Sunday, August 31, 2014

Donational Influence

Soros Clones: 5 Liberal Mega-Donors Nearly as Dangerous as George Soros

From Buffett to Bloomberg, top left-wing supporters give $2.7 billion to push a liberal agenda.
Published: 8/26/2014 10:30 AM ET

Subscribe to Mike Ciandella

By Mike Ciandella
Staff Writer/Analyst for the Business and Media Institute
  • Print This Article
As the 2014 midterm elections approached, the media were quick to criticize conservative donors like the Koch brothers for backing issues important to them. But journalists largely ignored the incredible financial power being used to promote the liberal agenda.
Five top donors – Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Pierre Omidyar, Tom Steyer and George Soros’s own son, Jonathan – are major funders of the left. Together, they have contributed at least $2.7 billion since 2000 to groups pushing abortion, gun control, climate change alarmism and liberal candidates.
That’s not how major media depicted them. Broadcast networks applauded when billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer promised $100 million to influence environmental policy. CBS News praised Steyer for “giving back” and ABC News called the billionaire an “everyman.”
Steyer wasn’t alone. Buffett has donated more than $1.2 billion to the abortion industry, with contributions stretching back until at least 1989. Yet, since 2001, ABC, CBS and NBC have only mentioned Buffett’s abortion funding once, out of 545 stories about him or interviews with him. And when former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg promised to devote $50 million to limit American gun rights, the networks praised his efforts as “grassroots” and as a way to “combat gun violence.”
All five donors were also actively involved with media. Collectively they either supported or owned 88 separate media outlets. Those organizations had a combined print circulation of 3.6 million and a digital circulation several times larger.
The Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute thoroughly researched these five top liberal donors. The findings included:
  • 46 Newspapers in Swing States, 88 Total Media Outlets: Soros and his allies learned long ago that those who control the media control the national conversation. Buffett made headlines, in more ways than one, when he began buying up 75 small and mid-sized newspapers throughout the country. Bloomberg and Omidyar also own small media empires in their own right, while Steyer and the younger Soros have poured millions into liberal media outlets including Mother Jones, Media Matters and Think Progress.
  • $2.7 Billion to Push Liberal Causes: Tom Steyer promised to spend $100 million to “make climate change a top-tier issue” in the 2014 election, and donated at least $20 million to political campaigns in 2012 alone. Buffett gave more than $1.2 billion to pro-abortion groups. Bloomberg pledged $50 million to campaign against gun rights and Omidyar donated a whopping $286 million to his favorite liberal causes. Meanwhile, George Soros’ son, Jonathan, is funneling millions through his Friends of Democracy PAC to unseat conservative politicians.
  • No Negative Network Coverage: Although ABC, CBS and NBC have mentioned Buffett in 545 stories since January 2001, the three broadcast networks only once alluded to his connection with abortion during their morning and evening news shows. These same three networks praised Bloomberg for his $50 million “grassroots” effort to fight the NRA, and dubbed Steyer and Jonathan Soros an antidote to the “secretive” Koch brothers. Omidyar hasn’t even been mentioned by the networks since 2011.
Recommendations for Journalists
The Business and Media Institute has the following recommendations for journalists who are reporting on political organizations, donors and funding.

  • Follow the Money: Liberal billionaires funded a wide range of political organizations and media groups. These groups were then considered authorities by major media outlets, including ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Instead, reporters should challenge the biases of these groups.
  • Treat Public Figures Equally: Media outlets are quick to report on funding by Charles and David Koch to conservative organizations, but they often completely ignore the wide range of funding by liberal donors. Among them, these five liberal donors are worth more than $109 billion dollars, and they aren’t alone.
  • Dig Into Backgrounds of Both Sides: The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states that journalists should “Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” It is incumbent upon journalists to analyze the background and funding sources for groups and individuals on both ends of the political spectrum
http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/soros-clones-5-liberal-mega-donors-nearly-dangerous-george-soros?page=2
Hefty financial contributions have become a hot button political issue. In June, 2014, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., complained about the impact of such contributions in politics. He claimed Democrats were at a disadvantage because their “side doesn’t have many billionaires.”
That claim wildly understated the reality of big money in left-wing politics. Liberal billionaire George Soros alone gave $550 million to left-wing causes from 2001 to 2011. And that figure excluded his direct political contributions. 
Soros was not alone in spending big bucks to make a big political impact. Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Pierre Omidyar and George Soros’ son Jonathan were only five of the many other power players who funded the left. These liberal donors contributed more than $2.7 billion since 2000 to fund their favorite left-wing causes through an intricate system of foundations, nonprofits, policy groups and political campaigns. 
Two of the five – Buffett and Bloomberg – were household names who have received positive news coverage for several years. But all five wielded great influence in liberal politics and journalism. Collectively, they owned or supported 88 media outlets with a combined circulation of 3.6 million. More than half of those outlets, 46 in all, were in the crucial election swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Iowa and Virginia. 
But media outlets were only part of their influence. Together, these donors also focused on the key political issues of abortion, gun control, climate-change alarmism and limiting political contributions. And they didn’t just use their own deep pockets either – these men were quick to find like-minded allies to help them fund the liberal agenda. 
A leaked 2013 briefing book from a coalition of liberal bankrollers known as the DemocracyAlliance revealed a lot about the strategy of the powers behind the left. “Progressives’ long term success hinges on our ability to fundamentally change our current political system – including large questions about who can vote, the role money should play in politics, and what our courts look like,” the briefing stated. 
The Democracy Alliance, founded in part by liberal billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis, seeks to coordinate the donations of dozens of wealthy liberals including eco-activist billionaire Steyer and Soros’ own son, Jonathan. The Alliance encourages its supporters to donate to 172 liberal groups that made up a “Progressive Infrastructure Map.” 
On abortion, Buffett was king. His foundation donated $1.2 billion to abortion groups worldwide, while Bloomberg promised $50 million dollars to target American gun rights. 
EBay founder Pierre Omidyar used $250 million of his extensive personal resources to launch his own journalism organization, First Look Media. It became a platform for anti-American reporter Glenn Greenwald, whom NSA-leaker Edward Snowden entrusted with many of his stolen secrets. Greenwald has been an outspoken critic of Israel, and defender of Hamas. He accused the U.S. government of seeking to “enable Israeli aggression” during the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in July 2014. 
So far, none of the five liberal donors have matched Soros’ overall charity contributions of more than $9 billion. However, out of all the liberal millionaires and billionaires who pour their money into left-wing causes, these five had substantial influence on the liberal agenda, and received consistently positive treatment from the media.
Here’s the anti- Common Purpose:
Here in the US we have loads of similar orgs. You can find them in David Horowitz’ pages:
We have so many leftist groups, from quasi governmental groups like ACORN, or the aggressive
 Planned Parenthood, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or George Soros’ infamous Open 
Society (not sure that’s the right name) or Theresa Heinz Kerry’s Tides. And the list goes on, as
 you can see from that fascinating page of people and topics.
There are groups and individuals on the Right, too, who are invested in spreading their own
 point of view. But the money poured into these leftist advocacy groups shows what 
conservatives are up against. And yet despite the billions spent to turn us, the right has shown
 resiliency – in fact, it’s amazing that the electorate is considered largely Center…Right. What is
 troubling is not that the lefties are prevailing but that the eligible voters are simply not
 showing
 up anymore. They figure the fix is in, why bother? – and that quietism is disturbing. If they
 continue to work at the local level, we’ll muddle through. But if they throw in all their cards, it
 won’t be pretty.
Here’s an interesting list from Networks, the Leftwing Millionaire’s Club:
It is amusing (kind of) to watch the Far Left Wing Loonies go ballistic over the infamous Koch
 Brothers for daring to sponsor conservative initiatives. Just shows us how well the MSM has
 done its job that the lefties’ money groups never come up for mention or scrutiny. Their motto
 seems to be, “you don’t bite the hand that feeds you, or the hand you’re hoping will someday
 feed you”.
Meanwhile, many of the middle class average people who support, say, the Tea Party’s ideas re
 small government and lower taxes are demonized, including by the Republicans – the irony
 being that those folks are the only “base” the GOP has. Everyone else is busy back-pedaling
 against the Me Too Party. When you hear the TP is failing, remember that many have gone
 underground now, or changed their names. The energy is still there, though not much among
 the disaffected young who have been hampered from attaining full-fledged adulthood.
To give you an idea of just a small part of Soros’ work, here’s a piece we got to see personally: in 2008, ol’ George had one of his acolytes stop his “social media” work to run against our long-term incumbent Congressional representative. This was during Obama’s first election and the fellow simply rode BHO’s coattails into office, getting rid of an icon who had served with integrity. The liberals worked thru countless campaigns every two years trying to oust Virgil Goode, to no avail. But those were some big coattails and Soros financed this new guy’s run. The latter coasted in and lasted one term. You could tell he hated working this red-neck district; even more worrisome, this Soros boy Yale lawyer thought the Constitution said our rights were government-given…I know this because I and several other asked him.
This fellow’s name was Tom Something-or-Other and last I heard he’d returned to making up, oops, I mean creating “groups” in social media. You know, the kind that urge the well-meaning dupes to sign petitions for the environment and such. Or maybe he went to Africa for UN legal aid support groups…all paid by Soros, the man who financed his fellowship at Yale.
…Tom only served one two-year term because by the next election people were already tired of the coattails-type’ reps so they were tossed – at least in a lot of “Leans Republican” districts in favor of party hacks drawn from state legislatures. The old dependable GOP serve-your-turn-and-you-can-move-up deal that exists in many places.
Which is what we have now. Which is how we got a generation of loser GOP presidential candidates. Not that the opposition was much better. Al Gore? John Kerry? Until the Numinous Negro came along and changed the game. Or at least his handlers did. The question remains, though: did he change things or is he simply a one-off??
Enjoy those “Networks” pages. They are truly a public treasure.
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)