Center for Security Policy: Affiliations and Funding

Center for Security Policy logo circa 2015

See main article: Center for Security Policy

Funders

Due to the nature of the CSP and its position as a non-profit organisation funding is acquired through donations made by individuals and other organisations. Grants from various foundations which reveal its links to other right wing factions.

In the two decades from 1988 until 2008 the CSP received $6,237,624 in grants from different foundations ranging from $1,000 to $350,000. On some occasions the reason for giving the sum of money is not disclosed, suggesting a somewhat opaque tactic of funding. This is particularly true of the foundations which regularly donate to the CSP.

The Carthage Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. have all made regular donations and state that they are funding general operations.

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation describes the Foundation's founding as follows:

The Bradley brothers were committed to preserving and defending the tradition of free representative government and private enterprise that has enabled the American nation and, in a larger sense, the entire Western world to flourish intellectually and economically. The Bradleys believed that the good society is a free society. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is likewise devoted to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles, and values that sustain and nurture it. Its programs support limited, competent government; a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity; and a vigorous defense, at home and abroad, of American ideas and institutions.

This kind of stance is dangerous in the hands of a foundation with assets surpassing $700 million. Supporting the CSP is in their advantage as the groups both ascertain that capitalism without the glove would benefit America, or in other words the wealthy minority. So by providing grants to the CSP they obtain a powerful ally which has a high degree of influence over policy-making.

The Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Carthage Foundation

Richard Mellon Scaife has control over these two foundations which regularly donate to CSP. Scaife is well-known for his contributions to “conservative” causes. This may be due to the interest he has over policy regarding his main assets and interests. These are his family’s ownership over Gulf Oil Corporation, ownership of Koppers and Carborundum corporations and participation in the uranium cartel. By 1999, the Washington Post reported that the Scaife Foundations had given $340 million to conservative causes and institutions.

Funding

Grant received by the Center for Security Policy in $ USD
Organisation	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	Total 2009-2015
AIPAC	-	-	-	-	-	-	60,000	60,000
Abstraction Fund	-	-	-	10,000	-	-	-	10,000
The Boeing Company	-	-	-	-	25,000	-	-	25,000
CACI International	-	-	-	-	20,000	-	-	20,000
Claws Foundation	-	-	-	25,000	-	-	-	25,000
Diana Davis Spencer Foundation	10,000	-	-	15,000	-	-	-	25,000
Donors Capital Fund	-	-	825,000	-	400,000	150,000	-	1,375,000
Donors Trust	-	-	-	-	-	126,000	-	TOT
Eugene & Emily Grant Family Foundation	-	-	34,000	-	275,500	100,000	-	TOT
F.M. Kirby Foundation	-	-	-	15,000	-	-	15,000	30,000
G L Connolly Foundation	-	-	-	-	40,000	-	-	40,000
General Dynamics Corporation	-	-	-	-	15,000	-	-	15,000
General Electric	-	-	-	-	5,000	-	-	5,000
Joyce and Donald Rumsfeld Foundation	-	-	-	2,000	-	-	-	2,000
Lockheed Martin	-	-	-	-	15,000	-	-	15,000
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation	-	-	-	60,000	50,000	-	-	110,000
Middle East Forum	-	-	-	200,000	-	125,000	-	TOT
Mz Foundation	-	-	-	0	0	85000	30,000	115,000
Raytheon	-	-	-	-	20,000	-	-	20,000
William H. Donner Foundation	-	-	25,000	25,000	25,000	-	-	75,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation	-	-	175,000	175,000	175,000	200,000	-	725,000
Snider Foundation	-	-	-	5,000	-	-	-	5,000
Steuben Foods	-	-	-	-	5,000	-	-	5,000
Vanguard Charitable Endowment Fund	19,500	-	-	26,000	813,000	-	-	TOT

Affiliations

JINSA

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs is closely tied to the Center for Security Policy. These two institutions have been likened to the Committee on the Present Danger and their influence in the Carter Administration. A number of the members of both organisations have filtered into governmental positions through the Clinton Administration and maintained the neo-conservative agenda through active pursuit of goals such as support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, backing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism. However, central to all these is the current Israeli situation.

Richard Perle and John Bolton are both highly influential members of JINSA and CSP. Perle is a Consultant to the Secretary of Defense and several US multinational companies and Bolton served as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations from August 1, 2005 to December 9, 2006. The mission statement of the organisation states:

JINSA works to strengthen support for the U.S. military and its ability to meet future challenges and crises. Changes in American military deployments since the end of the Cold War, new deployments in the war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them, and changes in funding and technology for our forces, require an informed and supportive public. JINSA works to educate its 20,000 members, leading policy makers and the public at large about key policy initiatives and requirements.

War is the agenda that is pursued by JINSA and its members. Michael Ledeen, a highly influential figure in the organisation, stated that "regime change by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents -- be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers -- is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East--a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action.

JINSA's pursuit of American/Israeli interests in the Middle-East will potentially result in what Michael Ledeen calls "total war".

Project for a New American Century

"We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities."

The close-ties between the CSP and Project for a New American Century are by far the most prominent. Top officials and influential figures are members or maintain close links with both organisations. These include Frank Gaffney, the founder of CSP, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney amd Donald Rumsfeld.

Once again it is clear that an aggressive pro-military action is clearly on the agenda of these closely-tied organisations. Reference to the Reagan administration in the statement of principles portrays a lust to return to the older ruthless regime. Combined with the continued presence of individuals such as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in current government activities, it is clear that the right-wing influence was embedded deep into the Bush II administration.

Weapons manufacturers

Due to the CSP's stance on aggressive military improvement, weapons contractors are keen to support the influential group in lobbying for further advancements to be given the green light, in particular the Star Wars operations.

The biggest beneficiary think tank of Ballistic Missile Defense is Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, which has received over $2 million in corporate donations since its founding in 1988, mostly from major Star Wars contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

These corporate donations are then spent on lobbying for higher military spending, enabling weapons manufacturers to profit from government budgets.

Resources

• Center for Security Policy
• Center for Security Policy: Controversies