I received the following press release today. I think it's worth noting in full:
A new website launches today calling for think tanks and public policy campaigns to publish their annual income and name their major funders.
For its pilot project, Who Funds You? -
http://WhoFundsYou.org - asked 20 leading UK-based think tanks and political campaigns to disclose their major funders and rated them on the depth of their responses.
The website awarded six organisations its top “A” rating (Compass, IPPR, New Economics Foundation, Progress, Resolution Foundation, Social Market Foundation), while three received its lowest “E” rating (Adam Smith Institute, ResPublica, TaxPayers' Alliance).
The full results are:
A — Compass, IPPR, NEF, Progress, Resolution Foundation, Social Market Foundation

B — Demos, Fabian Society, Policy Network, Reform

C — Centre Forum, Civitas, Smith Institute
D — Centre for Policy Studies, Centre for Social Justice, Institute of Economic Affairs, Policy Exchange

E — Adam Smith Institute, ResPublica, TaxPayers' Alliance
Who Funds You? is now inviting other think tanks and political campaigns with a strong public policy or research focus to disclose funders who give £5,000 or more in a single year. It will give a funding transparency award to those that do, and encourages funders to favour such organisations.
As think tanks increasingly take an important role in formulating government policy, it is important for a strong democracy that they are open about their own agenda and where their funding comes from. This is particularly the case in light of increased scrutiny of political party funding.
Who Funds You? co-founder Clifford Singer said:
“It's refreshing to see an increasing number of think tanks and campaigns taking funding 
transparency seriously. We are really pleased that four of the 20 organisations we rated have placed funding information on their own websites since we first approached them [NEF, Progress, Social Market Foundation and the Fabian Society], while a fifth [IPPR] had already added details several months before.
“But seven of the organisations we approached are languishing in our D and E streams. Those who received a D rating revealed nothing beyond the size of their annual income, while those rated E won't even disclose that. However, these ratings are not set in stone. Our aim is to encourage think tanks and campaigns to be more open, and we will review methodology and scoring regularly based upon changes they make. We are pleased that one of our trailing organisations, ResPublica, has already pledged to improve transparency, and hope that others will follow suit.
“At their best, think tanks and public policy campaigns make a valuable contribution to political life, generating new ideas and producing important research. At their worst, they can provide a neutral front while actually working on behalf of vested interests. As organisations that exert influence on public life, it is right that we call think tanks to account and ask for this basic level of transparency.”
-------
What a shame that the right wing can't live up to such ethical standards.
Wouldn’t DC call this failure to reveal funding “immoral”?
No surprise at those marked E.
Very interesting to note the left-right gradient here… in general the further right a think-tank is, the less transparent it is (with some honourable exceptions – e.g. Reform, SMF). Certainly all the organisations in the D and E category are right of centre.
Howard
You well?
Richard
Very good thanks Richard. I was in the US on holiday for a few weeks in May and early June – hence very little online activity – but I’m back now!
Yay!
Hope you’re refreshed
Lots to do
As many think tanks are also registered charities it’s high time the Charities Commission took a critical look at their activities instead of playing patsy all the time (as it has for years). I’d suggest it starts with the think tanks listed as D and E here. What they’d discover is they are the peddlars of propoganda dressed up as research. No doubt Gove has been advised about bringing back O levels by one of them. Radical stuff (not)!
Surprised to not to see Republic in E. I have tried without success to find out who funds it.
This is very interesting – I’ve written to the BBC on a number of occasions asking if they have any guidelines regarding the reporting of the publications these groups produce as they can often make up a major portion of the ‘news’ on a quiet day. I never received any replies – perhaps this will help.
Indeed, the results mirror exactly a roll call moving from left to right!
Curious that the lowest-ranked don’t even reveal their annual funding. Isn’t this a legal requirement?
Professor Harold Perkin’s 2002 autobiography ‘The Making of a Social Historian’ (page 225), “to my surprise and the Guardian’s, the IEA [Institute of Economic Affairs] issued a writ of libel against us…they had deep pockets, funded by 160 great corporations (including, incidentally, nationalised industries like British Steel and the BBC!) and determined to teach us a lesson: abjectly apologise or suffer immense legal defence costs.”
This went on from 1973 to 1975 until the IEA dropped the legal case, by which time the lawyers had been through the IEA files and donor list (it was going to be a case about charitable status, which they said Perkin had put in jeopardy by saying they represented the Tory Party i.e. were political).
The BBC, when I asked them about this, said that they are immune to FOI requests if it concerns ‘art or ‘journalism’. Another BBC botch – but a nice cultural snapshot (of then and now).
Thank you Richard
Yet another glaring example of the need for the Courageous State.
As the power of the State increases, so the desire of the rent-a-gob ‘think tanks’ (and their funders) to influence the decisions of the State will surely shrink proportionately. They will just lose interest, I am sure of it.
And if they don’t lose interest, then at least we can rely on the courageous state gets to regulate who gets to say what, which is its duty. Especially against the neo-liberals like the groups that scored the Es.
Yes, I recall checking out Taxpayers Alliance website for information as to who was funding the organisation – nothing there. ResPublica is an interesting one. This is Philip Blond’s ‘baby’. According to a friend of mine, they did have information on their backers at one stage. When I went to look though, it had been taken off. I wonder why? 😉