Cato Institute

From SourceWatch

The Cato Institute is a non-profit public policy research foundation (think tank) with strong libertarian leanings, headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Table of contents

1 History 2 Funding 3 Contact Information 4 References 4.1 Cato's Listed experts who have a SourceWatch Page 5 External links

History

The Cato Institute is named after Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that Cato's founders say helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.

Founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and David H. Koch, its stated mission is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by seeking greater involvement of the "lay public in questions of public policy and the role of government." Despite its decidedly ideological agenda on many topics, members of the Cato Institute are often cited as non-partisan experts on news programs. Chairman of the Cato Institute is William A. Niskanen.

In November 2002, shortly after Cato was named the "Best Advocacy Website" by the Web Marketing Association, the Alexa ratings service issued a report saying that it was "the most popular think tank site over the past three months," receiving a total of 188,901 unique visitors during the previous month of September.[1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39246-2002Nov25?language=printer)

The Cato Institute has been a long-time advocate of Social Security privatization. A chief early architect of Cato's thinking on private accounts was Peter J. Ferrara. The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote in February 2005: "The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the Social Security proposal is a major victory for the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the existing Social Security system, a politically sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling for privatization of the system. The article argued that companies that stand to profit from privatization -- 'the banks, insurance companies and other institutions that will gain' -- had to be brought into alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.'" [2] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19782-2005Feb12.html)

By early 2005, business groups such as the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers and political groups like Progress for America were devoting millions of dollars to the campaign to get rid of the existing Social Security program. It is worth noting that the website SocialSecurity.org (http://www.socialsecurity.org) is run by the Cato Institute, under the heading Project on Social Security Choice.

Funding

80% of Cato's income comes from individual donations and subscriptions. 8% comes from corporations, 8% from foundations and the remaining from conference and book sales etc. They currently have an annual income of $17,000,000. Between 1985 and 2001, the Institute received $15,633,540 in 108 separate grants from only nine different foundations:

• Castle Rock Foundation
• Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
• Earhart Foundation
• JM Foundation
• John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
• Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

Known corporate funders include ExxonMobil, who gave $30,000 during 2002. [3] (http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf)

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch previously served on the board of directors of Cato, which has numerous ties to the Republican Party. Cato often differs with Republican Party positions on specific issues, such as the 2003 decision by U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq, prosecution of the war on drugs, giving federal money to faith-based organizations, and the decision of President George H.W. Bush to fight the first Gulf war. Cato has also criticized the 1998 settlement that many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry [4] (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-371es.html). The Cato Institute has argued implicity against the Republican party on spending issues [5] (http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-03.html).

Sometimes, however, it has proven willing to set aside its libertarian principles - such as supporting a Bush administration moves to restrict civil liberties as part of the war on terror. In 2002, a Cato news release endorsed new Justice Department guidelines giving greater latitude to FBI agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries and religious institutions. "As reported in the press, the new FBI surveillance guidelines present no serious problems," declared Cato legal affairs analyst Roger Pilon, a former Reagan administration official who writes frequent Cato commentaries defending property rights and opposing affirmative action that have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. Pilon added that "law enforcement monitoring of public places is simply good, pro-active police work that violates the rights of no one." [6] (http://www.cato.org/new/05-02/05-30-02r-2.html)

Of course, that one release by Pilon is the rare exception, not the rule. Cato scholars such as Robert Levy and Timothy Lynch had railed against the Bush administration for its civil liberties record on, for example, the Padilla case, military tribunals, national ID cards, the creeping militarization of domestic law enforcement, border patrol, the drug war, grand jury abuse, the PATRIOT Act, federal surveilance of ordinary Americans, operation TIPS, and mandatory vaccinations against potential bioterror threats. [7] (http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/terror-civilliberties.html)

The Institute's yearly funding has climbed above $8 million, more than twice what it was in 1992. The organization's most recent annual report exults: "We've moved into a beautiful new $13.7 million headquarters at 1000 Massachusetts Avenue and have only $1 million in debt remaining on it as we enter 1997." Dozens of huge corporations, eager to roll back government regulatory powers, are among Cato's largest donors.

In their book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Stefancic and Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. Cato's main philanthropic backing has come from the right-wing Koch, Lambe and Sarah Scaife foundations. But today, Cato "receives most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."

Financial firms now contributing generously to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.

Contact Information

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842-0200
Fax (202) 842-3490
http://www.cato.org/

References

• Portions of this article were taken from the Wikipedia encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) article about the Cato Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute).

Cato's Listed experts who have a SourceWatch Page

(Data acquired 2005.03.09 from the following Cato pages: adjunct scholars (http://www.cato.org/people/adjunct.html), policy scholars (http://www.cato.org/people/experts.html), and fellows (http://www.cato.org/people/fellows.html))

• Policy Scholars

1. Steve H. Hanke - Senior Fellow
2. Patrick J. Michaels - Senior Fellow

Scholars

1. Terry L. Anderson
2. Michael Gough
3. Deepak Lal
4. Dwight R. Lee
5. Steven Milloy
6. Thomas Gale Moore
7. Vernon L. Smith
8. Walter E. Williams

• Fellows

1. F. A. Hayek, deceased

External links

• zFacts, "Privatization of Social Security (http://zfacts.com/p/486.html)" Cato's 1983 "Leninist" strategy. It's about to succeed.
• Mike Huben, "Criticisms of the CATO Institute (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html)," in "Critiques Of Libertarianism (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html)."
• "No Problem With New FBI Surveillance Guidelines, Scholar Says (http://www.cato.org/new/05-02/05-30-02r-2.html)" Cato Institute news release, May 30, 2002.
• Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, "The Hot New Americans Get Hotter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39246-2002Nov25?language=printer)," Washington Post, November 26, 2002, p. A27.
• Hans Riemer, "Zogby Polling for Cato Institute, Other Clients, Manipulates Findings (http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/socialsecurity/key_issues/public_opinion/riemer__zogby_cato.cfm)," Campaign for America's Future, February 6, 2003.
• Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "Private-Account Concept Grew From Obscure Roots (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42525-2005Feb21.html)," Washington Post, February 23, 2005.

• This page was last modified 02:05, 24 Jun 2006.
• This page has been accessed 36675 times.
• Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2.
• About SourceWatch
• Disclaimers