# 25. Political / organisational tricks ## 25.5. Methodology/Refinements/Sub-species ## 25.5.6. Think Tanks A think tank is a notionally independent organisation which claims to carry out "research" on behalf of corporations, political parties and sometimes governments. They are also sometimes referred to as policy institutes. Their primary role is to perform research and advocacy on topics such as economics, social policy, technology, political strategy, military issues, and culture. Most think tanks are non-profit organisations. Other think tanks are funded by governments, advocacy groups, or businesses. Many derive revenue from consulting or research work related to their projects. There is much justifiable suspicion of the actions of think tanks. In the last 40 years, they have been central to some fairly undemocratic behaviour both in the Western world and outside on behalf of Western nations. **Characteristics:** To understand the climate of suspicion surrounding think tanks", it is useful to appreciate some of their common characteristics: > - **Donor anonymity:** The source of their funding is often kept secret. > - **Client anonymity:** They are not required to reveal their clients. > - **Immunity from retribution:** They are protected because they simply present the results of their "research". They have no legal liability for its rectitude. > - **Proxy action:** They often act as proxy agencies for the dirty work of their corporate sponsors because of their "untouchable" legal status. > - **Press support:** Most think tanks are also heavily supported by their co-opted (pet) journalists, so that think tank agendas move seamlessly to leader columns. > - **Secretive and unaccountable:** Mostly NGOs and "Not for profit", these think tanks" are accountable to no-one. > - **Openly deceitful:** Commonly these organisations claim to campaign on apparently worthy issues such as "freedom", "democracy", "open society" etc., whereas they have strict political agendas paid for by their secretive sponsors. > - **Used to influence lawmakers, no holds barred:** Frequently act as unofficial drafters of preferential laws for their sponsors as a service to lawmakers. > - **Corporate biases:** Think tanks exist on both sides of the political spectrum, but they are most concentrated on the right-wing. They are often active as implementers and propagandists of corporate policies for which they are handsomely financed. Central to their behaviour is the status of think tanks as "not for profit" or charitable status organisations. This status gives them advantages of confidentiality that corporate or governmental institutions cannot enjoy. Their use of this status is somewhat fraudulent, but there is little that can be done to change this, at present. Think tanks take money for "services rendered" from their anonymous clients and then use that money to deliver "other services" for their clients. Thus, they never show a profit and they act as largely anonymous agents of their clients, doing and saying things that the clients would otherwise be forbidden to do or say. Think tanks are most frequently found as the proxies of big capital. Moral position: In recent years, the ascendance of corporate power has started to alarm the general public and with some justification. The most recent economic meltdowns caused by a global, greedy, unregulated and irresponsible banking sector have diminished the trust of the ordinary man in the street for corporate governance. It is now the common perception that voluntary regulation simply does not function in a capitalist environment. It is rapidly becoming obvious that one of the greatest risks to the democratic state and its functions comes not from mob rule or leftwing insurrection, but from the very rich and the corporations they run. Corporations are viewed by much of the public as bandits roaming a global marketplace, paying no taxes and with little or no regulation. They admit to almost no corporate responsibility when things go wrong as they inevitably do. These forces of big capital have now redefined their assault on democratic governance. But there is no need for them to discuss the possibility of launching a military coup against democratic governments: the plutocrats of big capital have other means of turning the system, and one of their greatest tools is the neo-liberal think tank. Often think tanks use the language of insurrection: "Smashing things", "creative destruction", the "breaking of chains" and the "slipping of leashes". But in general their main objective is to free the rich from the constraints of democracy and law. **Examples:** Here are a couple of cases of manipulative behaviour from several conservative Think Tanks. There are many more: - **Smoking:** Think tanks have been used to influence legislation for and against smoking: For instance, the think tank called "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" was formed during the mid 1990s to dispute research findings which demonstrated an association between second-hand smoke and cancer. - **GM Food Labelling:** In late 2012, the attempt in California to have GM foods labelled as "GM" was defeated with the assistance of several think tanks and their public interventions: The Washington Legal Foundation, a free-market think tank, claimed that California's proposition 37 on GM labelling had "gone too far". The proposition 37 would have forced food producers to come clean about whether their products used GM products. As one proponent put it, "If Kellogg had been obliged to put a label on their packaging which stated that Corn Flakes were "Genetically modified", it would have been the kiss of death to their flagship product. Big Food Corp and their think tanks had to stop this at any price." And they did….. at least for now. - **Climate Change:** In May 2012, the conservative Heartland Institute used electronic billboards on highways into Chicago with various manipulative signs messages: One, using a quote, and an image of Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber" was displayed on the electronic billboard, saying "I still believe in global warming. Do you?"