*******QUOTE*******
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonrightwingconspiracy.htmlMyth: There’s no "vast right wing conspiracy" to get Clinton.
Fact: Richard Mellon Scaife and the Republican Establishment have poured millions into the effort.
Summary:
In the mid-70s, conservative corporations, foundations and politicians organized to reclaim power after 40 years of Democratic government. The result of this well-funded political and media machine was the Reagan Revolution, culminating in Republic control of Congress in 1994. One of the machine’s most important leaders is Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire who is financing nearly all the scandals that engulf President Clinton. ....
The Scaife Contribution
Richard Mellon Scaife is a Pittsburgh billionaire who inherited his fortune from the Mellon oil and banking empire. Today he owns the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and oversees the Sarah Scaife, Carthage and Allegheny Foundations. Over the years, Scaife has funded hundreds of high-profile projects that promote the corporate and conservative agenda. Scaife’s money helped create GOPAC, the vehicle that Newt Gingrich used to finance, control and promote Republican candidates in their takeover of Congress in 1994. In fact, Newt admits that Scaife money laid the basis for modern conservatism.
Over one three-year period, Scaife foundations gave nearly $3.5 million to the Heritage Foundation, $1.2 million to the American Enterprise Institute, $1.4 million to the Hoover Institution, $325,000 to the Cato Institute, $575,000 to the Citizens for a Sound Economy, and many other right-wing think tanks. (6) These think tanks disseminate corporate propaganda and policy proposals (dressed up as "studies" and "analysis") for the media and the various branches of government. And they are tremendously influential. In 1981, the Heritage Foundation published its famous Mandate for Leadership, and President Reagan adopted two-thirds of its suggestions in his first year alone. Real academics view think-tank studies as shoddy and often deceptive, but the studies appear sufficiently scholarly and technical to fool lay people. (7) ....
********UNQUOTE*******