• 2 hours WTI At 7-Month High On Supply Optimism, Kurdistan Referendum
  • 9 hours Permian Still Holds 60-70 Billion Barrels Of Recoverable Oil
  • 14 hours Petrobras Creditors Agree To $6.22 Billion Debt Swap
  • 18 hours Cracks Emerge In OPEC-Russia Oil Output Cut Pact
  • 22 hours Iran Calls On OPEC To Sway Libya, Nigeria To Join Cut
  • 23 hours Chevron To Invest $4B In Permian Production
  • 1 day U.S.-Backed Forces Retake Syrian Conoco Gas Plant From ISIS
  • 1 day Iraq Says Shell May Not Quit Majnoon Oilfield
  • 4 days Nigerian Oil Output Below 1.8 Million BPD Quota
  • 4 days Colorado Landfills Contain Radioactive Substances From Oil Sector
  • 4 days Phillips 66 Partners To Buy Phillips 66 Assets In $2.4B Deal
  • 4 days Japan Court Slams Tepco With Fukushima Damages Bill
  • 4 days Oil Spills From Pipeline After Syria Army Retakes Oil Field From ISIS
  • 4 days Total Joins Chevron In Gulf Of Mexico Development
  • 4 days Goldman Chief Urges Riyadh To Get Vision 2030 Going
  • 4 days OPEC Talks End Without Recommendation On Output Cut Extension
  • 4 days Jamaican Refinery Expansion Stalls Due To Venezuela’s Financial Woes
  • 5 days India In Talks to Acquire 20 Percent Of UAE Oilfield
  • 5 days The Real Cause Of Peak Gasoline Demand
  • 5 days Hundreds Of Vertical Oil Wells Damaged By Horizontal Fracking
  • 5 days Oil Exempt In Fresh Sanctions On North Korea
  • 5 days Sudan, South Sudan Sign Deal To Boost Oil Output
  • 5 days Peruvian Villagers Shut Down 50 Oil Wells In Protest
  • 5 days Bay Area Sues Big Oil For Billions
  • 5 days Lukoil Looks To Sell Italian Refinery As Crimea Sanctions Intensify
  • 6 days Kurdistan’s Biggest Source Of Oil Funds
  • 6 days Oil Prices On Track For Largest Q3 Gain Since 2004
  • 6 days Reliance Plans To Boost Capacity Of World’s Biggest Oil Refinery
  • 6 days Saudi Aramco May Unveil Financials In Early 2018
  • 6 days Has The EIA Been Overestimating Oil Production?
  • 6 days Taiwan Cuts Off Fossil Fuels To North Korea
  • 6 days Clash In Oil-Rich South Sudan Region Kills At Least 25
  • 6 days Lebanon Passes Oil Taxation Law Ahead Of First Licensing Auction
  • 7 days India’s Oil Majors To Lift Borrowing To Cover Dividends, Capex
  • 7 days Gulf Keystone Plans Further Oil Output Increase In Kurdistan
  • 7 days Venezuela’s Crisis Deepens As Hurricane Approaches
  • 7 days Tension Rises In Oil-Rich Kurdistan
  • 7 days Petrobras To Issue $2B New Bonds, Exchange Shorter-Term Debt
  • 8 days Kuwait Faces New Oil Leak Near Ras al-Zour
  • 8 days Sonatrach Aims To Reform Algiers Energy Laws
Alt Text

5 Top Marijuana Stocks For 2017

The marijuana market is growing…

Alt Text

Oil Prices Rise As OPEC Oil Production Declines In August

OPEC’s crude oil production fell…

Investigation Reveals Surprising Way Foreign Governments Buy Influence In D.C.

Investigation Reveals Surprising Way Foreign Governments Buy Influence In D.C.

An investigation by The New York Times has found that several prominent Washington, D.C. think tanks have regularly taken donations from foreign entities in exchange for using their influence over U.S. policy decisions.

The damning report, published in the Sept. 6 edition of the newspaper, revealed that some of the institutions involved have accepted multi-million dollar donations from foreign governments seeking access to inside corridors of the federal government, including Congress, executive branch agencies, and even the White House. In return, the think tanks pushed agendas favored by the donor nations and hosted public events in Washington that featured speakers from contributing countries.

The article describes in surprising detail the arrangements made between supposedly impartial, scholarly think tanks, and foreign entities pursuing their own national interests. Several of the think tanks named defended their impartiality.

“In no case did the reporters show us evidence of activity that we believe requires us to register under U.S. law as foreign agents,” Brookings President Strobe Talbott said in a press release. “The article fails to paint a fair picture of Brookings and its foreign government relationships.”

The Times article explained how it worked at specific think tanks, such as the Center for Global Development (CGD). That group accepted money from the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry allegedly in exchange for convincing the U.S. government to spend more on reducing deforestation to slow climate change – one of Norway’s top priorities. In exchange for donations, CGD allegedly arranged a meeting with officials from the U.S. Treasury Department.

Norway also donated to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Brookings Institution in exchange for their support for Norway’s Arctic agenda. CSIS even launched an Arctic research program and began advocating for a greater U.S. military presence in the Arctic and protection for energy development. Brookings also tried to arrange meetings between officials from Norway’s Foreign Ministry and officials from the U.S. State Department, according to the report.

Norway is a major oil producer and has deep economic interests in the Arctic. Statoil, Norway’s partially government-owned oil company, has purchased leases on acreage in the U.S. Arctic, and is also active in other regions of the Arctic exploring for oil. Statoil, and Oslo, stand to gain if the U.S. took a more active military role in the region.

The intertwined relationships suggest that some think tanks could be operating in a legal gray area: their work on behalf of foreign governments might legally classify them as representatives of foreign countries, and since none have registered as such, they could be in violation of the Foreign Agents Registrations Act, according to legal experts who spoke to the Times.  

Even if there was no quid pro quo, it is hard to deny the influence that donations have on research done at think tanks. The donations can be used to hire researchers, fund in-depth research on a topic (often chosen by the donor), and host events featuring donors.

Think tanks are non-profits, and are allowed to “educate” government officials, but not “lobby” for specific changes in policy. Often the line is a blurry one, particularly since “educational” meetings or events are planned around the same time that pending legislation or regulations are being considered in government.

In that sense, the Times report is disheartening.  

On the other hand, the cozy relationship between foreign entities and think tanks is not a new story in Washington. American corporations and foundations have the same dynamic with the scholarly world in the nation’s capital.

For example, Chevron is a major donor to CSIS, which jointly launched the “Chevron Forum on Development” with the company --  a series of events featuring high-level speakers who talked about sustainable development. CSIS hosted Chevron at a public event in 2013, at which Chevron CEO John Watson “shared his views on how U.S.-based multinational corporations can help expand American influence abroad and be a positive force for progress, driving economic growth and development around the world,” as the event promo described.

There is also a flow of money going to conservative think tanks from Koch Industries – the multinational corporation run by Charles and David Koch -- although there is less of a pretense that scholarly research is being carried out at Koch-funded outfits like Americans for Prosperity.

Groups opposed to fossil fuels are in the game, as well. Tom Steyer, the wealthiest and perhaps currently most well-known environmentalist, has turned his fortune into a one-man Super PAC aimed at ousting politicians who are allies of the oil and gas industries. Money talks, and despite only recently jumping into the political fray, Steyer has a lot of doors open to him. For example, a report he partly funded earned him meetings with White House officials John Podesta and Valerie Jarrett.

The list goes on.

In other words, big money has been influencing the actions of policy think tanks for quite a while. Access to power is the most coveted commodity in Washington, and as the Times investigation proves, there is no shortage of eager buyers.

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Scott AThorsen on September 09 2014 said:
    Well explained. The wind industry and their "clean" marketing campaign have been doing this for a while. Some groups claim to represent farmers only to promote an agenda of more powerlines through farmland for wind turbines. Another example is "America's Power Plan" which notably lacks Americans unrelated to corporations.

    Citizens for Responsible Energy Solution.... Who are these guys?

    Center for Rural Affairs... who funds these guys and their promoting Clean Line Energy Partners?

    It doesn't take much to start up a think tank or a NGO.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News