Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Sources

This article does not read like an encyclopedia entry due to its extensive use of the subject's own promotional material as the basis for the claims made about it. I think the article would be of higher quality and more in line with wikipedia standards if neutral sources (or at least sources other THAN the subject and its allies) were used. Gramsci3000 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Funding Sources

An organization's funding sources are an intrinsic element of what that organization is about. Feel free to improve the paragraph, or suggest ways for it to be improved. Jerimee 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to discuss funding, you need a much longer paragraph than this. Mackinac gets a lot more funding than what is on the media transparency page. A lot comes from individuals and a lot is also not earmarked for specific projects. I'm going to remove the Earhart language because Earhart is only one of many funding sources that Mackinac receives. There is no reason to single it out for special notice or try to smear Mackinac by selectively pointing out only one of its funders. MKil 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

I have no reason to think that Earhart is disreputable. They are the largest funder, so they are the example. I am restoring the info. Jerimee 02:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not the largest funder. They are the largest as reported by your source, but that is a very incomplete source of Mackinac's funding. It is simply not notable that Earhart funds them. Putting that in the article ignores all the other funding sources that Mackinac receives and is clearly trying to paint them as doing the bidding of the "vast right wing conspiracy." It's innacurrate, incomplete information and should either not be included or included as part of a larger section on Mackinac's funding. So I'm taking it out. MKil 02:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

Once again I am restoring the info, which is the only cited info in the article. If you wish to expand upon the funding source of the center you are welcome to do so. Jerimee 05:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out, the article is incomplete. While the Earhart Center may be the largest foundation donor, it may or may not be the largest overall donor. To say that it is is inaccurate. So I'm removing it. MKil 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

I tried to synthesize our two respective paragraphs on tax status. I took out that thing about does not report (tax law requires it to) and toned down some of my language to make it more neutral. Jerimee 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jerimee 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And I revised it further. Tax law does not require a nonprofit to disclose its donors. MKil 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

Um, yes it does, and I doubt the Center is a 501(c)3. Even if it is, it is still required to disclose certain types of giving. Where do you think transparency groups get their info from? Jerimee 19:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Center is a c(3) and tax law does not require that c(3)s disclose their donors. To say so is completely wrong. They are required to explain expenditures (that means what they spend) but not where they get their money. Foundations are required to disclose their expenditures and that is how the transparency group gets its information. If you don't believe me, then research the tax law. Until you do so, don't revert this edit because to do so is inaccurate. MKil 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

3RR

No, it works like this:

• I add a paragraph
• You revert it (1M)
• I restore it (1J)
• You revert it (2M)
• I restore it (2J)

So if you continue to delete work that doesn't support your POV, you are in violation of a rule that is designed to prevent non-constructive back and forth. It's silly for us to spend our time reverting, when there are much better ways to improve this article and others. Jerimee 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your present attempt to edit the article to conform with your POV is an improvement. However, it deletes the citations, and is untrue. Organizations are required to release information about funding sources, how do you think transparency groups get their data? Jerimee 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not untrue. Foundations are required to release information on who they give to. Nonprofits are not required to release information on who gives them money. So while it's true that a portion of Mackinac's funding comes from foundations, it is misleading to rely only on the biased media transparency site to discuss Mackinac's funding. Your cite only lists a small portion of the money given to Mackinac. Any discussion in the Mackinac article must take this into account, and your initial blurb did not do so. MKil 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

501 c(3)

Why do you persist in removing inaccurate information? Since you persist in changing my edits, here is some proof that what I'm saying is true:

From https://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3467: Information that is collected through ordering a product or making a contribution is used solely by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. We do not release, sell, or otherwise give out the names or addresses of our customers or contributors unless the customer or contributor has granted express permission to do so, except as required by law.

From http://www.mackinac.org/features/join/article.asp?ID=4986: The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and your gift is fully tax deductible.

501c(3)s are not required to reveal their donors. So quit undoing my edits. MKil 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

I'm sorry, these do prove what you are claiming: see "except as required by law." Go to the IRS webpage here: IRS Charities Jerimee 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, do some research. From a news story (http://www.hillnews.com/news/031704/charities.aspx): "Unlike political action committees and so-called 527 soft-money fundraising groups, named after a section of the U.S. tax code, 501(c)3 charities don’t have to report their contributors to the Federal Election Commission, the IRS or any federal agency."

So please, once and for all, please quit reverting my edits to the Mackinac page. Your edits make the article inaccurate. MKil 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

Then you will have no trouble finding it in the IRS code. I don't know how it helps the article to depict the Center as being secretive about their funding sources. My real problem is that you want to hide the fact that the Mackinac Center is anti-union, something which the Center's itself makes no attempt to hide. Your depiction of the Mackinac Center's desire to be secretive about their financial dealings is of little interest to me. Jerimee 23:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hide any facts. I am simply trying to write an unbiased entry for Mackinac. Using words such as "anti-union" slants the article. Earhart gave Mackinac money for its Labor and Education Center. That is a completely neutral description of their activity. Your biased source that talks about the Walton Foundation money giving to Mackinac is certainly not reliable, so I'm removing it. I find it interesting that on the ACORN page you complain about the usage of biased conservative sources for material there, but here you have no problem using an equally biased source to slam Mackinac.

I don't know why you persist in trying to fill this article with slanted information on Mackinac. The edits I made were 100% accurate. MKil 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

Well it is just as interesting that you are willing to revert countless times to get rid of citations from the New York Times and the IRS, but you are unwilling to speak against the use of biased citations on the ACORN page. Either way, you can't just delete content you don't like. Jerimee 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I was removing NY Times information and in my latest edit it stands. However, I restored my edits to the funding paragraph. My edits are 100% factually correct. While you accuse me of deleting content I do not like, I am actually only removing biased information and biased language inserted by you. I'll once again note your derision of those who used biased conservative sources on the ACORN page but your desire to use biased liberal sources here. You can't have it both ways. If my edits are so bad, then please explain why your revisions are better. MKil 04:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

Biased Edits

Jerimee, perhaps you do not realize how biased your changes are to this page, so let me illustrate the issues I have with them:

• ”While the Mackinac Center won't disclose its financial backers, it receives money from a variety of individual donors, corporations, and foundations.” Perhaps a minor quibble, but you say “won’t” and I say “does not.” As a 501 c(3), Mackinac is not required to disclose its donors and it has a policy of protecting their privacy, as I’ve illustrated. Saying it “won’t” disclose its donors makes it seem like it is being secretive and refusing requests to name its donors. Now, I don’t know if it has refused calls in the past, so saying it “won’t” disclose is a bit misleading. It seems much more neutral to say it does not disclose them.
• “The Earhart Foundation is the single largest reported source of funding to the Center.” Not really accurate. The Earhart Foundation is the single largest source noted on the mediatransparency.org site, which only lists foundations’ support. There may be other places that discuss Mackinac’s funding, and Mackinac may itself report funding from donors who do not mind being publicly recognized. In short, you don’t really know much about Mackinac’s funding aside from the very incomplete mediatransparency.org site. So it’s much more accurate to say that the Earhart Center is the largest foundation that provides support. Of course, I’m not sure why we are only singling out one foundation among a large list, but I suspect is has something to do with the desire to label Mackinac as “anti-worker.”
• ”Some of this funding is specifically earmarked to provide opposing viewpoints to that of the labor movement.” This is a very misleading statement. Your source says this about the Earhart Center funding: “. . . to establish a Labor and Education Resource Center” (which is how my edits put this sentence). Looking at the Mackinac Center website, it appears the labor center and the education center are two separate centers. Furthermore, while the labor center does do some work about the labor movement, it also does a lot of work that is about other labor issues. Saying that the funding is earmarked to “provide opposing viewpoints to that of the labor movement” makes it seem the Center receives money specifically to fight unions. That is false.
• ”The Walton Family Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation have also openly contributed to the Center's efforts to oppose the unions representing Michigan workers.” Your source for this is a liberal columnist from a liberal alternative paper in Canada. Pretty biased by any measure. As you yourself said on the ACORN talk page, “You don't have to disprove POV research to establish NPOV, you have to have the discipline not to use biased sources.” Why was it bad to use a biased conservative source on the ACORN page but you hae no problem using a biased liberal source here?

I think it’s pretty clear that your edits inject highly biased language that violates Wikipedia’s NPOV standards. My edits, which you continually revert in violation of the three revert rule, do not have the problems with bias that yours have. If you disagree, please indicate how my edits are a violation of the NPOV standards. Don’t just continually revert my edits because you want to bash the Mackinac Center. MKil 04:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

MEA Publication

I removed the info inserted by Chrisalberts since it is directly taken from this Michigan Education Association publication:Mackinac Center: The Truth. It would seem to be a copyright violation as far as I can tell. Or, if this user is the author of that report, then it seems to be a conflict of interest.MKil (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)MKil

---

Proposing a major edit here

Within the Wikipedia community there exists a "rebuttable presumption" that edits to an article about an organization by a member of that organization do not add value for users. I would like to open the discussion about whether this major proposed edit (below) is appropriate or adds value.

My major edit was inspired by looking at the article and its editing history a few weeks ago, and believing that it was POV at least in the sense of being unbalanced. As someone who has been involved with the organization for many years, it seemed the article doesn’t say much about what the Mackinac Center actually does or has done, which I imagine is what encyclopedia users really want to find out. The fact that some recent edits have come from the headquarters of MEA/MESSA, an organization that has sued the Mackinac Center, adds to POV concerns.

The article on the Cato Institute has been edited many hundreds of times versus the article on the Mackinac Center, which until now has been edited just a handful of times. So using the evolved structure of the Cato Institute article as a framework for this one seems reasonable (in particular, the introductory section, "Principles" and "Budget and Finances"). The Mackinac Center and Cato Institute are very similar in their ideology and in the range of the issues they cover.

It’s probably unusual for a staff member of an organization profiled on Wikipedia to offer such an extensive edit. I propose it it in good faith in the “talk” section, per Wikipedia “conflict of interest” guidelines, and trust that it can be improved.

Sincerely,

Jack McHugh Jack McHugh (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

proposed major edit from 2008
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is the major edit I propose {{[[Template:Infobox Institute	Infobox Institute ]]}} The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a free market think tank headquartered in Midland, Michigan. It is the nation’s largest state-based free market think tank. The Center’s stated mission is "improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions” by assisting "policy makers, scholars, business people, the media and the public by providing objective analysis of Michigan issues” with the goal of helping “to equip Michigan citizens and other decision makers to better evaluate policy options." The Mackinac Center conducts policy research on a broad range of public policy issues. Its commentaries frequently appear in Michigan newspapers, and its policy staff are often guests on radio and television news programs around the state. It also conducts educational programs such as workshops for high school debate students and sponsors [:http://www.michiganvotes.org/ MichiganVotes.org], a comprehensive online legislative voting record database. Mackinac Center scholars generally recommend lower state and local taxes, reduced regulatory authority for state agencies, labor law revisions including making Michigan a right-to-work state, school choice via universal tuition tax credits, and enhanced protection of individual property rights. They have been outspoken in their opposition to state economic central planning programs including subsidies, targeted corporate tax breaks, etc. The Mackinac Center is nonprofit. History thumb|200px|Mackinac Center building in Midland, Mich. The genesis of the Mackinac Center is described on its Web site as follows: “The Mackinac Center was founded in 1987 by a group of citizens who met on Mackinac Island and shared an interest in making Michigan a better place to live and work. They were concerned about the state's direction and the fact that no institution in Michigan was developing policy ideas that harnessed the benefits of our free enterprise system.” This group formed what ultimately became the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, so named after Mackinac Island, which is considered to be an iconic Michigan image. The Center began operations in 1987 with no office or full-time staff, but formally opened offices in Midland in 1988 with its first president, Lawrence W. Reed, an economist, writer, and speaker who had chaired the economics department at Northwood University. The Lansing-based Cornerstone Foundation provided early direction and some funding. The first budget under Reed was $80,000. In 1997 the Mackinac Center moved from rented offices to its current headquarters after having raised $2.4 million to renovate a former Woolworth’s department store on Midland’s Main Street. Lawrence Reed served as president from the Center’s founding until September, 2008, when he assumed the title President Emeritus and also became the president of the Foundation for Economic Education. Former Chief Operating Officer Joseph G. Lehman was named the Mackinac Center’s president on September 1, 2008. Principles The Mackinac Center’s work is rooted in the classical liberal tradition of John Locke and Adam Smith. Its scholars base their work on a variety of philosophical and religious perspectives. Three Nobel Laureates are frequently cited in the Mackinac Center’s work: Milton Friedman, who first proposed the concept of school choice, which is now promoted by the Center’s Education Initiative; F.A. Hayek whose ideas about spontaneous order and inability of government central planners to create thriving economies are seen in the Center’s criticism of targeted tax credits and corporate subsidies used by government economic development bureaucracies; and James M. Buchanan, whose work in public choice economics has informed many of the organization’s critiques of state government programs. Although it is sometimes called “conservative” (including by the New York Times and the Raleigh News and Observer), the Mackinac Center characterizes the label as inaccurate, pointing out that it does not address social issues usually identified with modern conservatism including abortion, censorship, and gambling, and that “free market” is a more useful shorthand description of its policy expressions. The Center’s ideology is most accurately described as classical liberal, holding that civil society responses to social and economic problems are more effective that political ones, and that limited government is more conducive to enhancing individual liberty than a welfare state. Public Policy Research Education Policy Initiative Mackinac Center studies and reports have promoted Universal Tuition Tax Credits and charter schools as forms of school choice, and the privatization of non-instructional services such as transportation, custodial, and food service. Center analysts have been critical of what they conclude to be excessive influence in school governance of school employee unions, including the Michigan Education Association. In 1993 it published a study on the Michigan Education Special Services Association (MESSA), a school health insurance administrator created by the MEA, characterizing the entity as the “MEA’s money machine.” Following publication of the study a state statute was adopted prohibiting unions from making the selection of health insurance providers a bargaining issue. Another new law made privatization of non-instructional services a prohibited subject of collective bargaining in public schools. Fiscal Policy Initiative This is described on the Center’s Web site as working to “limit taxation, champion broad-based, private sector economic development, and reduce government outlays through privatization and spending cuts.” In 2007 Mackinac Center analysts were active in making the case against a $1.4 billion tax increase proposed by the Granholm administration, publishing studies and op-eds, and making numerous radio appearances arguing that state government should restructure itself to eliminate the need for tax hikes. On the issue of targeted tax incentives, a 2005 Mackinac Center study showed that in its first 10 years Michigan’s “flagship” economic development program, the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA) created by former Gov. John Engler and continued by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, did not generate any overall increase in employment or personal income in counties that had MEGA projects compared to ones that did not. In 1996, 2002 and 2004 studies were published analyzing the state budget line-item by line-item and recommending privatization or elimination of many government activities. The Initiative publishes an annual survey of privatization of non-instructional services in Michigan’s 552 school districts, and also publishes a biannual journal, the Michigan Privatization Report, which is sent to Michigan municipal officials and approximately 4,200 public school board members. Labor Policy Initiative The first article on the Mackinac Center Web site recommending that Michigan become a right-to-work state is dated 1996, which is the year former National Labor Relations Board member Robert Hunter joined the Center. In 2002 the Labor Policy Initiative published a study presenting evidence that states with Right-to-Work laws have enjoyed faster economic growth than states which allow employers to make union membership a condition of employment. The Center has also been critical of state and federal “prevailing wage” and minimum wage laws, and has argued for more financial and political activity disclosures by unions, including stronger “paycheck protection” laws protecting the rights of employees working under union contracts to pay only those union dues or fees necessary to cover the costs of a union's employee representation duties. Legal Studies Project According to the Mackinac Center Web site the Project “produces legal analysis of state and national policy issues in order to better inform policymakers, the media and the public,” and in strategic cases at both the state and federal levels the initiative writes and submits amicus curiae briefs that “explore the broader constitutional, statutory and public policy considerations at stake.” These briefs are published on the Center’s Web site. Science, Environment, and Technology Initiative This Initiative’s stated mission is to promote “scientifically sound and market-based polices” that “enhance environmental protection and public health, and maximizes the benefits of new technologies.” It publishes studies and the quarterly [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/msr/ Michigan Science] magazine, sponsors student essay contests, and more. Educational Programs Students for a Free Economy A campus outreach project and blog, SFE visits Michigan colleges and universities “taking policy ideas to students . . . who may be unfamiliar with the ways that markets affect their lives and the issues they care about.” It also sponsors "writing, research and art contests with cash prizes, gain access to internship and scholarship opportunities, and more.” Property Rights Network The Network’s stated mission is "preserving and expanding private property rights in Michigan by elevating public awareness of these rights and how to protect them; encouraging policymakers to respect property rights when crafting laws and regulations; and identifying, organizing and supporting concerned property owners, thereby establishing an effective statewide property-rights coalition.” In 2006 initiative scholars “educated legislators who drafted the Proposal 4 ballot measure that prevents Kelo-type takings in Michigan.” The network has held citizen meetings around the state raising consciousness regarding both physical taking of private property via the government’s power of eminent domain and by regulatory taking. MichiganTransparency.org Also called the [:http://www.mackinac.org/articlewef.aspx?ID=9398 "Show Michigan the Money Project”], this initiative uses press releases and Freedom of Information Act requests to encourage governments to meet their “obligation to disclose their actions and expenditures” and to “make their checkbook spending directly available to the ublic.“ The [:http://www.mackinac.org/articlewef.aspx?ID=9398 MichiganTransparency.org] Web site contains links to the Center’s own school finance database and to various government sites disclosing spending details, and other information sources. MichiganVotes.org [:http://www.michiganvotes.org/ MichiganVotes.org] is a free legislative database that since 2001 has provided concise, neutral-point-of-view, plain-English descriptions of every bill, amendment and vote in the Michigan state House and Senate. Voting records and bills are searchable and sortable by legislator, issue category, keyword, date range, or a combination of these. It also contains a [:http://www.michiganvotes.org/MissedVotes.aspx “missed votes report”] that allows users to see how many and which votes each legislature has missed within a user-selected date range. As of mid-2008 the site contains descriptions of some 12,000 bills, 10,000 roll call votes, 9,000 amendments, and 2,400 new laws. High School Debate Workshops and Essay Contests Each year the Mackinac Center sponsors a series of one-day high school debate workshops at locations around the state, at which students from different schools are provided with speakers, news and research material related to the annual national debate topic. In recent years the Center has offered a $1,000 scholarship to one student at each debate workshop location who wins a panel-judged essay contest. Another contest offered a $500 prize to a student in grades 6 through 12 who “explores a scientific fact or exposes a scientific fallacy in a book, movie, song or other pop culture medium.” In 2007 the Center announced a “Freedom in Fiction Prize” competition offering 10 cash prizes of $10,000 to authors who write a new book with “. . . characters that demonstrate an appreciation for liberty, free markets and/or explicitly or symbolically oppose government oppression or restraints on their freedom . . .” and which does not “. . . advance themes or characters who promote government-sponsored solutions; vilify entrepreneurship; degrade personal initiative, self-reliance and responsibility, or regurgitate discredited myths and misconceptions about liberty and free enterprise.” Publications Studies The Mackinac Center’s Web site lists some 120 studies published since its founding. A sampling includes [:http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8691 A School Privatization Primer], [:http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8943 The Economic Effects of Right-To-Work Laws], [:http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=9244 The Opportunities and Limitations of Biomonitoring] and [:http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6545 Recommendations to Strengthen Civil Society and Balance Michigan’s State Budget]. Periodicals The Center also publishes the periodicals [:http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/l Michigan Education Report], [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/mpr/ Michigan Privatization Report], [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/msr/ Michigan Science], [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/mcc/ Michigan Capitol Confidential], and [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/impact/ Impact], plus a weekly on-line [:http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/topic.aspx?id=-2 'Michigan Education Digest] that is also e-mailed to subscribers. Other publications On its Web site the Mackinac Center posts four new [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/comments/ Current Comments] each week, and each month it mails and e-mails several op-ed length [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/viewpoints/ “Viewpoints”] to daily and weekly newspapers around Michigan. The Center’s Web site also lists 11 books that it has published dating back to 1990, and a number of monographs including [:http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3832 Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy], [:http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7112 The Inspiring Story of Thomas Clarkson: A Student's Essay that Changed the World], both by Lawrence Reed, and [:http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=4447 With Clear Eyes, Sincere Hearts and Open Minds: A Second Look at Public Education in America] by Andrew Coulson. Finally, the Center has published several amicus curiae briefs that it submitted in court cases related to important issues, such as [:http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7454 Rapanos v. United States]. Influence Influence On Public Policy Isolating the degree to which the activities of a state-based “non-partisan research and educational institute” contribute to public policy changes is inherently imprecise. A recent column by Mackinac Center President Joseph Lehman contained the following: “(In 1988) Michigan had a death tax and an ’intangibles’ tax. Income tax rates were higher. Property taxes were higher, and increases were not capped by law. Government assigned kids to schools by ZIP code alone. Schools were funded more on the basis of nearby land prices, not the number of students enrolled. Teacher strikes were legal and frequent. Unions needed no one’s permission to take political contributions right out of workers’ paychecks. Governments could legally take property from one owner and transfer it to another for ‘economic development.’ Lawmakers whose greatest skill was pleasing powerful special interests could enjoy uninterrupted decades entrenched in the Legislature. The terms ‘free market’ and ‘privatization’ were in the dictionary, but rarely the news.” These are all issue areas where both changes of the type favored by the Mackinac Center have to some degree occurred in Michigan, and about which its scholars have published studies and articles, testified in legislative committees, made arguments on the radio, issued press releases, and more. In other areas the policies supported by the Center have not come about, such as reducing state budgets, school choice, a right-to-work law, and more. Determining the extent to which the changes that have occurred would have happened in the absence of the Mackinac Center is not possible. It can be said that the Center has provided much “intellectual ammunition” to policy makers who share its point of view. In addition, the responses of some of its public policy adversaries including the Michigan Education Association suggest that the Mackinac Center has had some influence. Influence With Other Think Tanks In November 2006 the New York Times published a two-part series about state based free market think tanks that described how the Mackinac Center’s biannual Leadership Conferences had trained nearly 500 think tank executives from 42 nations and nearly every state. Times Journalist Jason DeParle reported that, “When the Mackinac Center was founded in 1987, there were just three other conservative state-level policy institutes. Now there are 48, in 42 states …” Describing one free market think tank founded by an alumnus of the Leadership Conference, DeParle said, “No one is more central to this replicating effort than (Mackinac Center President Mr. Lawrence) Reed …” News Coverage The Mackinac Center is very effective in getting its policy staff and scholars published in newspapers around the state, cited in news reports, and interviewed on radio talk shows. It posts most of these in a [:http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/inthenews/ “Mackinac Center in the News”] feature on its Web site. For 2007 there are 450 separate citations listed. Opponents The Center has promoted policies that would reduce the influence of unions in both the private and public sector; supported alternatives to conventional public schools; recommended reducing the authority of state regulatory agencies including the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; and recommended cutting state spending. Not surprisingly, it is viewed as an adversary by unions (especially the Michigan Education Association school employees union), environmental activists, and orhers. One of its opponents has characterized the Center and other state-based free-market think tanks as "propaganda mills." In 2001, the MEA created a new organization called the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Remarks by union president Luigi Battaglieri at the press conference announcing the entity suggested that at least in part it was formed to serve a counter to the Mackinac Center’s influence in Michigan education policy. In a subsequent fundraising letter the Mackinac Center quoted Battaglieri in his press conference saying about this, “Frankly I admire what they have done.” The Michigan Education Association filed a lawsuit against the Mackinac Center, which alleged that it had “misappropriated likenesses” from the union and its president.. In 2004 the Michigan Court of Appeals threw out the lawsuit, and the union chose not to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Budget and Finances The Mackinac Center is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The institute performs no contract research and does not accept government funding. For revenue, the institute is largely dependent on private contributions. Federal law does not require 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations to disclose the identity of their donors, and in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama the U.S. Supreme Court turned back efforts to force such disclosure by nonprofits. In 2004 the Michigan Court of Appeals threw out a lawsuit filed against the Mackinac Center by the Michigan Education Association against the Mackinac Center in which one of the remedies sought by the union was a list identifying the Center’s donors. When asked by Detroit’s Metro Times in 1996, the Center’s President Lawrence Reed said: "Our funding sources are primarily foundations … with the rest coming from corporations and individuals," but that "… revealing our contributors would be a tremendous diversion…" In that year, the Mackinac Center earned only $2,630 (“program sales”); the rest of its revenues came from tax-deductible contributions. Funding from non-profit foundations can be tracked by an examination of the IRS returns they file. From 2002 to 2006, the following conservative and corporate (those adjectives can come out – jm) foundations funded the Center: 550px| These contributions total $7,198,700; the remaining revenue for this period (about $14.5 million) was contributed by entities that are not required to file statements with the federal government: individuals and corporations.{{Fact}} In Strategic Grantmaking, Foundations and the School Privatization Movement, Richard Cohen estimates that one-half to two-thirds of all corporate grantmaking is: “made through the CEO’s office or the marketing department, for which there is no public disclosure requirement.” In 2006 the Center’s revenues totaled $2,711,545. Its funding has grown substantially over the years, from just over $1.7 million in 1998. Its 2005 payroll reached $1,790,963, with a staff of 40 people. 350px| Staff Compensation The chart below lists the 2005 and 2006 total compensation for officers and highest paid five employees, including benefits contribution and expense accounts: 500px| Staff, Faculty and Directors Policy Staff Kenneth Braun, Policy Analyst Burton Folsom, Senior Fellow in Economic Education Russ Harding, Director of the Property Rights Network Robert Hunter, Senior Fellow in Labor Policy Michael Jahr, Director of Communications Paul Kersey, Director of Labor Policy Michael LaFaive, Director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative Joseph Lehman, President David Littmann, Senior Economist Jack McHugh, Senior Legislative Analyst Lawrence Reed, President Emeritus Louis Schimmel, Director of Municipal Finance Patrick Wright, Senior Legal Analyst Adjunct scholars {{MultiCol}} Donald Alexander Michael Arens John Attarian Thomas Bertonneau Bradley Birzer Peter Boettke Theodore Bolema Michael Bond Mark Brandly William Browne Paul Chesser Stephen Colarelli Andrew Coulson Keith Crocker Robert Crowner Richard Cutler Richard Ebeling Jefferson Edgens David Felbeck {{ColBreak}} Wayland Gardner James Gattuso John Grether Robert Hanna Michael Heberling Ormand Hook Harry Hutchison David Janda Diane Katz Annette Kirk Robert Kleiman Dale Matcheck Paul McCracken S. Melzer Glenn Moots Paul Moreno Robert Murphy George Nastas John Pafford {{ColBreak}} Mark J. Perry Gregory Rehmke Stephen Safranek Adam Schaeffer Howard Schwartz James Sheehan Robert Sirico Jürgen Skoppek Bradley A. Smith Daniel Smith John Taylor Richard Vedder Harry Veryser John Walter William Wilson Gary L. Wolfram {{EndMultiCol}} Former Staff Robert P. Hunter, former member of the National Labor Relations Board Lawrence W. Reed, founding president of Mackinac Center, now president of Foundation for Economic Education Andrew J. Coulson, now director of Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom Dr. Ryan S. Olson, now Director for Education Reform at the Kern Family Foundation Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003), creator of the Overton Window while serving as Mackinac Center vice president Current and past board of directors members Richard D. McLellan, Dykema Gossett Law Firm D. Joseph Olson, Senior VP and General Counsel, Amerisure Companies Gail Torreano, Chief of Staff to then-Senator John Engler Lawrence W. Reed, Mackinac Center President Emeritus John Riecker, Hillsdale College and Comerica Bank Margaret Riecker, Republican National Committee, Dow Foundation William Rosenberg, Bush Presidential Campaign, Reagan Administration, Michigan Gov. William Milliken and Gov. John Engler administrations Robert Teeter, RNC Chairman, Pollster for Nixon, Ford, Bush campaign Philip Van Dam, US Attorney apppointed by President Gerald Ford Gregory Kaza, Republican State Representative Dick DeVos, Amway, Republican Candidate for Governor Charles Van Eaton, Hillsdale College Peter Cook, Great Lakes Mazda, major Republican campaign donor Paul V. Gadola, United States District Judge, Reagan Campaign Chair, Federalist Society Dick Antonini, Foremost Insurance Todd Herrick, Tecumseh Engines founder’s grandson Kent Herrick, Tecumseh Engines founder’s great grandson References {{Reflist}} External links [:http://www.mackinac.org/ Mackinac Center's official website] [:http://www.michiganvotes.org/ MichiganVotes.org] [:http://www.michigansfe.org/ Students for a Free Economy] [:http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/ Michigan Education Report] [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/mpr/ Michigan Privatization Report] [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/msr/ Michigan Science] [:http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/mcc/ Michigan Capitol Confidential]

References

Reversion of page

Not sure why WikiBuddha reverted the page since no explanation was left in the edit summary or on the talk page. I'd invite further discussion. Jack McHugh (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits

Well I came back to finally deal with your edits and I see they are gone.

I think that having J.C, the MC web guy, compile a massive download for Wikipedia is a long way from what the founders of Wikipedia had in mind. The bad press Wal Mart got doing the same thing wasn't all that long ago.

Anyway, you asked what I think. I think it's fair to edit the article, but your method of drowning my work by reproducing the MC website is an obvious attempt to drive material you don't like out of view.

If you're serious about a balanced article, you'll offer a more balanced edit.

I find it somewhat ironic that you are attacking Jack for his actions when there have been numerous edits to this page by the MEA, with which you are most likely associated. At least Jack declares his bias when he edits. Making sneaky edits by cut-and-pasting MEA documents to this website is worse, in my mind, than Jack openly declaring he works for Mackinac and contributing.MKil (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)MKil

Reversion but with finance material moved toward front

Chrisalberts objects that my edit buried the material he had added or edited.

As I said here before posting my major revision, the article was previously POV at least in the sense of being unbalanced, because it said hardly anything about what the Mackinac Center does.

My intention was not to bury his material on finance, but to locate it in a position comparable to where this appears in the much more evolved structure of the Cato Institute article. Nevertheless, in reverting I moved the finance material and the MEA's description of the Mackinac Center’s founding to just below the introductory section. I'd appreciate feedback from others on this positioning.

Chrisalberts has also insinuated that as a Mackinac Center staffer my editing of this article is improper. I am very sensitive to this and believe I have followed the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines for such cases. Jack McHugh (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

POV material in previous edit

Some of the edits by 98.243.252.107 seem clearly POV, and others subtract rather than add value to the article. (Comparison here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mackinac_Center_for_Public_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=404574209&oldid=400160830 )

Specifically, by section:

“Principles:”
99.243.252.107 has removed material that provides a clear picture for users of the Center’s philosophical underpinnings. I don’t see what value is added by removing this.

Value IS added by adding information about the Center’s sympathy with some core Tea Party grievances, but “aligns itself with the Tea Party” suggests some formal connection or comprehensive embrace of all the currents of this social movement – neither of which is accurate.

Something like this would be accurate: “The Center is generally sympathic to grievances expressed by the ‘Tea Party’ movement, and its policy staffers have spoken at some Tea Party events.”

“Education Policy Initiative”
99.243.252.107 has made several word substitutions that suggest a POV intention to diminish the subject of the article. When a person is employed by a think tank to analyze public policy it is correct to label him or her an “analyst,” and insisting otherwise suggests an animus. Labeling the contents of an organization's empirical study as “its beliefs” likewise suggests POV animus. While the word “belief” may fairly (if not optimally) be applied to a recommendation made by a study author, unfalsified empirical information presented in the study are fairly described as "facts" or "findings," not as “beliefs” and “assertions.”

“Labor Policy Initiative”
99.243.252.107 adds value with the information that Robert Hunter was appointed by Reagan to the NLRB. 99.243.252.107 adds opinion and POV with the claim that Robert Hunter joined the Center “in an attempt to promote Reagan era ideas of Labor rights.”

“Science, Environment, and Technology Initiative”
POV: “(The Mackinac Center) openly suggests that environmentalism is tantamount to communism.”

“Influence On Public Policy”

99.243.252.107 inserts an inaccurate description of “the Overton Window” as it was originally conceived by the late Joseph Overton. The distinction is important and is explained in the Wikipedia article on the Overton Window - the proper place for information on permutations not authored by anyone associated with the Mackinac Center. (I contributed to that article.)

Full disclosure reminder: As I stated above when I first made edits to this article, and in my user page, I have been associated with the Mackinac Center for a number of years. Jack McHugh (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318011132/http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp to http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Funding/support from Koch family foundations

If the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has received funding and support from the Koch family foundations, which it has, why is this fact not mentioned in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)