BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People have a right to know where their information comes from

Democracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant obligation to justify their decisions and existence in relation to us. I do not have a right to know everything about the local football club (if I don’t play football and they are not a public company their decisions don’t affect me). Think tanks, however, are highly influential, and directly affect the society in which we live: some have, for example, lobbied successfully against action to prevent global warming.[1] Therefore they are to be considered a power in society, and the principle of transparency must be extended to them. [1] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/charities-pr-rightwing-ultra-rich
The status quo promotes non-transparency

Non-disclosure can be perceived as objectivity. It is easier for the public to criticise a think tank that is openly associated with a particular funder. That kind of prejudice is stronger than the more general the prejudice against non-disclosure. A person might distrust a non-transparent think tank, but dislike a think tank that is funded by an organisation they are already prejudiced towards.[1] In any comparison between two such organisations the distrusted organisation will have greater impact than the disliked organisation.[2] This gives non-transparent think tanks an advantage over transparent and honest ones. Billionaires are then able to buy influence by secretly funding organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation or the Institute of Economic Affairs that is then listened to, by the media and therefore the public, when their own views would simply be dismissed due to the personal motivations of the backers.[3] By forcing all think tanks to reveal their funding, we level the playing field. [1] Bentley, Guy. “The state funding swindle: how left wing think-tanks are pulling taxpayer-funded wool over our eyes”, Commentary, The Commentator. 20 September 2012, http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1679/the_state_funding_swindle_how_left_wing_think_tanks_are_pulling_taxpayer_funded_wool_over_our_eyes [2] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554 [3] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/charities-pr-rightwing-ultra-rich
Think tanks may become smoke screens for criminal groups

In the status quo, the ability of think tanks to be non-transparent potentially provides a framework for criminal groups, or in extreme cases organisations, to handle large amounts of money without revealing where their money comes from or goes. We are allowing extremist groups to be exempt from answering to the government or shareholders in their management of money or information. In the US and Canada, think tanks are also exempt from tax.[1] By this mechanism, false think tanks can be used, for example, to channel money from openly extremist groups that could otherwise not access those parts of the world. [1] 26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501
Overregulating think tanks sets a dangerous precedent

The public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by association, for instance, if notorious companies or political parties have been seen supporting the same think tanks – even if this is done for completely different reasons. The motivations of think tanks cannot be made synonymous with their funders, but these funders should also not be made synonymous with each other. Thus for example Policy exchange is both seen as a think tank for UK conservative modernisers – the progressive wing of the party while also having been labelled as a “neo-con attack dog”.[1] [1] Helm, Toby, and Hope, Christopher, “The top twelve think tanks in Britain”, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1576447/The-top-twelve-think-tanks-in-Britain.html
Think tanks should be assessed by the value of their ideas, not by who funds them

One can conceive of an infinite amount of cases in which results of a think tank’s research are completely independent of their funders. Their opposition, however, will be likely to signal corruption, when in fact there may be no relation between a funder and certain results. Even if they are associated by sharing a perspective or an aim, this is not a sign of corruption or bias, and it should not enter into the value of a think tank. There has been one study of charity donations (as think tanks are) that concludes that anonymous donations are “a costly signal of a charity’s quality by an informed donor”.[1] [1] Peacey, Mike W., “Masked Heroes: endogenous anonymity in charitable giving”, Centre for Market and Public Organisation Bristol Institute of Public Affairs, May 2013, p.27 http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2013/wp303.pdf
Think tanks’ power of objectivity is the best form of marketing for biased views

It does not matter if think tanks are used in this way, so long as the conclusions that are reached by the think tanks are true. If there is objective value in an idea it should be communicated as well as possible. If this cannot be done with conventional marketing, it is good for it to be possible through a think tank. If the think tank’s idea and conclusion is wrong, the fact that it is presented objectively makes it no less falsifiable. Think tanks do not exist in a vacuum, and for every false idea presented as positive there will be another think tank to scrutinise it. In either case, the consumer is given useful information in an accessible way that can still be questioned.
Think tanks should be able to choose not to know who funds them

Such a system, in which one allows think tanks to accept substantial anonymous donations, has immense downsides. It is simply too easy for a think tank to claim all, or most, of its funding is anonymous to them when it is questioned, while in fact they have been having informal strategic talks with potential funders days prior to, during, or after the donation. We cannot adopt a policy that is so easy too abuse, and since all think tanks must know who their funders are, we are not restricting their independence any further by asking them to make it public.
Private investors have a right to privacy

This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders.[1] [1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554
Think tanks’ power of objectivity is the best form of marketing for biased views

Think tanks are considered more credible than corporate marketing.[1] In the case of corporate marketing the recipient is aware that he is being sold a product. In the case of think tanks, the recipient believes he is being given unbiased information. Therefore, it is tempting for corporations to finance think tanks and encourage them to reach the conclusions that they otherwise would promote through marketing. This way, think tanks can be powerful tools for promoting a biased agenda: if done successfully the same message is communicated but in the form of credible information rather than manipulative marketing. In fact, it is common practice for journalists to quote think tanks without labelling their political bias.[2] And they most certainly don’t say if there is funding from a particular interest for example with the supposedly free market Institute of Public Affairs in Australia that somehow ends up arguing for government investment and intervention in Northern Australia – a position suspiciously close to several big mining companies.[3] This violates people’s freedom to make an informed decision, and can give biased views disproportionate and undue influence. By forcing them to disclose, any corruption or bias will become obvious to all. [1] Mayer, Jane. “Covert Operations”, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker. 30 August 2010 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer [2] Dolny, Michael. “What’s in a Label?”, Extra!, FAIR. 1 May 1998 http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/Whats-in-a-Label/ [3] MediaWatch, “Disclosing the funding of think tanks”, ABC News, 27 May 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3768536.htm
Legally requiring disclosure from all benefits think tanks

Even think tanks benefit from the introduction of this policy. The status quo leaves disclosure as a strategic device: think tanks are unwilling to disclose more than their competition for fear of being unfavourably portrayed. Such negative competition, i.e. competition in factors that do not improve the products of the market, makes them unable to make rational decisions about their funding if, for instance, potential funders want to contribute only on the condition that this funding be made public. As a consequence, the advent of organisations who call for transparency has been praised by prominent think tanks like the New Economics Foundation.[1] By depriving everybody of the strategic tool of revealing none or only a part of their funding, think tanks cannot be pressured into hiding or providing certain information about their funders, and they can thus act more independently. [1] Read, Sam. “Think tank funding matters: it’s central to democracy”, the nef blog, 22 June 2012, http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/think-tank-funding-matters-its-central-to-democracy
Think tanks should be able to choose not to know who funds them

The information think tanks provide can be extremely useful to society. Therefore we should be hesitant to restrict their key strength, which is their independence. There may be scenarios in which think tanks, in need of funding for a purely positive project, ask for donations from anyone who believes in their values. Wanting to avoid any negative associations or any accusations of bias, they choose not to find out who their funders are, and thus they cannot disclose that information. For think tanks who claim independence by only asking for anonymous donors, this is no longer an option when they are forced to disclose. The attempt to create more objectivity actually removes one of the ways of being perfectly impartial.
Being subject to scrutiny discourages investors from supporting good projects

Think tanks depend largely on voluntary funding for their projects,[1] so they must be careful when risking potential investments. Investors are likely to be put off from funding think tanks with good aims if this funding will be scrutinised and their interests questioned.[2] They are likely not to wish to risk being associated with seemingly biased results: a system by which funders can support ideas in themselves, perhaps even anonymously for the think tanks themselves, is the one in which think tanks best flourish and best produce results. Those that produce the best and most interesting ideas will be those who succeed in obtaining funding. [1] Think Tank Funding, On Think Tanks, http://onthinktanks.org/topic-pages/think-tank-funding/ accessed 11 June 2013 [2] Butcher, Jonathan, “Does it Matter Who Funds You?” One World Trust, 12 July 2012, http://www.oneworldtrust.org/blog/?p=579/
People have a right to know where their information comes from

Think tanks don’t have any legislative power. At the end of the day, what they do is merely make suggestions. If they were active lobbyists they would lose their privileged legal position as an academic organisation.[1] Even if there may be other benefits of them being transparent, the legal concept of transparency cannot be extended to them. That would open the door to forcing other independent private institutions to reveal details of their organisation. Furthermore, think tanks rarely claim to be completely impartial. They usually have an agenda and are aligned with a political party. This concession in terms of impartiality merits equal concessions in terms of demanded transparency. At the end of the day it is their work that influences the agenda and that same work shows where their sympathies lie. [1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554
Private investors have a right to privacy

The public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by association, for instance, if notorious companies or political parties have been seen supporting the same think tanks – even if this is done for completely different reasons. The motivations of think tanks cannot be made synonymous with their funders, but these funders should also not be made synonymous with each other. Thus for example Policy exchange is both seen as a think tank for UK conservative modernisers – the progressive wing of the party while also having been labelled as a “neo-con attack dog”.[1] [1] Helm, Toby, and Hope, Christopher, “The top twelve think tanks in Britain”, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1576447/The-top-twelve-think-tanks-in-Britain.html
The status quo promotes non-transparency

It is already in the interest of think tanks to be transparent. Think tanks exist in societies that depend on open communication and the free flow of ideas. Numerous organisations exist to criticise and unmask non-transparent think tanks:[1] this is sufficient incentive for them to reveal their funding. There may be exceptions in which the benefits of non-disclosure overrule the disadvantages in terms of trust, but these are rare, and it does not follow that it will be abused. [1] Who Funds You, Political Innovation, http://www.whofundsyou.org/about
Tourism accelerates development.

Tourism vastly increases income within a particular state or region, not only through direct spending by tourists, but also as a result of increases in tax revenue and the growth of local markets for food, services and luxury goods. Tourism provides a boost to the amount of capital available in an area that purely local spending cannot achieve, even if assisted by government subsidies or tax breaks for domestic businesses. In many developing states, tourism acts as an alternative to cash crops, improving terms of trade, both within the country’s internal market and with its neighbours. Tourism helps to diversify economies, reducing reliance on finite or export-led economic activities such as mining and agricultural production. Both farming and mineral extraction are largely dependent on export markets and the customs charges and cross-border trade agreements that facilitate them. Tourism is set apart from this type of economic activity. The processes of production and exchange that define tourism take place within the host state itself, while the capital that drives these activities originates outside its borders. Foreign corporate investment- in the form of casinos, hotels and travel ports- is supplemented by the commerce that it attracts. Developing states can dictate the extent to which tourists’ spending is taxed, without having to make the concessions and trade-offs inherent in trading with other national entities. Trading with tourists also gives states a supply-side advantage when it comes to selling luxury goods. As large business entities, importers are better able to use bulk purchasing and collective bargaining to acquire discounts on food stuffs, clothing and jewellery from nations with underdeveloped export economies. By contrast, trade with tourists allows a larger number of indigenous retailers to demand broadly higher prices – tourists do not buy in bulk, nor do they bargain collectively. Revenues from tourism can be used to enhance a developing state’s infrastructure, providing quantities of capital that may normally be out of reach to central government or to aid providers. Via taxes levied on hotels, tourists and goods providers, funding can be generated for the construction of roads, hospitals, power stations and schools. Reinvestment of this type can be used to spur further diversification within a state’s economy. It can make doing business within the state a more attractive proposition for foreign investors.
Tourism is easier to regulate than manufacturing or resource extraction.

Forming close ties with resource extraction firms and manufacturers is a popular development strategy for many poorer states, but it offers significant disadvantages in comparison to tourism. Not only does resource extraction, by its very nature, require states to consent to its territory sustaining pervasive and long-term environmental damage, it also tends to incentivise infrastructure projects that are only of use to the resource extraction industry. Roads can ferry medical supplies to communities as easily as they ferry tourists. An oil pipeline will only ever be useful for transporting oil. Tourists’ cash can be employed in efforts to reduce the negative externalities generated by leisure travel. Ecological damage resulting from increased volumes of air and sea traffic and the construction of hospitality facilities is frequently cited as a reason to limit the growth of the tourism industry in developing nations. Dependence on the industry for jobs and investment is seen as reducing the amount of control that developing states can exercise over potentially exploitative firms – if a firm pulls out in response to assertive government action- taking jobs and money with it- that government will become unpopular. However, the more money that a state makes from tourism, the more money it has to invest in other sectors of its economy. By incentivising the development of alternative forms of business and employment, a state can feasibly release itself from dependence on the tourist trade. As profits from tourism grow, a state will become freer to dictate the terms on which tour operators, hotel owners and tourists themselves do business – tourists’ money will have been used to create other sources of growth, investment and employment within that economy. Examples of this process in action can be found in the Bahamas, the Seychelles and South Africa. The minute Bahamian island of Bimini came under threat from a large scale development plan proposed, in part, by the Hilton Hotels group. Development of the island would have resulted in the destruction of mangroves and fish habitats, compromising the livelihood of the island’s residents.[i] Two decades earlier, the introduction of laws allowing minimally regulated and discrete incorporation of offshore business entities enabled the Bahamian economy to diversify into the field of financial services, reducing its dependence on tourism. Revenue from tourist activities had enabled the Bahamian state to fund the investment in infrastructure, services and expertise that underlay this process of reform.[ii] As a result of economic diversification, the government of the Bahamas was able to compel Hilton to restrict its activities. Reliable funding of state institutions and subsidy and welfare programmes used by the residents of Bimini, reduced demand for jobs supplied by the hotel group. [i] TourismConcern, ‘Save Bimini’, http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/bimini.html [ii] A Paradise for The Americas, http://www.geographia.com/bahamas/investment/toursm01.htm
Tourism aids conservation programmes.

Managed properly, tourism and the conservation of wildlife habitats and areas of archaeological significance need not be mutually exclusive activities. Indeed, recent trends in ecotourism have demonstrated that tourists themselves can be co-opted to monitor and survey the environments that they are visiting. The fees paid by tourists to gain access to heritage locations such as Pompeii, the valley of kings and Machu Pichu can be funnelled into restoration and preservation schemes on those sites. Recommendations by bodies such as UNESCO are aimed at maintaining the accessibility of sites to the paying public, while ensuring that the revenues tourist interest generates are used to reinforced locations against the erosion caused by the presence of so many individuals.[i] Similarly, research projects in Belize have found a willing source of free labour among leisure divers who come to explore the country’s reefs. Cooperation with tourists allows scientists to teach divers how to minimise the damage that their presence may cause to reef structures, without restricting tourists movements or driving away a potential source of commerce. [i] Pedersen, Arthur, ‘Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites’, World Heritage manuals, 2002, http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-113-2.pdf