Environmental groups, urban planners and “not-in-my-backyard” homeowners oppose what they consider uncontrolled land development—also known as “suburban sprawl.” They are devising so-called “smart growth” initiatives planning future land use. But these proposals limit consumer choices and trample on property rights. Smart-growth legislation also unfairly discriminates against new and less affluent homeowners who are priced out of the housing market when land-use restrictions cause property values to skyrocket. What is smart-growth and who funds this growing movement?

1. Smart Growth and Suburbia:
What Is It? Who’s Behind It?
by James Dellinger and Ryan Balis
October 2006
CONTENTS
Smart Growth and Suburbia
Page 1
Briefly Noted
Page 6
Summary: Environmental groups, urban
planners and “not-in-my-backyard”
homeowners oppose what they consider
uncontrolled land development—also
known as “suburban sprawl.” They are de-
vising so-called “smart growth” initiatives
planning future land use. But these propos-
als limit consumer choices and trample on
property rights. Smart-growth legislation
alsounfairlydiscriminatesagainstnewand
lessaffluenthomeownerswhoarepricedout
of the housing market when land-use re-
strictionscausepropertyvaluestoskyrocket.
What is smart-growth and who funds this
growing movement?
S
mart growth is the buzzword used by
those who want to preserve as much
emptylandaspossible.Itsproponents
support public policies that would give gov-
ernment planners the authority to dictate
how private property should be used. Many
smart-growth advocates are city planners
whoseideasderivefromthe“NewUrbanism”
architectural movement of the 1970s; others
areenvironmentalactivists.Butsmartgrowth
advocates have one thing in common: they
fear that humanity is running out of “open
space.”
Any appeal that smart growth might have is
based on the control of language.Inaseman-
tic coup, environmentalists have discovered
that “wetlands” are more inviting than
“swamps” and that “rainforests” are more
appealing than “jungles.” Similarly, smart-
growth planners have discovered that it is
advantageous to use environmentally-
friendly euphemisms such as “open space”
and “green space” to refer to raw land and
empty lots. Smart growth advocates also
cultivate nostalgia for the past. Americans
are encouraged to imagine an idyllic past
whenlocalstoreswereoneverystreetcorner
and neighbors met neighbors on daily walks
downtree-linedstreets.Theconceptofsmart
growth is particularly dependent on an abid-
ing hatred for cars and car culture. Environ-
mentalist groups such as the Sierra Club
promote bike paths and hiking trails and
routinely denounce automobile driving as
“unhealthy, anti-social and unsustainable.”
Over 100 local or state governments in the
U.S.haveadoptedsmartgrowthpolicies,but
smart growth advocates have targeted sub-
urbs as the area most in need of limits on
growth. They call for restrictive “growth
boundaries,” a land-use policy that man-
dates where development may and may not
occur,and“mixed-use”development,atype
ofplanningthatfavorsdensehigh-risehous-
ing combined with offices, retail shopping,
and public infrastructure, often contained
within the same structure.
Smart growth proponents claim that if sub-
urban development outside city centers is
not controlled, suburban sprawl will prolif-
erate. This, in turn, will cause open space to
Pro-smart growth former governors Republican Christine Todd
Whitman of New Jersey (second from left) and Democrat Parris
Glendening (center), at the launch last year of the Governors’ Insti-
tute for Community Design. Glendening, the poster child of the smart
growth movement, is credited with coining the term smart growth.
Whitman was EPA administrator from 2001 to 2003.

2. OrganizationTrends
2 October 2006
Editor: Matthew Vadum
Publisher: Terrence Scanlon
Organization Trends
is published by Capital Research
Center, a non-partisan education and
research organization, classified by
the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity.
Address:
1513 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-1480
Phone: (202) 483-6900
Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950
E-mail Address:
mvadum@capitalresearch.org
Web Site:
http://www.capitalresearch.org
Organization Trends welcomes letters
to the editor.
Reprints are available for $2.50 prepaid
to Capital Research Center.
disappear and traffic will become more and
morecongested;airpollutionandcrimerates
will increase; public schools will continue to
fail students; and an epidemic of obesity will
bloat the chauffeured children of America.
And it will all be the fault of disorderly sub-
urban development.
In reality, smart growth policies contribute
to the conditions those policies are sup-
posed to prevent. By blocking new road
construction,motoristsfacelongerandmore
congested commutes. And by blocking new
homeconstruction,residentsendupmoving
to the more affordable suburbs and driving
farther to the urban cores. Smart growth
supporters argue that new housing exacer-
batesroadcongestionandproducescrowded
classrooms,anddailytrafficjamsthatenrage
commuters. It’s no wonder that a political
movement has capitalized on that anger.
Some of the strongest advocates for smart
growth have channeled that anger into a
movement that has political clout. City may-
ors and officials at planning agencies have
made common cause with downtown busi-
ness associations, public transportation
union officials, and left-wing community ac-
tivists to put the brakes on private sector
suburbandevelopment.Cityofficials,inpar-
ticular,arguethatsuburbansprawlthreatens
theirmunicipaltaxbase(i.e.thepotofmoney
thatpoliticiansusetofundprojectsthathelp
get them re-elected). From this perspective,
the smart growth campaign is essentially a
turfbattle:Cityofficialsandtheirsupporters
wanttoreversetheflightofresidentstolow-
crime, lower-taxed suburbs that often pro-
vide better government services at a lower
per-taxpayer cost. For them, smart growth
policies re-direct taxes, fees and consumer
spending back into city coffers that support
big-spending policies.
But many suburban homeowners and
wealthy landowners also have an incentive
to favor restrictive smart growth policies.
Vestedpropertiedinterestsoftenwantlimits
on suburban property development to keep
their own skylines and vistas uncluttered. A
beautiful view enhances their aesthetic ap-
preciation, but it also leads to the apprecia-
tion of their property values. Putting restric-
tions on your neighbor’s land use can push
up your own land values.
However, smart growth is not merely a
matter of self-interest. Its most dedicated
supporters have a mission. Anti-sprawl ac-
tivists champion increased population den-
sity in cities to halt land development in
outlying suburbs and exurbs. They want to
reverse the trend toward low-density living
that most Americans prefer. In A Compact
History of Sprawl (published in 2005 by
University of Chicago Press), architecture
historian Robert Bruegmann argues that the
outward expansion of urban areas has real
social benefits. It is an inevitable social and
economic process that characterizes pros-
perous civilizations. But that’s not the view
of the smart growth crowd.
Are They Winning?
Smart growth supporters have deep pock-
ets and are determined to change public
attitudes about putting restrictions on land
development. They have already begun to
succeed in areas around Portland, Oregon,
and in communities just outside Washing-
ton, D.C.
Oregon is a testament to the power of the
smart growth movement. Despite the recent
passage of Measure 37 to ease land use
regulation,economistRandalO’Tooleofthe
Thoreau Institute has documented that the
state retains some of the most onerous land-
use regulations in the nation. For instance, a
farmermustreceivespecialapprovaltobuild
anewhomeonhisownland.Afarmercanlive
on his own farmland only if he owns at least
160 acres and can show that his land gener-
ates a minimum of $40,000 in agricultural
revenue in two out of three years. Oregon
planners have successfully limited the num-
berofnewhomesbuiltonthesefarmlandsto
around 100 per year.
In 1991, Portland was the 55th
most afford-
able city in the U.S. By 2002, after the imple-
mentationofsmartgrowthpolicies,Portland’s
rankingplungedtonumber163,accordingto
the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB).Ina2004survey,NAHBfoundthat
only20%ofPortland-areapoliceofficersand
nurses earning the median salary for their
profession could afford a median-priced
home. Even worse, only 0.7% of retail work-
ers could afford housing there.
If Portland’s development policies were
extended nationwide, they would result in
one million fewer homeowners over the pe-
riod 1991-2001, according to The National
CenterforPublicPolicyResearch’s2002study,
“Smart Growth and Its Effects on Housing
Markets: The New Segregation.” Of those
who would be priced out of the housing
market, 260,000 would be minority Ameri-
cans.
Smart growth also has a firm foothold in the
suburbs of Washington D.C., one of
America’s fastest growing regions. In 1997,
then-MarylandGovernorParrisGlendening,
whowasarguablythemostanti-growthgov-
ernor in the U.S. at that time, initiated a
statewide anti-sprawl policy. Indeed, he has
been credited with having coined the term
“smart growth.” Today the state of
Maryland’sgrantsareskewedtowarddensely
populated growth areas, which are desig-
nated “Priority Funding Areas.” In 2005, as
part of an effort to halt suburban sprawl,
officials in Prince George’s County, Mary-
land, imposed a one-year ban on new subdi-
vision home projects.
In neighboring Charles County, many resi-
dents in the state’s fastest growing region
balked at the county commissioners’ 2005
Community Development Housing Plan. To
promotemulti-familydwellingsandincreased

3. 3October 2006
OrganizationTrends
housing densities, the plan expanded the
number of rental units allowed to be built by
7,400over15yearsanditrezonedlandforthis
purpose.Butwithover6,500residentsbelow
the poverty line in 2000, many workers in the
county cannot afford the local average of
$851permonth(2005)torentaone-bedroom
apartment.
Across the Potomac River in the booming
suburbsofVirginia,smartgrowthplanningin
Arlington County, Virginia, which borders
Washington,D.C.,has
created a housing
affordability crisis.
According to the
Northern Virginia As-
sociation of Realtors,
which tracks housing
trends, the average
costofacondominium
there increased from
$151,857 in 2000 to
$382,172in2006.Simi-
larly, single-family
homepricesmorethan
doubledoverthissame
periodtoanaverageof
over$746,000.Despite
smart growth’s infla-
tionaryeffectonhous-
ing prices, the Envi-
ronmental Protection
AgencypresentedAr-
lington with its 2002
national award for
“Overall Excellence
in Smart Growth,” an annual competition
among local and state governments.
Board supervisors in nearby Loudoun
County recently voted to limit new housing
growth and to preserve as “open space” a
specific section of land featuring abackdrop
vista of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The
Washington Post reported September 7 that
the county plan will require that new homes
bebuiltonlargefive-to10-acrelots.Thatwill
meanonlyabouthalfofaprospective37,000
new homes can be constructed.
In the Washington region, it is common-
place to read news stories of displaced per-
sons who cannot find affordable housing.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments’ “Homeless Enumeration Re-
port” showed 15,439 people were homeless
in2005,anincreaseof6.2%from2004.Home-
less shelters often operate at maximum ca-
pacity and are forced to turn away families.
Catholic Charities’ Angel’s Watch Regional
Shelter in Maryland’s tri-county area of
Charles, St. Mary’s and Calvert Counties,
refusedcloseto1,200peoplein2005,accord-
ingtoJacquiHamilton,thecharity’sprogram
manager. In Virginia, the Washington Post
reported that two homeless Fairfax County
men huddled behind a local gas station and
died in the frigid temperatures two days
before Christmas in 2004. At least one of the
deceased men held a regular job but simply
could not afford to live in one of the nation’s
most expensive housing markets.
Hollywood Activists and Conservatives
Anti-sprawl activists, academics and jour-
nalists often make wild claims. Author Dou-
glas Morris, in his bookIt’s a Sprawl World
After All(publishedin2005byNewSociety),
goes so far as to claim that sprawl and
suburbanizationareresponsiblefor“spawn-
ing sociopaths such as rapists and serial
killers.”Theenvironmentalistcultdocumen-
tary TheEndofSuburbia:OilDepletionand
the Collapse of the American Dream(2004)
warns that continued suburbanization may
“cause an energy crisis far worse than the oil
shock of the 1970s.”
Hollywood and other purveyors of pop
culturesharethiselitistdisdainforsuburban
living.Intelevisionandmoviessuburbanites
are commonly portrayed as selfish, self-de-
structiveandneurotic.“LittleBoxes,”apopu-
lar 1962 song written by Malvina Reynolds,
is the theme song of the Showtime television
program “Weeds,” which features a harried
SUV-drivingsinglemomwhobecameamari-
juana dealer to maintain her lifestyle and pay
the mortgage on her large suburban home.
Thetunemakesfunofthefaçadeofsuburban
homelifeandcriti-
cizes its conform-
ist culture: “Little
boxes on the hill-
side/Little boxes
made of ticky-
tack…Andtheyall
look just the
same.” The 1999
movie, American
Beauty, which
won a “Best Pic-
ture” Academy
Award, also at-
tacks suburban
America, charac-
terizing it as a
dumping ground
for depraved and
deviant behavior
hidden behind
manicured lawns
and high fences.
Even among conservatives there are those
who are sympathetic to the aims of smart
growth. For instance,National Reviewwriter
Rod Dreher chronicles the lives of conserva-
tives like himself in his book,Crunchy Cons.
He describes social and cultural conserva-
tives who do not embrace change-driven
market economics, but live according to a
“small is beautiful” smart growth-friendly
ideal. Even Sen. George Allen (R-VA), who
claims to be a staunch supporter of property
rights, has embraced the “Journey Through
Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area
Act,” which would make large swaths of
property subject to a federally mandated
smartgrowthmanagementplan.Thelawmay
have unintended consequences: if it is en-
acted, it would not be hard to imagine a
federally backed smart growth activist fight-
ing against proposals to create new commu-
This nature trail is part of Abacoa, a model smart growth project in Jupiter, FL. But
photographs can’t depict the jump in real estate prices that inevitably accompanies the
imposition of smart growth policies.

4. OrganizationTrends
4 October 2006
For frequent updates on environmental groups,
nonprofits, foundations, and labor unions, check out the
CRC-Greenwatch Blog at
www.capitalresearch.org/blog
nities or road improvements in the name of
“heritage preservation.”
Funders’ Network for Smart Growth
Anti-growth and anti-market movements
used to be funded mainly by individual do-
nors sympathetic to leftist causes. But as
foundation philanthropy has increasingly
focused on promoting movements for social
change, smart growth advocates, not sur-
prisingly,havelookedtothefoundationworld
for financial and moral support.
The Funders’ Network for Smart Growth
and Livable Communities is an umbrella “af-
finity” group for foundations with a smart
growth agenda. Incorporated as a separate
501(c)(3) charity in 2003, it helps identify
issues,locatessympatheticdonorsandbuilds
political coalitions. “Through its work the
Network helps funders to advance policy
reforms; share knowledge of effective strat-
egies and tools; build the capacity of key
constituencies; raise awareness about the
interdisciplinary nature of these issues; and
encouragesustainedengagementwiththese
issues by a diverse coalition of funders.”
The network includes some 60 organiza-
tions, including major philanthropies (e.g.,
the Ford, Packard, Mott, Joyce, and Robert
WoodJohnsonfoundations),corporatefoun-
dations (Home Depot, Bank of America, and
Fannie Mae), community foundations (Cali-
fornia, Cleveland, Greater Atlanta) and coa-
lition groups (Bikes Belong Coalition, Local
InitiativesSupportCorporation).According
to its website, they are “currently focusing
oncommunications,communityfoundations
leadership, regional and neighborhood eq-
uity, transportation, green buildings, and
healthy communities.”
The network includes the elite of the foun-
dation world, institutions with enormous as-
sets and the capacity to make substantial
grantsforadvocacyonbehalfofsmartgrowth.
Who Gets Funded?
Environmentalist groups are among the
groups most financially prepared to fight for
smart growth.
*The Sierra Club,avociferousopponentof
suburban growth and development, claims
that“sprawl-likedevelopmentcanusemany
more resources — five times more pipe and
wire, five times as much heating and cooling
energy— than urban living.” Claiming some
750,000 members in hundreds of local chap-
ters,theSanFrancisco-headquarteredgroup
is promoting a new report that calls
suburbanization“TheDarkSideoftheAmeri-
can Dream.” Its guide, Building Better: A
Guide to America’s Best New Development
Projects, supports bringing local land use
issues under state and federal control. In the
Washington, D.C. area the Club fought un-
successfully against the Intercounty Con-
nector, a planned 6-lane, 18-mile tolled high-
waylinkingWashington’ssuburbsinMary-
land that was proposed more than a half
century ago. In Atlanta, Georgia, the Club
works tirelessly for public rail transit and
against most new highway construction.
*TheSurfaceTransportationPolicyProject
(STPP) is less well-known, but is one of the
best-funded and most vocal advocates of
subsidiesformasstransit,whichhasbecome
the politically-correct panacea for issues of
growth management. It has received grants
fromtheHeinz,RobertWoodJohnson,James
Irvine, Kirsch, MacArthur, McKenna, and
Pittsburgh foundations as well as from the
PrinceCharitableTrusts,Rausch,Rockefeller
and Surdna foundations. In 2004, STPP had
revenues close to $1.5 million and expenses
of $2.2 million according to its IRS Form 990.
*The Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) litigates vigorously, filing multiple
environment and land-use cases simulta-
neously. Based in New York City, it attacks
auto use, charging that “in the last three
decades,vehicleusepercapitainourlargest
metro areas has doubled....Energy use rises
directlywithincreaseddriving,exacerbating
fossilfueldependenceandglobalwarming.”
*TheTrustforPublicLands (TPL)haslately
focused on finding ways to stop develop-
ment projects. According to its own website
“because TPL does not own or manage land
over the long term there must be a govern-
mentagencyororganizationwillingandable
to assume ownership of the land.” TPL has
helped states and local governments draft
and pass over 300 ballot measures that have
generatedover$19billioninnewlandacqui-
sition funding.
*TheNationalTrustforHistoricPreserva-
tion often acts like an environmental group.
“The trust has become an anti-growth advo-
cate that values preservation over property
rights,” wrote Peyton Knight, author of a
November 2005FoundationWatcharticleon
the Trust. Knight continued:
“If historic preservation is non-ideological,
whyareallof[TrustpresidentRichard]Moe’s
allies on the Left—and many on the fringe?
Ifpreservationisaboutcreatingandsustain-
ing livable communities, why block traffic
improvements, evict property owners in ex-
isting communities, and refuse to allow new
owners to build new communities? If preser-
vation is about empowering communities,
why use the federal government to decide
what’sbestforthem?Howcanfuturegenera-
tions preserve the ‘legacy that helps to de-
fine us as Americans,’ by disdaining our
rights to own our land?”
Foundation grants against sprawl go to
umbrella coalition groups as well. Probably
the most important is the Smart Growth Net-
work(SGN)andSmartGrowthAmerica(SGA).
SGN opposes low-density living. It is an
information clearinghouse for 30 environ-
mental and urban interest groups as well as
for the state of Maryland and the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mem-
ber groups sign agreements with the EPA in
order to coordinate their anti-growth activi-
ties. Although SGN receives foundation
grants from the Funders’ Network, it also
receives grants from the Nathan Cummings,
Energy,GeorgeGund,andRockefellerBroth-
ers foundations. On its website, SGN says it
uses “smart growth approaches to create a

5. 5October 2006
OrganizationTrends
wider range of housing choices” and to im-
prove “the quality of life in communities by
promoting new transportation choices and
transit-oriented development.” The irony is
thatinthekindofdenselypopulatedcommu-
nities SGN seeks to create, a house with a
large yard would not be a realistic “housing
choice,” nor would a private car be a “trans-
portation choice.”
According to its 2004 tax return, Smart
Growth America had $2,389,126 in revenue
and $1,253,422 in expenses. In 2005 former
governors Christine Todd Whitman of New
JerseyandParrisN.GlendeningofMaryland
decided to spearhead the new Governors’
Institute on Community Design, creating a
partnership between the National Endow-
ment for the Arts and the EPA. The Gover-
nors’ Institute plans to hold annual work-
shops linking governors and their cabinet
secretaries to top planning experts. Former
Maine governor Angus King has agreed to
help assist future workshops. The Gover-
nors’ Institute builds on the success of the
National Endowment for the Arts Mayors’
Institute on City Design, which since 1986
haspromotedideastoimprovecityplanning.
Many local smart growth advocates are
also funded by foundations such as the
Surdna and Energy foundations.(SeeDavid
Hogberg’s January 2006 FoundationWatch
article on the latter group for further details.)
Theytendtofundgroupsthatfightfossilfuel
energy development projects and demand
governmentsubsidiesforrenewableenergy.
Will Smart Growth Succeed?
Many Americans are understandably
troubledbythesometimesdizzyingspeedof
growth and development in their communi-
ties. Change can be scary. That fear has
allowed those who want to curb develop-
ment to become a formidable political force.
They support ballot initiatives and restric-
tivelocalzoningordinancesthatviolateindi-
vidualpropertyrights—andtheyareincreas-
ingly successful.
But smart growth policies confront the in-
exorable force of population growth, urban
expansionandeconomicdevelopment.These
are worldwide social processes, and it is
foolish to think they will end anytime soon.
As long as people are mobile, in search of
prosperity and personal advancement, they
are going to want more for themselves. In
newly-developing countries such as India
and Mexico a new middle class is acting like
past generations of Americans. It is moving
awayfromcrowdedurbancentersandmulti-
generationalfamilyhomesandisdemanding
more single-family dwellings on private lots.
In the U.S., some critics think smart growth
policies will have the unintended conse-
quences of creating even more widespread
suburbandevelopment.Theyspeculatethat
anti-suburban policies are actually spurring
anewroundof“exurbanization.”Exurbsrefer
to prosperous semi-rural communities that
existbeyondwell-establishedsuburbs.High-
speed limited-access highways often con-
nect these new bedroom communities to ur-
ban-suburban metropolitan centers. Of
course, smart growth activists denounce
exurbanization too, arguing that such com-
munities, like suburbs, waste resources.
Andthentherearetheagingbaby-boomers.
They will soon be in search of what develop-
ers call “integrated senior living communi-
ties.” The builders of these private develop-
ments have, in effect, co-opted the “New
Urbanism” school of public planners. They
knowtheircustomerswillwanttolivenearby
thestoreswheretheyshop.Theywillwantto
link their condos, townhouses, and apart-
ments to retail shopping areas, recreational
facilitiesandmedicalcenters.Thisinfuriates
smart growth activists who loudly deride
these “living centers” as “fake towns.”
Suburban tastes are evolving. “The mall is
nolongerconvenientforus,”architectTerry
Shook told the Boston Globe last summer.
The trend toward lifestyle centers suggests
that “suburbia is starting to reinvent itself.”
Conclusion
Despite the creative advertising of the anti-
sprawl crusade, living apart from city life is
still attractive and in many cases necessary
for many Americans. According to Randall
O’Toole, only 25% of Americans live in the
smart growth ideal of high-density develop-
ments; the remaining 75% live in either low-
density suburban neighborhoods or in even
less sparsely populated rural areas.
Americans have voted with their feet. They
like having more space, less pollution, and
lesscrime.Moreover,theyhavedecidedthat
the flight to the suburbs is a way to achieve
a cherished American goal of
homeownership, often a measure of eco-
nomic success and what most of us think of
as “making it.” They have little patience for
state, federal, or local government planners
telling them how to live.
But smart growth backers are quite com-
fortable telling people how to live. The anti-
growth turf wars that have been waged over
many of America’s metropolitan areas are
emblematic of changes in the modern Left.
Rather than seeking to influence political
decision-making,theLeftnowaimstoimple-
ment rigid controls that end up determining
theeconomicdecisionsthatindividualsmake
at home. Suburbia is the battleground, and
they are waging war on low-density living.
James Dellinger is Executive Director of
GreenWatch and EducationWatch at Capi-
tal Research Center. Ryan Balis is a policy
analyst at The National Center for Public
Policy Research.
OT
Please remember
Capital Research Center
in your will and
estate planning.
Thank you for
your support.
Terrence Scanlon, President
Capital Research Center’s
next online radio show airs
October 24, 3:05 p.m.
(Eastern time)
at http://www.rightalk.com
(replays follow at 5 minutes past the
hour for the following 23 hours)

6. OrganizationTrends
6 October 2006
BrieflyNoted
George Soros told a New America Foundation gathering that the war on terror is a phony war, an empty
advertising slogan that President Bush and the Republican Party are using to pull the wool over gullible Ameri-
cans’ eyes. In a mid-September speech, he attacked the war as a “very false frame.” The Open Society Insti-
tute, funded by Soros, bankrolls the extremist, anti-American public interest law firm, the Center for Constitu-
tional Rights, which was profiled in last month’s Organization Trends.
New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez is the subject of a criminal investigation of his involvement
with a nonprofit group, according to a Star-Ledger report September 8. A subpoena has been issued related to a
Menendez rental deal with the Union City-based North Hudson Community Action Corp. The senator report-
edly collected more than $300,000 from the group over a nine-year period, and during that time helped it secure
millions of dollars in federal grants. Appointed to the U.S. Senate by Governor Jon Corzine in January, Menendez
is currently seeking election to the post.
The IRS has revoked the tax-exempt status of the Democratic Leadership Council. The group was formed by
Democrats eager to reclaim their party from its ascendant left wing following Ronald Reagan’s landslide 1984
victory. The IRS determined that DLC activities primarily benefit so-called New Democrats running for political
office, instead of the public at large, according to Forbes magazine’s October 2 edition. The DLC has asked a
federal court to review the decision. “The outcome could affect the spreading use (abuse?) of tax-exempts by
politicians and those seeking to influence them,” according to the article.
Buying “green” products might make consumers less likely to donate directly to environmentalist groups, New
Scientist reported September 16, citing a study that appeared in the August issue of the Journal of Political
Economy. “An economic model devised by [study author Matthew] Kotchen suggests that, having bought pre-
mium green goods, consumers may be less willing to donate directly to environmental causes, possibly lowering
the overall contribution they would otherwise have made,” according to New Scientist. But will smug environmental-
ists stop feeling good about themselves as they drive their hybrid SUVs to Ben & Jerry’s ice cream shop?
The publicity given Bill Clinton’s philanthropy continues on a scale grossly disproportionate to its actual scope. In
a fawning cover story in the September 18 Fortune magazine, reporter Bethany McLean acknowledged that the
Clinton Foundation has a 2006 budget of $30 million while the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has an
endowment of $30 billion. Yet she wrote that “no one motivates people and moves mountains like Bill Clinton.”
Judicial Watch reported August 21 that a federal judge who found unconstitutional the Bush administration’s
warrantless domestic surveillance program has close ties to the lead plaintiff in the case, the American Civil
Liberties Union. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is secretary and trustee for Community Foundation
for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM) which recently gave $45,000 to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the
lawsuit. The judge ruled in the ACLU’s favor in the case, ACLU v. National Security Agency. Judicial Watch also
noted that according to CFSEM’s website, “the foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held
on a quarterly basis.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the “potential conflict of interest merits serious
investigation…if Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would
certainly call into question her judgment.”
Liberal activist groups are so reliant on paid canvassers that it is hindering their ability to push for political change,
according to Dana R. Fisher, a sociology professor at Columbia University. The Chronicle of Higher Education
quoted Fisher saying many liberal nonprofit groups opt to pay college students and other workers to solicit dona-
tions from the public. Conservative groups, on the other hand, rely more on traditional community- and church-
based groups, which are better at making long-term connections, said Fisher, author of a new book called Activ-
ism, Inc.