Visit our Re-post guidelines
In a stunning revelation that underscores the complex web of "dark money" influencing public discourse, the Schwab Charitable Fund has been identified as a previously undisclosed 10th major funder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). This UK-based organization has faced mounting criticism for its attempts to censor free speech under the guise of combating misinformation, raising alarming questions about foreign influence on American constitutional rights.
The Schwab Connection: Unmasking the Money Trail
Investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker first uncovered the Schwab Charitable Fund's substantial contribution to CCDH. In his groundbreaking article for Tablet Magazine, Thacker reported:
"According to Schwab's 2021 tax forms, someone donated $1.1 million to CCDH, meaning someone secretly gave Ahmed's group almost 75% of the donations they raised in their first year."1
This revelation is particularly significant given CCDH's opaque funding structure and its outsized influence on public policy discussions. The use of a donor-advised fund like Schwab Charitable allows for anonymous contributions, effectively obscuring the true source of this substantial financial backing.
A Rogues' Gallery of CCDH Funders
The Schwab Charitable Fund joins nine previously identified funding sources behind CCDH:
- Paul Hamlyn Foundation
- Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
- Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust
- Oak Foundation
- Barrow Cadbury Trust
- Laura Kinsella Foundation
- Pears Foundation
- Hopewell Foundation
- Unbound Philanthropy
Many of these organizations have deep ties to influential individuals and institutions in the UK, raising serious concerns about foreign influence on US speech policies and public discourse.
The Veil of Secrecy: Donor-Advised Funds and Hidden Agendas
The use of donor-advised funds like Schwab Charitable adds another layer of opacity to CCDH's already murky funding structure. These financial vehicles allow donors to contribute while maintaining strict anonymity, making it virtually impossible to trace the true origins of the money. This lack of transparency raises troubling questions about potential hidden agendas driving CCDH's activities and who might be pulling the strings behind the scenes.
A Frontal Assault on First Amendment Rights
CCDH has faced growing criticism for its aggressive efforts to deplatform individuals and organizations it unilaterally accuses of spreading "misinformation," particularly related to COVID-19 and vaccines. The involvement of donor-advised funds in supporting these efforts raises profound concerns about the erosion of free speech protections that have been a cornerstone of American democracy since its inception.
The irony of a UK-based organization, funded by British charities and anonymous donors, attempting to dictate the boundaries of acceptable speech in the United States cannot be overstated. It harkens back to the very tyranny that the American Revolution sought to overthrow, with the critical difference that this modern assault on liberty comes not through direct governmental edict, but through the insidious influence of unaccountable, foreign-funded NGOs.
Exposing CCDH's Staggering Misinformation
Perhaps the most damning indictment of CCDH's credibility and methods is the astronomical discrepancy between its claims and reality. In its infamous "Disinformation Dozen" report, CCDH alleged that just 12 individuals were responsible for 65% of anti-vaccine content on social media platforms. This report was cited by no less than the White House itself, with Press Secretary Jen Psaki using it to pressure social media companies into greater censorship.
However, Meta (formerly Facebook) later revealed the truth: these individuals were actually responsible for only about 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.2 This represents an astounding 1,460-fold difference - three orders of magnitude - between CCDH's claims and the factual data provided by Meta.
This egregious discrepancy raises serious questions about CCDH's methodology, motives, and the potential for deliberate manipulation of data to achieve political ends. It also highlights the dangers of government officials and media outlets uncritically accepting and amplifying claims from organizations with clear ideological agendas.
The Specter of State-Sponsored Censorship
The revelation of Schwab Charitable's involvement, coupled with CCDH's demonstrably false claims, raises disturbing questions about whether state-affiliated actors or government entities themselves may be using organizations like CCDH as proxies to carry out actions that would be blatantly unconstitutional if attempted directly. By funneling resources through foreign, dark money groups, these actors can potentially circumvent First Amendment protections with impunity, effectively laundering censorship through a veneer of "charitable" activity.
This strategy represents a grave threat to the foundational principles of American democracy. It allows for the suppression of dissenting voices and the manipulation of public discourse without the accountability and transparency that should accompany any restrictions on free speech.
A Call for Transparency and Accountability
As investigations into CCDH's funding and activities continue, the discovery of the Schwab Charitable Fund connection underscores the urgent need for greater transparency in the world of online censorship advocacy. The American public deserves to know who is truly behind efforts to shape public discourse and limit free expression.
Congress, led by figures like Jim Jordan, chairman of both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, must delve deeper into these connections. Similarly, Elon Musk's legal battle against CCDH may shed further light on the organization's methods and backers.
Ultimately, this saga serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle to preserve free speech in the digital age. It highlights the need for vigilance against well-funded, foreign-based entities that seek to influence American politics and public opinion through the backdoor of "charitable" advocacy. As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary of independence, it is crucial that we recommit to the principles of free expression and open debate that have been the bedrock of our republic since its founding.
References
1. Thacker, Paul D. "The New Push for Censorship Under the Guise of Combating Hate." Tablet, October 1, 2023.
2. Bickert, Monika. "How We're Taking Action Against Vaccine Misinformation Superspreaders." Meta Newsroom, August 18, 2021.
Disqus