bermn

<font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">this is a tag, see main node Berman, CCF</font><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">9/15 <b>min wage</b></font></div><div><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><em><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">By Jessica Mason and Kim Haddow</font></em></p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Richard Berman, whose PR firm and endless industry-backed front groups have led the fight against raising the minimum wage, sinks to a new low with a website that features restaurant owners ostensibly opposed to a $15 minimum wage.</font></p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">The problem? Many of these restaurant owners, when contacted by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), turned out to support the higher wage and were not happy to hear that their businesses were caught up in Berman's spin machine.</font></p><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Richard Berman, a.k.a. "Dr. Evil," Strikes Again</font></h2><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Berman’s lobbying and public relations firm,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Berman%26_Co." target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Berman & Company</a>, serves clients in the fast-food, alcohol, and tobacco industries, all with a stake in keeping the minimum wage as low as possible. He has long been known for creating front groups and attack-dog websites to bedevil industry targets including consumer groups, environmental groups, the Humane Society, and even CMD. He was dubbed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PApCMdZQnuQ" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">"Dr. Evil" by 60 Minutes</a>&nbsp;in 2007 and exposed more recently in the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/us/politics/fight-over-minimum-wage-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?r=0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;"><em>New York Times</em></a>.</font></p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">A former restaurant industry executive, Berman also&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/us/politics/fight-over-minimum-wage-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">created</a>&nbsp;a corporate-funded "think tank" the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Employment_Policies_Institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Employment Policies Institute</a>&nbsp;(EPI) run by Michael Saltsman out of Berman's office, who&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/letters_man.php" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">presents himself</a>&nbsp;as a "scholarly researcher" instead of a flack on the attack paid by Berman’s industry clients to pen endless op-eds warning of the dire consequences of raising the minimum wage.</font></p><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Faces of 15 Website Misleads</font></h2><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In April EPI launched the new website, "Faces of 15" (facesof15.com), ostensibly to highlight "The consequences of minimum wage hikes" on small businesses. </font><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">The website features more than two dozen "struggling" small businesses in L.A., Oakland, and Seattle that it presents as the real faces of the national campaign dubbed the "Fight for $15."</font></p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Contacted by CMD about the use of their stories in an anti-minimum wage PR campaign, representatives of several of the businesses on "Faces of 15" had no knowledge of the website and in fact disagreed with its message.</font></p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jeremy Price, co-owner of Seattle-based restaurant&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thewalrusbar.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">The Walrus & The Carpenter</a>, told CMD "we were not aware" the restaurant was being used in an anti-minimum wage PR campaign.</font></p><p style="margin: 1.5em 0px; line-height: 24px;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">"In point of fact, Walrus voluntarily adopted the $15/hr wage a few years ahead of Seattle's min wage ordinance," said Price. "It has been a positive change for our staff and our business. We expect others to follow our lead here in Seattle over the next 6 months."</font></p><span style="line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">- See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/node/12918#sthash.fLYbwNNq.dpuf</font></span></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">NBCC's Op-Ed Campaign Follows Similar Attacks On The Clean Power Plan From Fossil Fuel Front Groups</font></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><div><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><p style="font-weight: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Americans For Prosperity State Directors&nbsp;</b><b>Are</b><b>&nbsp;Running Op-Ed Campaign Attacking Clean Power Plan.&nbsp;</b>At least 16 newspapers across the country have published nearly identical op-eds from state leaders of Americans for Prosperity (AFP),</span>&nbsp;which misleadingly cite statistics on electricity prices while calling for state legislatures to fight back against the Clean Power Plan. Every newspaper&nbsp;<i>Media Matters</i>&nbsp;reviewed&nbsp;except one failed to disclose the group's ties to the oil industry: AFP was founded, and continues to be largely funded, by the oil billionaire Koch brothers. [<i>Media Matters</i>,&nbsp;<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/25/the-koch-brothers-campaign-against-epa-climate/203041">3/25/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Beacon Hill Institute And State Policy Network Also Seeking To Undermine EPA Climate Plan With Op-Ed Campaign.&nbsp;</b>The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) partnered with members of the State Policy Network (SPN) to jointly produce sham studies and op-eds that dramatically inflate the Clean Power Plan's&nbsp;</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">projected cost without even analyzing the EPA's actual proposal. As of April 13, 11 newspapers in four states had published op-eds written mostly by executives from SPN groups or state legislators, but none of the op-eds disclosed the fossil fuel industry funding behind them. Both BHI and SPN have financial ties to the Koch brothers, and the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="font-weight: normal;">&nbsp;reports themselves were funded by a group run by </span>Richard Berman,</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">&nbsp;a corporate PR executive who has solicited millions in funding from the oil and gas industry. [</span><i style="font-weight: normal;">Media Matters</i><span style="font-weight: normal;">,&nbsp;</span><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/13/a-web-of-climate-deception-the-beacon-hill-inst/203263" style="font-weight: normal;">4/13/15</a><span style="font-weight: normal;">]</span></font></p></div><div class="clear" style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="im-alert"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://mediamatters.org/inclusionmatters">The values and voices of America's diverse communities are too often excluded from the news media.&nbsp;</a></font></div></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">MMFA &nbsp;http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/13/a-web-of-climate-deception-the-beacon-hill-inst/203263</font></div><div style="font-weight: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div></h2><h1 itemprop="name" style="max-width: 100%; width: 659.578125px; margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A Web Of Climate Deception: The Beacon Hill Institute, Richard Berman, And The State Policy Network</font></h1><h2 class="grey-six" style="max-width: 100%; width: 659.578125px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bogus Study On EPA's Clean Power Plan Could Be Coming To A Newspaper Near You</font></h2><h5 class="dhandler-byline"><span class="grey-nine"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a class="type-research-byline" href="http://mediamatters.org/research"><span itemprop="articleSection">Research</span>&nbsp;</a><time datetime="2015-04-13T15:57:11-04:00" itemprop="datePublished">April 13, 2015 3:57 PM EDT&nbsp;</time>››› DENISE ROBBINS & ANDREW SEIFTER</font></span></h5><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><div><div class="wrap content" style="width: 745.766px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 20px !important;"><div class="bd" style="width: 730.844px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><div class="bd-main item" style="width: 694.297px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; margin: 0px auto;"><div class="bd-headline left" style="width: 659.578px; margin: 0px auto;"><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><p class="item-summary" style="width: 680.406px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="font-weight: normal;">A deceptive op-ed campaign to undermine action on climate change is underway in states across the country.&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Infamous corporate lobbyist</span> Richard Berman is funding sham "studies" attacking the EPA's Clean Power Plan <span style="font-weight: normal;">that are produced by the </span>Beacon Hill <span style="font-weight: normal;">Institute and distributed by the State Policy Network&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">-- two organizations with financial ties to the oil billionaire Koch brothers. The Beacon Hill Institute studies, which will appear in 16 states this year, dramatically inflate the Clean Power Plan's projected costs and admittedly don't even analyze the EPA's actual proposal -- so newspapers owe it to their readers to avoid promoting these studies or publishing op-eds that do.</span></font></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Beacon Hill Institute Analyzed An Imaginary Proposal To Massively Inflate The Clean Power Plan's Projected Costs And Deny Its Projected Benefits</font></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><div style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="wrap content" style="width: 745.765625px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 20px !important;"><div class="bd" style="width: 730.84375px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><div class="bd-main item" style="width: 694.296875px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; margin: 0px auto;"><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Beacon Hill Institute Alleged That Clean Power Plan Will Have Far Greater Costs, Far Smaller Benefits Than EPA Predicted.&nbsp;</strong>Upon announcing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA released a detailed regulatory impact analysis of the proposal. The EPA found that once the plan is fully implemented in 2030, its annual compliance costs would be $7.3-8.8 billion, while its total annual climate and health benefits would be worth $55-93 billion. By contrast, the Beacon Hill Institute's national study claimed that in 2030 the Clean Power Plan will cost $19.5 billion annually and produce annual benefits worth just $3.5 billion. [EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Power Plan,&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf#page=32">June 2014</a>; EPA Fact Sheet: Clean Power Plan Overview, accessed on&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-overview">4/10/15</a>; Beacon Hill Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114-IF03-20150225-SD008.pdf">January 2015</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>But BHI Admitted Their Study Did Not Actually Examine EPA's Plan.&nbsp;</strong>In a blog post, the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) Laurie Johnson pointed out that the BHI studies do not actually analyze the Clean Power Plan. Johnson explained that while the EPA plan "sets limits on a very specific industry, the electricity system," the Beacon Hill Institute instead "applies a back-of-the-envelope calculation to an economy-wide carbon tax analysis done by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration." In response to NRDC, BHI defended its studies -- but tellingly did not deny that they fail to address the Clean Power Plan itself:</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In order to analyze the effects of the CPP, it is necessary to determine the cost of achieving the reduction in carbon emissions aimed for the EPA. Because the EIA analyzes a scenario in which carbon emissions are reduced by about the amount intended by the EPA, its analysis provides a useful benchmark for the cost of achieving the intended reductions in emissions. This cost, put by the EIA at $10 per tonne of carbon eliminated, helps get us to an estimate of the cost of the EPA rules on the economy. [NRDC's Switchboard,&nbsp;<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>; Beacon Hill Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHI-Response-to-NRDC-Criticism20150313FINAL.pdf">3/13/15</a>]</font></p></blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Media Fact-Checkers Previously Declared It "False" To Cite A Study That Didn't Analyze EPA's Actual Plan.&nbsp;</strong>The BHI study is reminiscent of another study attacking the Clean Power Plan by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber study was published before the Clean Power Plan was released and analyzed an imaginary proposal that was nothing like what EPA ultimately laid out, but that didn't stop critics from frequently citing the Chamber study to attack the EPA proposal after it was unveiled. PolitiFact noted that the Chamber acknowledged its "estimates are not based on the [EPA] goals as announced," and determined that the Chamber's numbers were "false."&nbsp;<em>The Washington Post's&nbsp;</em>Fact Checker blog similarly noted that the Chamber had admitted its figures "do not apply at all to the EPA rule as written," and awarded "four Pinocchios" to Republican officials who cited it to criticize the EPA. [PolitiFact,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/02/john-boehner/Boehner-says-Obama-climate-change-jobs-bills-costs/">6/2/14</a>;&nbsp;<em>The Washington Post,&nbsp;</em><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/03/gop-lawmakers-rush-to-cite-study-to-discredit-new-epa-rule-but-study-assumed-epa-rule-would-be-tougher/">6/3/14</a>]</font></p></div></div></div></div></div></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Environmentalists, Economists Highlighted Other Major Problems With BHI's Research Methods</font></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><div style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="wrap content" style="width: 745.765625px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 20px !important;"><div class="bd" style="width: 730.84375px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><div class="bd-main item" style="width: 694.296875px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; margin: 0px auto;"><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Union of Concerned Scientists: </span>BHI Ignored Savings From Energy Efficiency.&nbsp;</strong>The Union of Concerned Scientists criticized the BHI studies of the Clean Power Plan for "assum[ing] that states will not choose to use renewable energy and energy efficiency to cost effectively meet their targets":</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI wrongly assumes that states will not choose to use renewable energy and energy efficiency to cost effectively meet their targets for reducing carbon pollution under&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/node/5185">the EPA's proposal</a>. In reality, many states already choose to require utilities to meet targets for&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#buildingblocks">increasing renewable energy and improving energy efficiency</a>, policies that will count towards compliance. By excluding energy efficiency from its analysis, BHI is simply ignoring&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#minimalcosts">savings on electricity bills</a>&nbsp;projected by the EPA, and those delivered by&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#buildingblocks">actual energy efficiency programs in the real world</a>. [Union of Concerned Scientists,<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/beacon-hill-institute-study-clean-power-plan#.VSLie_nF98F">3/12/15</a>]</font></p></blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>NRDC: BHI Used Lowball Estimate For Social Cost Of Carbon.&nbsp;</strong>The National Resources Defense Council noted that Beacon Hill used an implausibly low estimate for the social cost of carbon (SCC), which measures the economic damages associated with increased carbon dioxide emissions and was used by the EPA to estimate the Clean Power Plan's climate-related benefits. While the EPA -- with input from economic experts and other federal agencies -- has estimated that the SCC is approximately $40 per metric ton of carbon pollution, the Beacon Hill Institute used a SCC of just $10 per metric ton of CO2. Both the EPA and United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have noted that even the $40/metric ton figure likely underestimates the true social cost of carbon. As the EPA explained: "The models used to develop SCC estimates do not currently include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature because of a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and because the science incorporated into these models naturally lags behind the most recent research." However, when challenged on its use of a low SCC by NRDC, the Beacon Hill Institute resorted to a form of climate science denial, stating: "Many economists argue that the social cost of carbon should be assumed to be zero due to the uncertainty as to the level of warming that is induced by CO2 emissions, and the level of harm that said warming would produce." &nbsp; [NRDC's Switchboard,&nbsp;<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>; EPA Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf">November 2013</a>; Beacon Hill Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHI-Response-to-NRDC-Criticism20150313FINAL.pdf">3/13/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>NRDC: BHI Ignored Co-Benefits From Reducing Other Pollutants.&nbsp;</strong>BHI's Paul Bachman admitted to&nbsp;<em>The Guardian</em>&nbsp;that its studies excluded the "co-benefits" of the Clean Power Plan, which the EPA describes as "ancillary emission reductions ... of SO2 [sulfur dioxide], NO2 [nitrogen dioxide], and directly emitted PM2.5 [fine particulate matter], which would lead to lower ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone." The NRDC explained the significance of these "co-benefits":</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI's net "cost" calculation (quotes because the CPP actually has a high&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits">net&nbsp;<em>benefit</em></a><em>,</em>not cost) is dramatically inflated because it removes "co-benefits" from reducing carbon pollution emissions.&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits">These are all the lives saved, heart attacks avoided, asthma attacks avoided (and many more benefits)</a>&nbsp;due to reductions in other pollutants on top of the carbon pollution reduction--that also happen to decline when you reduce carbon pollution. [<em>The Guardian</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Power Plan,&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf#page=34">June 2014</a>; NRDC's Switchboard,&nbsp;<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>]</font></p></blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Beacon Hill Studies Used Highly Flawed Economic Model.&nbsp;</strong>As the Iowa version of the Beacon Hill Institute study noted, "Beacon Hill used their State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP) to estimate the economic effects of the CPP regulations." But the STAMP model is deeply flawed, as documented in a 2013 report by economists at Synapse Energy Economics that examined how the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) used STAMP to estimate the economic impacts of renewable energy standards. The report noted that STAMP "misses reality by a mile"</span>&nbsp;by assuming "an imaginary world of full employment" where new jobs can only be created "by cutting taxes or electric rates," and that "[a]rbitrary judgments are used where data are not available, boosting estimates of job losses." As one of the Synapse report's authors, Tuft University's Frank Ackerman, explained in Grist: "STAMP has never seen a government program that it liked or a tax cut that it disliked. Those who want an objective analysis of the costs and benefits of renewable energy, however, will need to look elsewhere." [Public Interest Institute,<a href="http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/studies/ps-15-3.pdf">February 2015</a>; Synapse Energy Economics,&nbsp;<a href="http://frankackerman.com/publications/climatechange/ALEC_vs_renewable_energy.pdf">1/4/13</a>; Grist,&nbsp;<a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/not-so-smart-alec-how-the-lobbying-group-uses-bad-data-to-fight-clean-energy/">2/23/13</a>]&nbsp;</font></p></div></div></div></div></div></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reports Part Of Coordinated Campaign Connected To Fossil Fuel Interests</font></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><div style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="wrap content" style="width: 745.765625px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 20px !important;"><div class="bd" style="width: 730.84375px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><div class="bd-main item" style="width: 694.296875px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; margin: 0px auto;"><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>BHI Is Jointly Releasing Clean Power Plan Studies With Members Of The State Policy Network.&nbsp;</strong>So far, the Beacon Hill Institute has jointly released state-based reports with the following organizations, all of which are members of the State Policy Network (SPN). [State Policy Network directory, accessed&nbsp;<a href="http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp">4/8/15</a>]</font></p><ul style="max-width: 100%;"><li><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Iowa: Public Interest Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/studies/ps-15-3.pdf">February 2015</a></font></li><li><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Louisiana: Pelican Institute for Public Policy,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thepelicanpost.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pelican_BHI_Final1.pdf">February 2015</a></font></li><li><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">New Mexico: The Rio Grande Foundation,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_beaconhill_new_mexico.pdf">January 2015</a></font></li><li><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">North Carolina: The Civitas Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/beaconhill_NorthCarolina_FINAL.pdf">January 2015</a></font></li><li><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">South Carolina: Palmetto Promise Institute (<a href="http://www.palmettopolicy.org/">formerly</a>&nbsp;Palmetto Policy Forum),&nbsp;<a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/690417_8e911cc0ba994c76a156422d882b927d.pdf">February 2015</a></font></li><li><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Virginia: Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/files/3/EPAStudy_March2015.pdf">March 2015</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Wisconsin: MacIver Institute&nbsp;</span>for Public Policy,&nbsp;<a href="http://static.maciverinstitute.com/EPA%20Rules%20WI%20-%20MacIver%20Beacon%202015%20FINAL.pdf">January 2015</a></font></li></ul><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>BHI And State Policy Network Both Have Financial Ties To Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers.</strong><em>The Washington Post</em>&nbsp;reported that both BHI and SPN "have received donations from foundations funded by the Koch brothers." As&nbsp;<em>Politico&nbsp;</em>reported, a 2013 Center for Media and Democracy analysis of the State Policy Network's IRS filings found that "its think tanks' combined revenue in 2011 topped $83 million, in large part with funding from conservative money groups like the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which receive large donations from groups tied to the Koch brothers and other prominent conservatives." The Center for Public Integrity has reported that oil is the "core of the Koch business empire," and that it is in the Koch brothers' "commercial interest" to oppose policies -- such as the Clean Power Plan -- that would reduce America's dependence on carbon-based energy sources. [<em>The Washington Post</em>,<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_print.html">&nbsp;11/24/12</a>;&nbsp;<em>Politico,</em><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-brothers-think-tank-report-99791.html">11/13/13</a>; Center for Media and Democracy,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/files/spn_national_report_final.pdf">November 2013</a>; Center for Public Integrity,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence">4/6/11</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>BHI's Director Denies Scientific Consensus That Human Activities Are Primary Cause Of Global Warming.&nbsp;</strong><em>The Guardian</em>&nbsp;reported that BHI director David Tuerck told the newspaper "he had mixed views on climate change," and quoted Tuerck as saying: "I am not certain that those emissions are significant enough to offset other factor changing the climate." However, according to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as having 95-100% probability. NASA similarly notes: "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the 'greenhouse effect' -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space." [<em>The Guardian</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; IPCC,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf">2013</a>; NASA.gov, accessed<a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/">4/10/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>BHI Was Repudiated By Its Own Host University For Seeking To Undermine A Climate Change Initiative.&nbsp;</strong><em>The Guardian&nbsp;</em>reported the Beacon Hill Institute, which is based in the economics department of Suffolk University in Boston, issued a grant proposal to carry out research that would help "pare back or repeal" the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a program by northeastern states to reduce their carbon pollution.&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Suffolk University responded that the grant proposal's goals "were inconsistent with Suffolk University's mission,"</span>&nbsp;and that the only reason the proposal wasn't rejected is that it "did not go through the university's approval process." [<em>The Guardian,&nbsp;</em><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/host-university-research-group-climate-suffolk-university">12/5/13</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>BHI Previously Released Koch-Funded Studies Used By Fossil Fuel Front Group In Campaign Against State Renewable Energy Standards.&nbsp;</strong>The Huffington Post reported how BHI studies were similarly released in states across the country in 2012 as part of a nationwide campaign against states' renewable energy standards:</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[T]he Washington Post reported ALEC's board of directors adopted a Heartland-crafted model bill that would repeal state standards requiring utilities to ramp up their use of renewable energy. The model legislation, the "Electricity Freedom Act," claims these requirements--currently on the books in 29 states and the District of Columbia--will dramatically drive up electricity rates.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[...]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">To make its case, ALEC--whose&nbsp;<a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8078765">members&nbsp;</a>include major coal, oil and electric utility industry companies--cites analyses by Suffolk University's&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute">Beacon Hill Institute</a>commissioned by the Koch-funded&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/american-tradition-institute">American Tradition Institute</a>&nbsp;and "free-market" state think tanks associated with the Koch-funded&nbsp;<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network">State Policy Network</a>. The analyses examine current or proposed standards in more than a dozen states, including Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey. The studies were partly funded by, you guessed it, the Koch brothers. [Huffington Post,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-b_2253472.html">12/7/12</a>]</font></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI Studies Funded By Rick Berman, The "Dr. Evil" Of Corporate Front Groups</font></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><div style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="wrap content" style="width: 745.765625px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 20px !important;"><div class="bd" style="width: 730.84375px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><div class="bd-main item" style="width: 694.296875px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; margin: 0px auto;"><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Reports Funded By Rick Berman's Employment Policies Institute.&nbsp;</strong><em>The Guardian</em>&nbsp;reported that the recent BHI studies were funded by the Employment Policies Institute, a group run by Richard Berman, a corporate lobbyist known as "Dr. Evil," whose front groups "have launched attack ads against the EPA, environmental groups, fishermen and sportsmen, and green building organisations." As CBS'&nbsp;<em>60 Minutes</em>&nbsp;documented, Berman is infamous for being the "arch-enemy" of government efforts to reduce the use of "products like caffeine, salt, fast food and the oil they fry it in," and for opposing "Mothers Against Drunk Driving, animal rights activists, food watchdog groups and unions of every kind." [<em>The Guardian</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; CBS,&nbsp;<em>60 Minutes</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-rick-berman-aka-dr-evil/"><strong>2/25/11</strong></a><a href="http://http/www.suffolk.edu/documents/ORSP/orsp_news_may_2014.pdf">]</a></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Berman&nbsp;</strong><strong>Solicited</strong>&nbsp;<strong>Secret&nbsp;</strong><strong>Funding From Oil And Gas Industry Executives For Anti-Environmental Campaign.&nbsp;</strong><em>The New York Times</em>&nbsp;reported that Berman solicited up to $3 million from oil and gas industry executives for a campaign against environmental protections, with the promise that their involvement would remain hidden:</font></p><blockquote><p><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mr. Berman solicited up to $3 million from oil and gas industry executives to finance an advertising and public relations campaign called Big Green Radicals.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[...]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mr. Berman repeatedly boasted about how he could take checks from the oil and gas industry executives -- he said he had already collected six-figure contributions from some of the executives in the room -- and then hide their role in funding his campaigns. [<em>The New York Times</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives-western-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html?r=4">10/30/14</a>]</font></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI's Sham Studies Have Been Covered In Several States</font></h2><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><div style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="wrap content" style="width: 745.766px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 20px !important;"><div class="bd" style="width: 730.844px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><div class="bd-main item" style="width: 694.297px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; margin: 0px auto;"><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>BHI Studies Have Been Released In Seven States So Far.&nbsp;</strong>The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has so far released a national report and<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;seven state reports</span>&nbsp;alleging that the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon pollution standards will increase electricity prices and cost jobs. The state-based reports have been released in Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. [Memo from Energy & Policy Institute and Center for Media and Democracy,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/beacon-hill-institute-flawed-epa-attack-funded-through-richard-berman-front-group">2/23/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>BHI Studies Will Be Released In Nine Other States.&nbsp;</strong>A spokesman for Suffolk University told&nbsp;<em>The Guardian</em>&nbsp;that BHI studies<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;will be released in a total of 16 states. States where the studies have not yet been released include Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Washington, Ohio, Alaska, and Utah.&nbsp;</span>[<em>The Guardian</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>11 Newspapers Have Published Op-Eds Citing BHI's Clean Power Plan Studies.&nbsp;</strong>At least 11 newspapers already published op-eds promoting the Beacon Hill Institute studies. The op-eds were authored by state Representatives, executives from groups in the State Policy Network, and in one case National Review contributing editor Quin Hillyer. The op-eds appeared in the following states and publications:</font></p><ul style="max-width: 100%;"><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">New Mexico:&nbsp;<em>Las Cruces Sun-News</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_27481605/paul-j-gessing-epa-rule-changes-will-drive">2/8/15</a>;&nbsp;<em>Farmington Daily Times</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.scsun-news.com/silver_city-opinion/ci_27481604">2/7/15</a>;&nbsp;<em>Silver City Sun-News</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SCPB&p_theme=scpb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(carbon)%20AND%20date(2/8/2015%20to%202/8/2015)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2/8/2015%20to%202/8/2015)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(">2/8/15</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Wisconsin:&nbsp;<em>La Crosse Tribune</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/courierlifenews/news/opinion/guest-view-epa-regulations-will-cost-state-jobs/article_517c3fce-3bf6-5e53-b291-e2646bf370d2.html">2/19/15</a>;&nbsp;<em>Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/proposed-epa-rules-would-harm-wisconsins-economy-b99443620z1-291918411.html">2/15/15</a>;&nbsp;<em>Chippewa Herald</em>, 2/6/15 via Nexis;&nbsp;<em>Dunn County News</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://chippewa.com/dunnconnect/news/opinion/columnists/federal-epa-regulations-pose-potential-negative-effect-on-wisconsin/article_a0722e25-b67e-5188-bb42-53819e39430f.html">2/6/15</a>;&nbsp;<em>Superior Telegram</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.superiortelegram.com/opinion/commentary/3708516-epa-rule-offers-little-gain-big-risk">3/27/15</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">North Carolina:&nbsp;<em>The News & Observer</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article10271696.html">2/10/15</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Louisiana:&nbsp;<em>The Advocate</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://theadvocate.com/columnists/quinhillyer/11645722-123/quin-hillyer-obama-carbon-rule">2/22/15</a>;&nbsp;<em>Greater Baton Rouge Business Report</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessreport.com/article/new-epa-carbon-emission-limits-will-increase-la-electricity-prices-22-2030-report-says">2/23/15</a></font></li></ul><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Most&nbsp;</strong><strong>Recent BHI Study Released In Virginia.&nbsp;</strong>Watchdog.org, the conservative news site run by the Franklin Center, reported on the latest Beacon Hill report, which was released in Virginia jointly with the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. The Virginia study was also amplified by two other conservative news sites, Townhall.com -- which reprinted the Watchdog.org post -- and the Daily Caller. [Watchdog.org,&nbsp;<a href="http://watchdog.org/209440/epa-va-jobs/">4/1/15</a>; Townhall,&nbsp;<a href="http://townhall.com/watchdog/virginia/2015/04/01/epa-va-jobs-n7478">4/1/15</a>; Daily Caller,&nbsp;<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/new-epa-rules-to-increase-electricity-costs-decrease-number-of-jobs-in-virginia/">4/1/15</a>]</font></p></div><div class="clear"><div id="comments"><div class="clear"><div style="font-weight: normal;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
hmmn
bermanblog
http://www.zaxtor.net/ConsumerFreedomKillsHumans.com.html


&nbsp;BACK to politics and ethics
Welcome to the Center for consumer freedom kills humans
Similar Humane Watch SCAM
WARNING THIS PAGE DOES CONTAIN SOME VULGAR LANGUAGE:
I have ways to express myself to this stupid deceitful dishonest slanderous transfat-sucking parasitic living cancer Richard Berman, someone who deserve to die from a very slow horribly painful inoperable cancer as much as Osama Bin Ladin and all very sadistic human beings on this planet. People responsible for mass poisoning people and advocating trans-fats and pesticide deserve to die in my opinion. They cause harm to tons of people they never met and never cause harm to those hicks in the name of profit and all those stupid fucking inbred hicks out there supporting that deserve to get cancer, a very slow painful torturous cancer, I don't care about those idiotic hicks, I have no remorse, no sympathy, no feeling and also my favorite one...... no guilt for those inbred hicks who put money before the live of people and responsible for clogging the hospitals making huge wait list and making soo many innocent people die. Richard Berman is far worst than Hitler and every very evil people combined into one, probably there is not enough evil human being on Earth to become equal to this fucking hick.
Why and what this page and what is all about?
The CCF best known as Center for Consumer Freedom are criminal slandering liars.
They are liars and crooks.
They are the whalers cheer squad and they will use ANY means to assist poachers

Also the CCF heritage is mass slaughtering humans such as being funded by biggest group of murdering companies. Founder known as the Philip Morris tobacco company. Those mother fucking cock suckers responsible for murdering many people and crippling non smokers health by exposing to second-hand smoke and making ex-smoker having reduced health. Sportsmen, trappers, hunters and other will support them to try to disable PETA, HSUS, API, FUNDS etc with slanders. Is like. I'd rather be supporting CCF and being responsible for killing nearly 1 billions people from a preventable death known as smoking. They are PROFIT organization funded by tobacco companies, they are anti-environment and bunch of right winged inbred hick assholes.
CCF was founded by this ugly motherfucker inbred hick bald Richard Berman..
60 Minutes has called him "the booze and food industries' weapon of mass destruction," and his nickname (from both friends and enemies) is "Dr. Evil", an alias in which he takes pride.
Also further more information added to the bottom about CCF frauding, flawed information and lies.
Which furtherly expose this ASSHOLE Richard inbred hick Berman who love getting aroused toward the suffering of dying cancer victim from the death addiction of tobacco because of his anti-anti-smoking movement.

In 2008 the Center for Con$umer Freedom received 1.52$ million in contributions
1.41$ million--or 97%-- went to Rick Berman and his PR company, Berman & Company.

Even David Berman the son of Rick Berman hates his own dad because Rick is a HORRIBLE person.
Check HERE
BERMANEXPOSED
Who is Richard Berman?

Richard Berman is a Washington, D.C.-based hired gun who uses front groups to defend his corporate clients against the public interest. Using his lobbying and consulting firm, Berman and Company, as a revenue vehicle for his activities, Berman runs at least 23 industry-funded projects, such as the Center for Union Facts, and holds 24 "positions" within these various entities.

The biggest anti-vegan is probably Richard Berman. His organizations probably spread the most anti-vegan, anti-animal, anti-health, anti-justice, and anti-freedom propaganda on the web.


The biggest anti-vegan is probably Richard Berman. His organizations probably spread the most
anti-vegan, anti-animal, anti-health, anti-justice, and anti-freedom propaganda on the web.

Here’s a bit about him:

“Richard Berman is the longtime president of the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying and consulting firm, Berman & Company, Inc. (“BCI”) which specializes in strategic research and communications. Throughout the years Berman has been a stalwart supporter of business and industry over consumer, safety and environmental groups. Berman has fought unions, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, PETA and other watchdog groups in their efforts to raise awareness about obesity, the dangers of smoking, mad cow disease, drunk driving, the minimum wage and other causes. He has been described in the press as a ‘notorious D.C. lobbyist.’

“Berman founded and runs four tax-exempt front groups and a number of linked projects, focusing on food, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and labor. He is well-paid by the represented industries to serve as the executive director of all four organizations. Berman then uses his own lobbying and public relations firm to do work for the organizations, thereby channeling between 49% and 79% of all donations made to the groups into his own pocket.
Even his own son hates him, Rick Berman values his stupid lying company above his OWN son. What a despicable man this dumb hick is.
Each year, Berman, using his front groups to spread misinformation, spends millions of dollars distracting the public with misleading ads.

As a result of his largesse, in 2006, Richard Berman used $2,000,000 in cash to buy this $3.3 million house.
From (HERE);
WSB-TV reporters should have checked their sources when they relied on information from the widely discredited Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). While organized as a 501(c) (3) charity, CCF is a front group for a wide range of animal abuse industries and other corporate interest that wish to conceal their attacks on public interest groups and government. The group's stock-in-trade involves taking aim at organizations that promote food safety, public health, or animal welfare. CCF has even attacked the National Cancer Institute, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for their anti-drunk driving and public health campaigns.

CCF has consistently sought to undermine The HSUS's work to combat factory farming, puppy mills, the Canadian seal slaughter, commercial whaling, and other large-scale cruelties, and it would be most satisfied if we spent all of our money on animal sheltering instead of these industries that it so dutifully defends. The group attacks The HSUS precisely because we are effective and diligent, and because we pose the greatest threat to businesses that choose to continue to abuse animals as a core part of their operations.

The WSB-TV story is chock full of inaccuracies, one of which concerns the HSUS response to Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. HSUS was recognized nationwide for its enormous deployment in response to the crisis created by Katrina. Since Sept. 1, 2005, The HSUS has committed or spent more than $34 million on general disaster relief and recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast states, the enhancement of its disaster response capacities, and the transformation of public policy concerning animals in disaster. The most recent accounting is available to the public here.

The line of argument that we did not spend money properly was promoted by Louisiana cockfighters, CCF, and other political opponents of ours, and it never had a basis in fact. These groups exhibited little knowledge of our actual spending practices—they just did not like the level of public support and media attention we received during the Katrina crisis. The HSUS and state authorities in Louisiana and Mississippi work very closely on disaster planning and response, and we continue to fund a range of projects to help shelters, vet schools, and other institutions in the Gulf Coast. The HSUS is the lead disaster response agency for animals in the nation.

The HSUS has invested millions of dollars in local spay and neuter programs and is about to launch a national public service campaign encouraging people to adopt dogs and cats from their local animal shelters. We gave more than $6 million in direct grants to those organizations in 2007 alone and provide extensive ongoing training, evaluations, and other support. The HSUS also operates a network of animal care centers, provides rural veterinary services throughout the country, and offers a range of other hands-on programs. In 2008, we rescued and/or cared for 70,460 animals. We also work with law enforcement agencies to rescue animals from dogfights, puppy mills, and other large-scale cruelties. We are rated a four-star charity by Charity Navigator, the highest possible rating, and in 2007 w084 percent of our costs were spent on animal protection programs.

In no written materials do we claim that all of our money goes only to animal shelters. Rather, we provide a wide range of support services to shelters because they serve critical functions in their communities. But they would be the first to concede that they do not have the reach or the resources to tackle the national and international problems of animal fighting, puppy mills, inhumane slaughter and transport, canned hunts, the fur trade, and other problems—campaigns that we work on every day. Through our wide range of programs, we help tens of millions of animals every year and prevent cruelty to countless others. Our work is complementary to these organizations, and we work with them throughout the nation.

The HSUS is very active in Georgia, particularly on anti-dogfighting efforts. We staff a 24-hour hotline for Atlanta-area residents to report dogfighting activity, and we offer up to $5,000 for information leading to arrests and convictions in dogfighting cases. We've paid four rewards and provided information to law enforcement agencies resulting in seven dogfighting busts in Georgia alone. We also run a community-based program that reaches young people on the streets of Atlanta to make sure they don't get involved in dogfighting in the first place.

The full range of our programs is set out on our web site, and we invite people to participate in the wide range of programs that make The HSUS the largest and most effective animal protection group in the world.

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
And again

(click logo for the sources.)

Rick Berman is the head of the inapporpriately-named "Center for Consumer Freedom," a non-profit that he runs through his for-profit PR company called "Berman & Co." In 2008, The CCF received $1.52 million in "donations." Virtually all of that ($1.41 million) was funneled directly back to Berman & Co. or to Berman himself.

Rick Berman takes money from industries to attack charities they perceive as a threat to their business. For example, Berman has taken money from the alcohol industry and has attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He has taken money from the tabacco industry and has attacked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. He has taken money from the factory farming industry and attacked The Humane Society. The list goes on and on.
How effective is Rick Berman?

Is Berman succesful at hurting the work of charities? Or has he just managed to swindle a lot of companies and hard-working farmers? Let's look at his campaign track record.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The alcohol industry has funded him to fight decreases in the legal blood alcohol limit…and he's losing (the limit is much lower now than it was years ago).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Despite his tobacco industry funding, there are now smoking bans popping up nationwide.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Despite his meat industry funding, animal welfare reforms are now commonplace and more people than ever are concerned about the treatment of farm animals.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Despite fast food funding, we're seeing calorie counts being posted on menus nationwide.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; He took money from the tanning salon industry to fight taxes on their services, yet all tanning salons in the country are now subject to a new tax.

Time and again, Berman has raked in money while waging losing campaigns.
What's Rick Berman's psychological state?

We don't know of any psychological analysis of Berman that's public record, so it's hard to say. But let's look at what Rick Berman's own son has to say about him:

"My father is a despicable man. My father is a sort of human molestor. An exploiter. A scoundrel … A couple of years ago I demanded he stop his work. Close down his company or I would sever our relationship. He refused. He has just gotten worse. More evil…

My Dad started a very very bad company called Berman and Company. He props up fast food/soda/factory farming/childhood obesity and diabetes/drunk driving/secondhand smoke. He attacks animal lovers, ecologists, civil action attorneys, scientists, dieticians, doctors, teachers. His clients include everyone from the makers of Agent Orange to the Tanning Salon Owners of America."

—David Berman (Rick Berman's son)

And Rick Berman runs his company in the way you'd expect such a "human molester" to run a company.

This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation. Help expose the truth about the tobacco industry.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
This article is part of the front groups portal on Sourcewatch. Join our team of citizen journalists researching and exposing industry secrets.
Is just like friends of science bunch of unskilled newbie scientists that doesn't know their ass to their elbows. Why would be brainlessly stupid enough to believe in all this shit? They criticize science groups that are far older, more knowledgable than those crooks and terrorist of the wild and human health. They are a discrimination against humanity and nature and they should be shut down and punished brutally. CCF should all be thrown in jail for life and receive the death penalty for being responsible for mass man slaugthering. But the government are too corrupted and you know is because of PROFIT!!! Tobacco are allow to make their shitty product addictive to mass slaughter people and get away with murder. Why if you invent something and is dangerous it gets off the shelves and didn't generate huge money and tobacco kills tons of people didn't get off of the shelves? Is because of corruption, bunch of lying dictators and profiters that the government can use blood money for their income and the freaken economy.
Plus this ugly cock sucker Richard has soo much profit from murdering people that he blows it on making new shitty stupid slandering domains such as Petakill animals, obesityfacts, activistcash and more. This ugly fuck has soo much free time jacking off his money and spreading slander and getting away with it?. He even open these stupid ass low class websites to attack other people. If he would attack me I would surely take severe actions against this piece of shit living cancer face Richard. Probably making photoshops of his ugly hick face and ruin his life, reputation and more. As long this living walking cancer roams the earth more people will die in the name of profit from heart disease, mercury poisoning, lead poisoning, pesticide and cancer. Those stupid sportsmen worship this cocksucker like is their god, I have noticed on Tman most trappers worship CCF and their mighty bald headed hick Richard the murderer. They cry about terrorist attack etc. Look at this piece of shit who is responsible for killing more people than every terrorism act combined together. Sportsmen are surely corrupted and fucked in the head and the worship this freaken loser who love jacking over dead people bodies!!.

comes from there
OVERVIEW

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the "hospitality industry," which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smokefree laws. CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of red meat consumption, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the "nanny awards" to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives. Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association (AMA); the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the CDC; and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Over 40 % of the group's 2005 expenditure was paid to Rick Berman's public relations company, Berman & Co. for "management services. As part of its operations, CCF runs a series of attack websites, including ConsumerFreedom.com, ActivistCash.com, CSPIscam.com (attacking the Center for Science in the Public Interest), Animal-Scam.com, FishScam.com, ObesityMyths.com, Sweetscam.com, PhysiciansScam.com and PetaKillsAnimals.com.

STARTING OUT SMOKING

Mr. Berman launched the Guest Choice Network in 1995. Its initial funding came entirely from the Philip Morris (PM) tobacco company. GCN was formed so as to appear not to be "owned" by PM; address restaurant owners lack of interest in PM's " Accommodation Program " and broaden industry appeal. According to a September of 1995 letter from Mr. Berman to Barbara Trach , PM's Sr. Program Manager for Public Affairs, GCN was designed to:
"Create an aggressive mentality by (restaurant) operators (to oppose) government smoking bans."

He proposed that PM form an aggressive front group to motivate restaurant owners to aggressively fight bans, while appearing to be acting on their own:

"...if you want to gain more ground quickly for the smokers' rights issue, the (Guest Choice) program must create a proactive, aggressive mentality by (restaurant) operators regarding government smoking bans..."

He described how hiding PM's involvement would allow the group take more aggressive action:
"Additional benefit -- if externally perceived as driven by restaurant interests, there will be more flexibility and creativity allowed than if it is 'owned' by Philip Morris. The American Beverage Institute , which opposes overly aggressive DWI laws, enjoys this profile."

According to a December 11, 1995 letter to Barbara Trach:
"I'd like to propose to Philip Morris the establishment of the Guest Choice Network. ...The concept is to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists. ... I would like to solicit Philip Morris for an initial contribution of $600,000."

The purpose of GCN, as Berman explained in a separate planning document, would be to enlist operators of "restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators" to "support mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice.'" According to a year end budget, Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during its first 13 months of operation, including $390,000 for "membership marketing/materials development," $430,000 to establish a communication center and newsletter (which Berman promised would have a "60% to 70% smoking focus", $110,000 to create a "multi-industry advisory council," and $345,000 for "grassroots network development/operation."

PM complied with Berman's initial funding request for $600,000 and pitched in another $300,000 early the following year:
"As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now," wrote Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington in an internal company memorandum dated March 28, 1996.

Aside from PM, there were no other publicly-known funders of Guest Choice until its public launch two years later in April 1998.
TACTICS
Personal responsibility

While most food lobbyists rely on the rhetoric of "personal responsibility" to blame the obesity problem on the failure of people to act sensibly, CCF, in contrast, denies the problem altogether. Their position is to "defend" the very notion of personal responsibility by tying it closely to the All-American values of choice, freedom, and rugged individualism against the food police, militant radicals, and government bureaucrats who want to keep you from enjoying your God-given right to Big Macs, Marlboros, and Budweiser.
"Free to choose"

One of CCF's favorite strategies is to align the interests of food companies with those of the consumers. It portrays these two groups as "allies" and the besieged "victims" of government regulators, nonprofits, parents, and other food-industry critics. By "consumer freedom," CCF means the "right of adults and parents to choose how they live their lives, what they eat and drink, how they manage their finances, and how they enjoy themselves." The free-to-choose argument implies that advocates of sound nutrition policy are diametrically opposed to the interests of everyone else and that they are killjoys with no interest in enjoying food.

A related salvo is CCF's argument that nutrition advocates and other food-industry critics are infantilizing people when they give dietary advice. CCF produced a television commercial showing people trying to enjoy all-American pleasures such as ice cream, hot dogs and beer, only to be foiled by a hand that swoops down and commandeers the offending items. A voice-over inveighs:
"Everywhere you turn, someone's telling us what we can't eat. It's getting harder just to enjoy a beer on a night out. Do you always feel like you're being told what to do? Find out who is driving the food police at ConsumerFreedom.com.
Marginalizing advocates

Part of CCF's method is to direct attention away from the substantive issues and to keep the focus on the messenger rather than the message. For example, CCF has created a website known as CSPIscam , whose sole purpose is to discredit and defame the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). CCF dismisses CSPI's work as media driven and reliant on "junk science" to scare people into believing that the group is trying to take away their right to eat whatever they want.

CCF explains its mission as fighting back against "self-anointed "food police," health campaigners, trial lawyers, personal-finance do-gooders, animal-rights misanthropes, and meddling bureaucrats." An important aspect of such rhetoric is to set advocates apart from the mainstream. These labels are meant to conjure up caricatured images of 1960s-style activism, complete with flag burning, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. CCf has also developed a website called ActivistCash that claims to "expose" the funding sources of various environmental and public health organizations. The site includes a list of "key players" in nutrition advocacy, including New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle, who is described as "one of the country's most hystieral anti-food-industry fanatics," a food cop with "radical goals."

Implicit in CCF's food cop rhetoric is the idea that people who advocate for eating a healthy diet are motivated by personal agendas. They maintain a long list of people operating under supposed "hidden agendas." CCF is also accuses pro-vegetarian organizations like PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) of hiding behind an " animal rights agenda", though these groups are visibly and vocally trying to protect animals and readily acknowledge such. See also A Visit to the ActivistCash.Com Web Site .
CAMPAIGNS
Defending payday loans

In a March 2008 letter to the editor of The Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin), CCF's Tim Miller defended the payday loan industry. "Research shows that when politicians respond to the calls of overzealous interest groups ... to eliminate payday lending, borrowers are forced to turn to more expensive and less desirable options," he wrote. "Economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that after North Carolina banned payday loans, those who were experiencing financial stress turned to bounced checks, bankruptcies and delinquent bill pay."
Anti-PETA and pro-mercury

CCF runs PetaKillsAnimals.com , a campaign against People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), as well as campaigns questioning the health impact of mercury in fish. According to Forbes :
"Berman has already moved onto his next topic: scares about mercury levels in fish. He'll soon be adding FishScam.com to a growing collection of Web sites that includes AnimalScam, CSPIscam and ActivistCash.com , which exposes the financing behind do-gooder groups and lefty celebrities."

In February 2004, there was an ad campaign on the Washington, D.C. Metro featuring a photo of a mouse next to a photo of a sick girl in a hospital bed, criticizing PETA for its stance on animal testing and imploring viewers to visit the website to find out more and donate money for similar ads. A search on SamSpade.org reveals that the website is owned and operated by Guest Choice Network and Berman & Co. See also Richard Berman cares about animals: clients exposed .
Anti-anti obesity

A September 2005 Forbes article describes ads CCF ran in its "anti-anti-obesity" campaign:
"In one ad, Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" character actor Larry Thomas plays a chef who weighs customers, then barks "salad!" or "no food for you" depending on how far they push the scale. In another, heavy-handed "food police" rip an ice cream cone away from a whimpering kid, whack a beer from a man about to enjoy a sip and snuff out a hot dog on the ground."

To rebut claims showing a link between obesity and junk food consumption, and to establish itself as the respected authority on the issue, CCF has adopted a multipronged approach, including:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lobbying against nutrition legislation unfriendly to industry interests.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Preparing well-time press releases.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Publishing op-ed articles and letters to the editor.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Advertising its views in print and electronic media.

In April 2005, following a U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study that "obesity accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the United States"; in contrast to earlier CDC studies suggesting 365,000 annual obesity-related deaths, CCF launched a $600,000 ad campaign. The ad ran in such major newspapers as the New York Times , Los Angeles Times , Washington Post and USA Today and called "obesity" a "hype":
"Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of obesity myths by the 'food police,' trial lawyers, and even our own government."

CCF's Mike Burita said the ad campaign was part "putting pressure on the leadership of the CDC, who has still not endorsed this new figure" for obesity-related deaths. Claiming that CCF wanted "some perspective," Burita added, "Obesity is certainly a genuine problem. But when genuine problems become political issues they tend to become exaggerated, as this has." In early 2002, CCF ran national radio ads targeting studies on the link between food consumption and health. One ad referred to "red-faced picketers wielding pointed wooden sticks with signs that read 'eat tofu or die' on the way to your classic cheeseburger and fries."

CCF sponsors the ObesityMyths.com website, which purports to debunk "myths" about obesity.

CCF's claims about obesity frequently make a straw man argument about the body mass index (BMI), a statistical measurement which compares a person's weight and height and is used to assess how much an individual's body weight departs from what is normal or desirable for a person of his or her height. CCF claims that the BMI is a "flawed" standard because people with more muscle than average may weigh more than others of the same height, without necessarily having excess body fat. The CCF website mocks the BMI standard by listing muscular Hollywood action heroes and professional athletes; claiming that the government has deemed them "officially overweight."

In fact, U.S. government health standards do not rely exclusively on body mass index when giving weight loss advice. As the Obesity Education Initative of the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute explains, "assessment of overweight involves using three key measures: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and risk factors for diseases and conditions associated with obesity." A BMI higher than 25 is considered overweight, and higher than 30 is considered obese. However, the government's guidelines only recommend weight loss for people who are considered obese or who are considered overweight and have "two or more risk factors" such as high blood pressure, high LDL-cholesterol, a family history of premature heart disease, physical inactivity or cigarette smoking. Contrary to what CCF claims, these guidelines would not recommend weight loss for people such as Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington or Sylvester Stallone. CCF also loads the dice by misrepresenting the weight of many of the celebrities on its list. For example, it states that Brad Pitt is 6 feet tall and weighs 203 pounds. Other sources list Pitt's weight at between 150 to 175 pounds. (He was at his thinnest when filming Fight Club but bulked up for the movie Troy .)
Creating controversy

CCF's efforts to appear as an authority on obesity appear to work in spite of their lack of any identifiable credentials as a scientific body. CCF is regularly consulted by journalists on health issues and often positioned as the "other side" of relatively uncontroversial issues. For example, a September of 2005 article in the Los Angeles Times on data concerning the increasing the prevalance of obesity, quoted several health experts as well as CCF in order to create controversy. In the article, Dan Mindus, a senior analyst at CCF said that he didn't disagree with the data, but cited other studies showing tremendous drops in the level of children's physical activity and no evidence of higher caloric intake:
"In case after case, we see evidence kids aren't eating any more than they used to, but exercising less. It's almost too easy to blame snacks in schools when it's more difficult to try to get kids moving again."

CCF also likes to publish well-timed, strategically placed op-ed articles in leading newspapers, aimed at putting an industry-friendly spin on potentially damning scientific studies. On August 26, 2004, for example, CCF director Rick Berman trashed a story published that week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showing a clear connection between soda consumption and diabetes in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In an article entitled "Soft Drink Hysteria Hard to Swallow," Berman wrote:
"Frankly, the contortions that the authors went through to demonize soda would make our own gold medal gymnasts proud."

Neither Berman or the Journal-Constitution explained why CCF should be more scientifically compelling than JAMA.
Anti-menu labeling

In 2004, California state senator Deborah Ortiz introduced a menu-labeling bill that was brought down by a CCF spearheaded campaign. CCF and other major food companies complain that menu labeling is costly and ineffective, claiming, instead, that the solution to the nation's obesity epidemic lies in better consumer education and personal responsibility. Joining the opposition was the California Restaurant Association, which predictably argued that the proposed law "sent the wrong message about personal choices and responsibility." The bill never made it out of the Assembly Health Committee.

QUOTABLE AND NOTABLE

In a 1999 interview with the Chain Leader , a trade publication for restaurant chains, Berman boasted that he attacks activists more aggressively than other lobbyists:
"We always have a knife in our teeth. Since activists "drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine," his strategy is "to shoot the messenger. ... We've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons."

In November 2001, the Guest Choice Network launched a separate web site, ActivistCash.com , which purports to expose the "hidden funding" of various activist groups that support animal rights, food safety and smoking prevention. In January 2002 the Guest Choice Network renamed itself the Center for Consumer Freedom.

In a May 11, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle article, CCF spokesman John Doyle responded to questions about nationwide radio ads put out by the group. He said the ads were meant to attract people to their website and:
"draw attention to our enemies: just about every consumer and environmental group, chef, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry.

On November 16, 2004, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleging that CCF had violated its tax exempt status. According to the complaint, CCF engaged in prohibited electioneering; made substantial payments to Richard Berman and his wholly owned, for-profit Berman & Co. and was generally engaged in non-charitable activities. According to CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan to Forbes :
"It doesn't seem to me that someone should get a tax deduction while they're writing public relations memos about how people should be able to smoke in restaurants."

In January of 2006, CCF's David Martosko was asked, in the context of CCF's campaign dismissing concerns about mercury concentration in seafood, whether they received funding from the seafood industry, from coal companies or utilities:
"Well, I know that we never accepted money from utilities or coal companies. I don't know exactly which companies in the food sector support us. You know, it's not my job to know. I really don't pay attention. I do know that the vast majority of our, say, institutional funding, comes from the food sector. Beyond that, I just don't know," he said.

AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS

In addition to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman & Co. sponsors several other organizations and web sites, including the Employment Policies Institute (which fights to keep the minimum wage low and opposes mandatory health insurance for workers), and the American Beverage Institute , which opposes restrictions on drinking and driving.

FUNDING

CCF is registered as tax-exempt nonprofit organization and is required to disclose some financial information to the Internal Revenue Service which is publicly available by inspecting their IRS Form 990s. Like Berman's other front groups, it does not disclose the identity of its funders, but some information about it has become publicly available thanks to the 1998 attorney generals' settlement with the tobacco industry, which required tobacco companies to release millions of pages of previously secret company documents.

CCF claims to represent "more than 30,000 U.S. restaurants and tavern operators." However, the IRS Form 990 which it filed for the the six-month period from July to December 1999 (under the name of "Guest Choice Network") shows that almost all of its financial support came from a handful of anonymous sources. Its total income for that period was $111,642, of which $105,000 came from six unnamed donors. It received no income from membership dues. Some of its funding apparently came from one of Berman's other organizations, the American Beverage Institute , which "contributes monthly amounts to the Guest Choice Network to assist with media expenses." The Guest Choice Network did not report paying salaries to any of its employees, who were presumably paid by Berman & Co.

CCF's Form 990 for the year 2000 showed total income of $514,321, almost all of which ($492,500) came from seven unnamed donors. Once again, it received no income from membership dues and did not report paying salaries to any employees. However, it did list $256,077 in compensation paid to Berman and Co., Inc., for "management services."

In 2004, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the IRS alleging that CCF violated its nonprofit, tax-exempt status. IRS law prohibits private individuals from benefiting from nonprofit organizations, but CREW alleges that Rick Berman and his for-profit lobbying and public relations firm have received nearly $2 million from CCF and its predecessor organization since 1999. Tax-exempt organizations must have a charitable purposek, but CREW notes that CCF lobbies exclusively on behalf of food producers and the restaurant and tobacco industries.
2005 finances

CCF's Form 990 for the year 2005 listed total revenue of $3.67 million. Of its expenditure of $3.82 million in 2005, $2.19 million was for a series of major advertisements, $856,699 was for running a series of websites and distributring a daily emnail newsletter to "approximately 30,000 subscribers" and a further $214,000 on maintaining a "database of foundations grants and funding sources of organizations dealing with food and beverage issues."

Of the group's $3.82 million of expenditure in 2005, $1.62 million was paid as compensation to Berman & Co. , representating approximately 42% of the group's total expenditure.
Contributions

Through a whistleblower, the Center for Media and Democracy has obtained the following information about corporate contributions to the Guest Choice Network/CCF:
Contributors
Corporation
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Pre-2001
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2001
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2002
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Total
Coca-Cola Company &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $200,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $200,000
Excel/Cargill &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $100,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $100,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $200,000
Monsanto &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $200,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $200,000
Tyson Foods &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $100,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $100,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $200,000
Wendy's International, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $200,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $200,000
Outback Steakhouse &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $164,600 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $164,600
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $100,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $100,000
HMS Host Corporation &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $50,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $25,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $75,000
RTM, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $64,872 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $64,872
White Castle System &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $43,872 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $43,872
Perdue Farms, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $40,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $40,000
Hatfield Quality Meats &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $33,700 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $33,700
Brinker International &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $25,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $25,000
Quantum Foods &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $18,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $18,000
Standard Meat &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $17,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $17,500
Applebee's International, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000
Coldwater Seafood &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000
P.F. Chang's China Bistro &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000
Performance Food Group &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000
Rare Hospitality &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $15,000
Marie Callendar Pie Shops &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $11,900 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $11,900
Advantica Restaurant Group &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000
National Steak and Poultry &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000
Packaging Corporation of America &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000
T. Marzetti Company &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000
Trinchero Family Estates &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $10,000
King and Prince Seafood &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $9,200 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $9,200
Paradise Tomato Kitchens, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $7,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $7,500
Michigan Turkey Producers Cooperative &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $7,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $7,000
Fired Up &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $6,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $6,000
Restaurant Concepts &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $6,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $6,000
Rosemount Estates (Southcorp Wines) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,300 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,300
TriOak Foods &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,100 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,100
Armour-Swift Eckrich &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000
Darifair Foods &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000
Dean Foods Company &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000
Ken's Foods Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000
Simmons Foods, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000
Sugar Foods Corporation &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $5,000
Casual Restaurant Concepts &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $3,300 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $3,300
LTP Management Group &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $3,250 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $3,250
Anton's Airfoods, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $3,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $3,000
Cameron Mitchell Restaurants &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,250 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,250 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,500
Chart House Enterprises &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,500
Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,500
Royal Cup &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,500
Pro Edge &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,400 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,400
Comarco Products &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,000
Save-on Seafood &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,000
Sun Orchard, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $2,000
conceCustom Cuts &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500
Good Humor/Breyer's Ice Cream &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500
Pro Clean &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500
Worldwide Restaurants Concepts &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,500
Bestfoods Foodservice &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,250 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,250
Kagome, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,086 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,086
Campagna-Turano Bakery, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
Carlson Hospitality Worldwide &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
Country Kitchen International &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
Daisy Brand &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
Eli's Cheesecake Company &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
Jeff's Gourmet Pies &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
John Soules Foods &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
KPR Foods &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
Revolution, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,000
John R. Daily Company &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,750 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,750
Mexican Restaurants &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,750 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,750
Not Your Average Joe's &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,347 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,347 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,694
Buca, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500
Louise's Trattoria &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500
National Everclean Service &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500
North American Enterprises &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500
Real Food Marketing &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500
Ruby Tuesday, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500
Syracuse's Italian Sausage &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,500
China Mist &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,400 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,400
KorBert, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,300 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,300
Crystal's International &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,252 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,252
4 B's Restaurants &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,200 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,200
North American Provisioners &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,150 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,150
Coffee Reserve, Inc. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,140 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $,140
Total : &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $56,950 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,392,007 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $402,509 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,851,466
PERSONNEL
Officers

The IRS Form 990 filed for 2005 lists the following officers:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Richard Berman - Executive Director
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; John Doyle - Secretary, Treasurer & Director, (roles which it states take one hour a week)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jacon Dweck - Director
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; David Browne - Director
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lane Cardwell - Director

Advisory panel

CCF also has an advisory panel. In 1998 it included the following individuals:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dave Albright - National Steak & Poultry
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jane Innes - Perkins Family Restaurants, L.P.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Steve Bartlett - Meridian Products Corporation
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Robert Basham - Outback Steakhouse, Inc.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; John F. Berglund - Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lou Chatey - Sebastiani Vineyards
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; H.A. "Andy" Divine - University of Denver
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Timothy J. Doke - Brinker International , Inc.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Richard Fisher - Tetley USA, Inc.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; William L. Hyde, Jr. - Ruth's Chris Steakhouse
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; James Spector - Philip Morris , USA
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Michael Middleton - Cargill Processed Meat Products
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Daniel J. Popeo - Washington Legal Foundation
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Richard G. Scalise - Armour Swift-Eckrich
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Daniel Timm - the Bruss Company
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Carl Vogt , Fulbright & Jaworski
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Richard Walsh - Darden Restaurants , Inc.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Terry Wheatley - Sutter Home Winery

Media

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Tim Miller - Communications Director, CCF & Employee Freedom Action Committee ; a Berman-created lobby opposing the Employee Free Choice Act .
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mike Burita - Worked for the Frontiers of Freedom , Brent Bozell 's Media Research Center , Phyllis Schlafly & a variety of conservative causes and republican election campaigns.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; John Doyle - Communications director, Berman & Co., Spokesman for CCF, the Employment Policies Institute & American Beverage Institute .
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Tom Lauria , On February 24, 2000, the Washington Post reported that Mr. Lauria, "who helped peddle the tobacco industry's message at the Tobacco Institute before the lobby group was dismantled", had been hired GCN's Director of Communications. He left Berman's employ in 2001.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; David Martosko - Director of Research

Former personnel

The IRS Form 990 filed for the the six-month period from July to December 1999 by CCF (then calling itself the Guest Choice Network), listed, in addition to Berman, the following officers:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ray Kraftson - Director
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dixie L. Berman - Secretary/Treasurer
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dan Popeo - Director, Chairman of the Washington Legal Foundation , a corporate-funded right-wing think tank which paid him $301,593 in salary and benefits in 2000.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Allison Whitesides - Director - Ms. Whitesides has also worked as a public relations representative for Coca-Cola North America and Outback Steakhouse . In November 2001, she went to work as a legislative representative for the National Restaurant Association .

CONTACT

Like other Berman & Co. front groups, CCF is headquartered at:

Berman & Co.
Note: the asshole's personal phone and address wont be displayed on here.

Web address: http://www.consumerfreedom.com
Misc / random reactions about this piece of shit of CCF.
Q: Centre for Consumer Freedom a fraud"?
Are you aware that the falsely called Centre for Consumer Freedom is a front group for among others the Tobacco and alcohol industry and support the "right" of driver to drive while drunk?
A: We are very aware that CCF are frauds they do promote freedom to consumers but the abusing way. Freedom is good but abusing freedom is being an outlaw and a possible criminal, they promote excessive freedom such as drinking and driving, canned hunts, poaching and everything that means freedom. They are bunch of fucking outlaws and pricks. Only idiots and inbred hick support those murderers and tobacco hugging assholes.
Absolutely true.

CCF was originally funded by Phillip Morris to oppose smoking bans. They campaign against MADD, Greenpeace, The Humane Society, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, in addition to PETA. Their founder, Richard Berman, is currently working tirelessly to promote the interests of predatory lenders.

Not too difficult to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys....
http://www.hsus.org/center_for_consumer_freedom.html
From : fy
Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is a front for Rick Berman and Co. which is a lobbying group for the tobacco industries as well as big "food" and others.

I have met David Martosko personally (he is CCF's director of research, you have proof right here in case you don't believe me: http://www.rexano.org/Documents/Martosko… He is out of shape and seemingly in poor health and he likes to stalk people. He also is a bad photographer and a compulsive liar and he was a guest speaker on the Alex Jones show (the same one that has ties to holocaust denial and 9/11 tr00th movements and other whackjob conspiracy theories and crazy racists you can find the interview on the utoobs) but other than that he is a great guy. I haven't had the pleasure of meeting any of the other CCF goons but if they are anything like Martosko they are a barrel of losers who will probably die pretty young and pretty unhappy but loaded with cash from Philip Morris and Red Lobster (the worlds only communist seafood chain...LOL)

In response too those who claim the links posted are from PETA (which is the biggest load of...ahem in fact sourcewatch is run by a guy named John Stauber who doesn't work for PETA and has no ties to PETA that I have ever seen) here are some other links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berman_and_…
http://www.bermanexposed.com/
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/oppo… (I do not under any circumstances support HSUS but their information in this case is correct)

Plus if you do not believe any of this you can go into their records which should be public as CCF is somehow a 501(c)(3) non profit (even though Rick Berman is profiting like crazy) and you can also go too their site and see their attacks on groups like the Harvard School of Public Health (as in Harvard University the same place that has graduated many presidents and other world leaders and famous people, not that I support any of them).

CCF should be investigated for fraud and corporate crime as they don't seem at all like a non-profit but more like a Mafia style "olive oil business" or "butcher shop" as in a fake front for a pretty nasty group.


Richard Berman is an influence peddler. He has worked out a scheme to funnel charitable donations from wealthy corporations into his own pocket. In exchange, he provides a flurry of disinformation, flawed studies, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and trade-industry articles, as well as access to his high-level government contacts, who are servants of the industries he represents.
Learn more at: www.consumerdeception.com
Rachel Maddow Exposes Humanewatch as a Project of The Center for Consumer Freedom

Dr. Evil Rick Berman exposed by Rachel Maddow. He attacks Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and The Humane Society of the United States on behalf of corporate clients in the food and beverage industry.
He claims tanning beds are good for you.
He claims mercury in many fishes doesn't hurt you.
He claims transfats cleans up your arteries.
He claims secondhand smoking doesn't harm you.
THAT IS ALL FALSE WHO WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THIS LYING CULT?
In conclusion this shows sportsmen and anti-HSUS are hypocrites they cry about HSUS financially exploiting people which is false HSUS doesn't exploit people while CCF / Humanewatch etc financially exploit people and sends 97% of YOUR money to this motherfucker inbred loser hick Rick Berman.
Sportsmen are truly evil people and hypocrites, whoever supports them are hypocrites, are evil and hicks.
Also whoever support CCF, petakillanimals, humanewatch, activistcash and all or anything have a root with CCF and this bald headed inbred hick Rick Berman ARE:
Manhater, pro-diabetes, pro-cancer, pro-heart diseases, pro-tobacco, animal-haters and pro-neo-Nazism.
I will mention the people and or group of people who rather be responsible for the death of about a billion human lives are, sportsmen, anti-peta people, Mira trapper aka Donald Allister Mac Leod (Donnie MacLaod) the ignorant deep religious man who hide himself and who is pro-ignorance and using false information from those asshole inbred CCF hicks. Everyone working at the CCF deserves to die of cancer, I have no sympathy and no compassion for those people. They are worst than Hitler and they are worst than the Spanish conquistadors who killed more people than Hitler the stuff they did to South America and Mexico. If one person would be responsible for killing many people they'd kill him. But in this corrupted society we live in tobacco companies workers they don't get killed (executed) for poisoning and mass murdering people. They should face crime against humanity including this hick Rick Berman who is worst than Hitler and the Spanish conquistadors combined with all the world's terrorism. Who supports CCF or work with them I hate them more than anybody in the world and I hope the worst for them. That is my opinion and personal views on the CCF, they are more evil than any known human.
Even David Berman aka son of Rick Berman can't stand his own dad.
Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berman(musician)#Retirement_from_music

On the same day, he made another post on the message board revealing that he is the son of lobbyist Richard Berman . The two have been estranged since about 2006 , when David demanded that his father halt his work supporting guns, alcohol, union-busting and other industries of the like, or else he would sever their relationship. Richard refused, and the two have not spoken since. In the message board entry, he called his father "evil," a "human molestor," an "exploiter," a "scoundrel," and "a world historical motherfucking son of a bitch." Berman ended his post by saying, "I am the son of a demon come to make good the damage."

In January 2011, Berman launched his blog " Menthol Mountains ."


http://www. consumerfreedom .com / Center for Consumer Freedom / http://www.humanewatch .org / http://www.activistcash.com / http://www.animalscam.com / http://www.cspiscam.com / http://www.howmuchfish.com / http://www.mercuryfacts.org / http://www.obesitymyths.com /
http://www.petakillsanimals.com / http://www.physicianscam.com / http://sweetscam.com / They will use your "donated" money to make more of their stupid lying mislead websites
Don't trust the tobacco companies they murder far more people than terrorist, Hitler and even the worst non-biological natural disaster .
Richard Berman Discrimination against vegan, vegetarian, animals and Earth. Stupid bald headed hick who should die of cancer. www.trapperman.com
evil people like Paul Dobbins mira trapper and trappers supports CCF humanwatch which are the biggest frauds founded by the big tobaccos which
Shows trappers are truly very evil people in the world. Supporting those crooks is supporting the mass slaughter of human beings for profit

</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></h2></div></div>