Pacific Legal Foundation Sourcewatch


Chamber of Commerce Foundation, West Virginia Family Foundation, and Wisconsin Family Council, Inc. See generally Center for Media and Democracy, SourceWatch, www.sourcewatch.org [perma.cc/BL5Z-8MUP] (tracking corporate PR campaigns, including corporate front groups and public relations operations). For more donor lists, see DonorsTrust, DeSmog, www.desmog.com/who-donors-trust [perma.cc/4QJ7-PE72], which contains a catalog of recipients of DonorsTrust funds from an environmental group that tracks climate change denial funding sources); and Conservative Transparency, conservativetransparency.org [perma.cc/TT3H-HZ6V], which provides a searchable database of reported contributions to right-wing nonprofit groups collected from IRS Form 990 submissions from known donors and other sources. The Pacific Legal Foundation is a legal organization based in Sacramento, California, founded on March 5, 1973[1] to support pro-business causes. In recent years, it has played a leading role in pursuing action against affirmative action. “This is the kind of claim that should not be dismissed from the start,” Gaziano said. “It`s a claim that makes a reasonable legal argument.” But he acknowledged that the claim is not so clear, even though the administration`s goal is the same: to pressure the state to expand Medicaid eligibility. Charles Koch runs the foundation that bears his name, while Charles and his family also served on the board of the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, headed by Richard Fink. Charles also heads the Knowledge and Progress Fund, of which Fink is chair. Ironically, the court`s application of its own rule is the greatest threat to the interests of association and speech.

By applying Rule 37.6, which required disclosure from small donors for an amicus curiae letter funded by GoFundMe, the court directly restricted the ability of individuals to band together ad hoc to support a legal position that was important to them. A rule that requires disclosure of these donors, but not of the large anonymous financiers of sophisticated repeat offenders such as the Chamber of Commerce, “strikes no balance.”149 Until David`s death in 2019, the Koch brothers – Charles and David – were co-owners of Koch Industries, the largest privately held company in the United States. 122 Leo replied, “Yes, the judicial training project could take it and assign it.” 123 In return, the Judicial Education Project (JEP), a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that does not disclose its donors, applied to Bradley for a grant requesting $200,000 to coordinate and develop amicus curiae briefs in two politically sensitive (but otherwise completely independent) cases: Friedrichs and King v. Burwell124, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The Bradley Foundation estimated that “each of the two Amicus Curiae letter efforts cost approximately $250,000, for a total of $500,000,” and Bradley employees recommended that a grant of $150,000 be awarded to the CEP to support this work.125 The Bradley employee explained the strategy behind this investment as follows: Fontenot v. Hunter, Oklahoma Attorney General: PLF`s client, a Native American woman from the Patawomeck tribe in Virginia, was an artist who sold in many states, promoting art and jewelry as a “Made Native American.” In 2016, the state of Oklahoma passed a law limiting the lawful use of “American Indian” identification to artists belonging to federally recognized Native American tribes. Because PLF`s client was a member of a tribe recognized by her state but not by the federal government, she was prohibited from using identification when selling her art in Oklahoma. In March 2019, a federal district court in Oklahoma ruled against the restriction because it applied to PLF`s client. In April 2021, the same artist, again represented by PLF, won a similar (albeit more limited) ruling against a similar law in the state of Missouri. [40] DeSmog`s 2012 special report, “Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax” (PDF), compiled by computer scientist John R. Mashey, provides an overview of Koch`s funding of the network of climate change skeptics at the time.

In addition to his own foundation, David H. Koch has also served on the boards of the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.[14] [3] The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) was established in 1973-74 by a group of lawyers from the California Department of Justice (then under the control of Attorney General Ed Meese) to counter welfare reform and liberal public rights groups advocating for better environmental and health regulations. The Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund were particularly targeted. Andy Kroll, Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement, Mother Jones (5. February 2013), www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-donor-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos [perma.cc/8SEH-5D9V]; Alex Kotch, Conservative Foundations Finance Push to Kill the CFPB, PRWatch (February 13, 2020), prwatch.org/news/2020/02/13540/conservative-foundations-finance-push-kill-cfpb [perma.cc/3RBH-BQYB]. In a May 2016 Washington Times article, Vice President of Legal Affairs James Burling told the newspaper that the attorney general`s subpoena was “unprofessional, irresponsible and reckless” because it “used unverified screeds from a Greenpeace website as the basis for its subpoena, placing listed companies in the crosshairs of a politically motivated investigation.” [72] The PLF also successfully intervened in Keller v. California State Bar, where she set a precedent for California lawyers to challenge the use of their contributions to the state bar association for political purposes. It was a successful attempt to block class action lawsuits filed by more liberal California lawyers engaged in policy areas such as class action lawsuits and product liability. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that bar associations, as regulators of the legal profession, violate members` right to freedom of expression when they force member lawyers to pay dues that have then been used for political purposes. [62] By 1983, the organization was considered a “growing force in the public interest” with an annual income of $2.5 million per year[3] and had already begun to spawn other regional legal centers of a similar nature with Scife`s funds. However, not all of them have focused on the aggressive use of litigation such as PLF.

According to a Philip Morris document urging the company to forge closer ties with the foundation, “it has participated in hundreds of cases at all levels of the courts, winning the vast majority of those who have made a final decision – including several before the United States […].