In one sense there's a real dynamic being described there, which is in the final analysis the dynamic that exists wherever money exists, in any walk of life, but I think it's important to think from a neutral perspective on how this actually works. The HHS are, of course, only going to give money to orgs whose perspectives and views are broadly in line with their own. In turn, Simarron are only going to employ individuals whose views are compatible with theirs. So there's a compatible perspective in the first place, fairly clearly, and that's always going to be inevitable. Now, the concern over the financial ties implied now amounts to saying that there's an added incentive, perhaps, to retain those common views, and to perhaps move closer together with that alliance of viewpoints. BUT... That's quite right, and it's crucial. To be accurate - as a friend pointed out earlier today - this should read "potential conflicts of interest". It's very important that such things are declared and are transparent. It's also important to always keep in mind that advocacy really doesn't have to be compromised by this. OK, so the emphasis of writing may be affected (though it doesn't have to be), but also, just as the parties move closer to each other in views, and influence each other, so the advocate (Cort) moves closer to having access to the ear of Simarron and the HHS. What he says will very likely have influence on them, just as what they say has influence on him, as they work together as a team and learn from each other. In any potential conflict of interest like this, there are potential threats, and potential opportunities too. So long as the potential conflicts of interest are declared, this is simply the way the world works and it is present in every situation where an individual is employed or paid, in the same way. So IMO there's not much to make a fuss about here, really, just something to bear in mind when assessing what people say.