Corporate Donations
Corporate donations to prestigious institutions and the political sphere can influence laws and policies. Tufts has received contributions from donors with questionable past funding efforts, including the John Templeton Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation, who have together donated over $9 million to the university. Both organizations have contributed to initiatives at other institutions that further their private interests and politics; the John Templeton Foundation has a demonstrated history of funding racially divisive and religiously inflammatory scholarship.
On a state level, extensive lobbyist and corporate spending was directed towards the Massachusetts Charter School Expansion Initiative in the 2010s, which would have expanded the enrollment of students into charter schools or the number of charter schools. The pro-charter side spent over $24 million, including substantial donations from Michael Bloomberg and the Walton Family. In spite of this expensive campaign, the ballot measure was voted against in 2016.
Nationally, LittleSis, a corporate watchdog dedicated to investigating the connections between powerful people and organizations they support, has mapped out the corporations, including tech, fossil fuels, communication, finance, and retail, that have funded police foundations all over the United States. In addition to donations, corporate power can also influence politics through corporate-backed think tanks and advocacy groups, as well as lobbying.
In 2010, the landscape of political donations witnessed a massive expansion. In the case Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend unlimited money on campaigns, with Justice Kennedy writing that limiting their spending is a first amendment violation.
Political donations are classified as either “hard” or “soft.” Hard money is any money donated directly to a candidate and their campaign. This money may come from either an individual or a Political Action Committee (PAC) and is subject to limits established and enforced by the FEC. Individuals are allowed to donate up to $2,800 to a single candidate per election cycle, while multicandidate PACs can donate up to $5,000. Soft money is money not subject to these FEC limits that is donated to a political party or a PAC. Super PACs are not allowed to donate directly to or coordinate efforts with campaigns or political parties, but they are allowed to raise and spend unlimited sums of money on political activities such as polling and advertisements. Because they are not subject to federal limits on the amount of money they take in, these groups are often funded primarily by a few individuals or corporations.
To combat these concerted efforts from the corporate sector, we must focus on responding proactively, by understanding what — and who — we are up against. A crucial step in doing so is power research — investigative research that follows the money and connects the dots between key players in the power structure. “Who wins?”, “who benefits?”, “who governs?”, “who backs them?”, “who do they serve?”, and “who do they protect?” are all questions that power research answers. Training in power mapping research amplifies issue-based campaigns by allowing organizers to identify and partner with other groups and community members who oppose the same forces. Building these coalitions is vital for any campaign to achieve its goals, particularly when it is up against organized, resourceful, and well-connected entities. If you want to start doing power research, there are many toolkits available on the internet, such as those compiled by LittleSis and Corporate Research Project.