tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/corporate-influence-19782/articlesCorporate influence – The Conversation2018-10-05T10:42:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1028652018-10-05T10:42:00Z2018-10-05T10:42:00ZCould an artificial intelligence be considered a person under the law?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238476/original/file-20180928-48659-1gkudpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sophia, a robot granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roboter_Sophia_MSC_2018.jpg">MSC/wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Humans aren’t the only people in society – at least according to the law. In the U.S., <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corporations-people-adam-winkler/554852/">corporations have been given rights of free speech</a> and religion. Some <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-if-nature-like-corporations-had-the-rights-and-protections-of-a-person-64947">natural features also have person-like rights</a>. But both of those required changes to the legal system. A new argument has laid a path for artificial intelligence systems to be recognized as people too – without any legislation, court rulings or other revisions to existing law.</p>
<p>Legal scholar Shawn Bayern has shown that anyone can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005729">confer legal personhood on a computer system</a>, by putting it in control of a limited liability corporation in the U.S. If that maneuver is upheld in courts, <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2018/artificial-intelligence-human-rights">artificial intelligence systems</a> would be able to own property, sue, hire lawyers and enjoy freedom of speech and other protections under the law. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0_Rq68cAAAAJ&hl=en">In my view</a>, human rights and dignity would suffer as a result. </p>
<h2>The corporate loophole</h2>
<p>Giving AIs rights similar to humans involves a technical lawyerly maneuver. It starts with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005729">one person setting up two limited liability companies</a> and turning over control of each company to a separate autonomous or artificially intelligent system. Then the person would add each company as a member of the other LLC. In the last step, the person would withdraw from both LLCs, leaving each LLC – a corporate entity with legal personhood – governed only by the other’s AI system.</p>
<p>That process doesn’t require the computer system to have any particular level of intelligence or capability. It could just be a sequence of “if” statements looking, for example, at the stock market and <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/101014/basics-algorithmic-trading-concepts-and-examples.asp">making decisions to buy and sell</a> based on prices falling or rising. It could even be an algorithm that <a href="http://www.randomdecisionmaker.com/">makes decisions randomly</a>, or an <a href="https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/115569822/">emulation of an amoeba</a>.</p>
<h2>Reducing human status</h2>
<p>Granting human rights to a computer would degrade human dignity. For instance, when <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/saudi-arabia-robot-sophia-citizenship-android-riyadh-citizen-passport-future-a8021601.html">Saudi Arabia granted citizenship to a robot called Sophia</a>, <a href="https://qz.com/1205017/saudi-arabias-robot-citizen-is-eroding-human-rights/">human women</a>, including <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/10/29/saudi-arabia-which-denies-women-equal-rights-makes-a-robot-a-citizen/">feminist scholars</a>, objected, noting that the robot was given more rights than many Saudi women have.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R0bVxbRCd-U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An interview with Sophia, a robot citizen of Saudi Arabia.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In certain places, some people might have fewer rights than nonintelligent software and robots. In countries that limit <a href="http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">citizens’ rights</a> to free speech, free religious practice and expression of sexuality, corporations – potentially including AI-run companies – <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/corporations-are-people-a_b_5543833.html">could have more rights</a>. That would be an enormous indignity.</p>
<p>The risk doesn’t end there: If AI systems became more intelligent than people, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-an-artificial-intelligence-researcher-fears-about-ai-78655">humans could be relegated to an inferior role</a> – as workers hired and fired by AI corporate overlords – or even <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2145829/">challenged for social dominance</a>.</p>
<p>Artificial intelligence systems could be tasked with law enforcement among human populations – acting as <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-know-the-algorithms-the-government-uses-to-make-important-decisions-about-us-57869">judges, jurors, jailers and even executioners</a>. <a href="https://theconversation.com/losing-control-the-dangers-of-killer-robots-58262">Warrior robots</a> could similarly be assigned to the military and given power to decide on targets and acceptable collateral damage – even in violation of <a href="https://theconversation.com/ban-killer-robots-to-protect-fundamental-moral-and-legal-principles-101427">international humanitarian laws</a>. Most legal systems are not set up to <a href="https://theconversation.com/ban-killer-robots-to-protect-fundamental-moral-and-legal-principles-101427">punish robots</a> or otherwise hold them accountable for wrongdoing.</p>
<h2>What about voting?</h2>
<p>Granting voting rights to systems that can copy themselves would render humans’ votes meaningless. Even without taking that significant step, though, the possibility of AI-controlled corporations with basic human rights poses serious dangers. No current laws would prevent a <a href="https://theconversation.com/fighting-malevolent-ai-artificial-intelligence-meet-cybersecurity-60361">malevolent AI</a> from operating a corporation that worked to subjugate or exterminate humanity <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-employment/companies-win-big-at-us-top-court-on-worker-class-action-curbs-idUSKCN1IM1GW">through legal means</a> and political influence. Computer-controlled companies could turn out to be less responsive to public opinion or protests than human-run firms are.</p>
<h2>Immortal wealth</h2>
<p>Two other aspects of corporations make people even more vulnerable to AI systems with human legal rights: They don’t die, and they can give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates and groups. </p>
<p>Artificial intelligences could earn money by exploiting workers, using algorithms to <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/business/trust-the-machines-these-funds-are-run-by-artificial-intelligence/">price goods and manage investments</a>, and find new ways to <a href="https://www.ibm.com/blogs/watson/2018/04/how-kpmg-uses-ai-to-empower-their-auditors/">automate key business processes</a>. Over long periods of time, that could <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/01/apple-earnings-q1-2018-how-much-money-does-apple-have.html">add up to enormous earnings</a> – which would never be split up among descendants. That wealth could easily be <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-corporations-turned-into-political-beasts-2015-4">converted into political power</a>. </p>
<p>Politicians financially backed by algorithmic entities would be able to take on legislative bodies, impeach presidents and help to get figureheads appointed to the Supreme Court. Those human figureheads could be used to expand corporate rights or even establish new rights specific to artificial intelligence systems – expanding the threats to humanity even more.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102865/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roman V. Yampolskiy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A legal loophole could grant computer systems many legal rights people have – threatening human rights and dignity and setting up some real legal and moral problems.Roman V. Yampolskiy, Associate Professor of Computer Engineering and Computer Science, University of LouisvilleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/989882018-07-17T10:48:55Z2018-07-17T10:48:55ZWhen corporations take credit for green deeds their lobbying may tell another story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227884/original/file-20180716-44073-1ydrel9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former EPA chief Scott Pruitt, second from left, conferring with auto industry leaders</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Fuel-Standards/0014357f5b0646df8754a7a9bb20ff59/12/0">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today most large companies like Exxon Mobil, Ford and GM issue <a href="https://www.ey.com/us/en/services/specialty-services/climate-change-and-sustainability-services/value-of-sustainability-reporting">slick reports</a> extolling their efforts to conserve resources, use renewable energy or fund clean water supplies in developing countries. This emphasis on efforts to curb environmental harm while benefiting society is called corporate sustainability.</p>
<p>Once uncommon but now mainstream, this show of support for a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.159">greener and kinder business model</a> might seem like a clear step forward. But many of these same companies are quietly using their political clout, often through industry trade associations, to block or reverse policies that would make the economy more sustainable. And because public policy raises the bar for entire industries, requiring that all businesses meet minimum standards, lobbying to block sound public policies can outweigh the positive impact from internal company initiatives.</p>
<p>This kind of corporate hypocrisy – what we call talking green while lobbying brown – is a form of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64">greenwashing</a>, in which companies trumpet their good deeds while hiding their efforts to block progress. As the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZE02oYAAAAAJ&hl=en">past</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JwLkuSIAAAAJ&hl=en">present</a> presidents of the <a href="https://corporate-sustainability.org/">Alliance for Research on Corporate Sustainability</a>, we are concerned that this greenwashing may delay by years or even decades steps that might solve sustainability problems, such as slowing the pace of climate change or ending the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/here-s-how-much-plastic-enters-ocean-each-year">ocean plastic pollution crisis</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227883/original/file-20180716-44103-ktced2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227883/original/file-20180716-44103-ktced2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227883/original/file-20180716-44103-ktced2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227883/original/file-20180716-44103-ktced2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227883/original/file-20180716-44103-ktced2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227883/original/file-20180716-44103-ktced2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227883/original/file-20180716-44103-ktced2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/227883/original/file-20180716-44103-ktced2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Greenwashing is environmentally responsible talk without action.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3-paint-brushes-greenwashing-48920020?src=6HXxCHHBBpEzOhYBRPGAlA-1-6">By Tamixes/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Sounding good yet lacking impact</h2>
<p>We and our colleagues in the alliance have documented many business initiatives that fall short of the impact they claim. One of the best known was the <a href="https://responsiblecare.americanchemistry.com/">chemical industry’s Responsible Care</a> program, created after an explosion at Union Carbide’s plant in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-4-6">Bhopal, India,</a> killed thousands of people in 1984. Strategy professors <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1knV0GgAAAAJ&hl=en">Andy King</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cmOfwlsAAAAJ&hl=en">Mike Lenox</a> <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/1556362">showed</a> that participants actually made less progress in reducing their emissions of toxic chemicals than did nonparticipants. That prompted the industry to overhaul the program.</p>
<p>Or consider the <a href="https://www.env.go.jp/earth/g8_2000/forum/g8bp/detail/usa/usa11.html">Climate Challenge program</a>. The Energy Department created this now-defunct partnership between business and government to encourage electric utilities to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. When one of us teamed up with Management Professor <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l8Se0QoAAAAJ&hl=en">Maria Montes-Sancho</a> to evaluate its track record, we found that there was no difference overall between participants and non-participants in their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.826">emissions reductions</a>. </p>
<p>Both of these voluntary initiatives failed to solve environmental problems, so why were they created?</p>
<p>In the case of Responsible Care, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851006001278">chemical industry documents</a> show that one of the program’s main goals was preempting tighter regulations. Likewise, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/smj.826">public statements</a> the electric utility industry and the Energy Department made indicate that they formed Climate Challenge to stave off new regulations.</p>
<p>And following the Trump administration’s plan to spike the Clean Power Plan, a federal rule that would have limited air pollution from power, <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/report-epa-planning-inside-the-fence-clean-power-plan-replacement/448348/">utilities have essentially avoided federal climate regulation</a> to date. </p>
<p>Even though these and other voluntary initiatives accomplish little of substance, they help call attention to the good steps industries appear to be taking instead of the environmental damage they are causing – which is exactly <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x">how greenwashing works</a>.</p>
<h2>Talking green while lobbying brown</h2>
<p>As we and our colleagues explained in an 2018 article in the business journal <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008125618778854">California Management Review</a>, it is easy to get away with greenwashing in part because it’s hard to detect what companies lobby for in the U.S., as there is no requirement to disclose the positions they espouse.</p>
<p>“Despite the statements emitted from oil companies’ executive suites about taking climate change seriously and supporting a price on carbon, their lobbying presence in Congress is 100 percent opposed to any action,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, lamented in <a href="https://hbr.org/2016/02/the-climate-movement-needs-more-corporate-lobbyists">Harvard Business Review</a>.</p>
<p>Exxon Mobil has clearly engaged in this doubletalk. The corporation declared in its 2016 <a href="http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/%7E/media/global/files/corporate-citizenship-report/2016_ccr_full_report.pdf">Corporate Citizenship Report</a> that “climate change risks warrant action by businesses, governments and consumers, and we support the Paris Agreement as an effective framework for addressing this global challenge.” Yet the <a href="https://influencemap.org/report/Corporate-Carbon-Policy-Footprint-4274a464677481802bd502ffff008d74">nonprofit group InfluenceMap recently found</a> that Exxon was one of the top three global corporations in lobbying against effective climate policy. </p>
<p>Exxon Mobil’s hypocrisy may not be surprising given the company’s long history of <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/exxonmobil-funds-climate-change-deniers-exxon-oil-gas-a7818626.html">funding climate deniers</a>. However, it is far from alone in talking green while lobbying brown. Indeed, even companies with much stronger records on sustainability than Exxon do this, often through industry trade groups.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2017-18/doc/sr17.pdf">Ford said in its 2017 sustainability report</a> that “we know climate change is real, and we remain committed to doing our part to address it by delivering on CO2 reductions consistent with the Paris Climate Accord.” <a href="http://www.gmsustainability.com/_pdf/downloads/GM_2017_SR.pdf">GM’s sustainability report</a> stated that “General Motors is the only automaker on the 2017 Dow Jones Sustainability Index for North America, and is also on the World Index.”</p>
<p>Yet as Alliance for Automotive Manufacturers members, <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/auto-trade-group-trump-emissions/">Ford and GM both lobbied</a> the Trump administration to <a href="https://theconversation.com/stronger-fuel-standards-make-sense-even-when-gas-prices-are-low-94274">weaken fuel economy standards</a> – a strong tool for reducing vehicle emissions.</p>
<h2>More political transparency needed</h2>
<p>When companies hide their political opposition to sustainability policies, it deprives investors of the right to know how their funds are being used. This obfuscation also denies consumers the right to vote with their wallets for greener products.</p>
<p>We believe the best way to expose this duplicity is by requiring corporations to disclose more details about their political actions. For instance, new laws might demand that companies, both individually and as part of industry associations, make their lobbying stances public, and reveal which politicians they have called on to take a given position.</p>
<p>And companies could be forced to reveal what they spend on so-called “independent” political advertisements, also known as <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/scandal/etc/ads.html">issue ads</a>.</p>
<p>In the U.S., one good option would be to update the <a href="https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/amended_lda_guide.html">Lobbying Disclosure Act</a> to require more detailed reporting, including spending on <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/astroturfing-grassroots-movements-2011-9">astroturf lobbying</a>, the practice of using fake grass-roots groups to influence public opinion.</p>
<p>The private sector can take action too. In Europe, the Vigeo Eiris rating agency has begun to assess corporate <a href="http://www.vigeo-eiris.com/transparency-and-integrity-of-lobbying-a-new-challenge-for-csr-2/">political transparency</a>. Such evaluations would become much more powerful if required by leading investment managers. That is why we see the 2018 call by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, for companies to “<a href="https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter">benefit all their stakeholders</a>” as a step in the right direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98988/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Lyon is the President of the Alliance for Research on Corporate Sustainability. He and Professor Delmas received funding from the Borchard Foundation that supported research on corporate political responsibility. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Magali (Maggie) Delmas is the past president of the Alliance for Research on Corporate Sustainability (ARCS) and remains affiliated with it.</span></em></p>The environmental responsibility some businesses say they embrace is only a veneer.Tom Lyon, Dow Professor of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce; Professor of Business Economics; Public Policy Professor of Environment and Sustainability, University of MichiganMagali (Maggie) Delmas, Professor of Management Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los AngelesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/957432018-05-07T10:42:49Z2018-05-07T10:42:49ZSpotting the political calculus behind some acts of corporate charity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217559/original/file-20180503-153881-1vizkej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Charitable gifts may do double duty when politics is in the picture.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-man-suit-offering-cash-133129172">jefftakespics2/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past few years, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Da5F3JIAAAAJ&hl=en">I have teamed up with</a> fellow economists <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bNZV3-0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Marianne Bertrande</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zeX6jEMAAAAJ&hl=en">Matilde Bombardini</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=m9VHPscAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Francesco Trebbi</a> to look into one underappreciated way that businesses may attempt to influence politicians: corporate philanthropy.</p>
<p>We found that what we call “<a href="http://doi.org/10.3386/w24451">politically linked charities</a>” get more money from corporate foundations in general. We also find that when politicians gain leverage on issues tied to a company’s interests, charities in their districts get more gifts from that company’s foundation. For example, a nonprofit is more than four times more likely to receive grants from a corporate foundation if a politician sits on its board. </p>
<p>This means, in our view, that some corporate giving may influence members of Congress in both major political parties to a degree – indirectly bending laws and regulations in ways that boost profits rather than serve the public’s interests.</p>
<h2>Political charity</h2>
<p>Why would businesses rely on charitable donations rather than, say, campaign funds or lobbying efforts, to influence government? One big reason is that there are <a href="https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/04/21/arent-there-limits-on-campaign-contributions-and-other-questions-youre-too-embarrassed-to-ask/">limits on campaign contributions</a>, but <a href="https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions">effectively no limit on what what corporations may give to charity</a>.</p>
<p>And it appears that corporate charity is deployed in ways that look a lot like influencing.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217564/original/file-20180503-153881-alhcdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217564/original/file-20180503-153881-alhcdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217564/original/file-20180503-153881-alhcdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217564/original/file-20180503-153881-alhcdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217564/original/file-20180503-153881-alhcdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217564/original/file-20180503-153881-alhcdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217564/original/file-20180503-153881-alhcdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217564/original/file-20180503-153881-alhcdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sen. Chuck Grassley.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Mueller/c631a56b8821408db888fd3656473178/7/0">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/business/economy/charitable-giving-corporations.html">companies may give to politicians’ pet charities</a>. For example, as detailed in a recent New York Times article highlighting our research, the foundations of AT&T, ConAgra Foods, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Medtronic, Merck, Monsanto, Nationwide Insurance, Principal Financial Group and Rockwell Collins all contributed to either the University of Northern Iowa or the Partnership for a Drug-Free Iowa. Perhaps not coincidentally, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley is a trustee of one of these organizations and an honorary board member of the other. </p>
<p>Second, companies may support nonprofits that serve the voters of individual politicians’ districts – thereby indirectly helping him or her get re-elected. For example, an investigation by The New York Times of former Democratic Rep. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/us/politics/06charity.html">Joe Baca of California</a> concluded that he used his family foundation and its generous giveaways “to run something akin to a permanent political campaign.” But much of the foundation’s largesse was funded by local companies and major corporations “that have often turned to Mr. Baca’s Washington office for help,” not by his family. </p>
<p>Then there is the stealth factor. It’s relatively easy to look up how much investment management giant BlackRock’s political action committee, or PAC, gave Rep. Carolyn Maloney, in the 2016 election cycle. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets database, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00000078&cycle=2016">the New York Democrat got US$10,000</a>. That’s because federal law has required all such <a href="https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/legislation/">donations to be publicly disclosed</a> since the 1970s.</p>
<p>It’s harder, however, to connect the dots between BlackRock’s charitable giving that indirectly benefits Maloney and her colleagues who have New York City’s financial service businesses as their constituents. </p>
<h2>Striking patterns</h2>
<p>To uncover potential links between corporate donations and legislative interests, we looked at the grants provided by the foundations of companies in the S&P 500 and Fortune 500 lists that comprise many of America’s largest companies. Because these grants must by law be disclosed on tax returns, we could link most donations to specific nonprofits. That, in turn, meant we could pinpoint in which congressional districts the nonprofits were located.</p>
<p>As the Grassley and Baca examples indicate, it is fair to say that corporate foundations are more likely to give to nonprofits tied to politicians if those lawmakers belong to committees that matter to the company.</p>
<p>We also have also found that companies’ foundations give more to nonprofits in districts represented by politicians who also get campaign cash from those same enterprises. That suggests that corporate giving does double duty as a form of stealth campaign finance. </p>
<h2>What can be done about it</h2>
<p>Corporate charitable contributions totaled <a href="https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2015-press-release-giving-usa-americans-donated-an-estimated-358-38-billion-to-charity-in-2014-highest-total-in-reports-60-year-history/">nearly $18 billion in 2014</a>, the most recent year that we analyzed in our data. My colleagues and I estimated that <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w24451">7 percent of them were politically motivated</a> – about $1.3 billion. At that level, the political donations delivered through charity may be as important as more easily observable channels of influence.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/">corporate PACs spent less than $500 million in 2014</a> while <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/">lobbying expenditures amounted to $3.3 billion</a>.</p>
<p>In light of our findings, we believe that corporate-funded activities of all kinds should require more disclosure, including the donations companies give to charity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95743/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Raymond Fisman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Big business influences politicians in many ways. One little-recognized channel is the money companies and their foundations give the nonprofits politicians like.Raymond Fisman, Slater Family Professor in Behavioral Economics, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/619172016-07-05T03:52:09Z2016-07-05T03:52:09ZControlling big business in a post-Brexit world: Can the UK cope alone?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129208/original/image-20160704-19124-1idml8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People walk through the London Stock Exchange lobby. Will the excesses of big business become more prominent in post-Brexit UK?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Suzanne Plunkett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Brexit has been framed in <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-business-economy-what-happens-vodafone-leaving-uk-london-europe-eu-referendum-a7109291.html">some quarters</a> as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/26/brexit-is-the-rejection-of-globalisation">defeat of globalisation</a> and a <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21701501-economists-who-foresaw-backlash-against-globalisation-consensus">push back</a> against the domination of big business in politics and public life. Framed as such, big business has become the ugly face of globalisation and the main enemy of ‘ordinary people’ – especially those who feel disadvantaged by the forces of globalisation.</p>
<p>But the idea that Brexit is a defeat of big business is partly a distortion. Big business is indispensable. It is also a lost opportunity to focus attention on how to curtail the excesses of big business on a global scale. There is a growing agenda in this area, which has been well articulated as the pursuit of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/22/google-corporate-responsibility-ed-miliband-speech">responsible capitalism</a>.</p>
<p>The world is confronted by global challenges such as climate change, poverty, inequality, terrorism and water scarcity. These issues will require big business to come to the party as well as collaboration across countries, industries, and actors to contain. </p>
<p>There is a growing recognition in the global community that the private sector has a role to play in meeting some of these challenges. The consistent call on businesses to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through such initiatives as the newly created <a href="http://businesscommission.org/">Business and Sustainable Development Commission</a> and the much more established <a href="http://www.wbcsd.org/home.aspx">World Business Council on Sustainable Development</a> is just one example of the important role they can play in society.</p>
<p>But will the pervasiveness and excesses of big business become more prominent in post-Brexit UK? The question arises because of the free market orientation of the UK economy and its strong tendency, if unchecked, towards <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283883/ep16-manufacturing-short-termism-capital-finance.pdf">short-termism and impatient capital</a>, which may in turn have significant adverse effects on the economy in the long run. This stands in contrast to the <a href="http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/07/anatomy-of-the-euro-crisis">mainland European variety of capitalism</a>, which is more long term oriented and focuses on the interests of broader stakeholder groups than just shareholders. </p>
<p>The EU tends to strike a balance between the two versions of capitalism in Europe. On one hand it <a href="http://europa.eu/pol/pdf/flipbook/en/trade_en.pdf">promotes free market</a>, and on the other hand it <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=82">safeguards workers rights</a>, which are often taken for granted in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/20/so-called-workers-french-tyres">extreme liberal market economies</a>. This is one of the core strengths of the EU structure. </p>
<p>As such, concerted effort will need to be made in post-Brexit UK to ensure that big business is managed in a way that leverages on the advantages they bring while ensuring that they are well governed and managed.</p>
<h2>Pros and cons of big business</h2>
<p>While anti-business rhetoric has gained ground and become <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-obama-anti-business-president/">popular</a> it seems to be built on the assumption that there are more credible alternatives. But big businesses are ubiquitous in our lives. It is therefore overly simplistic to envisage a world without them. This ranges from the basic human needs of food, shelter, and clothing to the exotic heights of human aspirations of walking the moon and touring the space. We now live and breathe the products and services of big business.</p>
<p>In addition, big corporations also do good. They create jobs. Most of them pay taxes. They contribute to economic development and social prosperity. This means that they are not inherently evil.</p>
<p>The prevalence of large businesses is arguably one of their strengths. The ability to efficiently coordinate across borders, for instance, can <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11575-007-0024-2">reduce transaction costs</a> which can be passed on to consumers. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, this global reach is also their problem. Given the transnational nature of these organisations, it is possible for them to escape the clutches of national governance apparatus and play one country against the other. By doing this they can take advantage of what has become a conspicuous global governance void. </p>
<p>This can result in negative effects on the <a href="http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=10870">environment</a>, <a href="http://ssir.org/articles/entry/overcoming_corruption_in_emerging_markets">bribery and corruption</a>, <a href="http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/11/16/vodafone-hmrc-and-regulatory-capture/">regulatory capture</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/corporate-tax-why-conflict-between-firms-and-states-is-hard-to-crack-56038">tax avoidance and evasion</a>. All these are fundamental to the public distrust of big business.</p>
<h2>Accepting the good, managing the bad</h2>
<p>Those who complain about big business obviously want to enjoy the positive impact they have but not their negative effects. This is understandable. </p>
<p>The question is: how can the power, capability, and reach, of big business be used to contribute to the continued progress of humanity in the world? The possible misuse of power typical of big business leaves a nagging question of how to control and govern them in such a way that they contribute positively to society. </p>
<p>The governance of big businesses is a complex endeavour requiring enormous capacity. The EU’s ability to restrain <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21684329">Microsoft’s antitrust practices</a> in the trading bloc is a good example of what it takes to control big business. </p>
<p>There was a lost opportunity in the seeming lack of focus, in the recent <a href="https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/">UK referendum</a> on EU membership, on how to nudge big business to contribute to the realisation of a responsible capitalist system. As the post-Brexit discourse rages on it is worthwhile thinking of whether this task is better achieved in the EU structure or outside the EU.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61917/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kenneth Amaeshi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UK’s free market orientation and its strong tendency towards short-termism and impatient capital could have significant adverse effects on the economy in the long run.Kenneth Amaeshi, Associate Professor of Strategy and International Business, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/546202016-03-29T10:09:26Z2016-03-29T10:09:26ZCan a Russian-funded cable network actually promote free press in the U.S.?<p>With the recently announced shutdown of Al Jazeera America, the alternative cable news scene is in flux. </p>
<p>Launched as a corrective to the politicized and spectacle-heavy programming of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, Al Jazeera America positioned itself as a fact-based, unbiased news source. Even though <a href="http://www.peabodyawards.com/award-profile/fault-lines-made-in-bangladesh-al-jazeera-america">the network won awards for reporting</a>, the Qatari government-funded channel suffered from the public perception that it had an anti-Western, pro-Islamic stance. Amid lowering gas prices and reports of other financial woes, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/al-jazeera-america-news-channel-to-close-up-shop/2016/01/13/aa3ab180-ba1f-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html">the channel announced</a> it would shut down its U.S. operations at the end of April.</p>
<p>As Al Jazeera America closes shop, it’s worth wondering how this change will affect the position of <a href="https://www.rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/">RT America</a> – previously known as Russia Today America – in the U.S. market. Like Al Jazeera, RT America has fashioned itself as a serious alternative to the politicized media circus promoted by the top three cable news stations. Unlike Al Jazeera, it runs ad-free, which arguably gives it even more potential for influence-free programming. </p>
<p>But RT America has some inherent contradictions: it offers a “Russian state perspective” in its news programming while simultaneously airing some of the most progressive shows on U.S. cable. As Julia Ioffe <a href="http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php">writes</a> in the <em>Columbia Journalism Review,</em> RT America often acts as a “shrill propaganda outlet” for the Kremlin – an identity that clashes with its desire to compete in the international news market. </p>
<p>At the same time, according to Ioffe, RT America understands that in order to effectively compete with other progressive, unbiased networks, it needs “to be taken seriously.” This realization, she explains, has led to some good reporting.</p>
<p>It’s a crazy notion – and a bit mind-boggling to consider – but RT America might be offering some of the most progressive, uncensored cable media programming in the U.S. today.</p>
<p>Certainly some will not be able to look past <a href="https://theconversation.com/russia-fighting-information-wars-with-borrowed-weapons-37960">the paradox</a> that a nation that has <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2015/russia">one of the lowest scores</a> on the press freedom index could also be funding a valuable alternative to mainstream cable news. </p>
<p>But when it comes to distorting the news, is the network any more culpable than mainstream cable networks? And can U.S. audiences overcome their inherent prejudice that RT America is just a propaganda arm for the Russian government? </p>
<h2>The RT America paradox</h2>
<p>Thus far, most coverage of RT America has focused on its ties to the Kremlin. But there’s a distinct difference between the news arm of the Moscow-based Russia Today and RT America’s opinion shows.</p>
<p>In short, the opinion and talk shows that populate RT America seem to have editorial freedom, while the news arm of RT does not. </p>
<p>One stark example took place over coverage of the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine. </p>
<p>RT news anchor Liz Wahl <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h79v9uirLY">resigned on air</a>, citing disagreements with RT’s editorial policy. More recently, Moscow-based Sarah Firth – who worked for RT, not RT America – <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/russia-today-reporter-quits-slanted-719786">resigned in protest</a> over the way that the network was covering the Malaysian Airlines crash in Ukraine.</p>
<p>In contrast, Abby Martin, former host of “Breaking the Set,” an opinion show that aired on RT America from 2012 to 2015, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26440556">openly criticized Russian military intervention into Ukraine in March of 2014</a>. Yet she went on to continue to host her show for another year before moving on. <a href="http://mediaroots.org/never-stop-breaking-the-set/">In a note for Media Roots</a>, she explained she was leaving the show to pursue more investigative reporting and added “RT has given me opportunities I will be eternally thankful for.” </p>
<p>This suggests a divide at RT America over freedom of expression in opinion shows versus news coverage. It’s a distinction that is important to note and to critique. But it’s also one that suggests that the assumption that all RT America programming is tainted by propaganda may itself be an unfounded bias. </p>
<h2>The RT difference</h2>
<p>While Al Jazeera America and RT America both angled to offer an alternative to mainstream U.S. news media, there are many ways that RT has followed a different – and potentially more successful – path. </p>
<p>First, RT America made the smart move to remove Russia from its name. Al Jazeera refused to adjust its name to appeal to U.S. viewers and distance itself from its financial backers. </p>
<p>RT America has also differed radically in the sort of programming offered. Balancing out its daily news programming, RT America airs analysis and commentary shows by Larry King, Thom Hartmann, Jesse Ventura and former MSNBC host Ed Schultz – all established personalities with significant appeal to American audiences.</p>
<p>In addition, RT America has carved out a niche with millennial viewers, with two shows aimed at a younger audience and hosted by younger talent. The first, <a href="https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/">“Watching the Hawks,”</a> is a news magazine show hosted by Tyrel Ventura (Jesse’s son), Sean Stone (Oliver’s son) and Tabetha Wallace. </p>
<p>When they were announced as new hosts for a show on RT, <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/jesse-venturas-son-and-oliver-stones-get-a-show-at-russia-to#.lqoa0L3Bx">many dismissed the development</a>. Wallace told me, for instance, that she is often derogatorily called “Putin’s princess,” since it’s assumed the Russian leader controls her. </p>
<p>But I believe “Watching the Hawks” has fed viewers a consistent diet of cutting-edge stories on politics, media and culture. They often target corporate abuse, like pieces they’ve run on <a href="https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/331365-hsbc-investigation-elections-rundown/">HSBC</a> and <a href="https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/325950-muslims-us-solar-energy/">Dow-Dupont</a>. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Wallace has reported on the annual gathering of veterans called <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1E9LX369xs">“The Bikers of Rolling Thunder,”</a> and she covered the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kdURvs8NCs">70th Hiroshima Peace Ceremony</a>. In my opinion, both segments are solid examples of stories that had been largely ignored in the mainstream U.S. media. </p>
<p>The second millennial-oriented show on RT America is <a href="https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-summary/">“Redacted Tonight,”</a> a satirical news program hosted by political comedian Lee Camp. </p>
<p>Camp – <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/10/06/im_making_comedy_out_of_the_darkest_issues_in_the_world_meet_the_john_oliver_of_russia_today/">described by Salon</a> as “Jon Stewart with sharper teeth” – appeals to an audience that has become <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/185927/americans-trust-media-remains-historical-low.aspx">increasingly dissatisfied</a> with mainstream news. </p>
<p>Since 9/11, satire news has increasingly been taken more seriously than “real” news (even though <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-daily-show-was-never-real-news-but-came-depressingly-close-37506">it doesn’t exactly live up to that standard</a>). Nonetheless, Jon Stewart <a href="http://time.com/3704321/jon-stewart-daily-show-fake-news/">was voted most trusted journalist</a> after Walter Cronkite died. And viewers of “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/">scored higher</a> than viewers of network news in knowledge of public issues.</p>
<p>Taking advantage of the fact that RT airs no advertising, Camp goes after any and all corporate and political malfeasance he can uncover. And he makes his audience laugh while doing it. </p>
<p>Recent episodes highlighted how <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvP6edGhJvs">the media claimed Hillary Clinton won the first Democratic debate</a> even though Bernie Sanders won every poll, and pointed to the <a href="https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-summary/333070-israel-palestine-capitalism-problems/">ongoing inability of the U.S. public</a> to have a meaningful conversation about Israel and Palestine. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SvP6edGhJvs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Like Jon Stewart, Lee Camp uses humor to criticize mainstream media coverage.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These sorts of shows were missing on Al Jazeera America. The network never attempted to break into the “fake news” market, despite the fact that it’s a <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/">growing source</a> of news and entertainment for young viewers. Nor did they provide the sort of hip, inquisitive programming found on “Watching the Hawks.” </p>
<p>Arguably, these two shows could build a young base of viewers for RT America. </p>
<h2>A network of independent personalities</h2>
<p>While skeptics may think that these shows can’t possibly be free of Kremlin influence, many of the top-billed hosts for RT America – Larry King, Jesse Ventura, Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz – all share a history of being independent thinkers.</p>
<p>Take Thom Hartmann’s show, “The Big Picture.” <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann">Hartmann</a>, a radio and TV personality and author of over 25 books, has made his career as a progressive political commentator. His two writers work in RT America’s Washington, D.C. studio, and they both told me that they have zero restrictions on what they cover each night. </p>
<p>When I asked Hartmann, he said, “No one at RT has ever told me what to say and what not to say.” </p>
<p>Meanwhile he explained that in any given week, “The Big Picture,” covers at least three stories that simply would never appear on mainstream cable news. And yet, despite the fact that “The Big Picture” also airs on the progressive cable network <a href="https://www.freespeech.org/">Free Speech TV</a>, his presence on RT America has to contend with assumptions of censorship and control.</p>
<p>King has also done a series of interviews where he’s had to justify his ties to the network. In each case, he has explained that he hates censorship and that his own show is completely free of any editorial control. He has also <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/11/i-hate-censorship-larry-king-his-journey-prime-time-tv-russia-today">openly disagreed</a> with Russian policies: “I certainly vehemently disagree with the position they take on homosexuals – that’s absurd to me.” </p>
<p>No one asks anchors on NBC how it feels to <a href="http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-military-industrial-media-complex/">work for a weapons contractor</a>. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Unreliable-Sources-Guide-Detecting-Media/dp/0818405619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457016139&sr=8-1&keywords=unreliable+sources">Numerous studies</a>, <a href="http://umich.edu/%7Enewsbias/institutional.html">including one</a> out of the University of Michigan, have shown that the link between GE and NBC has led to biased reporting. </p>
<p>Not only is the U.S. media influenced by corporatations; it’s also influenced by the federal government. </p>
<p>In 2006, journalists Amy and David Goodman <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Static.html?id=3T6ZAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false">reported</a> that “Under the Bush administration, at least 20 federal agencies … spent $250 million creating hundreds of fake television news segments that [were] sent to local stations.” They also documented how the government paid journalists in Iraq for positive reporting, and provided canned videos to air on cable news. </p>
<p>Given these examples of political and corporate influence on mainstream networks, it is worth wondering why RT gets criticized for bias while other networks get a free pass.</p>
<p>Lee Camp says he was drawn to RT in the first place precisely because of the editorial freedom. He knew he wouldn’t have to worry about pressure from advertisers. </p>
<p>As he explained in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PtD0R9WsA">opening of one episode</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>People [ask] me why Redacted Tonight is on RT and not another network…I’ll tell you why. My anti-consumerism, anti-two-party-corporate-totalitarianism isn’t exactly welcomed with open arms on networks showing 24/7 Wal-Mart ads. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>A new cultural Cold War?</h2>
<p>RT America has certainly embraced its paradoxical role of pushing media boundaries in the U.S. that likely wouldn’t be tolerated on Russian soil. But before we fall into Cold War dichotomies of U.S. press freedom and Russian media censorship, it’s important to note two key realities in the 21st-century media landscape.</p>
<p>First, while it’s important to hold RT America accountable for its coverage of Russia’s intervention into Ukraine, it’s worth noting that the U.S. media could equally be held accountable for its own coverage of the 9/11 attacks and the lead-up to the U.S.-Iraq War. </p>
<p>In 2015, <a href="http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2015/false/">four out of 10 Americans</a> still believed there were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq – a level of disinformation that requires media compliance. These statistics show the long-lasting impact of media bias in shaping public opinion. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the current U.S. news media is filled not only with bias but also with outright lies. Fox News, <a href="http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/ratings-fox-news-channel-most-watched-cable-network-five-straight-weeks-1201712763/">the most-watched cable news network</a>, lies about 60 percent of the time, <a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jan/27/msnbc-fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/">according to Politifact</a>. For NBC and MSNBC, the score isn’t much better: 46 percent.</p>
<p>One wonders how RT America would compare.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54620/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sophia A. McClennen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With the collapse of Al Jazeera America, there may be a case for RT America as a purveyor of progressive, alternative journalism.Sophia A. McClennen, Director, Center for Global Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/464522015-08-27T07:50:21Z2015-08-27T07:50:21ZActivists misuse open records requests to harass researchers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93057/original/image-20150826-15424-1sud94d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A researcher buried in records requests can’t attend to actual science. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=130718771&src=lb-29877982">Man image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This winter, Kevin Folta, a plant molecular biologist with the University of Florida’s (UF) Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), became the target of a sweeping public records request from <a href="http://usrtk.org/">US Right to Know</a>, an activist group that seeks to expose what it calls “the failures of the corporate food system,” after answering questions on a website called <a href="https://gmoanswers.com">GMO Answers</a>.</p>
<p>Folta is chairman of the Department of Horticultural Sciences here, which I oversee as senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources at UF. His research uses genomics tools to guide traditional breeding efforts in Florida crops. On the GMO Answers site, he writes about the science of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), critically evaluating claims about the technology. He is not compensated for his time, and uses GMO Answers as a means to educate interested parties about the technology.</p>
<p>The result of this records request has been a months-long vetting of Folta’s communications by university attorneys in preparation for handing over thousands of emails to US Right to Know. The request is also a major distraction from his work as a scientist.</p>
<p>In my administrative role, I have to oversee these kinds of records requests and make sure we are abiding by both the law and ethical standards of scientific research. Requests such as the one from US Right to Know consume attention and energy, pose the danger of silencing other scientists and impede us from pursuing our true mission of groundbreaking science.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92847/original/image-20150824-17755-1ph8dgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92847/original/image-20150824-17755-1ph8dgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92847/original/image-20150824-17755-1ph8dgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92847/original/image-20150824-17755-1ph8dgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92847/original/image-20150824-17755-1ph8dgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92847/original/image-20150824-17755-1ph8dgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92847/original/image-20150824-17755-1ph8dgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92847/original/image-20150824-17755-1ph8dgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 2009, Google Suggest was at the ready to serve up results about Climategate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/searchengineland/4161122805">search-engine-land</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Climategate’ and misrepresented messages</h2>
<p>Folta is certainly not the first or only scientist to face activists bent on cherry-picking emails to distort research with a goal of applying pressure to men and women who work on controversial topics.</p>
<p>The most notorious case has been dubbed “Climategate,” in which hackers extracted thousands of emails from the server of a British university in 2009. Climate change <a href="http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/02/12/u-s-senate-epw-committee-found-climate-scientists-obstructed-concealed-manipulated-colluded-lobbied-influence-upon-political-processes/">deniers asserted</a> that the <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/">emails demonstrated</a> global warming was a worldwide scientific <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/">conspiracy</a>.</p>
<p>In a letter in the journal Science, 225 members of the US National Academy of Sciences <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.328.5979.689">condemned the hack</a> as an example of “political assaults on scientists and climate scientists in particular.” Scientific organizations worldwide <a href="http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-reaffirms-statements-climate-change-and-integrity">reiterated</a> the <a href="http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html">scientific consensus</a> around climate change. All that, of course, <a href="http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987697,00.html">could not unring the bell</a> and put the controversy to rest.</p>
<p>What we’ve learned from episodes such as Climategate is that emails can be used out of context to confuse the public about issues around which there is, in fact, solid scientific consensus.</p>
<h2>Open records requests wielded as a weapon</h2>
<p>The abuse of open records law as an activists’ tool wielded against researchers is prevalent enough that the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group long recognized for its hard skeptical stance on agricultural biotechnology, earlier this year <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-scientists-harassment/freedom-bully-how-laws#.VdtFK-uJnww">published a report</a> titled Freedom to Bully: How Laws Intended to Free Information Are Used to Harass Researchers.</p>
<p>It highlights multiple cases similar to Folta’s, by no means limited to agricultural biotechnology. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>An occupational health scientist at West Virginia University received multiple <a href="http://www.statejournal.com/story/28222033/highland-mining-wvu-to-argue-foia-case">records requests from a mining company</a> after he investigated connections between mountaintop removal mining and adverse health effects.</li>
<li>A University of North Carolina <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121062/north-carolina-republicans-battle-uncs-gene-nichol-poverty-center">poverty researcher was targeted</a> by a conservative think tank, requiring him to review thousands of emails.</li>
<li>A legal scholar of religious freedom at the University of Virginia faced a Freedom of Information Act <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/douglas_laycock_gets_smeared_lgbtq_groups_attack_on_the_university_of_virginia.html">request backed by an LGBTQ advocacy group</a> for phone and email records between him and various religious liberty groups.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Harassing requests threaten scientific enterprise</h2>
<p>The expense of paper chases bothers me. What worries me more, though, is the prospect that other Kevin Foltas are silent because they do not want to be subjected to the harassment he endures. For instance, our national scientific societies have been silent during this episode.</p>
<p><a href="http://aec.ifas.ufl.edu/contact/faculty/joy_rumble.shtml">Joy Rumble</a>, an assistant professor of agricultural communication here at UF/IFAS, identifies this phenomenon as part of the <a href="http://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/spiral-of-silence/">spiral of silence</a>. People tend not to publicly share their beliefs if they feel they’re in the minority, the theory goes, for fear of isolation or reprisals. That silence feeds greater fear among dissenters as the status quo dominates the public discussion.</p>
<p>In a society in which the might of a megaphone too often trumps the power of ideas, self-censorship can mean truth loses.</p>
<p>And it’s not an abstract concept to Rumble. She, too, answered a question or two on GMO Answers. She, too, was then targeted by a public records request. Her crime, in the view of the detractors who seek to discredit her, appears to be <em>talking about</em> talking about biotechnology. She wants to help scientists become better communicators, to bridge the gap between scientific consensus and public perception.</p>
<p>The Union of Concerned Scientists report decries the use of broad records requests that can hijack researchers’ time, divert university money, and chill researchers’ interest in communicating with the public they serve.</p>
<p>It’s particularly distressing in an agricultural research context since <a href="https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats">3.1 million children</a> under the age of five die each year from malnutrition, while there are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvFD6DRn0Cg">no documented cases</a> of a child – or anyone – dying from eating GMO foods in the two decades they have been available to the public.</p>
<p>So when Folta gets death threats or has to deal with online posts about his deceased mother, or we have to search emails for nonexistent evidence of a conspiracy theory, that’s more than a nuisance. Harassment of researchers contributes to the locking up in labs of potential solutions to worldwide problems.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93058/original/image-20150826-15424-1vh7c8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93058/original/image-20150826-15424-1vh7c8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93058/original/image-20150826-15424-1vh7c8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93058/original/image-20150826-15424-1vh7c8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93058/original/image-20150826-15424-1vh7c8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93058/original/image-20150826-15424-1vh7c8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93058/original/image-20150826-15424-1vh7c8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93058/original/image-20150826-15424-1vh7c8f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Legitimate researchers let the sun shine in and don’t cloud funding issues – without the need for harassment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cdharrison/4703423688">Chris Harrison</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Transparency is crucial</h2>
<p>Yes, Folta’s email communications with agricultural companies should be public records. The integrity of public university research is based in part on its transparency. It’s germane that the public know where we get our funding, whatever the source.</p>
<p>That’s different from sifting through 4,600 pages of emails and other records to mine for defamatory out-of-context sentences. Reimbursements for travel and small financial contributions to defray the cost of a conference or student attendance at a meeting are poised to be paraded as bribery-for-service.</p>
<p>Yet our scientific statements reflect scientific consensus and experimental evidence, not the influence of funders. While we can point to examples of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html">cozy relationships between scientists and corporations</a> that raise questions of research integrity, I’d argue these instances aren’t the norm in the scientific community. A 2009 meta-analysis reports that 2% of scientists <a href="http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738">admit to fabricating or falsifying</a> data. If recognized, misconduct – such as allowing results to be dictated by a funding source – can destroy careers.</p>
<p>For example, researcher Eric Smart was shown to have <a href="http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2422095/university-of-kentucky-researcher.html">fabricated cardiovascular-diabetes data</a> for almost a decade. Once discovered, he resigned from his position, is excluded from applying for federal grants for seven years and now teaches high school chemistry. Others typically accept settlements that demand their research be supervised or that any employers certify publications.</p>
<p>Such disruptions in publication and grant funding are difficult to overcome in a scientific career. Making up data is a fast track to career suicide. Researchers recognize that, and the overwhelming majority would not deliberately take that kind of risk – above and beyond what their academic integrity would dictate. Yes, it’s important to acknowledge the concern that corporate funding could potentially influence or steer research in a way that falls short of falsifying data. But I have faith that the scientific enterprise self-corrects these unintentional lapses.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92950/original/image-20150825-15875-11v28r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92950/original/image-20150825-15875-11v28r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92950/original/image-20150825-15875-11v28r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92950/original/image-20150825-15875-11v28r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92950/original/image-20150825-15875-11v28r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92950/original/image-20150825-15875-11v28r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92950/original/image-20150825-15875-11v28r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92950/original/image-20150825-15875-11v28r4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most researchers are by the book when it comes to their scientific publications.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/moonlightbulb/6307961852">Selena N B H</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>People opposed to this kind of harassment-via-records-request can sign the Cornell Alliance for Science <a href="http://cas.nonprofitsoapbox.com/science14">#Science14 letter</a>. It’s a petition in support of academic freedom and the 14 scientists at four universities currently targeted by anti-GMO activists’ public records requests. </p>
<p>As a university administrator, I’d rather spend money on so many things than taxpayer-funded witch hunts. We’re forced to divert funds that could be used in the search to alleviate human suffering rooted in starvation and malnutrition, in producing better food with less environmental impact, and keeping our agricultural industries strong.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jack Payne heads the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, which receives approximately $100 million a year in research funding from outside sources. Funders include federal agencies, among them the NIH, NSF, DoD and USDA. Other research funding comes from foundations, state and local governments, corporations, trade associations, and non-profits. Monsanto is among the many corporations that fund UF/IFAS biotechnology research.
Kevin Folta’s current research funding comes from the USDA to study light as a non-chemical control of fruit quality, flavor and nutrient content. His outreach is no longer sponsored by Monsanto but has received support from Oregon Farm Bureau, Manitoba Canola Commission and the US Pork Board as compensation for training or presentations. Many small individual donors also support the program. </span></em></p>Some activists use open records requests to bully researchers – distracting them from their actual work and silencing others who don’t want to draw attention.Jack Payne, Senior Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources and Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.