Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Week in Review: The Off-Cycle Deception
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 1 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Week in Review: The Off-Cycle Deception
*
Off-cycle elections are not an accident of scheduling-local governments routinely choose to put major spending decisions up for a vote when they know most people aren't paying attention, amplifying the influence of public sector unions and other special interests. This is a nationwide problem, and a new Goldwater Institute report makes the case for reform.
In "Off-Cycle Voting in Arizona: Economic and Democratic Costs?," political economist and
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, May 1 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Week in Review: The Off-Cycle Deception
*
Off-cycle elections are not an accident of scheduling-local governments routinely choose to put major spending decisions up for a vote when they know most people aren't paying attention, amplifying the influence of public sector unions and other special interests. This is a nationwide problem, and a new Goldwater Institute report makes the case for reform.
In "Off-Cycle Voting in Arizona: Economic and Democratic Costs?," political economist andArizona State University Associate Professor Henry Thomson, Ph.D., exposes how off-cycle elections are costing Arizonans billions while weakening democracy. Recent off-cycle municipal elections in Arizona averaged 26.9% turnout, more than 44 percentage points lower than comparable on-cycle elections-November elections on even-numbered years. The result: a less representative electorate that is older, wealthier, and more closely aligned with groups that benefit from growing government spending.
As the report makes clear, local governments and special interests utilize off-cycle elections to provide a democratic varnish of voter approval to policies aimed at inflating municipal budgets. For a state committed to self-government and fiscal responsibility, reforming election timing is essential.
Read more here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/goldwater-report-off-cycle-elections-cost-arizona-billions-and-empower-special-interests/).
Oklahoma Takes Action on Homelessness
This week, Oklahoma lawmakers voted to hold local governments accountable when officials allow homelessness to grow unchecked and harm neighborhoods. House Bill 3985, which is awaiting the governor's signature, follows the Goldwater Institute's Proposition 312, an Arizona measure that ensures property owners can obtain relief when cities fail to enforce laws and allow homelessness-related nuisances to take root.
The lesson from Arizona is clear: accountability works. When local governments know they can be held financially responsible, they are far more likely to enforce the laws already on the books in a way that respects both public safety and individual rights.
Allowing individuals to live in dangerous encampments, often without access to sanitation, treatment, or services, is not compassionate. Rather, it's neglect and dereliction of duty from local governments. Meanwhile, surrounding communities suffer from increased crime, serious health hazards, and economic decline. HB 3985 does not criminalize homelessness. Instead, it ensures that governments cannot ignore illegal activity and its consequences. It reinforces the idea that laws must be applied evenly, and that public officials are accountable to the people they serve.
Read more here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/oklahoma-homelessness-law/).
It's About the Separation of Powers
There's a contradiction in our country. Many communities are experiencing a shortage of housing, yet bureaucrats are enacting policies that constrain housing and lead to those very shortages. That's exactly what happened in Arizona when Gov. Katie Hobbs' administration imposed a water restriction rule that stifled home construction across Maricopa County-until the Goldwater Institute took a stand.
Media outlets across Arizona took note of Goldwater's victory and the court's ruling that the Hobbs administration never had the authority to impose a new water rule without going through the state's rulemaking process. The Arizona Republic called the court's ruling a "major blow" to Hobbs' anti-home-building agenda.
It's really about the "separation of powers and who gets to be making the rules," Goldwater Institute Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches told Phoenix radio host Mike Broomhead this week. "It's no understatement to say that this was the largest bureaucratic overreach in Arizona's history," Riches added, noting that Hobbs "literally just ignored the law and... completely shut down new home development exactly where we need it most."
Elected officials and government bureaucrats regularly engage in illegal power grabs to impose their preferred policies on the people. The Goldwater Institute will continue to fight back whenever and wherever they do.
Read more here (https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/victory-arizona-court-strikes-down-water-bureaucracys-restrictions-on-development/).
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/week-in-review-the-off-cycle-deception/
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Providence Magazine: Centrality of Religious Freedom
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on April 29, 2026, by Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, to Providence magazine:
* * *
The Centrality of Religious Freedom
llan Hertzke's Why Religious Freedom Matters: Human Rights and Human Flourishing is a welcome overview of the vital importance of religious freedom by a veteran writer of informed studies on the subject over the last 30 years.
The book comes at a critical time since both religious
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on April 29, 2026, by Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, to Providence magazine:
* * *
The Centrality of Religious Freedom
llan Hertzke's Why Religious Freedom Matters: Human Rights and Human Flourishing is a welcome overview of the vital importance of religious freedom by a veteran writer of informed studies on the subject over the last 30 years.
The book comes at a critical time since both religiousfreedom and knowledge of its salience are both sadly being eroded. He reviews a wide range of arguments on its importance in and of itself and as an indispensable foundation for other human rights.
Retired Congressman Frank Wolf, a champion of religious freedom after whom the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act is now named, has recently lamented the diminished attention to religious freedom, something that others have also noted.
There are several reasons for this decreased attention:
One is current U.S. domestic divisions. Some on the left have come to see calls for religious freedom as ploys to avoid adhering to anti-discrimination laws. Such suspicions undercut bipartisan international religious freedom advocacy. This continues even though such advocacy is not limited to Christians but includes Falun Gong and Uyghurs in China, Muslims in Myanmar, Buddhists in Vietnam, Baha'is in Iran, Ahmadis in Pakistan, and a host of others throughout the world.
Another reason is that increasing secularism in the West leads to antipathy or, perhaps, simple apathy regarding religion. The European Union recently left its post for special envoy for religious freedom vacant for 16 months.
A third may be a body of scholarship, often termed "secularism studies," arguing that religious freedom is not a neutral, universal human right but a mechanism of state power that often marginalizes those it seeks to help. This critique maintains that legal definitions of "religion" are largely Western, Protestant, models prioritizing individual "belief" over collective "lived" practices. In turn this can leave unorthodox or non-institutional traditions legally "invisible" and unprotected.
A problem with this approach is that, while it may offer valuable critiques, it reflects current Western academic trends on religion. Hence it tends to replace purported previous Western categories with other more recent Western categories.
Then there is the growth of more self-described 'realist' international politics and policy, including in the U.S. This downgrades human rights concerns in general in favor of a modus vivendi between major powers.
Finally, American evangelicals have less international concern. It has been argued, wrongly, that the stress on international religious freedom in the 1990's was simply evangelicals defending their own. Apart from the fact that any such stress would itself be a perfectly legitimate, it overlooks the fact that the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act was supported by Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'is, and many others. Indeed, as Hertzke has shown in an earlier work, it drew in most religious groups in the US.
However, by sheer numbers and electoral clout it was evangelicals that made the campaign successful. But now, with many evangelicals increasingly restricting their focus to domestic culture wars, the energy for international religious freedom has been reduced. Some of this slack is being taken up effectively by Catholics, but a deficit remains.
In this situation, Hertzke's latest book is especially welcome. He builds on earlier studies by Brian Grim, Roger Finke, and Robert Martin, and more recent work by Nilay Saiya, Jonathan Fox and others. Whereas Grim and Fox are heavy-duty number crunchers, albeit with good explanations of the numbers so crunched, Hertzke weaves them into a compelling narrative. Well over a third of the book is devoted to notes and an index, but he still manages to make it flow.
His overall thesis is that religious freedom is not only a major good but is also a primary driver of democracy, prosperity, the increased status of women and of the poor, and decreased violence.
His central argument is that religious freedom touches the core of "human personhood and experience"--the fundamental right to be who we are and to act on our deepest commitments. He contends that when this is protected, it frees and enhances personal agency that benefits others, both religious and non-religious. Conversely, when governments or society suppress religious liberty, it leads to destructive outcomes, including weakened democracy, increased violence, and eroding civil liberties.
He argues that there is both a strong historical and strong statistical link between religious freedom and the longevity of democratic institutions. This is because religious freedom limits government powers and, by allowing diverse groups to act independently, helps foster a robust and free civil society.
Hertzke then summarizes the strong evidence that countries with fewer religious restrictions commonly have higher economic growth. He attributes this to increasing social cooperation, attracting skilled immigrants, and promoting a more stable investment climate. He reports that religious freedom is one of only three factors significantly associated with global economic growth. In particular, countries that reduced religious restrictions between 2007 and 2017 had GDP growth rates nearly double those where restrictions increased.
In addition, he contends that there is a positive relationship between religious freedom and 10 out of 12 measures of global competitiveness, and that innovation is more likely in countries that have low religious restrictions.
He then argues that religious liberty also supports a greater role for women and for programs that uplift the poor, since religious organizations are often the primary providers of social services. Research cited in the book shows a strong correlation with women's empowerment.
Finally, there are links to international security. Drawing on Nilay Saiya, he stresses that religious repression is a leading indicator of social conflict and terrorism, whereas religious freedom reduces fanaticism and builds broader loyalty to the state.
The interrelations demonstrate that religious freedom is rarely an isolated variable. Instead, it is highly correlated with many other indicators of societal well-being, also including lower levels of armed conflict and decreased income inequality.
Of course, correlations leave lots of questions: it might mean that it is these other goods that are enhancing religious freedom. But, while recognizing that causation is not all one way and that there are certainly reciprocal effects, Hertzke gives good reasons, often through historical narrative, that the religious freedom factor is formative.
To be proactive in enhancing religious freedom, he advocates what is now commonly called "covenantal pluralism." This calls for moving beyond a "passive religious tolerance," in which groups refrain from restricting one another, toward active, respectful, and engaged relations between religions and with political and other key actors.
He concludes "We are witnessing a historical convergence of empirical evidence and events on the ground that corroborate a key ontological reality: Humans are spiritual creatures who thrive best and most harmoniously when they enjoy the freedom to express their fundamental dignity. Religious liberty is crucial to thriving societies and peace."
Read in Providence (https://providencemag.com/2026/04/the-centrality-of-religious-freedom/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Paul Marshall is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/religious-freedom/centrality-religious-freedom-paul-marshall
[Category: ThinkTank]
Heritage Experts: Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling a Win for Pro-Life Movement
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Experts: Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling a Win for Pro-Life Movement
The Supreme Court today unanimously ruled in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport that nonprofit organizations like pro-life groups can challenge subpoenas demanding the identity of their financial supporters in court.
Cully Stimson, acting director for The Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government and a senior legal fellow, made the following statement:
"This ruling is a victory
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on April 29, 2026:
* * *
Heritage Experts: Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling a Win for Pro-Life Movement
The Supreme Court today unanimously ruled in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport that nonprofit organizations like pro-life groups can challenge subpoenas demanding the identity of their financial supporters in court.
Cully Stimson, acting director for The Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government and a senior legal fellow, made the following statement:
"This ruling is a victoryfor First Choice and other organizations targeted by the Left. The fact that this holding was unanimous and there were no concurrences shows how emphatic the Court is in protecting associational rights under the First Amendment. "This holding is a victory for the First Amendment and a slap at any government actor who attempts to force lawful organizations to disclose private donor information under the guise of 'consumer protection' or 'transparency.'"
Melanie Israel, a visiting fellow in Heritage's DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family, added:
"When a mom reaches out for a helping hand, pregnancy resource centers like First Choice say, 'We are here for you.' Their work is lifesaving. One recent study found that 2,800 pro-life pregnancy resource centers across the country served more than 1 million new clients in 2024. They provided an estimated $452 million in services, including ultrasounds, parenting and prenatal classes, and supplies like diapers and clothing."These centers are on the frontlines, building a culture of life. They serve communities because they care deeply about moms, dads, and their unborn babies. It's unconscionable that they have faced years of targeted harassment by abortion advocates and their government allies."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-experts-unanimous-scotus-ruling-win-pro-life-movement
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Why Walz's Tax Credit Won't Address High Child Care Costs
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 1 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on April 30, 2026, by economist Martha Njolomole
* * *
Why Walz's tax credit won't address high child care costs
Governor Walz gave his final State of the State address on Tuesday. Lamenting affordability challenges plaguing Minnesotans, he touted his proposal to expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit to lower child care costs.
Anyone who's been a new parent knows that you walk around with a laundry list of worries.
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 1 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on April 30, 2026, by economist Martha Njolomole
* * *
Why Walz's tax credit won't address high child care costs
Governor Walz gave his final State of the State address on Tuesday. Lamenting affordability challenges plaguing Minnesotans, he touted his proposal to expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit to lower child care costs.
Anyone who's been a new parent knows that you walk around with a laundry list of worries.And near the top of that list is the cost of childcare. That cost has skyrocketed in recent years, and it's squeezing families in a way they can't afford. Let's do something about it. Tonight, I'm proposing a significant expansion of the Dependent Care Tax Credit for more than 100,000 families with young and school-aged kids -- lowering the cost of child care by up to $3,000 for families with one child, and $6,000 for families with two or more kids under five.
Indeed, Minnesota is one of the least affordable states for center-based childcare. In 2024, parents in Minnesota spent over $20,000 -- 18 percent of the median family income -- to send an infant to a licensed daycare center. Minnesota ranked as the ninth-least affordable state nationwide.
Something must be done. However, solutions like tax credits fail to address why costs are high in the first place.
Infant childcare in South Dakota costs half as much as in Minnesota. In North Dakota, it is a third less costly. What distinguishes Minnesota from the Dakotas is not the absence or existence of tax credits. Rather, stringent regulations in Minnesota drive providers out of the market, restricting supply and raising costs.
* * *
Figure 1: Center-Based Infant Care as a Percent of Median Family Income, 2024
Source: Child Care Aware; U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey
* * *
In a Child Care Regulations Index published in February 2026, the Archbridge Institute ranked Minnesota as the 10th most burdensome state for childcare center rules. In the Midwest region, only Wisconsin, another high-cost state, had more stringent rules.
Unsurprisingly, North Dakota and South Dakota both impose relatively less burdensome rules compared to Minnesota. This suggests a strong link between regulatory stringency and cost. Numerous studies provide evidence of this relationship.
A 2022 analysis by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found, for instance, that there is a negative relationship between child care affordability and the average child-staff ratio in each state.
That is, states that allow a higher number of children per caregiver -- meaning that operating costs are distributed over many more families -- see lower prices.
A 2017 journal study estimated that states could lower costs for center-based infant care by up to $1,890 by loosening staff-to-child ratios. Similarly, repealing rules that require a high school diploma for teachers could reduce costs by up to $4,350 per infant.
Contrary to Walz's assertion, burdensome state regulations, not federal policies, are mainly responsible for childcare affordability challenges in Minnesota.
Expanding the Dependent Care Tax Credit won't lower costs. It will simply shift them onto taxpayers. Even worse, if the supply of childcare slots remains stagnant, the resulting boost in demand will likely drive prices even higher.
* * *
Martha Njolomole is an Economist at Center of the American Experiment.
martha.njolomole@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/why-walzs-tax-credit-wont-address-high-child-care-costs/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: SCOTUS Affirms Donor Confidentiality
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 1 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on April 30, 2026, by Development Director Kathryn Johnson:
* * *
SCOTUS affirms donor confidentiality
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided 9-0 with a pregnancy resource center being targeted by Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin of New Jersey. In 2022, Platkin issued a subpoena demanding First Choice Women's Resource Centers turn over documents detailing the names, phone numbers, addresses, and places
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 1 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on April 30, 2026, by Development Director Kathryn Johnson:
* * *
SCOTUS affirms donor confidentiality
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided 9-0 with a pregnancy resource center being targeted by Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin of New Jersey. In 2022, Platkin issued a subpoena demanding First Choice Women's Resource Centers turn over documents detailing the names, phone numbers, addresses, and placesof employment of many of its donors.
First Choice filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the demand for donor information violated its First Amendment rights. The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court.
While the justices were only tasked with determining if the case had standing to move forward, they unanimously agreed that it did, and that the Attorney General's subpoena violated the center's First Amendment rights by potentially deterring donors from associating with them.
From the decision (citations excluded):
"The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the rights to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition their government freely. Each of these rights, this Court has long understood, necessarily carries with it a corresponding right to associate with others."
The court goes on to note that they have faced numerous cases of state authorities demanding private donor information, going back to NAACP v. Alabama in 1958.
"And in one case after another, we have subjected those demands to heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Throughout, we have emphasized the critical role privacy in association plays in preserving political and cultural diversity and in shielding dissident expression from suppression."
Only five years ago, Americans for Prosperity was subjected to a similar demand from Attorney General Rob Bonta of California. There again, the Supreme Court sided with AFP and the privacy of their donors over left-wing attacks on the First Amendment. The Court held unanimously that AFP did not have to turn over any information about its donors.
At American Experiment, we are well aware of the legal attacks that radical Democrats have launched against our friends in the conservative movement. Despite knowing their actions are unconstitutional, the left continues to launch this lawfare, hoping it will make us weaker. We want to make our position clear: We will never be bullied into compromising the identities of our donors, members, or associates. Attacks like these only go to show that our mission, to achieve a freer and more prosperous America, is more important now than ever. And we, and our donors, can rest secure in the fact that the federal courts will unanimously uphold our right to donor confidentiality. That is something our donors never need to worry about.
Thank you to every American Experiment member for your trust and support.
* * *
Kathryn Johnson is the Development Director at Center of the American Experiment.
kathryn.johnson@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/scotus-affirms-donor-confidentiality/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CRC News: How Do You Use Our Research?
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following news on April 30, 2026:
* * *
CRC News: How do you use our research?
We love media attention, but it's extra special when our readers and supporters steal our stuff and tell the media about it for us.
*
CRC News is a semi-weekly feature that recaps how the media and other policy influencers have used the work of InfluenceWatch and the researchers from the Capital Research Center. While we're delighted with that attention, it's extra special when our readers and supporters steal our stuff and tell the media about it for us.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following news on April 30, 2026:
* * *
CRC News: How do you use our research?
We love media attention, but it's extra special when our readers and supporters steal our stuff and tell the media about it for us.
*
CRC News is a semi-weekly feature that recaps how the media and other policy influencers have used the work of InfluenceWatch and the researchers from the Capital Research Center. While we're delighted with that attention, it's extra special when our readers and supporters steal our stuff and tell the media about it for us.So, the top item on this edition of CRC News is a quote from a recent letter to the editor of the High County Press in Boone, NC. The letter was submitted by Cary and Bridget Davenport.
If you have used CRC or InfluenceWatch in a published letter to the editor, please share it with us!
* * *
High County Press (Boone, NC)--LETTER: Confronting the Democrats Who Are Blaming Watauga County Commissioners For The Lawsuit
From Influence Watch website, I quote "Tides has received millions of dollars from George Soros's Open Society Foundations and was labeled by the National Legal and Policy Center as "George Soros' Favorite Money Handler". Tides Foundation reported on their 2024 IRS form 990 a "grant" to this Watauga County Voting Rights Task Force of $50,000. Pretty healthy donation and again, the deep pockets of Soros reaching into our county to fund this lawsuit against us. Don't know yet what 2025 "grants" are pushing this law fare along. And just as an aside, we couldn't find a 2024 filing by Watauga County Voting Rights Task Force reporting this $50,000.
* * *
Fox News-- Soros-linked dark money network fuels Virginia redistricting push backed by national Democrats: A primary backer of Virginia's redistricting effort raised more than $64M via dark money groups and support from national Dems like Nancy Pelosi
Another one of the top donors to the left's Virginians for Fair Elections is American Opportunity Action, described as "a pure pass-through entity" by Parker Thayer, a dark money expert from the conservative Capital Research Center.
* * *
Washington Examiner--A look into the controversies surrounding the now-former secretary of labor
Staffers reportedly described DeRemer as an "absentee secretary" who left employees "deeply demoralized."
"When the cat's away, the mice will play," Capital Research Center research director Mike Watson previously told the Washington Examiner. "Bureaucrats who aren't being supervised, who aren't being closely watched, they'll do what they want to do, they'll do what they have been doing, they'll do what they got into government to do, which is to make government bigger, which is to make government more intrusive, and which is to make government carry out the progressive agenda."
* * *
The Center Square--Analyst: Southern Poverty Law Center indictment will increase scrutiny of group
Senior research analyst at American think tank Capital Research Center Robert Stilson told The Center Square that "at a minimum," the Southern Poverty Law Center's indictment will "further increase public scrutiny of a group whose operations were already deeply controversial."
"Americans might rightly question whether what the SPLC does is aligned with their own understanding of what charities should be doing with their tax-exempt dollars - and this was true before any of the alleged actions in the indictment came to light," Stilson said.
[. . .]
Although this information was "unbeknownst to donors" previously, the DOJ said, Stilson has noted in the past the bias embedded throughout the SPLC, stating that "its activities are highly controversial and divisive."
Stilson added: "For context, it is important to recall just how incredibly wealthy the SPLC is."
"Its most recent financials disclosed net assets of over $786 million, with annual revenues that exceed some of the best-known charities in the country," Stilson said.
"Despite this, it continues to strenuously solicit money from small-dollar donors on its website," Stilson said. "Those ordinary donors in particular are the ones who should be taking a hard look at the true nature of the group they are supporting."
Stilson has written in the past on the "extraordinary" wealth of the SPLC.
* * *
The Daily Signal and Victor Davis Hanson (YouTube interview)--From Charlottesville to Corporate Cash: The Left's Playbook REVEALED
"Capital Research Center is a great resource for investigating these left-wing nonprofits..." - Jack Fowler interviewing Victor Davis Hanson (at 33:20 mark)
* * *
American Thinker--NGOs Cosplaying as Overlords and Power Brokers
As the SPLC's left-wing advocacy grew, so did its financial holdings, prompting criticism from former employees like Bob Moser, who described the group in 2019 as a "highly profitable scam" that was "ripping off donors."
"Its balance sheet long ago revealed the SPLC had ceased to be a charity and become a venture capital firm," Scott Walter, the president of the Capital Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, told the Washington Free Beacon. "The indictment reinforces that fact by revealing the SPLC operates like a centimillionaire who simultaneously invests in a drug to treat diabetes and a firm producing high fructose corn syrup."
* * *
National Legal and Policy Center--We've Seen It Before: The Protection Racket That Corporate America Built
The story begins with Al Sharpton. For more than two decades, NLPC has tracked how Sharpton's National Action Network solicited and received corporate donations following public pressure campaigns by threatening boycotts, protests, and the application of the racism label to companies that failed to cooperate. InfluenceWatch documents the pattern in detail, including NLPC's own characterization: Peter Flaherty, president of NLPC, has called Sharpton's operation "quite clearly a shakedown operation." NLPC's late chairman Ken Boehm put it more directly to the New York Post: "Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn't come to terms with him. Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns."
* * *
InsideNOVA (Northern Virginia news source)-- 'Pink slime' arrives in Virginia
There we find that the publication is coming from The American Independent Foundation, another misnomer. According to Influence Watch, the organization, based in Washington, is "part of a network of left-of-center media outlets managed by liberal activist David Brock" that "supports liberal investigative journalism to foster 'increased public awareness of progressive issues.'"
* * *
Natalie Winters (Substack)-- The Media Is Hiding Cole Allen's Ties To A Far-Left Group That Advised Biden. Now The Evidence Is Vanishing From Their Website. The official narrative is dead wrong.
InfluenceWatch notes that Sunrise "played a significant role in the early days of Joe Biden's presidency" and reports that, according to The Hill, Sunrise had been in "regular contact" with Biden administration officials as Biden moved on environmental priorities, including halting Keystone XL construction and restricting fossil fuel activity on federal lands.
[. . .]
InfluenceWatch also lists 2019 grants to Sunrise Movement including $175,000 from Tides Advocacy and $28,750 from the Tides Foundation, placing Sunrise within the broader mainstream progressive donor infrastructure.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/crc-news-how-do-you-use-our-research/
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI-FL Responds to Florida Redistricting
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 30, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-FL Responds to Florida Redistricting
TALLAHASSEE, FL - Following the Florida Legislature's passage of the new congressional map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis, America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Florida state chapter Chair Bob Rommel issued the following statement:
"The Florida Legislature's approval of updated congressional maps reflects an essential part of the democratic process. When maps are drawn in accordance with legal standards and with transparency, they help
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on April 30, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-FL Responds to Florida Redistricting
TALLAHASSEE, FL - Following the Florida Legislature's passage of the new congressional map proposed by Governor Ron DeSantis, America First Policy Institute (AFPI) Florida state chapter Chair Bob Rommel issued the following statement:
"The Florida Legislature's approval of updated congressional maps reflects an essential part of the democratic process. When maps are drawn in accordance with legal standards and with transparency, they helpensure that representation keeps pace with population changes. This process helps ensure fair representation and reinforces confidence in Florida's electoral system."
The newly passed map redraws Florida's 28 U.S. House districts to better account for the state's rapid population growth since the last redistricting cycle.
For Floridians, the updated lines are intended to align districts more closely with where residents actually live, work, and form communities today - ensuring their representation in Washington reflects the Florida of 2026 rather than the Florida of years past.
For Americans more broadly, Florida joins a growing list of states that have revisited their congressional boundaries mid-decade, a trend that will help shape the composition of the U.S. House and the legislative agenda heading into the 2026 midterm elections and beyond.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-fl-responds-to-florida-redistricting
[Category: ThinkTank]
