Rich, Howard $

===

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/10/donors-to-anti-obama-dark-money-grp/

Former “dark money” giant Americans for Job Security has walked out from the shadows, disclosing its donors last week following years of complaints and lawsuits filed by ethics watchdogs.

Between 2010 and 2012, the group raked in at least $65 million from billionaires, corporations and nebulous groups that don’t disclose their own sources of funding, recent filings show. Many of the group’s top donors have now lined up behind President Donald Trump, cutting big checks to his reelection bid. The now-defunct conservative group was largely active in the 2012 election cycle, spending $15.2 million on political ads attacking then-Democratic President Barack Obama during his reelection bid. The group also spent almost $5 million on independent expenditures in the 2010 cycle targeting Democrats and promoting Republicans in congressional races. Between late 2011 and 2012, the group gave out $26.3 million in grants, most of which went to the Center to Protect Patient Rights, another dark money group with close ties to the Koch brothers. Americans for Job Security’s political activities triggered a 2012 complaint by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning watchdog group, alleging that the conservative business league acted — yet failed to register — as a political committee. The recent disclosure was prompted by several lawsuits the ethics group filed against the Federal Election Commission over the years and a September agreement requiring the dark money group to register as a political committee and reveal its donors. “This is a major victory for transparency and the rule of law,” said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the watchdog group, in a press release. “This is the first major release of dark money sources in the post-Citizens United era, a rare and long overdue victory in the fight against the illegal use of dark money in politics.” Among the group’s biggest donors are billionaires with a history of bankrolling conservative causes, records show.

Donor(s)	Total Given (2010-2012)
Charles Schwab	$8,800,000
John J. Fisher	$5,000,000
Center to Protect Patient Rights	$4,645,000
Hensel Phelps Construction	$2,930,000
William Fisher	$2,000,000
Rosebush Corp	$2,000,000
Richard & Helen Devos	$2,000,000
Doris Fisher	$2,000,000
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies	$2,000,000
Workforce Fairness Institute	$1,500,000

Showing 1 to 10 of 172 entries

John Fisher, owner of the Oakland Athletics and son of Gap Inc. founders Donald and Doris Fisher, gave generously to the group, shelling out $5 million between 2010 and 2012. His mother and his two brothers, Robert and William Fisher, also combined to give the group another $5 million, making the Fisher family the group’s biggest donor. The California philanthropist mostly gave to conservative causes in the past, doling out $416,400 to Republican candidates and parties last cycle. Spreading his fortune between the two major parties, Fisher also gave $2,800 each this year to several Democratic presidential hopefuls, including self-funded businessman John Delaney and Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.). Paypal executive Peter Thiel gave the conservative group $500,000. An outspoken Trump supporter and GOP donor, the venture capitalist gave a $1 million check last year to Club for Growth Action, a conservative super PAC, and $100,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee in 2017. He also gave a total of $500,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory. Many of the group’s top donors between 2010 and 2012 are now Trump allies. Billionaire investor Charles Schwab delivered $8.8 million to the conservative group between 2010 and 2012. A longtime GOP donor, the brokerage firm chairman has given $9.4 million to conservative outside spending groups from 2011 to 2019. Schwab became a staunch Trump supporter in 2016, giving $1 million to the president’s inaugural committee and more than $100,000 to the Republican National Committee legal fund, which helps pay for Trump’s legal bills. Schwab and his wife Helen each gave $1 million to the pro-Trump super PAC Future45 last year.

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam also chipped in $250,000 to fuel the conservative group. Longtime Republican megadonors, the couple shelled out $122.3 million to conservative political groups in 2018, including $10 million to pro-Trump super PAC America First Action. The couple doled out $20 million in 2016 to Future45 and gave $5 million to fund Trump’s inaugural festivities in 2017.

Adelson’s support for the president earned him a seat at the dining table at the White House with Trump, Jared Kushner and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in 2017, as well as closer access to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for his casino bid in Japan, ProPublica reported. Real estate developer Geoffrey Palmer, who gave Americans for Job Security almost $2 million between 2010 and 2012, has given America First Action a total of $6 million to support Trump since 2017. Palmer also gave $5 million to pro-Trump super PAC Rebuilding America Now and $765,200 to Trump Victory. The late Richard and Helen DeVos, in-laws of current Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, gave Americans for Job Security $2 million. The couple gave $2.8 million to conservative groups during the 2016 election cycle — right before their daughter-in-law became Trump’s appointee — with the entire DeVos family giving more than $10 million throughout the cycle. Many other current and former Trump cabinet members are also among the group’s now disclosed donors. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, who was previously an investment banker, gave $5,000 to the group in 2012. Linda McMahon, formerly the head of the Small Business Administration under Trump, left the cabinet to chair America First Action in May. McMahon and her husband Vince gave Americans for Job Security $10,000 in 2012. Americans for Job Security also attracted millions of dollars from corporations whose executives tend to give to Republicans.

**Hensel Phelps Construction**, one of the biggest construction managing companies in the country, coughed up $2.93 million to support the group. Since 1990, affiliates of the Colorado-based firm have combined to give $914,458 to political candidate campaigns, 94 percent of which went to support Republicans. Jeffrey Wenaas, the CEO of Hensel Phelps, gave exclusively to conservative causes over the years.

The dark money group also hauled in $3 million from oil and gas giant **Devon Energy**, whose PAC gave exclusively to conservative groups in the past. Texas-based Beal Bank also shelled out $1 million to fund the conservative group between 2010 and 2012. Andrew Beal, founder of Beal Bank, spent more than $300,000 to fund a Facebook meme campaign to support Trump’s 2016 presidential bid, CNBC reported. While Americans for Job Security disclosed its sources of revenue, many of its donors are limited liability companies or tax-exempt organizations whose sources of income remain hidden under federal law. Some of those groups that donated to Americans for Job Security keep on giving large sums to other similar organizations, making the money flow among a network of conservative dark money groups virtually untraceable.

**Rosebush Corp**, a 501(c)(4) organization that was once denied tax-exempt status by the IRS, gave a $2 million grant to Americans for Job Security in 2012, as first disclosed in Rosebush’s tax filing. In 2011, the 501(c)(4) also gave a $750,000 grant to **Americans for Limited Government**, a dark money group led by real estate developer Howard Rich, which spent millions running ads against Democrats. Like with the Center to Protect Patient Rights, money shuffled between the Rich-linked group and Americans for Job Security. Rich’s group received $10,000 from Americans for Job Security in 2011 and another $100,000 from the group in 2012, two years after it gave the dark money giant $60,000, recent filings show.

**Wellspring Committee**, another dark money group residing on the web of conservative tax-exempt organizations, gave Americans for Job Security $346,098 in 2010. OpenSecrets previously reported that the committee injected a total of nearly $3 million into the conservative group from 2008 to 2010 and gave out grants worth more than $17 million from 2008 to 2011. The group officially shut down in December 2018. Reporter Karl Evers-Hillstrom and researchers Anna Massoglia and Alex Baumgart contributed to the report.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/06/rich-rewards-one-mans-shadow-money-network/

howard rich 2012

is the eighth story in anexclusive series about the funding behind politically active tax-exempt organizations that don’t disclose their donors. You can read the other stories in the series here.

Long ago, Earth Day rooted itself in the minds of many Americans as a regular annual event — not bad for what started 42 years ago as a “teach-in” about the dangers of an industrial economy running amok.

But there have always been opponents to the environmentalist agenda, and on Earth Day 2012, they found that they had their own, modern-day “teach-in” — a four-and-a-half minute video posted on YouTube. The slick production, titled ,” is a laundry list of libertarian grievances against big government billed as a response to the “economic suicide pact” of environmentalism.

“If I wanted America to fail, I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones,” says the narrator, black background and foreboding music adding to an apocalyptic tone. “They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them. That way, small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance.”

He goes on to mock alternative energy, the public education system and other standards of the left. “If I wanted America to fail, I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans,” he concludes. “I would only need to convince them that all of this is for the greater good. If I wanted America to fail, I…I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.”

Heavily promoted by Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing commentators, the video went viral, racking up 2.3 million views since it debuted.

But few, if any, of those millions of viewers understand the complicated web of secretive, densely interwoven political groups from which the video emerged.

While the network is built around nonprofits with vague names and grassroots slogans that imply the participation of many ordinary Americans, it’s primarily the handiwork of one man: Howard Rich.

Rich, 72, made his fortune in Manhattan real estate, but since at least the early 1970s, his passion has been libertarian politics. He decamped from the Libertarian Party in the 1980s to establish his own network of like-minded think-tanks and publishing companies.

Rich is also prominently attached to leading national libertarian groups — he sits on the boards of directors of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute.Yet he remains a mysterious figure, rarely interviewed and almost always several steps removed from any direct action.

Still, an examination of the publicity-shy mogul’s efforts makes several things clear. He is deeply committed to his ideological values — willing to spend massive amounts of money to push projects even in places where he has little apparent personal or business connection. He is single-minded in his approach, willing to lash out at conservatives as quickly and as viciously as he will go after liberals. And all indications are that he believes the ends justify the means, sometimes using money as a blunt force object to get his way.

His involvement in electoral politics usually consists of transferring money — though it’s often difficult to say exactly whose money — into nonprofit groups that don’t disclose their donors. When he funds causes — or candidates — directly, Rich frequently camouflages his donations under any of dozens of nearly anonymous shell corporations. In that way, he’s the antithesis of a Sheldon Adelson, an ultra-rich Republicans who has openly given tens of millions to GOP presidential super PACs. On those occasions when Rich is revealed as the source of contributions, though, he’s been unapologetic about his role.

According to Internal Revenue Service records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, from the early 2000s at least through 2010 Rich was the linchpin holding together a confusing, swirling array of political organizations — all of them nondisclosing nonprofit groups — that spent heavily to influence state and federal politics around the country. The constellation of organizations that operate out of a handful of Rich-related addresses is constantly changing, but some of them are well-known: Rich, in his role as chairman of U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(4)group under tax rules, has for years been the driving force of the movement to curtail how long elected officials can stay in office. He’s also the chairman of a 501(c)(4) group called Americans for Limited Government, which spent $1.02 million in 2010 targeting Democrats running for Congress and distributed millions more to other groups.

“If I Wanted America to Fail” is a textbook example of Rich’s tangled web. It was produced by a group calledFree Market America,which, according to its website, is a joint project of Rich’s Americans for Limited Government and another group, Citizens for Limited Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc. Florida state records show that Citizens for Limited Taxes is registered at a Tampa address that also is home to at least 30 political action committees; the group’s only listed officers are two political operatives and the head of the Florida Chamber of Commerce. State campaign finance records show that in 2010, the group collected and spent more than $12 million helping defeat a proposition that would have slowed development in Florida. Its relationship with Rich? Like so much about his empire, that’s not entirely clear.

OpenSecrets.org made multiple attempts to interview Rich and other individuals involved with his groups, including several board members. But Ray Wotring, Americans for Limited Government’s treasurer, said the group would not allow any representative to comment.

“You can keep pushing, but we’re not going to talk to you,” Wotring said,complaining that OpenSecrets.org published a “hatchet job on Howie in 2006.” For the record, OpenSecrets.org did not publish any articles about Rich in 2006, and has never written specifically about him.

Eric O’Keefe, who co-founded U.S. Term Limits with Rich and is currently the CEO of the Sam Adams Alliance, a tea party group, and board member of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, was the only individual close to Rich who would comment for this story. O’Keefe, who is no longer part of Rich’s organizations but said he follows them and counts Rich as a friend, said it is Rich’s deep commitment to libertarian ideals, not an expectation of payback, that drives his donations to political groups and candidates.

“Howie has given millions of dollars to these causes,” O’Keefe said. “All of us benefit from a functioning democracy and a functioning market economy, but he has never expected to have a tangible return on his investments.”

O’Keefe said Rich is careful to obey laws as they are written, but opposes limits on campaign contributions.

“I can’t speak for him, but I know he pays a lot of money to attorneys to follow the rules,” O’Keefe said. “I know he doesn’t favor the system for limits on contributions” because he believes it favors incumbents.

Occasionally, Rich grants an interview or offers his opinion more directly — posting columns on his own website, for instance. In 2010, he penned one about the Rod Blagojevich scandal in Chicago, in which the former governor of Illinois was accused of selling political favors for campaign contributions. Rich, dripping with cynicism, portrayed the world of politics as a grimy, corrupt place.

“First of all, if you think this sort of pay-to-play scamming doesn’t go on every single day in Washington D.C. and state capitals all across America, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you,” Rich wrote, continuing:

It may not always be so mindlessly overt (and the tape recorder may not always be on), but in the post-Jack Abramoff world we live in – a world of “free home renovations” for U.S. Senators and cash hidden away in Representatives’ freezers – let’s not delude ourselves.

The network

One way to begin tracing Rich’s network is to follow the numbers — for example, 9900. At least six of the groups affiliated with Rich are based out of an office at 9900 Main Street in Fairfax, VA.

Suite 303 of that four-story office building is home to Americans for Limited Government Inc., Americans for Limited Government Foundation, U.S. Term Limits, Inc., U.S.Term Limits Foundation, Legislative Education Action Drive and Parents In Charge Foundation. Some are 501(c)(3) charities under the tax code, and some are 501(c)(4)s.

Rich is the chairman or president of all of them, with a tight circle of trusted lieutenants in key positions. Bill Wilson, a libertarian political operative who has worked with Rich since the 1990s, is a paid employee of all of the groups. And their various boards of directors are strikingly similar — and dominated by other prominent libertarians, like Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, who in 2010 was a board member of four of Rich’s groups. Frayda Levy, who sits on the board of Club for Growth, is listed as a director of two of Rich’s groups.

Together, these six groups listed $11.6 million in revenues in 2010, the most recent year for which a report is available, and $12.8 million spent on things like political consultants, mass mailings and grants to other politically-oriented nonprofits. There tax status prevents them from having to publicly disclose their funders, so almost none of the $11.6 million these groups reported in revenue can be traced to a specific source.

One exception: A recent OpenSecrets.org investigation into a previously unreported group called the Center to Protect Patient Rights found that the group gave tens of millions to major conservative 501(c)(4) organizations — including $5.6 million to Americans For Limited Government, Inc., in 2010. But that trail dead-ends at a post office box in Arizona, with no indication of who is providing the Center’s funds. And there’s very little indication where the rest of Rich’s network gets its money — although Rich’s own pocket is a possibility.

O’Keefe declined to say whether Rich’s own money drives his organizations.

But O’Keefe said that he and Rich share the belief that donors have a constitutionally protected right to contribute to political causes (though not candidates) without having to reveal their names.

“Our position was always that we were always happy to have people brag about their money, but it’s not our business to brag about their donations,” O’Keefe said.

Repeating an argument often made by those who oppose disclosure, O’Keefe said that when donors’ names are made public, they become targets for solicitations from other people seeking money, and it opens them up to retribution from powerful interests.

“That’s a real and ongoing concern,” he said. “We viewed it as our role to protect [donors] from that.”

The churn

Trying to trace the cashflow between Rich’s groups is a little like watching a Rube Goldberg contraption: there are a lot of moving parts. For instance, in 2010, Americans for Limited Government Foundation gave theParents In Charge Foundation a grant of $225,000,and the U.S. Term Limits Foundation a grant of $234,000. But it also owed $1 million to its 501(c)(4) sibling, Americans for Limited Government, Inc.

Americans for Limited Government, Inc., in turn, gave a grant of $125,000 to U.S. Term Limits Inc. — and then lent it $346,000 more.

Yet the same year, U.S. Term Limits Foundation lent $85,000 back to Americans for Limited Government, Inc.

Confused yet? This may well be the point, or, according to tax attorney and former top IRS official Marcus Owens, it may be a clever system to skirt restrictions on how the organizations can operate. Because of the similarities between the various groups — their staffs, board members, missions and organizations they fund — the churn of cash back and forth raises questions, Owens said.

“It’s the same group, at the same address, with occasionally some new faces and they all seem to act on the same set of principles — limited government and term limits — so it seems kind of implausible that there is some sort of benefit from these internal financial relationships other than to disguise and modify the character of the money,” he said.

For example, grants from a 501(c)(3) organization, such as U.S. Term Limits Foundation, couldn’t be used by a 501(c)(4), such as Americans for Limited Government, Inc., for political activity. Loans from the same group, structured as ordinary business transactions, would have no such restrictions, Owens noted.

Also, tax law requires 501(c)(4)s like Americans for Limited Government, Inc., to spend the majority of their resources on “social welfare” activities. Spending too much on politics can lead to a challenge of their tax-exempt status.

***

“If you have a 501(c)(4) that’s heavily engaged in political activity, it needs to somehow establish that 51 percent of what it does, isn’t political — how do you do that quickly? Make a grant,” Owens said. “You could have a sort of circular cycling of dollars that attempts to support the tax status of all the (c)(4)s in the network.”

And moving money between groups may help Rich’s organizations appear to be funded by multiple sources. Receiving all its donations from a single source can be problematic for an organization trying to maintain its favorable tax status, according to Owens, as it suggests the group’s purpose is to benefit that single donor.

The fact that Rich lends money to the groups in his network is unusual, Owens noted.

In 2010 Rich lent $772,000 to U.S. Term Limits, Inc., through Rich Lending Corporation. In previous years he lent money to Americans for Limited Government, Inc., and sometimes the group lent money back to Rich Lending Corporation, as well.

According to Owens, this may be a way to gain a tax benefit for funding a politically active nonprofit. Simply donating money to the group money might not be tax deductible as a business expense — particularly if the group engages in lobbying or political activity, which Americans for Limited Government does. But if the money is loaned by a for-profit company it can be used for any purpose by the recipient and the source of the funds would avoid limitations on business deductions.

“If they loan money, then it’s not an expenditure, it’s a business transaction and any related expenses would likely be deductible,” Owens said.

The spread

Rich’s network, though, isn’t entirely a closed system. The groups also spend money on political campaigns directly. OpenSecrets.org data shows Americans for Limited Government spent $1.02 million on mailers attacking Democrats in 2010 — the biggest target being Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Another $6 million was spent hiring political consultants and direct-mailing firms in Utah, California and Arizona, according to the group’s tax form.

And Rich’s groups also distribute to an array of other nondisclosing nonprofits in the form of grants.

In 2010, Americans for Limited Government sent $250,000 to Americans for Job Security,a nonprofit closely linked to several of George W. Bush’s top political advisers. Americans for Job Security spent almost $9 million in 2010, targeting mostly Democratic congressional candidates. It also stepped into an Alaskan state ballot initiative fight, spending $1.6 million supporting a local 501(c)(4) in an effort to try to defeat a referendum limiting mining. In response to complaints filed about the local group and its claims to be a grassroots organization, the Alaska Public Offices Commission opened an investigation to determine the group’s funding sources.

“Americans for Job Security has no purpose other than to cover various money trails all over the country,” the commission’s report concluded.

AJS, whose executive director shared office space with the Karl Rove-linked organization American Crossroads, was also accused in the report of being an improper conduit for money from the mine’s owner. Though AJS never admitted wrongdoing, it paid a $20,000 settlement.

Most of the grants Americans for Limited Government gave in 2010 seemed to follow a similar playbook: at least $1.1 million went to other 501(c)(4)s in three states — Colorado, South Carolina and Alaska. Those groups, in turn, passed much of the money on to other groups, which then intervened directly in local and state elections. Rich’s other groups made similar donations to many of the same local groups.

In Alaska, Americans for Limited Government sent $66,000 to a 501(c)(4) called Alaskans for Open Government — which in turn sent most of the money to another group called Clean Team Alaska. That group spent heavily to promote a ballot measure that would have banned virtually anyone who received public money — government contractors, municipalities, public employee unions (a regular hobgoblin in Rich’s writings) — from lobbying the government or contributing money to political campaigns. The effort was abruptly abandoned just before the Alaskan Public Offices Commission required the Alaskan groups to disclose their funders.

Rich is fond of ballot initiatives for a very simple reason, U.S. Term Limits co-founder O’Keefe says.

“They don’t change their mind after the election,” he said. “They don’t renege on campaign promises. It’s a policy, not a candidate. You don’t actually know what you’re getting back from a candidate.”

[dyn graph] cf

Rich’s Network: This interactive graphic displays some of the groups that are either part of Rich’s network of non-disclosing 501(c) organizations, or have received money from them, based on 990 forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service. You can zoom in or out, reduce the number of organizations to see only the larger ones, or reshape the network. To see the data behind this visualization — including the value and type of transaction between each group — click here to download an Excel (.xlsx) spreadsheet.

Palmetto State Politics

Rich may have made his biggest mark in South Carolina— a state where he appears to have no personal connections or obvious business interests. But since 2006, Rich has spent large sums in the state, largely to pursue one of his favored causes: School vouchersto allow parents to send their children to educational institutions other than their local neighborhood schools.

In 2010 alone, Rich’s organizations gave more than $1.7 million to a handful of South Carolina non-profits — groups like South Carolinians for Responsible Government and Conservatives In Action. South Carolinians for Responsible Government is actually two separate nonprofits, one a 501(c)(3) and another a 501(c)(4). Both groups are based at the same address and have the same president and identical boards of directors. Combined, they listed having more than $1.6 million in revenue in 2010.

“South Carolinians for Responsible Government is a statewide grassroots non-profit organization,” the group claims on its website. “Unlike our opponents, who use tax dollars to fund their operations, we depend entirely on the generosity of citizens like you.”

But that’s true only if “citizens like you” includes four of Rich’s groups, which, according to their tax filings, made five grants to the two South Carolina organizations totaling $1.5 million — about 90 percent of the recipient groups’ revenues. It’s a classic Rich maneuver, indirect and complicated.

As is Rich’s sidestepping of South Carolina’s campaign finance laws: A recent investigation by The State newspaper found that since 2008, Rich had contributed at least $188,000 to 38 members of the South Carolina House of Representatives. An OpenSecrets Blog review of South Carolina’s campaign finance disclosures indicate that since that article was published, Rich has given at least another $19,000 to three state Senate candidates facing primary fights.

But since South Carolina caps individual donations at $2,000, Rich had to be creative. Instead he made his gifts through shell companies with names like Stillrich LLC, Coolcal LLC, 188 Claremont LLC, 123 LaSalle, Inc., and 51 First Avenue, LLC. The companies, many of which appear to linger from Rich’s time in real estate – a realm in which it’s common for each property to exist as its own LLC — all list 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1011, Philadelphia, PA, as their address.

That’s the address of the Center for Independent Thought, the libertarian think tank run by Rich’s wife, Andrea Millen Rich.

Dick Harpootlian, the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, is blunt in his assessment of Rich.

“He owns the whole f***ing state,” Harpootlian said recently in an interview with OpenSecrets Blog.

Phil Noble, a Democratic party activist who in 2010 traveled the state confronting candidates for taking Rich’s campaign contributions, is almost as blunt.

“He’s basically bought the Republican Party and virtually all the state House candidates is what it boils down to,” Noble told OpenSecrets Blog. “God knows how many millions he has spent here.” According to Noble, Rich first came to the state to back former governor Mark Sanford, who was a prominent school voucher proponent.

Noble said that Rich has targeted candidates, often moderate Republicans, in primary contests, usually shortly before an election. One left-wing South Carolina blog found that in 2008, LLCs and individuals affiliated with Rich contributed $40,000 to a conservative state Senate candidate, Lee Bright, in the final two weeks before he faced off against an incumbent Republican. The contributions, which were not made public until after the vote, accounted for 20 percent of Bright’s funds in that election.

Simultaneously, the South Carolina Club For Growth — a group affiliated with the national Club For Growth, where Rich is a board member — dropped, blasting him for taking money from trial lawyers.

Bright narrowly won the race.

Noble blames Rich for corrupting South Carolina’s political culture by encouraging the development and use of secretive non-profits to attack political enemies.

“He was sort of the impetus for the the creation of a whole (c)(4) support network for Sanford and his agenda,” Noble said. “He brought that whole culture with him.”

Furthermore, said Noble, Rich and his network “don’t care at all” about bad publicity. “They just spend what they have to, and they keep spending big.”

Continuing to Spend

There are indications that increasingly Rich is aiming his operation at federal politics. For the past two years, OpenSecrets.org data shows, Americans For Limited Government, Inc., has employed a federal lobbyist. So far this year, the group has lobbied in support of two anti- union bills, including one sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), to whose campaign Rich personally gave $2,500. NetRightDaily.com, an online publication sponsored by Americans for Limited Government, has trumpeted the role the group played helping Duncan develop the legislation.

In March, Rich gave $50,000 to the Club For Growth Action Fund, a super PAC affiliated with the libertarian Club For Growth where Rich is on the board. Characteristically, Rich shrouded the donation under cover of a shell corporation, Ashborough Investors LLC, which lists his wife as the manager.

He has given another $48,500 directly to candidates like Richard Mourdock, the Indiana Tea Party challenger who successfully upset long-time incumbent Republican Sen. Dick Lugar, as well as to PACs — including Club for Growth and the Term Limits America PAC.

If Rich is gearing up his operation for a big effort at the federal level, there will likely be a liberal pushback — his name is often mentioned on liberal blogs in the same breath as the Koch brothers (although CRP found no direct connection between Rich and the Kochs).

But if Rich is pushed on his campaign finance activities, expect him to push back.

In 2008, when a liberal group took it upon itself to notify conservative donors with ties to non-disclosing outside spending groups that they were being watched for possible election and tax law violations, Howard Rich — despite his own extensive involvement with political groups that hide their funding sources — sent a similar letter to liberal donors.

“As a donor to one or more of these organizations and efforts, you have been able to engage in these activities without notice, operating in relative obscurity. I am writing to inform you that this will no longer be the case,” Rich wrote in his letter. “Your name has been put in our database. We are monitoring all reports of a wide variety of leftist organizations. As your name appears in subsequent reports, it is our intent to publicize your involvement in your local community.”

Center for Responsive Politics researcher Robert Maguire contributed to this story.

Background

A biographical note from the ALG website stated that "In 2000 he founded Legislative Education Action Drive (LEAD), which focuses on enacting school choice legislation across the country. He also serves as Chairman of Parents in Charge Foundation." Rich also "serves on the boards of various nonprofit organizations, including the Cato Institute, the Club for Growth and the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation." "In addition, Rich heads the Club for Growth State Action, which establishes and supports state affiliates of the Club for Growth across the nation, and the Fund for Democracy, which provides seed money to state initiative campaigns."^[5]

Rich is a New York real estate magnate who, for more than 30 years, "has steered millions of dollars toward the libertarian causes he has long championed, though he has managed to largely remain under the political radar while doing so. The 66-year-old Republican, who goes by 'Howie, serves as chairman of Americans for Limited Government, a national coalition that works with local groups to 'protect property rights, stop out-of-control government spending, and hold judges accountable to the rule of law'," PBS NOW noted in a September 2006 biographical sketch.^[1]

"Organizations associated with Rich have funneled nearly $7 million into 2006 state initiatives aiming to limit government in 12 states, according to an investigation" published October 4, 2006, by The Oregonian, PBS wrote. "Rich has generally declined to reveal how much of the money comes from his personal wealth, and is not required by campaign finance laws to report how much he privately funds his various groups."^[1]

"Early in his career, Rich was active in the Libertarian Party and worked with other leaders of the party, such as powerful billionaire Charles Koch, to promote their small-government, free-market causes. But after an internal party dispute in 1983, Rich left the party and continued his activism with private groups and foundations. Rich also sits on the board of directors of the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank founded and funded by Koch and based out of Washington, D.C."^[1]

"In 1990, Rich and his wife Andrea took over the Libertarian Review Foundation, renaming it the Center for Independent Thought. The Riches have also financially supported the libertarian magazine Reason," PBS wrote.^[1]

Letter to Donors of "left wing organizations"

In late September 2008 Rich wrote a letter on Americans for Limited Government Foundation letterhead to donors to what he described as "left wing organizations". In it Rich referred obliquely to Tom Matzzie's Accountable America group which had written to supporters of conservative organizations and candidates warning of possible scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission.

"As a donor to one of more of these organizations and efforts, you have been able to engage in these activities without notice, operating in relative obscurity. I am writing to inform you that this will no longer be the case. Your name has been put in our database. we are monitoring all reports of a wide variety of leftists organizations. As your name appears in subsequent reports, it is our intent to publicize your involvement in your local community," Rich warned.^[6] The letter was also accompanied by a supporting memo from Frank M. Northam from the law firm Webster, Chamberlain & Bean.^[7]

Rich told NPR's Peter Overby that ALG was sending letters to donors as "if you're supporting a group that's into some illegal activity, that, you know, might not be good for you."^[8] For his part, Matzzie posted a blog note titled ^[9]

Articles and resources

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 ^1.4 "Taking the Initiative," PBS NOW, September 22, 2006.
↑ Steve Contorno Budget battle hits airwaves, groups spend $620,000 on ads, Green Bay Press Gazette, March 9, 2011
↑ Howie Rich, "DeMint's Principled, Necessary Stand: Senator’s War Against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Part of a Broader Battle", Americans for Limited Government website, July 22nd, 2008.
↑ Center for Responsive Politics, "Howard Rich", OpenSecrets.org, Center for Responsive Politics website, accessed March 2009.
↑ "Howard S. Rich Chairman", Americans for Limited Government website, January 2008. (This page is no longer on the ALG website but is archived in the Internet Archive).
↑ Howard Rich, Letter, undated but approx late September 2008.
↑ Frank M. Northam, "Memorandum: Heightening Awareness of Political Activity", September 22, 2008.
↑ Peter Overby, "If You Can't Join 'Em, Part 2", NPR, September 30, 2008.
↑ "Conservatives Mimic Accountable America", AccountableAmerica, September 30, 2008.

External Articles

Profiles

Profile: Howard S. Rich, Americans for Limited Government. (Now archived in the Internet Archive)

Articles by Rich

Howard Rich, "School-Choice Strategy", Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2007. (reprinted on the website of the Friedman Foundation).
Howard Rich, "Opposing view: Americans favor term limits", Opinion, USA Today, October 10, 2008.
Howard Rich, "Term limits bring fairness to government", Commercial Appeal Online, October 30, 2008.

Articles & Commentary

"Taking the Initiative" (Introduction) PBS NOW, September 22, 2006.
Maria Hinojosa and William Brangham, "Taking the Initiative (Program Transcript)", PBS NOW, September 22, 2006.
Laura Oppenheimer, "Meet the money man behind Oregon's ballot measures", The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), October 13, 2006, page A12.
Jeffrey Selingo, "Oregon Colleges Prepare for Spending Cap", The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 53 No. 9, October 20, 2006, page 31.
Rick Bella, "Germ of idea could spread to other cities", The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), October 24, 2007.
"Taking the Initiative", NOW with Bill Moyers, PBS, September 22, 2006.
Deroy Murdock, "Get Rich Quick", National Review online, December 11, 2006.
Doug Bandow, "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever", Cato Institute, March 28, 1995.

Categories: Politics (U.S.) | Elections (U.S.)

Over the past 30 years, New York real estate magnate Howard Rich has steered millions of dollars toward the libertarian causes he has long championed, though he has managed to largely remain under the political radar while doing so. The 66-year-old Republican, who goes by "Howie," serves as chairman of Americans for Limited Government, a national coalition that works with local groups to "protect property rights, stop out-of-control government spending, and hold judges accountable to the rule of law."

Organizations associated with Rich have funneled nearly $7 million into 2006 state initiatives aiming to limit government in 12 states, according to an investigation by The Oregonian published last month. Rich has generally declined to reveal how much of the money comes from his personal wealth, and is not required by campaign finance laws to report how much he privately funds his various groups.

Early in his career, Rich was active in the Libertarian Party and worked with other leaders of the party, such as powerful billionaire Charles Koch, to promote their small-government, free-market causes. But after an internal party dispute in 1983, Rich left the party and continued his activism with private groups and foundations. Rich also sits on the board of directors of the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian think tank founded and funded by Koch and based out of Washington, D.C.

In 1990, Rich and his wife Andrea took over the Libertarian Review Foundation, renaming it the Center for Independent Thought. The Riches have also financially supported the libertarian magazine Reason.

1/24/2015 In the Garden of Dark Money, the Thorny Case of Rosebush Corp. | OpenSecrets Blog

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/inthegardenofdarkmoneythethornycaseofrosebushcorp/?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=c5a… 1/5

In the Garden of Dark Money, the

Thorny Case of Rosebush Corp.

by Robert Maguire on January 22, 2015

Former IRS official Lois Lerner became the face of the IRS “scandal,” though the agency rarely

rejects exemption applications. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

Ever since news broke in 2013 that the IRS had targeted the exemption applications of tea party and

some other politicallyoriented groups for extra scrutiny, conventional wisdom had it that the agency

throws up roadblocks for organizations trying to obtain its seal of approval.

But much evidence indicates the IRS backs down without much fuss when groups seeking 501(c)(4)

“social welfare” status come calling.

That was certainly true in the case of Rosebush Corp., OpenSecrets Blog has learned. The

Pennsylvaniabased nonprofit has been a conduit for large sums of money destined for other, more

politically active, groups — including Americans for Job Security (AJS), which spent more than $15

million attacking President Obama in his 2012 reelection bid.

In what appears to have been a highly unusual move, in 2013 the IRS initially denied Rosebush’s

application for exempt status. Rarer still, though, the agency largely reversed its decision in August

2014, when it recognized the group as a 501(c)(4) organization.

Out of the bush, into the spring

OpenSecrets Blog obtained Rosebush’s denial letter only because it is part of the group’s 1024

application materials that must be made available once a group’s exemption is approved. (Normally,

only heavily redacted denial letters are released, with all identifying information removed.) The

documents offer a rare glimpse at the applicant’s interaction with the IRS, and the agency’s reasoning

for denying the exemption.

Rosebush is the largest of the few donors known to have boosted the coffers of a 501(c)(4) social

welfare organization called the Wellspring Committee, the hub of a complex dark money network that

OpenSecrets Blog, in partnership with NPR, wrote about in 2013. The report showed that, for years,

money flowed into Wellspring before being doled out to a set of politically active nonprofits, many of

which engaged in direct or indirect electioneering in races on the state and federal levels.1/24/2015 In the Garden of Dark Money, the Thorny Case of Rosebush Corp. | OpenSecrets Blog

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/inthegardenofdarkmoneythethornycaseofrosebushcorp/?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=c5a… 2/5

At the time, Rosebush was not recognized by the IRS. But the documents show it had been seeking

an exemption since April 2012; in December 2013, the agency rejected the request.

In doing so, the IRS raised a number of concerns about the group. Foremost was the fact that

Rosebush described its social welfare function as “making contributions to other likeminded Section

501(c)(4) organizations.” As the IRS pointed out, “making a grant only promotes social welfare if the

recipient of the funds uses the proceeds to promote social welfare.” The IRS said it was “unable to

determine” whether the funds Rosebush distributed were used for social welfare purposes, in part

because Rosebush didn’t present any documentation to that effect.

The question was particularly relevant in Rosebush’s case because of the AJS grant, reported here for

the first time. AJS is a 501(c)(6) trade association, not a social welfare group. The grant — which left

Rosebush tied with Crossroads GPS as AJS’ most generous known benefactors in 2012 — made up

78 percent of Rosebush’s 2012 expenditures and 56 percent of its total $3.6 million expenditures over

three years.

Trade associations like AJS, the IRS pointed out, “have the exempt purpose of promoting common

business interests for their members; they do not have the exempt purpose of promoting social

welfare.” It’s not impossible for a trade group to use funds received from a social welfare organization

for activities that fit both missions, but the IRS was concerned that Rosebush “had no formal written

grant agreement with [AJS] requiring it use the grant proceeds for specific activities or projects that

promote social welfare” nor did Rosebush “receive any reports from [AJS] describing how it used the

proceeds.”

After bringing in more than $51 million in 2012, AJS revenues plummeted to just $817,975.

The questions seemed apt, since AJS has been one of the most politically active nonprofits in the

country, and politics does not qualify as social welfare. For more than 17 years, it has spent heavily in

elections around the country, leading to scandals in Alaska and California, all without revealing its

donors. AJS’ revenues ebb and flow from election year to off year, and those gyrations have grown

more marked in the postCitizens United era.

Other substantial Rosebush grantees aren’t strangers to the political arena, either. In 2011, Rosebush

directed $750,000 — 67 percent of its total expenditures that year — to Americans for Limited

Government, a 501(c)(4) linked to the libertarian real estate developer Howard Rich in Rosebush’s

home city of Philadelphia. The Rosebush grant amounted to more than 90 percent of ALG’s revenues

that year.1/24/2015 In the Garden of Dark Money, the Thorny Case of Rosebush Corp. | OpenSecrets Blog

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/inthegardenofdarkmoneythethornycaseofrosebushcorp/?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=c5a… 3/5

In a letter, ALG explained that the funds were used for “choice in education options,” mostly in 2012.

Another Rosebush grantee, Legislative Education Action Drive or LEAD, is also headed by Howard

Rich and focuses on “the debate on choice in education by providing citizens the information and

resources to advocate for meaningful reform.” LEAD got $300,000 from Rosebush and $170,000 from

ALG in 2012 — the two grants making up 89 percent of the group’s revenues that year. Most of

LEAD’s expenditures that year went towards grants to two other groups, one of which, Young

Conservatives of Pennsylvania, was also a Rosebush grantee. The other grantee, which received

$200,000 from LEAD, was a group called Citizens in Charge, run by operatives who sit on the boards

of Rich’s other organizations.

The IRS made no mention of this churning of funds — a signature of Howard Rich’s operations — or

Rosebush’s role in it.

In 2010, ALG spent more than $1 million on that year’s midterm elections — all against Democrats —

and the year following Rosebush’s contribution, ALG would go on to be the largest donor to a

conservative super PAC called Now or Never PAC.

In fact, Rosebush itself gave $200,000 to super PACs. That was something the IRS did raise concerns

about, since super PACs are by their nature political.

The tax agency also had questions about the fact that Rosebush is “governed by a single individual

who is both your director and treasurer.” That would be Brian Sullivan, the only human linked directly to

Rosebush by name. The IRS pointed out that Rosebush doesn’t “have a paid staff” and its “governing

body has no other formal members.”

In 2013, Rosebush spent no money, according to a form 990 filed last July, because it was waiting to

sort out its status with the IRS. That doesn’t mean that Sullivan sat on the sidelines, though. He

started another (c)(4) with precisely the same mission statement as Rosebush’s; he called the new

group Green Orchard. As the Center for Public Integrity reported last October, Green Orchard has been

used to convey hundreds of thousands of dollars to super PACs and 501(c) organizations since 2013,

all in the name of a purpose identical to Rosebush’s.

Lowering the bar

What are the consequences of denying exempt status to a group that’s already operating? Very little,

really: The organization in question is simply required to pay taxes on its revenue. The IRS told

Rosebush that it does “not qualify for exemption as an organization described in Section 501(c)(4)

and…must file federal income tax returns.”

Even that doesn’t happen often. Denials are exceedingly rare: Less than 0.25 percent of 501(c)(4)

applicants are denied, according to an extensive report by the Center for Public Integrity last summer.

And even when a denial is imminent, the IRS often warns the applicant beforehand so it can withdraw

its paperwork prior to receiving the rejection.

None of the 501(c) organizations with the most reported political spending over the last three election

cycles were denied exempt status, or had their status revoked. One smaller group, a liberal 501(c)(4)

called Arkansans for Common Sense, was denied in 2013 for having a primary purpose that the IRS

described as “the participation in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for

public office.”

One of the largest political spenders over the last few elections — a conservative group that spent

more than all liberal dark money organizations combined in both the 2010 and 2012 elections — is

Crossroads GPS, which applied for exempt status in 2010. It has yet to receive the green light,

according to IRS data, and was even slated for denial when the IRS scandal broke. However, GPS is

still in operation, spending $26 million on direct political advocacy in 2014.

Most of the time, organizations’ exemption applications are approved. Even a group that had spent the

majority of its funds over multiple years on direct political activity and engaged in “campaign money

laundering” was granted an exemption, as we have reported, despite the fact that the group —

Americans for Responsible Leadership, which is linked to thenKoch money man Sean Noble — said it1/24/2015 In the Garden of Dark Money, the Thorny Case of Rosebush Corp. | OpenSecrets Blog

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/inthegardenofdarkmoneythethornycaseofrosebushcorp/?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=c5a… 4/5

had no intentions of changing its activities in the future. Another Kochbacked group, Citizens

Awareness Project, was given an exemption despite having only two donors and spending a large

share of its funds directly on politics. Yet another group, a liberal nonprofit called American Bridge 21st

Century Foundation that specializes in doing opposition research on Republican politicians, received an

exemption.

How did Rosebush turn the IRS around? In a letter, Sullivan explained that Rosebush Corp. had

implemented, by decree of its sole director (himself), more stringent oversight of grantee spending. In

addition, he promised to go to each organization to which the group had already given money and

get assurances that the funds were used properly.

That’s how Americans for Limited Government came to write that it received its $750,000 grant from

Rosebush in late September 2011 and used the money over the course of the following 12 months —

that is, well into the election year — for the promotion of “choice in education options.”

ALG’s own tax filings in 2011 and 2012 made no reference to such initiatives, however. In 2012, most

of ALG’s spending was in the form of grants to other 501(c) groups — many of which share board

members with ALG — and to a super PAC called Now or Never PAC, which received more than $2.5

million.

Rosebush’s largest grantee, Americans for Job Security, the trade association that received well over

half the money Rosebush doled out over three years, sent in a form letter that was supplemented with

a short note from AJS president Stephen Demaura thanking his benefactor for its “membership and

support.”

“Membership” is an important term for AJS. As a 501(c)(6), AJS technically doesn’t have donors —

rather, it has duespaying members. Donors must be reported to the IRS (though not the public) in an

annual 990 filing. But duespaying members are never reported anywhere. It’s not entirely clear how the

money that AJS collects as dues is substantially different from the funds that 501(c)(4) social welfare

groups collect as grants, though. The organizations paying dues to AJS are frequently social welfare

organizations. In 2008, about a third of AJS’ revenue, $4 million, came from two social welfare groups,

the Wellspring Committee — at the time, part of the Koch donor network — and Freedom’s Watch. In

2010, Wellspring gave $346,098, and the Center to Protect Patient Rights, the new conduit for Koch

cash, gave $4.8 million; their combined grants again made up about a third of the AJS haul that year.

OpenSecrets Blog research indicates that of the $14.6 million AJS is known to have received in 13

grants from 501(c)(4) organizations since 2008, only one grant, totaling $425,000, was reported to the

IRS as “membership.” None were reported as “dues.”

Demaura did not respond to requests for comment on this discrepancy.

The AJS letter in support of Rosebush’s appeal made no effort to convince the IRS that the funds it

received were spent on social welfare. AJS said that 15 months after Rosebush’s “membership,” it was

“unable to provide the representations you request.” The money went into AJS’ general fund that was

used for “our general purposes and various projects” — including a bungled injection of funds into

California ballot measures and significant direct political advocacy.

Demaura wrote that “the grant was to used solely for permissible Section 501(c)(6) activities” — which

is to say, not necessarily social welfare. He went on to explain that AJS is “designed to promote the

‘common business interest’ of its members,” which is the function of a 501(c)(6) trade association.

The IRS responded last August to Rosebush’s appeal by saying that it would grant the exemption if

Rosebush amended its grant agreement to make more specific the need for grantees to use the funds

for social welfare.

Rosebush agreed to those conditions, and after two years of correspondence with the IRS, another

dark money conduit was exempt in the eyes of the IRS.

Rosebush isn’t entirely out of the woods yet. Its exemption was effective going back to Jan. 1, 2013,

which means that it has not yet been cleared for activities during the time it was granting funds to1/24/2015 In the Garden of Dark Money, the Thorny Case of Rosebush Corp. | OpenSecrets Blog

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/inthegardenofdarkmoneythethornycaseofrosebushcorp/?utm_source=CRP+Mail+List&utm_campaign=c5a… 5/5

Americans for Job Security. The IRS left the appeals door open for that period, though. Sullivan — who

would not comment on other aspects of this story — confirmed that Rosebush is indeed pursuing an

appeal and has not paid income tax on its activities before 2013.

Categories: 501(c) groups Outside Money

Tags: 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6), Americans for Job Security, Brian Sullivan, dark money, denial, exempt status,

exemption, irs, IRS Scandal, Robert Maguire, Rosebush Corp., Shadow Money Trail, stephen demaura,

Wellspring Cmte, Wellspring Committee

Count Cash & Make Change.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy. Whether you're

a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen, use our free site to shine light on your government.

The Center for Responsive Politics

Except for the Revolving Door section, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercialShare

Alike 3.0 United States License by OpenSecrets.org. To request permission for commercial use, please contact us.

wiki

Americans for Limited Government (ALG) is a politically conservative^[2] lobbying group and advocacy organization that describes itself as a non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free-market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties.^[3] Its primary concerns are tax and spending reform, property rights restoration, school choice, limiting the size of government,^[4] and political term limits.

Contents [hide]

Leadership[edit]

People who have served on ALG's board include Howard Rich, Eric O'Keefe, John Tillman; Ed Crane; and Bill Wilson.^[4][5]

Objectives[edit]

Property rights[edit]

As one of their primary issues, Americans for Limited Government advocates limiting the ability of government to exercise eminent domain: as defined byKelo v. New London.

ALG has sought to do this by funding ballot initiatives throughout the country that would curtail the scope of eminent domain. In 2006 the group along withFund for Democracy helped support ballot initiatives to limit the use of eminent domain in eight states contributing approximately $4 million.^[6] They were qualified for the 2006 ballots in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington, but failed in Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, andSouth Carolina. Another initiative might have been on the ballot in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough of Alaska. I-933 in Washington state.

Critics of ALG's property rights efforts have focused on two pragmatic areas: first, that the initiatives will make government incapable of regulating land use.^[7] and second, that the initiativesn will cost tax payers billions of dollars as it requires compensating businesses for complying with existing laws.^[8]

Taxpayer Bill of Rights[edit]

Main article: Taxpayer Bill of Rights

ALG also supports initiatives to enact Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TaBOR) laws, which require states annually to reduce or restrict revenue or spending to within limits set according to inflation and population growth. These laws provide for "rainy day" (emergency) funds as well as the ability for state voters to decide whether their representatives should spend revenue surpluses rather than have it refunded to the taxpayers. Colorado voters passed the best-known example of a TABOR law in 1992 and later voted to suspend its restrictions in the 2005 Colorado Economic Recovery Act].^[9]

The 2006 TaBOR initiatives were referred to variously as Stop OverSpending (SOS) (in Nebraska), Taxpayer Bill of Rights (in Maine and Oklahoma) and the "Rainy Day Amendment" (in Oregon) consisting of ballot Measure 41 and 48. The Oklahoma Supreme Court threw out the TaBOR initiative in that state because it had too few signatures and "evidence supported substantial illegal participation of out-of-state circulators."^[10] A subsequent opinion will be issued addressing the details. Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Ohio have also removed TABOR from the ballot; initiatives were on the ballot but voted down, in Maine and Oregon.

School choice[edit]

ALG promotes a free-market approach to the American public school system based on vouchers or charter schools, arguing that competition among schools will increase both the quality and the economic efficiency of public education.^[11][12] The organization claims that privatizing American schools will decrease education spending, promote accountability in school administration, and permit parents a greater degree of control over the schools their children attend. Opponents claim that ever since Milton Friedman suggested the concept during the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, vouchers have functioned to increase racial and economic discrimination in schools, beginning in the late 1950s with the appearance of segregation academies.^[13]Critics also contend that since approximately four out of five US private schools are religious, voucher and charter systems violate the Constitution.^[14]

Recall of judges[edit]

A fourth issue of concern for ALG is accountability in the judicial system.^[15] The group was involved in efforts to pass the Montana Constitutional Initiative 98 in 2006,^[16] which would have allowed voters in that state to recall elected judges or justices for any reason. At present, Montana provides for the recall of these officials only in cases of incapacity, incompetence, misconduct, or felony. The initiative, along with two others, was removed from the ballot due to fraudulent signature gathering techniques, by a unanimous decision of the Montana Supreme Court.^[17]

Accomplishments[edit]

The State Right to Vote Act[edit]

The State Right to Vote Act is a bill that was introduced to the United States Congress on March 11, 2011 by Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. The Bill has garnered the support of 37 other co-sponsors. The bill itself is aimed at amending the National Labor Relations act to

Declare that nothing in the Act shall be construed to authorize or recognize a labor organization as the representative of employees in a state where recognition of the labor organization is prohibited, unless the labor organization has been selected by a majority of such employees in a secret ballot…:^[18]

Americans for Limited Government has been at the forefront, supporting the bill through numerous op-eds, various social media outlets, and their blog NetRightDaily.

California[edit]

A relatively unknown, at the time, Americans for Limited Government made their presence known in 2006, when they backed several ballot initiatives aimed at limiting the breadth of eminent domain.

California's Proposition 90, which appeared on the November 2006 ballot, was a technical loss but was an accomplishment nonetheless. Prop. 90 was designed to limit the circumstances under which government agencies could use eminent domain to obtain property, increase the amount government pays when they use eminent domain, and require state and local governments to compensate property owners when changes in laws or regulations diminished the value of their property.^[19] The measure when put to the voters, failed to pass. 47.6% in favor 52.4% opposed.^[20] Two years later a lesser In the June 2008 election the more narrowly defined Proposition 99 was passed.^[21]

Media[edit]

Americans for Limited Government’s focus has been establishing its online presence through new media resources. In 2007, with help from his children, Wilson began cultivating their internet presence with Getliberty.org and later their blog NetRightDaily.com.^[22][23] In 2009 the group was featured on hundreds of websites with many of their “prolific opposition research” showcased in many anti-Obama efforts.^[4] On April 20, 2012 FreeMarket America, a project of ALG,^[24] premiered If I wanted America to Fail on YouTube. As of April 26 the video has over 1.1 million views and has been embedded onBreitbart.com, Hotair.com and RealClearPolitics.com^[25]

Controversies[edit]

ALG is being criticized for sending a flier claiming to be a voter history audit. This audit tells the names, addresses, and voting history of your household and that of your neighbors. It not only gives information that most people wish to keep private, it gave out inaccurate information that lead to a misrepresentation of a voter's voting history. It should also be noted that in some of this fliers it listed the names of minors living in the household, which could never have been received from looking at public voting records.

^[26] ^[27] ^[28] ^[29]

ALG has been criticized for representing wealthy out-of-state interests under the guise of local grassroots activism.^[30] However, in an interview in South Carolina, a reporter asked ALG sponsor Howard Rich about his motivation behind out-of-state contributions; Rich said:

There is great satisfaction. I went to public schools. My wife did. My two sons did. Here's an opportunity to give back something where kids will have an opportunity and parents will have an opportunity to go to a school of their choice not some school mandated by government. If every proposal that I have favored over the last 20 years got enacted, whether its term limits or school choice or property rights or any area – I get no personal benefit out of it. I don't make a nickel. Here in South Carolina I own no property. I have no businesses down here. So there's no real monetary benefit. I mainly do these things to be a pain in the rear for others.

References[edit]

^ "Americans for Limited Government". Americans for Limited Government Website. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
^ Hicks, Josh (June 5, 2013). "Sens. Coburn and Portman question VA ‘official time’ for union activities". Washington Post.
^ "Americans for Limited Government". Americans for Limited Government Website. Retrieved 26 October 2011.
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Limited_Government#cite_ref-tws15nov11_4-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Limited_Government#cite_ref-tws15nov11_4-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Limited_Government#cite_ref-tws15nov11_4-2) SCOTT SHANE (September 25, 2009). "A Critic Finds Obama Policies a Perfect Target". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-15. "It is the weekly research meeting at Americans for Limited Government, and Bill Wilson is presiding with gusto. The Obama administration is serving up so many rich targets that Mr. Wilson and his crew of young conservatives hardly know where to begin."
^http://web.archive.org/web/20060620015752/www.getliberty.org/sites/lg/aboutus/board.htmlGet Liberty.org website archive, 2006
^ "Voters get a say on land rights" *USA Today* 9/24/2006
^ "Nature Conservancy Opposes I-933"
^ "Study puts I-933's cost in billions." *Seattle Post-Intelligencer* 9/27/2006
^http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics2005a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/60F288DEECFCFFE287256F5E0078D116?Open&file=1194_ren.pdf
^ In re: Initiative Petition No. 379, 2006 OK 60
^ ALG on School Choice
^ Caroline Hoxby on school choice and school competition
^ PFAW opposition to vouchers
^ NEA opposition to vouchers
^ ALG on Judicial Reform
^ http://sos.state.mt.us/ELB/archives/2006/CI/CI-98.asp%7CConstitutional Initiative 98
^ montanakaimin.com – News
^ "H.R.1047 – State Right to Vote Act?" 1/1/2012
^ "MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE: WHAT WOULD PROPOSITION 90 MEAN FOR CALIFORNIA?" *California Budget Project* 12/26/2011
^ California Secretary of State 2006 Election returns
^ "Wikipedia"
^ http://www.getliberty.org
^ heep://www.netreightdaily.com
^ http://www.freemarketamerica.org
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc
^ http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/sec-of-state-disregard-voting-audit-mailers
^ http://www.krdo.com/news/Voting-audit-letter-upsets-local-voter/-/417220/17203814/-/scmk9hz/-/index.html
^ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/30/1152541/-Your-neighbors-voting-history-Really-Americans-for-Limited-Government#comments
^ http://www.wmbb.com/story/19947743/bay-county-residents-upset-over-controversial-voter-history-audit
^ "Taking the Initiative." *Now* 9/22/2006

External links

wiki

Howard S. Rich, also Howie Rich^[2] (b. 1940) is a Manhattan-based real estate developer who is notable for funding libertarian-oriented political initiatives such as term limits, school choice, parental rights regarding education, limited government and property rights. He has published essays advocating these positions. He established advocacy organizations such as Americans for Limited Government and U.S. Term Limits.^[3] He is currently the chairman of several organizations including Legislative Education Action Drive and the Parents in Charge Foundation. Rich has been described as one of the "lower-profile moneymen in American politics"^[4] but as a prominent "force in elections across the country."^[5] Rich focuses his advocacy mostly on local issues like term limits, not on national campaigns, and doesn't see himself as leaning right or left.^[5] He is an effective advocate; National Public Radio identified Rich as a leader behind the independent groups with potential to influence elections.^[6]

Contents [hide]

Early years[edit]

Rich attended the George W. Wingate High School in Brooklyn, New York. While a senior, he earned the New York State Regents scholarship. He studiedeconomics at Baruch College in New York City. He studied investing at the New York University Stern School of Business. According to one source, Rich initially had a plumbing contracting business, but used its revenues to buy real estate.^[7] He became a real estate entrepreneur around 1965.^[1] He began a pattern of buying Manhattan properties, fixing them up, and selling them. In 1970, he bought a multiresidential building. During the next two decades he bought more buildings and modernized them. Rich described his real estate strategy: "I bought buildings when no one else wanted them, then I sold them."^[5] By 1986 he owned 17 buildings but sold 15 buildings. After the 1987 stock market crash he sold one more building. In 1989 he exchanged his remaining property for a property in Houston. In the 1990s he began purchasing Manhattan properties again. In the 2000s, he sold some Manhattan properties and bought garden apartment developments in different states.^[8]

Political activism[edit]

Libertarian beginnings[edit]

Before 1983, Rich was active in the Libertarian Party and worked with Charles Koch to promote small-government and free-market causes.^[2] After 1983, Rich left the Libertarian Party and continued his activism with private groups.^[2] In 1990, Rich and his wife Andrea took over the Libertarian Review Foundation, and renamed it the Center for Independent Thought.^[2] Rich's wife was an owner of Laissez-Faire Books and was a trustee of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.^[7] While Rich has supported the Libertarian Party, he is enrolled as a Republican so he can vote in primaries.^[5]

Cato Institute[edit]

Rich serves on the Board of Directors of the Cato Institute alongside David H. Koch of Koch Industries. ^[9]

Non-partisan activism[edit]

In 1992, Rich met Bill Wilson and the two worked together on a variety of causes.^[10] Rich financed Wilson’s efforts at U.S. Term Limits, Parents in Charge and Americans for Limited Government.^[3][10] Rich's associate Wilson describes these organizations not as libertarian but rather as "rolling back the government."^[10] Rich explained his mission was to "advance individual freedom and create an atmosphere where we restore the Founders' concepts ofproperty rights and free markets."^[7] Rich became more politically active in the movement to limit government beginning about 1992.^[1] He has supported referendum measures that would limit government spending, curb the seizure of land and offer school vouchers.^[5] He prefers underwriting ballot measures rather than lobbying in state capitols.^[7] Rich explained: "Working with the state legislators is a fool’s errand" and added "Most of them are RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) who water things down to nothing."^[7]

Americans for Limited Government[edit]

Rich has been a key financial supporter of Americans for Limited Government which was headed by Bill Wilson.^[4][6][10] In 2009 it had a budget of $4 million.^[10] This group has been described as non-partisan.^[10]It has been critical of president Obama.^[10] Wilson was quoted as saying "It isn’t one issue – health care, or cap and trade, or one or another appointee ... It’s that government consumes more and more of what we call personal liberty."^[10] The organization has also criticized former president Bush for "egregious federal power-grabs" regarding the USA Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind andMedicare.^[10] Americans for Limited Government withholds donor names.^[11]

Term limits[edit]

In 1992 Rich founded U.S. Term Limits which supports limits on the length of office of officials at the local, state, and federal levels.^[12] He is chairman of U.S. Term Limits.^[6] Rich financed many term limits movements in the 1990s.^[4] In an editorial, Rich posed the question: "Who's in charge – the people or politicians?"^[13] He criticized political connections between political contributors and government contractors and wrote: "When government contracts are being handed out, all qualified companies should have a fair chance at getting public business, not just companies that donate to the re-election campaigns of entrenched politicians or hold cocktail parties at expensive restaurants in their honor."^[13] He believes term limits are a way to restore popular control over government. He wrote: "The longer politicians are in office, the more likely they are to rip us off for their own benefit – rewarding the donors who funded their campaigns and the special interests who keep them in power rather than the people they should be serving." He wrote that term limits force politicians "to represent the people instead of advancing their own careers."^[13] According to Rich, he and his groups have been successful in creating term limits for 37 governors, 15 state legislatures, and in nine large cities.^[5] He is agitated by plans of the New York City Council to undo term-limit laws passed by a referendum, and compared a possible repeal to undoing the smoking ban.^[5] In USA Today, he wrote in an editorial that American voters "overwhelmingly support term limits" and that "citizens value fresh ideas, new perspectives and more competitive elections more than the so-called institutional knowledge of the political ruling class."^[14] Rich has opposed New York City mayor Bloomberg's quest for a third mayoral term.^[15] He opposes career politicians generally.^[15] In 2008, a senior senator of the legislature of Nebraska blamed Rich and term limits for his "forced retirement," but Rich responded in a letter to the editor of The New York Times that "term limits have never been aimed at any one individual, but rather at an underlying culture of abuse that invariably tends to place the voracious appetites of government institutions over the best interests of the people they are there to serve."^[16]

Property rights[edit]

The Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision ruled that states could, at their discretion, decide whether it was permissible to permit property to be taken from some owners under the doctrine of eminent domain and given to other owners. There was a public backlash.^[17] Rich helped engineer and encourage a number of ballot initiatives in state elections in 2006 to rein in such takings. Rich said "I believe that property rights in many respects have been taken away from many property owners."^[18] Property rights referendums on 12 state ballots became the "biggest ballot issue" in 2006.^[19] As a result, in 2006 many states particularly in the west put initiatives on the ballot restricting eminent domain. Rich helped fund activities in favor of these initiatives.^[17]

Rich supported a ballot initiative in California called Proposition 90 which prohibited cities from "using their condemnation powers to transfer property from one owner to the other."^[4][17] It generated significant controversy.^[18]By September 2006, Rich gave $1.77 million to advocate "yes" on Proposition 90, dubbed by proponents as the Protect Our Homes Act, while various opponents gave $1.5 million to advocate against it.^[18] A second estimate was that Rich gave $2.75 million via the Fund for Democracy and Americans for Limited Government to foster advocacy of eminent domain initiatives in California,Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Idaho and Montana. Another estimate was that by November 2006, Rich spent $15 million promoting state initiatives.^[7]

Sometimes the group paid people as much as $4 to sign a petition to put the initiatives on the ballot, according to one report from the San Francisco Chronicle which ran editorials opposing the referendum.^[20] According to a second source, prices paid for signatures to petition the ballot initiatives ranged from $1 in California to $3 in Arizona.^[21] The San Francisco Chronicle, however, felt California's Proposition 90 initiative went too far and would restrict the power of the state government to create "rights-of-way for utilities" and it worried that states would be unable to enforce environmental laws since it would be required to compensate property owners for "any substantial economic loss."^[17] A reporter for USA Today suggested the referendums might "gut local and state abilities to enact or enforce virtually any regulations affecting private land use and development."^[21] Critics of the property rights proposals suggest the downside is "voting to destroy all land-use regulation."^[11]

In 2006, Americans for Limited Government and other groups spent millions trying to get property rights ballot initiatives in western states such as California,Washington, Idaho, and Arizona.^[11] One estimate is that Rich contributed as much as $11 million to support property rights initiatives on ballots throughout much of the West.^[11] The ballot initiatives succeeded in nine of eleven states but failed in California and Idaho.^[22] In 2006, three of Rich's budget-trimming "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" proposals failed, but nine of his twelve eminent domain relief referenda passed overwhelmingly including states such as Louisiana,Florida, and South Carolina.^[7] In total, 26 states passed laws that ban the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.^[11]

Educational reform[edit]

In 2000 Rich founded the Legislative Education Action Drive, or LEAD, which focused on enacting school choice legislation across the country.^[1] Rich is also chairman of the Parents in Charge Foundation.^[1] Rich criticized American schools for being "monopolistic" and a "millstone around our children's necks" and wrote that "America consistently (was) lagging behind its industrialized peers in academic achievement."^[23] He felt a "competitive education market" would lead to "innovation and improvement" yet he believed the "educational establishment" is opposed to change.^[23]

Board memberships[edit]

Rich is on the board of the Club for Growth.^[4][6] It supports state affiliates across the nation.^[1] He is also a director of the Cato Institute.^[6][24] He also sits on the Board of Directors of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.^[25] Rich is president of U.S. Term Limits which is headquartered in Fairfax, VA.^[24] He is a director of the Fund for Democracy which provides seed money to state initiative campaigns.^[1] Rich also financially supported the libertarian magazine Reason.^[2]

Judges[edit]

Rich also champions the position of holding "judges accountable to the rule of law."^[2] Rich criticized two 5-4 decisions by the Supreme Court – U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton and Kelo v. New London.^[7] Rich said: "The same Gang of Five who overrode millions of votes in favor of term limits in 23 states – ten years later sanctioned handing over private property to private developers to build condos."^[7] Rich's group has done last-minute ad blitzes in judicial elections.^[5]

Criticism and controversy[edit]

Criticism from the Left. Rich has been described as being attacked by left-leaning activists; one reporter wrote "'Howie Rich from New York City' has become the Left’s latest whipping boy."^[7] One pamphlet accused Rich of "dirty tactics, hidden money streams, and shadowy operatives."^[7] He's been accused of being a "special interest group" and of operating a "tangled extremist web."^[7] Rich responded: "I have been fortunate enough to have been successful in business, and I want to do something in this life to advance liberty."^[7] Rich said: "It’s very difficult in many of these states, and very expensive, to get these measures on the ballot ... All I have done here, for the most part, is provide seed money. All of these initiatives are left up to the voters. That’s what these people, who consider money evil, are not willing to address. It’s the voters in these states who ultimately make the decisions."^[7]

Secrecy or openness? A news report from National Public Radio on the show NOW on PBS accused Rich and his organizations of "secretly providing major funding for ballot measures."^[2] Rich was accused of using his political advocacy as a means to "shield his portfolio from sticky-fingered bureaucrats" but he countered "It’s a crock" and said "I own no real estate in any of the 12 states where we had property-rights initiatives on the ballot."^[7] Rich has been vocal about his financial support of libertarian-related causes.^[17] The San Francisco Chronicle wrote "real estate mogul Howie Rich ... makes no secret of his desire to rein in the power of government."^[17]

Letters to donors controversy. In 2004, advocacy groups such as right-wing Swift Boat Veterans For Truth^[26] and left-wing MoveOn.org played a role in the presidential election contest of 2004. 527 money kept John Kerry going after cash dried up after the convention, and 527 money paid for the "infamousSwift boat ads, which painted Mr. Kerry’s military service in shameful hues, with little regard for documented history."^[5] Questions about donations to these groups led to the Federal Election Commission sending subpoenas to donors requesting further information.^[26] According to an account in NPR about these investigations of contributions, "donors didn't like it."^[4] Later, a letter campaign in August 2008 by the left-leaning organization Accountable Americato donors of right-leaning organizations warned the donors about possible repercussions for contributing to right-wing organizations that might possibly be illegal; in another instance, a $100,000 reward was offered for information about "unlawful conduct by business-oriented or conservative" nonprofit groups and promised to publicize the "'political and business relationships and corrupt activities' of donors to these causes."^[5] Later, perhaps as a response to this activity by the left, Rich launched a donor-surveillance letter campaign aimed at liberal donors.^[4] Rich's mailing was "two months behind the Democrats" letter campaign.^[5] One estimate was that Rich sent 11,000 letters to left-leaning supporters of liberal causes.^[5] According to an account in NPR, he was "watchdogging all those limousine liberals with their checkbooks".^[4] Rich's letters to prominent liberal contributors of liberal causes told them that he's watching these donations; the letter read as follows: "As a donor to one or more of these organizations and efforts, you have been able to engage in these activities without notice, operating in relative obscurity ... I am writing to inform you that this will no longer be the case."^[4] There was a threat of exposing donations which violated laws or which were being funneled for illegal purposes.^[4] According to a newspaper account afterwards, the letters from both sides tried to discourage donors to so-called 527 groups which is "lightly regulated money" that "swamped the 2004 election."^[5] Both liberals left-wing groups such as Accountable America and advocates such as Rich were criticized for "trying to chill free speech" with efforts to intimidate donors to political causes.^[4]

Motivation. In an interview in South Carolina, a reporter asked Rich: "I don't know anyone who invests the kind of money without getting something in return?" Rich replied:

There is great satisfaction. I went to public schools. My wife did. My two sons did. Here's an opportunity to give back something where kids will have an opportunity and parents will have an opportunity to go to a school of their choice not some school mandated by government. If every proposal that I have favored over the last 20 years got enacted, whether its term limits or school choice or property rights or any area – I get no personal benefit out of it. I don't make a nickel. Here in South Carolina I own no property. I have no businesses down here. So there's no real monetary benefit.^[27]

Awards[edit]

In 2000, he received the Herman W. Lay Memorial Award for work in the educational arena.^[1][28]

Current[edit]

Rich has an office in the SoHo section of Manhattan.^[5] Howard Rich currently lives in Philadelphia with his wife Andrea, and is now expanding his property portfolio to include foreign investments. He gives scholarships to talented kids to leave public schools and study at top private schools; it's called the Student Sponsor Partnership in New York.

References[edit]

^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov113_1-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov113_1-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov113_1-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov113_1-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov113_1-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov113_1-5) ^g(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov113_1-6) ^h(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov113_1-7) "Howard S. Rich". Americans for Limited Government. 2009-11-23. Archived from the original on 2008-01-09. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "Rich, a strong supporter of school choice, has been honored with the Herman W. Lay Memorial Award for his work in the educational arena."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov211_2-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov211_2-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov211_2-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov211_2-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov211_2-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov211_2-5) ^g(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov211_2-6) "Taking the Initiative". Public Broadcasting System (NOW). 2006-09-22. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "This week, NOW investigates how organizations associated with one wealthy New Yorker, Howard Rich, are secretly providing major funding for ballot measures."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-NOW_3-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-NOW_3-1) NOW on PBS (September 22, 2006). "Taking the initiative". Public Broadcasting Service.
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-5) ^g(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-6) ^h(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-7) ⁱ(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-8) ^j(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-9) ^k(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov13_4-10) Peter Overby (September 30, 2008). "If You Can't Join 'Em, Part 2". National Public Radio (NPR). Retrieved 2009-11-23. "It's Howard Rich, a libertarian real estate investor from Manhattan who's best known among politicos for bankrolling state initiatives."^[dead ^link]
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-5) ^g(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-6) ^h(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-7) ⁱ(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-8) ^j(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-9) ^k(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-10) ^l(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-11) ^m(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-12) ⁿ(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov22_5-13) JIM DWYER (October 14, 2008). "Scary Letters From the Left, Answered by Scary Letters From the Right". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "Howard Rich, a little-known wealthy guy who has quietly helped change government in dozens of states from an office in SoHo, mailed out scary letters last week to 11,000 people who were giving money to what he saw as radical left-wing causes – primarily electing Democrats to the United States Senate."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov35_6-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov35_6-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov35_6-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov35_6-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov35_6-4) "Who's Who: Key Leaders Of Independent Groups". National Public Radio. September 22, 2008. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "HOWARD RICH: Chair of Americans for Limited Government; chair of U.S. Term Limits; board member of Cato Institute; board member of Club for Growth"
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-5) ^g(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-6) ^h(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-7) ⁱ(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-8) ^j(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-9) ^k(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-10) ^l(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-11) ^m(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-12) ⁿ(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-13) ^o(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov212_7-14) Deroy Murdock (December 11, 2006). "Get Rich Quick". National Review Online. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "“Howie Rich from New York City” has become the Left’s latest whipping boy."
^ >Howie Rich (2008). "Question and Answer page". HowieRich.net.
^ "Cato Institute". Board of Directors. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-5) ^g(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-6) ^h(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-7) ⁱ(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov12_10-8) SCOTT SHANE (September 25, 2009). "A Critic Finds Obama Policies a Perfect Target". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "In 1992, he was contacted by Howard Rich, a New York real estate magnate who has poured much of his fortune into conservative causes."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov14_11-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov14_11-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov14_11-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov14_11-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov14_11-4) Jeff Brady (September 19, 2006). "Western Voters Consider Property Rights Changes". National Public Radio (NPR). Retrieved 2009-11-23. "Americans for Limited Government keeps the names of donors secret, but the group's chairman, New York real estate developer Howard Rich, has long been a supporter of efforts to reduce the size of government."
^ StealthPacs.org | Selected Affiliations of Howard Rich
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov213_13-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov213_13-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov213_13-2) Howard Rich (October 30, 2008). "Guest Column: Term limits bring fairness to government". The Commercial Appeal. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "Howard Rich is chairman of the Fairfax, Va., advocacy group U.S. Term Limits."
^ Howard Rich (October 10, 2008). "Opposing view: Americans favor term limits". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "Howard Rich is chairman of the advocacy group U.S. Term Limits."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov32_15-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov32_15-1) JAMES BARRON, Ralph Blumenthal, Colin Moynihan and Karen Zraick (September 30, 2008). "Giuliani and Koch Back the Idea; Others Dismiss It as a Power Grab". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "But Howard Rich, the chairman of U.S. Term Limits, a group that opposes what it calls “career politicians,” repeated a line often attributed to Charles de Gaulle: “The graveyards are filled with indispensable men.”"
^ Howard Rich (May 6, 2008). "The Virtue of Term Limits (letter to the editor)". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "Term limits have never been aimed at any one individual, but rather at an underlying culture of abuse that invariably tends to place the voracious appetites of government institutions over the best interests of the people they are there to serve."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov11_17-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov11_17-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov11_17-2) ^d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov11_17-3) ^e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov11_17-4) ^f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov11_17-5) Editorial staff (October 16, 2006). "PROP 90 Eminently wrong". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "THE MAIN benefactor of Proposition 90, wealthy New York real estate mogul Howie Rich, makes no secret of his desire to rein in the power of government."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov23_18-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov23_18-1) ^c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov23_18-2) Patrick Hoge (September 13, 2006). "CAMPAIGN 2006: Proposition 90 – Scope of property rights issue debated". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "The most high profile Prop. 90 supporter is New York real estate investor Howie Rich, a Libertarian linked with organizations that have given millions of dollars to as many as 19 initiative drives under way this year in a dozen states."
^ Ben Arnoldy (October 5, 2006). "In November, 12 states have initiatives on the ballot that seek to protect private property against seizure and regulation.". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "He received payments from an outside group chaired by New York City real estate magnate Howie Rich."
^ Ray Ring (2006-08-20). "California's stealth initiative on land use". SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "The pro-Prop. 90 campaign raised and spent about $2.4 million through the end of June. Of that total, $1.5 million came from Howie Rich of New York, who grew wealthy in real estate and owns apartments across the country. He funnels his political money through his Fund for Democracy, which is based in his home."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov111_21-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov111_21-1) Mary Zeiss Stange (November 2, 2006). "Life, liberty and property rights". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "Rich's two advocacy groups, the Fund for Democracy and Americans for Limited Government, alone have funneled about $4 million into the petition process of getting these initiatives onto state ballots."
^ SARAH WHEATON (November 8, 2006). "Taking (and Rejecting) the Initiative". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "The Takings Initiatives Accountability Project, run by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan investigative journalism group, found that in a set of western states, campaigns for these measures have been largely bankrolled by Howard Rich, a New York real estate investor."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov114_23-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov114_23-1) Howard S. Rich (June 16, 2007). "School-Choice Strategy". The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "The flattened borders of the 21st century have made networking faster, global trade freer and competition more rigorous – meaning the premium we place on educating future generations is higher than ever before."
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov34_24-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws23nov34_24-1) "CATO Institute". Business Week. November 23, 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "Mr. Howard S. Rich is a current Director at CATO Institute. He is the President of U.S. Term Limits."
^ The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice (Unknown Publication Date). "Board of Directors". The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws24nov01_26-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rich#cite_ref-tws24nov01_26-1) Viveca Novak (Sep. 27, 2005). "Feds Take On Outside Political Groups". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-11-24. "A year after so-called 527 political groups, like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and America Coming Together, played a piviotal role in the election and drew the ire of political figures on both sides of the aisle, the Federal Election Commission is taking closer look at their activities."
^ Howard Rich (2009-11-23). "Howard Rich and Katon Daw interview via YouTube". Howard Rich Website. Retrieved 2009-11-23. "If every proposal that I have favored over the last 20 years got enacted, whether its term limits or school choice or property rights or any area – I get no personal benefit out of it. I don't make a nickel. Here in South Carolina I own no property. I have no businesses down here. So there's no real monetary benefit."
^ The Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE) (2007)."Awards". The Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE).

Categories:

Rich, Howard $

Background

Letter to Donors of "left wing organizations"

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch Articles

References

External Articles

Profiles

Articles by Rich

Articles & Commentary

Leadership[edit]

Objectives[edit]

Property rights[edit]

Taxpayer Bill of Rights[edit]

School choice[edit]

Recall of judges[edit]

Accomplishments[edit]

The State Right to Vote Act[edit]

California[edit]

Media[edit]

Controversies[edit]

References[edit]

External links

Early years[edit]

Political activism[edit]

Libertarian beginnings[edit]

Cato Institute[edit]

Non-partisan activism[edit]

Americans for Limited Government[edit]

Term limits[edit]

Property rights[edit]

Educational reform[edit]

Board memberships[edit]

Judges[edit]

Criticism and controversy[edit]

Awards[edit]

Current[edit]

References[edit]