Mary Cheney
https://www.corpwatch.org/article/citizens-united-v-americas-citizens
corpwatch no lnx
Citizens United v. America's Citizens
A Voter's Guide
Published by Special to CorpWatch | By Charlie Cray | Friday, October 22, 2010
Tags: Bribery, Fraud & Tax Evasion, Law & Regulation, Money & Politics
The midterm elections are days away, but the winners are virtually certain: the corporations and conservative operatives like Karl Rove who have taken advantage of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling to establish a well-heeled "shadow party" of networked trade associations and G.O.P. front groups.
Outspending Democratic-aligned groups by 7 to 1, these Republican-aligned groups have blitzed the nation's airwaves with wave after wave of ads. They have outlaid a staggering $300 million plus -- five times as much on congressional elections as they did on the 2006 midterms, the October 4 Washington Post reported. And "they are more secretive than ever about where that money is coming from."
Even without the flood of funds, Republicans were expected to capitalize in this year's midterm elections on widespread antipathy to congressional incumbents and progressives' disappointment with Pres. Barack Obama. But the groundswell of independent conservative groups - many with huge war chests for broadcast and cable attack ads - has some predicting a much larger Republican margin of victory.
A poll conducted by SurveyUSA, an independent research firm, found that a majority of voters think they have a right to know who is paying for the explosion of anonymous election ads. But this majority - despite believing that the nameless groups behind the "independent" ads don't have Americans' best interest in mind -- do not appear to be sufficiently outraged to spur structural reforms during the lame duck session that will follow the election. If Republicans retake the House, as most pollsters predict, other popular reforms such as public funding of elections will have little chance of passage, Thus it is likely that a key role in 2012 will continue to be played by corporate-funded front groups and, if recent charges are true, by foreign corporations and other interests alleged to be funneling campaign funds through the Chamber of Commerce and other groups.
The Citizens United Effect
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC - widely acknowledged as a radical departure from precedent - defined corporate campaign spending as Constitutionally protected free speech. The Jan. 21, 2010 ruling opened the floodgates for corporations, unions, and non-profit front groups wishing to keep their funders anonymous and to spend unlimited funds on political ads.
The decision to extend First Amendment rights for corporationswas a clear victory for "business civil liberties," but the Court majority, recognizing that "transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions," also advocated rapid and clear disclosure of political spending in the ruling. That stance rallied support for the DISCLOSE Act, a partial fix that would make third-party groups name their funders. While the bill passed the House, it met united Republican opposition in the Senate, and failed to pass before the election recess.
Karl Rove's "Shadow Party"
Key organizations have attributed their sudden rise to the Citizens United decision. Among the network of interlinked conservative political groups, the larger ones include:
* 60 Plus Association:Formed by Jim Martin ("The Man Who Put the Death Tax on the Political Map"), a conservative operative associated with Richard Viguerie's direct mail firm, 60 Plus bills itself as the "conservative alternative" to the AARP, amassing a $4 million war chest that it intends to use to target nine House Democrats.
* Alliance for America's Future: Former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary Cheney formed the 501(c)4, which was barred from running ads in Nevada because it refused to register in the state. Cheney formed another group -- Send Harry Packing - to pick up the slack. She also oversees the Partnership for America's Future, a 527 group required to report its donors.Mary Cheney told CBS News' Political Hotsheet that she believes there should be "full and immediate disclosure" of all campaign-related donations. The Partnership's only donor? The Alliance for America's Future, which doesn't have to reveal its own donors. The three groups together will spend $12 to $15 million this year, according to Cheney.
* American Action Network and American Action Forum: AAN's president is House GOP Whip Eric Cantor's former chief of staff. The group's corporate ties include Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, Home Depot, and several tobacco firms. Its board members include governors Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, and Tom Ridge, plus various Republican ex-senators and congress members. Ex-senator Norm Coleman, who co-founded the group, explicitly cited the Citizens United decision as a reason for AAN's "greatly enhanced" fundraising. The group is running attack ads against Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), and others. An ad against Feingold blames the senator for the country's $9 trillion debt, an absurd claim given that the group's backers are largely veterans of the Bush-era policies that produced most of the nation's deficit. AAN leases space in its Washington office to American Crossroads.
* American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS: Karl Rove and former RNC chair Ed Gillespie formed the group in April, but quickly turned over day-to-day operations to Robert M. Duncan, a close Rove associate and a former RNC chair, along with Steven Law, a former general counsel to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and onetime chief of staff to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Back in July Rove was already crowing on Fox News that, because of Citizens United, donors who had "maxed out" contributions to the RNC could now give more to American Crossroads or Crossroads GPS. American Crossroads was running attack ads against Harry Reid in Nevada even before Sharron Angle's (R-NV) campaign geared up. American Crossroads' backers include Bob J. Perry ($7 million), a wealthy Texas homebuilder who backed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's attacks on John Kerry in 2004, Bradley Wayne Hughes ($2.3 million), founder and chairman of Public Storage, and Joseph Craft ($2 million) a Tulsa-based coal mine owner.
* Americans for Job Security (AJS): Founded in 1997 with help from the American Insurance Association and the American Forest and Paper Association, the group has no "purpose other than to cover various money trails all over the country," according to a report by the Alaska Public Offices Commission. The group openly praised the Citizens United decision as an "unequivocal victory." In September the New York Times reported that AJS spent $6 million on ads during the primary season, concluding that its "deep ties" to Crossroads Media (a beltway Republican consulting operation also tied to Rove's American Crossroads) made it "largely a funnel for anonymous donations." Public Citizen calls AJS "one of the most egregious" violators of campaign finance laws.
* Americans for New Leadership and Liberty.com: Founded by Tea Party Activists Eric Odomand Yates Walker, the group has received strategic help from Republican activist Dick Morris. Walker, who is a consultant to Christine O'Donnell's campaign for Delaware's senate seat, told Politico that Citizens United "paved the way for the group's formation." He added that Liberty.com intends to "be a player for a long time," evolving into the "right-wing version of MoveOn.org."
* Americans for Prosperity (AfP): Chaired by billionaire right-wing industrialist David Koch, AfP's president, Tim Phillips, is an associate of Ralph Reed, a lobbyist for Fortune 100 corporations, and the architect of various Astroturf campaigns. AfP played a key role in funding the Tea Party movement, and has 31 state-level operations. The group has fired off a variety of dubious propaganda salvos, including ads that blame the Obama administration's stimulus plan for rising unemployment. A memo recently leaked to ThinkProgress.org reveals that Koch and a variety of corporate "investors" in the Republican Party met in June with Republican strategists, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Glenn Beck, and other conservatives to plot election strategy.
* American Future Fund: Formed by Iowa Republican operatives, the group expects to spend nearly $25 million on ads this year.
* Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity: Created by William B. Canfield, a Republican lawyer specializing in election law, the group expects to raise $25 million to help two dozen GOP candidates. Scott Reed, a veteran GOP operative who ran former Sen. Bob Dole's (R-KS) 1996 presidential campaign, helped launch the 501(c)4. Reed told the Center for Public Integrity's Peter Stone that "Citizens United opened the door for the unparalleled participation by corporations at the financial level."
* Revere America: Founded by ex-Gov. George Pataki (R-NY), this 501(c)4 was formed to repeal the health care bill. It has spent well over $1 million in New York and New Hampshire races.
* The Club for Growth: Founded in 1999 by conservative economist Steve Moore and the Cato Institute's Ed Crane, the group set up "Club for Growth Action." After the Citizens United ruling, the independent expenditure committee announced that it would accept "unlimited individual and corporate contributions," and aims to spend $24 million on this year's election. The club's former president, Pat Toomey, is running for Senate in Pennsylvania, and CfG is backing him in many ways.
* The First Amendment Alliance: A 527 "Super PAC" that People for the American Way reports is "a sham group for the energy industry whose office is a mailbox." The group's ads have been so misleading that one TV station pulled an ad targeting Jack Conway of Kentucky. Another energy-backed group is the Business Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC), which receives funding from the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and other oil, mining, and gas interests. BIPAC is expected to spend $6 million this year, and aims primarily to influence how the employees of its 400 member companies vote.
* U.S. Chamber of Commerce: According to U.S. Chamber Watch (a project of the Change to Win labor federation), the Chamber is the nation's most powerful lobbying juggernaut, spending over $144 million in 2009 and using its "borderline thuggish" lobbying tactics (as one congressional aide described them to The Hill), to kill a variety of reforms, including the DISCLOSE Act. After Citizens United, Chamber President Tom Donahue opened the group's doors to any member company that wanted to pay for anonymous attack ads. In October, U.S. Chamber Watch filed an IRS complaint charging the Chamber with illegally laundering more than $18 million from insurance giant AIG's charitable foundation (run by former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg) through the Chamber's political coffers.
(For more details about these and other groups see People for the American Way, "After Citizens United: A Look into the Pro-Corporate Players in American Politics")
The possible ramifications of disclosing controversial donations were made clear this summer in the wake of the Citizens United decision. A new Minnesota law mandating transparency forced Target (known for strong affirmative action policies) to disclose its $150,000 contribution to a business group that was backing an anti-gay gubernatorial candidate. The company was "flashmobbed" by gay rights groups and other progressive coalitions led by MoveOn.org. Target's CEO responded with a quick apology to employees and a pledge to set up a review process to screen future contributions.
Since the Citizens United decision shareholders and groups such as the Washington, DC-based non-partisan Center for Political Accountability have convinced a growing number of companies to disclose or otherwise improve their political spending policies. Yet judging by the rapid growth of conservative non-profits that keep their donors anonymous, it seems many wealthy individuals and corporate executives learned a different lesson from Target's PR embarrassment: Don't get caught.
Coordination Is Key
There are now more than a dozen Republican-leaning nonprofit front groups and trade associations giving cover to corporations that want to influence this year's elections by funding political ads. The groups have amassed a war chest estimated at more than $300 million so far, enough to air more than 60,000 TV ads between August 1 and mid-October, according to Media Matters.
Although the web of associations among these groups is too dense to untangle completely, it is already clear that a powerful "shadow party" has emerged on the conservative right. It is poised to take credit for buying the midterm elections, and will presumably be a force to contend with in 2012.
Campaign reformers like Craig Holman of Public Citizen say that in addition to sharing office space and overlapping staff, the groups' ability to collaborate is enhanced by weak FEC rules regarding coordination between the independent groups and campaigns. The Citizens United ruling is just one of a number of regulations and court decisions that effectively allow operatives like Karl Rove to raise and spend unprecedented amounts of money unrestrained by the restrictions that apply to party institutions such as the Republican National Committee.
"The RNC is a mess, and has no money on hand," Mary Cheney explained to CBS news, which reported that Rove and others chose instead to coordinate their efforts through the "Weaver Terrace Group," named after Rove's home address in Washington, DC, where it first met in April. Members include Gillespie, Law, Barbour, Coleman, and other Republican rainmakers, including Fred Malek.
The Weaver Terrace Group has reportedly been convening weekly at Crossroads' offices. Although American Crossroads is not allowed to coordinate directly with campaigns, as the RNC can, its ability to monitor ad buys gives it fairly easy - albeit indirect -- organizational clout without breaking the FEC's rules.
"They can use the same ad buyers," says Public Citizen's Holman, which means the campaigns and the independent groups can coordinate through a third consultant.
Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, the "dean of campaign reform," agrees that none of this coordination would be possible if not for weak FEC rules and lax enforcement. Democracy 21 filed an IRS complaint alleging that American Crossroads has violated its tax status by operating primarily in support or against candidates for office. But no one - including Wertheimer -- expects the issue to be resolved for years.
Public Citizen and three other groups filed a complaint with the FEC on October 13, charging Crossroads GPS with violating FEC rules by registering as a nonprofit 501(c)4 organization without registering as a political committee. But if the complaint doesn't die in a deadlocked vote among the FEC commissioners, it will also take years to resolve-and certainly not affect the November election.
"Un-American Corporations"
Everyone who has examined the numbers agrees that labor and groups like MoveOn.org cannot possibly match pro-Republican spending, especially with rich liberals like George Soros largely sitting out the midterms. Without its own phalanx of outside groups Democrats, including Obama, have countered by attacking the secrecy of the groups' donors and using the organizer-in-chief to try to mobilize young voters.
Even revelations that foreign interests may be funding campaigns have failed to trigger a large enough backlash to have much impact on the election outcome. In early October the Center for American Progress reported that the Chamber of Commerce was taking money from foreign corporations and effectively commingling it with domestic corporate contributions for election campaign activities. After Obama and Vice President Joe Biden repeated the charge, the Chamber insisted that none of the cash it admits receiving from foreign-based corporations was going into its ad campaigns. Yet, without full disclosure, there's no way of knowing if that assertion is true.
Constitutional Amendment to Restrict Corporations
Many reformers remain convinced that the only way to fully address the problems created by the Citizens United decision is to pass a constitutional amendment restricting corporate participation in electoral politics. At least two coalitions, FreeSpeechforPeople.org and MovetoAmend.org, have formed to support an amendment, which is gathering broad support:
* Various members of Congress have endorsed the idea, including representatives Donna Edwards (D-MD), chair of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-MI), and senators Baucus, Dodd, Udall, Bennet and Specter.
* The vast majority of voters of all political affiliations are more likely to support candidates who favor a Constitutional amendment limiting corporate spending, according to a June poll for PFAW conducted by Hart Research Associates.
* A bipartisan group of more than 50 constitutional scholars and prominent attorneys - including former Massachusetts Attorney General Frank Bellotti and six other former state attorneys general-- recently issued a statement with the support of Voter Action and Free Speech for People urging Congress to consider a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.
* In August, the National Baptist Convention passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling.
Meanwhile, as Democratic party allies are scrambling to cut their losses with a last-minute get-out-the-vote ground war, they are already strategizing about what to do if Republicans win big, as most predictions suggest. Blaming secretive financing by the Chamber, American Crossroads, and other groups, Democrats may mount another effort to pass the DISCLOSE Act during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress.
But campaign reformers say even the DISCLOSE Act won't be enough, and many are planning to push for public funding of elections (embodied in the Fair Elections Now Act), along other reforms.
The Campaign Finance Institute's Michael Malbin and others say that reformers need to take a step back and rethink their approach. "The key to a successful public financing program is to realize that it has to be about creating incentives for broader participation," Malbin wrote in The American Interest. Rather than futile attempts to "drive private money out of politics," the solution, Malbin argues, is to tilt the balance of power away from wealthy campaign financiers by giving rebates and tax credits for small contributions, and by using matching donations to give voters increased leverage.
Still others think that meaningful reform must rest on a constitutional amendment to restrict corporations from unlimited spending on elections. (SEE Box: Constitutional Amendment) But unless the political landscape shifts radically, it seems unlikely that an amendment has any chance of passage in the next Congress -- especially if Republicans maintain a united front against reform.
"The Citizens United decision is just one of a string of decisions vastly enhancing the power of corporations to run our economy, government and lives," says Holman. "Citizens attempting to take back their country will require vigilance and a willingness to pit ideas and activism against corporate money."
Charlie Cray is a senior member of Greenpeace USA's research unit. He is also director of the Center for Corporate Policy and co-author of "The People's Business: Controlling Corporations and Restoring Democracy."
AMP Section Name: Money & Politics
106 Money & Politics
wayback
http://web.archive.org/web/20140331100216/https://insideclimatenews.org/content/60-pro-keystone-xl-comments-tied-industry-group-says
60% of Pro-Keystone XL Comments Tied to Industry, Group Says
Analysis of 1,000 public comments shows that authors of more than half of them have ties to various companies that may benefit from pipeline's approval.
By Lisa Song, InsideClimate News Mar 17, 2014
Regulations.gov has so far registered about 125,000 public comments on the Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department says it has received an estimated three million comments on the contentious project.
Environmentalists who spent a month analyzing public comments on the Keystone XL linked more than half the pro-pipeline comments they examined to people in the oil industry. As the U.S. State Department considers whether to approve the project, the activists want those remarks to carry less weight than those written by people without a vested interest in the outcome.
Out of a random sample of more than 1,000 comments in support of the Keystone, the environmentalists connected about 60 percent of the commenters' names to oil and pipeline company employees, investors, lobbyists, attorneys and others working for the industry—all of whom could potentially benefit from the construction of the pipeline, the activists said. If built, the pipeline would carry diluted bitumen from Canada's tar sands region to the Texas Gulf Coast.
"We don't want to accuse anyone of wrongdoing ... but to me this raises a red flag," said Terra Friedrichs, a volunteer at the environmental group 350MA who led the analysis. 350MA is a Massachusetts grassroots organization that advocates for sustainable energy. It often collaborates with, but is not affiliated with the national group 350.org.
Regulations.gov, the website used to collect public comments, doesn't require people to disclose their names, nationalities, occupations or financial interests.
The State Department, which must decide whether the pipeline is in the national interest, said the comments page is open to all. "Throughout this process it's important that we hear the views of any member of the public that wishes to share their opinion or viewpoint," a department spokesperson said in an email.
The spokesperson added that all of the comments will be considered alongside other factors—"including energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts [of the pipeline]; foreign policy; and compliance with federal regulations." The final decision on the Keystone will come from President Obama.
Friedrichs, who works as a socially responsible business consultant, agreed that everyone has a right to comment. But she said individuals on both sides of the debate should be required to disclose any financial interests in the project. A paid environmental lobbyist commenting in opposition should also have to explain his or her ties, she said.
350MA wants the State Department to conduct a thorough analysis of the comments before they're read, and to give more weight to remarks written by people who don't have a financial stake. "[We] ask that ALL of the comments be available for a six-month period of time so that research may be done into the identities of the commenters," Friedrichs said.
The agency received an estimated three million comments. Industry, union and environmental groups used mass emails and form letters to drive up their numbers. Both sides touted their final counts—one million in support of the pipeline, two million in opposition—as evidence of the public's backing or disapproval of the contentious project.
Regulations.gov has registered only about 125,000 comments. That's because some of the comments are still being processed, and also because petitions register as a single comment regardless of the number of signatures.
The Washington Post reported last week that nearly half of the two million anti-pipeline comments came from outside the U.S. Most were collected and translated by the advocacy group Avaaz.
The Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money in politics, found that nearly 8 in 10 of the 125,000 registered comments were similarly worded pro-pipeline remarks submitted by people who listed BKM Strategies as the "originating organization." BKM is a consulting firm with ties to Dick Cheney's daughter Mary Cheney, who has an active role in political nonprofits that fund conservative causes.
'Out-the-Insider'
Friedrichs got the idea for 350MA's so-called "Out-the-Insider" project last month when she submitted her own comment online. After searching the names of a few pro-Keystone commenters and finding industry ties, she recruited other environmentalists to conduct a more systematic analysis.
Between early February and Mar. 6, the second-to-last day of the public comment period, Friedrichs worked with 11 other volunteers to research more than 1,000 pro-pipeline comments. Most of the connections were made through google searches that combined the person's full name with the word "oil" or "industry."
A smaller subset of names was analyzed with more in-depth research into marriage records, country club and Chamber of Commerce memberships. Ninety percent of that group yielded the names of people linked to the oil industry, either through employment, direct family ties or close social connections, Friedrichs said.
Whenever they found a name of interest, they submitted a comment on regulations.gov using the term INSIDER ALERT! to flag the issue. For instance, "Is this the same Terry Morgan? EMPLOYEE OF BIG OILSHELL," they wrote on one comment, followed by a link to Morgan's LinkedIn profile.
CLICK to enlarge
Screenshot of INSIDER ALERT! comment
"A lot of the names aren't that unusual, so who knows if it's the same person," said 350MA volunteer Sue Donaldson, medical director of a community hospital psychiatric clinic. "But I was amazed at the number of times I would google a name and the first name would be someone with a clear [oil industry] connection of some kind."
Friedrichs said she applauds the State Department for making the comments publicly available during the comment period. "Far too often, public comments are not available until AFTER critical decision points, making it impossible to identify whether 'insiders' are the ones who are making the comments," she said in an email.
But now that her group has identified these ties, she hopes the State Department will consider minimizing their role in the review. In the long term, she hopes her group's efforts will lead to greater transparency.
"We can't have a good government or democracy ... unless people disclose their vested interests, and the government has a responsibility to know where the comments they're using came from," Friedrichs said.
Boston College law professor Zygmunt Plater said the 350MA project could help shed light on potential "astroturfing," in which "narrow interest groups driven by short-term profits" are behind a disproportionate number of public comments.
While everyone has a right to comment, "it seems to me equally significant to know where the comments are coming from," he said. "It's important to note which are coming from the provenance of insiders with a vested financial interest and a narrow outcome, and those which are coming from people who represent a broad perspective of public health, safety and [considerations] for the long term."
See all Carbon Copy posts >>
Return to home page >>
==
bs bio
A veteran corporate and political advisor, Ms. Cheney has over 20 years of political and corporate experience.
Prior to Joining BKM Strategies, Ms. Cheney was at Navigators Global where she led the firm’s strategic communications team. During her time at Navigators, the firm ran successful communications campaigns for clients regarding telecommunications, energy, and financial services issues. She also played a key role in the firm’s international expansion.
Ms. Cheney has also served at senior levels in corporate America. She served as chief of staff to AOL’s vice chairman where she directed various projects, including developing communications plans for members of senior management, developing marketing plans for various AOL portals, and working with AOL’s privacy taskforce to investigate the release of client search records. Her work with the taskforce led her to become the Vice President of Standards and Practices, where she directed the team responsible for managing issues, such as Internet privacy, child safety and the use of behavioral targeting in advertising.
Before joining AOL, Ms. Cheney served as a senior campaign aide in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. She held the position of Special Assistant to the Vice Presidential Nominee during the Bush-Cheney 2000 presidential race and served as Director of Vice Presidential Operations for the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential reelection campaign, where she directed all aspects of vice presidential operations, including messaging, events, budget, staffing and scheduling.
From 1994–2000, Ms. Cheney was at Coors Brewing Company, where she held several managerial, communications and public relations positions. As corporate relations manager, she developed and implemented a plan to effectively end a 20-year boycott of Coors products by the gay and lesbian community. She was also responsible for the development of creative, long-term strategies for managing environmental and alcohol-related issues.
Ms. Cheney received her Bachelor of Arts in History from Colorado College and a Master in Business Administration from the Daniels Business School at the University of Denver.
wiki
Mary Claire Cheney (born March 14, 1969) is the second daughter of Dick Cheney, the former Vice President of the United States, and his wife, Lynne Cheney. She is openly lesbian, has voiced support for same-sex marriage, and has been credited with encouraging her father to support same-sex marriage.[1]
In 2013, she was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage during the Hollingsworth v. Perry case.[2]
- 2 Career
- 3 Personal life
- 4 Politics
- 5 2006 interviews and autobiography
- 6 Bibliography
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 External links
A consulting firm whose principals include Mary Cheney, daughter of Dick Cheney, appears responsible for the bulk of the near-record breaking number of comments received by the State Department in recent weeks in favor of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, according to analysis based on Sunlight's Docket Wrench tool.
Of the nearly 125,000 comments filed, at least 98,000 — about eight out of ten — contain similar pro-pipeline language: "The pipeline will provide much needed, good paying jobs for our economy while ensuring our country's energy and national security." These comments come from individuals listing "BKM Strategies," as the originating organization. BKM Strategies is housed at the same Fairfax office complex as Alliance for Freedom, a nonprofit "social welfare" organization on which Cheney serves as director along with Kara Ahern and Barry Bennett.Tax forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service and made available by CitizenAudit.org, a Sunlight grantee, report that the trio are also members of BKM Strategies, LLC. A call to the Alliance's offices was not returned.
The Alliance for Freedom is part of an interconnecting group of conservative nonprofits that have dived into politics in recent years; in 2010, the group reported giving $4 million to another 501(c)4 organization, Alliance for America's Future, whose directors include Ahern and Bennett. That same year, Cheney and Ahern also established a super PAC, Partnership for America's Future, which is not currently active.
To put the number of comments in perspective, the 125,000 comments logged by the State Department on the Keystone pipeline puts it within shouting distance of the 143,000 comments received by the IRS for its proposal to define dark money political groups. That, in turn, ranks second only to a proposed health insurance mandate on birth control among regulations drawing the most comments in recent years.
But the pro-Keystone pipeline comments are at the top of the list when it comes to choreographed writing campaigns, one of the devices used to influence regulators. The cluster of similarly worded comments organized via BKM Strategies is the largest Docket Wrench has ever identified.
Paula Melton ofEnvironmental Building Newsdescribes how the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for all of the emails (nine years worth) between the US Green Building Council, creators of LEED, and the General Services Administration. TPA President David Williams tellsthe Daily Caller:
We’re trying to see if there is a connection between the U.S. Green Building Council, a 501(c)3, that is benefitting financially from these new standards, to get to the genesis of these LEED standards and see exactly just how much influence this nonprofit had.
On their website,the TPA explains in more detail, (emphasis mine)
TPA has been concerned about private,non-science based non-profit organizations like the USGBC being involved in creating environmental standards that are then relied upon to dictate government policies and in turn cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Last year, TPA highlighted the fundamental problems with LEED and the attempt to institute LEED v.4. In TPA’s public comment letter to the USGBC, TPA pointed out that products such as plastic insulation, vinyl roofing, and LED lighting are discouraged through the chemical avoidance credits in LEED v4, which uses the European Union’s REACH regulations as a benchmark. This is a standard that small and medium U.S. based manufacturers are unfamiliar with and will struggle to meet. Moreover, there are credits for certification in this new standard that could reward architects for rejecting modern technology and chose instead to use a thatched straw roof, yet the standards dissuade builders who use bullet resistant glass in federal courthouses. LEED v4 is filled with arbitrary and requirements that pick winners in losers in the marketplace. The USGBC seems to have undue influence in mandating LEED standards and now TPA wants answers.
So who is the TPA and who is behind it? Paula Melton asked TPA President Williams.She writes:
This attention from a tax-focused interest group comes on the heels of aggressive lobbying against LEED by certain segments of the forestry and chemical industries. Their efforts have contributed to anti-LEED legislation in a few states and, at the federal level, restrictions on LEED for the U.S. military. When EBN asked if industry groups are backing his efforts, Williams refused to say. “It comes from private sources, and I don’t reveal who my donors are,” he replied.
David Williams does not have much of a paper trail. On thewebsite his bio saysthat he is "an expert in finding and exposing government waste and has helped fine tune criteria in identifying and ultimately eliminating earmarks. " He has a "Senior Fellow", Drew Johnson, who has been a guest on Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity shows, and got famous for going after Al Gore in 2007 for using as much electricity in his house in a month as average Americans use in a year. Neither of them are big fish.
...owever when you dig up the 990, a form required by the IRS for every tax-exempt non-profit, you find some very big fish indeed.
Barry Bennett and the Alliance for America's Future
Barry Bennett is described lovingly inHuffington Post:
Bennett has a history as a frontman for Republican Party venturesfinanced by donors intent on maintaining their anonymity. Since the 1990s, he has headed two nonprofits set up for the purpose of influencing elections while maintaining donor secrecy. He has operated within the underbelly of politics where secret money flows through obscure trusts and foundations to finance attack ads and campaigns free of fingerprints.
Bennett now runs The Alliance for America's Future; Paul Blumenthalcontinues in Huffpo:
Joining him at the new conservative nonprofit were Mary Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Kara Ahern, Cheney's former chief of staff. The nonprofit was formed after the Citizens United ruling that, among many other things, allowed nonprofits to spend money on express advocacy for candidates seeking election. This change effectively sanctioned much of the activity that Bennett and CCF [his former gig] had pursued in the 1990s. The CCF ads had to mask their negative message about a candidate behind criticisms over issues. The Alliance for America's Future, however, could raise unlimited contributions from anonymous donors to fund ads that openly call for the victory or defeat of candidates.
The nonprofit is part of a network of independent conservative groups that have either been established or increased their visibility in the wake of the Citizens United decision. They include the Karl Rove-linked American Crossroads and the Koch brothers-fundedAmericans for Job Security....
Stephen Demaura and Americans for Job Security
And who is president of Americans for Job Security? Why, it is Stephen Demaura, Treasurer and Secretary of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. According to Sourcewatch,
AJS has long been ahead of the trends for dark money political spending. "You could say Americans for Job Security has been keeping donors anonymous since before it was cool," Talking Points Memo wrote in December 2012....in a FEC Complaint, Public Citizen wrote that AJS is a "sham front group that would be better called Corporations Influencing Elections ... masquerading as a non-profit to conceal its funders and the scope of its electioneering activities."
No wonderTPA Prez David Williams refused to tell Paula where his money came from; he's the front man for two of the biggest conservative dark money organizations in the country, funded by the Kochs and no doubt the American Chemistry Council and SFI, who are all working together to gut LEED and make America safe for the makers of formaldehyde, vinyl and clearcut lumber...
2x:
Paula Melton of Environmental Building News describes how the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for all of the emails (nine years worth) between the US Green Building Council, creators of LEED, and the General Services Administration. TPA President David Williams tells the Daily Caller
We’re trying to see if there is a connection between the U.S. Green Building Council, a 501(c)3, that is benefitting financially from these new standards, to get to the genesis of these LEED standards and see exactly just how much influence this nonprofit had.
On their website, the TPA explains in more detail, (emphasis mine)
TPA has been concerned about private, non-science based non-profit organizations like the USGBC being involved in creating environmental standards that are then relied upon to dictate government policies and in turn cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Last year, TPA highlighted the fundamental problems with LEED and the attempt to institute LEED v.4. In TPA’s public comment letter to the USGBC, TPA pointed out that products such as plastic insulation, vinyl roofing, and LED lighting are discouraged through the chemical avoidance credits in LEED v4, which uses the European Union’s REACH regulations as a benchmark. This is a standard that small and medium U.S. based manufacturers are unfamiliar with and will struggle to meet. Moreover, there are credits for certification in this new standard that could reward architects for rejecting modern technology and chose instead to use a thatched straw roof, yet the standards dissuade builders who use bullet resistant glass in federal courthouses. LEED v4 is filled with arbitrary and requirements that pick winners in losers in the marketplace. The USGBC seems to have undue influence in mandating LEED standards and now TPA wants answers.
So who is the TPA and who is behind it? Paula Melton asked TPA President Williams. She writes:
This attention from a tax-focused interest group comes on the heels of aggressive lobbying against LEED by certain segments of the forestry and chemical industries. Their efforts have contributed to anti-LEED legislation in a few states and, at the federal level, restrictions on LEED for the U.S. military. When EBN asked if industry groups are backing his efforts, Williams refused to say. “It comes from private sources, and I don’t reveal who my donors are,” he replied.
David Williams does not have much of a paper trail. On the website his bio says that he is "an expert in finding and exposing government waste and has helped fine tune criteria in identifying and ultimately eliminating earmarks. "He has a "Senior Fellow", Drew Johnson, who has been a guest on Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity shows, and got famous for going after Al Gore in 2007 for using as much electricity in his house in a month as average Americans use in a year. Neither of them are big fish.
Form 990/ IRS/Public Domain
However when you dig up the 990, a form required by the IRS for every tax-exempt non-profit, you find some very big fish indeed.
Barry Bennett and the Alliance for America's Future
Barry Bennett is described lovingly in Huffington Post:
Bennett has a history as a frontman for Republican Party ventures financed by donors intent on maintaining their anonymity. Since the 1990s, he has headed two nonprofits set up for the purpose of influencing elections while maintaining donor secrecy. He has operated within the underbelly of politics where secret money flows through obscure trusts and foundations to finance attack ads and campaigns free of fingerprints.
Bennett now runs The Alliance for America's Future; Paul Blumenthal continues in Huffpo:
Joining him at the new conservative nonprofit were Mary Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Kara Ahern, Cheney's former chief of staff. The nonprofit was formed after the Citizens United ruling that, among many other things, allowed nonprofits to spend money on express advocacy for candidates seeking election. This change effectively sanctioned much of the activity that Bennett and CCF [berman consumer freedumb his former gig] had pursued in the 1990s. The CCF ads had to mask their negative message about a candidate behind criticisms over issues. The Alliance for America's Future, however, could raise unlimited contributions from anonymous donors to fund ads that openly call for the victory or defeat of candidates.
The nonprofit is part of a network of independent conservative groups that have either been established or increased their visibility in the wake of the Citizens United decision. They include the Karl Rove-linked American Crossroads and the Koch brothers-funded Americans for Job Security.
AJS/Screen capture
Stephen Demaura and Americans for Job Security
And who is president of Americans for Job Security? Why, it is Stephen Demaura, Treasurer and Secretary of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. According to Sourcewatch,
AJS has long been ahead of the trends for dark money political spending. "You could say Americans for Job Security has been keeping donors anonymous since before it was cool," Talking Points Memo wrote in December 2012....in a FEC Complaint, Public Citizen wrote that AJS is a "sham front group that would be better called Corporations Influencing Elections ... masquerading as a non-profit to conceal its funders and the scope of its electioneering activities."
No wonder TPA Prez David Williams refused to tell Paula where his money came from; he's the front man for two of the biggest conservative dark money organizations in the country, funded by the Kochs and no doubt the American Chemistry Council and SFI, who are all working together to gut LEED and make America safe for the makers of formaldehyde, vinyl and clearcut lumber. Mother Jones tried to visit the offices of a few of these organizations, and couldn't find them.
==
Environmentalists who spent a month analyzing public comments on the Keystone XL linked more than half the pro-pipeline comments they examined to people in the oil industry. As the U.S. State Department considers whether to approve the project, the activists want those remarks to carry less weight than those written by people without a vested interest in the outcome.
Out of a random sample of more than 1,000 comments in support of the Keystone, the environmentalists connected about 60 percent of the commenters' names to oil and pipeline company employees, investors, lobbyists, attorneys and others working for the industry—all of whom could potentially benefit from the construction of the pipeline, the activists said. If built, the pipeline would carry diluted bitumen from Canada's tar sands region to the Texas Gulf Coast.
"We don't want to accuse anyone of wrongdoing ... but to me this raises a red flag," said Terra Friedrichs, a volunteer at the environmental group 350MA who led the analysis. 350MA is a Massachusetts grassroots organization that advocates for sustainable energy. It often collaborates with, but is not affiliated with the national group 350.org.
Regulations.gov, the website used to collect public comments, doesn't require people to disclose their names, nationalities, occupations or financial interests.
The State Department, which must decide whether the pipeline is in the national interest, said the comments page is open to all. "Throughout this process it's important that we hear the views of any member of the public that wishes to share their opinion or viewpoint," a department spokesperson said in an email.
The spokesperson added that all of the comments will be considered alongside other factors—"including energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts [of the pipeline]; foreign policy; and compliance with federal regulations." The final decision on the Keystone will come from President Obama.
Friedrichs, who works as a socially responsible business consultant, agreed that everyone has a right to comment. But she said individuals on both sides of the debate should be required to disclose any financial interests in the project. A paid environmental lobbyist commenting in opposition should also have to explain his or her ties, she said.
350MA wants the State Department to conduct a thorough analysis of the comments before they're read, and to give more weight to remarks written by people who don't have a financial stake. "[We] ask that ALL of the comments be available for a six-month period of time so that research may be done into the identities of the commenters," Friedrichs said.
The agency received an estimated three million comments. Industry, union and environmental groups used mass emails and form letters to drive up their numbers. Both sides touted their final counts—one million in support of the pipeline, two million in opposition—as evidence of the public's backing or disapproval of the contentious project.
Regulations.gov has registered only about 125,000 comments. That's because some of the comments are still being processed, and also because petitions register as a single comment regardless of the number of signatures.
The Washington Post reported last week that nearly half of the two million anti-pipeline comments came from outside the U.S. Most were collected and translated by the advocacy group Avaaz.
The Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money in politics, found that nearly 8 in 10 of the 125,000 registered comments were similarly worded pro-pipeline remarks submitted by people who listed BKM Strategies as the "originating organization." BKM is a consulting firm with ties to Dick Cheney's daughter Mary Cheney, who has an active role in political nonprofits that fund conservative causes.
...