Nonprofit Think Tanks Provide Cover for Lobbying by ex-Officials
Well known organizations allow their fellows to have multiple affiliations, which are sometimes disclosed, sometimes not.
Eric Lipton of the New York Times reports on the revolving door between homeland security agencies and their contractors. It turns out that some of the big names in nonprofit think tanks play a facilitating role in this process.
The reporter follows the path of Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (EIN 13-1628168 Form 990). From 2002 to 2005 he was a consultant with Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC, a contractor who sells a $2.5 million machine for scanning containers on ships. Now he is a prominent advocate of such machines in media and before Congress, where he identifies his current affiliation, but only sometimes reveals his earlier work with the contractor.
The article cites three other examples:
- C. Stewart Verdery Jr., the former assistant secretary for border and transportation policy, identifying himself as an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (EIN 52-1501082 Form 990) and also as a partner at a lobbying firm (representing Lockheed Martin, which is now competing for an estimated $2 billion border security contract).
- Richard A. Falkenrath, former White House deputy homeland security adviser, is a senior fellow at Brookings Institution (EIN 53-0196577 Form 990). But he has a second job as a managing director at Civitas Group, which advises corporations and investors on the domestic security market.
- Frank J. Cilluffo, a former special assistant to President Bush on domestic security matters, is director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University (EIN 53-0196584 Form 990) but also serves as a partner for a Virginia consulting firm whose clients include the Saflink Corporation, a maker of identity confirmation software to combat terrorism.
In each case, the organizations did not find that the outside engagements represented a problem. This will not come as good news to those who still hold to the idea that nonprofit organizations represent an "independent sector," neither government nor private.
The article suggests that one reason for these numerous affiliations is the heavy reliance on contractors to implement anti-terrorism programs. The onslaught of salesmanship appears to have overwhelmed objectivity (or at least freedom from direct commercial interest) some would expect from think tanks and univsersities.
Comments