The media's coverage of alleged political "payola" -- government payments to opinion writers who support administration policies -- ignores the larger story. As I explained yesterday on NRO, every year the government dishes out several hundred million dollars to nonprofit advocacy groups -- groups that have as their primary aim influencing federal government policy. Such grants and contracts are particualrly widespread in environmental policy. Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation and World Wildlife Fund receive mililons from the EPA and other government sources -- a fact that is rarely disclosed or discussed. In other words, the EPA is giving money to groups that then turn around and advocate greater EPA authority.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee published a report on federal grants to environmental groups last year. The EPA also maintains a web-searchable database of current grants. Both reveal the substantial flow of taxpayer dollars to environmental activist organizations. I've also testified before Congress on federal funding of the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, which raises related issues. The testimony is available here.

Some journalists and environmental groups try to discredit critics of federal regulation by noting that they receive support from business sources. If recveiveing such money is enough to taint a group's credibility -- and their arguments and policy proposals cannot be independently evaluated on their merits -- shouldn't federal money also taint those groups that seek to defend a greater federal regulatory role?

Personal disclosure: At present, I am not the recipient of any corporate or government funds -- but I'd happily take private-sector contributions.