Michele Bachmann’s Even Crazier Mentor »« Would Romney Be Better on Medical Marijuana?

Heartland Loses More Corporate Donors

It seems that the Heartland Institute’s monumentally idiotic and slanderous billboard campaign comparing global warming advocates of being like Charles Manson and Osama Bin Laden is backfiring on them in a big way. Three more corporate donors have now pulled their support for the organization.

In statements to advocacy groups, pharmaceutical giant Eli Llily, BB&T bank and PepsiCo confirmed they would not fund Heartland in 2012 – dealing a blow to the thinktank’s plans of building long-term relationships with major corporations.

The three were the latest in a rush of companies to distance themselves from Heartland after the ad campaign featuring Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

“Lilly is not funding Heartland in 2012 and has no plans to do so in the future,” David Marbaugh, communications director of Corporate Responsibility for Eli Lilly informed Forecast the Facts by email. “That type of ad is not consistent with how Lilly engages in public debate.”

Keep it coming. I hope this whole group has to disband for lack of funds.

Comments

  1. tubi says

    Why were they funding Heartland in the first place? As I understand it, the organization’s objective is to combat the legitimate science around gloabl warming. Does this mean that Lilly, BB&T, and Pepsico agree with Heartland’s position, they just now have problems with how it was marketed?

  2. jnorris says

    The corporate sponsors have left heartland but they haven’t stopped being climate change deniers. They will form another mouthpiece group and keep on chugging along.

  3. Gregory in Seattle says

    @tubi #2 – Their stated purpose is to advocate for free market policies. They are anti-science only to the extent that science regularly shows restrictions on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions must be expanded.

  4. KG says

    Gregory in Seattle,

    Well, I’m sure Pepsico and Lilly would also like to avoid scientifically supported regulation of foodstuffs and pharamaceuticals.

  5. Ben P says

    Well, I’m sure Pepsico and Lilly would also like to avoid scientifically supported regulation of foodstuffs and pharamaceuticals.

    You’d be suprised.

    Or more accurately, you underestimate the sophistication of a large multinational.

    Many of those companies are just fine with regulations, so long as they can be involved in writing the regulation and learn what the result of the regulations is going to be before anyone else does.

    Because then they can have the only product on the market that’s compliant with the new regulations, while everyone else has to spend lots of money catching up.

  6. d cwilson says

    Many of those companies are just fine with regulations, so long as they can be involved in writing the regulation and learn what the result of the regulations is going to be before anyone else does.

    I’ve experienced this first hand on the state level. Most of the big operators work both sides of the street: Lobbying against regulations in general while working to shape those regulations behind closed doors.

    And it’s not they want “science-based” regulations or not. What they really want are regulations whose costs they can easily pass on to their customers but will put their smaller competitors out of business.

    I’m sure companies like Pepsico see Heartland as just another chess piece in the games they play to manipulate government to suit their ends. It’s not that the board of directors is packed with rabid science denialists. It’s just that some of the things Heartland advocates are useful to their ends. But now that Heartland has compared a large segment of their customers to Manson and the Unabomber, Pepsico is perfectly fine with sacrificing this particular pawn.

  7. Michael Heath says

    Heartland didn’t lobby for the denial of climate science, so the rhetorical question from ignorance asked above shouldn’t be replied to as if that’s all they did; where we then defectively conclude their sponsors were all paying them to deny global warming – it’s not true. Just a couple of days ago Ed posted a blog which contained information about their promoting some very reasonable policies regarding insurance on behalf of their clients -which even favored a regulated marketplace, where those clients ended their relationship afterwards. I suggest finding and reading that thread, which also includes a rationale on why some would pay them to do their lobbying on other matters while they simultaneously deny reality on a related topic.

  8. D. C. Sessions says

    I hope this whole group has to disband for lack of funds.

    Not likely — they’ll either change their name or have the sponsors hold off. go bankrupt, and start over with the same sponsors.

Leave a Reply