Glenn's message contains many good points. The one I will respond to is the following:

"this community should absolutely have an interest in how SPARC is being funded"

I fully agree with this, and, so far as I know, we know for sure for over 98% - I do not remember the exact figure that was quoted on this list a few days ago - of these sources. What is left is of the order of 50,000 dollars  - not exactly an earth-shaking result. And those dollars probably come mainly from anonymous donors - a much more neutral term than dark money - who just want to act out of modesty. So we know what we need to know, don't we? This said, do we need terms like "dark money" and "networks" to monitor this particular organization? I do not think so,

jc


Le 2024-08-29 à 14:09, Glenn Hampson a écrit :
[log in to unmask]">

The wise part of my brain is shouting “don’t reply! Don’t reply!” But alas, I think this conversation still needs more context. To those who are newer to drama that often defines scholarly communication forums, SPARC is the elephant in the room. They are and have been, easily, the most effective advocate for open access in the world---a testament to Heather Joseph’s leadership and vision. And that’s an absolutely wonderful thing if you agree with what SPARC is selling, not such a good thing if you don’t.

 

The problem, such that it is, is not that our community has competing ideas---SPARC, cOAlition S et al on the one side and _____ on the other---but that our beliefs in these ideas have become so polarized, often to where competing sides are taking personal swipes at each other. I mentioned previously how the end result is a kind of tug of war (plus stalemate and fracturing) in the policy space; what also happens is an influence-peddling war, where SPARC succeeds at getting the attention of policy makers and grant makers around the world, and forces those who disagree with what SPARC is selling to also lobby hard for more restraint and consideration. This isn’t an exactly fair description in terms of cause and effect, of course, plus this is how policy is made everywhere---there’s nothing new here: There’s always competition between ideas. But this competition is also very much an arms race, and both sides will always be concerned about who’s providing money to whom and whether these provisions are fair (and they’ll scream bloody murder either way).

 

So, in summary, this community should absolutely have an interest in how SPARC is being funded, given its tremendous success and influence. We should also, of course, have an interest in who’s lobbying from the other “side.” I would suggest, though, that our community’s deeper interest here should be to help ensure the policies we’re building and supporting---who ever comes up with these---are truly the policies we need. It’s all fun and games to cheer for our team, but if the end result is that we fail to move the ball down the field, then no one wins and research loses.

 

Best regards,

 

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)

 

 

 

From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] One more very quick reminder (Re: [OPENCAFE-L] About fiscal sponsorships)

 

As Arun wisely said, why spend time on a legal arrangement of one organization?

SPARC does important work on OA and Open Science. SPARC has a tax-free status that it obtained through a perfectly clear legal arrangement with another tax-free outfit, NVF.

I am ready to bet that most of us - myself included - knew nothing about NVF before this discussion, and even less about Arabella. SPARC stood, clearly identified and recognizable, as SPARC, not as a part of something else. It pursues its own projects autonomously and freely. In short, there is no need to understand the legal agreement between SPARC and NVF to understand what SPARC does (and many of us think SPARC does a marvellous job).

Why this connection between SPARC and NVF was discussed to the extent it was is beyond me, especially when the conclusion seems to be: there is something there, but it does not matter.

jc

Le 2024-08-29 à 12:38, Rick Anderson a écrit :

Don’t worry, folks, I’m not going to let myself get sucked into the vortex of debate on this topic again here on the list.

 

In response to Jean-Claude’s note below, I’ll offer only this commonly understood and widely accepted definition (which I think has been invoked before):

 

“In politics, particularly the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections, public policy, and political discourse, where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public.”  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money; emphases mine)

 

This is the sense in which I (and, I think, all of us who have been involved in the conversation) have been using the term. Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that SPARC itself is a dark-money organization, nor that the dark-money network of which it is a part (since it’s part of the New Venture Fund, which is part of the Arabella Advisors network) is in any way illicit or unethical. As far as I’m aware, everything that group does is legal, ethical, and above board. And it is a dark-money network in the commonly-understood sense described above.

 

(The fact that “dark money” is not a “legal phrase” is, of course, irrelevant. “Academic library” isn’t a legal phrase either, and yet since my institution fits the commonly understood and widely accepted definition of an academic library, it’s entirely appropriate to apply that term to my organization.)

 

And with that, I truly will withdraw from the field on this topic. (And I’ll respectfully ask Jean-Claude to do me the courtesy of not attempting to represent my views or positions to the list.)

 

---

Rick Anderson

University Librarian

Brigham Young University

(801) 422-4301

[log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 9:15 AM
To: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] One more very quick reminder (Re: [OPENCAFE-L] About fiscal sponsorships)

 

To follow up on Rick's remark, he and I have been carrying a fairly intense exchange about SPARC for the last few days. We are doing it offline to avoid boring most of you. However, this discussion is helping clarify matters. For example, the tension between "fiscal sponsor" - SPARC's fiscal sponsor is an entity called NVF - and "dark money network" really pits two vastly different phrases. The first one is a legal term that helps a number of organizations to acquire tax-free status. It is one way among several to obtain the tax-free status in the US. Presumably, this term has been tested in courts and has a solid accompaniment of comments to circumscribe its meaning. By contrast, "dark money network" is neither a legal phrase, nor a conceptual phrase issued from the social sciences. It is often found in journalistic pieces and works mainly at the connotational level since nothing is said about the nature of darkness involved or the structure of the network alluded to.

Rick and I have been dancing around these terms in our last exchanges. If and when we manage to elicit some consensus between us - I am not holding my breath - I or he will report the result to the list.

This said, Arun is entirely right.

jc

Le 2024-08-29 à 08:57, Rick Anderson a écrit :

> Let us decide once for all that no longer shall we devote our valuable time talking about

> SPARC's funders and dark money but if we want to talk about SPARC we may, by all

> means talk about its role in Open Access and how they could do better. 

 

Just a quick reminder to everyone that on this list, all topics related to open scholarship are fair game for discussion, and the expression of a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives is both welcome and encouraged. SPARC is an important actor in the ecosystem of scholarly communication, particularly with regard to open scholarship, and discussion of SPARC and its work is well within bounds here.

 

---

Rick Anderson

University Librarian

Brigham Young University

(801) 422-4301

[log in to unmask]

 

 

From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Subbiah Arunachalam <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Subbiah Arunachalam <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 9:52 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] About fiscal sponsorships

 

 

Dear Glen'

 

You end your note with "Anyway, this is what you’re seeing here---not a debate out of nowhere about SPARC’s finances, but a decades-long spat about whose policies are (or should be) winning and why."

 

If our discussion, let us not call it a debate, is not about SPARC's finances, why then are we talking about it in such detail and for so long! Is there something I, the ignorant and simpleton that I am, am not seeing. Recall what Lord Alfred Tennyson said about Ulysses who left all mundane things in the hands of son Telemachus, and carried on with his journey with a single-minded focus "to follow knowledge like a sinking star, beyond the utmost bound of human thought." 

 

Let us decide once for all that no longer shall we devote our valuable time talking about SPARC's funders and dark money but if we want to talk about SPARC we may, by all means talk about its role in Open Access and how they could do better. 

 

There are much more important issues. Such as how a few companies are strengthening their stranglehold on science, all aspects of science (not just publishing). For example, look at a recent report from Spain. Here is a summary:

CSIC's Spending on Journal Publishing in the Past Four Years

According to recent reports, the amount of money spent by CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) on journal publishing has multiplied several times over the past four years.Chemist Luis González, a professor at the Complutense University of Madrid, estimates that Spanish universities and CSIC are going to pay around $120 million between 2021 and 2024 to just three publishers — Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer Nature — to have their studies published with open access.The CSIC Annual Report 2021 provides some additional context on CSIC's research output and funding:

1.      In 2021, CSIC researchers published 5,695 indexed articles, 221 non-indexed articles, 193 book chapters, and 45 books

2.      CSIC had 1,676 researchers, 570 researcher trainees, 1,714 technicians/support staff, and 375 management/admin personnel

3.      CSIC's total revenue in 2021 was €799,241,430.98, with €468,624,199.96 coming from the Spanish state.

 

The story may not be different in India and all of the global South.

 

With warm regards,

 

Arun

 

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 05:17 Jonny Saunders, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

there are at least two different claims floating around these threads that are separable:
1) SPARC doesn't disclose its donors + does public advocacy -> Dark Money (Lisa's last email)
2) SPARC has NVF as its fiscal sponsor -> Dark Money (Rick's last email)

re: 1), they certainly do disclose their donors, as has been linked to several times, save some quantity of donations from donors who wish to be anonymous. 2 minutes in excel and comparing the totals to the annual report suggests that the public disclosures of donations amount to 99.1% of the total reported income for 2022. So even if one were to take a relaxed definition of "Dark Money" to mean any public interest group with anonymous donors (which would include all charities, rather than just 501(c)4/5/6 orgs as the term is more commonly applied), SPARC wouldn't fit that definition. If we relax the definition further to just mean "any organization that works in the area of public policy" regardless of the transparency of their funding, then we have really lost the meaning of the term imo.

re: 2), this whole story seems to stem from a few blog posts that dramatically misunderstand what fiscal sponsorship is. For example, "From what I can determine (and based on the research of others), it appears that donations to SPARC are actually donations to NVF, which are then used to support SPARC’s work as an NVF project," "SPARC’s relationship with these dark-money organizations – indeed, the fact that SPARC is an integral part of one of them – is a matter of public record" and then Kent Anderson's interpretation of Heather Joseph's being employed by NVF as some kind of bombshell, as is his style.

There's nothing remotely fishy or suspicious about this - I work with two orgs under a fiscal sponsor, and SPARC's charter looks similar to ours. It's really as simple as donations -> (pass through sponsor minus fees) -> organization. There isn't some big slush fund that SPARC is being paid out of (there's no incentive for NVF to just randomly allocate money to a project), and if donations to SPARC were being routed to other NVF projects then they would presumably immediately withdraw from their sponsorship because it would defeat the purpose of the sponsorship. Similarly, if NVF had any influence over SPARC they would do the same - there are enough hands-off sponsors out there to pick from. The board that intermediates between SPARC and NVF is for liability reasons, since NVF is extending their 501(c)3 protections to SPARC they want to have some oversight that ensures that SPARC isn't using the money illegally, and take overhead fees for the services provided (as Glenn just described).

Kent's read of the salary situation is flat wrong: "Joseph's salary is larger than the fees paid to NVF by SPARC, so the salary is not just a pass-through ... It's safe to assume that NVF is paying the salaries and benefits of SPARC's other employees as well" is both a nonsensical and trivial claim. *Of course* they pay the salaries, there isn't a legal entity of SPARC that would be the employer. Those salaries (roughly half of SPARC's $3m annual expenses) are *all* paid by the funds that are donated to NVF and earmarked for SPARC. This argument makes about as much sense as saying "a business paid PayPal 8-10% of their revenues, but the amount they paid out was much more than that, so therefore PayPal must actually own that business."

NVF had $756M revenue in 2022, which would make SPARC's $3.3M revenue 0.4% of their total, so saying they are an "integral part" of NVF is a stretch.

So ultimately there is no "there" there. Sure it's possible to insist on some definition of "Dark Money" that may apply to SPARC, but why would we be doing that? What explanatory value does it offer? As Jean-Claude has been saying, the negative connotation of "dark money" exists and is undeniable, and if there really was nothing unethical or untoward being asserted then it's not clear why it would be important to insist on the razor thin semantic salami slicing needed to apply the label. I don't have any special love for SPARC, and wasn't going to say anything until I saw Jean-Claude's arguments getting dismissed as a matter of English translation, which is unfair and imo infantilizing when there seems to also be a great deal of misunderstanding what a fiscal sponsor is going on at the same time.

-jonny

 

 

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:44 PM Lisa Hinchliffe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Jean-Claude, 

 

I'm not sure why you only took the Wikipedia article as only making the relationship between such money and elections clear. 

 

The opening sentence of the article states: "In politics, particularly the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections, public policy, and political discourse, where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public." The article makes clear that the object of influence is not only elections but also public policy and political discourse.

 

SPARC obviously works in the area of public policy -- it even provides a listing on the organization's website of their current active policy areas: https://sparcopen.org/what-we-do/active-policy/.

 

Lisa


___

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 5:18 PM Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I certainly cannot resist the urge of getting the last word so kindly offered by Rick... :-)

So, we can all agree that "dark money" is regularly associated with a number of not very palatable practises. Rick, again kindly, has provided two examples of such usage, and I thank him for helping me in this fashion.

Roger Schonfeld usefully refers us to "dark money" in Wikipedia and there the relationship between such money and elections is clear. As underscored earlier, I do not see any example of SPARC involved in elections.

Rick then refers us to a site called "open secrets". How authoritative this site is, I do not know. But if I take it seriously - and I will -, I read the following on the page documented by Rick:

"Dark money” refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not disclosed. Here’s how dark money makes its way into elections:..."

In the reference provided by Rick, the relationship of "dark money" to "political outcomes" and "elections" is very clear. So far as I know, SPARC deals with policy, not political outcomes and even less with elections. And the context of this discussion was not "political advocacy organizations" but "policy advocacy organizations". Rick who is usually so punctilious about the meaning of words must know the difference between politics and policy.

Many thanks for your collective attention,

jc

Le 2024-08-26 à 17:48, Rick Anderson a écrit :

I’ll respond one more time and then I’ll stop. If Jean-Claude wants to have the last word, he should feel free.

 

It is indeed possible find examples of people using the term “dark money” to refer to money laundering. For example:

 

https://www.thedarkmoneyfiles.com

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2021/07/08/foreign-oligarchs-and-the-art-of-laundering-how-dark-money-threatens-us-all/

 

However, in the context of discussing political advocacy organizations – the context of our discussion from the beginning – the meaning of “dark money” is clear:

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/basics

 

The phrase that started this conversation was “SPARC and its dark-money backers.” The New Venture Fund (of which SPARC is a constituent part) and, by extension, Arabella Advisors (which claims NVF as a “client and partner” and worked with them to develop their fiscal sponsorship model) are both dark-money organizations in this widely understood and commonly accepted sense. SPARC’s relationship with these dark-money organizations – indeed, the fact that SPARC is an integral part of one of them – is a matter of public record. So I’m confident that no reasonable reader would think that I was accusing SPARC of being involved with money laundering or anything else illegal. (Particularly in light of my repeated observation that there’s nothing illegal or even unethical about SPARC’s involvement with these organizations.)

 

---

Rick Anderson

University Librarian

Brigham Young University

(801) 422-4301

[log in to unmask]

 

 

From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 at 3:21 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] About fiscal sponsorships

 

I believe - correct me if I am mistaken, but English is not my first language - that dark money does not refer exclusively to money used to influence public policy. Money laundering also falls under that category, I believe, and other forms of not very pleasant use of money.

What I am really objecting to is the casual use of "dark money" to discuss SPARC. it seems to me that discussions about SPARC would be much more fruitful if we stuck to policies defended by SPARC. Otherwise, we fall into the kind of argument emblematically broadcast recently: is she Indian or is she black?

jc

Le 2024-08-25 à 18:14, Lisa Hinchliffe a écrit :

You are giving Rick too much credit for the phrase, Jean-Claude! "Dark money" is a phrase that has been commonly used for years in the United States (and elsewhere) and it is defined as donations given to influence public policy, political discourse, etc. where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public. 

 

If a nonprofit university were to receive anonymous funds to influence public policy, political discourse, etc. then, yes, that would be dark money. Would university administrators care if it is called that? That probably depends on the individual. But, how they feel about it does not change the fact that dark money is the term for such anonymous funds. 

 

As to the question of substitutability... this feels a little pedantic to write out but it seems to be a sticking point and so I'll offer it. Dark money is a subcategory of the larger category of anonymous money.  So, yes, one can substitute anonymous money for dark money as one typically can of a category for a sub-category; however, one then loses specificity in the meaning, which is why there is a subcategory in the first place. 

 

For example, when I drop a few dollars into the busker's hat at my local farmers market, that is anonymous money but it is not dark money. My purpose is to support the artist through a tip not to influence public policy or political discourse. Also, the busker is an individual, not a nonprofit organization. 

 

Whether it is good or bad that the US system allows nonprofits to take dark money is a matter of much debate, which I don't care to enter into here so I too am setting aside Glenn's comment on that, but there is no question that our system does indeed allow it! 

 

Lisa

 

___
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 4:03 PM Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

What I was objecting to was Rick's use of "dark money" and then his apparent 180 degree turn by saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with being labelled "dark money". I asked if calling those funds "anonymous" would not be a better term but I never got an answer. Now, I do not know of any university not having a few anonymous donors. Should this be also called "dark money" and should one then argue that it is not important to call it "dark money". I wonder what the brass of any university would say if someone were to tell them that there is no problem with re-labelling "anonymous gift" as "dark money". Perhaps Rick should try it with his own brass, just to see... :-)

This is the reason why I insisted on the notion of connotation: While it is indeed in the eye of the beholder, it should not raise the risk of impairing a "respectful conversation".

When I first saw Rick using "dark money" with SPARC, I first decided to keep quiet even though I found the term provocative. However, when I began to see Rick's (and others') reactions to Juan Pablo, I decided to intervene. That is what happened with language being treated in this way: debates amplify and intensify.

Finally, it appears from the Poynder interview, that SPARC has a few donors that prefer to remain anonymous. For the rest, everything is transparent. So SPARC behaves like a university, if I understand things correctly.

As for the loophole label, I will not comment. This is a US law, and I do not reside in the US.

jc

Le 2024-08-25 à 12:56, Glenn Hampson a écrit :

Hi Folks,

 

Thanks for this interesting conversation (minus the acrimony). As is usually the case here, everyone has a good point. 

 

To Rick’s concern (and others), it would be great if SPARC could be more transparent about its finances. An organization that’s at the epicenter of a movement to create more transparency and accountability in publishing shouldn’t be utterly opaque. 

 

However, SPARC is under no obligation (other than respect) to do so.  Fiscally-sponsored projects like SPARC are not under the same obligation as their 501c3 parents to disclose details about their finances. Some do, some don’t. I’ve run a 501c3 for the past 14 years and need to regularly disclose everything or risk losing my nonprofit status—and I have believed it important to do the same for the projects we have launched  like the Open Scholarship Initiative.

 

Personally, I think this opacity loophole in the tax law around sponsorship is bad because it allows ostensibly nonprofit operations to avoid the scrutiny and criticism that are central qualifications for all other nonprofits. 

 

But as Juan notes, there is nothing illegal about this arrangement or even untoward. Plenty of upstanding organizations in the science communication space operate in this fashion. Indeed, as this article notes, fiscal sponsorship has been exploding in popularity over the past few years. Https://www.philanthropy.com/article/fiscal-sponsorship-is-on-the-rise-allowing-groups-that-arent-nonprofits-to-accept-donations#:~:text=As%20the%20registered%20charity%2C%20fiscal,revenue%20while%20others%20do%20not. 

 

Best regards,

 

Glenn

 

Sent from my iPhone

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]


 

--

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]




 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]

 

 

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]



Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]