The CCCM grew steadily between 2003 and 2018 in terms of both total contributions and foundation grants at an annual rate of 3.4% in 2020 dollars. Figure One displays yearly total contributions to the 128 recipient organizations, with grants from the top 100 donors distinguished by the category of the grant maker. Contributions increased steadily over the sample period, from $357 million in 2003 to $808 million in 2018, with a peak at $811 million in 2012. A similar trend holds for grants, which account for 26% (standard deviation = 4%) of yearly contributions to the CCCM on average. Family foundations provided the most grants to CCCM organizations. Notably, donor-advised funds (DAFs), which anonymize their donors, grew to account for 18% of all grants to the CCCM in 2018.
A small group of foundations constitute the core of financial support for the CCCM. Figure Two shows the top grant makers and recipients in the CCCM by total grants given or received. The top 1% of grant makers account for 67% of grants, and the top 10% of grant makers account for 94% of grants. Similarly, seven CCCM organizations (5%) receive 50% of all grants. The top three grant recipients—the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution—have remained unchanged since Brulle’s (2014) analysis, with some shifts in the order of smaller grant recipients. The top grant makers have changed slightly: The network remains dominated by Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund (DCF), and the Scaife, Bradley, and Koch family foundations, with the Devos family foundations now among the top ten as well. Donors Trust and DCF alone account for 13.7% of grants. These organizations are DAFs with a central role in coordinating donations to CCCM and conservative organizations while keeping their core donors anonymous.
Alongside the rise in donations through DAFs, 74% of all contributions to CCCM organizations over the sample period come from completely unidentified sources. Figure Three shows a sociogram of the top 1% of grant makers and recipients in the network by total grants given/received, where each line represents all grants between two actors over the sample period, with contribution totals less than $5,000 removed for clarity. Unidentified contributions are represented by a single node to demonstrate their prevalence, although they come from many anonymous donors. Individual organizations received between 25% and 100% of their contributions from unidentified sources, with no strong (p < 0.05) correlations with organizational assets, revenues, or the nature of their engagement on climate change.
These results confirm and extend the initial analysis in Brulle (2014). Our analysis shows that the size and composition of the CCCM has remained remarkably consistent over the time period of analysis. Funding from conservative family foundations and Donors Trust plays a central role in providing this sort of stability. Beyond simply donating, prior research has shown the key coordinating role that family foundations play within the conservative movement, and by extension the CCCM (Hertel-Fernandez et al., 2018). The overall finding of this analysis of funding patterns shows that both the organizations that receive the funding and the foundations that provide the funds are core institutional actors in the larger conservative movement. The organizational structure of the CCCM is thus fundamentally identical to that of the overall conservative movement, making it legitimate to view the former as a component of the latter. This finding lends increased empirical verification to previous analyses of the CCCM (McCright & Dunlap, 2000).
It also lends support to the finding that funding strategies differ between progressive and conservative philanthropists. The analysis shows a striking stability in funding patterns over the sixteen year time period. The funding strategy of the conservative movement was laid out in the so-called “Fat Memo” (Miller 2005), which informed the giving practices of the Olin Foundation, the first major conservative philanthropy. This strategy has informed subsequent conservative giving strategies. The objective of these funding efforts is to focus on the development and promulgation of a clear conservative viewpoint. To realize that effort, conservative philanthropies have funded a range of organizations that can act to realize that goal on a long-term basis. This strategy focused on the creation and maintenance of conservative think tanks, development of public intellectuals (“thought leaders”), and promulgation of a consistent ideological message. Additionally, conservative foundations focus on building institutional capacity in organizations with strong communications capabilities (Covington, 1997; Bartley, 2010).
This consistent and long-term funding strategy has enabled the development of a cohesive institutional network of conservative organizations that work collectively to promulgate a consistent message. This strategy stands in marked contrast to the funding strategy of progressive foundations, which focus on individual research projects and short-term efforts. As a consequence, the progressive activist organizations and think tanks form a very loose and disconnected network (Bartley, 2010, p. 792). This differs significantly from the very tight network of organizations and think tanks that comprise the conservative movement. The analysis confirms the long term stable funding that maintains the CCCM.
This analysis still leaves Senator Whitehouse’s question unanswered. The source of over three- quarters of the funding of the CCCM cannot be identified. While some of this funding could come from small donations, the existing IRS disclosure rules do not enable any further investigation in this area. Further research is needed to develop new means to extend our understanding of the unidentified funders that created and maintain the CCCM.