The Cato Institute does not deserve respect or credibility

Introduction:The problem I and many others have with the Cato Institute is the fact that it allows special interest groups (individuals, corporations and foundations) who fund it to hijack its message, even when that message is controversial. I will show three prominent examples of this, and then say why this matters to Cato's credibility.Argument #1Cato was a large proponent of the Big Tobacco industry, accepting large donations from Big Tobacco and in turn jumping on the Big Tobacco bandwagon.Proof that Cato recieves funding from Big Tobacco: Source: Americans for Nonsmoker's Rights, August 2004."1. The Cato Institute received a $10,000 “philanthropic contribution” from Philip Morris in 1991.2. Between 1995 and 1998 alone, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds jointly contributed at least $425,000 to the Cato Institute. One Philip Morris document budgets a $175,000 “policy payment” for the Cato Institute to focus on “Individual Liberties” and “Regulatory Issues”.3. The Wall Street Journal quoted Cato analyst Jerry Taylor as stating that the Cato Institute received over $100,000 from tobacco giant Philip Morris and $50,000 from RJ Reynolds in 1995 alone.4. According to a memo prepared and drafted by the law firm Covington and Burling for Philip Morris, entitled “1995 Tort Reform Program,” $600,000 was allocated for “National Think Tanks/Retained Consultants (e.g. Citizens for a Sound Economy, Cato Institute, Manhattan Institute, Hudson Institute)” to reduce the potential legal liability of corporations, including tobacco companies, for wrongfully harming their customers.5. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch sat on the Board of Directors at Philip Morris and the Cato Institute. Murdoch’s News Corporation owns numerous broadcasting and print media corporations, including Fox Broadcasting. News Corporation voted Philip Morris CEO Geoffrey Bible onto its board in 1998."So know we know that Cato got the funding. How did they pay Big Tobacco back? Source: (1-4: Same as above) (4-6): National Review (4/20/12)"1. The Cato Institute has challenged credible science that links secondhand smoke exposure to death and disease and has organized opposition to smoke-free environments.2. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, based on a report published by Public Citizen, stated that the Cato Institute was one of seven conservative think tanks that received at least $3.5 million between 1992 to 1995 from the drug and tobacco industries to “curb the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory powers.” Of the $3.5 million, Cato reportedly received at least $152,500 to counter the FDA’s regulatory process. According to the article:The think tanks have used the money to produce a “steady stream of reports, fact sheets, op-ed articles and newspapers, radio and television advertisements purporting to document the FDA’s deadly overcaution and bullying of manufacturers.”3. A 1995 Philip Morris document cites the Cato Institute as one of its “messengers” for relaying the tobacco company’s opposition to the FDA.4. In July 2000, the Cato Institute co-filed a brief with the National Smokers Alliance in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit alleging that the Master Settlement Agreement violated U.S. antitrust law.Philip Morris listed Cato VP David Boaz as one of its “National Allies in a 2000 memo.5. Cato chairman Robert Levy, who today accuses the Kochs of turning Cato into “a mouthpiece of special interests,” once faithfully served the tobacco industry as a leading tobacco-death denialist. In his article, “Lies, Damn Lies & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths”, Levy claimed, “children do not die of tobacco-related diseases” and “there is no credible evidence that 400,000 deaths per year—or any number remotely close to 400,000—are caused by tobacco.” (In fact, tobacco use kills more than 5 million people a year worldwide.)6. In 2001, a British-American Tobacco executive sent a thank-you letter to Levy and the Cato Institute, noting: “I was also pleased to learn after our meeting that our subsidiary company, Brown & Williamson, provided the Cato Institute with funding in 2000.”Argument #2Cato and many of it's scholars are outspoken climate change skeptics, and really take it to the next level.Cato's actions on climate change/global warming: Source: (1-5: Greenpeace) (6: Wikipedia page on the Cato Institute)"1. Cato is a member of the State Policy Network, a network of state level think tanks and policy organizations that act as a coordinated front for a variety of corporate priorities including delaying action to mitigate global warming. The State Policy Network has promoted climate science denial conferences hosted by the Heartland Institute and circulated unscientific reports from Heartland's "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change." Heartland's "Climate Change Reconsidered" reports are authored by career climate deniers such as S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso.2. The organization's 2009 "Handbook for Policymakers" on global warming begins with the suggestions that Congress should "pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide" and "inform the public about how little climate change would be prevented by proposed legislation."3. Robert Bradley, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is also a founder and the CEO of the Institute for Energy Research.4. In 2007 the Cato Foundation gave $120,000 to New Hope Environmental Services, an "advocacy science consulting firm" founded and run by long-time climate science denier Patrick Michaels, who uses New Hope to publish his World Climate Report, a sort of ongoing journal of denial of climate science. Michaels is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, which paid him $98,000 to write a book, The Satanic Gases, with fellow skeptic Robert Balling. Over the years, Michaels' work has been financed by a number of coal and polluter interests, including the Western Fuels Association, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, and others.5. In 2012, the Koch brothers sued the Cato Institute in order to exert more control over the organization. The lawsuit was dropped after an agreement was reached between the two parties, following months of highly-publicized attacks back and forth. David Koch remains on Cato's board of directors.6. Three out of five "Doubters of Global Warming" interviewed by PBS's Frontline were funded by, or had some other institutional connection with, the Institute. Cato has often criticized Al Gore's stances on the issue of global warming and agreed with the Bush administratons's skeptical attitude toward the Kyoto protocols.Rationale for these actions: Source: (1: Greenpeace article above) (2, 3: Wikipedia page on Cato) (4: Sierra Club Magazine)"1. $1,285,750 received from Koch foundations 2005-2010 [Total Koch foundation grants 1997-2010: $5,535,750]2. Charles G. Koch cofounded Cato, was chairman of the board, was a shareholder along with David Koch, his brother, who are both anthropogenic climate change skeptics.3. David Koch is a member of Cato's board, and Kevin Gentry, employee and top aide to the Koch's also serves on the board.4. Charles and David Koch own Koch Industries. "For Koch Industries, the amounts of money it can save by sabotaging environmental rules make the sums diverted to the think tanks that do the dirty work pale in comparison. The year 2000 was particularly rough for the Kochs. In January, Koch Industries agreed to pay about $35 million for violations of the Clean Water Act related to 310 oil spills in six states. Two months later, Koch admitted to environmental violations at its oil refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and was forced to cough up another $8 million in penalties. Then in July, it agreed not only to spend about $80 million to cut emissions from its Rosemount facility and from two other refineries in Texas, but also to pay a $1 million fine for air-pollution violations."More examples to follow, but for now, out of characters.