Think Tank Transparency Act: Good Idea?

A new piece of legislation was introduced called the Think Tank Transparency Act and seeks to require disclosure of foreign monies to U.S. think tanks that desire to influence U.S. Policy. You can read about the act as brought forward by our local UP representative Congressional Representative Jack Berman (R). Basically it says that we don't have a good handle on how many think tanks are being funded by foreign entities nor their influence. It hopes to remedy that lack of knowledge by requiring disclosures like you might find in FARA.

Yes, for the most part I see why it would be doing and hoping to accomplish. In this case we had a retired Marine General lobbying on behalf of a foreign entity and then lied about it. Likewise, we have/had lots of other countries like Russia trying to influence our elections. Thus, the timing of such an act seems to make sense if it fits within a general movement/trend to protect American assets (I'm just trying to understand when legislation can be brought forward and when it has the best chance of success. Much of it appears to be based on timing.) 

Well....is the act a Good Idea?

I think we will want free movement of ideas and thoughts without overregulation but at the same time we want to be sure that the money being sent and spent isn't trying to manipulate our population. So I would say in general "Yes" its a good idea but with a few caveats thrown in; Amount $$/% and Research Data Availability. A certain threshold in $ or % should trigger mandatory disclosures.

Information is very important and I think we have a need for various protections in place but one might wonder when such requirements kick in? One could consider a certain amount of money or a certain percentage from organizations and/or individuals from the same place or region (The threshold amount is $10K in the act. However, one might also want to know if there is a certain percentage from any radius region to help better ensure we are not gaming through multiple small funding amounts. I don't know...its sounds good to me. 🤷 ). 

The same can be said with the data such sites produce and share with the public as "objective" research and science. If you have a study that is published and its credible in today's world you may want to make the methodology easy to find and follow (i.e. polls often list data.). Placing that information on the site with the report helps people to see the meaningfulness of the research and allows for transparency of results and innovation as researchers can use the results in their own studies. (Yes, who is polled, how they are polled, how many are polled, where they are polled, what technologies are used, channels used, what statistics they use, the wording of the questions, etc. all is important in getting a specific response.)

Information be easily available on demand to other researchers and scientists to ensure reasonable accuracy of validity/truthfulness/accuracy. If it looks interesting, or an anomaly, I might want to know more about it if I'm studying the same genre or I'm making an actual policy decision. Thus having the methodology and data could help clarify the limitations of a study before we make long term policy choices that can permanently impact society. 

We need to know what the information means, who is funding it, and what its implications are? We also want to encourage more studies and research as we need in a learning society. So legislation must keep in mind the need to encourage more research while protecting the risks. 

BTW you can read the actual Act HERE.