ati

this is a tag

problems on other 2 nodes, big blank space:

capt: main

capt horner 914

see also schnare on gmu

horner914

no links

horner914

promoted to UBER, went after hansen and mann, plus bunch of lawsuits eg polar bear, not to mention ATI

posterboy for CEI legal?

missing link in ATI to world/RWW?

===

DeSmogBlog has obtained a copy of an Obama Administration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fracking groundwater contamination PowerPoint presentation describing a then-forthcoming study's findings in Dimock, Pa.

The PowerPoint presentation reveals a clear link between hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") for shale gas in Dimock and groundwater contamination, but wascensored by the Obama Administration. Instead, the EPA issued an official desk statement in July 2012 -- in the thick of election year -- saying the water in Dimock was safe for consumption.

Titled "Isotech-Stable Isotype Analysis: Determinining the Origin of Methane and Its Effets on the Aquifer," the PowerPoint presentation concludes that in Cabot Oil and Gas' Dimock Gesford 2 well, "Drilling creates pathways, either temporary or permanent, that allows gas to migrate to the shallow aquifer near [the] surface... In some cases, these gases disrupt groundwater quality."

Other charts depict Cabot's Gesford 3 and 9 wells as doing much of the same, allowing methane to migrate up to aquifers to unprecedented levels -- not coincidentally -- coinciding with the wells being fracked. The PowerPoint's conclusions are damning.

"Methane is released during the drilling and perhaps during the fracking process and other gas well work," the presentation states. "Methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking and other gas well work... Methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality."

Despite the findings, the official EPA desk statement concluded any groundwater contamination in Dimock was "naturally occurring."

"EPA found hazardous substances, specifically arsenic, barium or manganese, all of which are also naturally occurring substances, in well water at five homes at levels that could present a health concern," read the EPA desk statement. "EPA has provided the residents with all of their sampling results and has no further plans to conduct additional drinking water sampling in Dimock."

Two EPA whistleblowers recently approached the *American Tradition Institute* and revealed politics were at-play in the decision to censor the EPA's actual findings in Dimock. At the heart of the cover-up was former EPA head Lisa Jackson.

Former EPA Head Lisa Jackson's Role in Censoring Report

*EnergyWire*'s Mike Soraghan explained the studies were dropped -- according to one of the unidentified whistleblowers close to the field team in Dimock -- "out of fear the inquiries would hurt President Obama's reelection chances."

Though the two EPA career employees' initial findings pointed to water contamination in Dimock -- as seen in the PowerPoint presentation -- their superiors told them to stop the investigation, in turn motivating them to blow the whistle.

One of the whistleblowers said he came forward due to witnessing "patently unethical and possibly illegal acts conducted by EPA management."

"I have for over a year now worked within the system to try and make right the injustice and apparent unethical acts I witnessed. I have not been alone in this effort,"the unnamed whistleblower told Soraghan. "I took an oath when I became a federal employee that I assume very solemnly."

At the center of the management team overseeing the false desk statement: former EPA head Lisa Jackson, who now works as Apple's top environmental adviser. Jackson was recently replaced by just-confirmed EPA head Gina McCarthy.

This was revealed by the other whistleblower, who as part of the regular duties of his job, was a member of the "HQ-Dimock" email listserv. On that list, Jackson went by the pseudonym "Richard Windsor" as a way to shield her real name from potential Freedom of Information Act requests.

"Many members of the email group... were lawyers and members of Lisa Jackson's inner political circle," explained Soraghan.

Key Freedom of Information Act Filed

American Tradition Institutehas filed two FOIA's in response to the whistleblowers coming forward.

"One FOIA request seeks certain e-mails, text messages, or instant messages of three specified EPA field staff which are to, from or make reference to the White House or EPA HQ," explained ATI. "The second FOIA request focuses on emails sent as part of the ‘HQ-Dimock’ discussion group. Both requests cover the seven-month period from Dec. 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012."

Natural Resources Defense Council -- which has also been critical of the EPA on this issue -- is suspicious of ATI's motives in this case.

ATI is more well-known for denying climate change's existence and "ClimateGate" in particular. Yet, when push comes to shove, NRDC's Kate Sinding approves of ATI's FOIA filing and looks forward to what it discovers.

"It appears to be an attempt to bully EPA out of these cases," Sinding told*EnergyWire*. "If their request results in getting more information about the decisionmaking, that's good information for everyone. But I question their motivation."

"Hide It, Drop It, Forget About It"

The real question at the heart of the matter: What were the EPA's motives for doing an about-face on a key multi-year taxpayer subsidized study?

"It is unconscionable that, in the name of political expediency, the Obama Administration suppressed key information that would have connected the dots between fracking and water contamination," Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food and Water Watch told DeSmogBlog. "Gina McCarthy must put the health and safety of Americans first and prevent the agency from succumbing to political pressure."

Scott Ely-- a former Cabot employee and Dimock resident who has three small children and whose water was contaminated by Cabot -- expressed similar despair over EPA abandoning ship in this high-profile study.

"When does anybody just stand by the truth? Why is it that we have a bunch of people in Washington, D.C. who are trying to manipulate the truth of what's happening to people in Dimock because of the industry?," Ely asked rhetorically.

Ely says he keeps an open line of communications with EPA employees, who regularly check in and caution him not to use his water. The employees remain unidentified for fear of retribution by EPA upper-level management.

"We thought EPA was going to come in and be our savior. And what'd they do? They said the truth can't be known: hide it, drop it, forget about it."

Follow Steve Horn on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/SteveAHorn**

Weatherford Dimock American Tradition Institute Pavillion Fracking Ati Chris Horner Cei Competitive Enterprise Institute Duke Shale Gas Methane Unconventional Gas EPA Texas Robert Jackson Marcellus Shale Pennsylvania Cabot Oil and Gas Steve Lipsky Wyoming Range Resources Lisa Jackson Fracking Environmental Protection Agency Richard Windsor Groundwater Contamination

### :{Hackstaff:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and Snow

www.hackstafflaw.com/

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{Experience and Expertise in Denver, :{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. business-sub. Business :{Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ... outside interest :{groups:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, municipalities, and other individuals and :{groups:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: to ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Real Estate & Title - ‎527 & 501 (C) - ‎Candidates - ‎Election Law

### Attorneys Accordian - :{Hackstaff:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and Snow

www.hackstafflaw.com/page4/index.html

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{He formed his current practice, Hackstaff Gessler LLC (:{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, LLC when his partner was elected :{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Secretary of State) in 2004. The firm ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### :{Hackstaff:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and Snow | Our Attorneys

www.hackstafflaw.com/attorneys/

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{The attorneys at :{Hackstaff:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: & Snow combine extensive experience in several areas, while understanding that clients' needs often span several distinct practice ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### Election :{Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: - :{Hackstaff:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and Snow

www.hackstafflaw.com/page1/page33/index.html

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{:{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: is a long-standing leader in election law litigation in :{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. We handle campaign finance, ballot access and any other election law ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### :{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, LLC- Law firm in Denver, :{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: **...**

www.lawyers.com › Find a Lawyer

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{:{ Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Peers on Lawyers.com:(style="overflow:hidden;height:13px;display:block;width:65px"):}::(style="overflow:hidden;height:13px;display:inline-block;position:relative;top:1px;width:65px"):}:

:{:{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, LLC located in Denver, :{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (CO), details, firm member listings, ratings and reviews on Lawyers.com.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### James :{Hackstaff:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: | LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com/pub/james-hackstaff/46/bb2/501

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

Denver, Colorado - ‎Owner/Managing Member at Hackstaff Law Group, LLC

Owner/Managing Member at Hackstaff Law Group, LLC ... is currently Chairman (Member since 1990) of the Corporate Board of the Cancer League of Colorado.

### [PDF]:{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. - The **...**

www.insurerereport.com/.../Hackstaff-Law-Group-LLC-v.-Hartford-Cas...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{:{Jun 20, 2013 - :(style="color:#808080;"):}::{HACKSTAFF LAW GROUP:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, LLC; JAMES C. HACKSTAFF; and ... UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF :{COLORADO:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### :{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: LLC Denver Law Firm in :{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (CO **...**

www.superlawyers.com/colorado/lawfirm/Hackstaff-Law-Group.../3537c...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{Super Lawyers provides Firm Profile of :{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: LLC located in Denver,:{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (CO):(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### :{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: - Denver - Westword

www.westword.com/related/to/Hackstaff+Law+Group/

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

Westword:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{:{Apr 24, 2013 - :(style="color:#808080;"):}::{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ... The NAACP :{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Montana Wyoming State Area Conference has endorsed the proposal even as it decries one ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

### CO: Secretary of State Gessler's plan to moonlight as private **...**

www.coloradoindependent.com/.../secretary-o...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

The Colorado Independent:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{:{Jan 21, 2011 - :(style="color:#808080;"):}::{Colorado:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Secretary of State Scott Gessler is no stranger to political controversy. ... Indeed, his name and the law firm he founded virtually stand for a branch ... with the :{Hackstaff Law Group:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, formerly Hackstaff and Gessler LLC, ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

:{:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler is no stranger to political controversy. He has represented a long line of conservative advocacy and attack groups and in that role has become the public face of partisan causes. Indeed, his name and the law firm he founded virtually stand for a branch of Colorado politics that seeks to limit government restrictions on and oversight of campaign financing. He has done battle repeatedly with laws the secretary of state is charged to enforce and now he is secretary of state. His election victory put government watchdog groups on high alert. News coming today, a little more than a week since he was sworn into office, that Gessler plans to keep working part-time as an attorney for his former firm even while serving as secretary of state has set conflict-of-interest alarm bells ringing in watchdog offices.

In an interview with the Denver Business Journal, Gessler acknowledged that his plan to moonlight as a contract attorney with the Hackstaff Law Group, formerly Hackstaff and Gessler LLC, would certainly raise ethical questions but that he needed the money. He said his first priority would be to serve the state but that the public-servant $68,500-a-year salary that came with the office amounted to a major pay cut and he still had to provide for his family.

“My first duty is to the state of Colorado. Anything else I do, I’m going to have to make sure it in no way conflicts,” he told the Journal.

Making sure that any work he does for Hackstaff doesn’t conflict with the work he has sworn to do for the people of Colorado, however, may amount to another full-time job.

The secretary of state oversees and administers laws, codes, regulations that cover a vast array of vital and contested areas of activity, including lobbying, elections, campaign finance, voter registration, ballot initiative title setting and petition verification, some gambling as well as business, nonprofit and charitable practice and licensing. The list is long.

Gessler’s former law partner Jim Hackstaff bought Gessler out of the firm the day before Gessler became secretary of state. Hackstaff told the Journal that the ongoing part-time contract he signed with Gessler, which goes into effect in March, contains a provision stating that Gessler and the firm would “ensure that no conflict exists with Gessler’s state duties” and “specifically cited such areas as election law, nonprofit representation and business registration matters.”

Hackstaff said he “knows Gessler well enough to know he’ll be very conservative” in the projects he chooses to work on in order to steer clear of conflicts of interest.

Former Secretary of State Bernie Buescher, who has accepted a job as the deputy attorney general responsible for advising the secretary of state, said he couldn’t comment on Gessler’s plan to moonlight because commenting would be “inappropriate.”

Attorney General John Suthers, who is tasked to work with Gessler to help him avoid Hackstaff-related conflicts of interest, said attorney-client privileges prevent him from speaking on the topic.

This legally proscribed silence is a big problem and points to the bigger problem going forward, according to Luis Toro, director of government watchdog group Colorado Ethics Watch and a man who has argued cases against Gessler in the past. The public is being forced to simply accept that the secretary of state will be acting in good faith without any way to really ask questions or get answers to confirm that’s the case, he said.

“Assuming it’s feasible for [Gessler and Hackstaff] to carve out areas of law for [Gessler] to practice that don’t present a conflict with his responsibilities as secretary of state, how is the public supposed to monitor that? That [challenge] is inconsistent with the idea of public oversight of public officials.”

Toro points to the ethics questions that two years ago plagued Colorado Springs Mayor Lionel Rivera surrounding a deal that included a $53 million city contract to develop a new headquarters for the U. S. Olympic Committee. Because the Colorado Springs mayor position was, in effect, a part-time job, Rivera continued to work as a broker. His business clients included developers bidding for the Olympics project. He later said his problems with the case were compounded by the fact that he couldn’t break confidentiality agreements.

Toro said that in fact Colorado’s Personnel Board makes strict rules governing outside employment for state workers. As secretary of state, Gessler will have to sign off on those for his staff and they likely will apply to Gessler as well. Toro said that, in the end, Gessler may just decide to look for other ways to make side-cash given the “ethical minefield” his plan to moonlight for Hackstaff already seems to be laying out before him.

“Maybe he’ll just be, you know, ‘mea culpa.’ You just got to give him a chance to say ‘This isn’t going to work. Let’s avoid this whole can of worms. I’ll focus on doing the best job I can as secretary of state.’”

http://www.thenation.com/authors/naomi-klein

http://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-Climate/dp/1451697384

note co-plaintiff suing/foia holdren is http://fmelawclinic.org/?page_id=36

outed/tossed out or metastisizing?

"The IRS has granted 501(c)(3) status to the Clinic. The Clinic’s EIN is 45-1602963.

The FME Law Clinic provides legal representation and research. The Clinic is organized to provide a platform to train law students and provide them clinical experience while offering public interest law services. Originally incorporated as the George Mason Environmental Law Clinic, the Directors of FME Law engaged in a friendly and supportive discussion with the Dean of the George Mason University School of Law and recognized that the clinic could better perform its function by servicing multiple law schools as a stand-alone clinic. The Board thus directed a name change to reflect this broadened purpose. Until completion of the legal transition to its new name, the Clinic is doing business as the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic but must retain its original name for banking and tax purposes.

In choosing to operate as a law clinic independent of any specific law school, it replicates the successful approach used by many other law clinics. It remains in close cooperation with George Mason University’s School of Law and provides both academic courses and clinical opportunities for GMU Law students and is expanding its externship program to other law schools that have a doctrinal focus on law and economics.

Donation are accepted at:

The Free Market Environmental Law Clinic

9033 Brook Ford Road

Burke, VA 22015

Until the name change is formally complete, checks should be made out to:

The George Mason Environmental Law Clinic" endit

schnare

9033 Brook Ford Road is located in Burke, VA. At this time, the property has an estimated value of $485,700 and yearly taxes of $4,520. This home has 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, and approximately 1,394 sqft of living space. The property was built in 1973. Similar homes nearby have 4 bedrooms, 3 baths and sell for around $475,000.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/01/conservative-group-sues-epa-over-its-irs-like-tactics/

linked to fox nation)

Conservative group sues EPA over its ‘IRS-like’ tactics

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/01/conservative-group-sues-epa-over-its-irs-like-tactics/#ixzz3CkWxrcPj

A conservative environmental law group is suing the Environmental Protection Agency over its alleged “IRS-like” tactics, including stone-walling federal records requests and imposing fees on conservative groups that sought government records.

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute is trying to force the EPA to release records previously denied under a Freedom of Information Act request looking for agency records regarding clean water rules as they relate to mining operations. E&E Legal argues that such information is crucial to the public understanding issues surrounding the EPA’s “War on Coal.”

In this case, E&E Legal was looking for records regarding the EPA’s veto of an already-granted permit to a coal mine in Logan County, W.V. The EPA vetoed the permit to save the mayfly, an insect that the agency says is harmed by surface mining.

“EPA’s behavior is a clear parallel to the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups,” E&E Legal counsel Chris Horner told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Both impose financial hurdles in the way of groups they disapprove of, draining resources from those they see as threats and impeding the groups from pursuing their mission.”

“That we have learned that the Office of Inspector General is preparing to yet again cover for these abuses only adds to the similarities,” Horner added.

E&E Legal says the EPA has hindered six attempts by the group to get government records related to the EPA mayfly decision. The EPA has refused to waive FOIA-related fees to the group, saying that E&E “failed to express an intention to broadly disseminate” the requested information. E&E says it has gone so far as to insert a picture of a “chalkboard” in a FOIA request with the phrase “We intend to broadly disseminate responsive information” written ten times. The EPA even denied this request.

“The [FOIA] request is being blocked by the latest in a pattern of behavior by the agency directed at plaintiffs, improperly denying the fee waiver provided by statute for non-profit groups that broadly disseminate public information of significant public interest,” Horner writes in his court filing.

“They are of significant public interest due to the ongoing controversy surrounding the EPA’s “War on Coal,’” Horner adds. “Particularly, the EPA’s actions concerning mining activity through the regulation of selenium for its possible impact on insect populations are ongoing matters of public controversy.”

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INSTITUTE )

2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW #186 )

Washington, DC 20006 )

FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTAL

LAW CLINIC )

9033 Brook Ford Road )

Burke, Virginia, 22015 )

Plaintiffs

Michael Bastasch

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/01/conservative-group-sues-epa-over-its-irs-like-tactics/#ixzz3CkWnKpvg

ggle

oddly he is not listed as cei above:

E&E Legal http://eelegal.org/

Registrant ID:CR151231701

Registrant Name:Craig Richardson

Registrant Organization:Richardson Consulting, LLC

Registrant Street1:1350 Beverly Rd.

Registrant Street2:#115-456

Registrant Street3:

Registrant City:McLean

Registrant State/Province:Virginia

Registrant Postal Code:22101

Registrant Country:US

Registrant Phone:+1.7039815553

Registrant Phone Ext.:

Registrant FAX:

Registrant FAX Ext.:

Registrant Email:craigr@richardson-consulting.com

eelegal.org/

... Agency's Regulation of Selenium Used in its Ongoing “War On Coal” ... E&E Legal Letters Issue IV: Demanding Transparency: It's Not Just for Obama Haters Anymore ... by The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) and the Free Market ... Chris Horner on Cavuto: Making renewable energy profitable not a ...

E&E Legal v. EPA

eelegal.org/?cat=51

Apr 3, 2014 - Daily Caller: Report: EPA coal plant rule tainted by secretiveness, ... Energy and Environmental Law Institute attorney Chris Horner has ...

Report: EPA coal plant rule tainted by secretiveness ...

dailycaller.com/.../report-epa-coal-plant-rule-tainted-by-...

The Daily Caller

Mar 10, 2014 - Energy and Environmental Law Institute attorney Chris Horner has presented an 81-page regulatory comment showing the EPA's “New Source ...

EPA accused of stonewalling records requests from ...[fee waiver?]

www.foxnews.com/.../epa-accused-stonewalling-recor...

Fox News Channel

Apr 2, 2014 - The Washington, D.C.-based Energy & Environment Legal Institute filed ... down coal in America,” said Chris Horner, the group's legal counsel.

Coal Q&A - EPA FOIA Findings and Implications for "the War ...

www.americancoalcouncil.org/.../event_details.as...

American Coal Council

Jul 23, 2014 - Christopher C. Horner, Energy & Environment Legal Institute and Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute Wednesday, July 23, 2014 ...

Introducing The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E ...

www.prnewswire.com/.../introducing-the-energy--environment-legal-inst...

Oct 3, 2013 - Horner, a national leader in transparency cases, and the one who discovered ... The Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a ...

Legality of EPA Rules Questioned by Environmental Litigators

www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/EPA-coal.../561045/

Newsmax Media

Mar 21, 2014 - Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal emissions are ... Horner's complaint relies in part on EPA officials' emails obtained in his capacity as a senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, ...

Is the EPA in bed with environmental groups? You decide ...

americanminingrights.com/is-the-epa-in-bed-with-environmental-groups...

Jan 22, 2014 - Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups ... Act request by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. ... Emails previously obtained by Horner's group reveal similar agenda-sharing regarding coal.

EPA Worked With Enviro Groups to Kill Keystone XL Pipeline

www.thenewamerican.com/.../environment/.../17463-epa-worked-with-e...

Jan 23, 2014 - Chris Horner of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute asserts that as a ... Dozens of e-mail exchanges regarding coal and the regulations ...

Report: EPA coal plant rule tainted by secretiveness ...

www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3131542/posts

Free Republic

Mar 10, 2014 - Energy and Environmental Law Institute attorney Chris Horner has ... which limits carbon emissions from new coal plants — was developed by ...

some hypocrisy re cheney secret task force?

CEI Files Lawsuit against Office of Science and Technology Policy

By Hans Bader • May 5, 2014

Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for flouting the Freedom of Information Act. CEI's Chris Horner asked OSTP to produce work-related emails that OSTP's Director, John Holdren, stored in an email account at his former employer, the environmental-pressure group Woods Hole Research Center.

OSTP has resisted producing them. (The use of such non-official accounts for agency business frustrates federal open-government laws, and undermines government accountability, since such accounts are generally not searched in response to FOIA or congressional oversight requests seeking work-related communications or agency records. Moreover, the use of email accounts at a former employer that lobbies the federal government gives such pressure groups direct access to and control over public records, including highly sensitive information.)

What is ironic about this is that OSTP's Director, soon after taking office, lectured OSTP employees about not conducting official business using private email accounts, and about the need to forward all work-related communications to their agency email account in order to comply with federal record-keeping laws. (See May 10, 2010 Memo from OSTP Director John Holdren to all OSTP staff, Subject: Reminder: Compliance with the Federal Records Act and the President’s Ethics Pledge, at 1, available as Exhibit B to the letter at this link.) Apparently, the longer an official is in power, and the less he fears losing power, the less he cares about government transparency and the rule of law.

Meanwhile, OSTP has thumbed its nose at CEI's request under the Information Quality Act that it correct OSTP Director John Holdren's notoriously false claim,criticized or disagreed with by climate scientists, that global warming is leading to more severe cold weather. As of the time this blog post was published, OSTP's "Information Quality Guidelines" website continued to falsely claim that "OSTP has received no information quality correction requests. Any future requests will be posted on this page." It so claims even though CEI had submitted its most recent information quality request about a month ago (emailing it on April 13, and faxing it on April 14), and that same week, discussed that request by phone with an OSTP employee, who confirmed receipt of CEI's request, and stated that it would be posted on OSTP's web site.

OSTP made this false claim on its web site even though it was blatantly wrong at the time it was made: OSTP has received not one, but two CEI data quality correction requests, including a highly-publicized 2003 request that OSTP was sued over and resulted in a correction of OSTP's earlier climate change claims. See Chris Mooney, Paralysis by Analysis: Jim Tozzi's Regulation to End All Regulation, Washington Monthly, May 1, 2004, at 23 ("Last August, the Competitive Enterprise Institute . . . filed suit under the Data Quality Act over a Clinton-era report on global warming, known as the National Assessment of Climate Change. Though the suit was ultimately settled out of court, government lawyers agreed to attach a disclaimer to the report.”).

OSTP's recent attempt to evade FOIA is equally disturbing. OSTP first claimed that CEI lawyer Chris Horner's FOIA request was not a FOIA request at all, even though it explicitly cited FOIA and FOIA statutory provisions and regulations. Then it interpreted Chris's request as covering only certain emails already found in Holdren'sofficial OSTP email account. The latter contention tortured the English language, while its former contention was legally just wrong: judges have ruled that agencies have to produce records reflecting agency activities, even if they were “neither created by agency employees, nor . . . currently located on agency property." Burka v. HHS, 87 F.3d 508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Here, the records were exchanged with an agency employee -- indeed, the agency's director! -- and recent rulings affirm that FOIA can be used to request agency records, even when they are in an official's private email account. (See, e.g., Landmark Legal Foundation v. E.P.A., 2013 WL 4083285, *6 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2013) (refusing to dismiss a FOIA lawsuit, because EPA failed to search agency officials' personal email accounts); CEI v. EPA, No. 12-1617, 2014 WL 308093, at *14 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2014) (noting that a requester "can simply ask for work-related emails and agency records found in the specific employees’ personal accounts; requesters” need not even identify the non-official email addresses at issue, which requesters may not know)).

===

2020 Penn ave

ggle:

Appeal of Denial of Fee Waiver Request

eelegal.org/wp-content/.../01/ATI-EPA-Sierra-Fee-Waiver-Appeal.pdf

Headquarters Freedom of Information Staff”. Environmental Law Center at the American Tradition Institute • 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #186. Washington, D.C. ...

In Spite of Ruling that It Broke Montana Laws, Sinrud's ...

mtcowgirl.com/.../in-spite-of-ruling-that-it-broke-montana-laws-sinruds-...

Oct 30, 2010 - This “organization's” address is 2020 Pennsylvania Ave N.W. #186, Washington D. C. 20006. Not exactly a grassroots local citizens group ...

American Tradition Partnership » Methods

americantradition.org/methods/

Copyright American Tradition Partnership 2014. 1-888-987-USA1 Fax: 202-204- 60512020 Pennsylvania Ave, NW #186, Washington, D.C. 20006.

American Tradition Partnership » News & Views

americantradition.org/news-views/

Copyright American Tradition Partnership 2014. 1-888-987-USA1 Fax: 202-204- 60512020 Pennsylvania Ave, NW #186, Washington, D.C. 20006.

American Tradition Partnership » Keystone delay

americantradition.org/tag/keystone-delay/

Copyright American Tradition Partnership 2014. 1-888-987-USA1 Fax: 202-204- 60512020 Pennsylvania Ave, NW #186, Washington, D.C. 20006.

[PDF]ATI DoE Silver Appeal Constructive Denial - Energy ...

www.atinstitute.org/.../ATI_DoE_Silver_Appeal_Constructive_DenialRe...

Aug 30, 2012 - Environmental Law Center at the American Tradition Institute • 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #186. Washington, D.C. 20006 • www.atinstitute.

Complaint filed in CEI v. NSA | Competitive Enterprise Institute

cei.org/legal.../complaint-filed-cei-v-nsa

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Jun 10, 2014 - ... COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE ) 1899 L Street NW, 12th Floor ... INSTITUTE ) 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW #186 ) Washington, ...

[PDF]FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST May 18 ...

www.atinstitute.org/wp.../ATI_GMU_Wegman_ACLU_et_al_FOIA.pdf

May 18, 2011 - American Tradition Institute • 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #186 • Washington, D.C. 20006 www.atinstitute.org. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ...

[PDF]Received - U.S. Copyright Office

www.copyright.gov/.../american_partner....

United States Copyright Office

Oct 1, 2012 - Address of Service Provider: 2020 Pennsylvania Ave, NW #186; Washington, DC 20006. Name of Agent Designated to Receive. Notification of ...

[PDF]ATI Reply to U of A Production Indexes - Watts Up With That?

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/.../ati-reply-to-u-of-a-production-in...

Environmental Law Center at the American Tradition Institute • 2020 Pennsylvania Ave.NW #186. Washington, D.C. 20006 • www.atinstitute.org ...

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christopher C. Horner is an attorney in Washington, D.C., a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and an outspoken skeptic of climate change. Horner is also the author of three books on climate change skepticism.

Horner has represented CEI as well as Members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. He has written on numerous topics in publications such as law reviews, legal and industrial trade journals, and opinion pages. He is the author of four books.

The Liberal War on Transparency (2012)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberal-War-Transparency-Confessions/dp/1451694881

Power Grab: How Obama's Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America (2010) perseus

Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (2008) Regnery

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (2007) Regnery

The last was on the New York Times Bestseller list for many weeks.

[amazon blurb: pwr grab

Christopher Horner, hailed by Glenn Beck as a “Watchdog” and praised by Rush Limbaugh as the “longtime go-to guy on global warming extremism,” has compiled a jaw-dropping account of the government’s arrogant plans to take over America’s access to abundant, afforable energy—and by doing so, take over our economy and limit the individual freedom we’ve so long taken for granted. http://www.amazon.com/Power-Grab-Policies-Freedom-Bankrupt/dp/1596985992 2010 Perseus/regnery]

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/book-review-the-liberal-war-on-transparency/?page=all

BOOK REVIEW: ‘The Liberal War on Transparency’

By Ilya Shapiro and James Schindler - - Wednesday, November 7, 2012

THE LIBERAL WAR ON TRANSPARENCY: CONFESSIONS OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ‘CRIMINAL’

By Christopher C. Horner

Threshold Editions, $27, 283 pages [simon & shuster]

Reviewed By Ilya Shapiro and James Schindler

Transparency is demanded by those out of power and rejected by those in power. Witness President Obama, who ran as a transparency candidate in 2008 and then ran from transparency as president.

An intriguing and painstakingly in-depth glimpse into the hypocrisy of the Obama administration, “The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information ‘Criminal,’” catalogs the author’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fiascos. In a rollicking tale of hilarious frustrations and disturbing government shenanigans, Christopher Horner shines the proverbial spotlight on some self-described spotlight-shiners who are anything but.

Mr. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute — a free-market think tank in Washington — recalls the history of the transparent-government movement, which was lauded by progressives such as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and President Franklin D. Roosevelt and codified in FOIA under Lyndon B. Johnson.

Likewise, modern liberals praise the “transparency” that resulted from sources such as WikiLeaks, the theft of official records relating especially to the Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay, calling it just the kind of openness needed for healthy government. Mr. Horner emphasizes the existence of a double standard by journalists who believe that transparency is only useful for scrutinizing conservatives — even if it requires rummaging through their trash. But when it comes to gathering information from liberal politicians and left-wing causes, these erstwhile muckrakers find virtue in an ambiguous government.

The book recounts the start of Barack Obama’s term of office in 2009, when the president declared that his administration would be “the most transparent in history.” The White House even issued memos instructing agencies to err on the side of transparency in FOIA requests. It did not, however, take long for the other shoe to drop: Scandals, cover-ups and bad publicity necessitated less transparency, lost and destroyed records, and systematic circumvention of the law.

One agency Mr. Horner repeatedly criticizes is the Environmental Protection Agency, whose officials were discovered using personal email accounts to conduct official business in order to avoid FOIA scrutiny. Carol Browner, former EPA administrator and later energy and environment “czar,” was caught having used two email accounts for her government work — one for “official” business, and the other for off-the-record business.

Similarly, the author chides the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that has been without an inspector general since January 2011, for prescreening FOIA requests for possible bad political implications. He decries the Department of Homeland Security’s front office for no longer using email, relying solely on in-person and telephone communication to avoid requestable written communication.

Mr. Horner exposes the practice of White House staffers meeting with lobbyists in secrecy at a nearby row house to avoid official visitor record keeping. Other examples of situations where officials illegally delayed the release of FOIA-covered records (“lost” them or otherwise made them difficult to obtain by forcing researchers to seek court orders) is a list of the administration’s political dirty laundry: Fast and Furious, TARP, the BP oil spill, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the National Labor Relations Board’s attack on Boeing, ACORN, czar appointees, recess appointments, cap and trade, the Keystone XL pipeline and Solyndra.

In contrast, certain FOIA requests for information politically favorable to the Obama administration achieved responses as quickly as the same day.

Among the worst FOIA abuses Mr. Horner chronicles are those by NASA and taxpayer-funded university climate scientists who routinely lost or destroyed important statistical records and used personal email accounts to thwart detailed investigations. Indeed, the word “criminal” in the book’s title refers to a speech by current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, in which she asserted that using FOIA to seek records from government-funded scientists was “criminal.”

Mr. Horner recalls President Eisenhower’s farewell address in which he warned not just of a growing military-industrial complex but of the unhealthy concentration of the nation’s scholars and scientists in federal employment. All the while, the media remain mostly silent, underscoring again the liberal double standard and undermining the nation’s trust in its educational institutions.

Mr. Horner ends the book with a useful how-to guide for filing one’s own FOIA requests, chock-full of wisdom that comes only from years of trial, error and experience as an “information criminal.”

Overall, “The Liberal War on Transparency” is an easy, interesting read with only a few minor stylistic flaws. Sometimes in Mr. Horner’s desire to be comprehensive, for example, his anecdotes can be superfluous or overlong. It’s clear the author is an attorney from his occasional use of 10 words when two will do.

But those are just quibbles; this book provides vital information in a straightforward manner. It should be read by those who want to “speak truth to power” — and especially by those in power.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, where James Schindler is a legal associate.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/book-review-the-liberal-war-on-transparency/#ixzz3Cxg6suUS

]

Horner has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and works on a legal and policy level with numerous think tanks and policy organizations throughout the world. He has given numerous addresses to audiences in the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels, and before policymakers in European capitals including London, Rome, Prague, Copenhagen, Madrid, and Warsaw; topics range from rail deregulation and unfunded pension liability to energy and environment issues. He has provided legal, policy, and political commentary several hundred times each on both television and radio, in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia, including on the Fox News Channel, Court TV, MSNBC (with repeat visits on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer), BBC, CNN, CNN International, ITN, CBC, Bloomberg, andReuters Television.

Horner received his Juris Doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis.[1][2]

Contents

[hide]

1 See also

2 Sources

3 External links

3.1 References

Related SourceWatch articles

Global warming skeptics

Heartland Institute

International Conference on Climate Change (2009)

SourceWatch:Project:Creating Articles on Sponsors and Speakers at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Frontiers of Freedom

American Tradition Institute

References

? "Factsheet: Competitive Enterprise Institute," ExxonSecrets.org, accessed March 2009.

? "[1]"

? ahaynes, 2011-11-08

? "Personnel details: Chris Horner," Heartland Institute website, accessed March 2009.

? 5.0 5.1 "Christopher C. Horner," Competitive Enterprise Institute website, accessed March 2009.

? "[2]"

? "Speakers," Heartland Institute website, accessed January 2009.

? "Fox News: NASA's Chief Climate Scientist Stirs Controversy with Call for Civil Disobedience]," States News Service, February 26, 2009.

? "Chris Horner Debates Arctic Ice & Global Warming," CEI channel on YouTube.com, September 13, 2007.

? "[3]"

? "[4]"

External resources

Profile on Heatland Institute http://heartland.org/chris-horner

Profile on Competitve Enterprise Institute site http://cei.org/expert/christopher-c-horner

External articles

Articles and Presentations by Horner

Chris Horner, [http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Chris_Horner.ppt "Re-Writing the Rules for Kyoto II: Turning a Treaty into a Congressional-Executive Agreement ", Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)

Categories: Climate change | Global warming skeptics | People

desmog: http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner

Chris Horner

Credentials

Juris Doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis. [1]

Background

Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Washington, DC-based think-tank. He is also the director of litigation at the American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center.

Horner is a lawyer by training and regularly appears on television as a commentator on the issue of climate change.

Stance on Climate Change

"Given that the atmosphere inarguably shows no appreciable warming in the 25-year history of satellite and radiosonde measurements (initiated in response to the cooling panic), to assert that runaway global warming is as real as President Bush's re-election is an absurd proposition." [2]

Key Quotes

"Pluto's warm-up is a reminder that no matter where you are climate happens. It always has, it always will — with or without SUVs. And it should remind us to continue taking with an ever-increasing grain of salt these claims that your car acts as a weather machine." [3]

Key Deeds

June 30 - July 1, 2011

Horner spoke at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change. [4] His presentation was titled "Crony Capitalism and the 'Green Jobs' Charade."

DeSmogBlog found that 17 of the 43 sponsors of the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, including the Heartland Institute itself, have collectively received over $46 million from either Scaife Foundations, Koch Foundations, or ExxonMobil and its foundation.

March 8-10, 2009

Horner was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is described as "a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory that global warming is a crisis." [4]

His presentation was titled "Re-Writing the Roles for Kyoto II: Turning a Treaty into a Congressional-executive Agreement"

DeSmogBlog found that organizations sponsoring the conference had collectively received over $40 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations such as Koch Foundations and Scaife Foundations.

February 27, 2009

Horner accused NASA's chief climate scientist, James Hansen, of "doctor[ing] temperature data on two occasions in 2001 and once in 2007 in attempts to show an impending climate catastrophe."

Horner stated that Hansen had "clearly abused his platform provided to him by the taxpayer, principally by the way he's been exposed of manipulating and revising data with the strange coincidence of him always found on the side of exaggerating the warming." [5]

2009

Participated in the "Climate Chains" video along with fellow climate change skeptics Myron Ebell, Marlo Lewis, Patrick Michaels, and Todd Wynn. The video claims that "One of the greatest threats to freedom and prosperity in America is climate change legislation." The video was organized by the Cascade Policy Institute. [6]

March 2 - 4, 2008

Horner spoke at the Heartland Institute's First International Conference on Climate Change. The purpose of this conference was reported to be to "generate international media attention" on global warming skepticism. [4]

May 2, 2007

Appeared on Glenn Beck's May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear."

Affiliations

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) — Senior Fellow, Center for Energy and Environment. [1]

American Tradition Institute — "Senior Director of Litigation." [7]

Cooler Heads Coalition — Oversees petitions and litigation for the Cooler Heads Coalition in "environment and energy issues, international environmental treaties, and climate policy." [8] Also listed as a "Contributor." [9]

Tech Central Station — Contributor. [10]

Enron Corporation — Past director of Federal Government Relations (1997). [11]

National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) — Contributor. [11]

European Enterprise Institute — Past Director of External Relations, Policy Counsel. [12]

Publications

Horner has written two books published through Regnery Publishing: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (2008) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (2007).

According to a search of Google Scholar, Horner has not published any peer-reviewed articles on the subject of climate change.

Resources

"Christopher C. Horner," Competitive Enterprise Institute. Accessed January, 2012.

Christopher C. Horner. "Reviving 'Global Warming'," letter in the Washington Times. Republished by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, April 29, 2005.

Marc Morano. "'Alarmist' Global Warming Claims Unfounded Says Climatolgist," CNSNews.com, July 14, 2003. Archived March 13, 2008.

"Chris Horner," International Conference on Climate Change, accessed January, 2012.

"NASA's Chief Climate Scientist Stirs Controversy With Call for Civil Disobedience," FoxNews.com, February 27, 2009.

"About the Experts," ClimateChains.com. Archived April 1, 2010.

"Court Orders University of Virginia to Produce Documents of Dr. Michael Mann" (Press Release), American Tradition Institute, May 25, 2011.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Christopher C. Horner.

"Contributors," Globalwarming.org. Accessed January, 2012.

"Christopher C. Horner," Tech Central Station. Archived February 8, 2005.

"Christopher C. Horner," Profile at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Accessed January, 2011.

"Executive," European Enterprise Institute. Archived January 6, 2009.

"Chris Horner," SourceWatch Profile.

http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner

exxonsecrets

Director of litigation at the American Tradition Institute's Environmental Law Center

-Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition -Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom -CEI Senior Fellow -Senior Fellow, Center for Energy and Environment

Horner oversees petitions and litigation for the Cooler Heads Coalition, specifically regarding "environment and energy issues, international environmental treaties, and climate policy". He has been particularly vocal in arguing that the National Assessment on Climate Change was illegally produced. He has previously been a guest columnist for Tech Central Station.

As a senior fellow at CEI, Horner oversees petitions and litigation on topics including the Freedom of Information Act, government science and agency statutory compliance, environment and energy issues, international environmental treaties, and climate policy. According to his CEI profile, he “works on a legal and policy level with numerous think tanks and policy organizations throughout the world.”

Graduate of the Law School at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

QUOTES

If history has taught us anything it’s to listen to that one crazy German. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-13-2007/christopher-horner

Source: Daily Show - Chris Horner

Pluto's warm-up [despite moving away from the sun] is a reminder that no matter where you are climate happens. It always has, it always will -- with or without SUVs. And it should remind us to continue taking with an ever-increasing grain of salt these claims that your car acts as a weather machine… There will be inevitably and likely imminent claims that mankind is also causing Plutonian global warming. http://www.cnsnews.com/node/5679

Source: cnsnews

KEY DEEDS

8 February, 2007

Author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)" released February 2007 by Regnery Publishing Inc. The book's inside flap explains that Horner "lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It's the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government."

Source: Amazon.com Horner Book Page 2007

2 May, 2007

Appeared on Glenn Beck's May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"

Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

DEEDS

16 December, 2004

Horner wrote "Who's The Greatest? Climate change is the 'greatest threat'... except for all the others." for Tech Central Station 12/16/05

Source: Tech Central Station article - Horner

Participated in the "Climate Chains" video along with Myron Ebell Marlo Lewis, Patrick Micheals, and Todd Wynn. The video claims that “One of the greatest threats to freedom and prosperity in America is climate change legislation.”

Source: Climate Chains bios

Author, Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep you Misinformed (2008)

Source: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed

In May 2011, Horner asked the University of Virginia for access to thousands of e-mails and documents by Michael Mann who had left the university several years earlier. The request, backed by the Freedom of Information Act, was on behalf of the American Tradition Institute. The Washington Post reported the issue on June 3 in the opinion spread, criticizing Horner as one of “some global warming skeptics in Virginia are showing that even the best tools (the Freedom of Information Act) can be misused.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harassing-climate-change-researchers/2011/05/27/AG1xJMEH_story.html

Source: Washington Post Chris Horner Op-Ed

Horner has accused NASA's chief climate scientist, James Hansen, of "doctor[ing] temperature data on two occasions in 2001 and once in 2007 in attempts to show an impending climate catastrophe." Horner stated that Hansen had "clearly abused his platform provided to him by the taxpayer, principally by the way he's been exposed of manipulating and revising data with the strange coincidence of him always found on the side of exaggerating the warming."

Source: DeSmogBlog profile Chris Horner

KEY EVENTS

Experts Discuss Why United States Should Withdraw Its Signature From Kyoto; Whatever Happened To Global Warming Anyway?

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/first/0514-108.html

The relationship of Christopher C. Horner to the event: Speaker

EVENTS

Heartland Climate Conference 6

http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/

The relationship of Christopher C. Horner to the event: speaker

ORGANIZATIONS

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Source: CEI website, 3/04

Heartland Institute

Source: Heartland 2010 Climate Conference Speaker List

Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation

Source: Frontiers of Freedom website 5-06

National Center for Policy Analysis

Source: NCPA website 4/04

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station

Source: Tech Central Station Bio - Horner

European Enterprise Institute

Source: European Enterprise Institute Website (2006)

Cooler Heads Coalition

Source: Capitalism Magazine

Cascade Policy Institute

Source: Climate Chains homepage

SOURCES

CEI website, 3/04

http://www.cei.org

NCPA website 4/04

http://www.ncpa.org/

Tech Central Station Bio - Horner

http://www.techcentralstation.com/biohornerchristopher.html

Tech Central Station article - Horner

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121604E.html

Frontiers of Freedom website 5-06

http://www.ff.org

European Enterprise Institute Website (2006)

http://www.european-enterprise.org/items/executive/

Capitalism Magazine

http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=229

Amazon.com Horner Book Page 2007

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Global-Warming-Environmentalism/dp/1596985011

CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/beck.climateoffear/

Heartland 2010 Climate Conference Speaker List

More than 70 speakers will make keynote presentations or participate in panel discussions at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, May 16-18, 2010 in Chicago.

http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/speakers.html

Climate Chains bios

http://http://www.climatechains.com/bios.html

Climate Chains homepage

http://www.climatechains.com/

Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380

Daily Show - Chris Horner

cnsnews

Washington Post Chris Horner Op-Ed

DeSmogBlog profile Chris Horner

http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=281

Am Trad Inst! lawsuit ~ Mann

---

regnery red hot lies http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/product-description/1596985380

see mashey?

---

Horner CEI atack Hansen and blogger http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/28/253240/fox-news-james-hansen/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/28/253240/fox-news-james-hansen/

The latest effort is this lawsuit by Christopher Horner (of the American Tradition Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute), which is debunked here (and below). This smearing of scientists is what Horner does for a living (see Inhofe, Horner, McIntyre and Watts fabricate another phony “despicable smear” against Michael Mann).

Before discussing Horner’s disingenuous and self-contradictory attack, let me reprint a couple of statements by Hansen on the general subject of this sort of harassment (since I’m sure NASA’s attorney has asked that he not comment publicly on this lawsuit). Back in December 2009 Hansen explained the harassment strategy of the deniers here:

“I am now inundated with broad FOIA requests for my correspondence, with substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these to be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate science…. The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians would certainly have done that — but they have not.”...

m on Jun 28, 2011 at 5:39 pm

NASA’s James Hansen is our leading climatologist and a modern day Paul Revere, if anyone were listening. He has been right longer about the dangers of unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases than almost anybody (see “1981 Hansen study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels“).

So it’s no surprise that organizations around the world have given him prestigious awards — that include a substantial amount of money — which he is legally allowed to receive as a government employee. It’s also no surprise that the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the subject of lawsuits and smears by the fossil-fuel-funded anti-science deniers who want unrestricted pollution, whose efforts, if successful, would doom billions to a ruined climate.

More recently, in his open letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, he had this sardonic footnote to the deniers that harass him with e-mails:

Note to the people who send me messages (SOMETIMES SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS) demanding that I stop wasting THEIR MONEY and get out of the government: When I was in New Zealand I was on vacation, using up time accumulated years ago when I seldom took vacation. By taking the New Zealand vacation I am reducing taxpayers’ costs, because I would otherwise be paid (when I retire) a lump sum for the vacation days that I did not use. Your blood pressure might come down a notch further if you saw the nature of the “vacation”: slave-driver Jeanette Fitzsimons unceremoniously routing me out of bed at 6 or 7 AM every day to get moving to the next town – not exactly a case of sipping pina colada on a beach.

BTW, do you really believe that scientists make up or exaggerate global warming to get research funds? Our salaries do not depend on how much research the government funds. Government scientists get paid for working 40 hours a week, regardless of how long they work. My wife claims it is about 90 hours a week, but I say about 80. If you succeed in getting the government to cut back on science, because you don’t like the results, the main effect will be erosion of our competiveness relative to other nations. Your hounding of scientists does not bother me, but it may discourage young people from entering the profession, contributing to a national spiral into second or third rate technical and economic status. Perhaps, instead of questioning the motives of scientists, you should turn around and check the interests (motives) of the people who have pushed you to become so agitated.

This would be funny if cyber-bullying were not so serious (see “UK Guardian slams Morano for cyber-bullying and for urging violence against climate scientists“).

Indeed, one of the core strategies of the climate science deniers is to promote the laughable notion that workaholic scientists like Hansen are ‘in it for the money’ – when anyone who knows real scientists understands that this isn’t the profession anyone goes into to make money.

And that brings us back to the latest smear by the deniers against Hansen. You can see the smear here:

It was thoroughly debunked by a post from Climate Science FOI (Freedom of Information) Report, which I reprint here:

On the heels of its failed appeal to NASA on the issue of James Hansen’s ‘Permission to engage in outside activity’ forms, ATI’s Christopher Horner has filed suit against NASA in DC District Court:

ATI NASA Hansen FOIA lawsuit

This lawsuit is notable for a number of misleading claims and for the argument that Horner is pursuing which is in complete opposition to the argument Horner pursued (wearing his CEI hat) in his other NASA FOIA lawsuit.

The technical issue at stake in the original ATI FOIA request is whether forms filled out by NASA employees to request permission to undertake outside activity fall under the FOIA exemption for personnel matters. Since it is clear that the requests are for non-official activity (by definition), and that federal employees have an expectation of privacy for non-official activities, the terms for the privacy exemption would clearly seem to be met.

This can be overridden with a strong enough ‘public interest’ which can be weighed against the privacy rights of the individual. However, in order to demonstrate a ‘public interest’ (note this is not the same as whether a member of the public is interested), Horner has brought up a number of tangential, irrelevant and just plain false accusations against Hansen, both in the lawsuit and in the commentary he has published online. Without a clear argument that there is a real issue with respect to NASA compliance with ethics rules, the public interest test is unlikely to be met.

A few examples: Horner accuses Hansen of receiving $1.2 million in outside income for work done as a federal employee. He does not note in the commentary (though it is stated in the lawsuit), that most of these monies were for international prize awards which, like a Nobel Prize, can be accepted by federal employees and do not count as ‘outside activity’ for which permission must be sought. The relevent federal ethics guidelines are quite explicit (see part d.1, and example 1). The four prizes in question (the Blue Planet Prize $550,000, the Heinz award $250,000, the Dan David award ($333,000?) and the Sophie Prize, $100,000) are all examples of an

… award … made as part of an established program of recognition:

(i) Under which awards have been made on a regular basis or which is funded, wholly or in part, to ensure its continuation on a regular basis; and

(ii) Under which selection of award recipients is made pursuant to written standards.

for which no prior permission is required.

Thus the insinuation that Hansen might not have complied with ethics guidelines by not filing ‘Outside activity’ forms for these prizes (which are not required) is clearly misleading (forms would have been required for speaking engagements and the like which apparently total to only $48,000 over 4 years).

Similarly, the claim in the lawsuit that Hansen received $720,000 from George Soros is simply fictitious.

That link is to debunking by Hansen of the $720,000 smear that I posted 4 years ago (!) — see More swiftboating of James Hansen.

Even more curious is the use by Horner of documents produced by NASA in the CEI case (for which Horner is the lead attorney). These consist of some “Outside activity” forms from Gavin Schmidt, specifically one related to his activity on the RealClimate blog (see the filings in this case for more details). These forms were released in court filings, not through a FOIA request, and so do not have any relevance for determining whether there is a statutory right to see these forms via FOIA.

The issue in question in the CEI vs NASA case is whether blogging was part of Schmidt’s official duties (NASA says it was not, while CEI is arguing the opposite). However in this case, Horner is arguing that for the period prior to the filing of Schmidt’s “Outside activity” form, Schmidt (and GISS) were out of compliance with ethics rules (which GISS and Schmidt have denied). For this to be the case though, one must at minimum accept that the RealClimate blogging was indeed not part of Schmidt’s official duties (if it was part of his official duties, then obviously he could not be out of compliance with ethics guidelines related to ‘outside activities’!). Thus, should this example be taken as evidence of NASA failing to uphold ethics rules, it would immediately undermine the argument put forward by Horner in the CEI case (that the RealClimate blogging was an official duty).

Having the same lawyer use two contradictory arguments in separate lawsuits against the same agency might be a sight to behold. One wonders if the judges will be impressed.

Hansen deserves every award that he wins, while the deniers deserve eternal shame for their ultimately self-destructive quest to block all serious efforts to preserve a livable climate.

NASA’s James Hansen on hacked emails: “The contrarians or deniers do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.”

Competitive Enterprise Institute to sue RealClimate blogger over moderation policy

McCullagh argues that his so-called “disclosures” will “probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats’ cap and trade bill,” and quotes CEI’s Chris Horner: “It’s nice to see they’re not spinning each other behind closed doors.” Horner, who filed the FOIA request, runs global warming denial blogs for CEI and the National Review. In June, McCullagh breathlessly promoted CEI’s other “scandal” of a global warming denier economist who works for the EPA. carlin

Opponents of clean energy reform are inflating the costs of action by 1,000 percent, while minimizing that the threat of climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels. Ironically, these lies may actually aid the political prospects of action, as the American public grow more disgusted with the unethical tactics of polluters and their right-wing allies.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/09/16/174427/mccullagh-cei-attack/

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who specializes in harassing climate scientists with nuisance lawsuits and Freedom of Information fishing expeditions, angles the table mic over to his mouth. “You can believe this is about the climate,” he says darkly, “and many people do, but it’s not a reasonable belief.” Horner, whose prematurely silver hair makes him look like a right-wing Anderson Cooper, likes to invoke Saul Alinsky: “The issue isn’t the issue.” The issue, apparently, is that “no free society would do to itself what this agenda requires…. The first step to that is to remove these nagging freedoms that keep getting in the way.” naimi k see kliencc

attacks Hansen: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/28/253240/fox-news-james-hansen/

Climate change skeptic Horner sweeps BP CEO's meeting with Cheney under the rug

June 15, 2010 7:21 pm ET — 6 Comments

Writing on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog, Chris Horner whitewashed the role BP executives played in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force to attack Democrats over two meetings with BP officials. BP's CEO reportedly met with Cheney and his energy task force in 2001.

Horner falsely suggests BP's CEO did not meet with Bush White House

Horner: "4,700 days ... since the last time a BP CEO was in the Oval Office." Chris Horner, a climate change skeptic, wrote in a post on BigGovernment.com: "So President Obama is meeting in the White House tomorrow with BP's chairman. The focus of public discussion of this event has been on it taking until the 57th day or so since the Deepwater Horizon rig caught fire following a well explosion, precipitating the ongoing oil leak." Horner continued:

The more relevant figure is 4,700. If my quick calculation has it right, that's the number of days since the last time a BP CEO was in the Oval Office. On that day, August 4, 1997, then-CEO, (then-Sir) John Browne, joined by Ken Lay, met in the Oval with President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

BP CEO participated in Cheney's energy task force, including a separate meeting with Cheney

BP's CEO reportedly met with Cheney. A November 16, 2005, Washington Post article reported, "A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress." The article further reported, "Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work."

Other BP officials met with task force. The Washington Post article also reported that based on records kept by the Secret Service, "[o]n March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien." The BP representatives reportedly "met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy."

Horner is funded by the oil industry

CEI has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil. According to reports compiled by Greenpeace, ExxonMobil Corp. and its foundation donated more than $2 million to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where Horner is a senior fellow, from 1998 through 2005.

CEI has received more than $600,000 from Koch family foundations. According to data compiled by Media Matters Action Network, from 1986 through 2004, CEI received $666,420 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, and David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and Personal Philanthropy. Charles and David Koch reportedly each own 42 percent of Koch Industries, whose subsidiaries "have been in the petroleum business since 1940" and "engage in petroleum refining, chemicals and base oil production, crude oil supply, and wholesale marketing of fuels, base oils, petrochemicals, asphalt and other products." The president of the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation is Richard Fink, who is also president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Fink is "an executive vice president and member of the board of directors of Koch Industries, Inc., where he leads the legal, government, community relations and communication capabilities for Koch Industries," according to his bio on the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation's website.

----

climategate:

alerted by watts,

"It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag," wrote Watts. He said that he had alerted two of the most vocal deniers in the US: the CEI's Christopher Horner and Marc Morano, a former staffer for Sen. Inhofe. Morano is also the editor of Climate Depot [92], a Drudge Report-like clearinghouse for climate skeptics run by the oil-funded think tank Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow [93]. Blogger Terry Hurlbut posted [94] excerpts of the emails on a conservative news site, the Examiner.

Even as the buzz around the emails kept building, scientists tried to dismiss them as a non-story. By the time they reacted, the story was entering the news bloodstream.

Even as the buzz around the emails kept building, scientists tried to dismiss them as a non-story. Jones only acknowledged the theft two days after the emails became public, in an interview with the New Zealand magazine Investigate [95]. He said he wasn't sure what exactly was in the hacked data, and noted that the university had not even alerted the police.

By the time the scientists finally reacted, the story was entering the news bloodstream. On the evening of November 19, CEI's Horner first wrote about it [20] on the National Review's website, calling it the "blue-dress moment" for climate change—alluding to the infamous evidence of Bill Clinton's sexual exploits. That same day, Mosher sent a Facebook message to New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, flagging the emails. Revkin wrote about them [96] the next day, November 20, noting that they were "causing a stir among global warming skeptics."

Meanwhile, CEI, which has also enjoyed Koch and ExxonMobil funding, trotted out Horner at every opportunity: In May 2010, he wrote about what he called "green thuggery" at the National Review's website. In July 2010, Michaels was back [109] in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages accusing scientists of "ugly pressure tactics" and "professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data."

Nevertheless, no company appears to be working harder to support those who debunk global warming. “Many corporations have funded, you know, dribs and drabs here and there, but I would be surprised to learn that there was a bigger one than Exxon,” explains Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which, in 2000 and again in 2003, sued the government to stop the dissemination of a Clinton-era report showing the impact of climate change in the United States. Attorney Christopher Horner—whom you’ll recall from Crichton’s audience—was the lead attorney in both lawsuits and is paid a $60,000 annual consulting fee by the CEI. In 2002, ExxonMobil explicitly earmarked $60,000 for the CEI for “legal activities.”

Litigation

In 2000, Ebell was a plaintiff, along with several members of Congress, including Sen. James Inhofe (R, OK), who sued the National Science and Technology Council, President Bill Clinton, and the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted that the National Assessment on Climate Change report—which details likely state-by-state consequences of anthropogenic climate change—violated several federal open-meeting, appropriations and research statutes.

Attorney with group targeting climate scientists' emails featured at Koch-funded conference

The American Tradition Institute -- a global-warming denier group that's using the Freedom of Information Act in controversial ways to discredit climate scientists -- suffered a legal loss this week when a judge allowed one of the scientists to intervene in a lawsuit against the University of Virginia.

But ATI's director of litigation is not letting that setback slow his crusade against environmental regulation.

Christopher Horner is one of the featured speakers at this weekend's Defending the American Dream Summit sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the nonprofit sister group of Americans for Prosperity, a corporate-interest advocacy group. AFP was founded and is heavily funded by the Koch brothers, the billionaire owners of the Koch Industries oil and chemical conglomerate.

Horner is also a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group that has been one of the main organizers in the effort to block regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. CEI has received generous funding from ExxonMobil, Texaco and the Koch Family Foundations.

Horner is scheduled to speak at 3:15 p.m. today on a panel titled "Extreme Power Abuse: The EPA's Job-Crushing Regulatory Assault." He will be joined on the panel by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), who has close ties to Koch Industries, which is located in his district. Pompeo's chief of staff is a former lawyer for the company, and Pompeo has proposed legislation that would benefit many of Koch's business interests, according to the Washington Post. A political science professor at the University of Kansas has characterized Pompeo as "the congressman from Koch."

Also speaking on today's panel with Horner are Kathleen Hartnett White of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank that is funded by the Koch Family Foundations, and Ann McElhinney, maker of the film "Not Evil, Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria."

Another featured speaker at the conference is Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), who's also involved in an ongoing legal action against U.Va. seeking the emails of former professor Michael Mann, one of the scientists targeted by ATI who this week was allowed to intervene in the group's FOIA suit against the school. However, Cuccinelli is not speaking about that action or his effort to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers human health. Instead, he is speaking about his effort to challenge President Obama's health care reform law on a panel titled "Critical Care: Your Health Care After the Takeover."

The summit kicked off last evening with screenings of the documentary films "The Cartel," which attacks teachers' unions and supports vouchers, and "Free or Equal," an update of the 1980 film "Free to Choose" that featured free-market economist Milton Friedman. The gathering continues tomorrow with a "Cut Spending Now" rally and sessions on tax policy, grassroots mobilization, promoting school choice, killing collective bargaining, and how to "pimp" (their word) one's website.

ati bs bio:

Christopher C. Horner, JD – Director of Litigation, Environmental Law Center

Christopher C. Horner is a Senior Fellow for American Tradition Institute, as well as Director of Litigation for ATI’s Environmental Law Center.

Mr. Horner is a senior fellow with the Washington DC think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is affiliated with European counterpart organizations and has represented think tanks, scientists and Members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts.

Horner has testified before the United States Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Environment and Public Works, and works on a legal and policy level with numerous think tanks and policy organizations throughout the world. He has given numerous addresses to audiences in the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels, and before policymakers in European capitals including London, Rome, Prague, Copenhagen, Madrid and Warsaw, on topics ranging from rail deregulation and unfunded pension liability to all manner of energy and environment issues. Horner serves on the international law practice group’s executive committee for an internationally respected assembly of lawyers, and has provided counsel and work product on other matters including intellectual property, WTO proceedings and treaty law and policy.

Greenpeace has repeatedly targeted Mr. Horner, by stealing his garbage on a weekly basis, issuing press releases announcing with whom he dines and including him in various other hysterical publications including most recently “A Field Guide to Climate Criminals” distributed at the UN climate meeting in Montreal in December 2005.

Mr. Horner has provided legal, policy and political commentary several hundred times each on both television and radio, in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia, including scores of visits each on the Fox News Channel, Court TV, MSNBC with repeat visits on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, BBC, CNN, CNN International, ITN, CBC, Bloomberg and Reuters Television. Mr. Horner has also been a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He has guest hosted television commentary programs and makes weekly appearances on and regularly guest hosts nationally and regionally syndicated radio shows in America.

He has been a frequent contributor to the Washington Times, National Review Online and TechCentralStation.com opinion pages, is a guest columnist for United Press International and OpinionEditorials.com, and has regularly contributed to the Brussels legislative news magazine EU Reporter .

Horner also regularly writes for Energy Tribune, American Spectator Online, Daily Caller, PajamasMedia, and Spain’s Actualidad Economica.

He received his Juris Doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis where he received the Judge Samuel Breckenridge Award for Advocacy.

fedsoc

Christopher C. Horner

Publications

An Assessment of the June 2012 Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development

Engage Volume 13, Issue 1, March 2012

April 24, 2012

Kyoto II as Congressional-Executive Agreement: The Emerging Strategy?

February 16, 2009

Modern Developments in the Treaty Process: Recent Developments Regarding Advice and Consent, Withdrawal, and the Growing Role of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Agreements With Particular Examination of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol

September 5, 2002

Competitive Enterprise Institute to sue RealClimate blogger over moderation policy

By Joe Romm on Nov 25, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Gavin Schmidt has done a wonderful job at RealClimate patiently explaining the context of the stolen emails. He’s made it perfectly clear that the claims of scientific malpractice are without foundation. He must be doing a really good job, because the Competitive Enterprise Institute intends to sue him.

That’s computer scientist Tim Lambert aka Deltoid explaining (here) the latest tactics the anti-scientific disinformers are pursuing to stifle real climate scientists from communicating with the public. The CEI, of course, runs ad campaigns aimed at destroying the climate for centuries; generally spreads disinformation (see “Santer, Jones, and Schneider respond to CEI’s phony attack on the temperature record“) and embraces the efforts of other groups to sow confusion (see “Deniers go ape for Scopes climate trial“).

But CEI’s current tactics, which they proudly announce here, have become truly extemist in nature:

[CEI seeks documents] relating to the content, importance, or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or “blog” RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked “Hockey Stick” that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files and expressly offered as a tool to be used “in any way you think would be helpful” to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt’s active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by “skeptics” attempting to comment on claims made on the website.

This, and the related political activism engaged in, are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.

Lambert notes:

Yes they’re planning to sue Schmidt for the “inappropriate behavior” of moderating comments at RealClimate. Of course, the point of this vexatious suit isn’t to win — it’s to harass and distract Schmidt because he is being effective.

It’s not for nothing that I dubbed them the Completely Evil Institute.

I would add that essentially every factual assertion in the above excerpt from the piece by CEI Fellow Chris Horner is false.

The disinformers are obsessed with the Hockey Stick analysis, even though it is just the tiniest piece of our overall understanding of climate science, which is getting increasingly dire by the day (see Climate science statement from the Met Office, NERC and the Royal Society: “even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment the evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened”).

The ‘hockey stick’ was, in fact, essentially vindicated by the National Academy of Sciences (see NAS Report and RealClimate.org). And more important than the fact that the original analysis was defensibly correct, is that the conclusions were correct [which could be true even if the analysis had flaws in it]. Is the planet now as hot (or hotter) than it has been in a millenium? Try two millennia (see “Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years“). See also “Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, ‘seminal’ study finds.” That’s why climatologist and one-time darling of the contrarians Ken Caldeira said last month, “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous.”

RealClimate was not started as an effort to defend the Hockey Stick, but rather to “to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary” on climate science in general (see RC’s About page). As for being “owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services,” RealClimate explains patiently in its Disclaimer:

The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.

RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked.

CEI received over $2 million from ExxonMobil from 1998 to 2005, but that is no doubt purely a coincidence.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER C. HORNER TO THE JOINT HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEES ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

June 24, 2002

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this joint panel on a topic of great importance. The scope of today’s hearing is broad, so I focus my testimony upon the propriety of the U.S. agreeing to amend the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC, or Rio Treaty), by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.[1]

For whatever specific reasons (economic growth, failure to foresee the energy requirements of the “new economy”, or other), the U.S., like many nations, failed to meet its voluntary Rio targets.[2]

Now some advocates assert, “Because the U.S. has not met its Rio goal, we must commit to even greater mandatory reductions (Kyoto)”. Attempting instead to comply with the initial treaty seems the more appropriate response, for several reasons.

Rio went into force in March 1994. President Clinton did not request, nor did Congress enact, independent legislation implementing Rio, which was not an inherently self-executing treaty.[3] Authority and precedent make clear that responsibility for proposing such programs lies with the White House.[4] If our “non-binding” Rio obligations in fact “bound” the U.S. to achieve specific reductions[5] -- contrary to contemporary Senate and Executive assertions of U.S. intent -- then the Executive interpretation of Rio Article 4 throughout the 1990s was actually incorrect, and is responsible. The pending question is apparently: does the U.S. respond by attempting to meet such Rio promises, or by making further, even deeper, binding promises?

Skipping specific pursuit of the U.S.’ Rio promises, in favor of Kyoto’s binding commitments even greater than those we’ve failed to attain, seems highly illogical. Compounding this of course is that, precisely five years ago tomorrow, the Senate unanimously spoke to what it recognized was an unacceptable drift away from the U.S. Rio stance adamantly opposed to binding commitments. The Senate, seeing what was developing, asserted its “Advice” pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, passing S. Res. 98.[6]

Subsequent to and despite this Advice, U.S. negotiators clearly disregarded both major Byrd-Hagel recommendations: Kyoto did not require developing countries to share our commitments, and even the Clinton White House economic advisors have recanted their refutations of the Kyoto cost estimates.[7]

Since then, nothing has emerged to indicate that Kyoto does not still violate both key Byrd-Hagel conditions, and it is likely that very few Senators have amended their position against a treaty causing “serious economic harm.” However, Clinton Administration officials did admit that they began working on the plan for binding commitments within one year after Rio went into effect.[8]

Kyoto, too, is clearly intended to be a similar step in a “treaty hopping” campaign: even the models on which it is based predict an undetectable climatic impact[9] -- at a cost to the U.S. of up to $400 billion annually[10] -- but instead may be 1/30th of what its proponents seek.[11] Rio and Kyoto offer differing commitments but purport “the same ultimate objective.”[12] The UN IPCC has said this means reducing GHG emissions by as much as 60-80%, which wildly exceeds Kyoto’s specified ambitions.

As such the U.S. should require, prior to and as part of ratifying any further agreements, express acknowledgement not only of the actual “ultimate goal”, but that it is committed to its practical requirements, in this case up to “30 Kyotos”.

Such “treaty hopping” agendas illustrate the importance of Senate treaty “reservations”, or the Senate’s second bite at the “Advice” apple. This comes of course during the “Consent” function, which function the U.S. negotiators unfortunately eviscerated. After agreeing to terms incompatible with Byrd-Hagel, the Administration also accepted Kyoto’s prohibition on reservations, or the Senate’s ability to specify the specific understandings or conditions of the U.S. commitment. This despite the Senate also having forewarned the administration about this in advance of Kyoto.[13]

In summation, President Bush ought to match his assertions of having “rejected” Kyoto with the requisite submission to the UN to that effect, as was done regarding the International Criminal Court.[14] In the absence of that act, the White House must at minimum assist resolution of the ambiguous U.S. role in Kyoto by requesting the Senate disapprove of the treaty. In the absence of that, the Senate should recognize that there is no reverse equivalent of the “presentment” clause, regarding treaties. Only protocol, not any constitutional prohibition, impedes Senate consideration of a signed treaty. Certainly given the imperative rhetoric surrounding Kyoto, if President Bush insists on continuing the U.S.’ ambiguous role the Senate should take matters into its own hands, and decide the fate of this agreement.

That resolution should by definition be rejection of Kyoto. Otherwise, by accepting this double indignity of ignoring advice and prohibiting reservations, this body would condone Executive circumvention of the Senate’s constitutional treaty role.

As part of my testimony for the record, I include an article I have prepared for the Federalist Society, though still in draft form, addressing relevant issues surrounding the propriety of ratifying Kyoto, and recommending courses for withdrawal or otherwise pursuing clarification of the U.S.’ ambiguous treaty status. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear.

[1] In Rio in 1992 the U.S. made, and the Senate unanimously ratified, various commitments regarding reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, both thematic and with a specific emission target (1990 levels).

[2] See, e.g., http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/eunc3.pdf. The EU, which under Kyoto has negotiated a “bubble” such that it could pool its increases and “reductions”, announced in May that it met its Rio target. It said it had reduced greenhouse gases by 3.5 percent below 1990 levels in 2000. This is commonly attributed to the ending of coal subsidies in Great Britain in their push to replace coal with gas, shutting down East German industry and that Europe did not match the U.S.’ decade-long economic expansion. Russia, e.g., met its target by regressing economically.

[3] As the party charged with “making” treaties the Executive is responsible for meeting, or at minimum proposing legislation to affect, treaty commitments. President Clinton proposed a Btu tax, though not expressly in pursuit of Rio. It failed once and did not emerge again. He instituted his Climate Action Plan, which with minor recent modifications continues to this day with more than 50 voluntary programs, though a quick search of Thomas revealed no implementing legislation. Congress did appropriate money in response to proposals by the Executive. See, e.g., “Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate”, S. Rpt. 106-71, p.4.

[4] “Implementation The executive branch has the primary responsibility for carrying out treaties and ascertaining that other parties fulfill their obligations after treaties and other international agreements enter into force, but the Senate or the entire Congress share in the following phases.” “Treaties and Other International Agreements”, p. 12. “A question that may be raised under U.S. law is whether or not Congress has a duty to implement a treaty which is in force internationally, but which requires additional legislation or implementation or an appropriation of funds to give effect to obligations assumed internationally by the United States. When implementation of a treaty requires domestic legislation or an appropriation of funds, only the Congress can provide them.” Id. at pp. 166-67.

The FRC Report continues, “The extent of congressional obligation to implement a treaty under U.S. law has not been resolved in principle. FN 61 According to an often-cited authority, Congress has generally responded ‘to a sense of duty to carry out what the treaty-makers promised, to a reluctance to defy and confront the President (especially after he can no longer retreat), to an unwillingness to make the U.S. system appear undependable, even ludicrous…’” Id. at 167, quoting Henkin, Louis. Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution. 2d ed. 1996, pp. 205-206. The referenced FN 61 says in pertinent part, “[F]ailure to implement an internationally perfected treaty would constitute a violation of obligations assumed by the United States under international law. See Memorandum of April 12, 1976, by Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, as quoted in U.S. Department of State. Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law 1976. 1977, p. 221.” This begs the question: “to precisely what extent was the “non-binding” Rio binding?

[5] Addressing the question, above (FN 5), prior to ratification, “[t]he [Senate Foreign Relations] Committee made clear, in other words, its view that ‘[t]he final framework convention contains no legally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions’…While these statements may not be as legally binding as a formal condition to the Senate’s ratification of the 1992 Convention [ed: reservations were prohibited by Rio’s terms], it is doubtful that any administration could ignore them.” “Global Climate Change: Selected Legal Questions about the Kyoto Protocol”, p. 4. CRS Report for Congress (March 29, 2001), citing in part 138 CONG. REC. 33521 (Oct. 7, 1992)(statement of Sen. McConnell).

To avoid future such uncertainty, in S.Res. 98 (105th Cong., 1st Sess., adopted at 143 CONG. REC. S 8138 (daily ed. July 25, 1997)), the Senate “stated the view that any agreement which would require Senate advice and consent should be accompanied by a detailed analysis of its economic impact and of any legislation and regulations necessary to implement the agreement.” See CRS Report at p. 6, FN 25.

[6] “In mid-1997, as these negotiations were underway, the Senate passed S. Res. 98 [ed.: “Byrd-Hagel,” S.Res. 98 105th Congress (105-54 July 21, 1997)], which stated that the Senate would not approve any agreement on binding reductions in greenhouse gases that did not include commitments by developing countries as well as developed/industrialized countries, or that would result in harm to the U.S. economy. The administration has not transmitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate because, among other reasons, developing countries have to date not been willing to consider making binding commitments regarding their greenhouse gas emissions.” “Treaties and Other International Agreements”, p. 276.

The operative language is as follows: “Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”.

[7] “Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto’s mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult - and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge.” USA Today, 12 June 2001.

[8] In 1996, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Rafe Pomerance asserted that “the administration has been working on this policy for more than a year”, quoted in Nature, 25 July 1996.

[9] See, Testimony of Dr. Sallie Baliunas to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, at http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-031302C.

[10] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. “Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy markets and Economic Activity.” Washington, D.C. October 1998.

[11] "Yet the climate simulations lead to the conclusion that the Kyoto reductions will have little effect in the twenty-first century (15), and ‘30 Kyotos’ may be needed to reduce warming to an acceptable level.’ James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and Valdar Oinas, “Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario,” Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, August 29, 2000.

Hansen was citing Malakoff, D. (1997) Science 278, 2048.

[12] “[S]tabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” See, e.g., Rio Article 2.

[13] See “Treaties and Other International Agreements,” at 274.

[14] The President manifested that this is how the United States makes “its intention clear to not become a party to the treaty,” as required by “customary” law and the Vienna Convention Article 18. “[S]ignature by the U.S. does impose an obligation on the U.S. under international law to refrain from actions that would undermine the Protocol’s object and purpose. That obligation continues to apply until such time as the U.S. ratifies the Protocol or makes clear its intent not to do so.” “Global Climate Change: Selected Legal Questions about the Kyoto Protocol”, CRS Report for Congress (March 29, 2001).

Though it has not yet done so, precedent indicates the Senate can also effect this outcome by passing a Sense of the Senate expressing disapproval of a signed, not ratified treaty. See, “Withdrawal,” in attached article.

boasts about 2/13/07

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/zs66pq/christopher-horner

2/13/07 id as cei and prgm, now RW Pol Inc bk

geet warmly, read bk and IPCC yours more interesting (graphs and data v cartoons) don't know sci,ust wait for end. why so heated, you are angry

titanic, icebergs attacking experts wd make $ if lived longer, dust bowl, then cooling, got rich put up sats to meas temp (surf does not matter), then did not like answer so chased diff ball/meas? gods must be angry, now consensus on GW

s all stuff in atmos must do something 2 why go to trouble, conspiracy commie tinged anti capitalist poop in holes

I'd say more Communist __; not conspiracy

the greens (the gays)

so called socialists and communists are in gov't in coalition w/ greens

went to wealth alleviation conf w/ german grns: worse to clear a forest than sell a child to asian brothel

just one crazy german

hist teaches us anything it's to listen to them [= hitler]

settle down ppl

js: clean air act etc has not hurt us economically

1st one 1963

have you killed a hobo, [dmists/plays] i cd be hurt

we spend $5 b/yr studying climate

bs cei bio:

Christopher C. Horner serves as a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. As an attorney in Washington, DC Horner has represented CEI as well as scientists and Members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts and the Supreme Court.

He has written on numerous topics in publications ranging from law reviews to legal and industrial trade journals to print and online opinion pages, and is the author of two best-selling books: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (Regnery, 2008) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Regnery, 2007), which spent half of 2007 on the New York Times bestseller list.

Mr. Horner has provided legal, policy and political commentary several hundred times each on both television and radio, in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia. Mr. Horner has also been a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

He has been a frequent contributor in the Washington Times, National Review Online and TechCentralStation.com opinion pages, is a guest columnist for United Press International and OpinionEditorials.com, and has regularly contributed to the Brussels legislative news magazine EU Reporter. Horner also regularly writes for Energy Tribune and Spain's Actualidad Economica.

Horner has testified before the United States Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Environment and Public Works, and works on a legal and policy level with numerous think tanks and policy organizations throughout the world. He has given numerous addresses to audiences in the European Parliament and before policymakers in multiple European capitals on topics ranging from rail deregulation and unfunded pension liability to all manner of energy and environment issues. Horner serves on the international law practice group’s executive committee for an internationally respected assembly of lawyers.

He received his Juris Doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis where he received the Judge Samuel Breckenridge Award for Advocacy.

award for activism does not now exist?

Judge Samuel M. Breckenridge Fund Prizes

The Breckenridge Practice Court Prizes - First Prize and Second Prize

These prizes are based upon proficiency in the preparation of briefs, mastery of subject matter, and excellence in presentation of oral arguments in moot court competitions. The winners receive: cash prizes; certificates; and the prizes appear on each transcript.

The Breckenridge Scholarship Prizes - First Prize and Second Prize

These prizes are awarded at the end of each school year to the two students in each J.D. Class having the first and second highest academic averages for that school year. The winners receive: cash prizes; certificates; and the prizes appear on each transcript.

end horner914 capt

Plaintiff in Montana case td horneh at upheld Citizens United

5/14 update

bs http://americantradition.org/

1/13 last donny f content

John Boehner cannot remain as Speaker of the House.

The ‘fiscal cliff’ spending package negotiated by Congressman Boehner was the final, unacceptable straw. It explodes spending on Gang Green’s pet projects while dealing special-interest tax breaks to Gang Green’s bankrollers such as algae growers and millionaire wind corporations.

It raises $41 dollars in taxes for every $1 in spending reductions, with no agreement to halt planned new spending of any theoretical tax revenues. The Congressional Budget Office finds it will add nearly $4 trillion to our job-killing deficit.

All to hand a few special interest giveaways to Gang Green.

This is unacceptable. American Tradition Partnership’s large and growing grassroots membership urges Congress to remove John Boehner as Speaker.

among last:

Feld Entertainment, Inc., the producer of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, announced today that the company has reached a legal settlement with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in connection with two federal court cases.

Under the settlement, ASPCA has paid Feld Entertainment $9.3 million to settle all claims related to its part in more than a decade of manufactured litigation that attempted to outlaw elephants in the company’s Ringling Bros. Circus. This settlement applies only to the ASPCA. Feld Entertainment’s legal proceedings, including its claims for litigation abuse and racketeering, will continue against the remaining defendants, Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Animal Protection Institute United with Born Free USA, Tom Rider and the attorneys involved.

“These defendants attempted to destroy our family-owned business with a hired plaintiff who made statements that the court did not believe. Animal activists have been attacking our family, our company, and our employees for decades because they oppose animals in circuses. This settlement is a vindication not just for the company but also for the dedicated men and women who spend their lives working and caring for all the animals with Ringling Bros. in the face of such targeted, malicious rhetoric,” said Kenneth Feld, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Feld Entertainment.

jimbeers7@earthlink.net

Retired US Fish & Wildlife Service

Wildlife Biolgist / Refuge Manager

/ Law Enforcement Agent

Jim Beers retired from the US Fish and Wildlife Service after 30 years. He served as a wildlife biologist, wetlands biologist, special agent, and refuge manager. After working for the Utah Fish & Game and spending four years as a Reserve Officer in the US Navy, he joined the US Fish & Wildlife Service and was stationed in Devils Lake, North Dakota; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Grand Island, Nebraska; New York City; and Washington, DC.

While in Washington Jim was a Congressional Fellow, the Chief of Operations for the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Program Coordinator for the Animal Damage Control Program, and for his final seven years he was the wildlife biologist in the Central Office who served as Project Officer on nearly all national wildlife projects funded with Pittman-Robertson money. Retired in 1999, Jim Beers holds a Bachelors in Wildlife Resources from Utah State University and a Masters in Public Administration from the University of Northern Colorado.

undated camp finance:

American Tradition Partnership is committed to vigorously defending free speech rights.

So-called “Campaign Finance Reform” efforts are only one of a number of innocuous-sounding efforts (“greening” and “sustainability” being other examples) by the anti-capitalist Left to shut down public discourse of the issues of the day. If private individuals and employers are prevented from speaking about the policies what will affect them — anonymously or otherwise — there will only remain a few dominant sources of information about those efforts: Government itself and the dominant press.

Opponents of free speech rail against some vague “conflict of interest” (as if speaking out in one’s own interest isn’t the bedrock of this Republic), but never mention the conflict of interest that emanates as nearly every word from a politician’s mouth, or the laughable conflict presented by a newspaper promoting “campaign finance reform”, and in a form which invariably elevates its editorial staff as the only qualified source of information. We encourage you to review this dated, but well-researched and illustrative, report titled “Who’s Buying Campaign Finance Reform?” Also see this October 29 commentaryby senior editor of CNN Money Nina Easton: “The Absurdity of Campaign Finance Reform.”

WTP’s fight for your free speech rights continues

American Tradition Partnership has two perfect records it plans to hold on to: 1) The group has never been found in violation of any constitutional law — or to date, any UN-constitutional law for that matter; and 2) It has won every First Amendment case it has brought against heavy-handed governments who dare violate the people’s free speech rights. With yet another legal battle looming, again versus the State of Montana, WTP members are fighting for those who cannot afford to sue the government for redress.

WTP Prevails in State Court over Independent Expenditure Prohibition - Below, see the order out of Montana First Judicial District Court, where Judge Jeffrey Sherlock found merit in nearly every one of WTP’s arguments in our 1st Amendment case against the State of Montana – see first AP press story linked here, and our response linked here.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal covered the case just prior to the decision, story linked here, and covered the decision here today (10/18). Radical “green” politicians have had free rein to silence and intimidate employers who have blown the whistle on their job-killing agenda. This decision will balance free speech rights by allowing citizens to band together in order to pool resources and fight back against the one entity that the Left wishes no 1st Amendment restrictions upon: Government Bureaucrats and Government Officials.

http://americantradition.org/tag/h-r-2454/ cap and trade

Brian Schweitzer

Vladimir Putin, Russian cash join Schweitzer in attacking ATP’s free speech win

Posted on June 27, 2012 by Donald Ferguson

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and Attorney General Steve Bullock have found a powerful ally in their opposition to the Constitution’s “supremacy clause” and the First Amendment’s guarantees of the rights of free speech and free association.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin-funded, Putin-controlled “Russia Today” TV network has come out in opposition to American Tradition Partnership and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Monday ruling in ATP v. Bullock.

“RT” aired a segment Tuesday with defeated former Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) harshly criticizing the concept Americans can question their government without hiring and attorney and first seeking permission through the formation of a PAC or other body.

The network, dedicated to spreading pro-Russian propaganda in the United States, has firmly sided with Schweitzer and Bullock. While foreign corporations are prohibited from spending money in American elections and all corporate spending must be disclosed, Schweitzer and Bullock refuse to criticize Putin for spending foreign money on their behalf.

See the video here.

So who do you stand with? The First Amendment, or Brian Schweitzer and Vladimir Putin?

Schweitzer compares Ferguson to Castro

tracks ct wins: eg WTP wins Federal Suit Against Restrictive Campaign Finance Rules – In 2009, WTP also defended citizens’ free speech rightsin a Federal action against several radical environmentalists on the Longmont City Council. WTP demolished their free-speech killing “Incumbency Protection Act”, restoring Longmonters’ ability to criticize government officials without asking permission first. See link to Judge’s Order LongmontInjunction2009, and Longmont CaseStudy Ctrfold. Shortly after the election, the City paid nearly all WTP legal fees in a settlement. http://americantradition.org/free-speech/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/

"Big Sky, Big Money" a collaboration between

FRONTLINE and Marketplace, and produced in

association with the Workshop, focuses on campaign spending in Montana, a state that is emblematic of

the rise of money in politics that has played out around the country since the Supreme Court's

ruling in the Citizens United case in 2010. The program aired nationwide Oct. 30 2012? on PBS. kai ryssdal

schwartz husb, mark siebelron marlene (cand/incumb?)

comm of pol practices helena mont

d rehberg 6 term pro pol free sp (control of

senate) vs tester incumbent cd be 20 mil on neg ad

int re 501c4 (no disclose) not a superpac (erika franklin fowler wesleyan univ magic words fotnote

in scotus 70's #52 oct 75 eg hit on tester? slam

on pay raise and suv, mention deficit cits for

stregnth and sec fund 501c4 issues advoc no ID

media purchase officers and addy DC UPS PO 115

david parker mont state u track

am bridge dem pac mollineau opp res

jim bopp interv 20 min in right to lif 70's ; camp laws hampered right; 150 laws ~; avg person no care about src of $, truth does not change b/c of

funder; dodge ability to know q; only left wing nut jobs care;

late 1800 copper wm clark mansion chuck johnson

reporter RR, bought US sen seat; env of $ had

initials on it; 1st superpac; ryssdal sp

pothole drive lil john ward septic serv gop usn,

vs mike miller bad cand, mail blitz high energy,

child molesters, certified to be true and acc,

last 4 days primary, lost by 24 votes; went to

scotus on CU; dennis unsworth pol commiss;

coalitin for energy, wtp, 501c4 4 yrs old "cold

showers in the dark" "issue advocacy" addy in

colo, denied , none of your bix

jim brown outside counsel 1st amend princ ( c

lefleur

nonprfit lawn kit? ad

friendly witness lendorf carloyn 2010, cty comm,

gop; 31 min Helena ; livingston, bozeman, densver,

lonmont sp ; her guys on hit list 537,ooo $; corp

unlimited and secret, no bureaucrat or rad envir

will ever know" 33 min

some states reject magic words defense

denis u attaced us, so challenge law, corrupt

practices act

steve bullock st atty gen argued MT scotus? MT

took power back , not large intersts MT ~ CU

justice james nelson skeptical , but upheld, beat

WTP

Trevor potter ex chair "direct role" = coordinated

FERC 38 min

Bopp: $ is necess for pol /democ, lack of info;

maj of ppl do not know who sen is;

scotus 1 para, no hearing

steab julie 5 mos after invest over; mailled anon,

coord? wife letters pam butcher, ed 2008 sent just

before miller and butcher have same handwriting,

bse on questionnaire; cand q lewis and cl cty,

miller v ward , how much time camp, no exper,

miller no camera interv, ed butcher did work w. c

lef; wesley prouse sp, robo mail campaign;

cand sigs faxed to wtp asked brown 48 min no

comment

scotus said no evidence of a problem/cooperation

atp wa dc penn ave ups PO box, in 6 states plus

mt sen race most expensive in state hist

9 b est, most in states

The boxes landed in the office of Montana investigators in March 2011.

Found in a meth house in Colorado, they were somewhat of a mystery, holding files on 23 conservative candidates in state races in Montana. They were filled with candidate surveys and mailers that said they were paid for by campaigns, and fliers and bank records from outside spending groups. One folder was labeled “Montana $ Bomb.”

The documents pointed to one outside group pulling the candidates’ strings: a social welfare nonprofit called Western Tradition Partnership, or WTP.

Altogether, the records added up to possible illegal “coordination” between the nonprofit and candidates for office in 2008 and 2010, said a Montana investigator and a former Federal Election Commission chairman who reviewed the material. Outside groups are allowed to spend money on political campaigns, but not to coordinate with candidates.

“My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that WTP was running a lot of these campaigns,” said investigator Julie Steab of the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, who initially received the boxes from Colorado.

The boxes were examined by Frontline and ProPublica as part of an investigation into the growing influence on elections of dark money groups, tax-exempt organizations that can accept unlimited contributions and do not have to identify their donors. The documents offer a rare glimpse into the world of dark money, showing how Western Tradition Partnership appealed to donors, interacted with candidates and helped shape their election efforts.

Though WTP’s spending has been at the state level, it’s best-known nationally for bringing a lawsuit that successfully challenged Montana’s ban on corporate spending in elections, extending the provisions of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision to all states.

The tax code allows nonprofits like WTP to engage in some political activity, but they are supposed to have social welfare as their primary purpose. As reported previously by ProPublica and Frontline, when WTP applied for recognition of its tax-exempt status, it told the IRS under penalty of perjury that it would not directly or indirectly attempt to influence elections — even though it already had.

The group is now locked in an ongoing dispute with Montana authorities, who ruled inOctober 2010 that the nonprofit should have registered as a political committee and should have to disclose its donors. WTP sued. A hearing is set for March.

In the meantime, the group has changed its name to American Tradition Partnership, reflecting its larger ambitions. This month, it sent Montana voters a mailer in the form of a newspaper called the Montana Statesman that claimed to be the state’s “largest & most trusted news source.”

The front page accused the Democratic gubernatorial candidate of being soft on sex offenders.

Donny Ferguson, American Tradition Partnership’s spokesman and executive director, did not specifically address the documents found in Colorado or allegations of coordination made against WTP.

“American Tradition Partnership always obeys every letter of every applicable law,” he wrote in an emailed response to questions. “ATP does not, and never will, endorse candidates or urge voters to vote for or against candidates. … These false allegations are old hat.”

On its website, the group says its primary purpose is issue advocacy and combating radical environmentalists, whom it sometimes calls “gang green.” It describes itself as a grassroots group backed by a broad membership of small donors.

When asked about the documents found in Colorado, Jim Brown, a lawyer for the group, said he was unfamiliar with them.

After being shown some of the documents by Frontline, Brown, in a follow up email, said his review indicated that they appeared to belong to a company called Direct Mail. Direct Mail and Communications is a print shop in Livingston, Mont., run by a one-time key player in WTP and his wife.

Brown urged Frontline to turn over the documents. “If the documents are purported to be what you say they are, then you may knowingly be in possession of stolen property,” Brown wrote.

The records are in the hands of the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, which considers them public and reviewable upon request.

*****

In the anything-goes world of modern campaign finance, outside groups face one major restriction: They are not allowed to coordinate with candidates. That’s because contributions to candidates and parties are still capped to limit donors’ direct influence, while contributions to outside groups are unlimited.

The Federal Election Commission has a three-pronged test for proving coordination: Did an outside group pay for ads, phone calls or mailers? Did these materials tell people to vote for or against a candidate, or praise or criticize a candidate in the weeks before an election? Finally, did the candidate, or a representative, agree to the expenditure?

Many concerns have been raised about coordination in this election because of close ties between outside groups and campaigns. Super PACs supporting President Barack Obamaand Republican nominee Mitt Romney are run by their former staffers. Super PACs and campaigns have used the same consultants, who insist in interviews that they have firewalls.

Proving coordination is extremely difficult, however. Since 2007, the FEC has investigated 64 complaints of coordination, but found against candidates and groups only three times, fining them a total of $107,000, a review of FEC enforcement actions shows.

Montana, which has similar rules, also receives few complaints about such activity, Steab said.

The boxes from Colorado contained a mixture of documents from candidates and outside groups.

Folders labeled with the names of Montana candidates held drafts and final letters of support signed by candidates’ wives and drafts and final copies of mailers marked as being paid for by the campaigns. The folders often appeared to have had an accounting of what had been sent and paid for scrawled on the front.

Several folders included copies of the signatures of candidates and their wives. “Use this one,” someone wrote in red pen next to a cut-out rectangle on a page with five signatures from one candidate.

Steab, the Montana investigator, said she believed these cut-out signatures were then affixed to fliers from the candidates.

Besides material from the campaigns, the boxes also contained mailers on 2008 and 2010 races in Colorado and Montana from Western Tradition Partnership and six other groups. There were bank statements for several groups, including the Coalition for Energy and the Environment, the Alliance of Montana Taxpayers and the Conservative Victory Fund.

In all the documents, one name repeatedly popped up: Christian LeFer. Even though twoMontana Republican politicians founded WTP, investigators determined that LeFer was the man behind the scenes.

LeFer, who is described as WTP’s director of strategic programming in memos in 2009, said in an email that the documents “appear to be stolen property” and that, as he’d had no access to them, he couldn’t respond to most of ProPublica’s questions, “which seem to be based on an erroneous and fanciful interpretation of what they mean.”

LeFer did not address whether WTP had coordinated with candidates. Although former employees and candidates said LeFer helped his wife run Direct Mail and Communications — the printing company that Brown, the lawyer, suggested was the owner of the boxes of documents found in Colorado — LeFer said he did not “run or direct the activities” there.

Direct Mail listed its principal office address in Montana filings as being the same Colorado address WTP initially used.

Two outside groups with documents in the boxes — the Montana Committee to Protect the Unborn and Montana Citizens for Right to Work — listed their addresses on bank statements as the same post-office box in Livingston used by LeFer and Direct Mail. LeFer was also the executive director of Montana Citizens for Right to Work, an anti-union group.

Former state Rep. Ed Butcher said LeFer and Western Tradition Partnership aided candidates with no experience.

“They’ll come in, if candidates want some help, they’ll come in and help them,” said Butcher, who described LeFer as “a Karl Rove type political strategist” who “stays in the background.”

Butcher’s file in the Colorado boxes was labeled “Butcher Primary ’08 mail samples.” It included an email from LeFer to Butcher with a survey about unions. There was a campaign donation form, and drafts of fliers and a letter from Butcher’s campaign.

A “wife questionnaire” for Butcher’s wife Pam said she met her husband “on a blind date arranged by his buddy that neither of us wanted.” The questionnaire listed her children’s names and that she had been taking care of her disabled mother for five years.

A letter on pink paper from Pam Butcher was in a file marked “wife letters.” The letter, which contained much of the information in the questionnaire, was marked as being paid for by Butcher’s campaign.

Butcher said his wife might have run her letter past LeFer. “He may have asked, ‘Do you need any help?’ and she said, ‘Yeah, I need to get this family letter out,’” said Butcher, who won the Republican primary in 2008 by 20 votes.

A folder for another successful candidate, Mike Miller, included a fax cover sheet from Miller to LeFer, forwarding Miller’s filled-out Montana candidate surveys for two outside groups, the National Gun Owners Alliance and the National League of Taxpayers. It also held a candidate survey asking Miller if he had any research about his opponent, including “any recent scandals.”

Miller confirmed to Frontline that LeFer was an unpaid adviser on his campaign, but would not elaborate further.

Trevor Potter, a former federal election commissioner who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group that advocates for more restrictions on money in politics, reviewed the documents found in the boxes.

“This is the sort of information that is, in fact, campaign strategy, campaign plans that candidates cannot share with an outside group without making it coordinated,” Potter said.

“You need to know more, but certainly if I were back in my FEC days as a commissioner, I would say we had grounds to proceed with an investigation and put people under oath and show them these documents, and ask where they came from and where they were.”

*****

After the 2008 election, Montana started investigating whether WTP should have disclosed its donors.

The inquiry progressed slowly until 2010, when a former WTP contractor handed over internal fundraising records, saying she was worried about what the group was doing.

The documents showed that the group raised money specifically by telling people and corporations that they could give unlimited amounts in secret.

“The only thing we plan on reporting is our success to contributors like you who can see the benefits of a program like this,” said one document, a 2010 election briefing to read to potential donors. “You can just sit back on election night and see what a difference you’ve made.”

A target list of potential donors included an executive at a talc mine, the Montana representative of an international mining group and a Colorado executive for a global gold-mining company.

One note about a potential donor advised: “Married rich, hard to get a hold of. Have a beer with him.” Another said: “Owns big ranch, signed a hit piece I wrote on cty cmms’r last year (don’t mention), should give $$ $10,000 ask.”

Other notes suggested that solicitors “See Christian” or “Talk to Christian,” apparently references to LeFer.

The documents cited the group’s success in 2008, saying in a confidential grassroots membership development proposal that 28 Montana state legislators “rode into office in 100% support of WTP’s responsible development agenda.”

By 2010, the partnership was active in state races in Montana and Colorado.

That October, Montana authorities said Western Tradition Partnership had violated campaign-finance law and should be fined. They said the group’s purpose in 2008 was “not to discuss issues, but to directly influence candidate elections through surreptitious means.”

The Montana investigation also said the evidence was overwhelming that WTP had established the Coalition for Energy and the Environment, known as CEE, as a “sham organization” to act as a front for expenditures actually made by WTP.

But the investigation also found that “sufficient evidence has not been disclosed to establish coordination between WTP/CEE and any candidate. Concern and healthy skepticism is warranted, however.”

That was before the boxes from Colorado turned up.

A convicted felon named Mark Seibel said he stumbled on them inside a known meth house near Denver at some point in late 2010.

It’s not clear how they got there. Seibel said a friend found them in a stolen car. After reading through some of the documents, he reached out to people he thought might be interested in them — primarily Colorado candidates attacked by Western Tradition Partnership. A lawyer married to one of the candidates shipped the boxes off to Montana investigators.

By that time, however, the Montana probe into the group’s activities in the 2008 election was over. Steab also said that there was no way to determine for certain where the documents were from and who owned them. There was no whistleblower, and no information about how the records ended up in Colorado.

Despite this, Steab said, she found the documents very telling.

“It looks to me that there was a lot of coordination—but I don’t know that it’s coordination that everyone is aware of in all cases,” she said. She said she spoke to one candidate who told her he was upset about all the negative mailers against his opponent.

This year, American Tradition Partnership is as active as ever. It’s suing to try to overturn contribution limits in Montana, so far unsuccessfully. The group sent out mailers attacking candidates before the June primary in Montana, reporting none of them to the state as political expenditures. It later put out a press release saying that 12 of the 14 candidates it backed had won.

For the general election, the group appears to be targeting Montana’s attorney general, Steve Bullock, the Democratic candidate for governor. As attorney general, Bullock fought the partnership’s lawsuits against the state, including the one that ended up in the Supreme Court.

The first issue of the partnership’s Montana Statesman newspaper, dated Oct. 7, which a group press release said was sent to 180,000 voters, featured four photographs on the front page: Three of registered sex offenders, and one of Bullock, accusing him of allowing one in four sex offenders to go unregistered. “Bullock admits failure,” the headline announced. A full-page ad accused Bullock of taking illegal corporate contributions and of “criminal hypocrisy.”

The Statesman’s editor and publisher is none other than Ferguson, the partnership’s executive director, described as an “award-winning newspaper veteran” who has been “commended by other newspapers for his ‘honest, intelligent and issue-oriented’ approach.”

Ferguson didn’t respond to a question about his journalism credentials.

“Conservative group American Tradition Partnership now one of nation’s biggest media outlets,” said a press release on the group’s website, adding that the newspaper would publish “several” editions through Election Day and into 2013.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/big-sky-big-money/mysterious-docs-found-in-meth-house-reveal-inner-workings-of-dark-money-group/

A group of protesters rallied against American Tradition Partnership in Helena, Montana, on Wednesday, a day after the airing of Big Sky, Big Money, an investigation by FRONTLINE, ProPublica and Marketplace that uncovered potentially illegal collusion between the nonprofit group and political candidates.

ATP, in a statement on its website, said such claims were “false,” calling the film and related articles an “unsubstantiated, well-coordinated attack” on the group and its work.

Waving signs and chanting “ATP, go back to D.C.,” Wednesday’s protesters marched to the office of Jim Brown, ATP’s attorney, in the city of Helena, who greeted them with a tin of Halloween candy.

Later that evening, someone broke into the Montana Commissioner on Political Practices (COPP) office, according to a report in the local Independent Record. Nothing appeared to have been stolen.

The commissioner has been holding documents from Colorado that raised questions about whether ATP had been involved in inappropriate coordination with a number of political candidates. Those documents were “in a secure location and are not missing” after the burglary, the paper said.

Christian LeFer, the director of strategy for Western Tradition Partnership, which later changed its name to ATP, told ProPublica that the documents belonged to him and his wife, Allison LeFer, and that the papers had been stolen from her car in Denver. LeFer said in astatement that he and his wife have “scrupulously endeavored to avoid any possibility of illegal coordination.” Lefer and his wife have filed suit against COPP, asking the documents be returned.

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/big-sky-big-money/story/documents-found-meth-house-bare-inner-workings-dar/

lefleur lawyer ltr https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/492818-murry-demand-letter-102912.html

to james w murry (sp) from quentin m rhoades cc mit datsopoulus sp 1821 missoula mt a corp; explains movement of docs? confusing?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/big-sky-big-money/more-evidence-key-dark-money-group-may-have-misled-irs/

More Evidence Key Dark Money Group May Have Misled IRS

October 30, 2012, 7:57 pm ET by Kim Barker ProPublica and Rick Young and Emma Schwartz, FRONTLINE

New signs emerged Monday that a controversial nonprofit may have misled the Internal Revenue Service not only about its political activities but also about support from a purported donor.

Western Tradition Partnership, or WTP, sent the IRS a letter in 2008 asking the agency to expedite the group’s request for recognition of its tax-exempt status. The letter said that without it, the group’s principle donor, Jacob Jabs, would pull a planned grant of $300,000.

But Jabs, who runs Colorado’s largest furniture retailer, said on Monday he had never pledged money to the group, and never even been in contact with them until press stories appeared naming him.

“I think they just grabbed my name out of a hat to forward their agenda,” Jabs told us. “I know nothing about the group, never heard of them, never have heard of them until the last few days, and I did not, absolutely did not, commit $300,000 to start this company.” (Jabs also spoke with the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, again denying any connection to the group.)

Although operating at the state level, WTP has won national attention for its attempts to fight campaign-finance restrictions. It successfully sued to overturn Montana’s ban on corporate spending in elections, extending the provisions of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to all states. It has also sued Montana investigators over the state’s ruling two years ago that the group is a political committee and should have to report its donors.

Documents obtained by FRONTLINE on WTP offer a rare look into the inner workings of dark money groups, tax-exempt organizations that can accept unlimited contributions and do not have to disclose their donors for political ads.

On Monday, we detailed how some of those documents pointed to WTP actively shaping the campaigns of candidates for state office in Montana. The documents, found in a meth house near Denver by a convicted felon in late 2010, indicated possible coordination between candidates and outside groups. Outside groups and candidates are not allowed to coordinate.

Social welfare nonprofits like WTP are allowed to engage in some political activity, but IRS regulations say they must have social welfare as their primary purpose. ProPublica hasextensively reported on how some of these nonprofits, known as 501(c)(4)’s after their section of the tax code, appear to exploit gaps in enforcement between the Internal Revenue Service and election authorities so they don’t have to disclose where they get their money.

As ProPublica and FRONTLINE have previously reported, when WTP applied for recognition of its tax-exempt status, the group also told the IRS under penalty of perjury that it would not directly or indirectly attempt to influence elections. Yet even before its application, the group sponsored mailers that criticized politicians in the 2008 Republican primary.

The IRS approved WTP’s tax-exempt status three days after it received the group’s request for expedited review.

Jabs said he only first spoke with WTP earlier this month, after seeing reports that he was the primary donor. Jabs said he reached a WTP official, Athena Dalton, who signed the IRS letter citing him. According to Jabs, Dalton told him she was WTP’s secretary and had been instructed to send the letter by two other WTP officials, Christian LeFer and Dan Reed.

“I did talk to Christian LeFer,” Jabs said. “They basically admitted they used me to get their 501(c)(4) status.” Jabs said he also contacted Reed, who did not call him back.

In an email responding to a ProPublica question about Jabs, LeFer wrote: “Your facts are wrong, I ‘admitted’ no such thing; that doesn’t even sound plausible. Further, what significance this issue might hold escapes me. I don’t discuss donors, and I can see that your story line does not need my help.”

Reed did not respond to a phone call.

On Monday, LeFer also confirmed the documents found in a meth house were stolen from his wife’s car and belonged to him and his wife, Allison. The documents included material from outside groups and candidates, and communications between LeFer and candidates. There were surveys of candidates by outside groups and drafts and final copies of mailers marked as being paid for by the campaigns.

LeFer, described as WTP’s director of strategic programming in memos in 2009, said in an email that the boxes of documents were stolen in Colorado in June 2010.

“These stolen documents appear to be a mix of those from my consulting and volunteer work and from my wife’s independently owned and operated mail and printing shop,” wrote LeFer, whose wife runs a company called Direct Mail and Communications in Livingston, Mont. “Both my wife and I have scrupulously endeavored to avoid any possibility of illegal coordination.

“The stolen documents, which were in the process of being transferred to storage when the theft occurred, have been mingled to infer that the work of two separate people is in fact the work of one person and therefore improper. This is false.” (Here is LeFer’s full response.)

Candidates have confirmed that LeFer worked with Direct Mail. They have also said LeFer was an adviser on their campaigns.

There is also other evidence LeFer worked with the firm.

On Tuesday, a woman named Elizabeth Sheron said that when she briefly worked for Direct Mail in 2010, LeFer welcomed her to the company. She provided us a check from Direct Mail and an email from LeFer in which he asked her to elaborate on her abilities and experience. LeFer also wrote that he hoped to increase the membership of one of his social welfare nonprofits to 250,000 people in two years.

Sheron said she did work for Direct Mail, WTP and other related groups. “They kind of had you involved with every project … no matter who was paying you,” she said. “I was paid by Direct Mail but I was doing stuff for other groups.” Sheron worked there only briefly before quitting.

In an email, LeFer said he didn’t think it was useful to try to recall “snippets of information from years back.” He said if reporters sent “the entire file of materials you have and you want to discuss at a later time, please do so.”

The documents from the meth house eventually landed in the office of Montana investigators, who couldn’t do much with them because they couldn’t definitively prove they were real, or how they ended up in a meth house.

On Monday, a lawyer for LeFer confirmed them by sending a letter to Montana authorities explaining that the car was stolen from a homeschooling conference in Denver. The lawyer said the documents were stolen property and “evidence regarding the criminal investigation of the car theft in Colorado.” The lawyer also said the documents contained sensitive information, and demanded that the documents be turned over to LeFer.

Montana investigators have sealed access to the documents, saying that now that someone has asserted ownership, they are unable to further discuss or release them until a court rules on the matter.

Western Tradition Partnership is now known as American Tradition Partnership. So far this election season, the group has advocated for candidates in Montana’s Republican primary, putting out a press release announcing that 12 of those candidates won. It also has launched a newspaper called the Montana Statesman, which claims to be the state’s “largest & most trusted news source,” to be the state’s “only non-partisan newspaper” and to have been founded in 1889.

A second edition of the purported newspaper was mailed to voters in Montana last week. Like the first edition, the 12-page paper contains many articles attacking Steve Bullock, the Democratic candidate for governor who as attorney general fought the partnership’s lawsuits against the state. One on the front page accused him of being soft on child molesters.

Other stories attacked the state auditor, a Supreme Court candidate and the secretary of state.

On its website, the group describes itself as a “no-compromise grassroots organization dedicated to fighting the radical environmentalist agenda.”

In a statement responding to the story Monday by ProPublica and FRONTLINE, American Tradition Partnership, or ATP, said it had not coordinated with candidates. “I have never met or spoken to virtually all the candidates on the ballot,” wrote Donny Ferguson, the executive director of the partnership and the editor of the Montana Statesman, on the Statesmanwebsite.

Ferguson also said the law was always on the group’s side, and that the nonprofit had always obeyed every applicable law. He denied that the group told people how to vote. “ATP does not, and never will, tell voters which candidates to vote for,” he wrote. “ATP speaks on the issues, informing voters where candidates stand and of their public records.”

The IRS defines political advertising much more broadly than election authorities, asking whether social welfare nonprofits directly – or indirectly — engaged in campaign activities.

lost bit?

cowgirl

Following an interview with Christian LeFer (see Facts 21 and 23), Karolin Loendorf

was offered a job with WTP and began working there on January 7, 2009. Loendorf

stated she understood her responsibilities would include getting individuals elected to

public office. Loendorf resigned from WTP on February 15, 2009, based on what she

described as “underhanded things” going on at WTP.

According to Loendorf, some presently serving Montana legislators are affiliated with

WTP. Loendorf contends that if the legislators fail to support WTP?s favored

legislation, WTP will attempt to replace them in the next election.

Loendorf contends that WTP has formed several 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) affiliated

organizations, as well as a political action committee (PAC). According to Loendorf, if

donors were uncomfortable contributing money to a PAC, they could donate to the

affiliated nonprofit organizations while keeping their contributions confidential.

Loendorf provided a copy of the “WTP 2010 Election Year Program Executive

Briefing,” designed as a PowerPoint presentation, which appears to be targeted to

Montana donors (hereinafter “Montana presentation”). Loendorf also provided a copy

of a second PowerPoint presentation entitled “WTP 2010 Election Year Program U.S.

House and Senate” (hereinafter “Federal presentation”). According to Loendorf, both

PowerPoint presentations were intended to be presented by WTP in “private executive

briefings” made to potential donors.

The Montana presentation lists 2008 “target states,” Montana and Colorado, and lists

“targeted primary races” in Montana. One page of the Montana presentation is entitled

“2008 Election Results” and lists the following claims for 2008 Montana elections:

...

Conservative Victory Fund is one of six committees in 2008 that submitted financial

disclosure forms that contained altered certification language – certification omitting

the words “and correct” from the oath or affirmation statement required by § 13-37-

231, MCA. (See, also, Fact 39.) The reports, for Sportsmen?s Rights PAC, Mothers Against

Child Predators, Alliance of Montana Taxpayers, Conservative Victory Fund, Right to

Work PAC, and Committee to Protect the Unborn were each prepared for Christian

....Because WTP is a corporation (Fact 10), it is necessary to discuss Montana?s laws

regulating corporate campaign spending, as well as federal case law ruling on constitutional

issues pertaining to corporate expenditures.

Montana?s administrative rules do not define the phrase “expressly advocating,” thus, it

is appropriate to look to federal case law to ensure that enforcement of Montana?s law is

consistent with constitutional principles. The following discussion is also necessary based on

the nature of corporate expenditures as interpreted by the courts.

Courts have held that corporate expenditures not coordinated with a candidate

(independent expenditures) can be prohibited if the political message expressly advocates the

election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. (FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238,

249 (1986))

§ 13-35-227, MCA

WTP is a corporation. Prior to discussing the express advocacy standard, it is necessary

to briefly address Montana?s longstanding restrictions on corporate political spending. For

purposes of this discussion, § 13-35-227(1), MCA, provides that a corporation may not make a

contribution or expenditure in connection with a candidate, a political committee that

supports or opposes a candidate, or a political party. Earlier this year WTP and two other

incorporated entities filed a lawsuit in state court against the Attorney General and the

Commissioner of Political Practices, contending that the statute?s prohibition of independent

corporate expenditures is unconstitutional. In a decision issued on October 18, 2010, Judge

Jeffrey Sherlock, relying on the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens

United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), declared that the statute as it pertains to independent

corporate expenditures is unconstitutional and unenforceable based on the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Judge Sherlock?s Order permanently enjoins

the defendants from enforcing the independent expenditure prohibition in § 13-35-227(1),

....

CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding Summary of Facts and Statement of Findings there is

substantial evidence to conclude that Western Tradition Partnership and the Coalition for

Energy and the Environment violated Montana campaign financial reporting and disclosure

laws, and that a civil penalty action under § 13-37-128, MCA is warranted.

DATED this 21st day of October 2010.

Dennis Unsworth

Commissioner of Political Practices

Marlenee, Sinrud form group to stop ‘radical environmentalists

FOI FYI » Blog Archive » FOI DAILY DOSE: SEC to reward whistleblowers, U-Va. caves to FOI pressure:

May 26, 2011 at 4:29 pm

[...] American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center and state legislator Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) requested about 9,000 pages of records, [...]

Will Marshall pull Allen to the right? | US Senators:

January 19, 2012 at 10:23 am

[...] hundreds of e-mails involving its former climatology professor Michael Mann, Marshall stepped in. Working with the American Traditions Institute, Marshall filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get some of the e-mails and further the [...]

Profile: American Tradition Partnership (ATP)

a.k.a. Western Tradition Partnership

Related Entities:

Has as leader Donald Ferguson

Child organization of American Tradition Institute

American Tradition Partnership (ATP) was a participant or observer in the following events:

December 30, 2011 and After: Montana Supreme Court Rules that State Campaign Finance Ban Stands in Spite of ‘Citizens United’ DecisionEdit event

The Montana Supreme Court rules 5-2 in the case of Western Tradition Partnership v. Bullock that a century-old law prohibits corporate spending in state and federal elections conducted within the state. The ruling seems to challenge the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (see January 21, 2010). The case stems from a challenge by a “social welfare organization,” Western Tradition Partnership (WTP, which changed its name to American Tradition Partnership after the original lawsuit was filed), joined by two other corporate entities, to Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act (CPA). The law banned corporate spending in elections, after two out-of-state copper industry magnates attempted to “buy” the Montana legislature by pouring money into the 1894 state elections. The law declares that “corporations may not make… an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” The Montana Supreme Court finds that the CPA is needed to ensure the integrity of Montana’s elections, and to make sure that citizens and not corporations are running the state. However, the Court acknowledges that its ruling conflicts with the Citizens United decision, though it says that the Citizens United decision allows for restrictions on corporate political speech if the government can demonstrate that the restrictions are as minimal as possible to achieve a compelling governmental interest. The Montana Court rules that because of Montana’s history of corporate vote-buying and the narrow restrictions of the CPA, the law should stand. It also notes that Western Tradition Partnership argued in its original suit that disclosure laws, as opposed to outright bans, would serve the public interest and guard against corruption; however, the organization is currently involved in another lawsuit in which it argues that those same disclosure laws are unconstitutional restrictions of the freedom of speech. [WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP V. BULLOCK ET AL, 12/30/2011 pdf file; LOS ANGELES TIMES, 1/4/2012; REUTERS, 6/25/2012; OMB WATCH, 6/25/2012; WASHINGTON POST, 6/25/2012;OMB WATCH, 7/10/2012] Even one of the dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, disagrees with the Citizens United characterizations that corporations are legally people, writing: “Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” WTP’s director Donald Ferguson says after the decision that the case hinges on freedom of speech (see January 21, 2010): “The current state law says that if you own a business and you would like to use the resources of the business to speak out about how you see the law, you essentially have to ask prior permission from the state. Under the current regime, the state regulatory agencies and the newspapers basically have a monopoly on information. We’re simply trying to put more free speech in motion.” [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 1/4/2012; HUFFINGTON POST, 1/4/2012]

Legal Scholars Anticipate Montana Ruling to be Overturned - Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center calls the Montana high court’s ruling “an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption” displayed in Citizens United. Ryan, like many others, anticipates the US Supreme Court will overturn today’s ruling. [HUFFINGTON POST, 1/4/2012] One of those others is law professor Richard Hasen, who writes: “[I]f the Court were being honest in Citizens United, it would have said something like: ‘We don’t care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption.’ But the Court didn’t say that, because it would have faced even greater criticism than it already has. So it dressed up its value judgment (no corruption ‘implied in law’) as a factual statement. The Montana Supreme Court called SCOTUS [the US Supreme Court] on this. And when SCOTUS reverses, the disingenuousness of this aspect of CU will be on full display for all.” Hasen is referring to the Court’s finding in Citizens United that independent spending in elections does not legally imply corruption. [RICK HASEN, 1/1/2012]

Appeal to Supreme Court - Attorneys for WTP and the other corporate plaintiffs will appeal to the US Supreme Court on the grounds that Montana is bound by theCitizens United decision and that the decision applies to state as well as federal elections. Attorney James Bopp, in filing the appeal, will say: “If Montana can ban core political speech because of Montana’s unique characteristics, free speech will be seriously harmed. Speakers will be silenced because of corruption by others over a century ago.” The US Supreme Court will quickly issue a stay of that decision. [REUTERS, 6/25/2012; OMB WATCH, 6/25/2012] When the case reaches the US Supreme Court, the name of the plaintiff will change into “American Tradition Partnership,” and the Court’s documentation will reflect that change. The Court will overrule the Montana decision (see June 25, 2012). After the decision, American Tradition Partnership’s Web site will disappear, but the liberal accountability organization SourceWatch will describe the organization’s parent, the American Tradition Institute, as described in the group’s mission statement: “a public policy research and educational foundation… founded in 2009 to help lead the national discussion about environmental issues, including air and water quality and regulation, responsible land use, natural resource management, energy development, property rights, and free-market principles of stewardship.” ATI and its affiliates are pro-development and against expanded environmental regulation, according to SourceWatch’s documentation, made up of “a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation.” [SOURCEWATCH, 2012]

Entity Tags: American Tradition Institute, American Tradition Partnership, Donald Ferguson, James C. Nelson, 1912 Corrupt Practices Act (Montana), SourceWatch, US Supreme Court, Paul S. Ryan, Montana Supreme Court, James Bopp, Jr, Richard L. Hasen

Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties

AddThis

February 10-17, 2012: US Supreme Court Issues Stay on Montana Supreme Court’s Ruling against ‘Citizens United,’ Will Likely Hear AppealEdit event

The decision of the Montana Supreme Court to uphold Montana’s ban on corporate donations to political campaigns (see December 30, 2011 and After), which directly contradicts the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision (seeJanuary 21, 2010), is being appealed to the US Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, American Tradition Partnership (ATP) and the other two corporate entities that joined ATP in the original lawsuit, ask Justice Anthony Kennedy to issue a stay on the Montana high court verdict while the Supreme Court considers the appeal. In their application for a stay, the plaintiffs write: “The Montana Supreme Court held the ban constitutional despite the holding in [the Citizens United decision] that ‘[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.’ Immediate relief is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the corporations’ First Amendment free-speech right. Montana’s primary elections are on June 5, making it vital that planning begin now for independent expenditures before the election.” The application also asks Kennedy to refer the matter to the Court, have it treated as a petition for review, and then summarily reverse the Montana Supreme Court. James Bopp, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, writes, “The lower court’s refusal to followCitizens United is such an obvious, blatant disregard of its duty to follow this Court’s decisions that summary reversal is proper.” In a statement, Bopp adds: “Unequivocally, Citizens United means that corporate independent expenditure bans are invalid under the United States Constitution. The Montana Supreme Court has shirked its responsibility to follow that decisions and the United States Supreme Court should reverse their ruling.” The other two parties involved as plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association and Champion Painting Inc. At least five justices vote to issue the stay, though an official decision to accept the case on appeal is still pending, and the Court has not spoken on the subject of summary reversal. Two justices who dissented from the Citizens United case, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, agree that the Montana Supreme Court’s decision should be reviewed, but in a statement attached to the stay order, add: “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’ A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens Unitedshould continue to hold sway. Because lower courts are bound to follow this Court’s decisions until they are withdrawn or modified, however, I vote to grant the stay.” The stay allows Montana corporations to donate without restriction to super PACs operated on behalf of electoral candidates. [LEGAL TIMES, 2/10/2012;SCOTUSBLOG, 2/17/2012; US SUPREME COURT, 2/17/2012 pdf file] The US Supreme Court will strike down the Montana ruling (see June 25, 2012).

Entity Tags: Montana Shooting Sports Association, American Tradition Partnership,Anthony Kennedy, James Bopp, Jr, Stephen Breyer, Champion Painting Inc., Montana Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, US Supreme Court

Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=american_tradition_partnership_1

ati

MORE: