Pelican Inst

=2nd 7 23~ UFWchevron deferenceAAFmiller mofo am 1st legal fdn
==<div><p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">Advancing American Freedom (AAF) today announced it filed an amicus brief before the United States Supreme Court in <em open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" inherit="inherit" important="important" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">Loper Bright Enterprises et al v Gina Raimondo. In the brief, joined by Pelican Institute for Public Policy and America First Legal Foundation. amici argue that the case of<em open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" inherit="inherit" important="important" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;"> Loper v. Raimondo presents the opportunity for <em open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" inherit="inherit" important="important" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">Chevron v NRDC to be overturned, which has long permitted the confusion of powers of the several branches of the Federal government.<p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">“The Chevron Doctrine has too long been the cause of overreaching Federal regulations that have created financial hardships for Americans of all walks of life, and the case before us today will decide if a Federal agency can place bureaucrats on fishing boats and make the owners pay for it,” said J. Marc Wheat, General Counsel for Advancing American Freedom. “The courts have an opportunity to right this wrong and overrule this burdensome doctrine.”<p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">The amicus brief asks the court to consider that Congressional silence is not tantamount to delegating its legislative powers, silence of the Legislative branch is not to be taken as ambiguous, but the Chevron doctrine has read this silence as permission for a fill-in-the-blank overreach of its limited powers.<p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">The amici goes further, emphasizing that Congress alone has power of the purse and the Chevron doctrine, by allowing mischievous agencies to seek funds outside of the appropriations process, has exceeded its delegated powers, and the judicial powers of Article III must now be used to reign in the roving powers of unelected agencies taking powers the Constitution grants to Congress alone.<p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">To view the amicus brief, click <a href="https://advancingamericanfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/AAF-Pelican-AFL-Loper-Bright-Enterprises-et-al-v-Gina-Raimondo.pdf" open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" background-color="background-color" transparent="transparent" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" font-weight="font-weight" inherit="inherit" important="important" font-size="font-size" color="color" rgb="rgb" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">here.</a><p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">
<p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">Sarah Harbison (LSBA # 31948) James Baehr (LSBA #35431) Pelican Institute for Public Policy 400 Poydras St. Suite 900 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 952-8016 sarah@pelicaninstitute.org Gene P. Hamilton Virginia Bar No. 80434 America First Legal Foundation 300 Independence Ave S.E. Washington, DC 20003 (202) 964-3721 gene.hamilton@aflegal.org December 15, 2022<p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">
<p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">MOTION OF ADVANCING AMERICAN FREEDOM FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS <p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2(b), Advancing American Freedom respectfully moves for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners. The brief follows immediately after this motion. Petitioners have granted consent and have filed a blanket consent to the filing of amicus briefs. Respondent has declined to file a blanket consent to the filing of amicus briefs and has failed to respond to an email sent on December 13, 2022 seeking consent. Because respondent has failed to file a blanket consent nor responded to an email seeking consent, Advancing American Freedom presents this motion for leave of the Court to file the appended brief amicus curiae. <p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">Advancing American Freedom is a nonprofit organization that promotes and defends policies that elevate traditional American values, including the uniquely American idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. American freedom has created the greatest and most prosperous country in the history of the world, and if future generations are going to enjoy those blessings, we must secure individual rights in our own time. The Pelican Institute is a nonpartisan research and educational organization—a think tank—and the leading voice for free markets in Louisiana. The Institute’s mission is to conduct research and analysis that advances sound policies based on free enterprise, individual liberty, and constitutionally limited government. The Pelican Institute routinely <p times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" serif="serif" margin="margin" px="px" overflow-wrap="overflow-wrap" break-word="break-word" color="color" rgb="rgb" font-size="font-size" important="important" style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.2s ease 0s; position: relative; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5;">challenges administrative overreach when it interferes with Louisianians’ right to earn a living. Notably, the Pelican Institute represented Louisiana business owner Brandon Trosclair in his challenge to the OSHA vaccine-or-test mandate. BST Holdings, L.L.C., et al. v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, et al., 17 4th 604 (5th Cir. 2021). America First Legal Foundation (AFL)  MILLER MOFO is a public interest law firm providing citizens with representation in cases of broad public importance to vindicate Americans’ constitutional and common law rights, protect their civil liberties, and advance the rule of law. AFL employs former high-ranking Department of Justice and Executive Branch lawyers who are intimately familiar with the government's use and abuse of the Chevron doctrine to unhinge the separation of powers. Thus, AFL has a strong interest in the question presented. This case is important to amici because it presents to this Court the opportunity to overrule Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which for too long has permitted the confusion of powers of the several branches of the Federal government. The genius of the Constitution is its structure, dividing power against itself into three coequal branches and thereby protecting the liberties of its citizens from Leviathan. The proposed amicus brief seeks to bring before the Court arguments informed by amicus’s experience in studying and briefing the issues presented. Movant believes that this brief will assist the Court in its consideration of the petition. The significant issues concerning the structural constitutional provisions </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div>
===A few days ago, The Pelican Institute for Public Policy published a report titled <a href="http://www.pelicaninstitute.org/files/pdf/High%20Speed%20Rail.pdf" target="_blank">Why Louisiana Should Not Build High-Speed Rail</a> by Randal O’Toole of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute. (Apparently, the days of high speed rail have already come and gone, even though we have never had a national high-speed commuter rail network, and besides, no one is going to want to ride a train, even though most of us have never had the option. Oddly enough, Mr. O’Toole’s report does not include the words “hurricane,” “evacuation,” “New Orleans,” or “Baton Rouge;” it’s almost as if this is a boilerplate, fill-in-the-blanks diatribe against rail in general).

The Pelican Institute is a Louisiana-based think tank founded last year by native New Yorker and Tulane grad Kevin Kane. Jeb Bruneau, son of former State Representative Peppi Bruneau, is its Vice President. (Peppi, as some may recall, was accused of timing his retirement announcement to maximally benefit Jeb’s campaign for the seat. Jeb lost anyway). Though it labels itself as “non-partisan,” the Pelican Institute is undeniably bent toward conservative and libertarian political philosophies, with a concentration on limiting government. Last year, in an article in <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121824246529126197.html" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a>, the Pelican Institute was described as a group of up-and-comers confronting the entrenched corruption of Louisiana through serious policy research. Quoting:

“Having a think tank under Edwin Edwards would have been meaningless,” says Stephen Gele, a member of the Pelican Institute’s Board of Directors. “You could have done a 50-page paper, but who would have read it? Edwards would have made up his mind over a game of Bourré” — a Cajun gamblers’ pastime, similar to Spades — “and that would have been the end of it.”

</blockquote>

Fighting words, to be sure.

Earlier this year, the Pelican Institute, along with Citizens Against Waste in Government, published the <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pelicaninstitute.org%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2F2009%2520LA_PorkRprt_3C.pdf&ei=rbt0SsSmEuOBtgepjtCWCQ&usg=AFQjCNF440vqYc5Bht0uUxa_QZefKP8PcA&sig2=QohaEU6Hn_YOoWaZHyIhjA" target="_blank">2009 Louisiana Pork Report</a>, a 36-page report that reads more like snarky opposition to government than serious policy analysis.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for calling out wasteful government spending, but there are numerous problems with the Pork Report.

It’s not even worth the time or energy nitpicking through everything in this ridiculous report. To me, its credibility is immediately undermined by its criticism of the Alexandria Zoo:

The Alexandria Zoological Park was built in 1926, near its present location. It started with discarded pets such as rabbits, goats, and deer. In the late 1960s, the US Department of Agriculture threatened to close it down. A full-time zookeeper was hired and the city started making some improvements.

Today, the zoo has a larger variety of animals than when it first started, and it is a major tourist attraction. But the question is whether taxpayers or visitors have to support it. People pay for entertainment all the time such as movies and eating out, and those activities are supported by the money they spend. That’s how businesses stay alive. The zoo should not be any different. Yet lawmakers approved $175,000 for the zoo in 2008.

</blockquote>

News flash to the New Yorker and the DC-based CAWG: The zoo is not and has never been a private business, and it’s not simply an “entertainment” option. It’s a habitat for over 600 animals, including nearly 30 endangered species, and it’s one of only three accredited zoos in the State. It’s a major quality of life destination in Central Louisiana, and there is absolutely no doubt that our zoo adds value to the entire region.

Regarding that $175,000: I’m sure that the good men and women of the Zoo and the non-profit Friends of the Alexandria Zoo will be thrilled to have the support of the State.

Unfortunately, the check must still be in the mail.

The report lambastes Mayor Cedric Glover for spending $4,475 to attend the United States Conference of Mayors and the Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., yet it says absolutely nothing about the tens of thousands of dollars taxpayers have spent to send Governor Bobby Jindal across the country for campaign fundraisers. It criticizes Shaw Group for utilizing $210 million in state incentives, but instead of telling us what, exactly, those incentives were for, it focuses on Shaw CEO Jim Bernhard’s political affiliation. Even though Jindal approved those incentives, the spending is labeled “wasteful” because Bernhard donated to Kathleen Blanco’s gubernatorial campaign.

That’s what The Pelican Institute is: A group of partisan ideologues masquerading as an objective, intellectual “think tank,” outsourcing their “analysis” to established conservative think tanks like Citizens Against Government Waste, the Reason Foundation, and the Cato Institute because they don’t actually employ any real scholars themselves.

The Pelican Institute. Neither pelicans nor an institute. Discuss.

===

All four suspects were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Flanagan is the only suspect from Louisiana. Basel is from Minnesota; O'Keefe, New Jersey; and Dai, the D.C.-Virginia area.

"It was poor judgment," Flanagan's lawyer, Garrison Jordan, said in a brief interview outside the courtroom. "I don't think there was any intent or motive to commit a crime."

Flanagan recently criticized Landrieu for her vote on the Senate health care bill after securing a Medicaid provision estimated in value at up to $365 million for Louisiana. Conservatives accused her of selling her vote but she insisted no "special deals" were made.

"Do not be fooled into believing Landrieu is helping the state of Louisiana," Flanagan wrote in a Nov. 25 post on the Web site for the Pelican Institute, a Louisiana think tank that promotes the free market and limited government. "If the proposed healthcare legislation were to be signed into law, the $300 million allocated to Louisiana will pale in comparison to the long-term debt Louisiana citizens will ultimately shoulder."

---

The Pelican Institute is listed as a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Franklin_Center_for_Government_and_Public_Integrity" title="Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity">Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity</a> "Statehouse News Bureau." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a> The Franklin Center funds reporters in over 40 states.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a> Despite their non-partisan description, many of the websites funded by the Franklin Center have received criticism for their conservative bias.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a> On it's website, the Franklin Center clams that it "provides 10 percent of all daily reporting from state capitals nationwide." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-4" title="">[5]</a>

<h3>Funding</h3>

The Franklin Center was launched by the Chicago-based <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sam_Adams_Alliance" title="Sam Adams Alliance">Sam Adams Alliance</a> (SAM),<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-5" title="">[6]</a> a 501(c)(3) devoted to pushing free-market ideals. SAM gets funding from the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network" title="State Policy Network">State Policy Network</a>,<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-6" title="">[7]</a> which is partially funded by The Claude R. Lambe Foundation.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-7" title="">[8]</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Koch" title="Charles Koch" class="mw-redirect">Charles Koch</a>, one of the billionaire brothers who co-own Koch Industries, sits on the board of this foundation.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-8" title="">[9]</a> SAM also receives funding from the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rodney_Fund" title="Rodney Fund">Rodney Fund</a>. The Franklin Center also receives funding from the Wisconsin-based <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation" title="Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation">Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation</a>,<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-9" title="">[10]</a> a conservative grant-making organization.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_note-10" title="">[11]</a>

<h2>References</h2>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-0" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/e/e4/Franklin_Center_Statehouse_News_Bureaus.jpg" class="external text" title="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/e/e4/Franklin_Center_Statehouse_News_Bureaus.jpg" rel="nofollow">Statehouse News Bureaus</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org" class="external text" title="http://www.sourcewatch.org" rel="nofollow">Source Watch</a>, accessed March 23, 2012</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. <a href="http://www.franklincenterhq.org/2376/think-tank-journalism-the-future-of-investigative-reporting/" class="external text" title="http://www.franklincenterhq.org/2376/think-tank-journalism-the-future-of-investigative-reporting/" rel="nofollow">Think tank Journalism: The Future of Investigative Journalism</a>. Organizational website. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-2" title="">↑</a> The Portland Press Herald. <a href="http://www.pressherald.com/news/watchdog-website-puts-a-new-spin-on-politics_2010-10-02.html" class="external text" title="http://www.pressherald.com/news/watchdog-website-puts-a-new-spin-on-politics_2010-10-02.html" rel="nofollow">'Watchdog' website puts a new spin on politics'</a>. News website. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-3" title="">↑</a> Truthout. <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/koch-spider-web/1312231636" class="external text" title="http://www.truth-out.org/koch-spider-web/1312231636" rel="nofollow">The Koch Spider Web</a>. News website. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-4" title="">↑</a> Sara Jerving, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/10971/franklin-center-right-wing-funds-state-news-source" class="external free" title="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/10971/franklin-center-right-wing-funds-state-news-source" rel="nofollow">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/10971/franklin-center-right-wing-funds-state-news-source</a>, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org" class="external text" title="http://www.prwatch.org" rel="nofollow">PR Watch</a>, October 27, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-5" title="">↑</a> Sam Adams Alliance. <a href="http://www.samadamsalliance.org/media/5148/sam_adams_alliance_media_kit.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.samadamsalliance.org/media/5148/sam_adams_alliance_media_kit.pdf" rel="nofollow">Sam Adams Alliance Media Kit</a>. Organizational PDF. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-6" title="">↑</a> Media Matters Action Network. <a href="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Sam_Adams_Alliance/funders" class="external text" title="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Sam_Adams_Alliance/funders" rel="nofollow">Sam Adams Alliance</a>. Conservative Transparency. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-7" title="">↑</a> Media Matters Action Network. <a href="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/State_Policy_Network/funders" class="external text" title="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/State_Policy_Network/funders" rel="nofollow">State Policy Network</a>. Conservative Transparency. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-8" title="">↑</a> Media Matters Action Network. <a href="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Claude_R_Lambe_Charitable_Foundation" class="external text" title="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Claude_R_Lambe_Charitable_Foundation" rel="nofollow">Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation</a>. Conservative Transparency. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-9" title="">↑</a> The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/127259723.html" class="external text" title="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/127259723.html" rel="nofollow">Franklin Center boss wants apology from Democratic staffer</a>. News website. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pelican_Institute#cite_ref-10" title="">↑</a> The Bradley Foundation. <a href="http://www.bradleyfdn.org/" class="external text" title="http://www.bradleyfdn.org/" rel="nofollow">The Bradley Foundation</a>. Organizational website. Accessed August 19, 2011.</li>

</ol>

=nytOld Tactics, New Goals
The campaign caught the eye of Andrew Breitbart, a conservative Web publisher and a former editor of The Drudge Report. In an interview, he said he had admired the Planned Parenthood campaign but did not know who was behind it until Mr. O’Keefe approached him with the Acorn project.Mr. Breitbart likened Mr. O’Keefe’s approach to that of Abbie Hoffman and Hunter S. Thompson. His business arrangement with Mr. O’Keefe to run the videos on his Big Government site is widely credited with giving them national exposure, and making Mr. O’Keefe a star of his movement.By last fall, Mr. Wetmore seemed less involved in Mr. O’Keefe’s projects, apparently because he had moved to New Orleans to attend law school at Loyola University. Nonetheless, Mr. O’Keefe, Mr. Basel and Mr. Dai showed up in town a few months later.Mr. O’Keefe had been invited to speak at a Pelican Institute luncheon on Jan. 21. The invitation had come about, said the institute’s president, Kevin Kane, because the institute had done its own investigations of Acorn, albeit of the more traditional kind.The topic of the day was undercover video and new media, but Mr. O’Keefe made it clear to some who attended the luncheon that he had other, unspecified work to do in New Orleans.Also at the luncheon was Mr. Flanagan, who had worked as an intern in the offices of several Republican members of Congress. He moved to New Orleans last year, putting in a few hours a week as a blogger for the Pelican Institute.David Centofante, who was in a defense and strategic studies program with Mr. Flanagan at Missouri State University, said he received an e-mail message from Mr. Flanagan a couple of weeks ago.“He said to me, ‘You know the guy O’Keefe who did the Acorn thing?’ ” Mr. Centofante said. “ ‘We’re working together on something kind of cool.’ ”Things did not quite work out as planned.=

</div>