Preview Newsletter
FF Transition - Week of 12/15 V2
-
ANALYSIS - HRW blind sensitivity no 'help' to terror victims
Dec 15, 2016 | Anadolu Agency
By Hakan Copur
Mentions Ford Foundation as a funder of Human Rights Watch along with Open Society Institute. The article discusses Kenneth Roth, who has been the executive director of Human Rights Watch since 1993, stating that he has come under fire for comments about the PKK and its affiliates. -
Financial Insecurity and the Election of Donald Trump
Dec 15, 2016 | Urban Institute
Mentions Ford Foundation as a funder in a separate "Project Credits" section. -
Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Flag ‘Disputed’ Stories
Dec 16, 2016 | Breitbart
By Aaron Klein
George Soros and a "slew of other left-wing funders" partner with Facebook to help determine whether a certain story is “disputed.” -
George Soros, Big Banks And Google Fund Anti-Trump Resistance Group
Dec 15, 2016 | The Daily Caller
By Justin Caruso
Reports that the Center for American Progress (funded by Geroge Soros and others) is now establishing itself as a powerful anti-Trump force. -
Will Trump’s Tax Plan Hurt Philanthropy?
Dec 15, 2016 | Fast Company
By Ben Paynter
The article does not mention specific foundations, but it reports on how the tax reform plan that Donald Trump ran on to get elected "carries something of a ticking time bomb for philanthropy."
Mentions of Ford Foundation
Mentions of Other Charitable Foundations
-
ANALYSIS - HRW blind sensitivity no 'help' to terror victims
Dec 15, 2016 | Anadolu Agency
By Hakan Copur
Kenneth Roth, who has been the executive director of Human Rights Watch since 1993, has come under fire for comments about the PKK and its affiliates.
Roth, assessing Turkey as a "semi-democracy" in its annual report, has been criticized for not distancing his group from the PKK -- listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the U.S., and the EU.
Human Rights Watch operates in more than 80 countries and is one of the world's leading international human rights bodies. But it uses "soft expressions" when referring to the terrorist group and its bloody attacks on Turkey.
While Roth criticized Ankara’s measures against the Fetullah Terrorist Organization and the PKK, alluding to “human rights” after the July 15 coup attempt in Turkey, his report was “indifferent” to the unjust suffering of Turkish victims who have been subjected to terror attacks by the PKK.
In a large part of the report, he goes out of his way to try to make a point that “Turkey oppressing opposition Kurdish groups” but avoids similar language when referring to the PKK -- raising questions about the fairness and objectivity of the HRW, its executive and a clear double standard the group has employed. HRW under Roth is no stranger to criticism, regularly lambasted for what observers say are biases and misrepresentations on a host of issues from Venezuela to African conflicts to Israel.
Roth’s tweets on social media following the Dec. 10 deadly twin bomb attacks in Istanbul sparked reactions.
Two days after the attacks killed at least 44 victims -- a number that could still rise -- he tweeted: “But there is not a reason for Kurdish militia to bomb civilians”.
The fact that he explicitly used “terrorism” in statements and pointed to Daesh after attacks in Paris in 2015 but failed to implement similar vocabulary for PKK terrorist attacks -- it brings to mind the so-called good terrorist versus bad terrorist debate.
Roth also shared on Dec. 8 a report by the New York Times that claimed the PKK group has as “gender equality”, further blurring the lines and failing to present the terror group in its proper light.
Roth, who has shown a sympathetic approach to PKK terrorists and its political extensions, appears not to have the same regard for victims – the dead and the wounded – of terror attacks.
-"Expressing sympathy towards PKK’s political views should not be a crime”
In reviewing claims on “Iraqi Kurdish Regional government blocking human aid for Ezidis in Sincar”, Roth ignored the existence of terror organizations in the region and said the “PKK’s existence is not an excuse”.
The statement appears to show Roth’s support for aid supplies for Ezidis, however, “not disturbed by PKK’s existence”.
Born in 1955, Roth graduated from the Yale University Law School.
As a lawyer, he has collaborated with human rights organizations since the 1970’s and joined HRW in 1987.
He has sat in the executive chair of the organization for nearly 24 years.
HRW originated in New York and its 2015 budget was more than $65 million.
The group is funded in part by big name donors that include George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation. In 2010, Soros pledged $100 million to HRW over the next 10 years.
-
Financial Insecurity and the Election of Donald Trump
Dec 15, 2016 | Urban Institute
MethodologyPercentage Clinton voters, percentage Trump voters
Data for the number of votes for Clinton and Trump come from Politico and the New York Times and are current as of November 23, except for nine counties in California, which were updated November 29 to reflect new counts. Percentages are calculated as the number of Trump or Clinton voters divided by the total presidential votes for the county. County-level data on voting for Alaska were not available, so the percentages for Alaska counties reflect the percentages for the entire state. All data from Politico and the New York Times were copied by hand; no automated methods were used.
Average credit score, percentage with subprime credit score, and percentage with debt in collections
Data on credit characteristics come from the Urban Institute’s database consisting of a nationally representative sample of data on more than five million consumers obtained from a major credit bureau. Data were collapsed at the county level. For the 4 percent of records missing county identification, county was assigned based on the city or zip code of residence. Counties with fewer than 50 observations in the credit bureau data were excluded.
Median household income, income inequality, percentage over age 25 with a bachelor’s degree or higher, percentage white, percentage black, percentage Hispanic, and homeownership rate
These data come from the American Community Survey. We start with data from the 2015 American Community Survey, which was available for approximately one quarter of counties but was suppressed for counties that did not have a sufficient sample size. For counties without sufficient population to be included in the one-year 2015 American Community Survey estimates, data from the 2010–14 five-year average were used. These data were accessed using the National Historical Geographic Information System.
Unemployment rate
Data on county-level unemployment come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Local Area Unemployment Statistics and are the 2015 annual averages.
-
Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Flag ‘Disputed’ Stories
Dec 16, 2016 | Breitbart
By Aaron Klein
The organization partnered with Facebook to help determine whether a certain story is “disputed” is financed by billionaire George Soros and a slew of other left-wing funders.The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) drafted a code of five principles for news websites to accept, and Facebook yesterday announced it will work with “third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of principles.
Facebook says that if the “fact checking organizations” determine that a certain story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and, according to the Facebook announcement, “there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.”
IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
Poynter’s IFCN is also funded by the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on numerous projects and it has given grants to third parties using the Soros-funded Tides Foundation. Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the U.S.
Another significant Poynter Institute donor is the Craig Newmark Foundation, the charitable organization established by Craigslist Founder Craig Newmark. On Monday, just days before the announcement of the Facebook partnership, Poynter issued a press release revealing that Newmark donated $1 million to the group to fund a faculty chair in journalism ethics.
States the press release:
The gift will support a five-year program at Poynter that focuses on verification, fact-checking and accountability in journalism. It’s the largest donation Poynter’s ever received from an individual foundation.
The Newmark Chair will expand on Poynter’s teaching in journalism ethics and develop certification programs for journalists that commit to ethical decision-making practices. The faculty member will also organize an annual conference on ethics issues at Poynter and be a regular contributor to Poynter.org.
Newmark funds scores of liberal groups also financed by Soros, including the Sierra Club, the New America Foundation, and the Sunlight Foundation.
Newmark also finances the investigative journalism group called the Center for Public Integrity, where he serves on the board. Soros’ Open Society is another Public Integrity donor.
Soros has earned his megafortune in part by short selling currencies and causing economic crises. He is credited with breaking the pound on September 16, 1992 in a day that became known in Britain as “Black Wednesday.” He reportedly made $1.2 billion from that crisis. In 2002, he was convicted for insider trading.
Poynter, meanwhile, has hosted controversial journalism programs in the past, including one that was accused of downplaying the threat of global Islamic terrorism. FoxNews.com reported the course suggested reporters “keep the death toll from Islamic terrorism in ‘context’ by comparing that toll to the number of people killed every year by malaria, HIV/AIDS and other factors.”
The course taught reporters that the term “jihad” means internal struggle, and it discussed what it claimed was the issue of “right-wing activists” attempting to link American Muslims to terrorism.
Continued FoxNews.com:
The section includes the good-journalism tip that reporters should check to see if experts they’re interviewing “have a bias or a stake in the story you are covering.” But then it only cites examples of anti-Muslim groups.
The course in Islam, Fox News reported, was supported by a group calling itself the Social Science Research Council, which has received funding from Soros-financed groups.
In response to the report, the Poynter Institute explained that it created the course “as a tool for journalists who want to be accurate in educating their audience about the religion and culture of Islam, Muslim communities in the U.S., and the distinctions between Islam as a political movement and the radical philosophies that inspire militant Islamists.”
“We believe there is a need to better understand the complexities of Muslim societies and the online course offered by Poynter and Washington State University is a vital resource toward that end,” Poynter added.
“The values underpinning the course are truth, accuracy, independence, fairness, minimizing harm and context — the core journalistic values on which we build all our teaching here at Poynter.”
Poynter’s IFCN code of principals for news outlets, meanwhile, reads as follows:
1. A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS
We fact-check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.
2. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF SOURCES
We want our readers to be able to verify our findings themselves. We provide all sources in enough detail that readers can replicate our work, except in cases where a source’s personal security could be compromised. In such cases, we provide as much detail as possible.
3. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING & ORGANIZATION
We are transparent about our funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders have no influence over the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail the professional background of all key figures in our organization and explain our organizational structure and legal status. We clearly indicate a way for readers to communicate with us.
4. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY
We explain the methodology we use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.
5. A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS
We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.
-
George Soros, Big Banks And Google Fund Anti-Trump Resistance Group
Dec 15, 2016 | The Daily Caller
By Justin Caruso
The liberal think tank Center for American Progress (CAP), now fashioning itself as a powerful anti-Trump force, is funded by George Soros, big banks and several large corporations.
CAP, founded in 2003 by former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, has long been a prominent liberal think tank in Washington. Now, they look to be the leader of efforts on the left to fight against Donald Trump’s incoming administration though their advocacy wing, the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF).
The action fund is funded by the main group, CAP, according to their “Our Supporters” page. Other funders of CAPAF are the big Hollywood group Motion Picture Association of America and the labor union Service Employees International Union.
The home page of CAPAF simply reads “Resist,” and has a button to “Join the Resistance.” On the actual page describing the resistance, posted Thursday, it says, “RESIST HATE. RESIST CORRUPTION. RESIST INJUSTICE. FORGE PROGRESS.”
-
Will Trump’s Tax Plan Hurt Philanthropy?
Dec 15, 2016 | Fast Company
By Ben Paynter
The tax reform plan that Donald Trump ran on to get elected carries something of a ticking time bomb for philanthropy. Once he's inaugurated, the rules for how much charitable giving can be deducted from your overall taxable income will likely change substantially. If Trump follows through on the proposal he released last September, that could create a dramatic budget crunch for organizations who rely on the generosity of donors for their funding—donors who might be less interested in giving since they will get fewer tax breaks when they do."Viewing charitable tax deductions as a ‘tax break for the richest’ ignores the lifeline that nonprofit support services and jobs provide millions of Americans."
Trump's tax plan is to combine the current system of seven different tax brackets into three—12%, 25%, and 33%—each with a fixed rate of deduction. Because of these changes, it means that deductions for the top bracket would drop. Today, you get about $400 off your taxes for every $1,000 given to charity. Under Trump, it would be $330, as CBSNews has reported.)
High-net-worth earners often try to give away enough to counteract whatever huge tax sum they might otherwise have to pay. To that end, most can deduct up to 50% of their gross pay when giving to standard charities. Trump's reforms would cap those deductions at $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. That doesn't affect, say, someone who is giving $100 to his church's soup kitchen, but it definitely changes the math for high-net-worth individuals who tend to donate fairly large sums of money to charity.
Perhaps we shouldn't care so much that the wealthy can't game their taxes, but philanthropies see it a different way. "Viewing [charitable tax deductions] as a ‘tax break for the richest’ ignores the lifeline that nonprofit support services and jobs provide millions of Americans," says the Charitable Giving Coalitionin a public statement. The group, which includes United Way Worldwide, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities USA, along with the Association of Fundraising Professionals, the Council on Foundations, and the Philanthropy Roundtable, repeated that sentiment in an open letter to Trump today urging him to rethink his position. "It’s not about the donor," the statement adds. "It’s about what donors’ dollars do to aid the most vulnerable, educate, heal, nurture and innovate—often in ways that government and the private sector cannot."
From an economic perspective, groups that fail to receive what’s essentially become a steady income stream could be strangled. Especially because Trump has suggested raising the standard deduction for those who don't want to waste time itemizing, which might affect how people from all different income levels ultimately give, since it will be easier for more people to get a refund without giving to charity. Short term, the new president might benefit from that, as there might be less enticement for those who oppose his administration’s objectives to funnel money toward oppositional causes. In the long run, the Center for Effective Government estimates that the proposed policy could reduce cause organization funding by $9.1 billion annually. And United Way Worldwide has reported that nearly two-thirds of Americans might reduce giving by 25% or more.
In their letter, the Coalition notes that one-in-10 Americans work in nonprofits, which means both those jobs, and employment opportunities and community services that those groups create for others could be threatened. That means the federal government might spend more in the long run to fix systemic problems these groups were set up to address.
Mentions of Ford Foundation
Mentions of Other Charitable Foundations
Add recipients
Suggested