« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Group Launches Ads Pressuring Dems on Surveillance Bill
Stepping up the pressure on House Democrats, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has launched a national ad campaign criticizing Democrats for not passing the Senate's surveillance bill.
According to the group's press release, the ad "will be seen on cable and satellite stations throughout the country and is also seen locally in 17 media markets across the United States." The ads target 15 House Democrats, such as Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN). Brian Wise, the spokesman for the group, told me that the group had chosen the 15 because they were Dems "who we believe understand the issue and who would be the most effective to pushing the House leadership to vote on this." He added: "politics really has nothing to do with it."
You can see the ad here:
It's similar in tone to an ad the House Republicans put together last week -- and similarly misleading. It claims that the lapse of the Protect America Act has meant that "new surveillance against terrorists is crippled."
Dems, including Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the force behind the Senate bill, vehemently disagree. And as even The Washington Times concluded, the lapse of the law would have "little effect" on surveillance collection.
Wise said that the lapse of the act has meant that "we can no longer do electronic surveillance on new targets" without a warrant and that such warrants "can take hours, days, weeks to process." Administration officials have claimed that the lapse has "impaired" intelligence collection.
You can see the group's press release below. The ad is actually paid for by an affiliated 501(c)(4) group called Defense of Democracies, which Wise said was formed last week.
The group claims to be "non-partisan," but has a decided rightward slant in its leadership. Wise said that the group had never run ads before, but that "the importance of this issue" had pressed the group to act. He said a "number of donors, patriotic Americans, we like to call them," had provided the money for the buy. He would not disclose who they were, and such non-profits are not required to disclose their donors.
Update: The Minnesota blog Bluestem Prairie, which got on the case this weekend, lists the following Dems as targets:
Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy (CT); Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes (NH); Jason Altmire (PA); Ron Klein and Tim Mahoney (FL); Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell (AZ); Jerry McNerney (CA); Melissa Bean (IL); Joe Donnelly (IN); Nancy Boyda (KS); Michael Arcuri and Kirsten Gillbrand (NY) ; Steve Kagen (WI)
Defense of Democracies, a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, is calling on the US House of Representatives to pass a bi-partisan bill that will allow U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor communications between suspected terrorists outside of the United States. This national ad buy will be seen on cable and satellite stations throughout the country and is also seen locally in 17 media markets across the United States.
“Terrorists could be plotting a major attack now, but without this legislation, our intelligence agencies may not be able to listen in,” said Clifford D. May, president of Defense of Democracies. “Regrettably, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives has put our lives in more danger by playing politics with this bill.”
Under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives refused to take up a bi-partisan Senate bill to close dangerous gaps in U.S. intelligence law, including critical surveillance authority that was due to lapse February 16. Instead, it left for a recess, leaving America's espionage capabilities severely weakened.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell – a retired Vice Admiral in the Navy who served as Director of the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton – says that the country is in “increased danger” as a result, and that the danger will increase “more and more as time goes on.” DNI McConnell has further explained that before Congress acted to provide the surveillance authority that lapsed this weekend, the U.S. intelligence community “lost … about two-thirds of our capability” to collect information.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Federal terrorism prosecutor and director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said: "The expiration of the Protect America Act has opened a huge gap in surveillance coverage. Previously, our intelligence agencies were permitted to collect foreign-to-foreign communications without restrictions. As of February 16, they must seek court authorization by proving probable-cause, a standard that is not required by the Constitution and will in many instances be impossible to meet. It is absurd to suggest that this huge drop-off in collection will have no impact on our security."
"Democrats and Republicans in the Senate joined together to pass a sensible intelligence reform bill that preserves essential surveillance authority. President Bush is prepared to sign it,” added Cliff May. "Only the House of Representatives stands in the way."
Defense of Democracies is running ads calling on Democratic members of Congress to immediately reverse course and pass the bipartisan Senate bill restoring the full power of our intelligence agents to monitor overseas terrorist communications.
Defense of Democracies is affiliated with the non-profit, non-partisan Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focused on defeating terrorism and promoting democratic values.
Josh
Zachary
Makes you wonder how much money and future jobs are flowing between these people and the phone companys. J Edger Hoover would be proud.
February 25, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm sure they were completely "non-partisan" in their decision to parrot the GOP line exactly.
In a sane world, trumpeting a "huge gap" in our intelligence collection that the administration didn't bother to close until five years after 9/11 would be evidence of criminal incompetence on the part of the president, not a way to promote the White House line.
February 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does Mr. Campaign-finance-reform think of this?
February 25, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be good to uncover just who is *really* directing this campaign, how it's being funded, who's creating these spots, etc...
And where is the Dem response????
February 25, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
More RNC dirty money.
The thing is chaired by the former RNC Communications Director:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?doc_id=154751
February 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALL these folks just love to lie!
February 25, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I called the number to put in my OBJECTION to retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I was received politely. Why do we have to fight so hard for the most minimal sense of justice and decency.
February 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I called the number to put in my OBJECTION to retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I was received politely. Why do we have to fight so hard for the most minimal sense of justice and decency.
February 25, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I called the number to put in my OBJECTION to retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I was received politely. Why do we have to fight so hard for the most minimal sense of justice and decency.
February 25, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Lieberman is a 'Distinguished Advisor' of FDD and Donna Brazile is on the 'Board of Advisors'. They need to comment on these ads.
February 25, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote Donna Brazile at (donna@brazileassociates.com) asking if she supported the FDD FISA ad and here's her immediate reply.
"I have asked them to remove my name or I will issue another release. They are using several of our names from way back to back a campaign we do not support."
Could she just clearly denounce the ad at her next television opportunity.
February 25, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My congressman, Michael Arcuri (D-NY24) was targeted in an ad like this this morning. Nice to know my freshman House member is on the job.
February 25, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
501c3-denials are possible. For example, an entity that is engaged in "prohibited" transactions could include making statements that are false, misleading, or stating legal positions that violate the Atty Standards of Conduct to induce others to provide funds or services at less than market rate in exchange for services and goods at another unfair market rate.
- Are the telecoms using the proceeds from the alleged NSA-related-illegal activity to finance these public statements, intended to secure the protection of these allegedly fraudulently obtained funds from lawsuit, class action, and ongoing litigation;
- Is the entity using allegedly fraudulent statements to induce others to provide funds, services, or other valuable consideration at less than market rate;
- In exchange for this transaction, is another alleged conspiracy to provide legal protections the telecoms are not entitled to receive;
- What is the connection between this groups' statements and the allegedly false and materially misleading statements the DOJ AG and NSA Director have issued, raising DoJ OPR issues [alleged false statements of law by DoJ AG: snipurl.com/20dvl ]?
The basis to deny a 501c3 is linked with 503 which expressly states [ snipurl.com/20dvo ]:
Consider the financial vehicles, links between this 501c3, the telecoms, and the payment streams the telecom CEOs/Boards/General Counsels. Perhaps they are using retroactively-dated stock options to finance this, in contravention to the securities laws; or they are using loans which violate the loan covenants. The aim of this payment from the telecoms to this 501c3 would appear to be to secure for the corporate officers financial benefits they have secured since 2001, but were allegedly based on unlawful transactions or activities they knew or should have known did not fully meet the FISA requirements.
Telecoms could attempt to use the "state secrets"-claims to hide the financial data, arguing that it is related to "intelligence activity," when it appears they're using the 501c3 as a vehicle to insulate themselves from legal accountability using allegedly false, misleading, and false statements contrary to the Atty Standards of Conduct. It appears an improper invocation of "state secrets" to hide 501c3 data when the aim is to hide funds to this 501c3. Unclear to what extent that claim is rejected because the substantial purpose of that claim in re 501c3 is not for the national security, but for a private financial-legal interest related to defending, insulating, and putting telecom assets beyond the reach of citizens allegedly harmed by their illegal violations of FISA.
- Which legal counsel attached to this 501c3 could be subject to DC Bar Disciplinary Review for their alleged misstatements of law in re FISA; or other alleged false, misleading, or other false statements as discussed in detail: [ snipurl.com/20dvl ]
- What is the fastest way to link the 501c3 statements with alleged fraudulent statements of legal counsel who knew or should have known that the telecoms did not have sufficient legal protections because the activity was known to violate FISA, but recklessly assumed would never be disclosed?
February 25, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluestem Prairie: news about Tim Walz (MN-1) blogs about Defense of Democracy and the ads targeting:
Target update: Other Freshman Dems targeted that we know of so far: Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy (CT); Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes (NH); Jason Altmire (PA); Ron Klein and Tim Mahoney (FL); Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell (AZ); Jerry McNerney (CA); Melissa Bean (IL); Joe Donnelly (IN); Nancy Boyda (KS); Michael Arcuri and Kirsten Gillbrand (NY) ; Steve Kagan (WI).
See:
http://www.bluestemprairie.com/a_bluestem_prairie/2008/02/update-defense.html
February 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right wing think tanks may be outlandish, but they're not dumb. They know how to use the media to get their way, even if it involves stretching the truth. Some TV viewer uneducated on the issue could easily be in support of the bill after seeing that commercial.
February 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
advocacy groups and think tanks are not the same thing.
while there certainly are plenty of advocacy groups that claim to be think tanks, 'defense of democracies' is not one of them.
February 25, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
wait. never mind. i stand corrected.
February 25, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrorists are always plotting, always have plotted and always will plot attacks.
That's why we have police and investigative bodies like the FBI.
If these big-money "patriots" are so sure we can disrupt these inevitable terror plots, then why aren't they suited up and fighting over there in Iraq--where they claim all the terrorists are?
Do they think we don't know who the terrorists really are -- those using terror for political gain -- in this country?
The people see through this bs. It just shows the Foundation For Defense of Democracies up to be liars, cowards and fear mongers.
It doesn't take spies to defend democracy--it takes brave citizens and honest leaders--people who can't be bribed to lie or act against the public interest.
February 25, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foundation for the Defense of Democracy had a $487k grant from the government in 2005, according to the 990 filed with the IRS. Wonder what that was about. Between 2003 and 2005, revenue doubled.
February 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs P,
Thanks for the 990 link. Curiously, Woosley isn't listed on the 990 [ See page 18-20 of 37: snipurl.com/20e51 ], despite him listed on the Foundation Website. Despite tehir spending $47K for a website, seems like the 990 isn't well reconciling with the names on their website.
You may find the following addresses of interest: There is a second set of records that may exist with the other address. If we trace the phone numbers on the ISP [ snipurl.com/20e3w ] , there are two different addresses associated with that organization. On DC Phone: 2022070190, the addresses are not consistent: One is 1020, the other is 1146, 0.1 mile apart [ snipurl.com/20e04 ]
For those who recall the servers that went missing from the DC Tax Office, the 1020 address is 14 minutes away [ snipurl.com/20dzx ] One would think that if they had time to establish, then change their address, they would have been around to provide some grants as a foundation. Curiously, the FoundationFinder does not produce any results. Per the 990, they receive money from the US government, but less information on where it goes?
February 25, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That same year, they petitioned the IRS to change their status from a private to a public foundation... I'll bet that grant might have something to do with that happening, as they had to prove that greater than 51% of their funding came from public sources...
What I don't understand -- what's the benefit of having the status changed? I still don't trust that the numbers really add up to 51%, or that the sourcing is proper.
February 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on what's happened before, it's only a matter of time before the Dems cave in. I hope they don't but their actions in the past have "conditioned" the right to keep pushing and it will eventually get what it wants.
Of course, there's no mention about the president being unpatriotic by vetoing an immunity-free bill but there I go thinking again!!!
February 25, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
News: Woosley, former CIA director and associated with this foundation, was quoted as saying the courts need to be involved; yet published media would ask that we take another approach: Accept on faith that the Courts can get bypassed.
- Why did Woolsey call for an "in depth" investigation of the alleged illegal activity, but now the foundation he's reported to be associated with is calling for the opposite: No investigation, a blank grant of immunity without fact finding?
- Why is Woolsey still assocaited with this firm if he appears to have a stated opinion about necessary court involvement; but this position does not appear to be consistent with the current Foundation's position that the courts should be bypassed by granting immunity to telecoms?
- Does Woolsey have an explanation why his views are not conistent with the public positions of the Foundation he's reported to be associated?
- Does Woolsey still stand by his assertions (via the 501c filing) that this foundation is independent, despite it appearently issuing contradictory statements on whether the courts should or shouldn't be respected when it comes to sureveillance activity; or whether fact finding should or shouldn't occur?
- Does Woolsey plan to remain associated with a firm that issues public statements allegedly stating that we would be better off if the courts and law were ignored, and the telecoms are granted immunity without examiningn those facts?
- How does Woolsey reconcile the differences between his personal views reported in the media on fact finding, and the implicit demand of his foundation that we not have fact finding but grant immunity?
February 25, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Information collection and delivery" is analogous to a process of reciving data, analyzing it, then forwarding it. Recall, one function related to the NSA illegal surveillance is the alleged improper use of that information for non-national security objectives. There are allegations that AT&T contractors have classified contracts with terms and conditions compelling silence, similar to the language within the Verizon contract language.
Mrs P above links to the Foundation's 990 [ snipurl.com/20e51 ], which on page 9 of 37, lists Cara Rosenthal, Cambridge Forecast Group, "Information Collection and Delivery"-industry.
- What is the relationship between NSA domestic illegal surveilance, the transfer of illegally captured information to non-US government entities, and the payment streams/contracts betwen the telecoms and these data analysts?
- Are the people closely associated with this Foundation parties to to-be-disclosed US government contracts that transfer illegally collected data to intermediaries and "partners" who establish media messages for domestic consumption, in violation of the Smith Act?
February 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still confused about the surveillance importance.
The Bush administration has pretty much insured that unless the surveillance picks up the time and date of an attack, the terrorist is free to just walk in through the Mexico/Arizona/California/Texas pretty much open border.
It seems as though the media would be picking up on this and question Bush as to how he justifies these two opposing behaviors (open border/surveillance) and their revelance to terrorism...
Unless of course Bush isn't near as concerned about terrist attacks as he wants the rest of the public to be...
February 25, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew C. McCarthy, listed on the 990 is a former Asst. US Atty in NY. For clarification, the "The Center For Law & Counterterrorism" is under the Foundation, and not a separate entity.
DOJ OPR has conducted a legal review on memoranda related to Geneva, prisoner abuse, and NSA activity. Could Mr. MCarthy, as an attorney, discuss the memoranda/articles he's written [ lower right, snipurl.com/20eaf ] which allegedly closely matches the subject of the DOJ OPR investigation; and explain why his legal comments should not also be subject to disciplinary proceedings, as DoJ OPR would provide to the DC Bar for invesetigation?
The address listed on the Foundation's 990 cross references with NJ public relations-related sites as "Mountain Avenue Associates", and the address appears to be a private residence [ snipurl.com/20e7v ] McCarthy's FEC filing [ At "B": snipurl.com/20e84 ] lists the same address, and occuption as "Writer/Lawyer" and "self-employed". The 990 For the Foundation on page 9 of 37 lists his compensation as 93,269.
Mr. McCarthy's original request to have this address zoned was denied: [ snipurl.com/20e8i ]
- Could McCarthy explain why on the FEC Forms he's listed himself as "self" employed, but the compensation data provided on the 990 shows he is getting almost 100K?
- Which is it: Self employed or independent contractor?
- We have no other record of any other address on file, yet the address was not initially approved for a rezoning. Could Mr. McCarthy comment on his business income while his request for rezoning was denied: [ snipurl.com/20e8i ] : Until the address was rezoned, where was he conducting his "independent" business?
- Why is the FEC address matching the address which the zononig board denied?
- Did McCarthy continue to generate revenue at this address through businses operations despite the Zoning board denying the rezoning request?
- What other addresses was McCarthy conducting his "personal" business until the address was approved for rezoning?
- Have other addresses -- before the address was rezoned, of "Mountain Avenue Associates" -- been used to conduct the business, been properly provided on the 990s or in the FEC data; if so, where are copies of the public records reflecting this different address before the property was rezoned; why do the public records only include one address?
February 25, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johnny, the surveillance aspect is a . The important thing for the Republicans is the Telecom Immunity provision--because the telcos have been assisting the Bush administration by illegally intercepting and data mining *all* the telecommunications traffic, domestic and international, Total Information Awareness -style.
While Bush can grant pardons for criminal charges, iirc, he cannot for civil suits, thus, Bush could protect his government cronies, but not shield the telcos from being sued for damages by Americans whose Constitutional rights have been violated--and that would be a lot in this case!
February 25, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walid Phares is publicly reported in the open media as being connected with Florida. The 990 on page 9 of 37 lists a DC Apartment address [ 1200 223rd St. NW 20037 ] However, according to Google Maps, the closest "223rd" Street to the 20037 zip code is 41 miles away [ snipurl.com/20ecb ], in Pasadena, Maryland.
Phares is listed as owner as of (as of August 2007) 2461 NE 4th Court, Boca Raton, FL 33431. purhcased January 9, 2004 for $260,000.00 [ Property: snipurl.com/20ebo ], 2007 property taxes: $5,505.81.
- Could Mr Phares comment on his place of residence: Is it Flordia, DC, or Maryland?
February 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is one discussion of the Foundation's 990, referenncing some key personnel/financial figures from the release, referencing "Tulip Hill Enterprises". FWIW.
February 25, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the connection between Amdocs, one of the billing companies alleged to have illegally forwarded phone records; and the financial interests of those at the foundation: They appear to be connected via Isreal.
February 25, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has happened before: NSA-related entities threw up a smokescreen, and invariably disclosed details about the very thing they wanted hidden. It appears the same is happening with this Foundation-related information: It could attract attention to the financial-related mechanisms NSA has been using with the telecoms, intermediaries, billing companies, and ISPs to illegally capture, analyize, and use data for purposes outside what FISA permits.
The issues with the Foundation do not appear to be narrowly linked with NSA-telecom issues, but the broader media-relations efforts NSA and US government used to hide the illegal activity from the public. It appears the comments related to this foundation could show which firms illegally fed the US public propaganda to induce them to wage war, stay silent about war crimes, and celebrate while the Constititution was watered down.
February 25, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an IP for DOJ/FBI and Congress to trace: It's linked with the updates to the foundation; and it's in Virginia.
Notice the times the documents were loaded to the wiki: The times are close (within 17 minutes), and they're repetitive, suggesting this is a company insider, or the firm hired to provide web-related services in the 990. This may explain why the foundation's wiki-changes are disputed: They're not neutral.
On the 990, "investments are recorded as assets and carried at market value," [ page 31 of 37, snipurl.com/20e51 ] which means they have an interest in avoiding the current real estate collapse. If assets have been overvalued, or backed by assets that are collapsing, they've got some financial worries. This leads us back to the 501c-denial: When assets are inflated, and assets are unrelated to real market values; or the cash transfers are not linked with real market values.
Here's another example: "support and revenue are generally recognized when received rather than when earned," -- This might explain some of the telecom-concerns: If they've booked revenue not when they earned it, but when the funds were transferred, they may not have set aside sufficient contingent liabilities to cover the expected legal risks associaed with that income from the US government. NSA-related contracts would award revenue, but if the Geneval Counsel's assumed "nobody would know about the illegal activity of the telecoms," its likely they've prematurely booked income without setting aside sufficient financial reserves attached with those specific NSA-support contracts.
"Government grant funding is subject to audit by the grantor or its representative. I don't want to hear that audit standards do not apply; that auditors from the US government cannot look at what's going on with this Foundation's books; or that there are specific rules of auditing that "do not apply". The accounting-auditing standards are appliable.
- Where is NSA, CIA, DoD, and DOJ IG in looking at the funds related to the alleged illegal NSA activity; and the relationship this foundation has in supporting the alleged illegal FISA violations?
- What is the plan of DOJ OPR to review to what extent, if any, the President-Gonzalez agreement to block DoJ OPR from reiveiwng the NSA was related to efforts to thwart review of illegal contracts NSA telecoms are alleged to have been awarded?
- How many current-former DoJ Staff counsel assigned with the telecoms thought they could invoke a "state secrets claim" to hide unlawful NSA support and contracts?
February 25, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I know that 2 of the 15 will not cave--the two from NH. They didn't get where they are by being shrinking violets.
February 25, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
re the group's "rightward slant" - FDD started life as EMET: An Educational Initiative, Inc. Leonard Abramson was the founder, and original funders included Charles Bronfman, Michael Steinhardt, Lynn Schusterman, and Doug Feith's dad, Dalck Feith.
Regarding the original concept behind the outfit: it has been reported that Abramson and Ariel Sharon "were both concerned about the lack of effective Israeli hasbarah and intent on doing something about it."
The IRS originally established FDD as a 501(c)(3) private foundation in 2001; in 2005, FDD petitioned the IRS to change its status to a public foundation, presenting financial records claiming just over 51% support from public sources, though their Form 990 does not provide direct evidence as to the source of these funds.
Can you intrepid Muckrakers find out why they wanted to become a public foundation, and whether or not they were truly deserving of such status?
February 27, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink