Higher Education and the Influence of Grant Money

Are promises of grant moneys clouding educational institutions’ integrity?

Why Local Institutions Support Advanced-Nuclear Development

Many educational institutions pursues partnerships that can expand technical programs, attract research grants, and prepare students for emerging careers. Federal and state programs—such as the DOE’s Nuclear Energy University Program and the Wyoming Innovation Partnership—offer millions in grants for colleges that align with advanced-energy manufacturing.

These opportunities can help fund:

new lab or training facilities
faculty research in energy and materials science
scholarships and internships for students in STEM and manufacturing

Economic Promise vs. Community Concerns

While workforce-training and funding potential are significant, residents near the proposed site express concerns about proximity to residential neighborhoods, emergency preparedness, and long-term storage of nuclear materials. They question whether rapid economic development might overshadow discussions about environmental impact and community consent.

Why Bar Nunn, Not Casper?

Industrial siting decisions often weigh zoning flexibility, land cost, permitting timelines, and tax structures. Bar Nunn’s location—close to infrastructure yet outside Casper city limits—can appear advantageous for a private developer.

For colleges and training institutions, proximity to an industrial zone could mean easier collaboration and less urban zoning friction. However, this also concentrates potential risks closer to residential populations.

There is also a political reality: Assuming 45% of a municipal population votes, Bar Nunn presents a minor political obstacle to legislators over a major city like Casper.

Bar Nunn, population ~3,000, represents about 1,350 voters
Casper, with a population of ~60,000, represents about 27,000 voters.

Below are lists of various funding opportunities

Federal:

DOE Office of Nuclear Energy – NEUP (FY2025)
- What it funds: university research, scientific infrastructure, early-career awards, and reactor sharing/outreach.
- Status: FY25 FOAs are active (CINR Phase II, DECP, Scientific Infrastructure). Deadlines vary by track.
DOE – University Nuclear Research Infrastructure Revitalization (FY2025)
- What it funds: revitalize/establish university nuclear R&D facilities and equipment (great for lab build-outs tied to advanced reactor manufacturing).
- Status: FY25 apps closed Feb 26, 2025; awards to be announced spring/summer 2025—watch for the next round.
NRC – University Nuclear Leadership Program (FY2025)
- What it funds: R&D grants (up to ~$500k) plus scholarships/fellowships/faculty development that build nuclear workforce capacity.
- Status: FY25 R&D NOFO posted on Grants.gov; check the PDF for details. Note: NRC posted a memo (Sept 24, 2025) indicating discretionary grants are on pause pending review—so confirm current status before applying.
DOE GAIN (Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear) – Voucher Program
- What it funds: vouchers for companies to use national labs; colleges can partner with voucher awardees (e.g., workforce, testing, sensors/materials).
- Status: FY2025 voucher rounds have been awarding throughout 2025; watch for upcoming windows to join industry teams.

Cross-cutting:

NSF – Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
- What it funds: community-college–centered technician programs (advanced manufacturing, energy tech, mechatronics, etc.), curriculum, equipment, industry partnerships—perfect to pipeline techs for a reactor manufacturing plant.
- Status: Annual deadline first Thursday each October (Oct 2, 2025 for this cycle).
EDA (U.S. Economic Development Administration) – Tech Hubs & other grants
- What it funds: regional workforce, infrastructure, and industry partnerships; some NOFOs limited to designated Tech Hubs, but EDA also posts other open opportunities your college can join with local partners.
- Status: FY25 Tech Hubs NOFO is open to designated hubs; check EDA’s “All Opportunities” page for broader programs your consortium can use.

Wyoming-specific:

Wyoming Business Council – Business Ready Community (BRC) Grants/Loans
- What it funds: publicly owned infrastructure (training centers, lab space, site prep) supporting business growth. Community Readiness is useful before a firm commits; Business Committed once a firm commits. Colleges often partner with local governments on these.
- Status: Active; match requirements updated (e.g., typical 25% match—mix of cash/federal/private).
Wyoming Department of Workforce Services – Workforce Development Training Fund
- What it funds: Apprenticeship Training Grants, Business Training Grants, and Pre-Hire Economic Development Grants to skill up workers for new/expanding industries (ideal if a nuclear manufacturer opens a facility).
- Status: Ongoing programs; check current windows and rules.
Wyoming Innovation Partnership (WIP)
- What it funds/does: statewide initiative connecting UW + community colleges + WBC + DWS; has supported dozens of grants and internships tied to advanced manufacturing and energy. Good umbrella for multi-party proposals.
- Status: Active initiative; state announcements note ongoing projects and private-sector ties.
Wyoming Works (student & program support at community colleges)
- What it funds: targeted adult-learner grants and college program support in high-demand fields (availability varies by institution/year).
- Status: Some colleges show 2025/26 application open; others show funds fully utilized—so check your college’s status locally.

The Power of Money

Below is a summary of several influential (and often-cited) empirical and theoretical studies that examine the power of money (campaign contributions, lobbying, donor behavior) in shaping public policy and political behavior, along with links so you can review them in detail.

Key Studies & Findings

Campaign Contributions and Legislative Behavior

A recent paper examines how concentrated donations (i.e. from fewer, larger donors) correlate with reduced legislative effort in certain domains. It finds that when a member of Congress receives more concentrated support, they are less likely to engage in “costly” legislative behavior (e.g. sponsoring bills, making speeches, attending hearings), especially on redistribution topics like health or welfare.
Another study looks at legislators’ floor speeches (rather than just votes) and finds that donor activity is significantly associated with which topics get discussed and brought to the floor. In effect, money helps shape agenda and attention.

Contributions Facilitate Access

In a randomized field experiment, one study tested whether disclosing that a person is a campaign donor affects the willingness of congressional offices to meet with them. The result: when the prospective attendee was identified as a donor, senior policy staff were 3 to 4 times more likely to give attention and access. This gives direct evidence that donations can buy access, if not always direct policy changes.

The “Death of Top Donors” Natural Experiment

A clever econometric approach studied what happens when top donors to political campaigns die during the election cycle. The findings: candidates lose a measurable edge in election probability (~3 percentage points in some cases) when a major donor passes away. Moreover, legislative behavior shifts: lawmakers become less ideologically distant from the median and sponsor fewer topic-diverse bills. This indicates that donor presence exerts ongoing influence, not just in one election but also in how legislators behave while in office.

Corporate Elites & Committee Assignment Influence

In a longer-term study (1999–2018), researchers tracked contributions from corporate leaders to members of Congress. They found that corporate elites tend to increase donations when a politician is assigned to a committee relevant to their business interests — meaning contributions respond strategically to power opportunities.

Lobbying, Policy Disjunctions & Public Priorities

A study comparing public preferences vs. the activities of Washington lobbyists uncovers stark disparities: issues prioritized by the public often receive less legislative attention, while issues pushed by special interest groups are overemphasized. This suggests that moneyed actors can skew policy priorities away from public demand.
Another examines how lobbying affects the advancement of bills in state legislatures, offering evidence that lobbying does contribute to which bills move forward (versus being stalled) in some contexts.

Theoretical Models of Contributions → Policy Influence

A model in “Electoral and Policy Effects of Campaign Finance Contributions” (Yale / ISPS) frames contributions as having dual influence: (a) helping elect certain candidates, and (b) signaling information to those candidates about preferred policy stances. The model helps explain how money can “buy” influence both by election outcomes and by expectation of alignment.
The “Investment Theory of Party Competition” (Thomas Ferguson) offers a broader conceptual framework: elites and business investors, not average voters, are seen as the main “clients” of political parties. In this theory, parties compete for investment (funding) more than votes in many arenas. While more abstract, it helps explain how moneyed interests steer long-term policy agendas.