Why are there no right-wing versions of George Soros?

In 2021, the Open Society Foundations, owned by megabillionaire George Soros, poured BRL 107 million into Brazilian NGOs – none of them with principles that could be considered right-wing. As shown to People’s Gazettethe list of beneficiaries includes organizations that defend the release of prisoners, the LGBT agenda and the legalization of drugs.

The entity created by George Soros is not the only one. Although with a smaller budget than the Open Society, other powerful international organizations act in a similar way: the Ford Foundation and the Oak Foundation, for example, distribute hundreds of millions of dollars annually around the globe, including in Brazil.

Under Brazilian law, receiving funds is not prohibited. But the lack of transparency about the source of funds and the significant volume of dollars sent to NGOs that would not survive without these contributions create a serious problem: the distortion of public debate in a country where causes defended by the Open Society, such as the defense of abortion and drugs have never been popular.

The protagonism of the Open Society and similar organizations also provokes a question: where are the right-wing George Soros? The short answer is: they don’t exist.

Conceptual difference

The ultra-wealthy with progressive leanings are not necessarily more charitable than their right-wing counterparts. The difference is the destination of the resources. The contemporary left, which sometimes calls itself “liberal” and (at least in the West) has left orthodox Marxism behind, has an internationalist outlook. The right is more nationalist. For this reason, instead of left versus right, it might be more appropriate to speak of a confrontation between national and global.

George Soros, the Ford Foundation and the Oak Foundation operate globally. This is because progressives believe that some causes (LGBT rights, for example) should be promoted in all countries. The vast majority of groups that identify themselves as conservative prioritize the location. It makes sense: one of the pillars of conservatism is an appreciation of specific traditions, accompanied by a rejection of global homogeneity.

In the US, locally focused charity

In the United States, for example, there is no lack of donors to right-wing organizations. The Heritage Foundation, the main conservative research center in the country, had a budget of US$ 82.5 million in 2021. Not a penny left the public coffers. The amount was fully funded by small and large private donors.

Also in the United States, the American brothers Charles and David Koch, who together have a net worth of more than US$ 100 billion, are known for financing right-wing organizations and candidates. They run Stand Together, a foundation that distributes resources to non-governmental organizations in a similar way to George Soros’s Open Society. But the difference is that the Koch brothers prioritize the training of young leaders with the purpose of defending the cause of freedom.

The Koch brothers, however, also advocate for legalizing drugs and reducing incarceration, as well as supporting the removal of barriers to immigration. That is: if, on the one hand, they support causes dear to liberals and conservatives, such as the free market and freedom of expression, on the other hand, they seem to align themselves with progressives. Hence, they may more properly be classified as libertarians rather than conservatives.

Another major financier of right-wing movements, this one conservative, is David Green, founder of the mega chain of stores Hobby Lobby, which sell objects for the home. Owner of a fortune of US$ 14 billion, he helped create the Museum of the Bible, a modern building in the center of the American capital that proposes to present the Holy Book in an interactive way. It also funds Christian colleges (one of which received a donation of US$ 20 million in 2021) and entities that defend religious freedom, increasingly threatened in the United States due to the radicalization of the LGBT movement. Green also finances a program that takes American university students to visit Israel.

Among the great American businessmen who are notable for contributing to right-wing causes are also Steve Forbes, founder of Forbes magazine, and the Cathy family, owner of the Chick-fil-A fast-food chain.

They all have something in common: the focus of their donations is the United States. There is no record of David Green funding projects in Latin America or Africa, for example. Therefore, it is not possible to describe him as a “right-wing George Soros”.

In Brazil, there is a lack of strategy and a long-term vision

In Brazil, there are examples similar to those of American businessmen: Salim Mattar, owner of Localiza, and Helio Beltrão, founder of the Mises Institute, help finance organizations with a liberal or conservative profile. The same goes for Alexandre Ostrowiecki and Renato Feder, owners of Multilaser.

But none of these entrepreneurs on the right have firepower comparable to that of George Soros, nor act in a structured way to fund organizations that align with their political vision. Generally, donations are made as private citizens, and not through foundations with their own structure.

For Giuliano Miotto, president of the Liberty and Justice Institute, businessmen still lack a long-term vision. “Many Brazilian businessmen who invest money in candidates for political office still fail to understand the importance of investing in projects focused on the medium and long term, or for the formation of a critical thinking mass”, he says.

Still according to Miotto, the allocation of resources does not favor the emergence of new right-wing organizations. “The few resources that are invested in conservative or liberal ideas end up flowing to the financing of half a dozen institutes that already have a larger structure or, what is worse, to campaigns of political candidates with these speeches or to influencers with hundreds of thousands of followers,” he says.

Exception to the rule, Atlas Network has reduced firepower

Despite the very nature of conservative ideas preventing a “right-wing George Soros” that distributes resources globally, there is an organization that comes slightly closer to the Open Society: the Atlas Network.

Created by British businessman Antony Fisher in 1981, the entity based in Washington maintains an extensive network of partners around the planet. But the donations are far more modest than George Soros’s (usually in the tens of thousands of dollars). The difference in scale is huge: In 2020, Atlas’ total budget for 2020 was $12.9 million. In the same year, the Open Society spent $1.3 billion.

Atlas states that its mission is “to enhance global prosperity by strengthening a network of independent partner organizations that promote individual freedom and are committed to identifying and removing barriers to human flourishing.”

In Brazil, the entity has already helped finance organizations such as Movimento Brasil Livre (MBL) and Students for Liberty Brasil.

Anti-Soros bill

One of the criticisms of Soros is the fact that his actions unbalance the debate on important issues in countries where he operates. This happens in Brazil, where entities financed by the billionaire occupy a disproportionate space in the discussion about public policies. On the other hand, how to prevent this from happening without violating the rights of non-governmental organizations?

Last year, then deputy Paulo Eduardo Martins (PSC-PR) presented a bill that tries to provide more transparency in this regard. PL 736/2022 proposes that NGOs be required to report every six months on everything received from outside Brazil. The text also creates a register of all Brazilian NGOs financed with foreign resources.

“We don’t want to isolate Brazil from good international initiatives, but we want to protect our country from international interests. That’s why it’s essential that Brazilians know who finances the brave militants who defend the right to murder babies or use indigenous peoples,” Martins told the People’s Gazette.

The proposal, however, has not advanced in the House so far.