What is Reddit's opinion of The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate (Studies in Postwar American Political Development)?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

...you aren't in high school anymore. Wikipedia is a valid source, so long as the things it has cited are a valid source. The wikipedia article has 11 different sources, none of which you bothered to address.

Moreover, that "Sourceless Opinion Article" is clearly cited as an excerpt from a book, so it's not sourceless; I lack the original book to see if that has its own sources however.

You are cherrypicking.

Against?

While I'm here: For an evidence-based (though still critical) look at lobbying in America, I recommend The Business of America is Lobbying, by Lee Drutman.

The amount spent on lobbying each year is 5 billion, if you estimate the undisclosed lobbying (current disclosure laws are pretty weak) as being about equal to disclosed expenses. (Which is a good estimate according to "The Business of America is Lobbying".) EVERY YEAR. And it's worth every penny.

This book covers it somewhat:
https://www.amazon.com/Business-America-Lobbying-Corporations-Politicized/dp/0190215518

Prior to Trump's election, it was a rare, occasional thing. Since Trump was sworn in in 2017, it became a much more widespread thing for 501c4 groups to "dissolve" prior to the date that the FEC wants final reports for federal elections (Jan 31 after the election).

501c3 organizations don't have to disclose donors, but they're supposed to be purely charitable organizations and not supposed to get involved in any lobbying.

501c4 organizations are supposed to be either social welfare organizations or local association of employees. Enterprising political folks have claimed to be "social welfare organizations" and get away with lobbying

> In late December last year, two entities known for their role as part of a dark money network responsible for tens of millions of dollars in anonymously-sourced election funds quietly filed paperwork in Ohio terminating their corporate existence. The dissolution of these dark money groups coincided with the imminent return of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) ability to enforce campaign finance law after being unable to conduct official business during most of the 2020 election cycle due to repeatedly lacking a quorum.

> Whatever the intention of the two entities shutting down, it could have a real impact on how the FEC rules on the complaint against them. In the past, FEC commissioners have cited a nonprofit ceasing its activity as a justification for invoking prosecutorial discretion as they sought to dismiss an enforcement action.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/dark-money-groups-are-shutting-down-now-that-the-fec-can-enforce-the-law-again/

> To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare.

> A local association of employees under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) is an organization whose membership is limited to employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and whose net earnings will be devoted exclusively to charitable, educational or recreational purposes.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/types-of-organizations-exempt-under-section-501c4

> The group, Western Tradition Partnership, which later changed its name to American Tradition Partnership, was featured in Big Sky, Big Money, FRONTLINE’s investigation with ProPublica and Marketplace into how the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Citizens United has changed political campaigns.

> WTP, which described itself as “dedicated to fighting environmental extremism,” was registered as a 501(c)4, or a nonprofit, social-welfare group. That means it’s not required to disclose its donors and can engage in some political activity, as long as that isn’t the group’s primary purpose. As a result of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which held that political spending is a form of protected speech, such groups are allowed to spend as much as they like. But as “independent” groups, they can’t coordinate with candidates.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/more-politicians-accused-of-illegal-collusion-with-dark-money-group/

Political appointees by Trump tried to eliminate reporting requirements for donors of 501c4 & 501c6 organizations prior to the 2020 election cycle:

https://nonprofitlawblog.com/treasury-eliminates-donor-information-disclosures-by-501c4-and-501c6-organizations/
https://nonprofitlawblog.com/proposed-regulations-donor-disclosures-and-dark-money/

The Supreme Court decision titled "Citizens United" is one of the biggest threats to our country.

The thing is this is a somewhat new thing https://www.amazon.com/Business-America-Lobbying-Corporations-Politicized/dp/0190215518

https://www.amazon.com/Business-America-Lobbying-Corporations-Politicized/dp/0190215518

But it probably is a union hack think tank. I don't see why highlighting the partisan motivation of a group means I'm automatically backing another group.

I can post something more holistic if you want me to. Maybe someone will wander through the wasteland of this comment chain and learn something from it:

1. > More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

2. > Even putting aside the legal issue, though, the article does an effective job of calling into question the idea that think tanks operate in an environment of scholarly independence. Through good old-fashioned detective work, the authors trace $92 million in donations from 64 foreign governments to 28 think tanks. The real total, they say, “is certainly more” — and I would add that if the discussion were expanded to include money from foreign industries as well, the picture would become even more spectacular. Consider just one example: the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, a division started in 1983, thanks in part to what Heritage’s then-president Edwin Feulner, Jr. called “substantial support from the private sector in both Korea and Taiwan.” Internal records from the period show that Heritage executives made fundraising trips to Asia, accepted donations from trade associations like the Far Eastern Textile Group and the Federation of Korean Industries, and attended a private dinner party at the home of Korean Prime Minister Shin-yong Lho (who gave a speech at Heritage in 1986).

3. > There are close to 1,800 think tanks in the United States that employ over 20,000 scholars and executives who are dedicated to independent analysis of the major policy challenges facing the country. They do this, day in and day out, to help policymakers and the public make informed decisions on a wide range of policy problems. Sure there are those advocacy-oriented think tanks that engage in opinion mongering and advocacy, but the vast majority of the think tanks in the United States are committed to producing evidence-based, policy-relevant research. Moreover, they are the envy of the world – and other countries are constantly trying to learn from the American experience. I know because I have been approached numerous times by foreign countries seeking advice on establishing and growing think tanks.

4. > These days, Heritage has a different crusade. The foundation’s president, the confrontational former Senator Jim DeMint, spent the last month touring the country, drawing cheering crowds as he demanded that Republican politicians insist that Obamacare be defunded—and denouncing those who wouldn’t go along. “Republicans are afraid,” DeMint told NPR. “And if they are, they need to be replaced.” The foundation’s three-year-old activism arm, Heritage Action, spent half a million dollars on online ads targeting 100 Republican House members who didn’t sign on to the defund crusade (“Tell Representative Tom Cole to Stop Funding Obamacare”).

5. > We found at least 49 people who have simultaneously worked as lobbyists for outside entities while serving as top staff, directors or trustees of 20 of the 25 most influential think tanks in the United States, as ranked by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the University of Pennsylvania.

6. > Corporate lobbyists are everywhere in Washington. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 represent business. The largest companies now have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them. How did American businesses become so invested in politics? And what does all their money buy? Drawing on extensive data and original interviews with corporate lobbyists, The Business of America is Lobbying provides a fascinating and detailed picture of what corporations do in Washington, why they do it, and why it matters. Since the 1970s, a wave of new government regulations and declining economic conditions has mobilized business leaders, and companies have developed new political capacities. Managers soon began to see public policy as an opportunity, not just a threat. Ever since, corporate lobbying has become more pervasive, more proactive, and more particularistic. Lee Drutman argues that lobbyists drove this development by helping managers see the importance of politics and how proactive and aggressive engagement could help companies' bottom lines. Politics is messy, unpredictable, and more competitive than ever, but the growth of lobbying has driven several important changes that have increased the power of business in American politics. And now, the costs of effective lobbying have risen to a level that only larger businesses can typically afford.