Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

starroute

(12,977 posts)
11. Serious questions have been raised about them in the past
Wed May 29, 2013, 03:48 PM
May 2013

I know there were questions in the late 90's about their Hong Kong office trying to drum up business opportunities preceding the Chinese takeover. And I found this in my files from 2005:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59539-2005Apr16.html

Think Tank's Ideas Shifted As Malaysia Ties Grew
Business Interests Overlapped Policy

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page A01

For years, the Heritage Foundation sharply criticized the autocratic rule of former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, denouncing his anti-Semitism, his jailing of political opponents and his "anti-free market currency controls."

Then, late in the summer of 2001, the conservative nonprofit Washington think tank began to change its assessment: Heritage financed an Aug. 30-Sept. 4, 2001, trip to Malaysia for three House members and their spouses. Heritage put on briefings for the congressional delegation titled "Malaysia: Standing Up for Democracy" and "U.S. and Malaysia: Ways to Cooperate in Order to Influence Peace and Stability in Southeast Asia."

Heritage's new, pro-Malaysian outlook emerged at the same time a Hong Kong consulting firm co-founded by Edwin J. Feulner, Heritage's president, began representing Malaysian business interests. The for-profit firm, called Belle Haven Consultants, retains Feulner's wife, Linda Feulner, as a "senior adviser." And Belle Haven's chief operating officer, Ken Sheffer, is the former head of Heritage's Asia office and is still on Heritage's payroll as a $75,000-a-year consultant.

On Sept. 27, 2001, Belle Haven hired Alexander Strategy Group, a Washington lobby firm run by Edwin A. Buckham, a former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), to help represent Malaysian clients. Linda Feulner works as a consultant for Alexander Strategy Group as well as for Belle Haven. Experts say that the relationship between one of Washington's most influential conservative think tanks and a network of lobbying firms collecting fees from Malaysian business interests -- well in excess of $1 million over two years -- could pose a problem for Heritage's tax status as a nonprofit group. The fees were disclosed in reports filed with Congress and the Justice Department.

(On edit -- more details here: http://dccc.org/blog/entry/heritage/)

Dunno. elleng May 2013 #1
I suspect they're using the educational section. Flimsy at best. SlimJimmy May 2013 #3
But they invented Obamacare ErikJ May 2013 #13
they claim to be "educational" hfojvt May 2013 #2
Al Capp beat them to it. hay rick May 2013 #27
I don't really understand the in's and out's 1KansasDem May 2013 #4
It's all in the definition of political activity... Jeff In Milwaukee May 2013 #5
They just crawled (walked upright, actually) through a loophole SoCalDem May 2013 #10
Folks at the IRS want to keep their jobs. hay rick May 2013 #30
K&R YES! Isoldeblue May 2013 #6
My first thoughts too. All those right wing think tanks funded by the Cleita May 2013 #7
A .org in a domain name is not necessarily a tax exempt. dumbcat May 2013 #20
Really? Then DU should be able to use .org. n/t Cleita May 2013 #26
Why would it want to? former9thward May 2013 #28
While they probably aren't breaking the law, I think it is ironic. Starry Messenger May 2013 #8
The ONLY tax exemptions should go to REAL churches/charities SoCalDem May 2013 #9
Serious questions have been raised about them in the past starroute May 2013 #11
Media Matters is a 501(c)3 also ErikJ May 2013 #12
The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3) hack89 May 2013 #14
Its what they advocate for is the difference ErikJ May 2013 #15
So you want the IRS use partisan political criteria hack89 May 2013 #16
"POLE"-itically neutral is impossible. ErikJ May 2013 #17
So each incoming administration simply applies its own political bias to the process? hack89 May 2013 #21
Democratic platform advocates for social welfare - GOP not so much. ErikJ May 2013 #24
The IRS has a far different definition of "social welfare" than you do. former9thward May 2013 #29
If the HF qualifies then every business in America should qualify. ErikJ May 2013 #31
Most businesses want to make a profit. former9thward May 2013 #32
One small thing.. X_Digger May 2013 #33
We are talking about 501cs former9thward May 2013 #34
True, but all "non-profits" make profit. (If they survive, I suppose.) X_Digger May 2013 #35
Do they have politicans from the Left on their payroll Rex May 2013 #19
It's first president was President Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta hack89 May 2013 #22
Okay I stand corrected then, they are the opposite of the HF. Rex May 2013 #23
Got me, they've had more people working directly with the GOP Rex May 2013 #18
Do you want a real answer, or do you just want to vent? brooklynite May 2013 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How is it that the Herita...»Reply #11