« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Attack Group: Telecom Money Didn't Fund Campaign
For the past week, a group called Defense of Democracies, an off-shoot of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, has run a national TV ad campaign designed to put the squeeze on House Democrats. Since the Dems' refusal to go ahead and submit to granting the telecoms retroactive immunity had "crippled" the nation's intelligence, the ad argues, citizens ought to call lawmakers and tell them to do the right thing. The ad targeted 15 Dems in particular.
Given the size of the buy -- Newsweek puts it at $2 million -- there was a natural suspicion that the telecoms might have played a role in putting up the money. When I asked the question of the group's spokesman, he laughed, but then told me he didn't know who had funded the group.
Newsweek reports that Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) -- who was up until Monday a member of the board of advisors of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies -- had similar questions and wrote in his letter resigning from the board that "since the only real dispute involves retroactive immunity, I assume the Foundation's ads are funded by telecommunication companies or others seeking immunity."
But Clifford May, the group's president (and the former communications director of the RNC, it's worth noting), says that the money "had come from individual donors" and that "he had not received 'one dime' from the telecom companies—though he did not rule out receiving money from them in the future to finance further ads."
Newsweek also cites "sources at both Verizon and AT&T as saying that their companies weren't involved in FDD's campaign. Of course, given that the telecoms seem unable to comprehend who their real friends are, maybe this shouldn't be such a surprise.
Who those "individual donors" are, the group's not saying -- and isn't required to say by law. Whether they are just "patriotic Americans," as the group's spokesman put it to me, or conservative donors who, like the House GOP, see a political point ripe for exploitation, is an open question.
Comments (13)
It seems as of the Telcos aren't even trying for immunity. Something weird is going on here. I understand that Bushco needs immunity to cover their asses. But why aren't the Telcos screaming for it as well? And it is probably Cheney financing the ads, he is making money hand over fist in Iraq.
February 28, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they're asking for immunity because they would likely get immunity anyhow if they were to comply with a Bush and Cheney impeachment. And, since they are communications companies after all, they may very well be sitting on a gold mine of material that would be worthwhile in such proceedings.
Lets look at the way Bush has framed this entire fight so far: he's literally stumped to the level of equating non-compliance with passing this bill to appeasing the terrorists, despite the fact that security, intelligence and IT experts have all said hand over fist that the 1978 version of FISA was adequate to deal with the terrorist threat. Yet, if you look at this through another window -- the one with the knowledge that the telecoms aren't exactly pushing for immunity in the first place with the same veracity as Bush, you see that something doesn't add up. It looks more like Bush is appeasing the telecom companies, promising them immunity for crimes despite the fact they wouldn't need legislation or blanket immunity in the first place to protect the companies.
Bush and his cronies are hand serving immunity on a silver platter and they are not chowing down. The curtains of Oz are about to be thrust open, and it's alot easier to do now that he won't have those extensions passed.
Bush and Cheney know that they can be impeached, it's just a matter of what they can be impeached for now, and it's not just the illegal spying, but has to be the kitchen sink, which is why they've been throwing in the kitchen sink.
February 28, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us step back from the rhetoric for a minute and ask a couple of questions.
1. How many top-flight attorneys do the Telecoms employ or contract and would they advise going along with the Administration on its assurance of legality alone?
2. Have the Telecoms publicly or privately asked Congress for immunity?
3. Why are Republican Congressmen crying they haven’t seen any payoff from Telecoms for carrying water for the Administration on immunity?
4. Who has been most vocal in pushing immunity?
5. Who is more vulnerable to criminal charges in illegal wiretapping, Telecoms or the Administration and Administration lackeys?
February 28, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to #5, it has unquestionably been Bush, then administration cronies. Of all of the material I've read on the matter, in retrospect, it's been an ominous, monolithic silence from the telecoms.
Since the program was created before 9/11, and ostensibly the eye of Sauron saw everything that happened on and around 9/11... well, you can do the math with that one.
February 28, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will you petty, finger-wagging little nags ever stop? NO! The telecom industry did NOT pay for the Fear America ad put out by the FDD… or… the DofD… or… whatever they’re calling themselves this week. Just so happens, few days ago, the telecom industry DID pony up some dough for the organization’s… uh… janitorial supplies. YEAH! That’s right! And… when the DofD came up a little short for this ad – which is designed to help protect Americans, you know – it was forced to dip into The Mop Bucket Fund to cover it. That’s all. Now… right back to sleep.
Why do you even bring this stuff up? What are you – an Obamafascist? Oops! Sorry… I meant “Islamofascist”. (Although… kinda the same thing… when you thing about it… Did you see that photo of him wearing the throw pillow on his head? What is one to think of THAT?)
February 28, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds like a reasonable basis for an audit of the Foundation's 990 [ snipurl.com/20e51 ]:
Big problem when they "don't know" where the money is coming from. Look at the audit-rights of the Foundation: They're expected to know about the money. For specifics, pages of the 990 [ snipurl.com/20e51 ] show:
21 of 37: Explanation of Relationship: Key names of people involved, see Item 10 [The names are knowable: The relationship between the advertising entity receiving funds; and the external telecoms providing funds]
28 of 37: Outside auditor report: The Foundation is audited; and the financial statements have to trace to a contributor
30 of 37: "Contributions" are linked with something in "Support and Revenue" [The sources are knowable, auditable: They're on the reported financial statement]
32 of 37: Contribution statements (Section 2) , can be requested of the individual donors [The names are known]
32 of 37: "Contributed services" (volunteer hours) are not reported; but the cash from contributions is reported, traceable.
33 of 37: Government grants are auditable
36 of 37: Tax Payer ID: 1 3-417440 2; look for all contributions from "other foundations" that provide money to this Foundation. [Again, the names are knowable]
Review:
A. We've shown that the income, per the 990, must be traceable to something;
B. Outside auditors can review the statements
C. The sources of contributions must be known
Questions
- What is the reason, again, one of the officers "doesn't know" where the money is coming from; but the auditors have a responsibility to trace those funds?
- When was the last time this Foundation had their 990 audited by the US government?
- Is it his position that his "not knowing" where the funds are coming from would provide a reasonable assurance that he isn't receiving money from illegal sources?
Look at the 501C rules: If this officer "doesn't know" where the money is coming from, how can he show any auditor that the money he's paying/receiving is or is not a "fair price" per maket values? If he is unable to know where the money is coming from, then he's not making the case that the funds are for reasonable services; or that money hasn't been transferred at less than market rate, which would allegedly raise the option of them having their 501c status revoked.
February 28, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it reasonable to presume that if a company like AT&T were afraid of losing trillions of dollars to a settlement for its' involvement in Bush's spy program that they would have done it out in the open to legitimize a request for immunity? Wouldn't they have been sufficiently vocal in claiming that such a settlement would cripple communications networks in this country?
Furthermore, if it was the telecom companies, why would they have done this in secret rather than in the public arena? They own communications in this country, and they needed to throw money in secret to this 501(c) in order to convince their subscribers?
February 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pahaps later, depending on the public reaction, they may cite these "independent groups" as "proof" of something. This may be the first step. We'll have to see. It's not reasonable to presume they would not use all options.
It's not reasonable to presume that AT&T would take an option off the table. The telecoms have already asked openly for immunity by way of the NSA director. It's not reasonable to presume they've not secretly dons something. Whether they have or haven't secretly done something is a separate issue from whether the original or subsequent alleged activity was or wasn't legal.
You'll have to ask the telecoms:
Their failure to do what seems reasonable doesn't mean that they're not doing it; it may mean that they're not reasonable. It might seem obvious to you that they might be "crippled," but the fact that they have or haven't claimed that doesn't appear to be one they care about. You're presuming that all companies want to do things in the open:
It's not true that the telecoms would remove all options. They're willing to do what they can. They've allegedly violated the law; why would we presume that they would only "openly" attempt to insulate themselves from accountability?
If you could do something in secret, and it not trace back to you, would you not use that option? What you're asking about may seem strange, but it doesn't mean that the telecoms have or haven't done something. The option remains on the table: They may be secretly doing something. If they've exhausted all options, why not use an indirect method, and create the impression of a "new" argument: "Hay, here's a new source of an argument.Never mind that the argument hasn't really changed."
February 28, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your replies, testing. I feel so confused by all of this still, but yet strangely hopeful.
February 28, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simple explanation would be seem to be that the telecoms don't want to fan the fire, and so they would rather stick to the
Bushco talking points. At least for now.
Also, perhaps the telcos are taking the 'payoff' in the form of crippling Net Neutrality? The other possible payoff is simply the DOJ looking the other way while AT&T reforms itself as Monopoly 2.0.
Bushie is correct in his assertion that the telcos have top-flight legal talent, who normally err on the side of extreme caution, so the Bushco promise has to be significant. Perhaps they have been assured that no court cases will be heard due to 'national security' reasons? After all, Bushco is leaving, but their crooked Supreme Court will be staying on...
February 28, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Foundation For Defense of Democracies lists its business address as 1146 19th St, NW - Suite 300 in DC.
You can see it in their nonprofit filings.
Look who else might be at that address:
You'll recall that Edie Frasier and PAG were the company that GSA Director Lurita Doan was trying to get a $20,000 no-bid contract to. Until she was caught, that is.
February 28, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems as though a glance through FDD's nonprofit filings can be a bit telling. Here's some more interesting information on the pro-Israel crowd who's really behind running the place.
Just what are they up to?
February 28, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad the Democrats had the sense to quit over the ad, but saddened that having a delusional neocon (forgive the redundancy) like Clifford May in charge didn't tip them off earlier.
February 28, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink