(Archived document, may contain errors)
CAMPAIGN FOR ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY: PART THE INS77TUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES NETWORK
In addition to operating as a force in radical politics in the state of California, the Campaign for Economic Democracy functions as an integral part of a burgeoning nationwide movement rooted in activities and programs of the Institute for Policy Studies, characterized in the 1971 annual report of the House Committee on Internal Security as "the far-left radical 'think tank' in Washington, D.C." The rhetoric of this movement is almost obsessively anti-corporate in nature and owes much to the writings of such figures as Richard J. Barnet, one of the founders of IPS, and Derek Shearer, an IPS-connected "public interest economist" who has been credited with helping to "lay the theore- tical basis kor Economic Democracy." The essence of its position is conveyed in CED founder Thomas E. Hayden's statement that "the .corporate system" is "indefensible as it is" and in another Hayden statement that There are still large concentrations of economic power who, cloaked in a curtain of privacy, operate beyond either the laws of supply and demand or govern- mental regulation. Their existence affects everything from workers' lungs to world peace. They are private multinational entities in a world of public national ones. Any relationship between an enterprise like CED or the economic democracy movement and the Institute for Policy Studies is of the greatest significance and should not be underestimated, both because the Institute serves as the principal "think tank" for the New Left and because it enjoys considerable influence. through its extensive interlocking relationships with such other entities as the anti-intelligence complex, the anti-defense lobby, and, in some instances, agencies of the United States government.
CED's ties to the IPS complex in California.go back at least as far as the Second California Conference on Alternative Public Policy, also known as the Santa Barbara Conference on Economic Democracy, held in Santa Barbara, California, on February 18-20, 1977. The March 1977 issue of CED's CaUaigner for Economic Democracy reported that CED was the "major group organizing for the Conference" and added that a related organization, the Cali- fornia Public Policy Center, had "prepared a 150-page set of Working Papers on Economic Democracy" in conjunction with the j'athering. CPPC also played a key.part in post-conference activity by agreeing "to serve as a clearing-house for information about the Issue Task-Forces" and by "attempting to prepare a Directory of people with a particular expertise or interest in one or more issue areas." The list of "issue areas" was a broad one and included "Affirmative Action," "Agribusiness and Land," "Child Care," "Controlling Corporations," "Criminal Justice," "Economic Development and Finance," "Education," "Energy and Utilities," "Environment and Land Use," "Food," "Health Care," "Housing," "Human Care Services (Welfare)," "Jobs and the Environment," "Labor," "Local Reform and Community Control," "Media Reform," "Military Spending," "Taxes," and "Transportation." This conference was actually one of a series in which CPPC was involved, the first being a January 1976 Conference on Alter- native State and Local Public Policy that was held in Sacramento. A member of CPPC's board of directors, Derek Shearer, served as "conference coordinator." The CPPC's "1975 Operations and Liti- gation Report" stated that "Work on the [conference's 300-page) reader was supported by grants from the Institute for Policy Studies, the Foundation for National Progress, and the Fairtree Foundation." A list of "Total Receipts for 197511 attached to this document further specified that IPS provided $750 for the conference, while FNP provided $1252.60. A financial report for the 1977 Santa Barbara conference reflected income from the Foundation for National Progress in the form of a $2,000 grant to be used for "Initial Continuations Support" to help offset the "Total Budgetary Need 2/77 to 2/78,11 looking forward to the third conference in the series, of better than $7,000. For this third gathering, held in Oakland in February 1978, a conference brochure revealed that "Again the Foundation for National Progress will provide-a grant to help meet the difference between registration fees and conference costs." The "INITIAL LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS" included, among others named, both CED and CPPC; and a March 1978 "CONFERENCE FINANCIAL STATEMENT" reported that CED and FNP had provided, respectively, $250 and $750, with FNP pledging an additional $250. Also, as part of the planning for a projected 1979 gather- ing, the "Chair" and "Contact Person" for a "transition committee" was to be Cary Lowe of the California Public Policy Center; Lowe has also been characterized in the press as "a tenants' rights specialist for the Campaign for Economic Democracy." In planning for these various conferences, CED has enjoyed a close working relationship with both CPPC and FNP; this relation- ship has also been apparent with regard to CED's solar energy package, SolarCal. Much of the basic research data to support
this proposal is contained in a February 1978 CPPC study, JOBS FROM THE SUN: Employment Development in the California Solar Energy Industry, "made possible in parE_b@_th_e generous help of the" PaE17-ficAlliance and FNP. CED Chairman Tom Hayden appeared in Sacramento to promote SolarCal'in April 1977, accompanied by Alvin Duskin, director of the Pacific Alliance, and Fred Branfman, co-director of the California Public Policy Center and project director for JOBS FROM THE SUN. 'Lowe and Shearer have also been listed as co-air-rectors of CPPC at various times; Branfman and Shearer-have been associated with FNP; and all three have been affiliated in various ways with activities of CED. It is apparent that there exists a close interlocking relationship between the Campaign for Economic D6mocracy on the one hand and both the Foundatiorf for National Progress and the California Public Policy Center on the other. The Foundation for National Progress was formed in 1975 and has its headquarters in San Francisco, California, where it sponsors "investigative research, seminars, conferences on state and federal policy and an unusual popular journal" known as Mother Jones, which has declared that "Much of what we publish is the end result of Foundation for.National Progress research." Though nominally independent, FNP, according to its internal financial report for 1976, "was formed in 1975 to carry out on the West Coast the charitable and educational activitiqs of the Institute for Policy Studies." Key CED and CPPC figures have been prominent among FNP's Fellows and Associate Fellows, and several have also been involved with IPS itself. In like manner, contributors to the pages of Mother Jones have included a number of movement activists promineFt-lyidi@n-tified with IPS or various of its subsidiary projects. Financial support for the Foundation for National Progress has come from the Samuel Rubin Foundation, the Stern Fund, and the Janss Foundation, all of which have been among the principal grantors of funds to IPS. FNP has several subsidiary projects, among them the Pacific Alliance and.the New School for Democratic Management. Various sources have listed Alvin Duskin as director of the Pacific Alliance. Duskin, who attended the 1977 Santa Barbara conference and participated in one of the conference workshops, along with John Giesman of the Solar Center, another FNP project, has been listed in the 1979-1980 annual report of the Institute for Policy Studies as an IPS Associate Fellow. The New School for Democra- tic Management was founded in 1976 and is run by David Olsen, who has been both a director and Resident Fellow of FNP. The school has received funds from the Youth Project and operates, in the words of Derek Shearer, as "an ideological challenge to the rest of society" on the premise that "it is impossible for a Left political movement... to accomplish its goals without a parallel alternative economic movement." Olsen participated in the 1977 Santa Barbara conference; and the New School, along with CED and CPPC, was on the "INITIAL LIST OF PARTICfPATING ORGANIZATIONS" for the February 1978 gathering in Oakland. Both CED and FNP in turn interlock with the California Public Policy Center, described in one source as part of the tax-exempt "superstructure of affiliated organizations" upon
which CED relies in researching and implementing its programs. CPPC was formed in March 1973 and received tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization in September 197@. Originally known as the California Law Center, the organization has its headquarters in Los Angeles. While there does.not appear to be evidence of IPS involvement in creation of the Center, the organization, through its principal leadership and through direct financial support from IPS and from the Foundation for National Progress, has nonetheless increasingly assumed the aspect of yet another outlet for IPS activism on the West Coast. The Center's interre- lationship with IPS is epitomized by two people: Ruth Yannatta, who has served as the Center's acting director, as a member of its board of directors, and as director of its Fight Inflation Together project, and Derek Shearer, who has served as Center vice president and secretary-treasurer, as a member of its board of directors, and as director of its IPS-funded Economy Pi;oject. Yannatta, a CED-backed member of the Santa Monica, California, City Council, has also been deeply involved in CED and in the Center for New Corporate Priorities, an organization with strong ties to CPPC. She has been an active participant in numerous conferences held under the aegis of the IPS-spawned National Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies, now known as the Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies, a nationwide apparatus of "elected and appointed officials, organizers and planners who share a populist or radical outlook." In creating this network, according to a coordinator for the organization, NCASLPP specifically sought out "populist, progres- sive, socialist, innovative,-open-minded, locally-elected offi-. cials" who were "products of" the radicalism of -the 1960s. Shearer's ties to IPS and to the NCASLPP/CASLP'network have been extensive. Like Yannatta, he participated in the founding conference of NCASLPP in June 1975 and has been involved in numerous'of its succeeding efforts. Conference publications have listed him ds a member of the organization's steering committee, and he has co-edited NCASLPP's Second Annual Public Policy READER and edited a bibliographical SeFE`ion pTb_11r_s`-heT_'1r_nCA\u223\'a7_LP1s PUE'lic Policies for the Eighties. The 1979-1980 annual report of-the Institute for olicy Studies listed Shearer as an IPS Associate Fellow, and he is also among scheduled instructors on the spring 1981 program of the IPS Washington School. He was involved in a 1973 IPS conference on "Strategy, Programs, and Problems of an Alternative Political Economy," which was of seminal importance to the development of an economic democracy movement in the United States; and he contributed a chapter to a major Institute study of the federal budget that was published in 1978 at the request of several members of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank and has been described as "on the boards of the New School for Democratic Management, Popular Economics Press, and the Campaign for-Economic Democracy." Such a background makes it of more than casual significance that ' Shearer was one of those who "helped write Hayden's campaign platform for his unsuccessful 1976 run for U.S. Senate in California" and that, as previously mentioned, his "voluminous work" has been credited with helping to "lay the theoretical basis for Economic Democracy."
this proposal is contained in a February 1978 CPPC study, JOBS FROM THE SUN: Employment Develo@ment in the California Solar Energy Industry, "made possible in part by the generous help of the" PaFir`fic Alliance and FNP. CED Chairman Tom Hayden appeared in Sacramento to promote SolarCal-in April 1977, accompanied by Alvin Duskin, director of the Pacific Alliance, and Fred Branfman, co-director of the California Public Policy Center and project director for JOBS FROM THE SUN. 'Lowe and Shearer have also been listed as co-Tir-r-ectors of CPPC at various times; Branfman and Shearer-have been associated with FNP; and all three have been affiliated in various ways with activities of CED. It is apparent that there exists a close interlocking relationship between the Campaign for Economic D6mocracy on the one hand and both the Foundation* for National Progress and the California Public Policy Center on the other. The Foundation for National Progress was formed in 1975 and has its headquarters in San Francisco, California, where it sponsors "investigative research, seminars, conferences on state and federal policy and an unusual popular journal" known as Mother Jones, which has declared that "Much of what we publish is the end lt of Foundation for.National Progress research." Though nominally independent, FNP, according to its internal financial report for 1976, "was formed in 1975 to carry out on the West Coast the charitable and educational activities of the Institute for Poli&y Studies." Key CED and CPPC figures have been prominent among FNP's Fellows and Associate Fellows, and several have also been involved with IPS itself. In like manner, contributors to the pages of Mother Jones- have-included -a number of movement activists promineFt-l-y---lr'dFn-t-lr-fied with IPS or various of its subsidiary projects. Financial support for the Foundation for National Progress has come from the Samuel Rubin Foundation, the Stern Fund, and the Janss Foundation, all of which have been among the principal grantors of funds to IPS. FNP has several subsidiary projects, among them the Pacific Alliance and-the New School for Democratic Management. Various sources have listed Alvin Duskin as director of the Pacific Alliance. Duskin, who attended the 1977 Santa Barbara conference and participated in one of the conference workshops, along with John Giesman of the Solar Center, another FNP project, has been listed in the 1979-1980 annual report of the Institute for Policy Studies as an IPS Associate Fellow. The New School for Democra- tic Management was founded in 1976 and is run by David Olsen, who has been both a director and Resident Fellow of FNP. The school has received funds from the Youth Project and operates, in the words of Derek Shearer, as "an ideological challenge to the rest of society" on the premise that "it is impossible for a Left political movement... to accomplish its goals without a parallel alternative economic movement." Olsen participated in the 1977 Santa Barbara conference; and the New School, along with CED and CPPC, was on the "INITIAL LIST OF PARTICfPATING ORGANIZATIONS" for the February 1978 gathering in Oakland. Both CED and FNP in turn interlock with the California Public Policy Center, described in one source as part of the tax-exempt "superstructure of affiliated organizations" upon
CAMPAIGN FOR ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY: PART II
As outlined in the preceding study in this series, the Campaign for Economic Democracy is a California-based apparatus that developed from the unsuccessful 1976 primary campaign of Thomas E. Hayden, one of the nation's principal radical leaders, for the United States Senate. With a budget estimated at approxi- mately $300,000 and a paid staff of 21, CED, with some 25 to 30 chapters around the state, has apparently become a potent force on the political left, its members and supporters including such luminaries as former California Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally and U.S. Representative Ronald V. Dellums, a major figure in American radical politics. Funding for CED has come from a variety of sources, including, according to some accounts, govern- ment itself through local programs staffed with CED members; and the organization has benefited handsomely from the fund-raising ability of Hayden's wife, actress Jane Fonda, and several enter- tainment industry celebrities with whom she is associated.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of CED's efforts, how- ever, derives from the organization's interlocking relationship with various components of the nationwide network created by the Institute for Policy Studies. Specifically, it is fair to say that, in order to grasp fully the nature and importance of CED, one must first understand its function an an integral part of the "economic" or "corporate democracy" movement, which is national in scope and which has its roots in activities and programs of IPS, described in the 1971 annual report of the House Committee on Internal Security as "the far-left radical 'think tank' in Washington, D.C." The importance of IPS should not be underesti- mated; in addition to serving as the principal "think tank" for the New Left, it enjoys great influence through its extensive interlocking relationships with such entities as the anti- intelligence complex, the anti-defense lobby, and agencies of the United States government.*
*For background on CED generally, see Heritage Foundation Institution Analysis No. 13, "Campaign for Economic Democracy: Part I, The New Left in Politics," September 1980. References to the anti-intelligence and anti-defense lobbies are cpntained in Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 59, "Terrorism in America: The Developing Internal Security Crisis," August 7, 1978; Institu- tion Analysis No. 10, "The Anti-Defense Lobby: Part I, Center for Defense Information," ;i-pril-1979; Institution Analysis No. 11, "The Anti-Defense Lobby: Part II, 'The Peace Movement, Continued,'" September 1979; and Institu- tion Analysis No. 12, "The Anti-Defense Lobby: Part III, Coalition for a New Foreign and Mil-Tit-a-ry Policy," December 1979. Connections between IPS and certain federal appointees are traced in Institution Analysis No. 9, "The New Left in Government: From Protest to Policy-Making," November 179-7-8. For background on IPS generally, see Institution Analysis No. 2, "Institute for Policy Studies," May 1977. The relationship between CED and the IPS network has been briefly indicated in Backgrounder No. 113, "The Corporate Democracy Act and Big Business Day: Rhetoric vs. Reality," March 11, 1980. CED AND THE IPS COMPLEX IN CALIFORNIA
CED's ties to the IPS complex-can be traced at least as far back as a conference held in Santa Barbara, California, on February 18-20, 1977. The March 1977 issue of CED's Campaigner For Economic Democracy claimed that "The major group organizing the Conference was the California Campaign for Economic Democracy, a grass-roots outgrowth of the Hayden for Senate campaign" of 1976, and further revealed that "At the request of the Conference, the California Public Policy Center (CPPC), a research group, consulted hundreds of experts around the state and prepared a 150-page set of Working Papers on Economic Democracy." The level of CPPC involvement in this enE-erp-r-I-se was further reflected in the primary role played by CPPC in post-conference activities. The Campaigner for Economic Democracy reported that "Most participants at the Issues Workshops expressed a desire to continue meeting after Santa Barbara in the form of a task-force" and added that CPPC "has agreed to serve as a clearing-house for information about the Issue Task-Forces." Subsequently, a "TO: Whom It May Concern" mailing was dissemi- nated by CPPC on the subj@ect of "Issues Network Questionnaires." According to this document, "At the request of numerous groups and individuals around the state, we are attempting to prepare a Directory of people with a particular expertise or interest in one or more issue areas." It was further noted that "The Continu- ations Committee of the Santa Barbara Conference on Economic Democracy will determine the use to-which the Directory is put." The list of "issue areas" from which recipients of the mailing were urged to choose was indicative of the broad range of CED's and CPPC's organizing concerns:
Affirmative Action Agribusiness and Land Child Care Controlling Corporations Criminal Justice Economic Development and Finance Education Energy and Utilities Environment and Land Use Food Health Care Housing Human Care Services (Welfare) Jobs and the Environment Labor Local Reform and Community Control Media Reform Military Spending Taxes Transportation
CED literature, including the March 1977-Campaigner for Economic Democracy, which bore the return-address stamp of the California Public Policy Center, referred to the gathering as the "Santa Barbara Confer ence on Economic Democracy." The same designation was carried in documents adopted at the conference. Material issued subsequently by the Continuations Committee, however, bore the designation "California Conference o 'n Alternative Public Policy" or, as in the case of a conference financial report, the more precise designation of "Second California Confer- ence on Alternative Public Policy." It is the last formulation that is of particular interest, indicating as it does the element of continuity under the aegis of CPPC.
A '11975 Operations and Litigation Report" signed by Betty Binder as Executive Director of the California Public Policy Center included the following passage:
Public Policy Conference/Reade
As the year 1975 drew to a close, we organized a statewide Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policy held January 9-11, 1976, at the Sacramento Convention Center. The Conference served as a forum through which people involved in or with state and local government shared informa- tion, ideas and experiences.
One major result of the Conference involved compi- lation of a resource reader on public policy alternatives for state and local government. This 300-page reader included public policy material in such areas as energy; tax reform; food and land; economic development; urban growth; job creation; and business regulation. The reader was made available to appointed and elected officials at the state and local level in California and in other cities and states on the west coast.
Work on the reader was supported by grants from the Institute for Policy Studies, the Foundation for National Progress, and the Fairtree Founda- tion.
We have long believed that such a dialogue on policy issues was useful. So, the Center took the initiative to bring policy makers and private citizens together to provide a forum for a meaning- ful exchange of ideas about new solutions to old problems.
The minutes of a meeting of the CPPC board of directors held on April 7, 1976, included an account of a report made by Director Derek Shearer to the effect that the January 1976 conference had attracted an estimated 400 participants; Shearer was formally congratulated for his success as "conference coordinator." Additional specifics with respect to conference financing were contained in a list of "Total Receipts for 197511 appended to the 111975 Operations and Litigation Report." This document cited, among other items, the following:
3. Alternative Public Policy Conference (special project of the CPPC)
a) Institute for Policy Studies Washington, D.C. $ 750
b) Foundation for National Progress 607 Market Street San Francisco, Ca. $1252.60
c) conference pre-registration fees $ 577.14
In like manner, an undated "FINANCIAL REPORT" for the "Second California Conference on Alternative Public Policy" (the Santa Barbara gathering of February 1977) reflected income from the Foundation for Nationil Progress in the form of a grant of $2,000. Specifically, as shown by a section headed "Continuations Planning Expenses for California Conference on Alternative Public Policy," the "2nd California Conference Deficit" amounted to $1,887.91, with a "Total Budgetary Need 2/77 to 2/78,11 looking forward to the third conference in the series, of $7,087.91. To help offset this problem, "Initial Continuations Support has come from the Foundation for National Progress in the form of a $2,000.00 Grant."
The same situation arose with regard to the third conference in this series, described in a promotional brochure as "the third annual gathering of the California Conference on Alternative Public Policy being held in Oakland February 17 through 20, 1978.11 The brochure revealed that "Again the Foundation for National Progress will provide a grant to help meet the differ- ence between registration fees and conference cotts.11 Also, the "INITIAL LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS" included, among others, both CED and CPPC. A "CONFERENCE FINANCIAL STATEMENT" dated March 10, 1978, indicated "Total Grants Rec1d.11 of $2,250, with $500 having come from CED and $750 having been received from FNP; in addition to these receipts from CED and FNP, a further grant of $250 had been pledged by FNP. It is noted that the April 1, 1978, mailing to which the financial report was attached mentioned, as part of a discussion of possibilities for a fourth such gathering in 1979, that a "transition committee" would meet on April 22, 1978, at CED's offices in Suite 501, 304 South Broadway, in Los Angeles, "with Cary Lowe as Chair." The "Contact Person" for this committee was also to be Cary Lowe of the Cali- fornia Public Policy Center, located in Room 224 at the same street address as CED. It will be recalled that, as cited in the preceding study in this series, Lowe was characterized in the January 26, 1980, edition of the Washington Star as "a tenants' rights specialist for the Campaign for Economic Democracy." It is apparent from the foregoing data that CED, at the very least insofar as the various annual incarnations of the California Conference on Alternative Public Policy are concerned, has enjoyed a close working relationship with-both the California Public Policy Center and the Foundation for National Progress. As mentioned in the preceding study,.this working relationship has also been evident with respect to promotion of CED's solar energy package, SolarCal, much of the basic research data in support of SolarCal being contained in JOBS FROM THE SUN: Employment Develop- ment in the California Solar Energy Industry, a study issued by Z@P__PCin February 1979 and "made possible in part by the generous help of the" Pacific Alliance and FNP; it should further be remembered that the Aprii 16, 1977, edition of the San Diego Union carried an account of an appearance in supporE-of SolarCal in-Sacramento by CED Chairman Tom Hayden, "Alvin Duskin, director of Pacific Alliance and author of the Nuclear Safeguards Initia- tive of last year, and Fred Branfman of the California Public Policy Center." Branfman, who served as project director for JOBS FROM THE SUN, has, like Cary Lowe and Derek Shearer, 'been listed as being among the co-directors of CPPC, while all three have also been affiliated in various ways with activities of CED; in addition, both Branfman and Shearer have been associated with FNP. Such indications of close interlocking relationship make it appropriate at this point to consider the realities with regard to both the Foundation for National Progress and the California Public Policy Center.
FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL PROGRESS
The Foundation for National Progress was formed in 1975. An FNP brochure issued in 1977 declared that "we started the Founda- tion for National Progress to create a non-profit foundation to sponsor investigative research, seminars, conferences on state and federal policy and an unusual popular journal" known as Mother Jones, self-described as "published monthly (except for Fo-'mbinea7'Issues in February/March and September/October) by the Foundation for National Progress, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organi- zation." Subscription arrangements for Mother Jones are different from those applicable to most magazines: "MOTHER JONES subscribers are members of the Foundation for National Progress. Membership dues are $12 a year, of which $4 is set aside for publication costs." The relationship between FNP and Mother Jones was further elucidated in the magazine's February/March 1977 issue:
Who's Behind Mother Jones?
well, in keeping with the original Mother Jones [described as a "Pioneer socialist" who "helped found" the Industrial Workers of the World, designated by the Attorney General of the United States as an organization which seeks to "Alter the Form of Government-of the United States by Unconstitutional means"], no banks, no. corporations, no people looking for a fast buck are behind the magazine. Mother Jones is published by a nonprofit foundation that currently employs more than two dozen researchers and scholars in addition to the magazine staff. These 26 men-and women are studying, organizing, researching, investigating and documenting the problems and crises of our time. Their work is the grist of Mother Jones' mill. Much of what we publish is the end result of Foundation for National Progress research.
Such a declaration would seem to connote what many might regard as an admirable degree of muckraking independence; however, it is interesting more for what it fails to reveal than for what it actually says. 'The reality was conveyed in an FNP internal financial report for 1976, which stated explicitly that 11FNP was formed in 1975 to carry out on the West Coast the charitable and educational activities of the Institute for Policy Studies."
Among those who have been affiliated with both CED and FNP are such movement activists as Fred Branfman, who has been both a co-director of CPPC and an active supporter of CED's SolarCal project; Mark Beyeler, a CED organizer; Richard Flacks, an active participant in the February 1977 Santa Barbara conference; and Derek Shearer, who has held several key positions with CPPC and who was, like Flacks, prominently involved in the Santa Barbara gathering. All four have been among FNP's Fellows, Branfman and Flacks having been listed as Associate Fellows of FNP as recently' as the February/March 1980 issue of Mother Jones. It is noteworthy that among other FNP Fellows over the years has been another key movement activist, Lee Webb, who, in addition to having been a leader in Students for a Democratic Society and a correspondent for the Guardian, a Communist newsweekly, has served as an Associ- ate Fellow and as a member of the Board of Trustees of IPS, as well as being director of the Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies, one of the major offshoots of IPS; Webb also served as national director of this IPS subsidiary project when it was known as the National Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies. It should also be noted that the program for CASLP's fifth annual conference in August 1979 carried the name of CPPC, FNP, and CED activist Derek Shearer, identified only as "Economist, California", as a member of the CASLP Steering Committee.
FNP's links to IPS are also indicated in the pages of Mother Jones, contributors to which have included such leftist luminaries as the late Paul Jacobs, an IPS Associate Fellow and FNP Fellow; Saul Landau, IPS Associate Fellow and well-known maker of pro- Castro and pro-Allende films; and Michael T. Klare, a Fellow of the Transnational Institute, one of the most important subsidiar- ies of IPS, and leader of the North American Congress on Latin America, an aggressively anti-corporate offshoot of SDS frequent- ly described as the "intelligence gathering arm" of the New Left. FNP seminars have included an April 1977 session on multinational corporations conducted by Richard Barnet, a founder and co-director of IPS who was promoted as the ideal alternative to Cyrus Vance as Secretary of State in the April 1977 issue of FNP's Mother Jones, which described Barnet's qualifications in the fEl-1-o-w--ing terms: "Deeply committed to dismantling America's overseas empire, Barnet had State Department experience undeF 'President (John F.] Kennedy (emphasis in original]." -It is also significant that funding for FNP has come from the Samuel Rubin Foundation, the Stern Fund, and the Janss Foundation, all of which have been principal grantors of funds to IPS. The Rubin and Janss Founda- tions were founded, respectively, by the late Samuel Rubin,*whose fortune came from Faberge cosmetics, and Edwin W. Janss,.Jr., a California real estate developer; Rubin's son-in-law, Peter Weiss, and Edwin Janss, Jr., have both been listed in IPS publica- tions as members of the IPS Board of Trustees.
Among FNP's subsidiary projects is the Pacific Alliance, described in a document filed by FNP with the California Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts as having been "formed to translate the arcane and complex language and technology of nuclear energy into terms that can be understood and utilized by electoral initiatives opposed to nuclear proliferation."* Pacific Alliance Director Alvin Duskin, as noted previously, has been described as the "author of the Nuclear Safeguards Initiative" promoted in California during 1976. More recently, acciording to the November 21, 1980, issue of Information Digest, the 1979-1980 annual report of the Iristitute for Polir-c-yStUddir-e-slisted him as an IPS Associate Fellow, part of the "formal Institute community" for 1980.
Duskin, characterized as "Director, Pacific Alliance, San Francisco," participated in the workshop on "JOBS & THE ENVIRON- MENT" at the February 1977 Santa Barbara Conference on Economic Democracy along with John Giesman of the Solar Center, another San Francisco-based FNP project, and Eve Bach of COOP (Community ownership organizing Project), an Oakland, California, organiza- tion which, like such other IPS-connected enterprises as the Corporate Data Exchange and the Center for Policy Alternatives of the Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies, has received financial support from the Youth Project. COOP Director Ed Kirshner, who has been an FNP Fellow, was also involved in the
*It is noted that, while certain activities may legitimately be carried on by tax-exempt organizations even when relevant to issues of a legislative nature, the Internal Revenue Code does specify that "no substantial part" of such an organization's activities may properly be geared to "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation," and that Schedule A of IRS Form 990 asks, "During the taxable year, has the organization (a) attempted to influence any national, State, or local legislation, or (b) participated or intervened in any political campaign?" Santa Barbara conference and was among those who attended the first conference of the IPS-spawned National Conference on Alter- native State and Local Public Policies in Madison, Wisconsin, in June 1975. Still further, COOP, like FNP and CED, interlocks with the California Public Policy Center, a fact demonstrated by the following passage extracted from the minutes of a CPPC Board of Directors meeting held on April 7, 1976:
In addition, [CPPC Director] Derek Shearer announced that the Center has received funding from the Stern Fund for the Cooperative [sic] ownership organizing Project. The project director is Ed Kirschner [sic]. The project will train minorities to acquire skills in urban policy analysis and urban planning. This project will also publish a newsletter primarily of interest to city planners and others concerned with urban policy issues.
NEW SCHOOL FOR DEMOCRATIC MANAGEMENT
Another FNP project which has received funds from the Youth Project and which also functions as an integral part of the IPS-affiliated economic democracy apparatus is the New School for Democratic Management. The 1978 annual report of the Youth Project, in a section on a special YP "donor advised" Resource Fund, reflects that the Project provided funds in an unspecified amount for the
Foundation for National Progress: New School for Democratic Management -- support for the New School's efforts to teach practical business skills to smaller organizations, including food and housing cooperatives and other community-oriented enterprises and for build- ing successful models for employee management of organi- zations.
The school has also been described in Martin Carnoy and Derek Shearer's extremely useful volume Economic Democracy: The Challenae of the 1980s (copyright 1980 by M.E. Sharpe, Inc., @_VH@itePlai_ns,_New -York) as
The country's first alternative business school (which] offers courses and workshops -- in San Francisco and other cities -- for people in worker-controlled or collective and cooperative enterprises. The school also has a program for union members and for women and minorities in starting successful businesses. The school maintains a series of case studies of democrati- cally run firms and will soon be publishing a reader on democratic management.
According to an account published in the October 13, 1977, issue of WIN, a radical movement magazine, the "school's organizer and coordinator" was David Olsen, an activist who "was heavily involved in the antiwar movement during the Indochina years" and later "joined a radical collective called the Africa Research Group." Drawing "upon the work of i@adical economists like Derek Shearer," Olsen, in the spring of 1976, "persuaded" FNP "to give him a grant which would enable him to develop a proposal for the school."* The result, in Olsen's view as quoted in WIN, has been
a different direction from what you'll find at any regular business school. They train managers to direct their energy and loyalties upward, to serve the interests of those who run the corporations. We want to train managers whose loyalties and energy are directed downward, serving the interests of the workers and consumers that their businesses are supposed to be working for.
The movement's view of the basic inseparability of economics from politics was aptly expressed by Derek Shearer in a November 1977'article, "Economic Alternatives - Fundamental to Political Alternatives":.
Our Alternative Business School is not just about learning better skills. It is an ideological challenge to the rest of society. It is not just the models we are building, but the questions we are asking about why there are not workers and consumers on corporate boards of directors, or why workers do not run their own firms.
My premise is that it is impossible for a Left political movement with ostensible humane values, to accomplish its goals without a parallel alternative economic movement. Similarly, it's impossible for that alternative economic movement to achieve its goals without a political movement. They have to go hand-in- hand. There's a dynamic. There's an interaction. You can see it if you look back at any number of historical movements ....
An undated New School document "Announcing A Business School For Economic Democracy" that was circulated early in 1977 spoke
*Olsen has also been actively involved in the Foundation for. National Progress itself. As examples, the February/March 1980 and June 1980 issues of Mother Jones listed him as one of two FNP Resident Fellows, while issues of the magazine from February/March 1980 through April 1981 have all named him as being among FNP's several Directors. It is further noted that Carnoy and Shearer seem to differ with the account in WIN as to precisely who persuaded whom; they report that "Economist Richard Parker, publisher of Mother Jones magazine (a successor to Ramparts), obtained foundation grants and persuaded a sixties activist, David Olsen, to head the New School for Democratic Management in San Francisco." of the "new kind of vocational training" that would help provide "the beginnings of a movement aimed at building a more fully human economy" and promised that '.'In addition, the School will offer 2 1/2 day seminars on 'Basic Business Skills' and on 'Democratizing the Workplace' in several cities around the country this year." Attached to'this announcement was a "brief list of the School's two-week summer course [sic] scheduled for July in San Francisco [capitalization as in original]":
l.. Financial development and finanacial management. Strategies for raising money, budgeting growth, projecting and managing cash flow, with special attention to the problems of under-capitalized businesses; democratizing financial decisions.
2. Business Law. Incorporation; tax status and procedures; managing legal counsel.
3. Business planning: micro-economic theory and forecasting.
4. organizational development. Division*of labor and task-sharing; personnel policies in worker-controlled businesses.
5. Marketing and Promotion. Marketing surveys; promotion and advertising; public relations for worker-controlled businesses. 6. Bookkeeping and accounting: an introduction.
7. External services for small businesses. Obtaining and managing consulting help, fulfillment, warehousing, bank services; computer services.
8. The American economy today. Neo-classical, Keynesian and Marxist perspectives; prospects for worker-controlled business and community economic development.
Labor and Community Economic Development
1. Expanding workers' rights on the job. Survey of present laws; obtaining enforcement of existing laws; strategies for extending worker protection and worker control legislation.
2. Conversion to worker ownership and control: strategies and options. (a) worker ownership through ESOP plans, pension fund financing, union and federal agency financing, community financing.
(b) worker control as a way to strengthen labor's bargaining position. (c) internal education-and worker control in factories and offices.
3. Community Economic Development strategies. (a) what's been tried; history and prospects of the CDC movement. (b) worker ownership as an alternative development strategy. (c) labor-local agency/community cooperation in development plans.
4. History of worker control in the U.S. and abroad.
The essentials of this schedule were also reflected in a full-page advertisement for the school published in the May 1977 issue of Mother Jones which was billed as "an announcement for people who are serious about economic democracy, and are willing to work out ways to make business relationships more democratic, more equitable, more responsive to the needs and talents of employees and communities [emphasis in original]." Interestingly, this advertisement emphasized "the difference between business and capitalism" as opposed to the notion that "Business is a Rip-Off." The October 13, 1977, WIN article carried "organizer and coordinator" David Olsen's seEtHments on the same issue, quoting him as saying that "Too many people in alternative economic ventures have confused being anti-capitalist with being anti- businesslike," as well as that "Our ultimate ambition, really, is to connect alternative enterprises with some of the good things that are happening in regular corporations."
Whether or not such a distinction is terribly meaningful, Olsen's and the New School's formulations are quite consistent with the general tenor of the economic democracy movement's written and spoken pronouncements, which are almost obsessively anti-corporate in substance and import. As will be seen in Part III of this study, for example, literature of the Santa Barbara Conference on Economic Democracy was replete with rhetoric about the "corporate nightmare" and "corporate monopoly." The essence of the movement's position was conveyed by Tom Hayden's statement in the October 29, 1979, issue of Barron1s: "I don't think there's any point in defending the corporate system. It's indefen- sible as it is." Specifically, the movement is much concerned with the presumed power of the multinational corporations, some- thing on which IPS founder Richard J. Barnet has written exten- sively. As Hayden expressed it in a letter published in the summer 1980 issue of Policy Review,
There are still large concentrations of economic power who, cloaked in a curtain of privacy, operate beyond either the laws of supply and demand or governmen- tal regulation. Their existence affects everything from workers' lungs to world peace. They are private multinational entities in a world of public national ones.
Thus, by serving as a vehicle for education in how to attack many of the presumed ills of the corporate system in America, the New School for Democratic Management dovetails neatly with the broad aims of the economic democracy movement of which the Campaign for Economic Democracy is, along with such other affiliated groups as FNP and CPPC, to say nothing of IPS itself, so essential a part. The relationship of the New School to this movement and, more precisely, to the IPS complex which is central to the move- ment's operations has been indicated already and was expressed clearly in the May 1977 Mother Jones advertisement: "The New School for Democratic Management is a project of the Foundation for National Progress, publisher of Mother Jones magazine." There have, however, also been many other tangible demonstrations, among them David Olsen's participation in the February 1977 Santa Barbara conference, an activity with which CED, FNP, and CPPC were all intimately involved, and the inclusion of the New School, along with CED and CPPC, in the "INITIAL LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS" for the February 1978 "third annual gathering of the California Conference on Alternative Public Policy," a major enterprise officially sponsored and financially supported by the New School's parent Foundation for National Progress.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY CENTER
As demonstrated previously, the organization that interlocks with each of the preceding groups,'whether it be the Campaign for Economic Democracy, the Foundation for National Progress, or FNP's various subsidiary projects, is the California Public Policy Center, located in Los Angeles and run by activists like Fred Branfman and Derek Shearer. As part of what an article in the January 1980 Libertarian Review called the tax-exempt "super- structure of affiliated organ ns" upon which CED relles in researching and implementing its programs, CPPC would have to be regarded as a significant force on the left in California and within the economic democracy movement generally no matter what its other organizational affiliations might be; when one becomes aware of the pattern of interrelationship between the Center and certain activities of the Institute for Policy Studies, however, the importance of the organization assumes, to put it conservative- ly, what one might call an added dimension.
Tax returns for 1974 and 1975 as filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service specify that the California Public Policy Center was formed in March 1973 and that it received its tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization on September 13, 1973. Various sources, including the Center's tax return for 1975 and documents filed with the California Registry of Charitable Trusts, reflect that CPPC was formed originally as the California Law Center under the leadership of Executive Director Max Factor III. An undated CLC document indicated that Factor's largesse was of the greatest importance in enabling CLC to begin its operations:
Shortly after operations of the California Law Center began, we had a shortfall of fund-raising versus contin- uing expenses. Max Factor, III, Executive Director, lent a total of $3,000.00, interest free, to the Cali- fornia Law Center. Said loan is reported as a contribu- tion for purposes of these forms. Mr. Factor did not take any tax deduction whatsoever, either for principal or for interest, on said loan. It is expected that the Center will repay all indebtedness to Mr. Factor prior to the close of fiscal 1974.
The same document also provided the following details with respect to the Center's origins, orientation, and initial financ- ing:
Also, two tax-exempt organizations, the Public Advertis- ing Council and the Center for New Corporate Priorities, donated $40'0 each to the California Law Center. The CLC expects that in 1974, we shall be engaging in joint projects of public education with the PAC and the CNCP. Said projects may include deceptive advertising prac- tices, unlawful credit discrimination and other consumer educational activities of a similar nature. Moreover, from time to time the CLC has utilized CNCP or PAC research efforts or facilities for overflow personnel, volunteer and fund-raising efforts. Basically, we have an ongoing friendly relationship with our "neighbors" down the street.
Further, we had had a good working relationship with the California Public Interest Law Center, from whom we sprung. Although the home office of the CPILC is in San Francisco, the CPILC had a second office in Los Angeles in which we carried on CLC business until we received our tax-exempt status and had put some money in the bank. The CPILC donated $1,000 to the CLC in November, 1973.
In addition to an executive director, CPPC/CLC has an advisory board and a board of directors. A letterhead dated May 7, 1974, for example, carried the names of the following people as members of the CLC advisory board: H. Michael Bennet, Julian Bond, Rev. Alvin L. Dortch, Treesa Drury, Shirley Goldinger, William Josephson, Lucy McCabe, Barbara Rasmussen, Peter Schuck, and Alice Shabecoff; another letterhead dated October 6, 1975, listed Bennet, Bond, Dortch, Goldinger, McCabe, Rasmussen, Schuck, and Shabecoff. CLC documents filed with the office of the California Attorney General reflect that the following individuals served as members of the Center's board of directors during 1973 and 1974, and into 1975: Honorable Newell Barrett, Judge, Superior Court, Los Angeles; Rinaldo Brutoco, Esq., Vice President, Optical Systems, Los Angeles; Dr. Robert Carter, Director, Center for Administration of Justice., University of Southern California, Los Angeles; Terry Hatter, Jr., Acting Professor of Law, Loyola School of Law, Los Angeles; Norma Hutner, Esq., Davis', York and Baumeister, Los Angeles; Terence Matthews, President, Electronics Plating Service, Inc., Gardena; Harriet (Mrs. John) Mack, Representative, Urban League, Los Angeles; Jan Mennig, Chief of Police, Culver City; Vivian Monroe, Executive Director, Constitutional Rights Founda- tion, Los Angeles; Alan Moscov, Esq., Munger, Tolles, Hills and Rickershauser, Los Angeles; Burt Pines, City Attorney, Los Angeles; Monroe Price, Law Professor, UCLA School of Law, University of California at Los Angeles; Joan Sheets, Fight Inflation Together, Tarzana; William H. Robertson, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer,'Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, Los Angeles; J. J. Rodriguez, Executive Secretary, Butchers Local 563, Huntington Park; and Peter Taft, Esq., Munger, Tolles, Hills and Rickershauser, Los Angeles.
CPPC's method of operation was succinctly expressed in a document filed with the California Registry of Charitable Trusts in May 1976. This document', filed in conjunction with the Center's 111975 Operations and Litigation Report" which summarized "the public interest litigation and community educational projects" with which the Center was involved, declared that CPPC "(previous- ly called the California Law Center) does not disburse funds to qualifying recipients but expends funds on litigation, educational and research projects as set forth and approved by the Center's Board of Directors." Similar emphasis was conveyed in the minutes of the November 13, 1973, meeting of the board of directors of CLC, during which various CLC "programs utilizing education, negotiation and litigation were discussed." The following two paragraphs are instructive:
The Chairman noted that CLC functions as a "private attorney general" dealing closely with law enforcement agencies. This close relationship has resulted in appointments to Federal, State and City commissions dealing with consumer protection. The CLC has relied on information from these commissions and from governmen- tal agencies to select which areas of fraud and consumer abuse the CLC should focus its resources (sic]. By so doing, the CLC has had the full backing of local and state agenc@ies. This support has made the CLC particu- larly effective in eliminating deceptive advertising and unfair commercial practices. The CLC has had substantial success in the tire, auto accessory and carpet industries.
Apart from its consumer activities, the CLC is concerned with unlawful acts of sex and race discrimination. A report on proposed cases will be made at the next Board meeting by the Litigation Committee. Said Committee will also review the criteria for selecting "public interest" litigation. The cases are expected to provide substantial new employment for blacks and women in industries which have previously practiced unlawful discrimination. Moreover, these cases may well.generate a substantial income flow to the CLC [emphasis in original].
CENTER FOR LAW, RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATIONS
The minutes also included extended discussion of two princi- pal CLC projects: The Center for Law, Research, and Communications and Fight Inflation Together. The first was described as follows:
CLRC is a special project of the CLC which combines the legal resources of the CLC, the research and community organizational resources of the Center for New Corporate Priorities (CNCP), and the communication and creative resources.of the Public Advertising Council (PAC).
Marv Segelman, a Director of PAC, will be Director of Communications of.the CLRC. ffe-discusted the track record of his organizaEl'-o-n in combining the creative communities' needs, talents and creativity in order to communicate specific public interest programs. Mr. Segelman listed such successful campaigns as Ryan O'Neill's [sic] "civi-I rights Blockbusting" commercials in Little Rock, Arkansas; Burt Lancaster's counter- commercials on the effectiveness of aspirin and the safety of the Camero (sic] and a projected commercial on flamable [sic] fabrics in children's clothing.
Jim Lowery, a Director of CNCP, will be Director of Research of the CLRC. He Ti-scussed the CNCP1s recent track record on making institutions aware of their corporate social responsiblities. Mr. Lowery indicated that the CNCP had researched and documented various practices (Tf-discrimination in employment opportunity and credit extension by the Bank of America. Through publicity of this research and public pressure, the Bank of America appointed an Executive Vice President in charge of corporate social policies. Presently the CNCP is encouraging banks to consider environmental conditions in their loan poliicies [sic] and to reexamine traditional problems of credit discrimination against the lower income community and women.
The CLC is providing the legal muscle to supplement the CLRC's communications and research arms [emphasis in original].
FIGHT INFLATION TOGETHER AND RUTH YANNATTA
The minutes described Fight Inflation Together and its programs in the following terms: FIT, Fight Inflation Together is a special project of the CLC with Ruth Yannatta its chairperson and present director. Joan Sheets, one of the original organizers of the meat boycott is a director of the CLC.
Ruth Yannatta discussed FIT. She stated that the meat boycott was a spontaneous appening. Housewives who never were involved became involved. Ms. Yannatta stated that the need still exists to keep on top of food prices and related matters. So FIT has continued as a special tax-deductable [sic] pro_J'7e__ct of the CLC and raises the public's awareness about rising food prices. Also, FIT goes to various agencies to make them aware of the consumer's concern. At a recent visit to the California Egg Board Meeting, the first-time consumers had gone to such a meeting, FIT complained about their program and cutbacks. As a result, non-producer (or a member of the general public) is now included on the .Egg Advisory Board. Presently FIT is concerned about the huge increases in prices of @`g-gs and milk. FIT is participating in a drive to roll back milk prices and in bringing these to the attention of the consumer [emphasis and punctuation as in original]. The California Law Center's May 10, 1974, "OPERATIONS REPORT" included a section on the Fight Inflation Together project that indicated significant gains both for the project generally and for Ruth Yannatta specifically in effecting CLC's aims:
Since we last met, FIT has made "historic" strides in dealing with commodity inflation. Ruth Yannatta has been appointed to the Egg Advisory Board as a consumer representative, the first public spokesperson on any commodity advisory board in the State of California. This will give the consuming public its first opportuni- ty to work from within the institutional resources of government to deal with the oligopoly structures in the community and dairy markets.
Presently, FIT is heading a coalition of consumer groups who are educating the public about the price differentials between fluid milk and dry milk. It is expected that their concerted efforts will result in a significant impact upon the profits of local retailers and dairy producers. As a result--and much like the previously successful meat boycott--it is hoped that the milk industry will reconsider its cost (the cost of the most inefficient producer) plus method of pricing. We have several legislative committees which have specifically requested Ruth and the other groups with which she has been affiliated to testify before state and assembly bodies to provide them with information regarding methods of milk pricing and the profits of milk producers. On October 6, 1975, the Center formally notified the office of the California Registry of Charitable Trusts "that the name of the California Law Center has been changed to California Public Policy Center." The minutes of a board of directors meeting held on October 6, 1975, reflect that CPPC President Betty Binder
announced the Secretary of State of California had approved and certified the name change which the Cali- fornia Law Center had requested. The new name of the Center is officially the California Public Policy Center, and this change was approved and certified by the Secretary of State on August 19th although written notice did not arrive in the Center until Sept. 19, 1975. Center documents covering activities for 1975 continued to indicate the success of its Fight Inflation Together project, as well as the increasing influence of Ruth Yannatta herself. By now known as the Fight Inflation Together/Consumer Participation Project, this program, according to a Center financial summary for 1975, "received $1447.63 in contributions from individuals and entities in amounts of $1, $3, $5, $7.50, $10, $15, $25, $50,. and $100 each." Contributors "received newsletters, reports, and other educational materials and were called 'members' for the purposes of solicitation." Also, 11$4229.96 from the John Hay Whitney Foundation, New York, was provided for CPPC expenses of which $2088 was for rent and phone and $2141.96 was for reimburse- ment of other CPPC expenses."* With specific reference to the
*This document further reflects that "Two other foundation grants were received in 1975 by CPPC. One was $1000 from W.H. and Carol Bernstein Ferry, Scarsdale, New York. The other was $1000 from the Fairtree Foundation, Los Angeles, Ca. Both were disbursed for general operating and overhead expenses." It is noted that, in the preceding study in this series, reference was made to CPPC's JOBS FROM THE SUN, which acknowledged the "generous help" of, among other sources, the DJB Foundation and Stanley Sheinbaum; it is further noted that, in an earlier section of the present study, reference was made to the 300-page volume prepared in conjunction with CPPC's January 1976 conference in Sacramento, "supported by grants from the Institute for Policy Studies, the Foundation for National Progress, and the Fairtree Foundation." As of 1978, the president of the Fairtree Foundation was Stanley Sheinbaum, characterized in Carnoy and Shearer's Economic Democracy: The Challenge of the 1980s as "an international economist and leader of the left wing" of the Democratic Party in California. Sheinbaum was also on the "INITIAL LIST OF PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUALS" for the "third annual gathering of the California Conference on Alternative Public Policy" in Oakland, California, during February 1978. Carol Ferry reportedly controls the DJB Foundation, a major grantor of funds to the Institute for Policy Studies, and happens to be the widow of DJB's founder, Daniel J. Bernstein; her present husband, W.H. Ferry, has been listed as a member of the Advisory Committee of the Center for National Security Studies, the first director of which was Robert Borosage, who now serves as director of IPS and as a member of the IPS Board of Trustees. FIT/CPP effort, the Center's 111975 Operations and Litigation Report" stated:
Twelve members of the Fight Inflation Together Project of the Center were appointed in 1975 as consumer repre- sentatives (called public members) of California agricul- tural marketing advisory boards. one person was also appointed to the Ad Hoc Agriculture Dept. Consumer Advisory Board.
Center volunteer, Elaine Felsher has worked intensively on an instruction manual to inform the nearly 40 new public members about the 1937 California Marketing Act, and the operations of the marketing programs and ways of improving communications among new public members.
Volunteers of the Center working on this project are continuing its many educational activities to inform the consuming public about marketing issues. Through many public speeches be