Fact check: What evidence exists of organized funding for political protests in the United States?

1. Summary of the results

The evidence for organized funding of political protests in the United States presents a complex picture with documented cases but also many unsubstantiated claims. There is concrete evidence of some organizational funding, such as CHIRLA receiving $34 million in government grants, including $750,000 from the Biden administration ^[1]. Additionally, billionaire Neville Singham has reportedly channeled $20 million into various radical organizations ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements need to be considered:

• Astroturfing vs. Genuine Movements: While organized funding exists, it's crucial to understand that accusations of "paid protesters" are often used as a tool to delegitimize genuine grassroots movements ^[3]. Most grassroots activists actually struggle with basic funding ^[3].
• Corporate Influence: The largest instances of organized funding often come from corporate interests, such as fossil fuel companies funding climate change denial campaigns ^[3].
• Digital Manipulation: Modern digital platforms have made astroturfing easier through techniques like bot networks and coordinated messaging campaigns ^[4].
• The Soros Case Study: While Open Society Foundations has provided some grants to organizations, investigations found no direct evidence of paying protesters, and many grants predated the protests they were accused of funding ^[5].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The question itself contains potential biases that need addressing:

• Oversimplification: The term "organized funding" can be misleading as it suggests impropriety when many forms of organized funding are legal and transparent, such as government grants ^[1].
• Conspiracy Theories: Claims about protest funding often feed into broader conspiracy theories, as demonstrated by the recurring and unfounded accusations against George Soros, which often have antisemitic undertones ^[6].
• Beneficiaries of Narrative Control: Several groups benefit from pushing various narratives:
• Political figures like Senator Josh Hawley benefit from investigating and highlighting certain funding sources ^[1]
• Corporate interests benefit from delegitimizing protests by claiming they're artificially funded ^[3]
• Legitimate organizations suffer when their genuine grassroots efforts are dismissed as "paid protests" ^[3]