[News] Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions? - Part 2

[Anti-Imperialist News]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=13734

Do Capitalists Fund Revolutions?
Part 2 of 2
by Michael Barker; September 09, 2007

Part one of this article reviewed some of the 
ways by which liberal philanthropists work to 
co-opt the activities of progressive groups all 
over the world. This second part of the article 
will continue to review the recent literature 
pertaining to the insidious anti-radicalising 
activities of liberal philanthropists and their 
foundation, and conclude by offering suggestions 
for how progressive activists might begin to move 
beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex.

Defanging the Threat of Civil Rights

The 1960s civil rights movement was the first 
documented social movement that received 
substantial financial backing from philanthropic 
foundations.[28] As might be expected, liberal 
foundation support went almost entirely to 
moderate professional movement organizations 
like, the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People and their Legal 
Defense and Education Fund, the Urban League, and 
foundations also helped launch President 
Kennedy’s Voter Education Project.[29] In the 
last case, foundation support for the Voter 
Education Project was arranged by the Kennedy 
administration, who wanted to dissipate black 
support of sit-in protests while simultaneously 
obtaining the votes of more African-Americans, a 
constituency that helped Kennedy win the 1960 election.[30]

One example of the type of indirect pressure 
facing social movements reliant on foundation 
support can be seen by examining Martin Luther 
King, Jr.’s activities as his campaigning became 
more controversial in the years just prior to his 
assassination. On 18 February 1967, King held a 
strategy meeting where he said he wanted to take 
a more active stance in opposing the Vietnam War: 
noting that he was willing to break with the 
Johnson administration even if the Southern 
Christian Leadership Conference lost some 
financial support (despite it already being in a 
weak financial position, with contributions some 
40 percent less than the previous year). In this 
case, it seems, King was referring to the 
potential loss of foundation support as, after 
his first speech against the war a week later (on 
25 February), he again voiced his concerns that 
his new position would jeopardize an important Ford Foundation grant.[31]

Thus, by providing selective support of activist 
groups during the 1960s, liberal foundations 
promoted such groups’ independence from their 
unpaid constituents working in the grassroots, 
facilitating movement professionalization and 
institutionalization. This allowed foundations 
“to direct dissent into legitimate channels and 
limit goals to ameliorative rather than radical 
change”[32] , in the process promoting a 
“narrowing and taming of the potential for broad 
dissent”.[33] Herbert Haines (1988) supports this 
point and argues that the increasing militancy of 
the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee 
and the Congress for Racial Equality meant most 
foundation funding was directed to groups who 
expressed themselves through more moderate 
actions.[34] He referred to this as the “radical 
flank effect” – a process which described the way 
in which funding increased for nonmilitant or 
moderate groups (reliant on institutional 
tactics) as confrontational direct action 
protests increased.[35] As Jack Walker (1983) 
concludes, in his study of the influence of 
foundations on interest groups, the reasoning 
behind such an interventionist strategy is 
simple. He argues that “[f]oundation officials 
believed that the long run stability of the 
representative policy making system could be 
assured only if legitimate organizational 
channels could be provided for the frustration 
and anger being expressed in protests and 
outbreaks of political violence.”[36]

 From Apartheid to ‘Democracy’ and Onwards

Moving to South Africa’s transition to 
‘democracy’, Roelofs (2007) observes that:

“In the case of South Africa, the challenge for 
Western elites was to disconnect the socialist 
and anti-apartheid goals of the African National 
Congress. Foundations aided in this process, by 
framing the debate in the United States and by 
creating civil-rights type NGOs in South Africa. 
In 1978 the Rockefeller Foundation convened an 
11-person Study Commission on US Policy Toward 
Southern Africa, chaired by Franklin Thomas, 
President of the Ford Foundation; it also 
included Alan Pifer, President of the Carnegie 
Corporation of New York. In Eastern Europe, the 
1975 East-West European Security agreement, known 
as the “Helsinki Accords” prompted the 
foundations to create Helsinki Watch (now Human 
Rights Watch), an international NGO for 
monitoring the agreements; Rockefeller, Ford, and 
Soros Foundations are prominent supporters.”[37]

Roelofs (2003) also point out that in addition to 
coopting social movements, foundations have 
played an important role in promoting “iden­tity 
politics” which has served to promote 
fragmentation between similarly minded radical 
social movements.[38] Madonna Thunder Hawk (2007) 
also critiques the narrow scope of most activists work:

“Previously, organizers would lay down their 
issue when necessary and support another issue. 
Now, most organizers are very specialized, and 
cannot do anything unless they have a budget 
first. More, foundations will often expect 
organizations to be very specialized and won’t 
fund work that is outside their funding 
priorities. This reality can limit an 
organization’s ability to be creative and 
flexible as things change in our society.”[39]

Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery (2007) 
support such ideas, and suggest that activist:

“
 work becomes compartmentalized products, 
desired or undesired by the foundation market, 
rated by trends or political relationships rather 
than depth of work. How often do we hear that 
‘youth work is hot right now’? Funders determine 
funding trends, and non-profits develop programs 
to bend to these requests rather than assess real 
needs and realistic goals. If we change our 
‘product’ to meet foundation mandates, our 
organizations might receive additional funding 
and fiscal security. But more often than not, we 
have also compromised our vision and betrayed the 
communities that built us to address specific 
needs, concerns, and perspectives.” [40]

Likewise, Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo (2007) 
launches a similar broadside against multiculturalism, arguing that:

“The existence of ‘special’ and ‘non-white’ 
programs emerges from the logic of the liberalist 
project of multiculturalism. While there are 
clear racial hierarchies structured into 
organizations, these programs are developed under 
a multiculturalist model that renders race 
marginal by heralding the primacy of culture
 
While culturally specific services and programs 
might appear to address the injuries of racism, 
this organizational strategy actually displaces 
race from the broader analysis effectively 
ignoring the power structure of white supremacy 
and the structured subjugation of people of 
color, which effects countless forms of violence 
against women. By adding a program ostensibly 
designed to serve the needs of a given community 
of color, the larger organization avoids direct 
accountability to that community. In other words, 
the organization’s own white supremacy remains 
intact and fundamentally unchallenged, as are the 
countless forms of violence against women perpetuated by racism.”[41]




“Thus, ‘culturally competent’ and/or 
multicultural organizational structures collude 
with white supremacy and vio­lence against women 
of color, namely because this logic enables 
organizations to dismiss the centrality of racism 
in all institutions and organizations in the United States.”[42]



World Social Forum: Funders’ Call the Tune

As a result of the lack of critical inquiry in to 
the influence of liberal philanthropy on 
progressive organizations, liberal foundations 
have quietly insinuated their way into the heart 
of the global social justice movement, having 
played a key role in founding the World Social 
Forum (WSF). Furthermore, it is not surprising 
that, when critiques of the WSF are made, they 
tend to be met with a resounding silence by 
progressive activists and their media (most of 
which have been founded and funded by liberal foundations, see later).[43]

The Research Unit for Political Economy (2007) 
astutely observes, the WSF “constitutes an 
important intervention by foundations in social 
movements internationally” because (1) many of 
the NGO’s attending the WSF obtain state and/or 
foundation funding, and (2) “the WSF’s material 
base – the funding for its activity – is heavily 
dependent on foundations.”[44] It is perhaps 
stating the obvious to note that more attention 
should be paid to such important critiques; 
however, if further critical investigations then 
determined that such claims were unsubstantiated 
then the WSF could only be strengthened. On the 
other hand, if activists collectively decided 
that the receipt of liberal foundation funding is 
problematic – as happened at the 2004 WSF in 
Mumbai – then further steps must be immediately 
taken to address the issue. Yet, as the Research 
Unit for Political Economy point out, although:

“
 the WSF India committee’s decision to disavow 
funds from certain institutions marked a victory 
for the critics of the WSF, it did not really 
resolve the issue. If the organizers disavowed 
funds from these sources on principle (rather 
than merely because uncomfortable questions were 
raised), it is difficult to understand why the 
prohibition did not extend as well to 
organizations funded by them. This left scope for 
the WSF to accept funds from organizations funded 
in turn by Ford. Moreover, 
the bulk of the WSF’s 
expenses are borne by participating 
organizations, many of which are in turn funded 
by Ford and other such “barred” sources.”[45]

Clearly important (and concerning) questions have 
been raised about the democratic legitimacy of 
the WSF, but most activists still remain unaware 
of the existence of such well founded critiques. 
This is problematic and, as Stephanie Guilloud 
and William Cordery (2007) argue, although 
fundraising is “an important component of most 
organizing efforts in the United States” it:

“
 is usually perceived by activists as our nasty 
compromise within an evil capitalist structure. 
As long as we relegate fundraising to a dirty 
chore better handled by grant writers and 
development directors than organizers, we miss an 
opportunity to create stepping stones toward community-based economies.”[46]

However, as Dylan Rodriguez (2007) observes:

“
 when one attempts to engage [in] a critical 
discussion regard­ing the political problems of 
working with these and other foundations, and 
especially when one is interested in naming them 
as the gently repressive ‘evil’ cousins of the 
more prototypically evil right-wing foundations, 
the establishment Left becomes profoundly 
defensive of its financial patrons. I would argue 
that this is a liberal-progressive vision that 
marginalizes the radical, revolutionary, and 
proto-revolutionary forms of activism, 
insurrection, and resistance that refuse to 
participate in the [George] Soros charade of 
‘shared values,’ and are uninterested in trying 
to ‘improve the imperfect.’ The social truth of 
the existing society is that it is based on the 
production of massive, unequal, and 
hierarchically organized disenfranchisement, 
suffering, and death of those populations who are 
targeted for containment and political/social 
liquidation-a violent social order produced under 
the dictates of ‘democracy,’ ‘peace,’ ‘security,’ 
and ‘justice’ that form the historical and 
political foundations of the very same white 
civil society on which the NPIC [Non-Profit 
Industrial Complex] Left is based.” [47]

Guilloud and Cordery (2007) “believe it is better 
to be dissolved by the community than floated by 
foundations.” Indeed, they go on to correctly 
state the obvious, by noting that community 
supported organizations will, by necessity, have 
to serve the needs of democracy because 
“[m]embers who contribute to an organization will 
stop contributing when the work is no longer valuable.”[48]

Moving Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex

“People in non-profits are not necessarily 
consciously thinking that they are ‘selling out.’ 
But just by trying to keep funding and pay 
everyone's salaries, they start to unconsciously 
limit their imagination of what they could do. In 
addition, the non-profit struc­ture supports a 
paternalistic relationship in which non-profits 
from outside our Communities fund their own 
hand-picked organizers, rather than funding us to 
do the work ourselves.” (Madonna Thunder Hawk, 2007) [49]

Given the historical overview of liberal 
foundations presented in this article it is 
uncontroversial to suggest that liberal 
philanthropists – who also support elite planning 
groups – will not facilitate the massive radical 
social changes that will encourage the global 
adoption of participatory democracy.[50]  Taking 
a global view, James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer 
(2004) argue that most funding “for poverty 
alleviation through NGOs also has had little positive effect” and:

“On the contrary, foreign aid directed toward 
NGOs has undermined national decision-making, 
given that most projects and priorities are set 
out by the European or US-based NGOs. In 
addition, NGO projects tend to co-opt local 
leaders and turn them into functionaries 
administering local projects that fail to deal 
with the structural problems and crises of the 
recipient countries. Worse yet, NGO funding has 
led to a proliferation of competing groups, which 
set communities and groups against each other, 
undermining existing social movements. Rather 
than compensating for the social damage inflicted 
by free market policies and conditions of debt 
bondage, the NGO­ channelled foreign aid 
complements the IFIs’ [international financial 
institutions’] neo-liberal agenda.”[51]

Referring to the detrimental influence of the 
liberal philanthropy in the US, Andrea Smith (2007) also observes that:

“[T]he NPIC [Non-Profit Industrial Complex] 
contributes to a mode of organizing that is 
ultimately unsustainable. To radically change 
society, we must build mass movements that can 
topple systems of domination, such as capitalism. 
However, the NPIC encourages us to think of 
social justice organizing as a career; that is, 
you do the work if you can get paid for it. 
However, a mass movement requires the involvement 
of millions of people, most of whom cannot get 
paid. By trying to do grassroots organizing 
through this careerist model, we are essentially 
asking a few people to work more than full-time 
to make up for the work that needs to be done by millions.

“In addition, the NPIC promotes a social movement 
culture that is non-collab­orative, narrowly 
focused, and competitive. To retain the support 
of benefactors, groups must compete with each 
other for funding by promoting only their own 
work, whether or not their organizing strategies 
are successful. This culture pre­vents activists 
from having collaborative dialogues where we can 
honestly share our failures as well as our 
successes. In addition, after being forced to 
frame everything we do as a ‘success,’ we become 
stuck in having to repeat the same strategies 
because we insisted to funders they were 
successful, even if they were not. Consequently, 
we become inflexible rather than fluid and ever 
changing in our strategies, which is what a 
movement for social transformation really 
requires. And as we become more concerned with 
attracting funders than with organizing 
mass-based movements, we start niche marketing 
the work of our organizations.” [52]

Amara H. Perez and Sisters in Action for Power (2007) also add that:

“In addition to the power and influence of 
foundation funding, the non-profit model itself 
has contributed to the co-optation of our work 
and institutionalized a structure that has 
normalized a corporate culture for the way our 
work is ulti­mately carried out.”[53]

Fortunately, the answers to the funding problems 
raised in this article are rather simple. 
However, given the lack of critical inquiry into 
the anti-democratic influence of liberal 
foundations on progressive social change, first 
and foremost progressive activists need to 
publicly acknowledge that a problem exists before 
appropriate solutions can be devised and 
implemented. Therefore, the first step that I 
propose needs to be taken by progressive 
activists is to launch a vibrant public 
discussion of the broader role of liberal 
foundations in funding social change – an action 
that will rely for the most part upon the 
interest and support of grassroots activists all over the world.

Given the insidious activities of liberal 
foundations’, the “very existence of many social 
justice organizations has often come to rest more 
on the effectiveness of professional (and 
amateur) grant writers than on skilled-much less 
‘radical’ – political educators and organizers” 
(Rodriguez, 2007). So now more than ever, it is 
vital that progressive citizens committed to a 
participatory democracy work to develop alternate 
funding mechanisms for sustaining grassroots 
activism so they can break the “insidious cycle 
of competition and co-optation” set up by liberal 
foundations and their cohorts.[54] Indeed as 
Guilloud and Cordery (2007) point out, 
“[d]eveloping a real community-based economic 
system that redistributes wealth and allows all 
people to gain access to what they need is 
essential to complete our vision of a liberated 
world. Grassroots fundraising strategies are a step in that direction.” [55]

Unfortunately, raising awareness of the vexing 
issues raised in this article may be harder than 
one might first expect. This is because in some 
instances the progressive media themselves may be 
preventing an open discussion of the influence of 
liberal philanthropy on social change – due to 
their reliance (or at least good relations) with 
liberal foundations. So sadly as Bob Feldman 
(2007) observes, “[w]hen the rare report calls 
attention to the possibility of foundation 
influence over the left-wing media or think 
tanks, a typical attitude is unqualified denial.”[56] Feldman concludes:

“
 that organizations and media generally 
considered left-wing have in recent years 
received substantial funding from liberal 
foundations. This information alone is 
significant, as left activists and scholars are 
either unaware of or uninterested in examining 
the nature and consequences of such financing. 
Furthermore, although a definitive evaluation 
would require a massive content analysis project, 
there is much evidence that the funded left has 
moved towards the mainstream as it has increased 
its dependence on foundations. This is shown by 
the ‘progressive,’ reformist tone of formerly 
radical organizations; the gradual disappearance 
of challenges to the economic and political power 
of corporations or United States militarism and 
imperialism; and silence on the relationship of 
liberal foundations to either politics and 
culture in general, or to their own 
organizations. Critiquing right wing foundations, 
media, and think tanks may be fair game, but to 
explain our current situation, or to discover 
what has happened to the left, a more inclusive investigation is needed." [57]

It is clear that the barriers to spreading the 
word about liberal philanthropy’s overt 
colonization of progressive social change are 
large but they are certainly not insurmountable 
to dedicated activists. There are still plenty of 
alternative media outlets that should be willing 
to distribute trenchant critiques of liberal 
philanthropy given persistent pressure from the 
activist community, while internet blogs can also 
supplement individual communicative efforts to 
widen the debate. If activists fail to address 
the crucial issue of liberal philanthropy now 
this will no doubt have dire consequences for the 
future of progressive activism - and democracy 
more generally - and it is important to recognise 
that liberal foundations are not all powerful and 
that the future, as always, lies in our hands and not theirs.

Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate at 
Griffith University, Australia. He can be reached 
at Michael.J.Barker [at] griffith.edu.au



References

[28] Foundation funding for social movements was 
for the most part nonexistent before the 1960s, 
with foundation grants tending to focus on more 
general issues like education. By 1970 this had 
changed and 65 foundations distributed 311 grants 
to social activists worth around $11 million.

[29] Craig J. Jenkins and Craig M. Eckert, 
‘Channeling Black Insurgency: Elite Patronage and 
Professional Social Movement Organizations in the 
Development of the Black Movement’, American Sociological Review, 51, 1986.

[30] Craig J. Jenkins, ‘Channeling Social 
Protest: Foundation Patronage of Contemporary Social Movements’, p.212.

[31] David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin 
Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian 
Leadership Conference (Random House, 1988), pp.545-6.

[32] Frances B. McCrea and Gerald E. Markle, 
Minutes to Midnight: Nuclear Weapons Protest in 
America (Newbury Park, Calif.: SAGE, 1989), p.37.

[33] John D. McCarthy, David W. Britt, and Mark 
Wolfson, ‘The Institutional Channeling of Social 
Movements by the State in the United States’, In: 
L. Kriesberg and M. Spencer (eds.) Research in 
Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 
(Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press, 1991), pp.69-70.

[34] Herbert H. Haines, Black Radicals and the 
Civil Rights Mainstream, 1954-1970 (Knoxville: 
University of Tennessee Press, 1988), pp.82-99.

[35] Herbert Haines, ‘Black Radicalization and 
the Funding of Civil Rights’, Social Problems, 32, 1984, pp.31-43.

[36] Jack L. Walker, ‘The Origins and Maintenance 
of Interest Groups in America’, American 
Political Science Review, 77, 1983, p.401.

[37] Joan Roelofs, ‘Foundations and 
Collaboration’, Critical Sociology, Volume 33, Number 3, 2007, p.497.

[38] Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy, p.44.

For more on this subject see David Rieff, 
‘Multiculturalism’s Silent Partner’,Harper’s, August 1993, pp.62-72.

Alisa Bierria (2007) points out that: “All too 
often, inclusively has come to mean that we start 
with an organizing model developed with white, 
middle-class people in mind, and then simply add 
a multicultural component to it. We should 
include as many voices as possible, without 
asking what exactly are we being included in? 
However, as Kimberle Crenshaw has noted, ‘it is 
not enough to be sensitive to difference, we must 
ask what difference the difference makes. That 
is, instead of saying, how can we include women 
of color, women with disabilities, etc., we must 
ask, what would our analysis and organizing 
practice look like if we centered them in it? By 
following a politics of re-centering rather than 
inclusion, we often find that we see the issue 
differently, not just for the group in question, 
but everyone.’”  Alisa Bierria, ‘Communities 
against rape and abuse (CARA)’, In: INCITE! Women 
of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution 
Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit 
Industrial Complex (South End Press, 2007), pp.153-4.

[39] Madonna Thunder Hawk, ‘Native Organizing 
Before the Non-Profit Industrial Complex’, In: 
INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) 
The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The 
Non-Profit Industrial Complex (South End Press, 2007), p.106.

[40] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, 
‘Fundraising is Not a Dirty Word’, In: INCITE! 
Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The 
Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The 
Non-Profit Industrial Complex (South End Press, 2007), p.108.

[41] Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo, ‘“we were never 
meant to survive” Fighting Violence Against Women 
and the Forth World War’, In: INCITE! Women of 
Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will 
Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial 
Complex (South End Press, 2007), pp.115-6.

[42] Ana Clarissa Rojas Durazo, ‘“we were never 
meant to survive” Fighting Violence Against Women 
and the Forth World War’,  p.116.

[43] Michael Barker, ‘The Liberal Foundations of 
Media Reform? Creating Sustainable Funding 
Opportunities for Radical Media Reform’, Global 
Media (Submitted); Bob Feldman, ‘Report from the 
Field: Left Media and Left Think Tanks – 
Foundation-Managed Protest?’, Critical Sociology, 33 (2007).

[44] Research Unit for Political Economy, 
‘Foundations and Mass Movements: The Case of the 
World Social Forum’, Critical Sociology, 33 (3), 2007, p.506.

[45] Research Unit for Political Economy, 
‘Foundations and Mass Movements’, pp.529-30.

[46] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, 
‘Fundraising is Not a Dirty Word’, p.107.

[47] Dylan Rodriguez, ‘The Political Logic of the 
Non-Profit Industrial Complex’, In: INCITE! Women 
of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution 
Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit 
Industrial Complex (South End Press, 2007), p.35-6.

[48] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, 
‘Fundraising is Not a Dirty Word’, p.110.

[49] Madonna Thunder Hawk, ‘Native Organizing 
Before the Non-Profit Industrial Complex’, pp.105-6.

[50] Two of the most influential liberal 
foundations, the Ford Foundation and the 
Rockefeller Foundation, created and continue to 
provide substantial financial aid to elite 
planning groups like the Council on Foreign 
Relations and the Trilateral Commission. For 
example, the 
<http://www.fordfound.org/publications/recent_articles/ar2006/pdf/AR06FordFoundationComplete.pdf>Ford 
Foundation’s 2006 Annual Report (p.62) notes that 
they gave the Council on Foreign Relations a 
$200,000 grant “For research, seminars and 
publications on the role of women in conflict 
prevention, post-conflict reconstruction and 
state building.”  Furthermore, as Roelofs (2003, p.98-9) notes:



“During the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA) debate, the EPI [Economic Policy 
Institute] (funded by Ford and others) made 
technical objections to the models sup­porting 
the trade agreement. At the same time, a much 
greater effect was pro­duced by Ford funding to 
the other side, which included grants to the 
Institute for International Economics, a think 
tank that emphasizes the benefits of NAFTA. In 
addition, ‘the Ford Foundation also awarded 
grants to environmental groups and the Southwest 
Voters Research Institute to convene forums on 
NAFTA. These resulted in an alliance of 100 
Latino organizations and elected officials, 
called the Latino Consensus on NAFTA, which 
pro­vided conditional support for the agreement.’”



Also see Laurence H. Shoup, and William Minter, 
Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign 
Relations and United States Foreign Policy (New 
York: Monthly Review Press, 1977); Holly Sklar, 
Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and 
Elite Planning For World Management (Boston: South End Press, 1980).

[51 James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, ‘Age of 
Reverse Aid: Neo-liberalism as Catalyst of 
Regression’, In: Jan P. Pronk (ed.) Catalysing 
Development (Blackwell Publishers,

2004), pp.70-1.

[52] Andrea Smith, ‘Introduction: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded’, p.10.

[53] Amara H. Perez, and Sisters in Action for 
Power, ‘Between Radical Theory and Community 
Praxis: Reflections on Organizing and the 
Non-Profit Industrial Complex’, In: INCITE! Women 
of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution 
Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit 
Industrial Complex (South End Press, 2007), p.93.

[54] Brian Tokar, Earth for Sale: Reclaiming 
Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash 
(Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997), p.214.

[55] Stephanie Guilloud and William Cordery, 
‘Fundraising is Not a Dirty Word’, p.111.

Making this transition may be easier than 
expected, because Rodriguez (2007) suggest that 
“the ongoing work to maintain and prospect 
foundation money, combined with administrative 
obligations and developing infrastruc­ture, was 
more taxing and exhausting than confronting any 
institution to fight for a policy change.” Dylan 
Rodriguez, ‘The Political Logic of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex’, p.27.

[56] Bob Feldman, ‘Report from the Field: Left 
Media and Left Think Tanks – Foundation-Managed Protest?’, p.428.

[57] Bob Feldman, ‘Report from the Field: Left 
Media and Left Think Tanks – Foundation-Managed Protest?’, p. 445.







Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20070910/b54fe9ed/attachment.htm>