« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Bob Schaffer's Still Not Talking About that $3.6 Million Earmark
We're still at it trying to figure out which lawmaker was behind that $3.6 million earmark that led to last week's conviction of a Denver businessman on charges of criminal fraud.
As we told you last week, we think it might have been Colorado Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer.
Schaffer was in Congress when the earmark was awarded to the little-known not-for-profit founded by Bill Orr, who was convicted last week. And when Schaffer left Congress, he went on to become a director for Orr's group, the National Alternative Fuels Foundation, where his political buddy Scott Shires was treasurer. Shires pleaded guilty and testified against Orr.
Today we called Thomas Vanek, a former staffer for the House Science Committee's subcommittee on energy and environment, who testified at Orr's trial. He oversaw the authorization of the $3.6 million earmark back in October 2000.
I asked Vanek whether Orr received any help from members of Congress in securing the earmark.
"He may have gotten a member of Congress or two involved to get a thumbs up. I don't recall," said Vanek, who is now a senior policy advisor at the Department of Energy in Washington.
More specifically, I asked, do you think Bob Schaffer could have been involved in the earmark?
"He may well have been involved. Typically there would be a member involved. I'd say it's certainly possible. Likely? Who knows," Vanek said.
There's not much documentation tagged to earmarks, especially back then. Often influence is excercized verbally rather than on paper. With almost eight years distance, determining precisely who was involved back then is tough.
Usually, lawmakers are eager to take credit for bringing millions of dollars back home. But that's not the case here. We've contacted all eight members of the Colorado Congressional delegation from 2000, including the two we couldn't track down last week: former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and former Rep. Joel Hefley, both Republicans.
None of the lawmakers recalled any involvement with the National Alternative Fuels Foundation or its $3.6 million earmark.
So that leaves Schaffer. We've been calling everyday for a week now, but nobody from his campaign has gotten back to us.
Why doesn't Bob Schaffer want to talk about that earmark?
GOP - Greed Over Patriotism -
You all hear that rumbling sound -thats the sound of the supremely thorough ass whupping the GOP's fixing to recieve across every state in these United States- come the November general election !
Senator Obama has got coattails - he already proved that in 2004 - he campaigned for Democrats all across the country ...
We will make needed reform -we will be rid of the Greed Over Patriotism party . Schaffer is the very poster boy for these Amerikan fascist masquarading as a legitimate party .
As I have said before Sen Goldwater would diosown this whole bunch -including John McCain & Phil ( UBS criminals) Phil Gramm...
June 3, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vanek must have slipped in earmarks for the right people becaue the Bush administration put him in charge of putting together a $1 billion plus aid package for the ITER project which, as I recall, involves the construction of a cold fusion research facility in France.
The Clinton administration nixed ITER because the science was dubious but whoever is behind ITER has pushed hard for federal assistance since at least 2001. Vanek's 2006 ITER status report did note that the U.S. Burning Plasma organization coordinates ITER's scientific activities in the US.
If Andrew ever gets Bob Schaffer on the phone, he should ask Schaffer to clarify whether he was never compensated by NAFF or he was compensated but returned the money when he learned of the investigation.
I suspect Schaffer got involved with NAFF to lobby the DoE for more funding or push the DoE to accelerate the grant funding timetable. Andrew should have asked Vanek if he has spoken to Schaffer since he came on board at the DoE.
If anyone has access to the trial transcript, I'd like to read it because Scott Shires was on the stand for 2-3 days. The initial defense witness list was quite a cast of characters which included Karl Rove and Tom Tancredo.
A couple of other Schaffer-related comments:
In March 2000, Representative Schaffer invested between $15k and $50k in ETS Payphones. By the end of 2000, the investment was worthless. ETS Payphones had swindled $400 million from gullible investors by promising them a guaranteed rate of return of 15% when the banks paid less than 5%. Google ETS Payphones to get the picture.
If Schaffer invested his own money in ETS Payphones, he ranks as one of dumbest members of Congress in recent history and he is not qualified to be a US senator.
But I wonder if there is more to the story because although ETS Payphones had been around for a few years, it only registered in Colorado in June 1999. Six months after Schaffer made the investment, the SEC began investigating ETS Payphones.
Schaffer touts his stint as president of the Parents Alliance For Choice For Education, a 501(c)(4), but I don't see as there was much there. The 2004 990 is the only online at the Foundation Center which probably means that, in other years, Parents Alliance had so little revenue, it was not required to file a 990.
Total contributions in 2004 were $28k, of which $7k was spent to send mailings about "educational opportunities" with an attached petition to 6000 West Metro Denver residents. $20k was spent sending info about grants, legislation, etc to 128 schools.
I don't know anything about Denver but I am curious about whether West Metro is a poor neighborhood. Schaffer is a big proponent of privatizing education and I understand Colorado is leading the nation on that score.
I'm thinking Schaffer and his pals are trying to put a fast one over people who may not be well-informed about the right wing. If poor people think the schools are bad now, just wait until the wingnuts are running them for profit.
Parents Alliance For Choice In Education appears to be deliberately similar to Alliance For Choice In Education, a Colorado 501(c)(3) which gives scholarships to needy children to trick them into thinking the right wingers are kind and trustworthy. Then the kids will think wingers must right that turning education into a business for profit is good thing.
Alliance For Choice is affiliated with the Lazarus Foundation which I know nothing about (yet).
Several of the same people involved in Alliance for Choice were involved in Parents Alliance including Schaffer's former employer, the very wealthy owner of Aspect Energy LLC, Alex Cranberg.
Cranberg is the likely candidate to have funded an illegal $470k US Term Limits political ad supporting Schaffer for senator that ran in April. Anyone following the Schaffer campaign should keep an eye out for the multitude of obscure non-profit conservative activist groups related to US Term Limits which all trace back to the same handful of people.
This network of so-called libertarians have been sneaking around the country trying to privatize education, strip states of the power to regulate development and every other extreme wingut cause. These groups are often found guilty of illegal campaign activity but they move from state to state so it hard to put the big picture together.
US Term Limits et al are funded by very wealthy and very extreme right wingers like Ronald Lauder. Howard Rich, a NYC developer, is chairman of US Term Limits and a number of other entities. William A. Wilson is at the center of the network and he is the one who moves the
money where it is needed. Grover Norquist works hand in glove with Wilson and the gang which should tell you a lot.
I don't know much about Mark Udall but I hope he is a street fighter. It's only June and the wingers are already playing dirty.
June 4, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may want to check this old complaint against PACE alleging "campaign and political finance violations" which was summarily dismissed without hearing.
June 4, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, wander.
I was wrong about the $7k for the 6000 petitions. Schaffer was just campaigning on behalf of his friend.
I'm going to guess the info sent out to the 128 schools was selectively edited to favor the Republicans.
June 4, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs P. Lot of work you've done there. The Charter School-Cranberg-Term Limits axis is well documented and followed closely in Colorado. The successor nonprofit currently running ads in Colorado is Coloradans for Economic Growth. You'll love the ad they're running - it touts Schaffer's alternative energy credentials. Not very good timing with the National Alternative Fuels Foundation nipping at his heels.
Specific to Andrew's article, it's not at all clear Vanek had anything to do with inserting the earmark, either from Andrew's questions or Vanek's answers. So if there was a member of the Appropriations Committee who testified, he or she might not be identified yet. Worth it to keep looking.
I doubt there's been a transcript prepared of the Orr trial. Especially for one that lasted months, the cost would be enormous. If Orr plans to appeal, he'd pay for it but it wouldn't materialize overnight.
It's still an open question whether Orr or Shires will turn on Schaffer, especially since Schaffer spokesman Dick Wadhams threw Shires under the bus last week. Shires's sentencing happens soon. I doubt he'll say much one way or the other until that's been accomplished.
June 4, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
More specifically, the CEG ad promotes Schaffer's recently refurbished alternative energy credentials (thanks, Cranberg).
Schaffer is now Vice-Chair of the state Board of Ed, and Democrats on the Board pretty much hate him.
BTW, if anyone can actually catch Cranberg in an FEC or IRS violation of election law and get it to stick, all of us here in Colorado would love you dearly. I promise.
June 4, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that there'll be a functioning FEC with rules to violate anytime soon.
Here's a link to the Coloradans for Economic Growth page with the alternative energy ad and its bona fides:
http://cegnow.org/?cat=4
and here's a link to the ad on its own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAGD1-IrkwY
The ad is absurd, as are the justifications offered for Bob's green cred. Apparently casting a few votes for farm bills (ethanol) and energy bills (solar credits) six or seven years ago give you the right to use butterflies and a cartoon Prius in an ad. Give these oilmen points for chutzpah, though. The ad is in constant rotation in the Denver market at least, I've probably seen it a hundred times in the last two weeks.
June 4, 2008 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I can, I'll take look at Coloradans For Economic Growth later this morning. CEG doesn't name any of its officers or directors on its website which is a hallmark of this crowd.
Running expensive media ads is not US Term Limit's usual m.o. which is why I think Cranberg may have been behind the ad. Any way to press Cranberg about his donations to these groups?
The campaign violations usually relate to non-disclosure issues, illegal petitioning etc. I once caught what I'm pretty sure was as a $50k illegal transfer of funds disguised as an unpaid loan in one of their PACs.
I first came across the network when I questioned a $600k grant that Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform made to a entity registered using William A. Wilson's home address.
Grover doesn't usually make grants of that size so it caught my attention. I ultimately figured out that the money went to the National Alliance of Worker and Employer Rights. I'm sure you will be shocked to learn that these guys are anti-union.
You might already know about one NAWER director, Penn Pfiffner of Lakewood Colorado. Pfiffner is or was the director of the fiscal policy center at the Independence Institute. Part of his job is to defend TABOR, Colorado's disastrous spending limits law.
I suspect the $600k came from the National Association of Manufacturers and was passed through Norquist because NAWER is prohibited from accepting corporate money.
Here's is a sample of the many entities linked to Wilson:
US Term Limits
US Term Limits Foundation
Term Limits America PAC
America At Its Best
Council For Responsible Government
Parents In Charge (formerly Legislative Action Drive)
SocialSecurityChoice.org
SocialSecurityChoice.org Foundation
Later.
June 4, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a political cartoon I did on Colorado's favorite U.S. Senate candidate. I hope you guys dig it:
Clikc here to view cartoon
June 4, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
ELuning,
My main point about Schaffer and the Parents Alliance is that it loks like a b.s. organization set up to be intentionally confused with Alliance For Choice and enhance Schaffer's credential without him actually having to do anything.
I thought Vanek's answers were forthright for a member of the Bush adminstration. He admitted that earmarks usually involve members of Congress which is a start.
I don't know how you could find out if there was other staffers involved in the earmark. Someone on Schaffer's staff probably knew about it if Schaffer was behind it.
As far as the staffer testifying, I crosschecked all of the witnesses who actually testified during the Orr trial against Legistorm's database. Two names besides Vanek's were a match but the names were common ones and the job titles indicated that they were unlikely to be involved in earmarks.
I didn't check the names on the original defense and prosecution witness lists, however. I don't have the time but if someone else does, I can forward the PACER PDF files with the names. The defense list is especially interesting and worth looking through in any event.
As far as the cost of the transcript goes, Mark Udall's campaign will be spending upwards of $15-$20 million. If the campaign is so shortsighted as to refuse to spring for a few hundred bucks on oppo research, Udall doesn't have a prayer of winning.
Re Coloradans For Economic Growth - CFEG was only registered on 5/7/08 by Mario Daniel Nicolais, an attorney with Hackstaff Gessler
If someone with access to Lexis-Nexis could run a search for the names of the officers and directors of Coloradans For Economic Growth, it would be a big help.
Udall might want to consider running an ad which goes something like this:
"Lately, the folks behind Coloradans For Economic Growth have been telling you what a great guy my opponent is but what they're not telling you are their names.
Maybe Bob Schaffer knows who is spending a lot of money to convince you to vote for him but we don't.
If someone refuses to tell you his name, should you take his advice about who to vote for?
Let's ask Bob Schaffer how he intends to thank Coloradans for Economic Growth for spending all of that money to compliment him."
You have to laugh about an organization named Coloradans For Economic Growth promoting a guy who was swindled in a payphone scam. Yeah, right. Let's send a gullible fool to Washington to look after our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. That'll work.
June 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only name I could get in connection with Coloradans for Economic Growth is Kathy Redmond, named as "director".
Redmond founded the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes (remember the Kobe Bryantcase?) and is cited by CEG as "communications director for New Leadership USA".
New Leadership USA is not even incorporated; it is merely a reserved name in the state of Colorado, made at the end of March 2008 and which expires at the end of July 2008 (unless they actually manage to incorporate).
Of course, the agent is Hackstaff Gessler, same folks behind CEG.
June 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should note that Mario D. Nicolais, the registered agent at Hackstaff Gessler, has this in his bio:
Sock puppetry in action?
June 4, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the Google-cache of the New Leadership USA site before it disappears!
I've saved a copy of the cached page, as it is nearly identical to the Coloradans for Economic Growth site. The two are obviously created by Schaffer or Schaffer supporters to promote the campaign under the guise of independent citizen groups -- a crock of shit.
I wish I could post images here, because they are damning, indeed.
June 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, again, wander. The CEG and New Leadership website look remarkably similar. For some reason, that hideous green background is making the rounds this year. There is probably a "Create your astroturf website in minutes!" kit for sale that uses that background.
Bob Schaffer and every other Republican is going to be big on wind this year because T. Boone Pickens is investing $10 billion in the wind industry to build a chain of wind farms from Texas to the Canadian border. T. Boone, on the odd chance you didn't know it, gives big time to the Republicans and their 527s.
From Accent Energy's Schaffer bio:
"Bob worked to improve the US Wind Industry. Specifically, he worked to increase entrepreneurial opportunities for small business owners by ensuring that wind-specific tax credits could be utilized indirectly by wind developers classified as small business owners. Bob helped educate Congress about the benefits of wind power including its positive impact on the environment, job creation, and its importance to making the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil."
Schaffer was lobbying Congress on the wind industry as an Accent employee. I'm not sure of tthe details but Accent owned or had an interest in a wind farm which it sold. Maybe Accent sold to T. Boone Pickens.
I don't know if Accent qualified as a small wind farm business but I'm going to bet that T. Boone Pickens has his wind farms set up as small businesses.
If I am reading this correctly, Schaffer got the Congress or the Bush administration change the rules about wind farm tax credits so they could be used "indirectly". My guess is that the tax credits can now be transferred and used by other entities. It would be a hoot if those credits could be applied against oil profits.
What Accent is saying is that Schaffer created a tax loophole for special interests while on Accent's payroll.
I did some research on Bruce Rastetter, a politically ambitious Iowan businessman who has investments in ethanol plants and wind farms. The wind farms are registered as separate entities and probably all qualify as small businesses. (See my posts re american Future Fund, Iowa Future Fund and Iowa Progress Project.)
We need someone to explain the change in the rules for wind farm tax credit and find out if guys like Rastetter and T. Boone Pickens benefit from it.
If Schaffer lobbied on behalf of wealthy businessmen masquerading as small wind farm owners to change the rules so they could use wind farm tax credits for non-wind farm business, Schaffer is only interested in alternative energy to the extent that he helps his rich pals in the oil industry make more money.
I saved a copy of Schaffer's Accent bio in case I am right about the wind farm tax credit scam.
If I am right, we need to find out who got the wind farm tax credit rules changed in Washington DC.
And, if I am right, T. Boone Pickens will be funneling a lot of money into Schaffer's campaign one way or the other,if he hasn't already started.
Keep your fingers crossed on this one. Screwing around with alternative energy tax breaks for the benefit of a Texas oil billionaire will not make Schaffer popular with most people this year.
June 5, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blowhard Bob didn't have any effect on wind tax credits, Congress has been renewing them as is since 1992. (You'll notice Aspect, which is Alex Cranberg's company, lists several companies and ventures under "Alternative Investments," but they're all oil-and-gas related except for the old investment in a wind farm company, which Aspect's investment arm, CHx, sold two years ago to investment firm Babcock & Brown.) The company bio thanks Bob Schaffer for his efforts to reform federal tax policy but doesn't mention Schaffer failed in any "efforts."
Worth noting that this bare involvement apparently qualifies Bob as a friend of wind energy, allowing the Coloradans for Economic Growth "butterfly and Prius" ad to feature animated wind turbines. Aspect's bio for Bob Schaffer prior to April 30 didn't include any reference to wind technology but now features it prominently. (Before a month ago, Aspect touted Bob's efforts leading a delegation to undercut the Iraqi government negotiating an independent oil deal with the Kurds, information now mysteriously missing from his bio.) The Aspect bio changed just in time to provide justification for the CEG ad, which has been running at high volume in Colorado since the middle of May.
I raised the point about Aspect's claims a couple weeks ago and have yet to get a response from Schaffer's campaign. The way Aspect describes it, Schaffer was lobbying Congress for changes in renewable credits. Makes sense -- why else would you hire a former Congressman with no background in renewable or alternative energy -- but neither Aspect nor Schaffer ever registered any lobbying activity, either as a client or lobbyist. So someone's bending the truth or broke the law. Or both.
June 5, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, El. I should have known that this was more resume inflation, given that Schaffer's bio was so carefully worded. Maybe Schaffer called someone at the IRS and asked if Cranberg could use his Superior Renewables tax credit against other income and it was counted as a win.
You're right - some consultant must have advised Schaffer that the voters view support for alternative energy as important.
Did you notice the capitalization of "US Wind Industry" in the bio? Maybe the next version of the bio will simply read "BOB SCHAFFER HEARTS WIND FARMS." Save us all some time.
I checked the internet archive and Superior Renewables was not listed nor was Bob Schaffer in older versions of the Accent Energy website. How long was he on Accent's payroll? Two weeks?
You didn't happen to save the old version of bio, by chance?
Getting back to CEG and Kathy Redmond, have you ever heard of her before? The NCAVA website that wanderindiana found must be old because the NCAVA corp registration lapsed in 2000.
I found one Rocky Mountain News article about a Kathy Redmond in Jefferson County who taped her boss demanding a kickback on a bonus. Is that her?
BTW, where did William Orr get the money to pay for a two month trial?
June 5, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
After re-reading wander's info about Mario Nicolais working on Schaffer's 2004 race, I think I will peruse the '04 FEC filings.
I wonder why Schaffer didn't hire Nicolais this time around, especially since he was out of a job after Giuliani dropped out.
Maybe Nicolais is managing the 501(c)(4)-527 end of the campaign a la Holtzman Vogel and CEG is his first effort. Apparently, he just joined Hackstaff Gessler sometime after January or February.
I wonder if Hackstaff Gessler were eletion experts before Nicolais joined the firm.
June 5, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just used CEG's contact form and asked them specific questions about their relationship to New Leadership USA, the two organizations' tax status, funding, etc.
We'll see if I get an answer.
June 5, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
CEG and Bob Schaffer for Senate both use Aristotle International to collect contributions -- coincidence or not?
June 5, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Schaffer's previous bio on the Aspect site (not Accent):
June 5, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
These guys are laundering contributions and expenditures so many ways, it's a wonder they can keep track of it themselves. For a recent Colorado scandal involving some of the same players, check out the Trailhead Group. Luckily, the politicians they support keep losing elections in Colorado. Their track record looks like it'll stay consistent this year.
June 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The relationships between Coloradans for Economic Growth, New Leadership USA, and Bob Schaffer must be uncovered.
New Leadership USA, while it was functioning at newleadershipusa.com, commissioned at least two polls with TargetPoint consulting that were reported in The Hotline: one on 4/16/2008, with matchups McCain v. Clinton (52-40-8 undecided) and McCain v. Obama (51-39-10 undecided); another, also on 4/16/2008, Udall v. Schaffer (45-45-10 undecided).
Since they never incorporated, how exactly were they operating? What was their purpose? Who funded them? Were they making political expenditures without reporting them or engaging in political or lobbying or any other related activities?
And most importantly, who were they? Are they the same people running Coloradans for Economic Growth?
They obviously have Kathy Redmond in common, who has ties to former Jefferson County treasurer Mark Paschall? Granted, Redmond has a long history of anti-rape advocacy, but what connections does she have, what role is she now playing for the Colorado GOP? Who is paying her to front New Leadership USA and Coloradans for Economic Growth?
June 5, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a favor to ask of others - please save as many of the newleadershipusa.com google-cached pages as you can before they disappear, and compare them to content at cegnow.org for duplication.
June 5, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs. P
The question about staffers and the earmark are engaged, but I'm still not sure we've identified the witness prosecutors told the Denver Post was a member of the Appropriations Committee in 2002. From Vanek's background, it's doubtful it was him. As he told Tilghman, he was involved administering the grant, which was crucial to establish fraud on NAFF's part. (You mentioned earlier that Legistorm didn't track as far back as the earmark's origin, so the witness responsible for inserting the earmark could be in plain sight on the list and still unknown.)
If you'd like to forward the pdf files to me, that would be great. Click on my profile here, my email address is listed in my bio. Thanks!
As to the transcript, I suspect one for a two-month trial would cost more than a few hundred bucks to prepare, but you're right, the Udall campaign could afford it, but it's doubtful they'd want to. This kind of muckraking is better left to third parties. There are plenty of 527s and other interested groups who have deep pockets. In any case, I bet more press shows up for Shires's and Orr's sentencing than did for the trial.
June 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone interested in the Schaffer-Orr-earmark connection may want to check out this discussion in Colorado:
http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6320#146638
June 4, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oddball question, if anyone can answer:
Schaffer for Senate is paying a salary to Laura Rizzo of Alexandria, Virginia (among others). What role does she play for the campaign? I can't find any connection.
June 5, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to FEC records, it is Laura Whitten Rizzo (assuming I have the right Laura Rizzo of Virginia). I found a Laura Whitten, coordinator, at the DoT but that's about it.
June 5, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if she were detailed from the NRSC (thus the Alexandria address) or the like.
June 6, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink