Woj is correct, centrist/liberal foundation funding outwieghs rightist funding, and rightist funding is aimed far more strategically.
See: http://www.publiceye.org/research/policy.html#Funding
especially
http://www.tni.org/archives/shuman/nation.htm
-Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Wojtek Sokolowski
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:28 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
>
>
> Max:
> > Woj is wrong too.
> >
> > There's significant investor class dough
> > funding vicious right-wing outlets on radio,
> > print, and internet. And there's always Fox.
> >
> > mbs
>
> True, but do not underestimate the funding of liberal causes.
> Just look
> what large liberal foundations, like Ford, McArthur, Kellog, Mott etc.
> are funding. Also do not forget Emily list or the Hollywood.
>
> Liberal funding outweigh conservative funding on the $ for $ basis (I
> would need to do some research to support that, though), albeit the
> right tends to fund strategically positioned (e.g. Heritage) or
> particularly obnoxious (Pioneer) outfits. Liberal foundations, otoh,
> tend to fund more grassroots programs that have lesser public
> visibility.
>
> Methinks rightwing, reactionary populism is genuinely
> homegrown in this
> country - it is merely being harvested by shrewd moral entrepreneurs
> like Robertson, Limbaugh or Farrakhan. Whatever was left in this
> country was brought, for the most part, by European immigrants, but as
> these new arrivals assimilated to the rabidly reactionary US culture,
> there is no much left left here anymore. If it were not for the well
> funded liberal outfits (not radical, to be sure, but even more
> suspicious of the populist right), this country would be way more
> reactionary than it is now. Just think of the good old South,
> Kentucky's war on evolution, or for that matter, Michigan militia.
>
> Wojtek
>