Quantcast
Channel: The Center for Public Integrity Latest Stories
Viewing all 3299 articles
Browse latest View live

Transparency in Texas: Dallas suburbs lead in attempts to deny public information requests

0
0


Among the state’s biggest cities, several sprawling Dallas-area suburbs tallied the highest rate of requests to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott last year to keep government information secret, according to a recent examination by the Center for Public Integrity.

The probe examined the number of attempts by the 20 largest Texas cities to block public requests for information in 2011, then looked at how those numbers stacked up for each city, according to the rate of requests per 100,000 population. The “winners” were not the state’s biggest cities. McKinney had the highest rate of requests asking that Abbott allow the withholding of documents sought by citizens under the Texas Public Information Act. Next up were McAllen, Garland, Mesquite, Plano and Arlington. Fort Worth was ranked eighth and Dallas ninth, giving the Fort Worth/Dallas metroplex seven of the top 10 in the rankings.

The investigation also looked at the cities’ batting averages in getting their requests approved by Abbott’s office. McKinney won full or partial approval to withhold information in 95 percent of its cases; most of those requests were partially approved, meaning some information did have to be released.

Not all cities tally their batting averages, nor does Abbott’s office, but San Antonio’s results were especially low, with only 49 percent of requests to withhold information approved, according to its available statistics. Fort Worth reported getting 92 percent of its requests to Abbott approved in full or in part in 2011, and Austin reported an approval rate of 91 percent. (Some cities reported referral numbers that differed slightly from those obtained from the attorney general’s office.)

Abbott is involved because, in most cases, Texas law requires that governmental bodies seeking to withhold information ask the attorney general for permission to do so.

McKinney, a suburb of 136,000 located north of Dallas, asked for 441 attorney general rulings in 2011 to permit it to withhold government information. That’s 324 ruling requests per 100,000 population — tops in the state.

By comparison, Houston, the Lone Star State’s largest city, made 882 submissions to Abbott last year to withhold information. That ranked it No. 13 among the largest 20 cities in the state with 41 ruling requests per 100,000 people. The city in the top 20 ranking lowest in attorney general submissions was Grand Prairie, with six requests per 100,000.

“It’s good to know where the frequency of requests are coming from,” said Keith Elkins, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. “The second issue, now, is to find out why.”

For the moment, that answer seems elusive. Neither Elkins nor other Texas open-government watchdogs could offer theories as to why so many of the high-ranking cities were clustered around Dallas. But they did make it clear they weren’t happy with the situation.

“It’s the kind of thing that people should be aware of, and if I were a lawmaker up in the Dallas-Fort Worth area I’d want to know why,” said Michael Schneider, director of newsroom and legal services for the Texas Association of Broadcasters.

“They are the public records, after all, and the public should have access to them,” Schneider said.

Officials in the Dallas-Fort Worth region may need refreshers on open government laws, added Elkins.

“Since this appears to be happening often in one geographical area, we will be more than glad to come to that area and hold training seminars for them,” Elkins said.

Cities say they proceed with caution

Several city officials contacted by the Center for Public Integrity said that in seeking attorney general approval they were trying to guard against disclosing information that they believe is confidential by law.

“Maybe it’s because we try to be careful about what we’re releasing,” said Camelia Taylor, a spokeswoman for the city of Dallas, which in 2011 submitted the highest total number of requests to Abbott of any governmental entity in the state — 1,107 in all. “It’s better to be safe than sorry.”

Abbott, a Republican, has called the city of Dallas a “repeat offender” in limiting access to public records, according to The Dallas Morning News. But when weighted for population, Dallas ranked ninth among the major cities last year, with 90 attorney general requests per 100,000 people, according to the Center’s findings. Dallas officials said they don’t track how many of their requests get approved by Abbott’s office.

Abbott declined to comment on the Center for Public Integrity findings. His office did provide the number of attorney general rulings sought by each city and background on the open records law. Officials there said the attorney general’s office bases its rulings on whether the information requested falls within exceptions that prevent release under the Texas Public Information Act.

Not all of Abbott’s declarations carry the same weight. Informal rulings, which are posted online, are letters relating to the specifics only of an individual case. More than 18,000 of these rulings were issued in 2011. In broader open records “decisions” the attorney general issues formal opinions that can be cited as precedent in other cases.

Public records cases submitted to the attorney general deal with car wrecks, police shootings, child abuse and hostile work environments, among other subjects. Citizens ask for such government records as construction contracts, police reports, videotapes and emails.

“They can be all over the map,” said Tom Kelley, a spokesman for the attorney general.

History

The modern-day Texas Public Information Act, one of the strongest in the nation, was born out of the Sharpstown stock fraud scandal in the early 1970s that drove numerous state politicians from office and resulted in beefed-up open government laws. The Texas Open Records Act was established in 1973 and later became known as the Texas Public Information Act. It states that the law “shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.”

A 50-state report released in March by the State Integrity Investigation — a partnership of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International — found that while Texas’ open records law is fairly strong as written, the way it’s put into practice leaves gaps and sometimes keeps public information secret. The Lone Star State ranked 29th overall in public access to information, but was one of many states to receive a grade of F in that category.

If an attorney general ruling is being sought, officials must ask for that ruling within 10 days of the original information request and must cite exceptions in the law allowing information to be kept confidential, such as pending litigation, personnel information, competitive bidding information, trade secrets or computer infrastructure security. The attorney general’s office then agrees or disagrees. But many government officials routinely wait 10 business days to hand over documents even if they aren’t seeking an attorney general ruling, Elkins noted in an interview for the State Integrity Investigation.

Getting an opinion from the attorney general can take up to 45 days by law, and open government activists contend the process is abused by public officials who simply want to postpone a citizen request.

“It’s the knee-jerk reaction of the governmental entity to delay,” said Texas attorney Laura Prather, who represents news organizations in First Amendment cases and lobbies the Legislature on open government matters. If a local government is losing more than it’s winning with the attorney general, one has to wonder whether the government’s motivation “is solely for the purpose of delay,” Prather said.

Reporter Brian Collister of WOAI television in San Antonio recently sought city records about public money going to a nonprofit group for use at a senior citizens center. The city sought an attorney general’s ruling. Collister said he felt that the city reacted without regard to the specifics of his request because when he asked a city official what information could be deemed confidential, he says he was told, “I don’t know — haven’t looked.” City spokeswoman Di Galvan said Collister made a broad request for “any and all documents” and city officials asked for an attorney general ruling because they believed information such as legal matters, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers and personal family information was confidential. The city and Collister had discussions in a “detailed process” and ultimately agreed on which information was to be released, so the city withdrew the attorney general request, Galvan said.

For the city of McKinney, most submissions to Abbott’s office last year involved police records, though some dealt with general city business, said city spokeswoman Anna Clark.

“Particularly for the police side, an overabundance of caution is definitely practiced,” Clark said, explaining her city’s top ranking based on requests per population.

Clark said the city of McKinney was already looking for ways to handle public information requests more efficiently, and will now consider the Center for Public Integrity’s findings.

“That’s definitely something that we want to review,” Clark said.

The city of McAllen was second among major cities in the frequency of ruling requests to the attorney general with 313 in 2011, or 234 per 100,000 population.

Sixty-one percent of its requests to deny information were granted at least partially by Abbott’s office, according to city statistics.

Following the top five of McKinney, McAllen, Garland, Mesquite and Plano in the rate of requests to Abbott’s office were Arlington, ranked sixth, then Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, Dallas and El Paso.

Ranking 11th through 20th were Lubbock, San Antonio, Houston, Austin, Irving, Amarillo, Brownsville, Laredo, Pasadena and Grand Prairie.

One man’s experience with the law

Raymond Crawford, a leader of Dallas Area Residents for Responsible Drilling, which keeps a watch on natural gas drilling plans in the region, had an up-close look at how the state’s Public Information Act is put into practice. He requested information from the city in 2011 about the impact of hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking” — on the dam at Joe Pool Lake, about 10 miles southwest of Dallas.

City officials sent his request to the attorney general in an effort to withhold information, but later withdrew it. It still took months to obtain the records, Crawford said.

“I didn’t really know the rules of the game, so to speak,” said Crawford, who was using the Public Information Act for the first time. “I didn’t get exactly what I was looking for, but I got something.”

This year Crawford made a second public records request to obtain more information on potential gas drilling and the dam. Although the city released some of the documents initially, it made a submission to the attorney general to withhold other information. Later, the attorney general’s office ordered all the information released, with the possible exception of a cell phone number. Crawford received records revealing that the city “did have a conversation with the Army Corps of Engineers about … seismic activity in drilling, fracking,” he said.

Crawford said he believes city officials sought attorney general rulings to withhold some of the records partly as a “stalling tactic” to postpone releasing documents.

A Dallas spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment on Crawford’s case.

Cities’ volume of requests, AG results vary widely

Some cities stood out for trying to deny information in more than 20 percent of citizen records requests they received overall, a percentage that seemed high to Prather, the open government lawyer. Lubbock sought attorney general rulings for 24 percent of its requests from the public; McKinney in 29 percent; and El Paso in 63 percent. Dallas, by contrast, attempted to deny records in just 5 percent of its 2011 cases.

The top 20 cities varied greatly in how many total requests they said they received from the public in 2011. All but three cities provided their totals or an estimate of them, and of those the numbers ranged from a low of 622 in Lubbock to more than 36,000 in Corpus Christi. Assistant City Attorney Ronald Bounds in Corpus Christi said his city’s number is high because it included requests made to the police department from other governmental bodies, which he called “back counter” requests under the Public Information Act.

Among those tracking their batting average with Abbott’s office, San Antonio got rejected the most, 51 percent of the time, according to city statistics. The figures did not include some possible police department requests from the first three months of 2011, which the city said are no longer accessible.

“We cannot speculate how the [attorney general] makes a determination,” said Galvan, the city spokeswoman, when asked to comment on the low success rate. Galvan said the city takes public information requests seriously and works to respond to them quickly.

Collister, the San Antonio television reporter who makes frequent open records requests, said that in many cases overwhelmed staff members seem to be simply trying to extend their deadline for releasing records.

Other times, he said, “they’re clearly stonewalling.” Another WOAI television reporter, Mireya Villarreal-Gideon, recently asked for city records on the disciplinary action against two city employees found to be misusing suites at the Alamodome sports stadium. The city contends in a letter to Abbott’s office that the information would be “personally and professionally embarrassing” and that it is “of no legitimate concern to the public.” Galvan said it is rare for the city to receive a request for disciplinary action against civilian employees, “so we are asking for a ruling and will release any documents required by law.” The case remains pending.

In Dallas, Taylor said that much of the information the city seeks to withhold pertains to attorney-client privilege or personal data. “Certain information within the open records act we can’t disclose — personal information. Some people are adamant about getting people’s personal information,” she said.

But open records advocates point out that some personal information can be routinely redacted from requested public records without a new attorney general ruling when a “previous determination” has been made that the specific information can be withheld. That information can include government employees’ tax forms, employees’ driver’s license numbers and email addresses for private citizens who communicated with the governmental body.

Even so, disputes continue over such items.

Case in point: Ken Martin, founder and editor of The Austin Bulldog, a small nonprofit news organization, took on the city of Austin last year to force the release of emails from city council members’ private accounts that related to city business.

Though city officials gradually handed over a number of emails to Martin, he said he is continuing to fight in court for clarification on the release of public officials’ private email addresses if the account is used for government business, because state law is unclear on the subject. The attorney general wasn’t asked to weigh in on the Austin case, Martin said. In similar situations he has said the information should be released.

A court fight can be overwhelming for an average person. “It depends on how much money you have to throw into a lawsuit,” said Martin, adding that he has a passionate attorney who does much of his work for The Austin Bulldog for free.

Little recourse if a request is denied

If the attorney general’s office sides with a state or local government entity and says information should be kept secret, the only recourse for a citizen who requested the information is a lawsuit in state court.

Because court battles can be expensive and time-consuming, usually news organizations, not private citizens, wage them, said Elkins of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.

The Austin American-Statesman, Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News sued for access to the detailed travel records of Gov. Rick Perry’s taxpayer-funded security officers after Abbott’s office said summaries of the travel could be released, but that disclosing the actual records could provide too much information about Perry’s travel and jeopardize his safety.

The lawsuit began in 2007 and was resolved only in the past year, with final court rulings that the records can be kept secret.

Prather, the open government attorney, said Texas law doesn’t guarantee a plaintiff will recover attorneys’ fees if he or she wins such a case in court, so finding a lawyer to take an open records case is difficult for a regular citizen. There’s not nearly so heavy a financial burden on a governmental body if it goes to court.

“Obviously, the government already has their lawyers,” she said.

Elkins of the Freedom of Information Foundation said public officials should simply take a more open approach “that the majority of information belongs to the people.”

They should post frequently sought information online, saving everyone time and money, he said, and shouldn’t make it difficult for people to make specific public records requests.

“The more barriers you put up to getting the information, the more chilling effect it has,” Elkins said.

Image by Ray Bodden  Kelley Shannon http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/kelley-shannon http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/17/11501/transparency-texas-dallas-suburbs-lead-attempts-deny-public-information-requests

Christian college asks for refund of donation to super PAC

0
0


A nonprofit college says it has asked for a refund of a $5,000 donation to a conservative super PAC after an inquiry by the Center for Public Integrity.

Colorado Christian University gave the money last month to “Jan PAC,” the super PAC of Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday. The college is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, meaning it is legally prohibited from making political contributions.

After being contacted by the Center on Tuesday, John Andrews, director of the university-affiliated Centennial Institute, said the payment was a bookkeeping error. Andrews said that Jan PAC promised to refund the amount within 24 hours.

This past summer, Brewer spoke at the Western Conservative Summit, hosted by the institute and the university. According to Andrews, the college wanted to thank the governor for her appearance and her representatives requested a donation to the PAC.

“It goes down as the stupidest mistake I’ve made in a while,” Andrews said.

Super PACs were made possible following the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political advertising. Super PACs are banned from coordinating their activities with federal candidates.

FEC records show Brewer's super PAC has paid for a mailing opposing Arizona Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, who is running for a new U.S. House seat in the state. 

Charities run the risk of losing their exempt status if they engage in political campaign activity, according to Marcus Owens, former director of the Exempt Organizations Division at the Internal Revenue Service. More likely, though, the donation would be subject to a 10 percent excise tax.

Owens warned that other types of indirect campaign support, such as providing electronic equipment or access to mailing lists, are also prohibited.

“If it’s more pervasive, then that could conceivably trigger more significant consequences,” he says.

Located in Lakewood, Colo., the small Christian college has deep political connections. Its president, William L. Armstrong, served as a Republican congressman and U.S. Senator from 1973 to 1991.The college is also home to the Centennial Institute, a conservative public policy think tank. 

Andrews was a Republican state senator in Colorado from 1998 to 2005 where he served as senate president. He also worked for the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

On Oct. 12, Jan PAC reported spending about $23,000 on a mailer opposing Sinema, who, if elected, will be the "first openly bisexual member of Congress," according to The Advocate. The mailer calls Sinema, a lawyer and former state legislator, “wrong for America” and accuses her of putting "liberal self-interest" ahead of the public’s, according to a story in the Arizona Republic.

Sinema is running against Republican Vernon Parker in Arizona’s 9th Congressional District, a new seat created thanks to the state’s population growth. It has been targeted heavily by both national parties.

Sinema has been the subject of more than $900,000 in negative ads paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Parker has been hit by more than $440,000 in negative ads paid for by Democratic super PAC House Majority PAC. Sinema has been helped by almost $700,000 in spending by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to CRP.

According to Jan PAC's newly filed documents, in addition to Colorado Christian, another educational organization, the Apollo Group, the parent company of the University of Phoenix, also donated $5,000 during the third quarter. But as a for-profit corporation, the Apollo Group is legally allowed to make donations to super PACs.

Jan PAC did not return request for comment.

This isn’t the first time a 501(c)(3) group has made a donation blunder. Last July, pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore our Future accepted $100,000 from the Rod and Leslie Aycox Foundation. The super PAC returned the donation in February.

John Dunbar contributed to this report.

Arizona Democratic House candidate, Arizona state Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. Andrea Fuller http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/andrea-fuller http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/17/11524/christian-college-asks-refund-donation-super-pac

Daily Disclosure: Tea party PAC turns Democratic attack on its head

0
0


“It’s time to put the adults back in charge,” says the narrator of a new attack ad from a conservative political action committee.

“Sometimes Barack Obama seems to confuse being president with being on spring break,” he continues. “It’s time to retire the beer-summit, spring-break presidency.”

The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama released this new advertisement just after the end second presidential debate Tuesday night, which saw Obama continue his campaign’s theme of painting GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney as out-of-touch and elitist.

The ad takes the out-of-touch theme and turns it against Obama.

The PAC’s ad notes that Obama has played more than 100 rounds of golf during his tenure. It also features clips of his “slow jamming the news” on "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" and other talk show appearances. This is contrasted with criticisms of rising gas prices, unemployment and foreclosures.

The ad also attempts to flip what is considered one of Obama’s biggest victories — the killing of Osama bin Laden — by saying he was on the golf course when the operation got underway, which stretches the truth. Obama was on the golf course until 20 minutes before the operation to take down bin Laden began, according to a book “SEAL Target Geronimo,” published by a former Navy SEAL commander.

During the operation, Obama was gathered with his national security team in the Situation Room, a scene depicted in a famous photo released by the White House.

While the ad attempts to portray Obama as shirking his presidential duties, it is worth noting that as of July, the president had taken 81 vacation days compared to former President George W. Bush’s 243 vacation days at the same point in his presidency, according to CBS White House reporter Mark Knoller.

The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama has spent more than $1.3 million on advertisments known as independent expenditures this election, with nearly all of that money being spent on the presidential contest, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

According to its most recent campaign finance filing with the Federal Election Commission, it has raised about $2.4 million this election cycle, including nearly $287,000 in August. Like other PACs, it is subject to contribution limits that allow individuals to give up to $5,000 per year.

The PAC is run by a handful of conservative activists, including Lloyd Marcus, a conservative columnist and singer-songwriter who wrote a tea party anthem, according to the group's website. Joe Wierzbicki, another tea party activist, is the executive director.

The Center for Media and Democracy has criticized the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama for using its money to pay Wierzbicki’s consulting firm.

An analysis of FEC records by the Center for Public Integrity shows that 38 percent of the money spent by the PAC on independent expenditures this cycle has gone to Russo Marsh & Associates, Wierzbicki’s firm. Another 8 percent went to Wierzbicki himself and Ryan Gill, the vice president of the PAC, mainly for online advertisements. PAC treasurer Kelly Lawler did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wierzbicki and Marcus are also on the board of the PAC of the Tea Party Express, which is known as Our Country Deserves Better. Gill was  previously involved with that PAC, which has spent $443,000 on ads this election.

The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama was established in April 2011 and is based in California. It was heavily involved in the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election. The Center for Media and Democracy filed a complaint with the Wisconsin election board against the PAC for not registering as a political committee in the state and reporting its spending, as required by Wisconsin law. 

In other outside spending news:

House Majority PAC, a super PAC supporting Democrats running for U.S. House, released four new ads:

  • Alzheimers” opposes Republican Rep. Allen West in Florida’s 18th District;
  • What Happened?” opposes Republican Rep. Chip Cravaack in Minnesota’s 8th District;
  • "Venn” opposes Republican Rep. Bob Dold in Illinois’ 10th District;
  • Betrayal” opposes Jackie Walorski, the Republican candidate in Indiana’s 2nd District.

Crossroads GPS, a conservative nonprofit, released ads in five U.S. Senate races:

  • Promotion” opposes Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and cost $1.1 million;
  • Hole” opposes Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and cost $741,000;
  • Fit for a King” opposes former Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent, and cost $323,000;
  • Rubber Stamp Bailout” opposes former North Dakota Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat;
  • Lovers” opposes former Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

SEIU COPE, the political action committee of the Service Employees International Union, released three ads opposing Republicans:

  • Taken” opposes Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who is running for U.S. Senate against Tester;
  • Won’t Be Fighting for Wisconsin Families” opposes former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, a Republican who is running for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin against Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin;
  • Procedure” opposes Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who is running for U.S. House in California’s 52nd District against economist Scott Peters, a Democrat.

    Planned Parenthood Votes, a super PAC, released three new ads: the first opposes GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney; the second opposes Thompson's Senate run in Wisconsin; and the third supports Baldwin, his Democratic opponent.
     
  • Women Vote!, the super PAC of abortions-rights group EMILY’s List, also opposes Thompson with “Gone Bad.” Another new ad, “Wrong Priorities,” oppose Rep. Bobby Schilling, the Republican candidate for U.S. House in Illinois’ 17th District.
     
  • Sack It” from the conservative super PAC American Crossroads, opposes Obama.
     
  • Obama was also hit by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the advocacy arm of the National Rifle Association, in “Fought for It,” and by the conservative nonprofit American Future Fund in “Who’s in Charge?

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

Obama is accused of spending too much time on frivolous activities in a new attack ad from a tea party group. Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/17/11557/daily-disclosure-tea-party-pac-turns-democratic-attack-its-head

Pennsylvania governor benefited from untraceable $1.5 million donation

0
0


At a campaign stop near Philadelphia early in his 2010 bid for governor, Republican Tom Corbett announced “we’ve got to raise money,” that it was the “number-one” priority. In an answer to his prayers, that same July day, a $1.5 million contribution arrived from — Wisconsin?

Officially, the donation was from the Wisconsin affiliate of a D.C.-based political organization called the Republican Governors Association.  

The $1.5 million could not travel directly from the RGA to Corbett. Pennsylvania law bans candidates from accepting corporate money and the RGA accepts millions of dollars from some of the nation’s largest businesses.  

Also, state law requires all non-individuals to establish PACs in Pennsylvania.  

In a single day, the $1.5 million gift traveled from the D.C.-based parent organization to the RGA Wisconsin PAC, to the RGA Pennsylvania PAC and finally to Corbett’s campaign account.

By the time the donation reached Corbett, it was impossible to identify the original source of the cash or whether the donation was permissible under state law.

The well-traveled donation is a prime example of “an elaborate money-laundering scheme, which is legal,” used by the RGA with success in a number of races for governor in 2010, according to Pennsylvania Common Cause Executive Director Barry Kauffman.

The RGA’s funding played a central role in Corbett’s victory. By Election Day he had received a total of $6 million from the RGA — 21 percent of his total fundraising, easily the top donor to the campaign, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Corbett’s campaign office did not return calls for comment for this story.

Corbett’s boosters crushed the competition from the D.C.-based Democratic Governors Association, which mustered $1.9 million for Corbett’s opponent, Dan Onorato, using a series of similar funding maneuvers.

The RGA spending spree did not stop in Pennsylvania.

Haley Barbour, then the governor of Mississippi and chairman of the RGA, cultivated an expansive stable of wealthy donors.

“We can’t wait until 2012 to start taking our country back,” said Barbour in an RGA promotional video released 12 weeks before the landmark 2010 election that saw 37 governors’ seats up for grabs.

Republicans won 23 races to the Democrats’ 13, including the Pennsylvania race that landed Corbett in the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion. By the time elections were over, Republicans had knocked Democrats from 10 seats, and could claim 29 governorships nationwide.

In the third quarter of 2010 alone, the RGA topped its total fundraising for 2006 — the last election with as many contested governors’ seats.  Its total $87 million haul in 2010 also topped the RGA’s total fundraising for the previous three years combined, a Center for Public Integrity review of data from the Center for Responsive Politics reveals.

“It's hard not to look at the numbers coming out of the RGA and not marvel/quake at the Mississippi governor's fundraising capacity,” wrote The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza on the eve of the 2010 vote.

The spending has continued this election season. The D.C.-based organization has kept money flowing by circuitous routes into several states, including North Carolina, Indiana and Wisconsin. Gubernatorial races are being fought in 11 states, eight of which currently have Democratic governors.

Through September, the RGA has spent $40 million of its $43 million haul — nearly doubling the amount raised by the DGA.

It’s legal, trust us

Life would be simpler for the RGA if it could make contributions to gubernatorial candidates directly from its D.C. bank account. But it receives tens of millions of dollars in contributions from corporations — and corporate contributions to candidates are banned in 21 states, including Pennsylvania.

Even though IRS records show direct contributions to candidates from the RGA in many of those states, including Pennsylvania, the group maintains that its activity in 2010 was legal thanks to its use of state-level PACs.

“The RGA worked with both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin campaign finance authorities in 2010 to ensure we were complying with the law,” wrote RGA spokesman Mike Schrimpf in an email, responding to questions posed by the Center.

In the Keystone State, corporations cannot give to candidates, but individuals can make unlimited contributions to both PACs and candidates.

The RGA Pennsylvania PAC, which retained the same D.C. address of its parent organization and listed the same treasurer, filed reports with the state listing contributions from individuals and not corporations.

Six-and seven-figure donations came to the state PAC from some of the RGA’s most loyal contributors, but only 3 percent of the PAC’s total fundraising came from inside the state. They included $1 million from hedge fund managers Paul Singer of New York, Steven Cohen of Connecticut and Ken Griffin and wife Anne from Chicago. Texas home builder Bob Perry gave $500,000.

Those donations alone comprise more than half of the $6 million that went from the RGA to Corbett.

The DGA Pennsylvania PAC also took contributions from a smaller stable of mostly out-of-state donors, including Texas trial lawyer and Democratic mega-donor Steven Mostyn, who gave $400,000. Mostyn did not return numerous calls for comment.

Though these large gifts are permissible under Pennsylvania law, the RGA and DGA confirm that its donors give to a general fund, not to any specific state. The D.C.-based organizations then make the call on whose money is counted toward which race.

The result is a listing of donors to Corbett and Onorato who were not aware their donations were attributed to a specific campaign.

“It is legal,” said Ron Ruman, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of State, “as long as the contribution that went to Pennsylvania was from an individual.”

Still, the practice calls into question the accuracy of the governors associations’ disclosure reports.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Singer, for example, has spent years, and millions of dollars, advocating for the right of same-sex couples to marry. He has a gay son who married in Massachusetts, and The New York Times reports he gave $425,000 to back New York’s gay marriage bill.

Corbett ran as a staunch opponent of gay marriage in the state and has maintained that stance in office.

A spokesman for Singer declined to comment.

How we got here

The RGA took in about $117 million from 2009-2010, according to CRP, while its Democratic counterpart, the DGA, received less than half of that, $55 million.

Like the national political parties, the RGA is a nonprofit political organization, regulated and tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 527. But because the RGA is focused on state, not federal, elections, it is largely unregulated by the Federal Election Commission.

It is, however, required to comply with IRS rules. The agency collects the RGA’s fundraising and spending reports every quarter.

The RGA has argued in court, with some success, that no single state overseer can regulate its activity because its “major purpose” is to influence elections in a variety of states.

“The governors associations are everywhere,” writes Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, of Stetson Law School, but “are regulated almost nowhere.”

The organization has existed in a legal gray area that has spurred investigations and lawsuits in several states since it emerged as a force in state elections.

It’s “subterfuge,” says former FEC official Bob Biersack, now a senior fellow with the Center for Responsive Politics. “They’ve figured out this weird hole in the legal structure.”

The RGA has maneuvered skillfully, winning in court when states have challenged its practices. In the past four years, says Schrimpf, the organization has “in no state had a final judgment issued requiring us to pay a fine.”

Interstate travel?

If the $1.5 million July contribution from the RGA to Corbett via Wisconsin had come by car, it would have traveled 1,700 miles to get to the Republican’s campaign account in Pennsylvania. Based on state disclosure forms, the money appeared to come from one account and pass through two others — all based in the RGA’s Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters in D.C. — before making it to Corbett.

The triple transfer effectively cloaked the original source of the money, thanks to a loophole in Wisconsin disclosure laws.

Wisconsin law only requires the PAC, which lists the RGA’s D.C. address, to report donations from Wisconsin residents. The vast majority of the RGA Wisconsin PAC’s money, however, came from out of state.

In the months ahead of the 2010 primary vote, the RGA Wisconsin PAC reported spending at least $5 million, including the $1.5 million gift that ended up with Corbett. The PAC listed its in-state donors, whose contributions amounted to barely more than $31,000.

“It’s very difficult to get to the bottom of where their money came from,” said Nathan Judnic at the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

When the money arrived in Corbett’s campaign account, no one, including the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, could decipher the source.

The RGA attached a letter to its campaign filings with Pennsylvania in September 2010. While the origin of the $1.5 million Wisconsin donation was not detailed, the RGA assured the state that it was composed of individual, not corporate, donations.

“In the interest of complete transparency,” wrote RGA Counsel Michael Adams, the organization enclosed its full list of individual donors between January and June of that year. The list contained more than $1.5 million in contributions, but did not say explicitly which of those donations made up the $1.5 million that went to Corbett.

The RGA also offered to provide copies of bank statements and cleared checks for verification.

“These contributions are aggregated into personal money-only accounts, and are not commingled with other funds,” wrote Adams.

This appears to contradict statements by RGA spokesman Schrimpf, who told the Center in July that “expenditures come out of our general fund.”

Contacted again for this story, he said explained that “general fund” is not a “legal nor a literal term.” Schrimpf said he uses it to convey that contributions aren’t earmarked for specific states. A “clearer way” would be to say that the group “has a general political budget” but “we segregate personal from corporate dollars.”

The mysterious July gift of $1.5 million from the RGA Wisconsin PAC came to Corbett just in time. The candidate had suffered a month of bad press after criticizing the state’s jobless for relying on unemployment benefits.

The contribution helped launch the Corbett campaign’s first ads and a bus tour, which shifted the focus away from the gaffe. By the end of August, his lead in the polls was again more than 10 points, and he was on the road to victory.

In the three weeks before the vote, the RGA would send about $3.6 million more to Corbett to help seal a victory.

States of play

Pennsylvania is not the only state where the RGA directed its funds.

The RGA was “the Laundromat and the repository for a lot of the money that was spent all over the country in 2010, there’s no question about it,” said Jay Heck, executive director of the good government group Common Cause Wisconsin.

In Iowa, the RGA gave about $1.2 million directly to Terry Branstad, according to data from CRP. As in Pennsylvania, Branstad could not receive corporate money, but could take unlimited sums from individuals. Similar to what it did in Pennsylvania, the RGA fed it through its RGA Iowa PAC, and listed individuals as donors to the PAC.

Also as in Pennsylvania, the RGA Iowa PAC received donations from the RGA’s PAC in Wisconsin totaling $340,000.

In Texas, the RGA gave $3 million directly to Gov. Rick Perry, according to the CRP data. The donation was routed through its PAC in Michigan, apparently in an attempt to comply with a state law banning corporate donations.

On Perry’s campaign filings, the donation appears as a contribution from the RGA Michigan PAC — because PACs can give candidates unlimited funds to candidates in Texas, as long as the money isn’t corporate.

The seed money for the RGA Michigan PAC came again from wealthy individuals, including prolific political donor Texas homebuilder Bob Perry (no relation to Rick). The homebuilding magnate gave the RGA $4 million earlier in 2010.

The RGA also gave contributions in the millions directly to Republican parties in states where corporate contributions to parties are banned. Through its PACs in Michigan and Pennsylvania, it sent $5.3 million to Michigan’s Republican Party and $2.3 million to bolster the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s efforts.

By contrast, the RGA uses a more direct method in states where corporate contributions to candidates are unlimited.

The organization sent roughly $2.5 million directly to Oregon Republican Chris Dudley, according to both data from CRP and state campaign finance reports. Dudley, who lost a close race for governor, reported the donations as coming from the RGA’s “Corporate Unlimited Account” — no pass-through and no state-affiliated PACs were necessary for the corporate cash infusion.

A repeat performance

Republican candidates are leaning heavily on the RGA again as 11 more governors’ races head to the November finish line. The organization continues its maneuvers through state and federal election law, and is on pace to break Barbour’s prodigious 2010 fundraising record.

It continues to tap the deep pockets of hundreds of donors who have pledged at least $25,000 annually as members of the RGA’s Executive Roundtable — led by venture capitalist Fred Malek, who worked in the White House under Presidents Nixon and Ford and served as campaign manager for President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Hundreds of these executives met with Barbour, Malek, American Crossroads strategist Karl Rove and presidential candidate Mitt Romney in August for an Aspen fundraising and strategy session, according to Politico. Republican gubernatorial candidates Rick Hill of Montana and Rob McKenna of Washington were also present.

The RGA is devoting millions to four possible pickups as Democrats leave open governorships in North Carolina, Washington, Montana, and New Hampshire. The RGA has dedicated millions to challenge Democratic incumbents in four additional states, including Missouri and West Virginia.

The RGA also dropped about $8 million to protect Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker from being recalled, and has shored up incumbents in Utah, Puerto Rico and Indiana.

In the Hoosier State the RGA used its RGA Right Direction super PAC to sidestep the state’s corporate ban and give $1 million to candidate Mike Pence while obscuring the original donors.

The RGA has also used the super PAC, registered to make independent expenditures on federal races, to sponsor ads attacking Democratic candidates for governor in West Virginia and Montana. Donors and spending on these ads were not reported to the states in question after they ran. They were finally reported, however, in mid-October filings with the FEC.

Whether the RGA and the DGA are intentionally evading state laws is difficult to say because of the structure of the organizations.

"Their structure provides plausible deniability to underlying donors,” said Stetson’s Torres-Spelliscy. Donors can “pretend” they're only giving to the associations and not influence policy in a particular state, “but only that donor and the staff at the governors association knows if this money is given without strings attached.”

John Dunbar contributed to this report.

Pennsylvania Gov.-elect Republican Tom Corbett celebrates winning the 2010 race against Democrat Dan Onorato. Paul Abowd http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/paul-abowd Alexandra Duszak http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/alexandra-duszak http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11498/pennsylvania-governor-benefited-untraceable-15-million-donation

D.C.-based governors' associations provide back door for corporate donors

0
0


It was no secret in the 2010 race for governor of Pennsylvania that Republican Tom Corbett, the state’s attorney general, was the favorite of the burgeoning natural gas industry.

Corbett collected almost $1.3 million from donors with oil and gas interests, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s No. 2 natural gas producer and the top driller in the lucrative Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania, gave the campaign $5,000 while his company’s political action committee contributed $12,000.

But that’s a small fraction of what Chesapeake gave to Corbett’s top donor.

McClendon’s company gave a little over $300,000 in 2010 to a so-called “527” organization called the Republican Governors Association, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The RGA gave Corbett’s campaign more than $6 million, 21 percent of the $28.7 million he raised, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

The RGA acts as a central depository and distributor of funds from wealthy individuals and corporate treasuries that are used to underwrite governors’ races in the states.

The organization routinely accepts six- and seven-figure contributions and deals out the funds to state candidates and parties. In states like Pennsylvania, where corporate contributions are banned, the group appears to be skirting the law.

But the RGA says it keeps track of where the money comes from and adheres to all state laws and regulations. Corporate and non-corporate funds are segregated. Critics say, however, that such segregation is meaningless thanks to the wide variation in state campaign finance laws.

Nothing, for example, would prevent Chesapeake’s donations to the RGA from being spent on state races that allow corporate contributions — and a like amount from individual donors being shifted to Corbett’s campaign.

Donors can say “they're not trying to influence policy in a particular state,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy of Stetson Law School. “But only that donor and the staff at the governors association know if this money is given without strings attached.”

RGA spokesman Mike Schrimpf said the group “fully complied with all Pennsylvania campaign finance laws” during the 2010 election.

Chesapeake did not respond to a request for comment.

Pennsylvania’s gas boom

Times were tough in Pennsylvania in 2010 — unemployment peaked in February and March at 8.7 percent. Economic issues were at the forefront of the state’s race for governor. But a controversial technology that allowed access to deposits of natural gas deep underground brought with it the promise of new jobs and new revenue for the state.

Hydraulic fracturing involves the pumping of millions of gallons of water into wells to break up layers of shale and release natural gas deposits. Environmentalists say the practice — exempt from portions of the Clean Water Act and other laws — contaminates private wells, lowers property values and ultimately harms communities, not helps them.

During the 2010 campaign, Corbett promised not to impose a gas extraction tax on drillers and said he would eliminate red tape and regulations, said Brian Nutt, his adviser and former campaign manager, in an interview with the Center.

His opponent, Democrat Dan Onorato, then-chief executive of Pittsburgh’s Allegheny County, urged the passage of the same tax Corbett opposed, calling the Republican a representative of Pennsylvania gas drillers instead of Pennsylvanians.

Corbett’s position attracted large contributions from major players in the state’s natural gas industry.

Christine Toretti gave nearly $98,000 to Corbett’s campaign, support that was reported to state campaign regulators. Unlike in federal races, contributions from individuals are not capped.

Toretti is the former chairwoman and CEO of the S.W. Jack Drilling Co., which was the largest privately held, land-based driller in the U.S. She also gave $110,000 in 2009-2010 to the Pennsylvania Republican Party, which was the No. 2 donor to Corbett at $2.1 million.

What wasn’t reported to the state was $50,000 in donations she made to the RGA, according to CRP.

Likewise, Texan Trevor Rees-Jones, founder and chairman of drilling company Chief Oil & Gas, gave Corbett’s campaign $50,000 and the RGA $100,000.

Toretti and Rees-Jones could not be reached for comment.

Donors get say in future development

Some of Corbett’s biggest contributors were awarded spots on his Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission, a group that included executives from Chevron, Exxon Mobil and EQT, each doing business in the Marcellus Shale region.

Terry Pegula gave Corbett $100,000 and wife Kim gave $180,000; Terry sits on the commission. The Pegulas founded East Resources and built it into a major independent natural gas exploration and development company before selling it to Royal Dutch Shell in 2010.

Terry Bossert, a senior executive at Chief Oil & Gas, also has a spot on the commission.

A 527 like the RGA — and its Democratic counterpart, the Democratic Governors Association — is not regulated by the Federal Election Commission and cannot make contributions to federal candidates. It is required to report its donors and expenditures to the IRS.

The DGA gave Onorato $1.9 million out of $25.3 million raised, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Companies with an interest in the development of the natural gas industry in the state, including Chesapeake, gave at least $4 million in corporate treasury funds to the RGA in the 2009-2010 election, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of CRP data.

Among them were Exxon Mobil ($704,900), CONSOL Energy ($338,200), Encana (151,400), the American Natural Gas Alliance ($101,000) and two natural gas-consuming electrical utilities.

To show that none of that corporate money made it into Corbett’s campaign account, the RGA created a political action committee in the state; actually, its address is the same as that of its Washington headquarters.

Pennsylvania contribution records show the PAC listed contributions from 101 individuals — three of them residents of Pennsylvania. One donation was a mysterious $1.5 million transfer from the RGA’s Wisconsin PAC (also housed in Washington).

Donors listed who were contacted by the Center were unaware their money was headed to the Pennsylvania PAC and into Corbett’s campaign account.

The DGA also created a state PAC to make its contributions.

Finding loopholes

At the same time the Pennsylvania PAC was formed, the RGA was spending large sums in states that do not ban corporate contributions. For example, it gave $8.3 million to the Florida Republican Party, which gave $5.2 million to now-Gov. Rick Scott, the Republican winner.

Corporate contributions in Florida are capped at $500 per candidate, but there are no limits on how much corporations can give to parties. Parties can make unlimited contributions to candidates as long as they are earmarked for campaign costs like research, events and staff.

“It’s such a gigantic loophole that you can drive a truck through it,” said Peter Butzin, volunteer state chairman of the Florida chapter of Common Cause.

In some states, there are no corporate limitations. In Virginia in 2009, Republican candidate Bob McDonnell collected nearly $2 million directly from the RGA.

Corbett, as governor, has been a friend to the gas companies.

Act 13, signed into law in February, was a comprehensive update of Pennsylvania’s 28-year-old Oil and Gas Act. Though the law contains updated environmental protections, the measures take a back seat to industry interests, say some anti-drilling activists.

One such group, PennFuture, said the act did not bring in enough money for the state, is weak on environmental safeguards and favors drillers over other businesses.

“Pennsylvania citizens will get little in return,” said Jan Jarrett, then-president of the group, days before Corbett signed the act into law.

The act’s most controversial provisions allowed drilling almost anywhere — even in residential areas.  Since municipalities are required to abide by state law, Act 13 nullified most residential zoning restrictions on drilling. For example, drilling operations were allowed to be located as close as one football field from buildings.

Patrick Henderson, the governor’s energy executive, says Act 13 was aimed at streamlining regulations allowing drillers to start work more quickly.

Since Act 13’s passage, the zoning provisions have been overturned in court.

Time equals money

“[We’re] making sure we’re protecting the environment,” said Nutt, Corbett’s former campaign manager and current adviser, but dealing with unnecessary regulations takes time, and “time means losses of revenue.”

The act does levy an annual impact fee of $5,000 to $60,000 per well on natural gas drillers, but these monies can be used only to offset the impact of drilling — not for the benefit of the state at large.

Pennsylvania’s impact fee brought in more than $200 million in 2011. In Texas, where each unit of natural gas is taxed at 7.5 cents on the dollar, $1.4 billion was raised in 2009.

James Browning, the author of a Common Cause report critical of the industry’s activity in Pennsylvania, said the state is a “worst-case scenario” for natural resource exploitation.

But the Corbett administration defends its practices.

“[Act 13] helped to realize and maximize economic benefits,” Henderson said. “And we think that’s a good thing.”

Paul Abowd contributed to this report.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. CEO Aubrey McClendon. John Dunbar http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/john-dunbar Alexandra Duszak http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/alexandra-duszak http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11503/dc-based-governors-associations-provide-back-door-corporate-donors

Daily Disclosure: Koch-funded groups attack Obama for 'war on coal'

0
0


Secretive nonprofits affiliated with oil and coal companies, including Koch Industries, are hitting Obama hard for what they call his “war on coal.”

Yesterday, for example, the nonprofit American Energy Alliance reported that its new ad “Stand with Coal,” cost more than a half-million dollars and is running for two weeks in the coal-producing states of Ohio and Virginia.

The ad accuses President Barack Obama of wanting to bankrupt the coal industry, alleging that his plan is to “kill affordable energy.”

The American Energy Alliance is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which means its donors remain unknown to the public. Its president, Thomas Pyle, is the former director of federal affairs for Koch Industries and former lobbyist for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. He also served as a policy analyst for Rep. Tom Delay, R-Texas, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The American Energy Alliance is affiliated with the Institute for Energy Research, a free-market energy nonprofit that has received backing from the Koch-run Claude R. Lambe Foundation. Pyle is also the institute’s president.

Robert Bradley, the CEO of the institute called those who are concerned about global warming “climate alarmists” in an op-ed in The Washington Times.

Dustin DeBerry, the institute’s director of donor relations, once worked for the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Board member Wayne Gable the a managing director of federal affairs at Koch Industries and has held leadership positions at Koch-funded nonprofits including Americans for Prosperity, Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

The Institute for Energy Research has also received funding in the past from ExxonMobil, National Public Radio reported in 2008, as well as other foundations affiliated with energy executives.

American Energy Alliance is not the only group to attack Obama’s energy policies, which include investing in renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions, as well as expanding offshore drilling.

American Commitment, a non-disclosing nonprofit led by former Americans for Prosperity staffer Phil Kerpen, is one of the pro-coal leaders this election. It runs WarOnCoal.com and has aired campaign ads urging voters to support coal by voting against Obama and the Democrats running for U.S. Senate in Ohio and Virginia, Sen. Sherrod Brown and former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

One American Commitment radio ad accuses Obama and Brown of “betraying coal,” saying their “war on coal is also a war on jobs.”

Americans for Prosperity, which was founded by David Koch, continued its own pro-coal campaign with an Ohio radio ad last week. The group has conducted several pro-coal rallies and targeted anti-coal policies in other ads, as well.

All three groups, along with a handful of others, oppose  what Americans for Prosperity calls Obama’s “draconian” fuel efficiency standards — requirements that car manufacturers improve gas mileage — and the administration’s commitment to renewing tax credits for wind energy production. (See letter signed by the trio and other conservative groups).

William Koch, the brother of Koch Industries’ Charles and David, owns the energy company Oxbow Carbon and is one of the top donors to super PACs this election. He has contributed $3 million to the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future.

Charles and David, for their part, intend to spend $400 million this election, which may come through nonprofit organizations such as Americans for Prosperity, which do not disclose their donors.

In other outside spending news:

  • Majority PAC, a super PAC backing Senate Democrats, released “Confrontation” opposing Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the state, and “Character,” opposing Rep. Rick Berg, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in North Dakota.
     
  • House Majority PAC, a super PAC backing House Democrats, released “Even Harder,” opposing Republican Rep. Dan Benishek, who is running in Michigan’s 1st District. The super PAC reported spending more than $950,000 on numerous U.S. House races.
     
  • Club for Growth Action, a conservative super PAC, released “Lobster” opposing Rep. Joe Donnelly, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Indiana, and “Wow” opposing former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona.
     
  • Americans for Job Security, a conservative nonprofit, released “Washington Money Tree,” an ad criticizing Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who is running for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin.
     
  • The League of Conservation Voters Inc. and Sierra Club Independent Action co-produced “Imagine,” which supports former Maine Gov. Angus King, an independent, in his bid for U.S. Senate.
     
  • Patriot Majority USA, a liberal nonprofit, reported spending more than $1 million on ads opposing Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., and Georgia state Rep. Lee Anderson, the Republican candidate for U.S. House in Georgia’s 12th District.
     
  • Conservative super PAC American Crossroads reported spending $11.7 million on ads opposing Obama. Its sister nonprofit Crossroads GPS reported spending $2.5 million opposing Obama and Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate in Virginia, Wisconsin and North Dakota.
     
  • The super PAC Planned Parenthood Votes reported spending $944,000 supporting Obama and Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in Wisconsin and Montana.
     
  • The NRA Political Victory Fund reported spending $1.7 million supporting Republicans and opposing Democrats in U.S. Senate races in North Dakota, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin, and supporting Romney and opposing Obama.
     
  • SEIU COPE, the political action committee of the Service Employees International Union, reported spending $2.3 million opposing Romney, Heller and Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

 

Pro-coal nonprofits are pounding Obama with attack ads, including this new one from American Energy Alliance. Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11564/daily-disclosure-koch-funded-groups-attack-obama-war-coal

Center environmental investigations honored nationally

0
0


Three Center for Public Integrity investigations examining environmental and health hazards have been honored in recent weeks with four national reporting prizes.

The investigative reports ranged from a year-long examination into clean air hazards in the U.S. to an exploration of how a rare kidney disease is killing laborers and confounding scientists across continents.

The work honored:

  • Poisoned Places, a 2011 series describing how communities continue to encounter Clean Air Act hazards decades after Congress promised sweeping reforms, won 1st Place in the 2012 Science in Society Journalism Awards. Honored were Center journalists Jim Morris, Chris Hamby, Ronnie Greene, Elizabeth Lucas and Emma Schwartz, along with a National Public Radio team that produced companion reports. Separately, Poisoned Places this week received the Heywood Broun Award of Distinction.
  • Mystery in the Fields, a 3-part series published last month describing how a rare kidney disease is killing laborers from Central American to Sri Lanka, won the Sidney Hillman Foundation Sidney Award for October. Honored were writer Sasha Chavkin, photojournalist Anna Maria Barry-Jester and editor Ronnie Greene.
  • Fueling Fears, a series exploring worker and environmental hazards at America’s aging oil refineries, won the National Press Foundation’s Thomas L. Stokes Award for Best Energy Writing. The Foundation recognized the work of Jim Morris, Chris Hamby and Kimberly Leonard.

 

The Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/center-public-integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11572/center-environmental-investigations-honored-nationally

The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters

0
0


By now most folks know that the U.S. Supreme Court did something that changed how money can be spent in elections and by whom, but what happened and why should you care?

The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson who, with his family, has given about $40 million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the decision?

For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The lower-court case used the Citizens United case as precedent when it said that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional.

And that’s what led to the creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy advertising, most of it negative.

The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are. The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some other nonprofits, like business leagues.

These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was blocked by Republican lawmakers.

The Citizens United decision was surprising given the sensitivity regarding corporate and union money being used to influence a federal election. Congress first banned corporations from funding federal campaigns in 1907 with the Tillman Act. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act extended the ban to labor unions. But the laws were weak and tough to enforce.

It wasn’t until 1971 that Congress got serious and passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which required the full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. It limited spending on media advertisements. But that portion of the law was ruled unconstitutional — and that actually opened the door for the Citizens United decision.

Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation.

So far in the 2011-2012 election cycle, super PACs have spent $378 million, while non-disclosing nonprofits have spent $171 million, at times praising, but mostly badmouthing candidates, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

 


Stealth spending on the rise as 2012 election approaches

0
0


If there was a silver lining for open-government advocates in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that unleashed corporate and union spending on elections, it was that the identity of those who pay for all those annoying ads would be made public on a regular basis.

It hasn’t quite worked out that way.

Since Labor Day, spending by outside groups taking advantage of the high court’s Citizens United decision totaled a little more than $229 million, including unions. Forty-four percent of the total — $100 million — has come from non-disclosing, nonprofit corporations.

The clearest example comes from the top two spenders, two organizations that share the same post office box in Washington, D.C.

American Crossroads, the so-called super PAC co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove, has spent $33.1 million since Labor Day, according to Federal Election Commission records. Its top donor is Texas billionaire and businessman Harold Simmons, who along with his company, Contran Corp., has given $13 million to the group so far this election, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of Federal Election Commission records.

Second is Crossroads GPS, the nonprofit sister organization of American Crossroads, also co-founded by Karl Rove, which has spent $30.3 million. Its top donor is — unknown. Crossroads GPS was organized as a nonprofit, “social welfare” organization. The Internal Revenue Service does not require it to disclose its donors to the public, nor does the FEC.

Both groups, which back Republicans, can pay for the same type of “express advocacy” ads, urging people not to cast a ballot in favor of a particular candidate — often in not-very-friendly ways.

Rounding out the top five spenders are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also a nonprofit, at No. 3 ($16 million); Priorities USA Action, at No. 4 (which favors President Barack Obama, $15.3 million); and House Majority PAC at No. 5 (which favors House Democratic candidates, $9.2 million).

Unions can make large donations to super PACs and direct expenditures from their treasuries thanks to Citizens United. So far, the direct spending totals a little more than $4 million.

For the presidential race, independent expenditures since Labor Day total $121 million. Twenty-seven percent was aimed at helping Obama; 71 percent at helping Romney.

If it seems ads are mostly negative, it is not your imagination. Eighty-eight percent of independent campaign spending went to negative ads, mailings and other materials.

Even super PACs, which do reveal their donors, at times report contributors that — you guessed it — don’t reveal their donors.

The Now or Never super PAC, which shifted from backing unsuccessful tea party and Sarah Palin-backed candidate Sarah Steelman for Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Missouri, is running ads opposing Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth, who is running as a Democrat in Illinois’ 8th Congressional District.

The super PAC reported contributions of $2.3 million in quarterly filings with the FEC released Monday. Of the total, $2 million came from Americans for Limited Government — a nonprofit that doesn’t reveal its donors.

Rachael Marcus contributed to this report.

Separated by law: Families torn apart by 1996 immigration measure

0
0


In a nation built by immigrants, they thought they could pursue their American Dream — with loved ones at their side. Instead, they're living an American nightmare that's tearing families apart and forcing Americans into exile. 

Chris Xitco, a native of Los Angeles, never imagined that after marrying his wife Delia in 2002 and trying to legalize her, she'd end up barred by U.S. officials for life, with no pardon even possible for 10 years. She now lives south of Tijuana, Mexico, alone with the couple’s two small children.

T.J. Barbour, a native of San Diego, has been struggling every day to care for a 10-year-old son, since his wife Maythe was deported and then barred from the United States in 2011 for what could be 20 years.

In central North Carolina, Anita Mann Perez has been financially ruined trying to raise three small children since her husband Jorge was exiled for 10 years in 2007. Now she's moved to Mexico to join him. 

Across the country, as illegal immigrants have settled into communities, they have met Americans, fallen in love, married and had children. But when Americans have voluntarily stepped up to sponsor their spouses for legal residency, believing this was the right thing to do, they’ve been shocked to discover their citizenship does not trump mandatory penalties the spouses must face. Far from it.

These penalties, which “bar” the spouses from the U.S. for years at a time, were instituted by Congress in 1996 specifically to punish immigration-related offenses.

Since then, the law governing such situations — and the way it’s applied —has taken a number of twists and turns. Over that time period, waivers have helped many people. And in January, President Obama announced a plan to tweak the procedure by which citizens’ spouses apply for residency, a change that could eventually spare many more families from long, painful separations. But the change isn’t likely to go into effect this year, and it isn’t retroactive. And while thousands stand to benefit, thousands of others simply won’t qualify for easier access to “hardship waivers” that the president proposes — and will be trapped by the small print of the 1996 law. (SEE SIDEBAR)

Under that law, if applicants for legal residency crossed the border once, and were “unlawfully present” for more than one year, they must be issued a 10-year bar from living in the United States. They can then apply for a hardship waiver to try to return sooner and take up legal residency. If applicants have a history of entering the United States multiple times illegally, they can be barred for life — and can only pursue pardons if they remain outside the United States for five, usually 10, sometimes 20 years. Being married to an American citizen may not help at all.

To complete their application process, people  who entered the United States illegally must go to their final interview at a U.S. consulate back in their home countries. Often U.S. consular officials must simply deliver the bad news immediately. And that’s that. The bar has begun, and the applicant cannot return.

Oklahoma lawyer Douglas Stump, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said for every 100 people who approach him to try to legalize a family member, more than half involve undocumented people whose immigration violations would qualify them for the hefty penalties mandated by the 1996 law.

The penalties emerged from Republican leaders in a get-tough Congress. They argued the country had become too easy on illegal immigrants by allowing some with family ties to pay fees, show they had no disqualifying police record and adjust their status without having to leave the country. Congress increased from $650 to $1,000 the fine such immigrants would have to pay. But that wasn’t enough, some members said. Such immigrants should also leave to receive the new bars on re-entering for a certain period.

By getting tougher on these undocumented people, supporters of bars reasoned, others would see that it would never be easy for them to transition from illegal to legal status, even by marriage.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican of Orange County, California, defended the tougher rules during a 2001 congressional debate over their merits — and whether to extend a pre-1996 statute that was allowing some immigrants to still adjust their status inside the U.S. 

“Yes, there are some heart-tearing cases here,” Rohrabacher said. “Yes, some people who are in this country end up marrying American citizens, and the American citizens find that their loved one is going to have to go back to their home country [for the duration of a bar] in order to be here legally, because they have married an illegal alien.”

“I am sorry,” he said. “If someone is here illegally … then they should go back to their home country to regularize their status.”

Thousands?

Hard numbers are impossible to come by, but the Department of State’s records of immigrant visa rejections suggest that thousands of bars have been handed down over the last decade.

Records don’t single out which of these applicants are spouses of U.S. citizens. Some could be other sorts of relatives. Typically, though, department officials say that spouses are one of the largest groups applying for residency visas globally.

Between 2000 and 2011, visa applicants were able to overcome their disqualification due to illegal presence for more than one year — which carries a 10-year bar — about 89,000 times. However, immigrant visas were denied more than 68,000 times because applicants were unable to get their disqualification for illegal presence waived. The numbers could reflect some volume of repeat attempts by the same people.

During the same period, there were almost 19,000 disqualifications of visa applications for the offense of being “unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.” Only five such cases were reversed. The penalty is a lifetime bar, with the possibility of being able to seek a pardon, but, ordinarily, only after 10 years.

There have been thousands of visa rejections for other immigration-related offenses, including “misrepresentation” of facts during the application process. 

It’s also hard to know how many spouses of Americans and parents of American children could feel threatened by potential bars, and have thus decided to continue to remain undocumented. That means families are living with the risk of spouses being discovered and deported rather than trying to apply for residency.

The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research center in Washington, D.C., estimated last year that more than 16 million people in the United States are in families with at least one undocumented member.

About 9 million of these people are in families that also include at least one U.S. citizen child. Other adults in the families could be citizens, or they could be legal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants, Pew also estimates, have been in the United States for 10 years or more — long enough to start a family.

“We are talking mostly about younger families with small children,” said Randall Emery, one of the founders of American Families United, a national network of citizens whose loved ones have been barred — or would be.

Emery’s group applauded Obama’s easing of the hardship waiver rules (see "A dizzying series of legal twists and turns"), which could benefit some of its members. Eventually. But the proposed change is not bringing any relief to Americans who are already separated from husbands, wives and children.

The Xitco family

Chris Xitco, 49, says that with everything he and his wife have gone through, life feels like it’s “her and me, against the world.”

They have two kids, Elisa, 6, and Itzamal, a 1-year-old son.

Chris met Delia, now in her mid-thirties, more than a dozen years ago on the job at a produce-packing company in the Los Angeles area. Chris is not Hispanic, but he spoke some Spanish because he grew up with Mexican workers on a family farm, and he used to surf south of Tijuana as a youth.

The two began to date, Delia taking him to see Latin music concerts. He took her to see him surf.

Delia originally hailed from Nayarit, a state in western Mexico. Chris knew that she had crossed the border illegally, that she’d been caught once in the Arizona desert, detained overnight and then tried again to enter and was successful.

But he knew so many other people who had done the same thing, who were desperate to work. The border, he said, “was a joke for so long.” And he didn’t think Delia’s offense was unforgivable. He knew it was rare to impossible for Mexicans to get work visas, and she came from a poor part of Mexico where jobs were scarce and many had already blazed the familiar trail north.

When the two decided to marry in 2002, Chris was 38, and he and Delia were eager to get settled and have children. Chris said he knew he had to take care of business by legalizing Delia, but he “thought it was a lock because I was a citizen.”

He was so naïve, he said, that he took Delia right into the immigration office of a Los Angeles federal building. He approached a security guard and told him the couple was there because he wanted to “fix” his wife’s papers.

“He put his arm around my shoulder, did a U-turn,” Chris remembered, and ushered Chris and Delia toward the door. The guard did him a big favor, Chris said he realized later. Technically, his wife could have been taken into custody right then and there. The guard gave Chris the address of a website to consult as they were walking out.

In 2003, Chris contacted an attorney, who explained how the law had changed, and suggested that Chris and Delia save their money and hope that Congress would change the laws again.

But Chris returned to the lawyer in 2004. The lawyer did a Justice Department background check on Delia and found no record of deportation. Perhaps when she was quickly turned back at the border once, the lawyer reasoned, it didn’t count.

So they started the application process.

Delia was pregnant when they got word she had an interview appointment, in Juarez, Mexico. The couple didn’t want to risk any chance that the baby would be born in Mexico, fearing that it might jeopardize Delia’s application. They asked for a delay.

Delia and Chris finally went to Mexico for her interview in October 2007, when Elisa was 16 months old. Chris’ parents were thrilled with the new grandchild; Delia’s English was improving and bonds with Chris’s family were growing tighter.

Chris, as spouse, wasn’t allowed into the interview, which is standard procedure.

When Delia emerged and told him she’d been barred, Chris said it really hit him: there would be no special treatment simply because Chris was an American citizen. And his daughter’s birth didn’t change the situation.

“They don’t seem to think, well, what about the daughter? She doesn’t count?” he says. “The system doesn’t have a heart. And it doesn’t have a brain.”

Delia took Elisa and flew to Nayarit. Chris went to Los Angeles. In December 2007 they met in Juarez for a new interview, a hardship waiver interview with the consular office there. Chris argued that he'd be crushed to lose baby Elisa for 10 years, but couldn't fathom separating her from Delia. But that argument didn’t work. Chris failed to prove that he, as the American citizen spouse, was suffering extraordinary hardship beyond the pain expected by separation.

From there, things went downhill. Delia returned to Nayarit with Elisa. Chris found himself trying to explain over and over to family and friends what the rules were. He flew to Nayarit every few months, but over time, his daughter failed to recognize him, which broke his heart. He called local congressional representatives, whose staff expressed sympathy but urged him to get a different lawyer.

The Xitcos started the whole residency application process again. This time Chris wanted to be better prepared for what he thought would be a subsequent waiver interview. He amassed letters of support from family, a psychiatrist’s evaluation, copies of anti-depressant prescriptions, his Army discharge records. He paid thousands of dollars more in fees, for Delia’s medical exams, vaccinations and other requisites and travel.

At 10:15 a.m. on April 7, 2010, Delia went to her appointment in Juarez. Chris waited with the baby outside. Delia emerged from the consulate and told Chris she was not eligible for a waiver and would have to ask for a pardon in November 2017.

A records check, she learned, had turned up a report that she had entered the United States after being caught once. It was the first time U.S. consular officials had said anything about her being disqualified because she had crossed more than once.

Devastated, Chris moved Delia up to Rosarito, a beach town 30 miles south of Tijuana that’s developing a community of deportees and barred family members of U.S. citizens.

He has settled into a grueling routine of commuting, but seethes when he discusses what happened.

He is now “couch surfing,” sleeping at work or friends’ places. For more than a year, he hasn’t been able to afford his own home in the Los Angeles area. He’s still working in the produce-distribution business. He manages to beg off work a bit early every Friday and drive down to Rosarito, which can mean brutal, three- or four-hour slogs through bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Returning to the United States at weekend’s end is even worse. Chris is perpetually exhausted because on Mondays he has to sit in three hours of traffic just to get a few miles over the border, and then drive on to Los Angeles, another three hours.

Every penny he makes and nearly all his energy goes into managing this separation, Chris said. He can’t get a job in Tijuana, he said, because the earnings are too low, and he feels he’s too old.

Chris is paying for a private school in Rosarito for Elisa, but the instruction is in Spanish, not English. Chris tries to engage her in English, but she answers in Spanish. She can sing a version of the ABC song with a heavy Spanish accent. She can say “see you later,” and “bye” and she understands what the Fourth of July is about.

Chris is worried how she’ll fare later if and when she enters school in the United States. She’ll be ready for junior high by then.

He said his greatest fear, being three to four hours away, is that he won’t be able to protect his family. The house Delia and the children are in has high walls, but thieves broke in once already and looted it. It’s in an area with a lot of transients, people who don’t know one another, and Delia feels she can no longer go out for very long periods of time.

“I don’t trust the neighbors,” she said. She has no friends nearby, nor relatives, and restricts her socializing to other mothers at school.

Still, having the family in Rosarito is better than in Nayarit, Chris said. Delia and Elisa had to hit the floor in a shopping center during a gang shootout there.

Chris said he doesn’t think illegal immigrants shouldn’t be penalty-free if they marry and their spouses want to legalize them. But he thinks a decade-long bar is cruel not just to Delia, but to him and his children.

“She didn’t sell any drugs. She doesn’t know anything about gang signs,” he says. “Crossing the border to look for a job isn’t that much of a crime to me.”

The Barbour family

T.J. Barbour, a software engineer in his early thirties, knows what he is doing every Wednesday night and every weekend.

The San Diego resident leaves his Rancho Bernardo neighborhood, packs his car with household supplies he can buy for less in the United States, like toilet paper, and drives over the San Diego-Tijuana border on those Wednesdays through heavy traffic to see his wife. Their son Lucas, 10, goes with him. They come back before dawn Thursday morning. And then they return on the weekends, so the boy can spend time with his mother, who lives in a small apartment just south of Tijuana.

After getting a late start one recent Saturday, T.J. pulls up to mom’s place at night, with Lucas asleep in the back. Maythe reaches in and embraces him, and helps him stagger into the house while she asks him, in English, how his American grandparents are doing.

On Monday morning, before dawn, Maythe helps Lucas into the car so he can sleep a bit more — he has to go to school — and T.J. checks underneath the vehicle to make sure drug smugglers haven’t attached a box to the bottom of the car, a popular way to get goods across that can later be retrieved.

Maythe drives the car close to the border crossing so son and husband can get some sleep and then she takes two buses home. It is a grueling routine. She cries bitterly in relating how — despite being married to T.J. — she was deported from the United States and told she would remain in Mexico for 20 years before being able to join her family again.

“I recognize that one commits an error by crossing [the border],” Maythe said in Spanish. “But sometimes necessity makes you do things.”

T.J. was just out of high school in San Diego when he met Maythe, at Burger King, about a dozen years ago. He tried out some rudimentary Spanish on his pretty co-worker, and it clicked. “I definitely saw something special about her,” he says.

Maythe was reluctant to get involved because she already had a young daughter to support, and was struggling to pay off medical bills in Mexico. She was also trying to get away from a threatening experience back in her home in Mexico’s southern Guerrero state, a history T.J. says was so traumatic he won’t discuss it.

Little by little, the two fell in love. “I have no doubt we were meant to be together,” T.J. said. He admired her hard work, and her devotion to her daughter, whom he adopted and is now also sponsoring for legal status — a process he hopes will be more forgiving since she grew up in San Diego.

T.J. knew that Maythe had tried to get over the border twice, and was caught the first time. A smuggler told her to sit in a car and not say anything if a guard asked for her papers. She and others were caught. The smuggler then put her into the trunk of a car with tiny holes in it to let in air. She made it that time, and subsequently found jobs at an Olive Garden restaurant and Burger King, among others.

“Like most people,” T.J. said, “I was under the impression that, well, if she gets married to me, we’re set.”

They consulted with a lawyer before they married in 2002, and T.J. was shocked to learn that it wasn’t that easy. The lawyer explained the complexities of the law, and what they were in for, but thought Maythe might get a waiver. The couple decided to go slow, out of fear.

Eventually, a paralegal reviewing their case told them that Maythe’s previous deportation would disqualify her from a hardship waiver and they’d be better off hoping Congress made changes.

“It was basically back to living in the shadows,” T.J. said.

Maythe gave birth to Lucas, and T.J. graduated from college and started his career as a software engineer. He began a graduate program. They owned a home and Maythe “did all those mom things,” taking Lucas to school, participating in his class activities and cooking tasty meals.

It all fell apart when Maythe was stopped in 2010 by a police officer in the San Diego community of Escondido who wondered why she was driving slowly. She had been looking for a friend’s address. The officer called immigration agents.

T.J. said he had contacted the office of his congressman, Rep. Brian Bilbray, a Republican known for tough talk on illegal immigration. T.J says an office staffer assured him that Maythe would probably not be deported.

T.J. said an immigration agent suggested to him, informally, that the couple accept Maythe being deported, and that maybe she could come back soon with a waiver. T.J. kept thinking he had additional rights as a citizen, and refused. He decided to fight to keep Maythe, and filed a petition in a last-ditch bid to get her asylum based on trauma she’d been through in the past.

While waiting for a hearing, Maythe was confined to a detention center in San Diego County for five months. She didn’t see her children once because she and T.J. agreed it would be horrible for them to see her there.

When Maythe had her asylum hearing, T.J. packed the immigration court with co-workers, family and friends. Lucas sat with him in the front.

“I always thought, ‘Look, they’ve got to be going after criminals, after the narco-traffickers and everything,’ ” T.J. said. “What are they going to do with a little housewife?”

The judge denied Maythe’s bid for asylum, which would have let her remain in the United States. The judge, T.J. said, rushed from the court with no explanation. He said lawyers told him that judges fear that if they give too many Mexicans asylum, too many more will ask for it.

Maythe was deported in early 2011. Agents left her in Tijuana, she said, with nothing but the clothes she was wearing when detained and a cell phone with a dead battery. She had to beg for people to let her call T.J.

Because of her two deportations, T.J. said he’s been advised, she will be barred from trying to obtain legal residency and re-entering the United States for 20 years.

Maythe spent her first nights alone in Tijuana standing on a border bridge, she said, crying so hard a guard told her he was concerned she would kill herself.

Her health deteriorated, and the whole family began to put on pounds. Maythe got a job that paid about $10 a day to hand out fliers for business. She began to turn to her parents’ Jehovah’s Witness faith. She found a congregation in Tijuana, and T.J. joined as well. Now when he visits they spend part of that time dressed nicely and making rounds to spread the faith.                                                                                 

T.J. is concerned about the long-term impact of the separation from his mother. Both parents worry about the draining physical and psychological impact of Lucas being packed into the car and spending hours inching through traffic as they cross the border every weekend.

Lucas can’t really participate in sports or weekend activities now, T.J. says, and he’s so busy balancing job and home that all he can do is throw together a quick dinner for his son and keep the house from being a mess.

Maythe says it wouldn’t be right to pull Lucas, who doesn’t speak Spanish, out of school and move him to Mexico to be with her. He doesn’t like the food in Mexico, she said. He doesn’t feel comfortable. “His life is there, everything he knows,” she says. “I still feel he loves me. He makes an effort to come, and he says he misses me. But I am not a part of his total life now.”

Mandatory bars, T.J. says, don’t fit the crime, and they’ve stripped immigration judges and other officials of the discretion to consider the entirety of a person’s life and family situation.

“I want people to know that, hey, we U.S. citizens are really hurting here, and our children are,” T.J. says. “The family ramifications of this have to be taken into account. We need to deal with the fact that people have become a part of the fabric of our society.”

The Mann Perez Family

It took 10 minutes for the consular officer in Juarez, Mexico, to look through Jorge Perez’s application packet for residency and tell him he was barred for 10 years from re-entering the United States, starting that very day in 2007.

“He said, ‘Ok, that’s it. You can go now,’ ” Perez, reached by phone in Mexico, remembered.

When Jorge, now 42, told wife Anita what had happened, her world collapsed.

“When I tell people what I’ve gone through, they’re shocked. They think it’s crazy that an American citizen would have to live in another country for 10 years to be with their spouse,” Anita said. She grew up in Graham, North Carolina, not far from Durham, and most of her close-knit family still lives there.

Since Jorge’s barring, she’s lost the home they were buying, spent all her retirement savings and had to move in with her parents.

This month, Anita, 34, quit a job she enjoyed at a local hospital as an aide in a clinic and packed up some belongings. She moved with the couple’s 7-year-old twins and nearly 2-year-old daughter to join Jorge again. This will be Anita’s third attempt to live in Jorge’s remote town near the Guatemalan border. But she knows it will not be easy.

“At least [in Graham] I know my girls get three square meals and a snack,” she said. Jorge has been trying to get by growing tomatoes. He built a house there with money he saved working in the States, but what he and Anita really wanted to do was build a life for themselves in Graham.

Anita met Jorge at a restaurant in Graham, where he had arrived in 2000 after getting across the border on foot, with a smuggler. Anita had studied Spanish in high school, and he was learning English. She kept going back to the restaurant and he kept talking to her.

They dated, and in 2002 they were married. It was the kind of cross-cultural union that was becoming more common in Graham, where Mexican workers have been drawn to work in roofing and in poultry-packing factories.

Jorge, who learned English quite well, blended in with the family and built a roof for her parents’ house. Anita’s mother still talks about what a good son-in-law he was. “Some people can walk off and leave their children. They don’t care,“ said Nancy Mann, Anita’s mother. “But their daddy does care.”

Shortly after they married, Anita hastened to file in 2003 to make Jorge legal. “He didn’t even want me to do it,” she said. “He didn’t want anybody to think he got married to me just to get papers.”

In 2004, the couple received confirmation from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that Jorge did qualify to continue to pursue legal status based on his marriage to her. They took that acknowledgement as a good sign and thought they were on their way to Jorge getting a green card. The next step was to file paperwork with the State Department, which is tasked with issuing the visas following an interview in Mexico.

The couple’s twins, Fabiola and Fatima, were born in 2005, and all seemed well. But shortly thereafter a deadly hurricane struck Central America and southern Mexico, and Jorge lost all contact with his parents. He told Anita he had to go south to check on them. So he left, for a total of three weeks, and then re-entered illegally.

Nancy Mann, Anita’s mother, believes Jorge’s actions were noble. “They have to go check on their families,” she said. Nancy was under the impression that if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent a document acknowledging Jorge’s eligibility, he was all but approved.

When Jorge was finally summoned to his 2007 interview in Mexico, however, he acknowledged that he had crossed the border twice. Lawyers warn applicants that if they are not honest about their history, they risk a lifetime bar. But that revelation of a second illegal crossing made him ineligible for a hardship waiver that could have reduced his penalty for living illegally in the United States for more than one year. Instead, Jorge was told he’d have to pursue a pardon in 2017.

“I believe that he was punished for being honest,” Anita said.

From April through August of 2007, Anita took the toddler twins to Mexico to try to live there with Jorge, but returned after one of them developed a fever so bad she had a seizure. The staff at a small clinic in the Mexican town was very attentive, she said, and put her sick child on an IV and administered medicine. But the experience frightened Anita.

She wrote to congressional representatives, asking for help. They all basically said the law was the law, although some were more sympathetic and said they’d keep her case in mind, Anita said.

She visited Jorge on occasion, and in 2010 Anita tried to live in Mexico again with the twins. She and Jorge ultimately agreed she should return to North Carolina because she had a high-risk second pregnancy. She used up all her retirement savings so she could comply with doctor’s orders to stay off her feet and not work.

When her third baby was born, she traveled down to the Texas-Mexico border once and crossed over just so Jorge could see the baby. Then she returned to Graham, and put the twins in church school and thought long and hard about what to do.

She scattered photos of Jorge around the room she and the girls slept in, and they talked every day with him. Last Easter Sunday, she hit a painful moment when one of the twins leaned over and whispered to her. “All the daddies are here. Why can’t my daddy be with me?”

As Anita was preparing to go to Mexico this month, the twins talked about being excited to see their father. “He’s going to paint my wall with horses,” Fabiola said. “He’s going to make me a toy box.” But the girls said they were anxious about having to speak Spanish and adjust to school there.

Anita is worried about how they’ll survive. She hopes she can earn some money teaching English. But she knows tough times are ahead, and she understands that she might not be able to stay in Mexico.

“When they give out these bars, they’re not just giving them to one person. They’re giving them to a family,” Anita said. “It’s actually worse than a prison sentence. People in prison can do a lot less time, and do a whole lot worse things.”

Elisa Xitco, 6, the daughter of U.S. citizen Chris Xitco, stands behind the iron gate protecting her home in Rosarito, Mexico, where she lives with her Mexican mother. Her mother has been barred from entering the U.S. at least until 2018. Susan Ferriss http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/susan-ferriss Amy Isackson http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/amy-isackson http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/19/11563/separated-law-families-torn-apart-1996-immigration-measure

A dizzying series of legal twists and turns

0
0


Given the white-hot politics of immigration, it’s perhaps not surprising that President Obama instantly drew fire with a proposal in January to help undocumented spouses of American citizens obtain legal status — without being ousted from the U.S. for years as punishment.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas — the chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee — accused Obama of “bending long established rules” and pursuing a “backdoor amnesty.”

“Who is the President batting for — illegal immigrants or the American people?” Smith said in a statement.

Smith is no casual observer. He is the key author of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which established penalties mandating years of exile for illegal immigrants before they can return to the United States and legalize — even if they are married to an American citizen. Marriage is one of the primary ways a person obtains legal status within the largely family-based U.S. immigration system.

Republican members of Congress argued back then that more had to be done to discourage illegal immigration. Too many immigrants were entering the country unlawfully or overstaying visitor visas, members said, and were marrying U.S. citizens or legal residents and staying. Too many relatives of legal residents who were supposed to wait back home for visas, sometimes for many years, were entering ahead of time, illegally, and staying, members added.                                      

Since the 1950s, some illegal immigrants, based on a job or other ties, had been able to plead for legal residency before immigration officials in the U.S. who had the power to grant them that status. In 1994, Congress adopted a statute that codified the ability of illegal immigrants with legitimate family sponsorship to transition to legal status without having to leave the U.S. They could complete their process by paying fees or fines, so long as they had no serious criminal record.

In 1996, Congress upped the fine from $650 to $1,000, and passed the 1996 legislation in an effort to toughen the procedures. Members wanted U.S. consular officers in the immigrants’ homeland to screen applicants — and then mete out years-long “bars” to applicants who had tried to enter the U.S. illegally.

Ultimately, Congress allowed people who had filed petitions for legal status before April 30, 2001, to continue to seek legal status from within the U.S. Then it closed that avenue for immigrants if they originally entered the U.S. illegally — which meant the 1996 legislation started to be more strictly enforced, even for those married to American citizens.   

Here’s how the 1996 bars work:

If illegal immigrants entered the U.S. unlawfully, they must return to their home countries for a residency-application interview with U.S. consular officers, who then must apply bars if merited.

The two most basic penalties are three-year bars from the U.S. to penalize “unlawful presence” in the U.S. for more than six months, and 10-year bars for unlawful presence in the U.S. of more than one year. Congress included a waiver possibility to shorten the bar for unlawful presence for some.

But decisions on waivers have taken months, even years, to complete. Waivers must be based on proof that the applicant’s American sponsor is suffering extreme hardship — like a serious medical condition — rather than just heartache or financial loss.

If immigrants have a history of two or more illegal entries to the United States, they aren’t even eligible to apply for hardship waivers. Their penalty is a lifetime bar, with a possible pardon if they remain outside the U.S. for 10 years, some have been told. If applicants are accused of having falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen to enter the U.S. or of lying to a U.S. official, they can get a permanent lifetime bar.

Wayne Cornelius, an immigration expert at the University of California at San Diego, called the bars “symbolic,” and said there’s no evidence they’ve played a serious role in reducing illegal immigration. After the bars were adopted, the estimated undocumented population in the U.S. rose from 8 million in 2000 to a peak of 12 million in 2007.

Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., group favoring less immigration, calls the bars “proportionate to the offense.” But she also doubts they’ve had broad deterrent power.

“It is most definitely time to take a good, hard look at this section of the law,” Vaughan said.

Doris Meissner, who was Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner in 1996, said the impact of mandatory bars on American families is “crying out for broader discussion.” Meissner is now a fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, D.C.

On Jan. 6 of this year, U.S. immigration officials announced President Obama’s proposal to implement regulatory changes that address some of these complaints.

The changes, officials said, would benefit the immigrant spouses and adult children only of U.S. citizens — and only if these undocumented relatives are eligible to apply for hardship waivers to overcome the bar for unlawful presence in the U.S. for more than one year.

“The proposal will not change existing laws,” Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, insisted in a press call. “The [proposed] process would allow these individuals to have their waiver applications processed in the United States — and receive a provisional waiver determination before they complete the visa process at a consulate outside the United States.”

The benefit wouldn’t be open to those whose previous offenses make them ineligible to apply for a waiver right away — like those who had crossed the border illegally more than once. Couples filing hardship waivers risk failing, but officials said they expect many to succeed and avoid long separation.

Mayorkas said the administration was mindful, too, that families can face “precarious” conditions when they travel abroad.

In 2011, U.S. citizen Jake Reyes-Neal, 21, was killed by thieves in an attack in Juarez, Mexico, where the Colorado man had moved with his undocumented wife and their baby to pursue a waiver at the U.S. consulate there.

Rep. Smith declined to comment on the concerns of citizens who face long separation.

His staff pointed to his statement in January, when he said waivers were “not intended to be applied to millions of illegal immigrants.”

Other immigration hawks in Congress also declined comment, including Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and California Republican Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, Brian Bilbray and Elton Gallegly.

A notice of intent to adopt the new Obama rule was published Jan. 9 in the Federal Register. And the proposed rule was posted to the Federal Register April 2. A comment period ran from April 2 to June 1.

The final rule hasn’t been published yet, and immigration officials say they have no target date. When the rule is finally published, it will go into effect 30 to 60 days later.

If Obama isn’t president when it goes into effect, a new president — Mitt Romney — could undo the rule through the same rulemaking process.

Toddler Alana communicates with father, Issac Hernandez, who has been barred from the U.S. for life. Her mother, Amanda Seyer, has since moved the family from Missouri to Mexico to be with her husband. Susan Ferriss http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/susan-ferriss Amy Isackson http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/amy-isackson http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/19/11574/dizzying-series-legal-twists-and-turns

Daily Disclosure: Mystery group spends $1 million opposing Obama

0
0


Less than three weeks before Election Day, a new mystery group dropped nearly $1 million on an anti-Obama expenditure, according to records.

Citizen Awareness Project appears to be a nonprofit organization. It reported the independent expenditure opposing President Barack Obama Thursday, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission.

The entire sum — $994,000 — was paid to Stephen Clouse & Associates Inc., a Virginia firm that specializes in raising money for its clients via direct mail, according to its website.

The firm has produced marketing materials for the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, both of which count billionaire businessman and financier of conservative causes Charles Koch as a board member.

Citizen Awareness Project has no website that the Center could find and no Internal Revenue Service documents appear to have been posted online. Thursday’s filing was the first reported political expenditure made by the group.

The group is likely a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit. Such organizations can function like super PACs but are not required to register with the FEC or disclose their donors. They are required to file reports with the IRS.

The group’s address is the same as Zakhem Law LLC in Denver, Colo., where its treasurer, Charlie Smith, is a law clerk specializing in election law.

Smith is former chairman of the College Republican National Committee and the founder of a lesser-known pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC, Solutions 2012, which raised $67,000. All of its contributions came from small donors.

Stephen Clouse & Associates works to “turn ordinary donors into major contributors,” according to its site, and focuses on getting donors to give “mega gifts” to its client-nonprofits.

Smith did not immediately return a call requesting comment.

In other outside spending news:

  • The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reported spending $7.5 million on ads opposing Republican candidates for U.S. Senate in 12 states.
     
  • Majority PAC, a super PAC backing Senate Democrats, reported spending $3.6 million opposing GOP candidates for U.S. Senate in Arizona, North Dakota, Montana, Connecticut, Virginia and Missouri.
     
  • Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action reported spending $3.3 million on ads opposing GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
     
  • Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative nonprofit founded by anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist, reported spending $3.1 million on ads opposing Democratic candidates for U.S. House in eight races.
     
  • The NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the advocacy nonprofit arm of the National Rifle Association, reported spending $702,000 on ads supporting Republican candidates for U.S. Senate and an additional $753,000 in support of Romney.
     
  • House Majority PAC, a super PAC backing House Democrats, reported spending $1.8 million opposing Republicans in seven races. The super PAC also released “Turn” opposing Republican Rep. Allen West, who is running in Florida’s 18th District.
     
  • Pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future reported spending $492,000 on ads opposing Obama.
     
  • The National Association of Realtors Political Action Committee reported spending $400,000 in favor of Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. Fitzpatrick is on the government-sponsored entities subcommittee and the oversight and investigations subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, where he oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
     
  • The conservative 60 Plus Association released “Washington Insider,” which opposes Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz.
     
  • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released “Four Decades is Long Enough” opposing Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.
     
  • Planned Parenthood Votes, a super PAC, released an ad opposing Romney and an ad supporting Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., who is running for U.S. Senate.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

 

President Barack Obama greets people on the tarmac as he arrives at Newport News Williamsburg International Airport on Air Force One, Saturday, Oct. 13, 2012, in Williamsburg, Va. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/19/11575/daily-disclosure-mystery-group-spends-1-million-opposing-obama

Aspen Dental faces class action suit

0
0


A class-action lawsuit accuses Aspen Dental, one of the nation’s largest corporate-dental chains, of illegally owning dental practices and of deceiving patients.

A joint report by the Center for Public Integrity and PBS FRONTLINE titled “Dollars and Dentists” reported in June that Aspen Dental’s practice of serving patients who cannot afford a dentist has led to complaints of patients being locked into debt as well as being overcharged and given unnecessary treatments.

The lawsuit brought by 11 patients alleges that Aspen Dental owns and controls its 358 dental clinics in violation of laws in 22 states which allow only dentists to own a dental practice. The lawsuit was filed yesterday in federal court in Aspen Dental’s home state of New York.

Aspen Dental said Friday that “the accusations that were made in yesterday’s filing are entirely without merit.” The company is owned by a private-equity firm, Leonard Green & Partners, and markets to patients who often cannot afford to go to a dentist.

The company says that it also provides support services to dental offices owned by local dentists.

“The dentists and staff at Aspen Dental offices around the U.S. provide access to high quality, affordable dental care for millions of patients,” the Syracuse-based company said. “Their singular commitment is to do what’s right for their patients.”

However, attorneys for the patients, Brian Cohen and Jeffrey Norton, say in the lawsuit that Aspen Dental trains the dentists and sets production goals for them, accusing the company of illegally practicing medicine.

Forty percent of Americans have a family member who can’t afford to go to the dentist. Private-equity firms have found a lucrative market in this statistic, investing in corporate dental chains to treat people who’ve neglected their teeth. David Heath http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/david-heath http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/19/11580/aspen-dental-faces-class-action-suit

Elite fundraisers bring in more than $180 million for Obama

0
0


President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign added 120 new fundraising “bundlers” during the third quarter who have brought in at least $17.5 million, including a former secretary of state and a platinum blonde pop star who has sold more than 40 million albums.

According to a newly released list from the Obama campaign, a total of 758 bundlers have raised at least $180 million for the president’s re-election efforts, including scores of well-connected individuals from California, New York and Obama’s home state of Illinois.

Notable additions to the list include Madeleine Albright, who served as secretary of state under former President Bill Clinton and has raised at least $200,000; pop singer Gwen Stefani, who raised at least $500,000; fashion designer Tom Ford, who has raised at least $500,000; and Warner Brothers CEO and Chairman Barry Meyer and his wife Wendy, who raised at least $500,000.

Other new bundlers include former U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, who raised at least $200,000; Connecticut Gov. Daniel Malloy, who raised at least $200,000; and former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, who raised at least $100,000 and spoke at the Democratic National Convention last month.

These funds have benefited not only the Obama campaign but also the “Obama Victory Fund” — a joint fundraising organization that funnels cash to his campaign, the Democratic National Committee and party entities in several battleground states.

Individuals may donate up to $75,800 to the Obama Victory Fund. The first $5,000 is directed to the Obama campaign while the next $30,800 goes to the DNC. The remaining funds are split between other participating party committees.

Because the Obama campaign voluntarily only discloses broad ranges of how much money its bundlers have collected, it’s impossible to precisely determine how much these elite fundraisers have gathered.

The total sum could be millions more, as the top category given is simply “more than $500,000.” Still, it is possible to determine that these 758 bundlers are responsible for at least 20 percent — or roughly $1 out of every $5 — that Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee have raised.

The Obama campaign itself has also benefited from a record level of small-dollar donors.

According to a recent study by the Campaign Finance Institute, individuals who donated $1,000 or more accounted for only 32 percent of the money Obama’s campaign committee raised through the end of August. That’s down from about 43 percent in 2008.

Donors giving $1,000 or more have supplied nearly two-thirds of the money raised by the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the Campaign Finance Institute found.

Bundlers are elite political fundraisers who turn to relatives, friends and business associates to raise large sums and then deliver the funds in a “bundle” to the candidate. They are often given perks and special access — both on the campaign trail and once politicians are elected.

Many of Obama’s bundlers from his 2008 presidential run were awarded plumb ambassadorships or received other appointments, government contracts and stimulus funds.

According to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, bundlers in 39 states have been actively raising funds for Obama, as well as residents of Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and several foreign countries.

U.S. citizens living abroad are allowed to donate to campaigns — as well as vote — and Obama and the DNC have received at least $3.75 million from bundlers in the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland and China.

One-hundred-fifty-five bundlers from California have raised at least $42 million for Obama’s re-election efforts, more than residents of any other state. New Yorkers rank second, with 98 bundlers raising at least $24 million. And residents of Illinois rank third, with 59 bundlers raising at least $15 million.

Unlike Obama, Romney has not voluntarily released the names of his bundlers — though he plans to list them in a commemorative book after the election, according to documents obtained by Politico.

Romney has reported 63 lobbyists who have bundled more than $14 million for his election efforts, as he is required to do by law. Records indicate that Obama does not have any registered federal lobbyists among his bundlers.

Andrea Fuller and Aaron Mehta contributed to this report.

This Sept. 21, 2012 photo released by Clear Channel shows Gwen Stefani of No Doubt performing at the 2012 iHeartRadio Music Festival at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, Nev. Michael Beckel http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/michael-beckel http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/19/11582/elite-fundraisers-bring-more-180-million-obama

Obscure nonprofit threatens campaign finance limits beyond Montana

0
0


Voters haven’t had a clue who is behind American Tradition Partnership — the Colorado-based group pushing to rewrite Montana’s campaign finance laws — and that’s just the way the secretive nonprofit wants it.

A 2010 fundraising pitch to its donors promised that “no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped,” and “the only thing we plan on reporting is our success to contributors like you.”

“Montana has very strict limits on contributions to candidates,” reads the document, obtained by The Center for Public Integrity. “but there is no limit to how much you give to this program.”

As for the state’s ban on corporate money in elections?

“Corporate contributions are completely legal,” the pitch assures potential funders. “This is one of the rare programs you will find where that’s the case.”

“You can get some traction with that pitch,” says Dennis Unsworth, who led the state’s investigation of the group in 2010 that unearthed the document. “If you can offer to influence the elections outside the law, that’s a great calling card.”

For three election cycles, ATP has plastered the state with mailers attacking "radical environmental groups" and moderate Republicans.

While ATP’s funders are still mostly a mystery, the Center for Public Integrity has identified what records indicate is the secretive organization’s founding donor — an anti-union owner of Colorado’s largest furniture chain — and discovered a long list of affiliations with national tea party groups funded by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.

This election, ATP has vowed to keep Attorney General Steve Bullock out of the governor’s mansion. In October, voters received a brazen multi-page newspaper-style flier placing the Democratic candidate in a photo lineup with three registered sex offenders.

But the group hit the national spotlight thanks to three landmark court battles with Bullock and the state of Montana.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision invalidated a federal ban on corporate spending similar to what 24 states had on their books, but Montana held fast to its law. ATP sued to overturn it, losing to Bullock in the state’s high court. But in June, the nonprofit prevailed on appeal to the nation’s highest court.

ATP is pushing past its Citizens United challenge with two more suits to eliminate Montana’s low contribution limits and disclosure rules, setting up a potential challenge to contribution limits nationwide.

Tea party ties

One of ATP’s founders is former Montana Congressman Ron Marlenee, who served from 1977 until the state dropped from two House seats to one in 1992. Marlenee used his D.C. Rolodex to raise money for the fledgling pro-energy group, which registered in Colorado in 2008.

Marlenee rallied a tea party crowd in Bozeman in 2010, appearing on stage with a half-burned American flag, which he said he wrestled away from a “liberal Marxist” protester.

ATP has joined tea party lobbying efforts, signing at least two letters to Congress in the last year urging an end to an end to tax credits for wind power and natural gas-fueled vehicles. The letters were signed by Koch-funded groups including Americans for Prosperity and tea party boosters FreedomWorks, Club for Growth and Art Pope’s John Locke Foundation.

In its 2008 application for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization, ATP listed its “primary donor” as Jacob Jabs, Colorado’s largest furniture retailer and a donor to Republican candidates and causes. Jabs pledged a $300,000 contribution to get ATP on its feet, according to IRS records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

Jabs, through a spokesman, on Monday said he did not make a donation and has "never heard of" ATP or the group's previous incarnation.

"He did not commit to the funds indicated by Athena Dalton in the filing so clearly he did not give them funds," wrote Charlie Shaulis, director of communications for American Furniture Warehouse, Jabs' company, in an email to I-News Network in Colorado.

Dalton wrote a letter to the IRS asking the agency to speed up the process for awarding it nonprofit  status. The letter states that the approval was needed quickly, otherwise Jabs would not make a contribution. The agency gave it the thumbs up four days later.

The amount of the gift would be double Jabs’ total federal campaign contributions since 1997, which have gone exclusively to Republican candidates and party organizations, according to FEC records.  

Jabs also poured money into a failed “right to work” ballot initiative in Colorado, becoming a television spokesman for the 2008 anti-union effort.

ATP shares resources and a D.C. mailing address with an affiliated 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit called the American Tradition Institute, which works in tandem with a network of Koch-funded think tanks  to oppose wind energy and dispute the reality of climate change. It has launched lawsuits against state mandates for renewable energy usage and targeted climate scientists in academia.

The libertarian Koch brothers, Charles and David, have become better known in recent years with the rise of the tea party. They are principal owners of Koch Industries Inc., the second-largest privately owned company in the U.S., with major investments in the energy industry. 

ATI has accepted donations from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a free-market think tank underwritten by Exxon Mobil and Koch foundation money, according to a report by the Institute for Southern Studies.

Its director of litigation Chris Horner is also a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank that has taken a half-million dollars from Koch foundations since 1998, according to the report.

‘We won’t be shut up, or shut down’

In 2008, American Tradition Partnership flooded the state with mailers attacking ten state legislators, but reported only $12,000 in spending for the entire election.

An investigation by the state’s Commission on Political Practices concluded that the group had broken state law requiring outside spending groups to register as political action committees and disclose all donors and spending.

Commissioner Unsworth concluded in October 2010 that ATP had registered a “sham organization” called the Coalition for Energy and Environment and vastly under-reported its activity. The PAC’s reported spending, said the state, would have barely covered the cost of postage for the raft of glossy, full-color mailers ATP sent out.

ATP filed forms with the IRS the same year, reporting more than $660,000 in spending.

ATP maintains that its spending on mailers, most targeting moderate Republicans running for state legislative seats, is “educational” and therefore falls outside the state’s definition of “express advocacy” that would require it to disclose its funders and its spending on the mailers.

ATP did not face penalties and did not disband. Instead, it changed its name from Western Tradition Partnership and sued to strike down Montana’s disclosure laws.

The case is set for trial in March 2013.

“We won’t be shut up or shut down,” ATP said in a press release in June.

Ironically, ATP’s years-long court battles have pushed the group into the public spotlight, threatening the secrecy of its donors. The group has vigorously resisted discovery proceedings in court, missing several deadlines to produce evidence requested by the state.

Lawyers in Bullock’s office filed a motion to compel ATP to present evidence, including bank records, or drop their lawsuit. It has not complied. According to a court filing, ATP’s lawyer Jim Brown emailed the state’s lawyers in late August, explaining, “I have a difficult client."

Nonetheless, the state has won access to bank records for the organization. If a judge makes them public, they could offer voters a glimpse at the group’s funders.

‘I was the screen’

The group rarely communicates with the press and it hires unknowing lawyers to sign campaign finance reports and its 2008 nonprofit incorporation documents in Colorado.

Scott Shires has been sued and fined for his election activities, but the Colorado-based political consultant says his reputation really took a hit after he signed ATP’s forms. When Montana released the results of its 2010 investigation, Shires’ name began showing up in the press, and he says he cut ties to the organization.

“The operatives writing these stupid ads and mailings don’t want to be identified,” said Shires. “I was the screen that allowed them to hide — plausible deniability is something a lot of these groups are interested in.”

Shires listed himself as “President” of ATP when he signed the group’s request for exempt status with the IRS in 2008.

He is widely known for registering hundreds of political committees in Colorado, mostly Republican groups. The work involves some risk. He pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns for a client in 2008, a misdemeanor charge. He was also caught up in a scandal that linked former U.S. Rep. and 2008 Senate candidate Bob Schaffer with the beneficiary of a questionable congressional earmark.

ATP Executive Director Donald Ferguson did not return numerous calls for comment.

‘Not really sure who is in charge’

The left-leaning Montana Conservation Voters claims ATP was unfazed by the 2010 investigation and is “right back to doing the same thing,” according to the group’s board member Ben Graybill, who filed the original complaint.

This year, ATP has registered a PAC in the state. It sent mailers prior to the June primary election, but has reported zero spending to the state.

Its filings are signed by Montana attorney Chris Gallus, who was “surprised” to receive a call from the Center regarding ATP. He claims no leadership role in the organization, and said he’s “not really sure who is in charge.”

Gallus said he has not been contacted by ATP since being hired to sign their PAC reports, and does not anticipate filing any spending reports on their behalf. “Until that changes, my involvement is the same as the date I signed their forms.”

The organization sent out a questionnaire to candidates in early October, asking about their stance on land development and environmental regulations in resource-rich Montana.

“Will you oppose legislation which would categorically limit development of any specific energy resource?” reads one. “Will you oppose legislation that would rescind, reduce or shorten the tax holiday on oil & gas wells?” reads another.

Candidates who don’t respond, or don’t respond with answers favorable to ATP’s interests, are often targeted by a direct mail campaign similar to those launched at Bullock.

Its adversary, the Montana conservation group, endorses candidates for the state legislature who align with its mission to “protect clean water, public health, and our incredible outdoor heritage.” Its mid-October mailers praise Bullock for leading “the fight against corporate control of our elections.”

Unlike ATP, the group reports its direct and independent spending to the state and lists its donors.

“They’re scofflaws,” said Theresa Keaveny, executive director of the Montana conservation group.

Keaveny says ATP is not only in violation of Montana law, but also IRS rules for c(4) groups that dictate ATP must not spend a majority of its funds on political activity.

According to its 2008 application for exempt status, obtained by the Center, ATP promised not to “spend any money attempting to influence” elections. It also promised not to “directly or indirectly participate or intervene on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office.”

It would, however spend “70 percent” of its time and resources to “educate citizens” about “land and resource development issues.”

It also revealed the Jabs contribution.

Governor’s race a toss up

Bullock, a Democrat, is running against Republican Rick Hill. It’s expected to be a close race despite Montana’s majority-Republican voting population.

“We want citizens deciding elections, not corporations,” said Bullock in an October debate during which he touted his record as a campaign finance crusader.

While outside spending groups, including the Republican and Democratic governors associations, have swarmed the state with ads, the two candidates have had to abide by Montana’s low contribution limits — for most of the campaign.

In October, ATP made national news when a federal judge agreed with the organization and its high-profile campaign finance lawyer, James Bopp, and struck down contribution limits on individuals, PACs, and parties — including the $630 cap on individual giving to Bullock and Hill.

"The political establishment can no longer tell citizens to shut up because they've reached their speech limit," said ATP Montana Director Doug Lair in a press release.

Montana joined the ranks of 12 other states with no limits on contributions to candidates, but only temporarily. A week later, a federal appeals court stayed the lower court decision pending a full appeal, putting the state’s contribution limits back in force.

Bullock’s opponent took advantage of the six-day free-for-all between the ruling and the stay, accepting a $500,000 contribution from the state’s Republican Party. The gift dwarfed Montana’s $22,600 limit on party giving to candidates.

‘Who’s saying these crazy things’

A month before the vote, Montana residents woke up to a fake newspaper on their doorstep called “The Montana Statesman.”

The publication calls itself “the largest and most trusted news source” but is actually a series of ATP-funded attacks on Bullock. It leads with a giant headline that reads “Bullock Admits Failure.”

The “news” story below claims that the attorney general has let “1 in 4 sex offenders go unregistered.” It includes four photos: three registered sex offenders and Bullock.

The group can continue to raise money on the promise that “no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped make this program possible,” as its 2010 briefing to donors reads. “You can just sit back on election night and see what a difference you’ve made.”

Unsworth says his 2010 investigation did not stop ATP, and outside spending that has already flooded the state is sure to intensify, particularly in light of the Citizens United decision. He calls the advertising a “mess of trash that lays at the feet of the public,” paid for by “funny money with no legal constraints.”

“We don’t know who’s saying these crazy things,” he added, “so the public has to suffer and our political system suffers as a result.”

Update (Oct . 22, 7:00 p.m.): This story was updated to reflect that Jabs, through a spokesman, denied making a contribution to ATP.

John Dunbar contributed to this report.

 

Rick Hill, the Republican candidate for governor of Montana. Paul Abowd http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/paul-abowd http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/22/11577/obscure-nonprofit-threatens-campaign-finance-limits-beyond-montana

OPINION: Voices of the uninsured

0
0


When people find out I used to work for an insurance company, many of them ask if I can help find them a decent policy that won’t bust their family budgets. Many others ask if I would consider going to bat for them after their insurer has denied coverage for a potentially life-saving treatment. And a lot of folks have reached out just to tell me their stories, just to get someone to listen.

That was the case following my column last week about Mitt Romney’s contention that uninsured people don’t have a problem getting the care they need — that the care is readily available in hospital emergency rooms. The commentary provoked an outpouring of emotion illustrating just out tragically out of touch many of our political leaders are.

Readers have left more than 600 comments since my column was published last Monday here and by the Huffington Post. Many were written by folks who just wanted to express an opinion about Mr. Romney’s comment or about Obamacare. But many others were from people who wanted to talk about losing a loved one or not being able to pay for care because of a system that has come to be controlled by powerful insurance companies. Here, in their own words, are a small number of them. They should provide all the evidence any politician needs to understand that the ER is not the magic cure some of them apparently think it is.

  • “My son couldn't get insurance at any price because a birth defect is a pre-existing condition. So, when he got colon cancer, he was denied the care he needed until it was too late to save his life. Emergency rooms only have to stabilize you — address the symptoms, not the cause. Mike was given pain meds and sent home — and billed — four times.”
  • “Haven't been to a doctor in five years…Have no health insurance. I don't care about me. It's my 10- and 13-year-old children who have no health insurance. My wife's part-time job and the little money I make disqualify my kids for Medicaid … Do I want people to feel sorry for me? No. I want things improved so no one has to live like this. I've got a beautiful family, they don't deserve to have to live under these stressful conditions.”
  • “We pay 25 percent of our income just for my health insurance. It's a good thing we have it, because I have had two heart attacks and other major illnesses. But even with a low co-pay for visits and prescriptions, we often cannot afford enough food or gas once the medical bills have been paid. Luxuries like new clothes … are out of the question.”
  • “Haven't been to a dentist in 25 years, in pain all the time … I have no health insurance, can't afford it. I'm 53, female, and considered high risk because my mother died from breast cancer. I work fulltime and do my best to exercise and eat healthy. If I had the chance to go to a doctor for a wellness check up, and receive routine dental care, I'd jump at the chance.”
  • “When I first opened my business, I had two employees. Trying to find an insurance company to cover the 3 of us was difficult and rates were very high. Since 2005, medical premiums have increased by 15-20 percent every year, dental premiums increased at a faster rate, co-pays went from $0 to $25 per visit, annual out of pocket maximums jumped significantly, and what was covered was reduced...It’s an overhead cost that can really make a dent (gash may be a better term) in the profits. I chose to carry coverage as an employer but many in my size business don't resulting in many uninsured fulltime working, responsible, adults.”
  • “ … [M]y daughter ended up in medical bankruptcy after the hospital wouldn't accept the amount she could afford to pay, turned her down when it came to setting up a payment plan, and immediately began garnishing her wages. They took 65 percent of her pay until the bill was paid off ... She had to borrow money from us to survive on until the bill was paid.”
  • “We pay $17,000 dollars a year in premiums for our family of three. We have a high deductible or our premiums would be $7,000 more...I have had a serious illness this year ... seven weeks in the hospital, part in the ICU, two months at home with a visiting nurse, and all of the accompanying follow up visits, scans and meds. Our out of pocket is probably in the $40 to $50,000 range. A big hit on our savings, to say the least.”
  • “ … [H]ave high blood pressure and EVERY insurance co. I called just laughed and told me not to bother applying. In 2010 I slipped and fell and spent a couple days in the hospital. I wound up paying $79,000 out of my own pocket for those days. I'm lucky. I could afford to pay it. Most folks just can't afford it.”

Does Mitt Romney know any of these people? I doubt it. Does he even know anyone like this? I doubt that too. If he did, it’s unlikely, I think, that he’d be touting the wonders of the emergency room as the route to quality health care.

President Barack Obama listens as Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney speaks during the second presidential debate at Hofstra University, Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012, in Hempstead, N.Y. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) Wendell Potter http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/wendell-potter http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/22/11581/opinion-voices-uninsured

Furniture king a celebrity in Colorado

0
0


Jacob "Jake" Jabs is not quite a national figure, but he is a celebrity in Colorado — so much so that he was featured in the animated comedy series “South Park,” which is set in the state.

A cartoon version of Jabs made a cameo appearance in 2007, according to Furniture Today. Kyle, one of the main characters, is at a party for high-rollers when he spots a man in a yellow suit with a white tiger in his lap.

“Look over there, it’s that Jake Jabs guy from American Furniture Warehouse commercials!”

Jabs, 81, owns Colorado’s largest furniture chain and is probably best known for his commercials featuring the big cats.

While his commercials are amusing, he is serious about his politics. A document from the Internal Revenue Service shows Jabs pledged $300,000 in seed money to American Tradition Partnership. ATP is a secretive pro-energy nonprofit that’s taken the state of Montana to court three times challenging the state's campaign finance laws.

Jabs, through a spokesman, on Monday said he did not make a donation and has "never heard of" ATP or the group's previous incarnation.

"He did not commit to the funds indicated by Athena Dalton in the filing so clearly he did not give them funds," wrote Charlie Shaulis, director of communications for American Furniture Warehouse, Jabs' company, in an email to I-News Network in Colorado.

Dalton wrote a letter to the IRS asking the agency to speed up the process for awarding it nonprofit status. The letter states that the approval was needed quickly, otherwise Jabs would not make a contribution. The agency gave it the thumbs up four days later.

In 2008, he paid for ads supporting a ballot initiative that would have made Colorado a “right-to-work” state, a measure opposed by unions. There were tigers in those ads, too.

Jabs said in a press conference posted on YouTube that he wanted to "hurt the pocketbooks of the unions so they don’t have the millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars to spend."

He is a prolific Republican donor, having given about $150,000 to GOP candidates and parties since 1997, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The son of immigrants, Jabs grew up in rural Montana in a house without electricity, indoor plumbing or running water. His father had only a second-grade education.

Jabs tells his rags-to-riches story in his books, "An American Tiger" and "Thriving In Tough Times." The cover of An American Tiger features Jabs with one of the animals.

His giving extends beyond politics.

In 2010, Jabs gave $3 million to the Montana State University’s business school. He is a 1952 alumnus of the university (then called Montana State College), where he studied vocational agriculture and was on the rodeo team.

Update (Oct . 22, 7:00 p.m.): This story was updated to reflect that Jabs, through a spokesman, denied making a contribution to ATP.

John Dunbar contributed to this report.

 

Jake Jabs Alexandra Duszak http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/alexandra-duszak http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/22/11585/furniture-king-celebrity-colorado

Daily Disclosure: Pro-Obama super PAC outpaces GOP counterpart

0
0


Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s candidacy, doubled its fundraising total in September taking in $14.8 million, but was still outraised by the pro-President Barack Obama Priorities USA Action, which raised $15.3 million for the month.

The totals show a reversal of a trend — Republicans to date have fared better at raising money for outside groups, though Romney still has American Crossroads, a well-funded super PAC, and Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit, in his corner.

Restore Our Future brought in $7 million in August.

Most of the major super PACs had until Saturday at midnight to file monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission on September’s fundraising activities.

Meanwhile, J. Joe Ricketts, whose conservative Ending Spending Action Fund super PAC said it would launch a $12 million ad campaign this fall, gave a whopping $11.5 million to the group. Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade, was the only donor to the PAC, which finished the month with $5.9 million in the bank.

Anti-Obama "Ending Spending" ads have just recently begun airing. Of the $12 million, $10 million will be directed toward helping Romney, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal last month.

Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who shows no signs of closing his checkbook, gave $3.5 million to super PACs in September, including $2 million more to Restore Our Future. The donation brings his total giving to more than $10 million to the super PAC. Fellow Texan Harold Simmons, another top super PAC donor, came through with $500,000 to the pro-Romney super PAC.

Restore Our Future finished September with $16.6 million cash on hand, far more than Priorities USA Action, with $7.3 million.

Priorities USA brought in $15.3 million in September, a $5.2 million increase from its August earnings.

Among its largest donations for the month:

  • $2 million from super donor Fred Eychaner of Newsweb Corp.;
  • $1.5 million from super donor James Simons of the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies;
  • $1.2 million from Slim-Fast founder S. Daniel Abraham;
  • $1 million from Hollywood director Steven Spielberg;
  • $1 million from Dreamworks Animation’s  Jeffrey Katzenberg;
  • $1 million from the United Auto Workers Education Fund;
  • $1 million from Donald and Shelley Rubin of health insurer MultiPlan Inc.

Majority PAC, a super PAC backing Democrats for the U.S. Senate, received contributions from many of the same donors. Simons gave $1.5 million; Eychaner gave $1 million; the UAW Education Fund gave $700,000. Working for Working Americans, a public sector union-affiliated committee, gave $1 million.

Majority PAC took in four times as much in September as it did in August, with a monthly haul of $10.4 million. It finished September with $6.9 million cash on hand.

Eychaner and Simons also gave big to House Majority PAC, which supports Democrats running for U.S. House. Eychaner came through with $1 million and Simons with $500,000. The American Postal Workers Union also gave a half-million.

House Majority PAC took in $5.8 million total in September, finishing the month with $5.7 million on hand.

American Crossroads, the conservative super PAC co-founded by Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, took in $11.7 million in September, an increase from its August take of $9.4 million.

Super donor Simmons came through with $2.5 million, followed by the JWC III Revocable Trust with $1.25 million. It was not immediately clear who controls the JWC III Revocable Trust.

Jay Bergman of Petco Petroleum Corp. gave $1 million. The Armstrong Group, a telecommunications firm, provided $1.3 million in in-kind contributions in the form of “cable access.”

Club for Growth Action, a conservative, free-market super PAC, received $2 million in contributions, a leap from August’s $589,000. Homebuilder Perry was a top donor in September, giving $1 million. The super PAC finished the month with $2.6 million on hand.

The conservative super PAC FreedomWorks for America, led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, took in $3.2 million in September, more than three times what it received in August. The contributions were almost exclusively in small amounts, with the exception of $143,000 in in-kind contributions from the super PAC’s non-disclosing sister nonprofit, FreedomWorks Inc.

FreedomWorks for America finished September with $703,000 cash on hand.

In other outside spending news:

  • Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action reported spending $1.25 million on anti-Romney ads. The super PAC also released “Sarah,” over the weekend, knocking Romney’s economic policies.
     
  • Pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future reported spending $1.4 million on anti-Obama ads.
     
  • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reported spending $5.1 million. Among its spending were three ads: “Working for Washington,” which opposes Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., “It’s Time to Send Him Home,” which opposes Rep. Martin Heinrich, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in New Mexico, and “Linda McMahon Makes Sense for Connecticut,” which supports the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in the state.
     
  • The National Republican Congressional Committee reported spending $9.3 million supporting House Republicans and opposing House Democrats.
     
  • Club for Growth Action reported spending $2.2 million opposing Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate in Ohio, Arizona and Indiana. It released “Green,” which opposes Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.
     
  • House Majority PAC, a super PAC backing House Democrats, reported spending $1.4 million.
     
  • Crossroads GPS, a conservative nonprofit, reported spending $1.1 million on the presidential, House and Senate races.
     
  • Majority PAC, a super PAC backing Senate Democrats, reported spending $1.1 million.
     
  • The 60 Plus Association, a conservative nonprofit, reported spending $920,000 on ads opposing U.S. Senate and House candidates in Arizona, North Dakota and New York. It released an ad opposing two Democratic candidates for U.S. House in Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema and Ann Kirkpatrick.
     
  • The NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the nonprofit arm of the National Rifle Association, reported spending $3.9 million on numerous candidates. It released the ad “One Vote” opposing Obama.
     
  • The Congressional Leadership Fund, a conservative super PAC, released Spanish and English versions of “Closer Look,” which opposes Rep. Pete Gallego, R-Texas; “Folks,” which opposes Rep. Mike McIntrye, D-N.C., “I Will,” which opposes Rep. Kathy Hochul, R-N.Y., and “Busy Betty,” which opposes Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio.
     
  • Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative nonprofit, released “B” opposing Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., and “Bankrupt” opposing Rep. Ben Chandler, Ky.-6.

Who paid for that political ad? You might be surprised by the answer. Email us and we will try to find out. Describe the advertisement — was it mean or nice? Will it affect your vote? When and where did it run and what were the names of the candidates? And PLEASE tell us what the disclaimer at the end says, and we will check it out.

Pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future doubled its monthly take but was outraised the second month in a row by pro-Obama Priorities USA Action. Rachael Marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/rachael-marcus http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/22/11588/daily-disclosure-pro-obama-super-pac-outpaces-gop-counterpart

FACT CHECK: Missteps in final presidential debate

0
0


WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters didn't always get the straight goods when President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney made their case for foreign policy and national security leadership Monday night before their last super-sized audience of the campaign. A few of their detours into domestic issues were problematic too.

A look at some of their statements and how they compare with the facts:

ROMNEY on Syria: "What I'm afraid of is we've watched over the past year or so, first the president saying, 'Well, we'll let the U.N. deal with it.' And Assad — excuse me, Kofi Annan — came in and said we're going to try to have a cease-fire. That didn't work. Then it went to the Russians and said, 'Let's see if you can do something.' We should be playing the leadership role there."

OBAMA: "We are playing the leadership role."

THE FACTS: Under Obama, the United States has taken a lead in trying to organize Syria's splintered opposition, even if the U.S. isn't interested in military intervention or providing direct arms support to the rebels. The administration has organized dozens of meetings in Turkey and the Middle East aimed at rallying Syria's political groups and rebel formations to agree on a common vision for a democratic future after Syrian President Bashar Assad is defeated. And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton brought dozens of nations together as part of the Friends of Syria group to combine aid efforts to Syria's opposition and help it win the support of as many as Syrians as possible. The U.S. also is involved in vetting recipients of military aid from America's Arab allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Romney is partly right in pointing out Obama's failure to win U.N. support for international action in Syria. But the Friends of Syria group has helped bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid and other forms of assistance to Syrian civilians and the political opposition.

In trying to describe the strategic importance of seeing Assad defeated, Romney stumbled in saying Syria was Iran's "route to the sea." Iran has a large southern coastline with access to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It has no land border with Syria.

___

ROMNEY: Said that when he was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter "got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning."

OBAMA: "That happened before you came into office."

ROMNEY: "That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong."

THE FACTS: Romney was right. The John and Abigail Adams scholarship program began in 2004 when he was governor.

___

ROMNEY: "In the 2000 debates, there was no mention of terrorism."

THE FACTS: There was passing mention of terrorism in the 2000 debates. In the Oct. 17, 2000, debate between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, Gore talked about his work in Congress to "deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction." And in the vice presidential debate, Democrat Joe Lieberman defended the Clinton administration's record of preparing the armed forces to "meet the threats of the new generation of tomorrow, of weapons of mass destruction, of ballistic missiles, terrorism, cyber warfare." Romney's larger point, that the U.S. did not anticipate anything on the scale of terrorist threat that existed, is supported by the light attention paid to the subject in the debates.

___

OBAMA: "What I would not have had done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. And that certainly would not help us in the Middle East."

THE FACTS: Obama was suggesting that he had never favored keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the December 2011 withdrawal deadline that the Bush administration had negotiated with the Iraqi government. Actually, the Obama administration tried for many months to win Iraqi agreement to keeping several thousand American troops there beyond 2011 to continue training and advising the Iraqi armed forces. The talks broke down over a disagreement on legal immunity for U.S. troops.

Public betrayal in the Bay State

0
0


Deep flaws in Massachusetts laws constructed to keep government honest have sustained a recurring parade of criminal and ethical misconduct charges involving public servants in the past five years, a study by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting shows.

Massachusetts earned a “C” grade earlier this year in a national State Integrity scorecard released by the Center for Public Integrity. Among its lowest scores were an “F” for the transparency of the state budget process and public access to information, a “D+” for legislative accountability and a “C-” for the effectiveness of the state Ethics Commission. Judicial accountability earned a “C+ in Massachusetts.

The anti-corruption weaknesses have been borne out in the litany of public scandals plaguing Massachusetts in recent years.They include federal convictions of two former House Speakers, federal criminal charges lodged against top state Probation officials and the federal bribery sentence imposed on a once-rising female legislator.  

At least 250 public servants in Massachusetts have been charged with crimes or ethics violations in the past five years, the NECIR analysis found. The charges range from the federal criminal cases to helping to hire friends and relatives to drug offenses. While government officials and watchdog groups say a corrupt public servant is going to find a way to break the law no matter what, wide cracks in accountability checks in Massachusetts have made it easier for misconduct to occur.   

Budget process secrecy covers politician’s corrupt tracks

The swath of secrecy permeating the way the state budget is passed was a key factor in the ability of disgraced former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi to demand furtive payoffs from a major software developer for help with securing $17.5 million in state contracts.  In exchange for his advocacy, DiMasi and his business associates were poised to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks.

The Massachusetts Legislature, and by extension the state budget process, is not subject to the state’s public records law. A $4.5 million earmark for Cognos, a Burlington, Mass., software developer, was included in an obscure 2006 budget amendment that a DiMasi stalwart, former state representative, Robert Coughlin (D-Dedham) sponsored, even though the state Education Commissioner asked that it be removed. Coughlin later acknowledged he knew nothing about the contract but “it was an honor” to serve the speaker.  

DiMasi engineered a second $13 million contract for Cognos in a 2007 emergency bond bill. Both deals had to be approved by the House Ways and Means Committee, run by DiMasi’s friend and the current House Speaker Robert DeLeo. The $13 million contract was approved by the Legislature a week after it was included in an emergency bond bill.  

Political observers said the lack of wide public scrutiny for state spending enables misconduct.

“You have people who have obtained mastery of the process and know how to put something in there without setting off alarm bells,” said Maurice Cunningham, an associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts-Boston.    

When a Cognos competitor complained about the contract awards, a state and then federal investigation began. Evidence at DiMasi’s federal trial for conspiracy, fraud and extortion showed he, his friend, Beacon Hill lobbyist Richard W. McDonough and a Cognos salesman arranged to have $65,000 paid to DiMasi over two years through phony payments to a law partner.  DiMasi is now serving an eight-year prison sentence.

In sentencing DiMasi, U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf noted the lengths to which DiMasi and his co-defendant McDonough went to hide the Speaker’s corruption, beginning with insisting on the budgetary allocations for Cognos. 

“This was not a scheme that was developed or executed spontaneously and thoughtlessly by either defendant. The corrupt transactions were carefully structured to hide what was occurring, bribes and kickbacks in exchange for official acts by Mr. DiMasi,” Wolf wrote, noting other cases brought against state leaders for corruption. “You succumbed to what seems to be a culture of arrogance and impunity that has been shared by some, not all, of the leaders of the state Legislature in the past.” 

Secrecy shields key legislative activity 

The secrecy is not limited to the budget process; the entire way bills are proposed, debated and signed into law can be shielded from public scrutiny and even voting members of the Legislature. 

Massachusetts lawmakers can bundle hundreds of amendments into a single amendment – following closed door discussions with no transcripts taken.  After debate on the floor, there is one straight up or down vote on the final amendment. The only way to find out exactly what happened is to ask representatives directly.

Former House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran hammered out the state’s redistricting plans in secret legislative meetings, but later lied to a federal jury about the extent of his role in the planning sessions. The plans diminished the role of minority voters and Finneran was later rebuked by a federal judicial panel.  Finneran was convicted in 2007 of obstruction of justice.  

“The idea at the time that he had very little knowledge of it was ridiculous,” Cunningham said.  

Rank and file legislators said they often don’t have time to read the bills that move quickly through closed door meetings. Special “joint caucuses” allow legislators to negotiate in private, allowing lawmakers to move controversial bills through without debate.     

“We’ve short-circuited the committee hearing process, even the roll call process,” said Steve Poftak, a former state finance official and executive director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, a public policy center based at Harvard University. “It’s hard for legislators to even get a hand on legislation.”  

Gaps in financial disclosure laws, oversight enforcement lead to ethics violations

Weaknesses in the state’s financial disclosure laws and the enforcement ability of state oversight agencies have also contributed to criminal cases against public servants in recent years.  Former state Ethics Commission Chairman George Brown, who teaches at Boston College, said the problem lies with a political culture that thinks it’s above the law more than a lack of laws.

“You need to have political leaders who make it clear that corruption in the broad sense of the word won’t be tolerated.” Brown said. “I’m not sure Massachusetts is getting that message or has gotten it.”

One politician who didn’t get it was disgraced state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, a Boston Democrat who was caught taking bribes, including being videotaped stuffing 10 $100 bills in her bra.  She pleaded guilty to corruption charges in 2010 and is serving a 3 ½ year federal prison term.

But signs of Wilkerson’s financial improprieties were known as early as 1997, when she was convicted of federal tax evasion.  In 2005, Wilkerson was fined for multiple campaign finance violations, including failing to report $26,935 in donations; another $18,000 paid from her committee went unexplained. The state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, which is supposed to serve as a check on the propriety of political spending, has no civil enforcement power. The agency can only fine candidates for late or incomplete paperwork, referring questionable activities to the state Attorney General. Wilkerson’s mounting personal debt went undetected; she accepted tens of thousands in donations from friends, some of whom turned out to be state contractors.  Critics say this gave Wilkerson a feeling of invincibility.  

“This lack of accountability leads to a slip shod practice and a thought that they can’t be touched,” Brown said.

Lawmakers are required to disclose fees or campaign donations that pose the appearance of a conflict of interest to the Ethics Commission or the House or Senate Clerk. Wilkerson never did and voted in 2005 to give one of the donors, a major developer, a $4.3 million state contract. 

In sentencing Wilkerson for the 2008 bribery case, U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock expressed dismay at the boldness of Massachusetts leaders to use their office for personal gain.  

“It appears that the assumption has become at large that the consequences of engaging in bribery, particularly after a first crime, are not so scary as to make people decide not to do it,” Woodlock wrote.   “. . . there is a kind of ganglion of concerns that surround bribery in this state, political corruption in this state, and that Gordian Knot has not yet been cut. People go back and do it again.”

DiMasi argued the $65,000 referral fee he got for sending the Cognos business to his law partner was legal, and not a bribe. Legislators who like DiMasi also practice law cannot act on budget items or bills if they or their business partners have a financial interest. Even if he had disclosed the transaction, which DiMasi did not, the Ethics Commission does not have to disclose if a lawmaker makes an inquiry about a potential conflict.   

“There is no way to determine in advance if somebody has a conflict of interest,” said David Giannotti, spokesman for the State Ethics Commission.  “It’s incumbent upon the legislator. All the enforcement is after the fact.”

Public access to financial disclosure forms, known as SFI’s, is limited. Public officials are also notified every time someone requests to see the SFI’s and a requester must show identification in order to review them. The SFIs have been criticized for being too broad and non-specific. More information can be gleaned from one year’s tax return, released by both presidential candidates, than what’s asked for in Massachusetts’ SFIs.

A bill sponsored by state Representative Carolyn Dykema, a Holliston Democrat, is moving forward to remove those restrictions and make SFIs available online. 

“The whole democratic process relies on people having faith that the government and elected officials are acting in their best interests,” Dykema said.

DiMasi was not required to reveal the amount of a second mortgage loaned to him by former campaign treasurer Richard Vitale. Vitale was acquitted of conspiracy and mail fraud in the same case. Neither did DiMasi have to report his soaring credit card debt that grew to nearly $275,000, five times his salary as speaker. In other states, like New Jersey, which received an “A” in the integrity index for ethics enforcement, such debt would have to be public through financial disclosures.

Only one full-time staff member in the Ethics Commission is in charge of more than 4,500 Statements of Financial Interest documents filed each year.

“One person looking at the stuff makes it extremely difficult,” said Alice Boelter, a former city and state official who teaches public administration at Regis College.  Boelter reviewed Massachusetts laws for the State Integrity Index. 

Dick W. Simpson, a political science professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said there is little political will to make the disclosures more explicit.

“They don’t want to make them more restrictive because they don’t want to release information about their private affairs,” Simpson said. “They tend to make them very broad and not very illuminating.”

Judiciary exemption from public records law protects probation misconduct

Like the Legislature, the Massachusetts judiciary is exempt from public records laws. It's a weakness that took center stage when a massive patronage scandal in the state Porbation Department was revealed in 2010. The pay-to-play scheme remained well hidden; then-Probation Commissioner John O'Brien did not have to release recommendations for jobs or candidate's test scores so was allegedly able to hire friends and relatives of favored legislators, who voted on his budget, with impunity. Thoughthe Probation Department falls under the state judicial branch, it provided little to no oversight.  

Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said the lack of an independent overseer left the probation department in “darkness.”

“It’s become one of the biggest areas of patronage dumping.” Wilmot said.  “It’s a major problem.”

O’Brien has been forced out of office and faces federal corruption charges, as do a number of other probation officials.  A federal grand jury is hearing testimony from witnesses, including current lawmakers that could result in further indictments. 

New rules on hiring were signed into law last year.  A new independent court administrator will oversee all hiring.  The law creates standard hiring practices and lists minimum qualifications for jobs.  The law also puts any recommendations by lawmakers into the public record.

Reforms not broad enough, critics say

The recent scandals led to ethics reforms passed in 2009 that banned all gifts to public officials, increased penalties across the board for bribery and other campaign finance violations and gave the Ethics Commission and Attorney General expanded powers when investigating and prosecuting a violator.

But critics said the reforms still lack an important tool used by federal investigators to catch corrupt public servants - power to conduct one-party surveillance or record someone without their knowledge. At least 40 states afford either federal or state Attorneys General that power.

“It’s a crucial tool because of the nature of the crimes and how much really hinges on a witness turning state’s evidence,” Wilmot said.

At its core, many political observers in and out of Massachusetts note some of the corruption in Massachusetts stems from the risks associated with the powerful one-party Democratic government that has long held a grip on power in the Bay State, as well as entrenched resistance to change by the political culture.

“Whenever there is an advance made in ethics requirements, it’s always done with a gun at the head of the legislature,” Cunningham, the U-Mass Boston professor, said.  “It’s a sad old story in Massachusetts.”

 

The Massachusetts State House Matt Porter http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/matt-porter Maggie Mulvihill http://www.publicintegrity.org/authors/maggie-mulvihill http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/23/11589/public-betrayal-bay-state
Viewing all 3299 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images