Institute for Policy Studies  –  www.ips-dc.orgPolitical Research Associates

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

FreedomWorks


Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

FreedomWorks is a conservative advocacy organization that has been a key backer of the Tea Party movement. The current incarnation of FreedomWorks was created in 2004 as part of a merger between Citizens for a Sound Economy, a rightist pro-free market organization, and Empower America, which was founded in 1993 by William Bennett, Secretary of Education under President Ronald Reagan and a rightist pundit on issues from defense policy to family values. As of late 2010, FreedomWorks was led by board chairman Dick Armey, the former right-wing Republican from Texas who along with Newt Gingrich helped draft the 1994 “Contract with America,” and president Matt Kibbe, a long-standing Republican Party operative.[1]

A purported champion of small government conservatism, FreedomWorks claims to drive “policy change by training and mobilizing grassroots Americans to engage their fellow citizens and encourage their political representatives to act in defense of individual freedom and economic opportunity.”[2]

Despite its grassroots claims, observers have argued that FreedomWorks is an establishment organization that has endeavored to co-opt grassroots movements. Shortly after the Tea Party began to emerge as a force in national politics, FreedomWorks was one of several establishment groups that stepped in to claim the leadership of the movement.

Wrote Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone, “Suddenly, tens of thousands of Republicans who had been conspicuously silent during George Bush's gargantuan spending on behalf of defense contractors and hedge-fund gazillionaires showed up at Tea Party rallies across the nation, declaring themselves fed up with wasteful government spending. From the outset, the events were organized and financed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which was quietly working to co-opt the new movement and deploy it to the GOP's advantage. Taking the lead was former House majority leader Dick Armey, who as chair of a group called FreedomWorks helped coordinate Tea Party rallies across the country.”[3]

FreedomWorks financial backers have included several conservative foundations—including the Bradley, Scaife, Castle Rock, Earhart, and Olin foundations[4] —as well as the Koch brothers (David and Charles), who along with Rupert Murdoch have provided much of the financial backing for anti-Obama administration activism.[5]

Commenting on the Koch brothers, the New York Times’ Frank Rich wrote, “There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the ‘death panel’ warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. … Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might.”[6]

After FreedomWorks was created in the run up to the 2004 presidential election, Bill Berkowitz wrote in MediaTransparency: "Stealing a page from MoveOn.org 's successful organizing playbook, the leaders of FreedomWorks … hope to conduct massive get out the vote and political education campaigns in the swing states on behalf of President George W. Bush. The two groups decided to merge because there was 'an overlap in issues between the two organizations,' Shawn Small, the director of policy at Empower America, told me in a telephone interview. It was an opportunity to bring together Empower America, which Small characterized as a 'grasstops' organization driven by such inside the beltway 'superstars' as William Bennett, Vin Weber, and Jean Kirkpatrick, and CSE's 'grassroots' following.”[7]

Despite the claims of overlap, FreedomWorks has largely abandoned the get-tough foreign policy advocacy that characterized much of Empower America's work, especially in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Among Empower's more notable efforts during the early years of the "war on terror" was the creation of the Bill Bennett-led Americans for Victory over Terrorism (AVOT), an advocacy outfit closely aligned with pro-war neoconservative groups that helped push public opinion to support the invasion of Iraq. AVOT eventually merged with the conservative Claremont Institute.

On foreign policy, FreedomWorks has little to say aside from advocating free trade agreements and pushing through immigration reform, including border security. As of late 2010, FreedomWorks’ “Key Issues” web page failed to mention any foreign policy concerns. On “border security,” the group wrote on its website, "Large-scale illegal border crossings—the vast majority for economic reasons—are compromising the security of America's borders. … By providing American employers and temporary guest workers a legal way to operate, we can eliminate the source of much of the current lawlessness at the border. Reducing the overall flow of illegal traffic at the border will allow law enforcement to focus on stopping criminal gangs and capturing terrorists."[8]

Describing FreedomWorks pre-Tea Party work, Rolling Stones’ Taibbi writes, “Prior to the Tea Party phenomenon, FreedomWorks was basically just an AstroTurfing-lobbying outfit whose earlier work included taking money from Verizon to oppose telecommunications regulation. Now the organization's sights were set much higher: In the wake of a monstrous economic crash caused by grotesque abuses in unregulated areas of the financial-services industry, FreedomWorks—which took money from companies like mortgage lender MetLife—had the opportunity to persuade millions of ordinary Americans to take up arms against, among other things, Wall Street reform.”[9]

A 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists listed FreedomWorks as an organization that received much money from “Big Oil” and also promoted an agenda that did not recognize global warming: "CSE received $275,250 from ExxonMobil in 2001, an increase from $30,000 the year before. CSE merged with Empower America and became FreedomWorks in 2004. FreedomWorks maintains that the science of climate change is 'far from settled' and cites scientists such as Sallie Baliunas" (Baliunas is an astrophysicist who has criticized theories of global warming).[10]

FreedomWorks earned hundreds of thousands of dollars through a plan, designed by Citizens for a Sound Economy in 2000, in which people buying tax-free medical savings accounts sold by Medical Savings Insurance Co. were asked to become members of the advocacy group. The plan, which was the subject of a class-action lawsuit begun in 2005, was challenged on the basis that insurance holders were not made clearly aware that they were becoming members of the CSE when signing on. According to the lawsuit's motion for class-action status, "The certificates of insurance issued to class members, despite the clear language contained herein, did not disclose the identity of the Group Policyholder [CSE, and later FreedomWorks] of the group policy, despite the fact that each putative insured must 'join' and pay money to such group as a condition of obtaining insurance.”[11]

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Please click the following link to bookmark this page:


If the link doesn't appear don't worry, your browser doesn't support this function.

Try pressing 'ctrl + d' on a PC or 'cmd + d' if your using a Mac.

Close

    Contact Information

    FreedomWorks
    601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20004
    Phone: 202-783-3870
    Fax: 202-942-7649
    Website: http://www.freedomworks.org
     

    Founded

    2004

     

    Mission (as of 2010)

    “FreedomWorks fights for lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for all Americans. FreedomWorks combines the stature and experience of America’s greatest policy entrepreneurs with the grassroots power of hundreds of thousands of volunteer activists all over the Nation. FreedomWorks, led by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey, has an unrivalled ability to reach opinion leaders and elected officials with innovative policy ideas and effective strategies for change. FreedomWorks drives policy change by training and mobilizing grassroots Americans to engage their fellow citizens and encourage their political representatives to act in defense of individual freedom and economic opportunity.”

     

    Principals (as of 2010)

    • Dick Armey, board chairman
    • C. Boyden Gray, board member
    • James Burnley, board member
    • Matt Kibbe, president
    • Thomas Knudsen, board member
    • Richard Stephenson, board member
FreedomWorks News Feed

Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

Sources

[1]FreedomWorks, "Board of Directors," http://www.freedomworks.org/about/board-of-directors.

[2]FreedomWorks, "Mission," http://www.freedomworks.org/about/our-mission.

[3]Matt Taibbi, "Matt Taibbi on the Tea Party,” Rolling Stone, September 28, 2010, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0.

[4]For more on FreedomWorks funding, see Media Matters, "FreedomWorks," http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/FreedomWorks/overview.

[5]Frank Rich, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party,” New York Times, August 28, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html.

[6]Frank Rich, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party,” New York Times, August 28, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html.

[7]Bill Berkowitz, "FreedomWorks Challenges Progressive Organizations," MediaTransparency, July 31, 2004, http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=40.

[8]FreedomWorks, “Border Security," http://www.freedomworks.org/issues/border-security.

[9]Matt Taibbi, "Matt Taibbi on the Tea Party,”Rolling Stone, September 28, 2010, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0.

[10]Union of Concerned Scientists, "Smoke, Mirrors, & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science," January 2007, p. 31, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf.

[11Jonathan Weisman, "With Insurance Policy Comes Membership," Washington Post, July 23, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200683.html.

Latest Feature Articles
Whither the Liberal Hawks?

Jim Lobe | January 31, 2012

Tehran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with mounting threats from hawks in Israel and the United States, has brought the possibility of war sharply into view. But a number of influential members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment—including several prominent liberal interventionists who supported the invasion of Iraq—are warning against further escalation.

Rise of the Vulcans Redux

Peter Certo | December 19, 2011

The purported “end of the neocon consensus” has hardly meant an end to hawkishness in the GOP fold. With the Republican candidates virtually all gunning for Iran, backing right-wing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and stabling a passel of neoconservative advisers (Ron Paul excepted), voters have plenty of clues about what the foreign policy of a new GOP administration would look like. And while some of the candidates have expressed wariness with neoconservative notions of armed democracy promotion, all the signs indicate that if a Republican wins next year, we will likely be in for a bit if George W. redux.

Turning the Tide on the “Pro-Israel” Debate

Michael Flynn and Peter Certo | December 13, 2011

With key members of the "Israel Lobby" acknowledging the importance of providing a broader space to Israel’s critics, the indelibly beltway Politico recognizing the influence of such critics in a full-length feature, and core Democratic organizations showing an increasing sensitivity to inappropriate uses of the anti-Semite charge, is the United States finally willing to undertake a real debate on what are the best U.S. interests in the Middle East?

The China Divide and the Future of the GOP

Robert Farley | November 08, 2011

The issue of whither U.S. relations with China is an important test case for observing the divide between the free market and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party. Thus far, the GOP presidential candidates have largely failed to articulate a vision of China that comes anywhere close to reflecting the complexity of U.S.-Chinese relations. Among the leading candidates, Mitt Romney has arguably been the most aggressive in his discussion of China policy. Yet, his embrace of a hawkish line towards Beijing would appear to indicate that President Obama’s would-be challengers have not yet found an alternative vocabulary for talking and thinking about one of the critical foreign policy issues of the 2012 election. It seems clear that even though neoconservatives lack grassroots support, they offer what is effectively the only option for an “establishment” GOP candidate, a fact that could have lasting impact both on the viability of any Republican Party foreign policy platform as well as future U.S. decision-making vis-à-vis other hotspots like Iran, Israel, and North Korea.

Right Web | rightweb.irc-online.org


1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036
USA
|
|
202-234-9382

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Right Web is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies; www.ips-dc.org