I found this a truly fascinating profile on The Philanthropy Roundtable posted at Right Web.
The offices of the Philanthropy Roundtable are found in the Washington, DC building that is also the home of such prominent neoconservative institutes and publications as the Weekly Standard, Project for the New American Century, and American Enterprise Institute. The Roundtable and the Project for the New American Century are closely connected, especially through their common connections to the Bradley Foundation and revolving door patterns of employment.
As you read through the profile you see how wealth, political power, public policy formation, punditry, media, and business are not so much separate sectors but different spheres of influence maintained at the highest levels by friends and friends of friends who move from one sphere of influence to another, building a resume, a network and a movement. I am sure this has always been so, but gives pause to those of us who think of democracy as a matter of we the people. In the context of this closed world, I suppose I can understand why William Schambra, funded by Bradley at Hudson is upset that Bill Gates has so much philanthropic money to give here and abroad. To me Gates is an insider, but his having been photographed with Bill Clinton may be giving Schambra concern. It is not a question of whether the rich rule, but which rich people, I guess. At election time we get to pick the rich person's candidate who best fits our image of ourselves. This one does NASCAR, that one like tacos, or whatever. This one goes to Church and blows up toads with firecrackers. That one like yachts and tennis and is so polite it hurts. Either way, we are well represented assuming we are CEOs or heirs, or just plain fools. My personal political return on investment has been pretty much nil, but I assume I could get what I want if I had more to invest. I am going to return old soda bottles until I have enough to, as we say, "make a difference." What would it cost, I wonder, to get big money out of politics? Pew tried, and Schambra didn't like that either. Big money, in his view, should stick up for big money, as he does. Wooster, of Capital Research Center, concurs. Even Fortune 100 corporations, according to Capital Research Center, can't be trusted to give their money for arch-conservative causes.
Well, maybe we need a transpartisan network of givers to broaden the base of philanthropy and to introduce a broader range of ideas, ideals, and agendas into the mix? Quite an interestingly diverse steering committee at Reuniting America. I notice too that they plan to open conversations around the country. I propose as a topic the role of wealth in public policy formation.
