Acton report "reflects its discomfort with religious organizations participating in a campaign to shape corporate decision making and its comfort with working closely with corporations," notes a Health Care Without Harm critique. "The purpose ... appears to be to drive a wedge between HCWH and member religious organizations and others by labeling HCWH an extremist organization."

The HCWH website maintains it is "an international coalition of 431 organizations in 52 countries working to transform the health care industry so it is no longer a source of harm to people and the environment."

According to Malkan, the organization has "a mainstream and common sense environmental agenda which includes working with the Environmental Protection Agency on Hospitals for a Healthy Environment - a four-way partnership with the American Hospital Association, and the American Nurses Association - which is aimed at having health care facilities agree to phase out the use of mercury and reduce wastes, and reduce persistent organic pollutants."

"Health Care Without Harm is committed to bringing together a broad coalition of folks including health care providers, unions, religious leaders and environmental activists," says Stacy Malkan. "We are an issue-oriented organization and not the so-called usual suspects as the Acton Institute has charged."

Shortly after the Institute attacked Health Care Without Harm, "Health Progress," The Official Journal of The Catholic Health Association of the United States devoted a special section of its November/December issue to "Environmental Responsibility and the Ministry."

Sr. Sharon Zayac, OP, director of the Illinois-based Benincasa Ministries, wrote: "We will not be true providers of health care until we understand that our well-being is contingent upon clean air and water, healthy soils and food, toxin-free clothing and plastics and metals and building materials...We have an obligation to speak out for the health of the entire household.

And if the very buildings in which we gather the sick are not healthy, what service do we provide? We must take on the task of reducing or eliminating what we can and challenging the many industries who supply us to live up to their responsibilities as well."

Printer friendly

sign in, or register to email stories or comment on them.

divider

 

 

MORE ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Bill Berkowitz
March 16, 2007

PERC receives Templeton Freedom Award for promoting 'enviropreneurs'

Right Wing foundation-funded anti-environmental think tank grabbing a wider audience for 'free market environmentalism'

On the 15th anniversary of Terry Anderson and Donald Leal's book "Free Market Environmentalism" -- the seminal book on the subject -- Anderson, the Executive Director of the Bozeman, Montana-based Property and Environment Research Center (PERC - formerly known as the Political Economy Research Center) spoke in late-January at an event sponsored by Squaw Valley Institute at the Resort at Squaw Creek in California. While it may have been just another opportunity to speak on "free market environmentalism" and not the kickoff of a "victory tour," nevertheless it comes at a time when PERC's ideas are taking root.

In a story written just before Anderson's northern California appearance, Truckee Today's Karen Sloan described PERC as an organization that "contends that private property rights encourage good stewardship of natural resources." The story, headlined "'Enviroprenuer' scholar to speak at Resort at Squaw Creek," pointed out that "PERC scholars argue that government subsidies often degrade the environment, that market incentives can spur individuals to conserve and protect the environment and that polluters should be liable for the harm they cause others."

On its website, PERC -- a non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1980 -- calls itself "the nation's oldest and largest institute dedicated to original research that brings market principles to resolving environmental problems." PERC maintains that it "pioneered the approach known as free market environmentalism."

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
March 10, 2007

Neil Bush of Saudi Arabia

During recent visit, President’s brother describes the country as a 'kind of tribal democracy'

In late February, only a few days after Saudi Arabia beheaded four Sri Lankan robbers and then left their headless bodies on public display in the capital of Riyadh, Neil Bush, for the fourth time in the past six years, showed up for the country's Jeddah Economic Forum. The Guardian reported that Human Rights Watch "said the four men had no lawyers during their trial and sentencing, and were denied other basic legal rights." In an interview with Arab News, the Saudi English language paper, Bush described the country as "a kind of tribal democracy."

Neil Mallon Bush, the son of President George H. W. Bush and the brother of President George W. Bush, attended the forum to renew old family friendships and to drum up a little business for his educational software company. "The Jeddah Economic Forum has been very productive," Bush told Arab News. "I have been to this conference four times since 2002. I have seen it develop from the very beginning. There was less participation in the past, now there is more international participation."

These days, Neil Bush is the chairman and CEO of Ignite Learning, a company devoted to developing technology-assisted curriculum. Ignite calls it COW: "Curriculum on Wheels." In an interview with Arab News' Siraj Wahab, Bush talked enthusiastically about his company's mission: "We are building a model in the United States for developing curriculum that is engaging to grade-school kids, and our model is to deploy this engaging content through a device. So it is easy for any teacher to use our device through projectors and speakers. The curriculum is loaded on the device. We use animation and video and those kinds of things to light up learning in classrooms for kids. It helps teachers connect with their kids. We are planning to develop an Arabic version of that model."

A video on Ignite!'s website makes clear the enervating, rote approach to learning taken by the Bush family. While this may not be an advance in actual education, it does serve to enrich Neil Bush and commodify teachers. In concept it is much like Channel One, whereby Chris Whittle enriched himself forcing millions of primary school students to watch repackaged TV News sandwiched between corporate advertising.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
March 2, 2007

Newt Gingrich's back door to the White House

American Enterprise Institute "Scholar" and former House Speaker blames media for poll showing 64 percent of the American people wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances

Whatever it is that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has come to represent in American politics, the guy is nothing less than fascinating. One day he's espousing populist rhetoric about the need to cut the costs of college tuition and the next day he's talking World War III. One day he's claiming that the "war on terror" may force the abridgement of fundamental first amendment rights and the next he's advancing a twenty-first century version of his Contract with America. At the same time he's publicly proclaiming how "stupid" it is that the race for the presidency has already started you know that he's trying to figure out how to out finesse Rudy, McCain and Romney for the nomination. And last week, when Fox News' Chris Wallace cited a poll showing that 64 percent of the public would never vote for him, he was quick to blame those results on how unfairly he was treated by the mainstream media back in the day.

These days, Gingrich, who is simultaneously a "Senior Fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute and a "Distinguished Visiting Fellow" at the Hoover Institution, is making like your favorite uncle, fronting a YouTube video contest offering "prizes" to whoever creates the best two-minute video on why taxes suck. Although the prizes may not be particularly attractive to the typical YouTuber, nevertheless Gingrich recently launched the "Winning the Future, Goose that laid the Golden Egg, You Tube Contest." According to Newt.org, participants are to "Create a 120 second video explaining why tax increases will hurt the American economy, leading to less revenue for the government, not more. Or in other words, explain why we shouldn't cook the goose that laid the golden eggs (the American economy) by raising taxes."

Although he hasn't formerly announced his candidacy -- and he probably won't anytime soon -- Gingrich definitely has his eyes on the White House. He's just still figuring out how he will get there. Over the past several months Gingrich has been ubiquitous on the media and political scenes.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
February 25, 2007

American Enterprise Institute takes lead in agitating against Iran

Despite wrongheaded predictions about the war on Iraq, neocons are on the frontlines advocating military conflict with Iran

After doing such a bang up job with their advice and predictions about the outcome of the war on Iraq, would it surprise you to learn that America's neoconservatives are still in business? While at this time we are not yet seeing the same intense neocon invasion of our living rooms -- via cable television's news networks -- that we saw during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, nevertheless, a host of policy analysts at conservative think tanks -- most notably the American Enterprise Institute -- are being heeded on Iran by those who count - folks inside the Bush Administration.

Long before the Bush Administration began escalating its rhetoric and upping the ante about the supposed "threat" posed to the US by Iran, well-paid inside-the-beltway think tankers were agitating for some kind of action against that country. Some have argued for ratcheting up sanctions and freezing bank accounts, others have advocated increasing financial aid to opposition groups, and still others have argued that a military strike at Iran's nuclear facilities is absolutely essential. For all, the desired end result is regime change in Iran.

If President Bush plunges the U.S. into some kind of military conflict with Iran, you can thank the Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a key player in the current debate over Iran.

President Bush acknowledged as much when he recently appeared at the AEI for a much-publicized speech on his War on Terror, which focused on the front in Afghanistan.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
February 18, 2007

After six years, opposition gaining on George W. Bush's Faith Based Initiative

Unmentioned in the president's State of the Union speech, the program nevertheless continues to recruit religious participants and hand out taxpayer money to religious groups

With several domestic policy proposals unceremoniously folded into President Bush's recent State of the Union address, two pretty significant items failed to make the cut. Despite the president's egregiously tardy response to the event itself, it was nevertheless surprising that he didn't even mention Hurricane Katrina: He didn't offer up a progress report, words of hope to the victims, or come up with a proposal for moving the sluggish rebuilding effort forward. There were no "armies of compassion" ready to be unleashed, although it should be said that many in the religious community responded to the disaster much quicker than the Bush Administration. In the State of the Union address, however, there was no "compassionate conservatism" for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The other item that didn't get any State of the Union play is a project that was once envisioned to be the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda: his faith-based initiative. As Joseph Bottum, editor of the conservative publication First Things -- "The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life" -- pointed out, Bush "didn't mention faith-based initiatives, which...[he] once claimed would be his great legacy."

The president's faith-based initiative is facing several tough court battles.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
February 10, 2007

Frank Luntz calls Republican leadership in Washington 'One giant whining windbag'

On the outs with the GOP, legendary degrader of discourse is moving to California

He doesn't make great art; nothing he does elevates the human spirit; he doesn't illuminate, he bamboozles. He has become expert in subterfuge, hidden meanings, word play and manipulation. Frank Luntz has been so good at what he does that those paying close attention gave it its own name: "Luntzspeak."

In a 10-page addendum to his new book ""Words that Work -- It's Not What You Say Its What People Hear," Luntz, formerly a top political pollster for the Republican Party, may have written so critically of the party's recent efforts that he has become persona non grata. Luntz used to be one of the party's go-to-guys for political guidance and strategy, a counselor to such GOP stalwarts as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York City Major Rudy Giuliani and Trent Lott.

"The Republican Party that lost those historic elections was a tired, cranky shell of the articulate reformist, forward-thinking movement that was swept into office in 1994 on a wave of positive change," Luntz wrote. According to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, Luntz went on to say that the Republicans of 2006 "were an ethical morass, more interested in protecting their jobs than protecting the people they served. The 1994 Republicans came to 'revolutionize' Washington. Washington won."

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
February 4, 2007

Spooked by MoveOn.org, conservative movement seeks to emulate liberal powerhouse

Fueled with Silicon Valley money, TheVanguard.org will have Richard Poe, former editor of David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine as its editorial and creative director

As Paul Weyrich, a founding father of the modern conservative movement and still a prominent actor in it, likes to say, he learned a great deal about movement building by closely observing what liberals were up to in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Flash forward some 30-plus years and an Internet entrepreneur believes that it is time for a new conservative movement. He too has seen an entity on the left he admires enough to want to emulate: MoveOn.org.

"The left has been brilliant at leveraging technology," said Rod Martin, founder of TheVanguard.org, "and so have we to a point: our bloggers and news sites are amazing, and the RNC's get-out-the-vote software is unparalleled. But no one on our side has even begun to create anything like MoveOn. And after 2006, if we want to survive, much less build a long-term conservative majority, we better start, and fast."

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
January 29, 2007

Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action jihad

Founder and Chair of the American Civil Rights Institute scouting five to nine states for new anti-affirmative action initiatives

Fresh from his most recent victory -- in Michigan this past November -- Ward Connerly, the Black California-based maven of anti-affirmative action initiatives, appears to be preparing to take his jihad on the road. According to a mid-December report in the San Francisco Chronicle, Connerly said that he was "exploring moves into nine other states."

During a mid-December conference call Connerly allowed that he had scheduled visits to Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Wyoming and Utah during the upcoming months to get a handle on how many campaigns he might launch.

"Twenty-three states have systems for putting laws directly before voters in the form of ballot initiatives," the Chronicle pointed out. "Three down and 20 to go," Connerly boasted. "We don't need to do them all, but if we do a significant number, we will have demonstrated that race preferences are antithetical to the popular will of the American people."

"The people of California, Washington and Michigan have shown that institutions that implement these [affirmative action] programs are living on borrowed time," Connerly said.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
January 25, 2007

Tom Tancredo's mission

The Republican congressman from Colorado will try to woo GOP voters with anti-immigration rhetoric and a boatload of Christian right politics

These days, probably the most recognizable name in anti-immigration politics is Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo. Over the past year, Tancredo has gone from a little known congressman to a highly visible anti-immigration spokesperson. "Tancredo has thoroughly enmeshed himself in the anti-immigration movement and with the help of CNN talk show host Lou Dobbs, he has been given a national megaphone," Devin Burghart, the program director of the Building Democracy Initiative at the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based civil rights group, told Media Transparency.

Now, Tancredo, who has represented the state's Sixth District since 1999, has joined the long list of candidates contending for the GOP's 2008 presidential nomination. In mid-January Tancredo announced the formation of an exploratory committee -- Tom Tancredo for a Secure America -- the first step to formally declaring his candidacy. While his announcement didn't cause quite the stir as the announcement by Illinois Democratic Senator Barak Obama that he too was forming an exploratory committee, nevertheless Tancredo's move did not go completely unnoticed.

While voters' concerns over the war in Iraq and the GOP's "culture of corruption" predominated in the 2006 midterms, Tancredo will be doing his best to make immigration an issue for the presidential campaign of 2008.

Read the full report >

Bill Berkowitz
January 18, 2007

Institute on Religion and Democracy slams 'Leftist' National Council of Churches

New report from conservative foundation-funded IRD charges the NCC with being a political surrogate for MoveOn.org, People for the American Way and other liberal organizations

If you prefer your religious battles sprinkled with demagoguery, sanctimoniousness, and simplistic attacks, the Institute on Religion and Democracy's (IRD) latest broadside against the National Council of Churches (NCC) certainly fits the bill.

For those who remember a similar IRD-led attack on the World Council of Churches two decades ago the IRD's latest blast appears to be -- to borrow a phrase from New York Yankee great Yogi Berra -- "déjà vu all over again."

The IRD excoriated the World Council of Churches (WCC) for allegedly being tools of the anti-American left over its support of the Nelson Mandela-led African National Congress in South Africa, and its opposition to President Ronald Reagan's contra wars in Central America; wars that destabilized governments and were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. And now it is doing a similar job on the NCC.

"The institute, a Washington-based think tank, is allied with conservative groups on issues such as same-sex marriage. From its founding in 1981, its primary effort has been to challenge what it calls the 'leftist' political positions of mainline Protestant denominations, such as the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)," the Washington Post recently reported.

Author and longtime right wing watcher Frederick Clarkson recently described the IRD as an "inside the beltway, neoconservative agency [that] has waged a war of attrition against the historic mainline protestant churches in the U.S."

Read the full report >

View All Original Reseach >