Mapping Soros'S at Home and Abroad: "Philanthropy"

NOVEMBER 2020
EDITED BY
JON RODEBACK
MAPPING SOROS’S
“PHILANTHROPY”
AT HOME AND ABROAD
Mapping Soros’s
“Philanthropy”
at Home and Abroad
Edited by
Jon Rodeback
Capital Research Center

November 2020
i
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5
Transforming the U.S. Justice System by Funding District Attorney Elections ..................... 7
Millions for Local Elections........................................................................................................ 7
The Soros Effect .......................................................................................................................... 8
Tilting the Scales of Justice......................................................................................................... 8
Appendix: Soros Local Election Donations ................................................................................ 9
Soros Meddling in European Elections ..................................................................................... 11

Open Society Foundations ........................................................................................................ 11
Prohibition on Political Campaigning by 501(c)(3) Organizations ......................................... 13
Election Involvement and Backlash .......................................................................................... 13
The Europe Problem ................................................................................................................. 15
Targeting the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections ........................................................... 17
Outstanding Questions .............................................................................................................. 20
Appendix A: Methodology and Sources .................................................................................... 23
Appendix B: OSF Grants for the European Elections 2014 Projects ....................................... 24
The Faces Behind the Migrant Caravans ................................................................................. 31

The Organizers.......................................................................................................................... 31
The Soros Nexus ........................................................................................................................ 33
George Soros’s Thinking .......................................................................................................... 33
“Spontaneous” Migrations ....................................................................................................... 35
More Questions ......................................................................................................................... 36
About the Authors....................................................................................................................... 40
About the Capital Research Center .......................................................................................... 40
iii
Executive Summary
Billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros, “the man who broke the Bank of
England,”1 has a philosophy about how society should work, adapted from philosopher Karl
Popper’s theory of the “open society.” Accordingly, he founded dozens of foundations to push
the world in that direction, led by his flagship nonprofit Open Society Foundations (OSF). He is
open about his objectives.2 As of 2017, Soros had donated more than $32 billion to his
foundations to realize his “open society” vision and his foundations give away almost $1 billion
dollars annually to make “open society” a global reality.3
The Open Society network of foundations and nonprofits4 has a physical presence in dozens of
countries around the world, supporting largely left-wing causes. The network has incurred the
displeasure of several governments, including those of the Russian Federation—which could
arguably be more of a credit than a black mark—and Hungary, Soros’s birth country.
Billions of dollars flowing through such a tangled web of organizations have inevitably
generated widespread speculation, more than a few conspiracy theories, and sometimes outright
fear. The Open Society network’s ironic lack of transparency only feeds the speculation and
concerns.
Untangling this “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” would be the work of a
lifetime, if not many lifetimes. Money and influence flows through the network to its allies in
countries around the world, but the exact amounts, destinations, and purposes are largely hidden.
Researchers at Capital Research Center have pulled on several threads of this mystery, including
massive funding of district attorney candidates in local U.S. elections, meddling in European
parliamentary elections, and supporting of caravans of migrants attempting to cross the U.S.
southern border.
Local Elections
Since 2015, Soros has spent more than $17 million on district attorney and other local races in
swing states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Arizona and in large, predominantly left-of-
center states such as California and New York. These huge contributions make it difficult for the
other candidates to compete. District attorney elections are usually on a small scale and the
campaigns typically do not need to raise millions to run local ads and mobilize voters. When
Soros’s vast resources appear, constituents are swamped with propaganda, and the opposing non-
1
Tom Bailey, “A Spotlight on the Man Who Broke the Bank of England,” World Finance, March 10, 2016,
https://www.worldfinance.com/banking/a-spotlight-on-the-man-who-broke-the-bank-of-england.
2
Shane Devine, “A Peek into the Mind of George Soros,” Capital Research Center, April 2, 2020,
https://capitalresearch.org/article/george-soros-part-1/.
3
InfluenceWatch, “Open Society Foundations (OSF),” https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-
foundations/.
4
InfluenceWatch, “Soros Network (Open Society Network),” https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/soros-
network-open-society-network/.
1
liberal candidates are often victims of unfair character assassinations, such as defaming them as
racists and white supremacists.5
His objective apparently includes ending “mass incarceration” in American prisons.6 What
started as contribution to the American Civil Liberties Union has evolved into a broader, more
granular effort to change the U.S. law enforcement system from the ground up by electing like-
minded local prosecutors.
Election Tampering in Europe
Leaked internal documents from OSF, headquartered in New York City, demonstrate clear intent
from the top to deliberately alter election outcomes in other countries, particularly in the 2014
elections for the European Parliament and some national parliaments in Europe.
In the early 2010s, OSF became increasingly worried about the European Union and the trends in
Europe that were creating an increasingly hostile environment for OSF. To counter and even
reverse these trends, OSF adopted “a two-level strategy to reduce the number of opponents of the
open society who get elected.” Open Society Initiative for Europe (OSIFE) distributed $5.7
million to organizations to “to turn out the vote” in sympathetic constituencies. Open Society
European Policy Institute (OSEPI) was assigned to “engage pan-European parties to influence
their manifestos and campaigning tactics.”7 However, these efforts to achieve particular election
outcomes appear to violate U.S. tax law on nonprofits.
Weaponizing Migration
A leaked internal OSF document8 indicates that OSF’s International Migration Initiative
provided 40 grants totaling more than $8 million to 22 organizations during 2014–2016. Almost
half ($3.7 million) went to organizations working on migrant and refugee issues in the
“Asia/Middle East corridor” and the “Central America/Mexico corridor.”
In North America, Soros and his foundations are apparently trying to erase U.S. national borders
by facilitating refugee crises on the U.S. southern border—much like the European refugee crisis
(2015–2017) put massive pressure on the European Union. OSF invested $136 million to
influence societies, politics, and economics in Latin America from 2015 through 2018,9 along
5
Valerie Richardson, “Black Lives Matter Funder George Soros Helps Elect Liberal Prosecutors with $7m Payout,”
Washington Times, November 16, 2016, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/16/george-soros-
spends-millions-to-bury-republicans-e/.
6
American Civil Liberties Union, “LU Awarded $50 Million by Open Society Foundations to End Mass
Incarceration,” November 7, 2014, https://www.aclu.org/print/node/48907.
7
Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI), “Goals and Strategies for 2014-2017,” Open Society
Foundations, September 22, 2013, 8, archived at https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/OSEPI-strategy-2014-2017-
EU-advocacy.pdf. Downloaded from DCLeaks.com.
8
Anna Crowley and Kate Rosin, “International Migration Initiative: Migration Governance and Enforcement
Portfolio Review,” Open Society Foundations, May 12, 2016,
https://archive.org/stream/321383374OpenSocietyFoundationsInternationalMigrationInitiativeMigrationGovernan/3
21383374-Open-Society-Foundations-International-Migration-Initiative-Migration-Governance-and-Enforcement-
Portfolio-Review_djvu.txt.
9
Open Society Foundations, “2018 Budget: Overview,” https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/664f9d73-
bbe3-4de1-a4c7-af205ab75477/open-society-foundations-2018-budget-overview-20181107.pdf.
2
with tens of millions of dollars for U.S. groups supporting illegal immigration.10 The migrant
caravans assembled in this context, and contrary to media narratives, the migrations were not
spontaneous.
What We Don’t Know
Much more about the Open Society network remains to be uncovered about how Soros is using
his billions to influence events in these and other areas relevant to the citizens of the United
States and many other countries.
10
Judicial Watch, “The Financial and Staffing Nexus Between the Open
Society Foundations and the United States Government,” November 30, 2018,
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/soros-judicial-watch-special-report-open-society-foundations-2018/.
3
Introduction
Billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros, “the man who broke the Bank of
England,”1 has a philosophy about how society should work, adapted from philosopher Karl
Popper’s theory of the “open society.” Accordingly, he founded dozens of foundations to push
the world in that direction, led by his flagship nonprofit Open Society Foundations (OSF). He is
open about his objectives.2 As of 2017, Soros had donated more than $32 billion to his
foundations to realize his “open society” vision and his foundations give away almost $1 billion
dollars annually to make “open society” a global reality.3
The Open Society network of foundations and nonprofits4 has a physical presence in dozens of
countries around the world, supporting largely left-wing causes. The network has incurred the
displeasure of several governments, including those of the Russian Federation—which could
arguably be more of a credit than a black mark to the network—and Hungary, Soros’s birth
country.
Inevitably, billions of dollars flowing through such a tangled web of organizations have
generated widespread speculation, more than a few conspiracy theories, and sometimes outright
fear. The Open Society network’s ironic lack of transparency only feeds the speculation and
concerns.
Untangling this “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” would be the work of a
lifetime, if not many lifetimes. Money and influence flows through the network to its allies in
countries around the world.
Researchers at Capital Research Center have pulled on several threads of this mystery. Based on
our research using available sources—including leaked internal OSF documents—this is what
we have discovered about Soros’s/OSF’s work in three significant areas:
 Funding of district attorney candidates in local U.S. elections,
 Meddling in European elections, and
 Support of caravans of migrants attempting to cross the U.S. southern border.
Much more about the Open Society network remains to be uncovered in these areas and many
others relevant to the citizens of the United States and many other countries.
1
Tom Bailey, “A Spotlight on the Man Who Broke the Bank of England,” World Finance, March 10, 2016,
https://www.worldfinance.com/banking/a-spotlight-on-the-man-who-broke-the-bank-of-england.
2
3
foundations/.
4
5
Transforming the U.S. Justice System by Funding District Attorney Elections
Shane Devine
Financier and left-wing philanthropist George Soros has contributed large sums of money to left-
wing candidates running for district attorney all around the country to change the law
enforcement system at the county or district level.1
Millions for Local Elections

Since 2015, he has spent more than $17 million on district attorney and other local races in swing
states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Arizona, but also in large, predominantly left-of-center
states such as California and New York. In 2016, Soros dropped $2,000,000 into a single sheriff
race in Maricopa County, Arizona, helping progressive candidate Paul Penzone win the election
with ease.2 He has given millions of dollars to candidates in several other counties as well.3 (For
a more complete list of Soros donations to local elections, see the Appendix.)
These huge contributions make it difficult for the other candidates to compete, since district
attorney elections are on such a small scale and the campaigns typically do not need to raise
millions to run their local ads and mobilize voters. When Soros’s vast resources appear,
constituents are swamped with propaganda, and the opposing non-liberal candidates are often
victims of unfair character assassinations, such as defaming them as racists and white
supremacists.4
This effort has a clear motive, spelled out in a 2014 press release from the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU)5 after Soros’s Open Society Foundations contributed $50 million
toward its Campaign to End Mass Incarceration, which is a part of their wider Smart Justice
campaign.6
In a November 2014 press release, the ACLU claimed that America’s criminal justice policies
have led to the imprisonment of over 2.2 million people since the 1980s and 1990s. The ACLU
stated its intention to reform criminal justice policies at the state level in order to cut this number
in half by 2020. (In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that the total U.S.
1
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/district-attorney/.
2
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/george-soros-joe-arpaio-arizona-230724.
3
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/16/george-soros-spends-millions-to-bury-republicans-e/;
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2019/05/28/with-challengers-in-the-wings-florida-prosecutor-who-
stood-against-death-penalty-wont-seek-reelection-1030026;
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/9/george-soros-spends-115-million-defeat-pete-weir-s/;
https://freebeacon.com/issues/george-soros-floods-local-da-races-1-7m-philadelphia/; and
https://freebeacon.com/politics/soros-backed-prosecutor-candidates-sweep-virginia-races/.
4
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/16/george-soros-spends-millions-to-bury-republicans-e/.
5
https://www.aclu.org/print/node/48907; and https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/american-civil-liberties-
union-aclu/.
6
https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice.
7
prison population had declined steadily from a peak of 1,615,500 in 2009 to 1,430,800 at the end
of 2019—a drop of 11 percent.)
It seems that Soros decided his massive donation to the ACLU was not enough and started
funding county prosecutor races by himself.
The Soros Effect

Critics of Soros’s efforts have raised the concern that such blind partisan funding can weaken the
vetting process regarding the candidates’ characters. These fears were confirmed when Robert
Shuler Smith—a district attorney for Hinds County, Mississippi, whom Soros had backed—was
tried in criminal court for two counts of suspected conspiracy to hinder prosecution and one
count of suspected robbery, among other charges.7
As one reporter put it,
This isn’t about either of [the candidates] personally. This is about a man [Soros] who has
no connection to my corner of the world attempting to impose his agenda on a crucial local
race without any real understanding of how that will impact the people who have to live
with the fallout.8
At the time when Soros was attempting to undercut her campaign, conservative candidate for
district attorney of Philadelphia Beth Grossman said,
[T]he role of the DA's office is not to conduct a grand social experiment, it is to enforce the
laws of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania justly and fairly, and to protect the
constitutional rights of everybody: victims, witnesses, as well as those accused of crime.9
She subsequently lost to her opponent Larry Krasner, who has been the subject of controversy since
taking office. Under Krasner, homicides in Philadelphia have risen by 12 percent.10
Tilting the Scales of Justice

Soros is not the only billionaire who contributes to elections, for left-of-center or conservative
candidates. Far from it. However, a billionaire putting so much money into elections on such
local levels may be unprecedented. The Capital Research Center could not find any other
instances in recent electoral history of prominent donors funding dozens of district attorney races
in this manner, except for Soros’s own sons.
7
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/16/george-soros-spends-millions-to-bury-republicans-e/; and
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2018/09/12/hinds-da-robert-shuler-smith-contradicts-two-
witnesses-stand/1273563002/.
8
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/george-soros-delaware-county-district-attorney-stollsteimer-krasner-
20191101.html.
9
https://freebeacon.com/issues/george-soros-floods-local-da-races-1-7m-philadelphia/.
10
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/17/752051788/u-s-attorney-slams-philadelphia-da-over-culture-of-disrespect-for-
law-enforcemen.
8
After Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance declined to prosecute Harvey Weinstein and it was
discovered that Weinstein’s legal team had funded Vance’s campaign,11 state legislators
discussed whether there should be restrictions on funding in these races.12 But almost no one
besides the reporters covering their local elections has discussed Soros’s forays into reshaping
America’s law enforcement system, county by county.
Appendix: Soros Local Election Donations13

Candidate Election Office Location Donation Result
Year
Kim Foxx 2016 state attorney Cook County, IL $2,000,000 won
(Chicago)
Aramis Ayala 2016 state attorney Orlando, FL $1,400,000 won14

Jake Lilly 2016 district attorney Jefferson and Gilpin $1,150,000 lost
County (Denver,
CO)
Jose Garza 2020 district attorney Travis County $650,000 won primary
(Austin, TX)
Joe Kimok 2020 state attorney Broward County, FL $750,000 lost primary
Kim Ogg 2016 district attorney Harris County $583,000 won
(Houston, TX)
Parisa 2019 commonwealth’s Arlington County, $583,000 won
Dehghani- attorney VA
Tafti
Paul Penzone 2016 sheriff Maricopa County, $2,000,000 won
Arizona
Larry Krasner 2017 district attorney Philadelphia $1,700,000 won15
Jody Owen 2019 district attorney Hinds County, MS $500,000 won
(Jackson)
James E. 2015 district attorney Caddo Parish, LA $406,000 won
Stewart (Shreveport)
Steve T. 2019 commonwealth’s Fairfax County, VA $392,000 won
Descano attorney
Diana Becton 2018 district attorney Contra Costa $275,000 won16
County, CA
Darius Pattillo 2020 district attorney Harris County, GA $147,000 won
primary17
11
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-didnt-manhattan-da-cyrus-vance-prosecute-the-trumps-or-
harvey-weinstein.
12
https://www.gothamgazette.com/state/8278-legislators-pursue-campaign-finance-reform-for-district-attorneys.
13
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/19/why-arent-we-allowed-to-talk-about-george-soross-plan-to-remake-america/;
and https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/soros-cash-affects-da-races-nationwide-20170528.html.
14
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/politics/soros-cash-affects-da-races-nationwide-20170528.html.
15
https://americanmind.org/post/the-soros-cover-up/.
16
https://sandiegofreepress.org/2018/03/these-3-women-could-change-the-california-justice-system-for-good/.
17
https://www.news-daily.com/news/henry-county-district-attorney-candidate-matt-mccord-drops-out-of-race-
pattillo-presumptive-winner/article_08d17724-f9aa-561d-b011-51e745d62b74.html.
9
Candidate Election Office Location Donation Result
Year
Kim Gardner 2016 circuit attorney St. Louis $116,000 won; re-
election bid
in 202018
Raul Torrez 2016 district attorney Benalillo County $107,000 won19
(Albuquerque, NM)
Scott Colom 2015 district attorney Lowndes County, $89,000 won20
MS
George 2020 district attorney Los Angeles $1,000,000 General
Gascón election
candidate21
Chesa Boudin 2019 district attorney San Francisco unclear won22
Kimberly 2016 circuit attorney St. Louis $67,000 won
Gardner
Shani Curry 2019 district attorney Monroe County, NY $800,000+ lost23
Mitchell (Rochester)
David Clegg 2019 district attorney Ulster County, NY $240,000 won24
Pamela Price 2018 district attorney Alameda County, $134,745 lost
CA
Noah Phillips 2018 district attorney Sacramento County, $184,000 lost25
CA
Geneviéve 2018 district attorney San Diego County, $402,000 lost primary
Jones-Wright CA
Paul Penzone 2016 sheriff Maricopa County, $2,000,000 won
AZ
Morris 2016 district attorney Harris County, TX $100,000 lost primary26
Overstreet (Houston)
Monique 2020 state’s attorney Orlando, FL $1,000,000 won
Worrell primary27
18
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-louis-circuit-attorney-candidate-defends-accepting-
super-pac-campaign/article_11036aaf-4b1b-58cd-871f-4084f1ec1485.html.
19
https://berncoda.com/meet-the-da/.
20
https://www.msda16.org/scott-colom.
21
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/soros-funded-da-candidate-george-gascon-wants-to-transform-la-
disastrously-as-he-did-san-francisco/.
22
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/soros-funded-da-candidate-george-gascon-wants-to-transform-la-
disastrously-as-he-did-san-francisco/.
23
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/nyregion/soros-election-da.html; and https://www.rochesterfirst.com/local-
politics/sandra-doorley-beats-shani-curry-mitchell-for-monroe-county-district-attorney/.
24
https://www.dailyfreeman.com/news/elections/election-soros-funded-pac-has-spent-more-than-k-
to/article_9e36df76-fb4d-11e9-bb70-4bd5e1e08e76.html
25
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/05/07/billionaire-george-soros-pours-money-into-
alameda-county-district-attorneys-race.
26
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/Soros-weighs-in-on-Dem-DA-race-6857389.php.
27
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-monique-worrell-george-soros-state-attorney-20200816-
xgstfmgnlnbzrek5bbja4ykm6u-story.html; and
https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/committees/ComDetail.asp?account=78871.
10
Soros Meddling in European Elections
Jon Rodeback
Summary: “Open Society has a long history of involvement in elections, some of it rather
controversial.” Leaked documents and other evidence indicate that the Open Society
Foundations’ involvement in the 2014 European Parliament elections likely violated IRS
prohibitions on partisan election work by U.S. nonprofits. Yet the bigger issue may be what else
Open Society Foundations is hiding.
“Open Society has a long history of involvement in elections, some of it rather controversial,”
reads an internal Open Society Foundations (OSF) memo dated April 11, 2013.
If anything, the memo greatly understates how much OSF and its affiliated organizations have
intervened in elections around the world since the 1990s. In developing countries, OSF
expenditures in the millions—if not tens of millions—of dollars give OSF and its grantees
disproportionate influence for good and ill. Even in the United States, Soros’s millions have
exerted a disproportionate influence to reshape dozens of local elections.1
Over the years, much of the OSF involvement in elections overseas—especially election
monitoring—was arguably laudable, and some is in debatable gray areas. Yet a significant
portion appears to blatantly violate U.S. tax law, if not other laws as well.
Leaked internal documents from OSF, headquartered in New York City, demonstrate clear intent
from the top to deliberately alter election outcomes in other countries, particularly the 2014
elections for the European Parliament and some national parliaments in Europe. While OSF
headquarters did not directly run these influencing efforts, its European subsidiaries did, under
OSF’s instruction and guidance. This appears to blatantly violate OSF’s status as a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit foundation, which prohibits directly or indirectly intervening in any election for public
office anywhere in the world.
Open Society Foundations

Billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros founded Open Society Foundations (then
named Open Society Institute) in 1993 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit under U.S. law. It has since
become the flagship of the Soros Network, a fleet of nonprofits through which Soros promotes
his philosophy of “open society” around the world. As “the main hub of Soros-funded a network
of more than 20 national and regional foundations,” OSF is “one of the largest political
1
Shane Devine, “Soros Aims to Transform the Justice System by Funding DA Races,” Capital Research Center,
December 17, 2019, https://capitalresearch.org/article/soros-aims-to-transform-the-justice-system-by-funding-da-
races/.
11
philanthropies in the world.”2 As of 2017, Soros had donated more than $32 billion3 to his
foundations, and his foundations give away almost $1 billion dollars annually to make “open
society” a global reality.4
Major pillars of the Soros nonprofit network include:
 Foundation to Promote Open Society (FPOS), “the primary grantmaker in the Soros
network.”5
 Open Society Policy Center (OSPC), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that serves as the main
lobbying arm of the Soros network.6
 Fund for Policy Reform, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that gives “grants to organizations focused
on drug policy, criminal justice, and election administration policy.”7
 Central European University Budapest Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit used to fund
Soros’s Central European University.
Soros’s Philosophy and Giving. Soros’s philosophy is informed by 20th-century philosopher
Karl Popper’s theories in which, as one observer summarized, “‘open societies’ . . . operate
based on critical thinking, constantly seeking to make things more democratic and pluralistic,
ensuring that the rule of law is ever equal and expanding to protect marginalized groups.”8
This thinking animates his giving and his foundations, his giving to his foundations, and the
foundations’ efforts to change the world. He first tried to change apartheid in South Africa and
failed:
Then I turned my attention to Central Europe [then suffering under communist regimes].
Here I was much more successful. I started supporting the Charter 77 movement in
Czechoslovakia in 1980 and Solidarity in Poland in 1981. I established separate
foundations in my native country, Hungary, in 1984, in China in 1986, in the Soviet
Union in 1987, and in Poland in 1988. My engagement accelerated with the collapse of
the Soviet system.9
2
foundations/.
3
Open Society Foundations, “George Soros,” https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/george-soros.
4
InfluenceWatch, “Open Society Foundations (OSF).”
5
InfluenceWatch, “Open Society Foundations (OSF).”
6
InfluenceWatch, “Open Society Policy Center,” https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-policy-
center/.
7
8
9
George Soros, “The Capitalist Threat,” Atlantic, February 1997,
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/02/the-capitalist-threat/376773/.
12
After the fall of Communism, he formed
OSF and has turned to monitoring free Prohibition on Political Campaigning by
elections, promoting “open borders” and 501(c)(3) Organizations
unrestricted immigration, supporting
marginalized populations such as LGBT The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) states:
and Roma (Gypsies), and advocating Under the Internal Revenue Code, all
radical criminal justice reform. section 501(c)(3) organizations are
absolutely prohibited from directly or
OSF has a global reach and ambition, as
indirectly participating in, or intervening
illustrated by a February 2012 list of
in, any political campaign on behalf of
“Activities by Region,”10 which indicated
(or in opposition to) any candidate for
OSF activities in multiple countries in
elective public office.
Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe,
Southeastern Europe, and the Former However, voter education activities conducted in
Soviet Union. For the Middle East and a nonpartisan manner are permitted, as is
North Africa, it lists only Turkey and a encouraging participation in elections if such
“Middle East/North African Initiatives activities are conducted in a nonpartisan manner.
(MENA).” In North America, only the That said, the IRS warns:
United States is listed, with the catch-all Voter education or registration activities
subheading “US Programs.” with evidence of bias that (a) would
Lack of Transparency. Contrary to its favor one candidate over another; (b)
“emphasis on transparency and ‘open oppose a candidate in some manner; or
societies,’” OSF is consistently rated as (c) have the effect of favoring a
nontransparent. For example, in 2016, candidate or group of candidates, will
Transparify rated OSF as “highly opaque,” constitute prohibited participation or
with zero stars out of five—the lowest intervention.
ranking of any rated U.S. nonprofit. Source: U.S. Internal Revenue Service, “The Restriction of Political
Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt
(Ironically, the report was “made possible Organizations,” July 28, 2020, https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-
through the support of the Think Tank profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-
intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations.
Fund of the Open Society Foundations.”)11
This lack of transparency makes serious
research into OSF activities difficult—akin to discerning the internal workings of the Soviet
Union during the Cold War. And the sheer scope of OSF activities makes any comprehensive,
thorough analysis of OSF activities extremely difficult. As a result, much of the available
information about OSF is anecdotal, the result of occasional government investigations, or
revealed through leaks of OSF documents.
Election Involvement and Backlash
10
Open Society Foundations, “Activities by Region,” February 14, 2012, archived at
https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/Activities-by-Region-OSF.png. Downloaded from DCLeaks.com.
11
Transparify, “How Transparent Are Think Tanks About Who Funds Them 2016?,” June 29, 2016, 1 and 16,
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.transparify.org%2Fs%2FTransparify-2016-Think-
Tanks-Report.pdf.
13
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, OSF was actively involved in elections in Central and Eastern
Europe, former Soviet republics, and Latin America. An internal OSF memo obliquely states,
“Open Society was present for many of the major transformations of the era, including the so-
called ‘color revolutions’ in Georgia [in 2003], Ukraine [in 2004] and Kyrgyzstan [in 2005].”12
The involvement often took the form of support for domestic nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) that monitor local elections.13
Since the early 2000s, OSF has pulled back from direct engagement in Latin America, while
becoming more active in Africa, supporting election monitoring and related activities.14 During
the 2000s, Soros’s giving in the United States expanded, including $27 million to defeat George
Bush in the 2004 election.15 For 2017, the OSF’s U.S. programs had a budget of $100 million.
Banned in Russia. OSF efforts were generally well received in most Central and Eastern
European countries, but not in neighboring Russia, where the government has repeatedly
condemned them. For example, in 2015, President Vladimir Putin said:
In the modern world, extremism is used as a geopolitical tool for redistribution of spheres
of interest. We can see the tragic consequences of the wave of the so-called color
revolutions, the shock experienced by people in the countries that went through the
irresponsible experiments of hidden, or sometimes brute and direct interference with their
lives.16
In fact, from Putin’s perspective, the color revolutions in Europe had eroded the security buffer
between Russia and NATO and threatened to spread to Russia itself. In November 2015, the
authoritarian Putin regime predictably—except that it took so long—classified Open Society
Foundations as an “undesirable” organization and banned it from operating in the country.17
Driven out of Hungary. OSF activities, particularly in support of illegal immigrants, also
became quite controversial in Hungary, Soros’s birth country. After “campaign[ing] under a
12
Morton Halperin, Jerry Fowler, and Jonas Rolett, “Open Society Foundations’ Election Related Activities,”
memorandum, Open Society Foundations, April 11, 2013, 5, archived at
https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/Open-Society-Foundations’-Election-Related-Activities-1.pdf. Downloaded
from DCLeaks.com.
13
Such organizations include Građani Organizirano Nadgledaju Glasanje (Citizens Supervising Voting in an
Organized Manner) in Croatia and Graǵanska Asocijacija MOST (Citizen Association MOST) in Macedonia.
Morton Halperin, Jerry Fowler, and Jonas Rolett, “Open Society Foundations’ Election Related Activities,” Open
Society Foundations, [Washington, DC office], April 11, 2013, 5, https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/Open-
Society-Foundations’-Election-Related-Activities-1.pdf.
14
Halperin et al., “Open Society Foundations’ Election Related Activities,” 6.
15
Ivan Levingston, “George Soros Returns to Politics with $25 Million Splash: Report,” CNBC, July 27, 2016,
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/george-soros-returns-to-politics-with-25-million-splash-report.html.
Julian Borger, “Financier Soros Puts Millions into Ousting Bush,” Guardian, November 11, 2003,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/12/uselections2004.usa.
16
RT, “Putin Vows to Prevent ‘Color Revolutions’ for Russia and Its Eurasian Allies,” April 12, 2017,
https://www.rt.com/russia/384451-putin-vows-to-prevent-color/.
17
Open Society Foundation, “Russia Cracks Down on Open Society,” November 30, 2015,
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/newsroom/russia-cracks-down-open-society; and Jennifer Ablan, “Russia
Bans George Soros Foundation as State Security ‘Threat,’” Reuters, November 30, 2015,
https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-soros/russia-bans-george-soros-foundation-as-state-security-threat-
idUSL1N13P22Y20151130#slpVaobQZ0A8YikE.97.
14
‘Stop Soros’ banner,” Prime Minister Victor Orbán won re-election in a landslide in April 2018,
with his party alliance winning 133 of 199 seats in the Hungarian parliament. The parliament
wasted no time in passing a collection of “Stop Soros” laws that restricted foreign funding of
NGOs and aid to illegal aliens.
OSF countered by moving its operations to Berlin after condemning the “increasingly repressive
political and legal environment” in Hungary.18 Central European University responded by
moving most of its operations from its main campus in Budapest to Vienna.19
The Europe Problem

In the early 2010s, OSF became increasingly worried about the European Union and the trends in
Europe that were creating an increasingly hostile environment for OSF. OSF was greatly
concerned about growing “xenophobia” and anti-EU sentiments among Europeans. In 2013, an
internal OSF strategy document opined, “The EU has lost self-confidence and influence, and the
European consensus on pluralism and inclusion is breaking down.”20 OSF felt this breakdown
was directly impeding its mission.
Protecting OSF Turf. The OSF was particularly concerned this would undermine OSF’s cozy
relationship with EU institutions: “Vocally xenophobic candidates are already pushing
mainstream parties to attack policies and institutions that OSF has worked for years to build
up.”21
Yet this cozy relationship has continued beyond the 2014 elections with OSF boasting of an
unheard of 42 meetings in one year with the European Commission22—the rough equivalent of a
private foundation meeting 42 times with the Cabinet of the U.S. president. Revealing the scope
of the relationship, an internal OSF document listed 226 “reliable allies” in just the European
Parliament in 2017,23 not to mention allies in the sprawling EU bureaucracy.
18
BBC News, “George Soros: Foundation Quits Hungary over ‘Repressive’ Policies,” May 15, 2018,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44082976; Marton Dunai, “Soros Foundation to Shut Its Office in
‘Repressive’ Hungary,” Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/journalists/marton-dunai; and Vanessa Romo, “Hungary
Passes ‘Stop Soros’ Laws, Bans Aid to Undocumented Immigrants,” NPR, June 20, 2018,
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/20/622045753/hungary-passes-stop-soros-laws-bans-aid-to-undocumented-
immigrants.
19
Shaun Walker, “‘Dark Day for Freedom’: Soros-Affiliated University Quits Hungary,” Guardian, December 3,
2018, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/dark-day-freedom-george-soros-affiliated-central-european-
university-quits-hungary.
20
Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI), “Goals and Strategies for 2014-2017,” Open Society
Foundations, September 22, 2013, 1, archived at https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/OSEPI-strategy-2014-2017-
EU-advocacy.pdf. Downloaded from DCLeaks.com.
21
Robyn Waserman, “Elections: Contributions to Work—From OSF Proposed Strategies 2014–2017,” Open
Society Foundation, July 2018, 3, archived at https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/Elections-Contributions-to-
Work-From-OSF-Proposed-Strategies-2014-2017.pdf. Downloaded from DCLeaks.com.
22
Nigel Farage, “The Biggest International Political Collusion in History,” European Parliament, November 14,
2017, https://youtu.be/PZLr0TtPjUc.
23
Kumquat Consult, Reliable Allies in the European Parliament (2014–2019), October 2014,
https://legacy.gscdn.nl/archives/images/soroskooptbrussel.pdf. Downloaded from DCLeaks.com.
15
Given the parliament’s new powers under the Lisbon Treaty (which took effect on December 1,
2009), the 2014 elections became a high priority, particularly in terms of preventing the election
of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who would oppose OSF priorities:
The 2014 European Parliament elections will be a big political moment which will raise
the alarm about illiberal trends in European politics. Public anger and protest voting
could result in a major increase in the number of xenophobic and anti-EU candidates who
get elected.24
To counter and even reverse these trends, OSF focused on the 2014 elections for the European
Parliament as a decisive means through which OSF could influence the EU. One OSF report
stated, “The European Parliamentary elections in May 2014 present a crucial opportunity for
citizens and civil society actors to help influence and shape the agenda of the European Union in
the EU’s legislative period 2015–2019.”25
Justified Concerns. Eurobarameter surveys tend to confirm that OSF concerns about the EU
were warranted. Trust in EU institutions—specifically, the European Parliament, European
Commission, and European Central Bank—peaked in spring 2007 (56 percent, 52 percent, and
53 percent, respectively) and steadily declined through spring 2014 (37 percent, 32 percent, and
31 percent). By spring 2015, a majority of respondents in the U.K., Italy, Cyprus, and Slovenia
believed that their country would be better off outside the EU. All of these indicate deteriorating
support for the EU, with support across the entire EU dropping 3 percentage points from autumn
2012 (58 percent) to autumn 2015.26
If there were any doubts that the EU was facing an existential crisis, BREXIT erased them. The
June 2016 referendum in which 52 percent of U.K. voters chose to leave the EU sent shockwaves
through Europe and around the world. The U.K. had never quite fit in the EU, even after France
stopped vetoing the U.K.’s accession to the EU’s predecessor. It took nearly four years, but
despite all manner of political scheming by pro-EU forces, the U.K. formally left the EU on
January 31, 2020.
Open Society Blinders. OSF concerns about Europe are a peculiar creation of the open society
mindset, which frames opposition to porous national borders and floods of international refugees
as xenophobia and racism. Internal OSF documents consistently reflect this mindset. Similarly,
opposition to the EU is cast as indefensible backward thinking, excluding even the possibility of
reasoned skepticism. In this way of thinking, the objective of advancing “open society” overrides
people’s legitimate concerns about cultural identity, economic costs, and law and order in favor
of the OSF agenda of open borders, radical criminal reform, and promotion of minority rights.
24
Waserman, “Elections,” 3.
25
Open Society Initiative for Europe (OSIFE), “List of European Elections 2014 Projects,” Open Society
Foundations, October 17, 2014, 1, archived at https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/OSIFE-List-of-European-
elections-2014-Projects.pdf. Downloaded from DCLeaks.com.
26
European Commission, Standard Eurobarameter 79–84, Spring 2013–Autumn 2015, 104,
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/index#p=1&instruments=STANDARD. Trust
briefly rebounded about 5 percentage points in autumn 2014 and spring 2015, but returned to the 30s by autumn
2014.
16
Targeting the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections
OSF adopted “a two-level strategy to reduce the number of opponents of the open society who
get elected.”27 Two OSF organizations in Europe were tasked with the mission: Open Society
Initiative for Europe (OSIFE) would “work on local campaigns to turn out the vote,” and Open
Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI) would “engage pan-European parties to influence
their manifestos and campaigning tactics.”28
OSIFE. For its part, OSIFE reaffirmed that a “crucial test will take place in May 2014 when all
EU citizens vote for the European Parliament” and “that landmark election will be the
cornerstone and key priority for OSIFE’s strategy.”29
In the larger context of trying to tilt the 2014 elections, OSIFE described its objectives as:
1. Preventing racist candidates from getting (re)elected
2. Countering racism in election campaigns and in the European Parliament
3. Getting EU citizens who live in other EU countries to vote in their countries of
residence30
In less partisan and more objective terms, OSIFE’s goals included “preventing” candidates with
whom OSF disagreed “from getting (re)elected” and “countering” views OSF disliked “in
election campaigns and in the European Parliament.”31
OSIFE’s primary tool for achieving these objectives appears to have been grant making, with 92
grants ranging from $8,790 to $340,000, totaling more than $5.7 million. The grants included
“open call grants, targeted mobilization efforts, up-scaling grants and grants related to post-
election actions.” 32 The OSIFE grants also overlapped with OSEPI’s objective of engaging pan-
European parties. In fact, the list included not just all OSIFE grants, but also related projects
from the Soros network’s Hungary project, Italy project, and the less subtly named Open Society
Fund to Counter Xenophobia. The list also included “election grants” from the At Home in
Europe and European Civil Liberties projects, an “election-related legacy grant” from the Open
Society Youth Initiative, and a “co-funded project” of OSIFE with OSF’s so-called Information
Program.33
Even more illuminating are the grant descriptions. Most of the grants focused on three areas:
targeted voter mobilization, lobbying/influencing political campaigns, and media operations.34
Other grants did not obviously intend to directly influence election outcomes but in some cases
became tools to that end.
27
OSEPI, “Goals and Strategies for 2014–2017,” 8.
28
29
30
31
32
OSIFE, “List of European Elections 2014 Projects,” 1.
33
OSIFE, “List of European Elections 2014 Projects,” 1.
34
OSIFE, “List of European Elections 2014 Projects.”
17
For example, OSIFE gave a grant to Kieskompas, a Dutch voting advice website, to develop
EUVOX 2014, a free voting advice application that appeared nonpartisan on its face. This
application was designed to give the voter “a nuanced portrayal of his or her distance from all
parties in the political spectrum,” not offer “one-sided voting advice.” However, even assuming
the app was truly nonpartisan, younger voters are far more likely than older voters to turn to an
app for voting advice—a point reinforced by a second grant to Kieskompas to fund a Facebook
marketing campaign to encourage “young people” to use the app.
After reviewing 92 grants, we find most programs that received grants were attempting to target
specific populations, especially “young people” (18–35-year-olds), migrants, and LGBT. In what
appears to be a typical function of age, “young people” in Europe and elsewhere tend to skew
left of the general population and would therefore tend to be more supportive of “open society”
positions. LGBT communities exhibit similar tendencies, and migrants would be expected to
support more open borders. In other words, every OSIFE voter-turnout grant appears intended to
increase voter turnout of populations that would be more supportive of open society positions.
On the other side of the coin are the lobbying of political campaigns and media operations, some
of which may be called “fake news” in today’s parlance. Both prongs intended to alter the public
conversation by “naming and shaming” what OSF deems xenophobic and nationalist rhetoric and
“hate speech” in general.
While Europe certainly has its share of neo-Nazis, fascists, communists, and others who hate
freedom, the OSF uses rather expansive “definitions” of nationalism, xenophobia, and hate
speech. Based on OSF public literature and internal documents, the OSF lexicon broadly
classifies opposition to porous national borders and floods of foreign refugees as xenophobia,
nationalism, and racism. Opposition to EU’s ongoing erosion of national sovereignty receives
similar treatment, painting patriotic pride in one’s nation and euroscepticism with the same brush
as neo-Nazi skinheads. “Hate speech” is a particularly slippery term in Europe given the lack of
First Amendment equivalents.35 And these OSF-funded campaigns and media operations take
place against the historical horrors of the Holocaust and Nazi occupation of most of continental
Europe, which supercharge any charges of nationalism, Nazism, Fascism. Accordingly, a naming
and shaming (i.e., propaganda) campaign against European political parties and candidates who
disagree with OSF positions could be expected to stifle debate and potentially suppress voter
turnout of their supporters.
Because most EU countries elect their parliaments using some form of proportional
representation, even “a small increase in turnout can reduce dramatically the representation that
extremist parties win.”36 Of course, the opposite applies as well: A small increase in votes in the
“open society” direction could elect more MEP’s that support open society objectives.
35
See Noah Feldman, “Free Speech in Europe Isn't What Americans Think,” Bloomberg, March 19, 2017,
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-19/free-speech-in-europe-isn-t-what-americans-think; and
Mike Gonzalez, “Europe’s War on Free Speech,” Heritage Foundation, February 9, 2918,
https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/europes-war-free-speech.
36
18
OSIFE Grants for the 2014 European Elections. The number of grants is impressive. The list
below is only a selection of the grants,37 grouped by program focus, with a brief description for
each grant and its target countries.
Targeted Voter Mobilization
 Europe on Track (EU-wide): mobilize university students.
 LGBT Mob-Watch Italy-Europe 2014 (Italy): mobilize LGBT voters.
 Bite The Ballot (U.K.): register “young people” voters.
 Combattre l'islamophobie politique (fighting political islamophobia) (France): mobilize
Muslim voters.
 Disclosing Hate Speech and Discrimination (Croatia): mobilize ambivalent voters
against “xenophobic, racist, and other radical political options.”
 Vote-Up! (France): mobilize youth voters.
 Ligue des jeunes électeurs (league of young voters) (France): mobilize “young people”
vote.
 Operation Vote (Italy): mobilize EU expats in Italy to vote in Italian elections.
 Höj Rösten (raise your voice) (Sweden): mobilize anti-xenophobic, anti-nationalist vote.
 Mobilizing the Vote Through Social Media in 2014 (France, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Netherlands, U.K.): mobilize voters through social media.
 Vote for the Voiceless: Amplifying the Voices of the Powerless (EU-wide): mobilize
“young people” voters.
 Romanians Vote for Europe (EU-wide): mobilize Roma voters.
 The Raval Project (Spain): mobilize migrant voters.
 It’s About You (Hungary): mobilize LGBT voters.
 Facebook Marketing Campaign for EUVOX 2014 (10 Central European countries):
mobilize “young people” voters.
 I Do Care (Lituania): mobilize “young people” voters.
 Our Elections—Our Europe (Greece, Hungary, Italy, U.K.): mobilize “young people”
voters.
 Piloting Immigrant Citizenship Campaigns Across Europe (11 countries): mobilize
immigrant voters.
 My Vote Matters (U.K.): mobilize migrant-worker voters.
 Vote Europe! (U.K.): mobilize Hungarian expat voters in the U.K.
 Voter mobilization and information campaign (EU-wide): mobilize Czech voters
across EU, especially among “young people.”
 Youth Voice at European Elections (Slovenia): mobilize “young people” voters.
Media Operations
 Open EU 2014 (EU-wide): publish articles against “hate speech” and “intolerant
rhetoric” in local media outlets.
37
OSIFE, “List of European Elections 2014 Projects.”
19
 Radical Democracy for Europe (EU-wide): involve media-makers (e.g., video and
animation artists) in election debate.
Lobbying/Influencing Political Campaigns
 Towards a European Parliament Committed to Transparency and Accountability
(EU-wide): Promote a campaign pledge against “excessive lobbying influence.”
 Per i diritti, contro la xenophobia (campaign for rights, against xenophobia) (Italy):
lobby candidates about the rights of Roma, Sinti, migrants, and detained persons.
 Naming and Shaming Populism in EP Election Campaign (Belgium, Germany,
France, Netherlands): fact-checking, hate-speech monitoring, and public debates to shape
political campaigns.
 Platform for Voice (Greece, Netherlands, U.K.): monitor and micro-target candidates
and parties who use xenophobic speech.
Taken individually or a few at a time, these programs are unthreatening, sometimes even
laudable. Taken together they constitute a massive, covert effort to tilt the makeup of the
European Parliament in a very specific direction.
OSEPI. OSEPI explicitly planned for the joint effort with OSIFE to “reduce the number of
opponents of the open society who get elected” in Europe in 2014.38 In other words, the OSEPI
and OSIFE planned on “directly . . . intervening . . . in opposition to . . . candidate[s] for elective
public office”—which is “absolutely prohibited” under the Internal Revenue Code.39
For its part OSEPI would tackle “pan-European parties” to “influence their manifestos and
campaigning tactics,” employing its so-called Foresight Program to “engage politicians and
campaign managers of mainstream parties,” “highlight dangers in key constituencies,” “develop
social media tools to support election campaigning” and push those tools out to OSF’s grantees,
and “show politicians and officials how to frame open society concerns in ways that majority
populations can identify with.”40
How this worked in practice is much less clear given the limited documents available. OSEPI
certainly influenced the list of OSIFE grants, and many of the grants would appear—at least
indirectly—to facilitate influencing pan-European political parties. The 2017 list of 226 “reliable
allies” suggests its efforts bore fruit. Yet this sort of person-to-person influencing is more
difficult to observe and document than flows of money.
Outstanding Questions
The evidence—what we have been able to gather—is persuasive that the OSF and its European
entities planned and executed an operation to tilt the 2014 European Parliament election in favor
of its objectives. The operation was apparently initiated and directed (on the strategic level) from
38
OSIFE, “List of European Elections 2014 Projects,” 8; also cited in Waserman, “Elections,” 4.
39
U.S. Internal Revenue Service, “The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-
Exempt Organizations,” July 28, 2020, https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-
restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations.
40
20
OSF headquarters in New York City, which likely makes it subject to U.S. law even though the
operation was carried out through OSF subsidiaries in Europe, especially if OSF funneled
501(c)(3) money to its subsidiaries to interfere in the elections. In particular, OSEPI and
OSIFE’s self-described “two-level strategy to reduce the number of opponents”41 seems to
clearly fall outside the legal confines of nonpartisan election activities under U.S. law and likely
the laws of the relevant European countries.
In short, OSF’s projects for the 2014 European elections—as a group and many as individual
projects—appear to have violated U.S. tax law on nonprofits.
OSF’s lack of transparency breeds suspicion, and the internal documents appear to confirm those
suspicions. As usual, answering some questions leads to more questions:
 To what extent did 501(c)(3) money funneled through the OSF to its subsidiaries
violate U.S. law by funding their interventions in the 2014 European Parliament
elections?
 Did the OSF and its subsidiaries continue to interfere in subsequent elections in
Europe, including the European Parliament elections in 2019? Anecdotal evidence
suggests that OSF has continued to heavily influence European and national elections and
votes. For example, Nigel Farage MEP (UK Independence Party) suggests that OSF was
behind a parliamentary investigation into alleged Russian influence behind the BREXIT
vote.42
 Did OSF break the election laws of the EU or of the targeted European countries? In
most EU member states, candidates and political parties can receive both public funding
and donations from private parties, although most member state prohibit corporate and
foreign donors and the restrictions vary widely from state to state.43
 Did the OSF leverage U.S. government funding to magnify its election interference?
Where possible, OSF uses its grants to leverage and attract funding from other sources,
especially the U.S. Agency for International Development.44 Was any U.S. government
funding diverted to supporting OSF’s election interference?
 How effective was the 2014 operation in preventing the election of “xenophobic”
MEPs and assisting the election of OSF allies? OSF’s confidential list of 226 “reliable
allies” out of 751 seats in the European Parliament in 2017 suggests some success—or at
least that the operation was not a bust. But assessing how effective OSF was in altering
41
42
Farage, “The Biggest International Political Collusion in History.”
43
For an overview of election finance laws in the European Unions, see Amsterdam School of Communication
Research, “Party Financing and Referendum Campaigns in EU Member States,” European Parliament, 2015,
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/519217/IPOL_STU(2015)519217_EN.pdf.
44
Judicial Watch, “The Financial and Staffing Nexus Between the Open
Society Foundations and the United States Government,” November 30, 2018,
21
the outcomes of the elections would require looking at elections in multiple member
states.
Prying loose truthful and complete answers to these questions would likely require the full force
of the U.S. government (or other governments), in part because the U.S. government is uniquely
positioned to pressure the OSF to cooperate and answer questions. And the U.S. government
would do well by its allies and friends to investigate OSF’s likely illegal interference in
European elections.
OSF activities also beg the question of whether Congress should require greater transparency of
U.S. nonprofits operating overseas.
The author is grateful to Chris Hull for research support and to CRC intern John Byrne for his
assistance in compiling data for this chapter.
22
Appendix A: Methodology and Sources
A full review of Open Society interventions in elections is beyond the scope of this short report
for two reasons: (1) An examination of the sheer number of interventions in any depth would
require a book if not a multivolume book, and (2) in many cases the needed information is not
publicly available.
Much of the key information on which this report is based came from internal OSF documents
that were leaked on DCLeaks.com, which was ostensibly a front for GRU (Main Intelligence
Directorate) of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. Despite the unsavory provenance
of the OSF documents and other leaked documents, to our knowledge OSF has not disputed the
authenticity of these or other documents leaked on the site. Each document cited in this report
appears internally consistent and consistent with other leaked documents and public OSF
documents that were reviewed.
In the specific case of leaked emails attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell that
were posted on DCLeaks.com—which are unrelated to OSF—Secretary Powell has confirmed
their authenticity.45
Curiously, whoever has since taken over the website to archive it as “part of the historical
record” has chosen to point the banner’s “Learn more” link to the Moscow Project, “an initiative
of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.” The Center for American Progress Action
Fund was established by John Podesta, George Soros, and Morton Halperin (from the Open
Society Institute).46 Less curiously, many of the leaked OSF documents are no longer available
on DCLeaks.com as of July 2020. Questions submitted to the email address provided on the
website have received no response to date.
45
Tom Winter, Andrea Mitchell, and Cassandra Vinograd, “Colin Powell Slammed Trump as ‘National Disgrace,’
Called Clinton ‘Greedy,’ in Hacked Emails,” NBC News, September 14, 2016,
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/colin-powell-calls-trump-national-disgrace-hacked-emails-
n648011.
46
InfluenceWatch, “Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAP Action),”
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-american-progress-cap-action/.
23
Appendix B: OSF Grants for the European Elections 2014 Projects47
Project Countries Project Description Amount
(U.S. Dollars)
Europe on Track EU-wide Mobilize university student voters 15,598
LGBT Mob-Watch Italy- Italy Mobilize LGBT Italian voters 99,690

Europe 2014
Bite The Ballot U.K. Register “young people” voters 138,634
Combattre l'islamophobie France Mobilize Muslim voters 49,882

politique (fighting political
islamophobia)
Disclosing Hate Speech Croatia Mobilize ambivalent voters against 46,840
and Discrimination “xenophobic, racist, and other radical
political options”
Vote-Up! France Mobilize youth voters 19,400
Operation Vote Italy Mobilize EU expats in Italy to vote in 46,090

Italian elections
Höj Rösten (raise your Sweden Mobilize anti-xenophobic, anti- 25,000

voice) nationalist voters
Vote for the Voiceless: EU-Wide Mobilize “young people” voters 49,500
Amplifying the Voices of
the Powerless
Romanians Vote for EU-Wide Mobilize Roma voters 41,250
Europe
The Raval Project Spain Mobilize migrant voters 24,973
It’s About You Hungary Mobilize LGBT voters 39,580
Facebook Marketing 10 Central Mobilize “young people” voters 22,225

Campaign for EUVOX European
2014 countries
I Do Care Lithuania Mobilize “young people” voters 9,723
Our Elections—Our Greece, Hungary, Mobilize “young people” voters 49,663

Europe Italy, U.K.
Piloting Immigrant 11 EU countries Mobilize immigrant voters 80,073
Citizenship Campaigns
Across Europe
Ligue des jeunes électeurs France Mobilize “young people” voters 39,726
(league of young voters)
My Vote Matters U.K. Mobilize migrant-worker voters 12,917
Vote Europe! U.K. Mobilize Hungarian expat voters in U.K. 24,800
Voter mobilization and EU-Wide Mobilize Czech voters across EU, 30,000
information campaign especially among “young people”
Youth Voice at European Slovenia Mobilize “young people” voters 9,840
Elections
47
Open Society Initiative for Europe (OSIFE), “List of European Elections 2014 Projects,” Open Society
Foundations, October 17, 2014, archived at https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/OSIFE-List-of-European-
elections-2014-Projects.pdf. Downloaded from DCLeaks.com.
24
(U.S. Dollars)
Open EU 2014 EU-Wide Publish articles against “hate speech” 130,992
and “intolerant rhetoric” in local outlets
Radical Democracy for EU-Wide Involve media-makers (e.g., video and 261,619
Europe animation artists) in election debate
Towards a European EU-Wide Promote a campaign pledge against 150,000
Parliament Committed to “excessive lobbying influence”
Transparency and
Accountability
Per i diritti, contro la Italy Lobby candidates about the rights of 49,782
xenophobia (campaign for Roma, Sinti, migrants, and detained
rights, against persons
xenophobia)
Naming and Shaming Belgium, Fact-checking, hate-speech monitoring, 49,930
Populism in EP Election Germany, France, and public debates to shape political
Campaign Netherlands campaigns
Platform for Voice Greece, Monitor and micro-target candidates and 49,930
Netherlands, parties who use xenophobic speech
U.K.
Analyzing and reporting Hungary Reports political party activity 35,000
the 2014 European throughout the election
elections and countering
extremist and populist
political voices in
Hungary
Vote for Your Rights Greece Lobby and advocate for LGBTQ 26,000
inclusivity representation
Pas de quartiers pour les France Reports news coverage of all applicable 49,467
clichés ! elections
Women's Shadow Cabinet Hungary Mobilize women involvement in politics 49,515
in Hungary and the election
Combattre l'islamophobie France Mobilize people voters 49,882
politique (fighting political
islamophobia)
EP elections 2014— Hungary Blaming and shaming campaigns 46,840
disclosing hate speech and
discrimination
Campaign “Höj Rösten” - Sweden Mobilize voters 25,000
raise your voice
Mobilizing the vote France, Greece, Mobilize voters 129,484
through social media in Hungary, Italy,
2014 Netherlands,
Ukraine
Open EU 2014—extension EU-wide Reporting news coverage of elections 29,353
Europeans Abroad Vote Global Increase voter participation 20,000

2014 (#EAV2014)
LYV - Comparison of EU-wide Make election manifestos accessible to 27,770
Manifestos Online Tool young voters
Changing the Rules of Belgium, “Ensure that media coverage of the EU 175,576
Finance in Europe is Denmark, France, elections reflects their priority of
Essential for Democracy and Netherlands ‘making finance serve society’”
25
(U.S. Dollars)
European Elections 2014: Romania Testing the effects of the presence of 91,500
Countering the Rise of hate speech on the elections
Hate-Speech
Romanians vote for EU-wide Motivate and educate voters 41,250
Europe
Political Agenda Setting: Hungary Send out positive messages of open 49,843
Reclaiming Democracy society values, while also encouraging
undecided voters to get out and take part
in the elections
Placing anti-racism and Greece Sensitize public opinion on racism and 33,200
antidiscrimination on the identify them in election agendas
pre and post electoral
agenda
ʺIt's about youʺ—LGBT Hungary Monitoring and responding to hate- 39,580
people and their rights in speech incidents during the election
the 2014 elections in campaign
Hungary
Check the facts—Mind the Austria Activities encompass a collection and 49,500
Gap analysis of hate speech in Austrian
election campaigns, workshops to
develop communication materials using
humor and satire, and the production and
dissemination of a video clip entitled
“We check the facts!”
EUVOX 2014 EU-wide Communicate positions of candidates in 117,280
the election
Facebook Marketing Belgium, Extend work of EUVOX 2014 22,225
Campaign for EUVOX Czechoslovakia,
2014 Croatia, Hungary,
Lithuania,
Poland, Slovakia,
Slovenia,
Romania
Dealing with Skepticism: EU-wide Research voter engagement 15,000
Understanding pro- and
anti-EU attitudes of voters
Vote! Vote! Vote! EU-wide Increase voter participation 48,558
WomenZone EU U.K. Support women voter engagement 15,040
Vote Abroad: Mobilizing EU-wide Mobilizing Voters 34,901

Bulgarian Citizens for the
European Elections 2014
Aspire U.K. Mobilize voters 49,810
Defining the stakes of the EU-wide Expose the activities of the far-right 95,228
EP elections political forces
26
(U.S. Dollars)
Empowering voters Austria, Belgium, Mobilize voters 217,249
through VoteMatch Bulgaria,
Europe and Information Czechoslovakia,
Meetings Denmark, Italy,
Latvia,
Netherlands,
Portugal,
Slovakia, Spain
and U.K.
iChange Europe Denmark and Communication platform for voter 24,800
surrounding groups
countries
List of shame—The voice Hungary Advertise xenophobic political actors- 44,664
of the democratic people including those in the election
List of shame—The voice Hungary Advertise xenophobic political actors- 18,400
of the democratic people II including those in the election
(2014)
Workshop for media Spain Report election news 27,049
experts on the link
between news coverage
and populist, xenophobic
and Eurosceptical
movements
Making every voice count: Netherlands Increase participation of 100,000
Elections in the underrepresented groups in pollical
Netherlands 2014 processes
Your Vote, Your Choice: Ireland, Poland, Voter mobilization 10,000
voter mobilization U.K.
campaign before EU
elections in Poland, U.K.
and Ireland
Pinocchio’s Election EU-wide Fact-check election information 10,000
Campaign 2014
Public Loss, Private Gain Netherlands, Italy Policy advocacy 150,000
Bringing Accountability to Latvia Election information communication 65,000

the European Vote in campaign
Latvia: Voters Memory
Project
Bringing Accountability to Latvia Boost the campaign 13,320
the European Vote in
Latvia: Scale Up of Voters
Memory Project
European Parliament Austria, Belgium, Access integrity of elected 122,000
Integrity Watch— Czechoslovakia,
European Elections 2014 Hungary, Croatia,
Italy, Slovenia,
Slovakia
Let’s demand equality! EU-wide Aims to counter the election MEPs from 100,000
Local community populist and far-right parties in Europe
mobilization for a racism-
free European Parliament
27
(U.S. Dollars)
Reaching out to voters EU-wide Develop a voting advice application for 148,500
ahead of the 2014 all 28 EU countries, but rather than
European Parliament looking at election promises expressed
elections (phase 2)
MovEurope2014! Austria, Belgium, Implement the project MovEurope2014!, 49,270
Denmark, Spain, which aims at raising awareness among
France, Hungary, (young) citizens on the upcoming EU
Croatia, Italy, elections
Netherlands,
Slovakia
League of Young Voters II EU-wide Encourage young people to actively 237,000
engage in political processes, focusing
on the 2014 European Parliamentary
Elections
European Election Project: EU-wide Bring digital civil rights issues onto the 17,000
wepromise.eu agenda of the 2014 European Parliament
election campaigns of all political parties
Participatory elections Romania Enable greater public scrutiny of the 17,057
elections and to develop sanctioning
mechanisms of extremist political
messages and debates
Advancing citizenship and France Voter mobilization 23,542
participation to election in
the PACA region, France
Unity is our only option Sweden Political activism regarding election 25,000
2014 Municipal Election France Examine how they are represented and 8,790
Survey—Ile de France received at the next elections
regio
Civil Journalism Hungary Report election news (journalism) 49,500
train your politician! Hungary Voter mobilization 180,000
Fiscal Impact Assessments Hungary Assess campaign financials 23,000

of Political Parties
Running at the 2014
Parliamentary Elections
Joint Civil Action for Fair Italy “The project focuses on the European 26,100
Elections elections period and its immediate
aftermath”
Politeia Romanì—Romanì Italy Raise awareness and improve active 25,000
Citizenship Roma’s participation to political life;
strengthen participation in the upcoming
European elections
Mobilizing MEPs in the EU-wide Strengthen ENAR’s communication and 49,900
European Parliament advocacy skills vis-à-vis the European
Parliament, especially in view of the
upcoming EP election in May 2014
28
(U.S. Dollars)
Minority Women - Equal EU-wide Empower ethnic minority women and 98,465
Votes - Equal Voices. women of migrant background ahead of
Mentoring for Change in the May 2014 European election
view of the 2014 European
elections (follow-up)
HOPE Camp U.K., France, Provide a community organizers training 93,740
Hungary program for local antihate organizations,
Netherlands, especially those wishing to engage in the
Spain 2014 European elections
Campaign to counter the France Engage and counter racist/xenophobic 66,050
growth of xenophobia and elements of the election
far-right groups in 2014
European and Municipal
elections
Intervention program in Spain Reduce racist and xenophobic votes in 80,000
the Catalan municipalities the election
against the racist and
xenophobic discourse in
the upcoming elections
29
The Faces Behind the Migrant Caravans
Jon Rodeback
Summary: Three U.S.-based organizations—Pueblo Sin Fronteras, La Familia Latina Unida,

and the Centro Sin Fronteras—appear to have played key roles in organizing and otherwise
assisting the “caravans” of immigrants. Following the money trail appears to lead back to
George Soros’s well-funded Open Society Foundations, which are trying to advance his Open
Society ideas throughout the world. Much is unknown and uncertain about their involvement, but
it deserves thorough investigation.
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents took Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin, a seven-year-
old Guatemalan girl, and her father, Nery Gilberto Caal Cuz, into custody in “a remote stretch of
the New Mexico desert” around 10 p.m. on December 6, 2018. They were in a group of 163
illegal immigrants who surrendered to U.S. agents that night.
Seven hours later she and her father boarded a bus to the nearest Border Patrol station. She soon
began vomiting and had stopped breathing by the end of the 90-minute drive. Emergency
medical technicians revived her, and she was flown to a hospital in El Paso, Texas, where she
died the following day. The Washington Post reported that she died of dehydration and
exhaustion.1 An autopsy later determined that she died of a rapidly progressing infection that
caused “multiple organ dysfunction and death.”2
Her death was a tragedy—an avoidable tragedy.
Jakelin quickly became the face of the caravans as the media decried her death.
But who should have been the face of the caravans? How and why did Jakelin arrive in the New
Mexico desert? It’s a long way from Guatemala to New Mexico. Who encouraged it? Who
financed the travel? Who facilitated it?
The Organizers
Beyond the politicians and activists flocking to the television cameras to express outrage at the
tragedy, blame the opposition, and deflect personal and legal responsibility for the broken U.S.
immigration system, the names of three organizations kept popping up as the story developed:
Pueblo Sin Fronteras, La Familia Latina Unida, and the Centro Sin Fronteras.3 (There are likely
more organizations that have successfully stayed under the radar.)
1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/7-year-old-migrant-girl-taken-into-border-patrol-
custody-dies-of-dehydration-exhaustion/2018/12/13/8909e356-ff03-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html.
2
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/guatemala-jakelin-caal-maquin-autopsy/index.html.
3
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/who-s-behind-migrant-caravan-drew-trump-s-ire-n862566;
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/pueblo-sin-fronteras/; https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/la-
familia-latina-unida/; and https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/centro-sin-fronteras/.
31
While representatives of Pueblo Sin Fronteras initially denied involvement in the caravan. Denis
Omar Contreras and Rodrigo Abeja, two activists from Pueblo Sin Fronteras were embedded in
the caravan and appear to have played key roles in organizing and leading it.4 NBC News
reported in April 2018 that “volunteers from Pueblos Sin Fronteras and other groups accompany
migrants in a caravan that travels in buses, on trains and on foot.”5
Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders) apparently started as a project of the now defunct
501(c)(4) La Familia Latina Unida.6 It has a history of organizing groups of migrants to travel
from Latin America to the United States and Mexico.7 In 2018, it reportedly organized multiple
caravans—including a “caravan” of more than 1,000 immigrants, which had at least 300
minors—to emigrate to the United States and Mexico, legally or illegally. In this effort, it
worked closely with the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project.8 Reportedly, much of
CARA’s funding comes from individual donations funneled through Freedom for Immigrants, a
501(c)(3) organization that operates in California.9
La Familia Latina Unida (The United Latin Family) was a Chicago-based advocacy group for
illegal immigration formed in 2001. It was founded by Elvira Arellano,10 co-chair of Centro Sin
Fronteras, but has apparently since ceased operations.
The Centro Sin Fronteras (Center Without Borders), a 501(c)(3) activist group that advocates for
illegal immigrants. It was founded in 1987 by Emma Lozano, a pastor at the Lincoln United
Methodist Church.11
All three organizations used the Lincoln United Methodist Church in Chicago as a base of
operations.
The CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project was created in response to the Obama
administration’s 2014 decision to create detention facilities to house illegal immigrants and
asylums seekers from Central America. It is a joint operation of the Catholic Legal Immigration
Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education
and Legal Services, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
At least three of the four members of the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project receive
“significant funding from (or otherwise have financial associations with) the Foundation to
Promote Open Society,” a component of Open Society Foundations.12 The organizations have
4
https://www.jornada.com.mx/ultimas/politica/2018/10/22/caravana-migrante-acuerda-continuar-su-viaje-por-
mexico-9523.html; and http://www.theswcsun.com/border-angels-pueblo-sin-fronteras-link-to-help-asylum-seekers-
find-safety-in-the-u-s/.
5
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/who-s-behind-migrant-caravan-drew-trump-s-ire-n862566.
6
https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-open-border-activists-behind-the-illegal-immigrant-caravans/.
7
https://www.protocolmagazine.org/post/2018/05/12/pueblo-sin-fronteras.
8
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/cara-family-detention-project/.
9
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/en-espanol/sdhoy-pueblo-sin-fronteras-usa-caravanas-para-iluminar-la-
dificil-situacion-de-los-migrantes-pero-ha-fraca-20181206-story.html.
10
https://www.influencewatch.org/person/elvira-arellano/.
11
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/centro-sin-fronteras/.
12
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/cara-family-detention-project/.
32
also been funded by several major left-of-center foundations, including the MacArthur
Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie Corporation of New York.
The Soros Nexus

Enter George Soros, the Hungarian-American billionaire with his own distinct view of how the
world should operate. Growing up in Nazi-occupied Hungary and behind the Iron Curtain, he
developed a hatred for totalitarian governments, bureaucracy, and government control in general.
Along the way to earning his billions he developed his open society philosophy—which is far
George Soros’s Thinking

Over the years, George Soros developed a theory of reflexivity that has guided his investments
and his philanthropy. While studying at the London School of Economics, he was greatly
influenced by philosopher Karl Potter’s idea of the “open society.” The following quotes and
paraphrases highlight some aspects of Soros’s philosophy:
Soros’s theory of reflexivity focuses on “the gap between perception and reality” and
explains why markets can at times “tend toward excesses” rather than equilibrium.
“Each form of social organization was found wanting in something that could be found
only in its opposite: totalitarian society lacked freedom; Open Society lacked stability.”
Freedom and stability have an inverse relationship in politics: “Given our innate bias, a
stable equilibrium between the two is just as unlikely to be attained as a stable
equilibrium in a free market.”
“Permanent and perfect solutions are beyond our reach.”
“Temporary solutions are much better than none at all.”
International capitalism “favors the haves over the have nots.”
International capitalism will collapse because “in its present form [it] has proven itself
inherently unstable because it lacks adequate regulation.”
Chinese “state capitalism” economic model is a novel and perhaps even desirable
approach to economics.
Soros argues, “the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open
and democratic society” and that “the main enemy of the open society,” is no longer
communism but rather capitalism.
Source: InfluenceWatch, “George Soros” https://www.influencewatch.org/person/george-soros/ and “Open
Society Foundations,” https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-foundations/.
33
too involved a topic for discussion here—and has donated most of his wealth (more than $32
billion)13 to his Open Society Foundations (OSF) to advance his open society philosophy.
Soros is not the Bond villain that some critics see—he is too intelligent and too complex a
character to fit into such a limited role. Nor is he the evil capitalist counterrevolutionary that
Vladimir Putin has caricatured,14 nor is he a friend of Western liberal democracy.
Soros and his foundations have clearly been disruptive influences on political systems. Soros is
generally credited with playing a significant role in the “color revolutions” of 2004–2005 that
toppled governments in the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine15 and
threatened neighboring governments, not least the Putin regime in the Russian Federation. OSF
activities have also incurred the wrath of the Hungarian government, which expelled them. More
recently, the network of Open Society organizations has influenced elections throughout Europe.
Open borders (unrestricted immigration) is a key component of George Soros’s open society
philosophy and the Open Society network of nonprofit foundations.
In Europe, Soros and his foundations have effectively sought to erase national borders and
identities and appear to have facilitated the European refugee crisis (2015–2017). He personally
called on the European Union to deal with the crisis by opening its borders even more and going
further into debt to finance a “Marshall Plan for Africa.”16
Interestingly, a leaked internal OSF document17 indicates that OSF’s International Migration
Initiative provided 40 grants totaling more than $8 million to 22 organizations during 2014–
2016. Almost half ($3.7 million) went to organizations working on migrant and refugee issues in
the “Asia/Middle East corridor” and the “Central America/Mexico corridor.” (Note: This
document and the leaked memorandum cited below were released through DC Leaks, which is
accused of being a front for Russian military intelligence. Nevertheless, despite their dubious
provenances, they appear genuine and reliable.)
Closer to his adopted home country, Soros’s involvement in “opposing laws limiting legal and
illegal immigration” began at least as early as 1996, when he provided $50 million to create the
Emma Lazarus Fund.18 The Lazarus Fund, later folded into his OSF network, directly and
indirectly funded many other groups supporting illegal immigration into the U.S. and elsewhere
ever since, according to Rachel Ehrenheld of the American Center for Democracy.19
13
https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/17/soros-transfers-18-billion-to-his-open-society-foundations/; and
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-foundations/.
14
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/i-hold-both-countries-responsible-here-is-the-full-transcript-of-tr.html.
15
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/10/whos-afraid-of-george-soros/.
16
https://dailycaller.com/2018/05/30/george-soros-europe-refugee-crisis-keep-borders-open/.
17
https://archive.org/stream/321383374OpenSocietyFoundationsInternationalMigrationInitiativeMigration
Governan/321383374-Open-Society-Foundations-International-Migration-Initiative-Migration-Governance-and-
Enforcement-Portfolio-Review_djvu.txt.
18
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/01/us/philanthropist-pledges-help-to-immigrants.html.
19
https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/george-soros-agenda-for-drug-legalization-death-and-welfare/#more-
5220; and http://acdemocracy.org/soross-victimhood/.
34
In recent years, OSF has given millions of dollars to other organizations that directly assisted the
caravans with fundraising, legal assistance, and media support.20 These organizations included
the American Constitution Society, Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos (Center
for Legal Action in Human Rights), Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Amnesty International,
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights,
Human Rights First, and Church World Service.
U.S.-based OSF components have money to burn thanks to Soros. A leaked memorandum to the
Open Society U.S. Programs Board dated August 29, 2013, proposed a programmatic budget of
$100 million plus a reserve fund of $25 million.21 It’s good to be a billionaire’s nonprofit.
While the linkages between OSF and Pueblo Sin Fronteras, La Familia Latina Unida, and Centro
Sin Fronteras are still nebulous, using illegal immigrants as pawns to overwhelm national
borders and agitate for open borders is of a piece with Soros’s initiatives to create a global open
society.
“Spontaneous” Migrations
Open Society Foundations are extremely active in Latin America, having spent more than $100
million in 2015–2017, with another $36 million budgeted for 2018, to influence societies,
politics, and economics in the region.22 OSF intervention in Latin America also coincided with
the “pink tide,” a wave of new left-wing governments throughout much of Latin America.
Guatemala, in particular, seems to have attracted OSF’s attention, likely because it elected a
conservative populist president in 2016. In fact, OSF dispersed millions in grants to Guatemala-
based organizations that support various aspects of the Soros philosophy, including open
borders.23 Judicial Watch has identified at least 14 organizations active in Guatemala that
received funding from both OSF and the U.S. government. This raises the question of whether
OSF was using these organizations to redirect U.S. funding toward Soros’s objectives.
It is in this environment that the 2018 caravans assembled. The 2018 caravans were the latest
waves of an ongoing migration that nonprofits have been facilitating for at least 15 years. In
2018, political unrest in Honduras after the rigged presidential election contributed to larger
numbers of Hondurans deciding to migrate.
Despite claims that the caravans were spontaneous migrations, the involvement of U.S. and Latin
American activist organizations suggests otherwise. Referencing a caravan that started in San
Pedro Sula in northern Honduras, Guatemalan officials were more blunt, stating that it was an
“elaborately planned” migration that had been infiltrated by a number of aliens from Special
Interest Countries (countries with ties to terrorism, such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Angola),
20
21
https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/Open-Society-U.S.-Programs-Board-Meeting-September-3-4-2013.pdf.
22
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/664f9d73-bbe3-4de1-a4c7-af205ab75477/open-society-
foundations-2018-budget-overview-20181107.pdf.
23
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/JudicialWatchSpecialReportSorosGT17April2018.pdf.
35
MS-13 gang members, and other criminals. Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales and other
officials explicitly blamed “Leftist organizations” for the caravans.24 The extent to which the
officials’ own political interests colored their statements is unknown.
Indeed, media narratives of desperate migrants—including many women and children—
spontaneously deciding to flee their homes appear naive. Granted, NBC News reported that
members of one caravan in April 2018 were overwhelmingly Honduran and included 400
women and 300 minors.25 Yet in October, Judicial Watch investigators came across “a rowdy
group of about 600 men” marching north near Chiquimula, Guatemalan, seeking jobs in the
United States26—not exactly poster children fleeing unrest at home.
More Questions
Again, the linkages from the caravans back to OSF and Soros are unproven, but there are
credible grounds for suspicions, with the added concern that U.S. government funding was co-
opted for OSF purposes. Especially during the Obama administration there was considerable
overlap between OSF grants and U.S. government funding of Guatemalan organizations.
At the very least, Congress should audit government funding that went to organizations also
funded by the Open Society Foundations to ensure that the U.S. funding was used as intended.
Similarly, the executive branch should investigate whether U.S.-based nonprofits conspired to
break U.S. laws or the laws of any Latin American countries and prosecute any serious
violations.
The author is grateful to Chris Hull, Hayden Ludwig, and the InfluenceWatch staff for their
research that provided much of the foundation for this chapter.
24
25
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/who-s-behind-migrant-caravan-drew-trump-s-ire-n862566.
26
36
About the Authors
Shane Devine is a Research Assistant at Capital Research Center.
Jon Rodeback is Managing Editor and Director of Content at the Capital Research Center.
About the Capital Research Center
The Capital Research Center (CRC) was founded as a watchdog on the nonprofit world. Now in
our fourth decade as a think tank based in Washington, D.C., CRC investigates those trying to
influence the public policy process—organizations, activists, funders, the media, and
policymakers. As America’s investigative think tank, we connect the dots to help the public
understand how special interests are protected.
Today, we study unions, environmentalist groups, and a wide variety of nonprofit and activist
organizations. We also keep an eye on crony capitalists who seek to profit by taking advantage
of government regulations and by getting their hands on taxpayers’ money. Our investigative
researchers work to produce ironclad research developed into effective communications products
deployed for maximum, real-world impact. CRC distributes our research across multiple content
streams, including print (books, reports, and a regular magazine), online on our main website
(CapitalResearch.org) and multiple microsites, traditional media outreach, educational videos
and documentaries, and major social media channels.
We do have a specific point of view. We believe in free markets, Constitutional government, and
individual liberty. But facts are facts, and our journalists and researchers go where the facts lead
them. CRC is tax-exempt and fiercely independent. We perform no contract work, and we accept
no government funds. Our work is supported entirely by individual donors, foundations, and
corporations.
40
1513 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.483.6900 | capitalresearch.org

Mapping Soros'S at Home and Abroad: "Philanthropy"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapping Soros'S at Home and Abroad: "Philanthropy"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapping Soros'S at Home and Abroad: "Philanthropy"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main focus of the document?

What is the main focus of the document?

What organizations does the document discuss?

What organizations does the document discuss?

NOVEMBER 2020

Capital Research Center

Soros Meddling in European Elections ..................................................................................... 11

The Faces Behind the Migrant Caravans ................................................................................. 31

About the Authors....................................................................................................................... 40

About the Capital Research Center .......................................................................................... 40

Millions for Local Elections

The Soros Effect

Tilting the Scales of Justice

Appendix: Soros Local Election Donations13

Aramis Ayala 2016 state attorney Orlando, FL $1,400,000 won14

Open Society Foundations

Election Involvement and Backlash

The Europe Problem

LGBT Mob-Watch Italy- Italy Mobilize LGBT Italian voters 99,690

Combattre l'islamophobie France Mobilize Muslim voters 49,882

Operation Vote Italy Mobilize EU expats in Italy to vote in 46,090

Höj Rösten (raise your Sweden Mobilize anti-xenophobic, anti- 25,000

It’s About You Hungary Mobilize LGBT voters 39,580

Facebook Marketing 10 Central Mobilize “young people” voters 22,225

Our Elections—Our Greece, Hungary, Mobilize “young people” voters 49,663

Vote Europe! U.K. Mobilize Hungarian expat voters in U.K. 24,800

Europeans Abroad Vote Global Increase voter participation 20,000

WomenZone EU U.K. Support women voter engagement 15,040

Vote Abroad: Mobilizing EU-wide Mobilizing Voters 34,901

Bringing Accountability to Latvia Election information communication 65,000

train your politician! Hungary Voter mobilization 180,000

Fiscal Impact Assessments Hungary Assess campaign financials 23,000

Summary: Three U.S.-based organizations—Pueblo Sin Fronteras, La Familia Latina Unida,

The Soros Nexus

George Soros’s Thinking

About the Capital Research Center

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.