The language is incredibly vague. Being active in research doesn't mean your donations come with political strings that force people you donate to to champion y

The language is incredibly vague. Being active in research doesn't mean your donations come with political strings that force people you donate to to champion your causes. Being active in a political organization doesn't mean you're directly funding a team of lobbyists to bribe politicians with fancy dinners and golf and scholarships to their children. It doesn't mean they're making millionares online, funded by their billionare money, to be their mouthpieces on national news the way Fox News has become (NYT Op-Ed might be part of this). "Some of" the 18 individuals means it's unlikely to be a majority (if it was a majority, the NYT would be motivated to use that stronger claim to its benefit). Overall, IMO the claim is so vague, and so without solid, verifiable facts, that it is effectively a smokescreen of pretending-to-be-an-activist.