CIR: Update

California Watch collaborates with USC students to tackle hunger in Golden State

Robert Rosenthal — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:09:59 -0700

After months of hard work, Califoria Watch and USC’s Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism will launch a multi-part series Friday on hunger in California.

Part of our collaboration model calls for working with students. This partnership with 13 graduate students at USC was by far the most ambitious student project we've done at the Center for Investigative Reporting. Keep in mind when you see the series that these students did all this while juggling a full and demanding class load. Is this getting ready for the real world or what?

The first story looks at the growing number of Californians facing challenges feeding themselves and their families, and how this problem may worsen because of the recession and state budget crisis. The second story, coming next week, examines food stamps, their usage, and how more people could benefit from their use. The third major story looks at the how much food is wasted and potential solutions. Each story is accompanied by several sidebars, including video.

USC Associate Professor Sandy Tolan managed the project and the editing and reporting effort. Marcia Parker, the project launch manager for California Watch, who is now with Patch.com worked closely with Sandy in the editing and managing of the series. It’s a first-rate body of work.

We continue to learn how to collaborate with different news organizations and university journalism programs and believe these partnerships benefit all involved – most importantly the public, who will have access to all of the stories through our Web site and a special site developed by USC. Parts of the hunger project will also be broadcast on KQED Radio, television stations and newspapers around the state.

Good luck.

California Watch is a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting and is now the largest investigative reporting team operating in the state. Visit the Web site at www.californiawatch.org for in-depth coverage of K-12 schools, higher education, money and politics, health and welfare, public safety and the environment.

False profits

Sarah Terry-Cobo — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:56:18 -0700

Knowing they will face climate legislation sometime in the future, a number of U.S. corporations have already begun to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. The utility giant American Electric and Power is buying forest projects in Brazil and the disposal company Waste Management is recovering methane from landfills to use in its trash trucks in California. But a preliminary report commissioned by the United Nations has found that the cost of environmental damages could erase at least one third of the profits major corporations make around the world, if they had to pay for these damages. The study looked at 3,000 of the world's top publicly traded companies, and calculated that their environmental impact amounted to at least $2.2 trillion in 2008. More than half of the damage was caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The full report, due out this summer and first reported by the Guardian in February, was conducted by the British consultancy firm Trucost, and commissioned by the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. Trucost's CEO, Richard Mattison, told the Guardian that industries are facing a completely new paradigm: "Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them," he said. What economists call externalities, are industry byproducts such as air pollution, soil erosion, and water pollution. These costs to the environment (and the surrounding communities) are not included in the price of producing energy, timber or food, for example, but are "paid for" by those who suffer from the effects. The Guardian reported that the $2.2 trillion figure could be much higher, since the study only included the impact from major corporations, and not the business and consumer practices of governments or the general population. The authors of the study hope it will be used by growing numbers of institutional investors who want to back companies with a good track record in environmental, social and corporate governance, and drive home to business leaders and policy makers that environmental costs will increasingly be part of a corporation's bottom line. The Securities and Exchange Commission delivered a similar message in January, when it released guidelines on what public companies should disclose as potential material risks from climate change. The four main areas included the economic costs of meeting international emissions treaties and other pending regulations, staying competitive as consumer and business trends shift to adapt to climate change, and mitigating the potential physical challenges of a changing climate, such as water scarcity and soil degradation. Whether these risks are caused by "increased competition or severe weather," said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, companies must disclose to their shareholders "the significant risks they face." James Salo, the head of research and strategy at Trucost's U.S. office, told Carbon Watch that the guidelines "put the onus on companies to understand those risks in those four key areas and manage them." In a recent editorial, Pavan Sukhdev, a former Deutsche Bank executive, who is now working with the U.N. to develop new economic models to protect biodiversity, argued that a value has to be placed on nature for businesses to change the way they produce goods and services. "We cannot manage what we do not measure and we are not measuring either the value of nature's benefits or the costs of their loss," he said. Here is Sukhdev describing the role "natural capital" can play in the global economy. Under Sukhdev's leadership, the U.N. is expected to release another influential report later this year that will lay the economic foundations for putting a price on environmental impact and offer a broad set of solutions to reduce it.

Want a free iPod Touch? Wow us with your commenting skills

Sarah McHie — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:14:04 -0800

We have iPod Touches just lying around in unopened boxes.

When we equipped our staff with new Macs, Apple threw in a bunch of free iPods. We’ve been talking about how we could put them to good use. And we think we have an answer.

California Watch is announcing a debate championship and you could win a free iPod Touch.

Over each of the next six months, our staff will select the best comments entered on our site during the previous calendar month in response to stories, blog posts, data and other content we publish.

The selected comments will be entered into a drawing – and one lucky winner will be chosen each month. Comments posted in the month of March will be eligible for a drawing held the first week in April. Same goes for April, May, June and so on.

You don’t have to agree with our content to be eligible. You just have to be thoughtful, focused and articulate in making your argument. Comments will be judged also on clarity of thinking and persuasiveness. And we could be swayed by clever humor. The judging is totally subjective. But we all know a good comment when we see one. Oh, and you can’t be related to any of us to win – or have worked or interned here during the past five years.

Once your e-mail address gets entered into our shoebox, fishbowl or whatever we end up using, we’ll draw out a single winner. Since we no longer allow any anonymous commenting, we’ll notify the winner based on the e-mail address given to us when they registered. If it bounces back, or we don’t hear from the winner within 72 hours, we’ll draw another name.

The more terrific comments you post during a month, the more chances you’ll have of being nominated for the drawing.

Good luck.

More than half of CBP applicants who take lie-detector tests 'unsuitable'

Andrew Becker — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:53:25 -0800

By Andrew Becker Many of the thousands of new border agents hired in recent years as part of a push to block drug traffickers and other safety threats from entering the country might actually pose security risks themselves, a Homeland Security official testified today. Speaking at a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on corruption of federal law enforcement officers, James Tomsheck, the assistant commissioner for internal affairs at Customs and Border Protection, testified that drug-trafficking organizations have infiltrated the nation's largest federal law enforcement agency. "There is a concerted effort on the part of transnational criminal organizations to infiltrate through hiring initiatives and to compromise our existing agents and officers," he said. Despite efforts to combat corruption, which include lie-detector tests for applicants and background checks for new hires and veteran employees, Tomsheck said he worries that the problem may be too big for his agency and others to wipe out even when they work together harmoniously. Since 2004, more than 100 CBP agents and officers have been arrested or indicted, officials said. Tomsheck said when he took over the internal affairs office in 2006 the vast majority of corrupted employees had worked with the agency for 10 years or more, but now an increasing number of younger agents and officers have become corrupted. CBP has expanded rapidly in recent years, nearly doubling the number of Border Patrol agents to 20,000, which has pushed its ranks to about 58,000 employees. Tomsheck, who appeared with top officials from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, said that his agency has a backlog of 10,000 regularly scheduled background investigations, which could almost double by the end of the year. Nearly 100 contractors, among them retired FBI, DEA and other federal agents who conduct the checks, were recently laid off because of budget woes. Funding shortfalls have also limited polygraph examiners to administer lie-detector tests to 10 to 15 percent of applicants, Tomsheck said, although the goal is to test all potential hires. But 60 percent of those who take the test are deemed "unsuitable" to work as Border Patrol agents or customs inspectors, Tomsheck said. When asked if the 60 percent failure rate could apply to the other 85-90 percent of possible hires who are not tested, Tomsheck said officials had reached that conclusion. They suspect that many of those hired during the hiring push would be found not suitable to work for CBP if subjected to the test, Tomsheck said. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who called the hearing and is the chair of the subcommittee, said the percentage is "alarming." "We're on very dangerous ground here with corruption inside federal law enforcement," Pryor said. Kevin Perkins, the assistant director of the FBI's criminal investigative division, did not give a specific number on how pervasive the problem is, but offered the case of customs inspector Margarita Crispin as an example of how valuable a corrupt official is to traffickers. Agents suspect that Crispin joined CBP in 2003 with the intent of working with drug smugglers. She was sentenced in 2008 to 20 years in prison and ordered to forfeit $5 million in bribes she was paid to allow thousands of pounds of marijuana to be smuggled through her inspection lane in El Paso. Based on the amount of bribe money Perkins said he seems the problem of corruption is "significantly pervasive." The FBI has expanded the number of its anti-corruption units, which draw from other state and federal agencies, to attack corruption, he said. But corruption in the Homeland Security Department isn't limited to Border Patrol agents and customs inspectors. Agents and officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which both runs immigration detention and is Homeland Security's investigative arm, and employees of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that issues green cards and other immigration benefits, have also been corrupted. Tom Frost, the assistant inspector general for investigations at DHS, said his office has even greater concern about the risk of corruption within CIS. "Immigration benefits are such a valuable commodity to drug-trafficking organizations or other persons that would do us harm," he said. "Immigration benefits are even more lasting and profound" because they allow drug traffickers to operate within the United States. Pryor said that changes in the law might address the problem. “These cartels in Mexico are very powerful,” he said. “We should not underestimate their ability to corrupt law enforcement authorities.”

Recent ICE memo explains how officials should address detained U.S. citizens

Andrew Becker — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:27:22 -0800

On the heels of several reports documenting U.S. citizens who have been detained or even deported by federal immigration officers, a top Homeland Security Department official in November issued a memo that aims to guide his agency on what to do when a person suspected of being illegally in the country claims to be a citizen. (The memo can be seen here.) John Morton, Homeland Security's assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sent the memo, which instructs ICE employees that "In all cases, any uncertainty about whether the evidence is probative of U.S. Citizenship should weigh against detention." (The memo supersedes a memo from November 2008, which superseded another memo from July 2008, which superseded a memo from May 2008.) Aside from going deeper into the issue than previous guidance, the other differences are who issued the memo and to whom it's addressed. The memos from November and July 2008 were issued by James T. Hayes Jr., the then-director of ICE's Office of Detention and Removal Operations, and sent to DRO's field office directors. Morton's note didn't just go to the deportation officers and enforcement agents assigned to DRO. The recipients include special agents (through the 26 special agents in charge) and ICE attorneys (through the 26 chief counsels' offices). With it comes a sense of urgency and prioritization of such citizenship claims. Morton's directive also instructs agents and officers to work with the local U.S. attorney's office to prosecute a person who lies about their citizenship claim. (The government has shown its serious about prosecuting false claims, including asylum seekers.) That the memo comes from Morton gives extra heft, and follows various media reports highlighting the issue. CIR, in separate collaborations with the Los Angeles Times and Mother Jones, reported that numerous detainees with valid or possible claims to U.S. citizenship have been detained and even deported in recent years. (Other reporting on the issue can be found here, here and here.) ICE's new "Secure Communities" program that targets criminal aliens for deportation has also mistakenly identified thousands of U.S. citizens initially believed to be potentially subject to deportation. More details on how ICE determines citizenship could become public through a lawsuit filed by one such U.S. citizen detained for seven months. Vern Castillo, a native of Belize, became a naturalized U.S. citizen while he was in the U.S. Army. A few years after Castillo was honorably discharged from the military he ended up serving a short jail sentence following a domestic dispute with a girlfriend. Instead of being released once his jail time was up, Castillo was detained by immigration officials who thought he was in the country illegally. An immigration judge didn't believe Castillo's protests that he was a citizen, and ordered the man deported. It was only after an appeals panel reviewed the case that immigration officials realized a mistake had been made in his file, and he was released. Castillo filed suit in November 2008 against the agents. A federal judge in Tacoma recently ruled the case could move forward in part. The U.S. government has appealed that ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Settlement discussions are ongoing. According to court records, Castillo (or his legal team) wants a lesson in how ICE agents and officers go about their business of determining whether someone in their custody is a U.S. citizen or not. They want to videotape a qualified operator showing them how database searches are conducted. Among the things that could come to light are the policies, procedures and practices in determining, documenting and investigating citizenship and claims of citizenship. Castillo also wants to see the agency's logs, training materials and manuals on the topic, court records show.

Texas Tribune adds searchable online database

G.W. Schulz — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:37:29 -0800

Following up an in-depth March 8 story examining federal homeland security grants, the nonprofit Texas Tribune has posted a searchable database online that allows visitors to see how cities and counties in the Lone Star State have used anti-terrorism and preparedness grants since 2003. The Center for Investigative Reporting made the records available to the Austin-based news organization after obtaining them from the Texas Department of Public Safety using open-government laws. Tribune data guru Matt Stiles built the easy-to-use application that enables visitors to compare grant spending per capita, from tiny Loving County ($1,144 for every resident) to the county surrounding the Texas capital (about $1 for each resident). The database can also be used to search by community for a detailed list in each of actual purchases totaling more than 25,000 expenditures statewide. In Bexar County where San Antonio is located, for example, authorities spent $350,000 on an armored-response vehicle. In the sample box here you can see a $68,000 "WMD kit," i.e. weapons of mass destruction. Reporter Brandi Grissom's main story pointed out that big cities weren't the only ones to indulge in such high-priced items. A small county southeast of Dallas with fewer than 8,000 people also scooped up a fortified military-style truck. Grissom's reporting showed that the city of Houston paid professional filmmakers $194,000 for a 22-minute movie on disaster preparedness. Read the story for much more.

Court trial of accused drug smugglers offers insights into Mexican trafficking

Andrew Becker — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:18:26 -0800

An ongoing drug trial in U.S. District Court in El Paso, Texas, provides an uncommon glimpse into the violent battle for Juarez, just across the U.S.-Mexico border. The trial has had as many twists and turns as the Rio Grande, which splits these New Wild West towns into something like Heaven and Hell. For more than a week in El Paso, witnesses have taken the stand and testified about the world of Mexican drug traffickers. The El Paso Times has reported that their testimony has flashed light on the players and strategies in a vicious turf fight between rival traffickers vying for control of the lucrative smuggling corridor. The testimony has also skimmed the murkiness of drug enforcement on both sides of the border. At least one witness and even the main defendant have been outed as sources for Immigration and Customs Enforcement who were later arrested by the Drug Enforcement Administration for running drugs. The testimony comes in the trial of two accused drug smugglers, Fernando Ontiveros-Arámbula, whom an ICE agent today said was an informant for the agency, and Manuel Chávez-Betancourt, who refused to cooperate with the government out of fear for his family's safety, according to court records. (For safety concerns, the federal judge, David Briones, ordered that jurors have lunch brought in to them each day.) Witnesses have testified that Ontiveros-Aråmbula worked directly under Mexico's most wanted drug trafficker, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera, who leads the Sinaloa drug syndicate, the El Paso Times reports. The trial has a motley array of characters, from a rooster breeder who stored caches of marijuana in his New Mexico barn to a female trafficker who allegedly survived being shot 15 times to a former Juarez police captain who said all law enforcement in the city and elsewhere in the Mexican state of Chihuahua are on the take, including himself. Among them are several witnesses who have also been indicted or convicted of drug smuggling charges in El Paso and elsewhere and were flipped by the U.S. government to testify against the smugglers. Among the more intriguing witnesses so far is the former Juarez police captain. Jesus Fierro-Mendez was a 10-year police veteran who ran a counter-narcotics unit, the EPT reports. He left the police department in April 2007 under suspicious circumstances, sources say. Federal agents arrested him at his El Paso home in Oct. 2008. He was sentenced in January to 27 years in prison by a federal judge in Indianapolis. A quick aside: this former police captain got 324 months for smuggling cocaine into the United States. Most U.S. law enforcement busted for corruption typically get far less prison time. A Pennsylvania Congressman, however, introduced last month a bill that includes stiffer penalties for agents who accept bribes. By comparison, Osiel Cardenas, the notorious former head of the Gulf Cartel, was recently sentenced to 25 years after pleading guilty to drug dealing, money laundering and the attempted murder and assault of federal agents, according to news reports. The counter-narcotics unit, known as Puma, consisted of young officers fresh out of the police academy who were supposed to be incorruptible, sources say. Little did the rookie cops apparently know that their boss was himself involved in the drug trade. But Fierro-Mendez's testimony comes with a twist — he was also an ICE informant who, he said, was authorized by the infamous "El Chapo" of the Sinaloa gang to give U.S. law enforcement information about the rival Juarez cartel. ICE agents in El Paso have walked down this path before, and not just with today's news that the defendant was passing information to the U.S. at the same time he was trying to pass loads of drugs. A law enforcement source said it is not uncommon for traffickers to offer information about competitors. Another ICE informant was implicated in at least a dozen murders in Juarez around 2003. That informant, Guillermo Ramirez-Peyro, known as Lalo, awaits his fate in an immigration detention center in New York. Last May, a high-ranking member of the Juarez cartel, who was also an ICE informant, was gunned down outside of his El Paso home. Among the hitmen was another member of the Juarez cartel who was also, allegedly, an ICE informant. After federal prosecutors rested their case today, defense attorney began their questioning. Explosions expected to follow.

CIR aids Texas Tribune in homeland security grants story

G.W. Schulz — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:21:31 -0800

"The City of Corpus Christi hasn't used the $188,000 video screen it bought with homeland security funding in 2008," begins Texas Tribune reporter Brandi Grissom in a March 8 story about federal preparedness and anti-terrorism grants. "But when a hurricane strikes, city officials will be ready to watch footage from surveillance cameras around the area -- if the storm doesn't knock them out, of course." The Tribune examined thousands of transactions made with federal homeland security grants that were contained in a database turned over by the Texas Department of Public Safety. The Center for Investigative Reporting made the data available to the Tribune after obtaining the records through an open-government request. Doing so is part of the center's ongoing effort to collaborate with other investigative journalism organizations focused on the public interest. It's also an essential component of our more than year-long push to report on post-Sept. 11 security spending in the United States. You can see the nationwide map we recently unveiled using similar records from around the country here. The Center for Public Integrity partnered with us in constructing the map. The Texas Tribune and Grissom found among other things that the city of Houston purchased a $1.3 million five-man helicopter and paid $194,000 to a professional filmmaking company for a 22-minute movie on disaster preparedness. A small county 80 miles southwest of Dallas with fewer than 8,000 people acquired a $180,000 military-style armored truck. Image: Texas Tribune

CIR responds to FBI decision to close unsolved civil rights cases

CIR Staff — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:25:18 -0800

Over the past 20 years, every unsolved civil rights murder case that has been reopened and successfully prosecuted in the South was the direct result of an investigation initiated by a journalist. So the FBI’s decision to close, without prosecution or further disclosure, all but a few of the 108 unsolved murder cases it began re-examining three years ago, only highlights the vital need for investigative reporting that can find the truth, tell the stories and fill in the gaps in our nation’s history. The Civil Rights Cold Case Project (www.coldcases.org), a team of investigative reporters, documentary filmmakers and interactive media producers, is digging into unsolved civil rights murders in the South. Led by the Center for Investigative Reporting and Paperny Films, the project -- which includes Clarion Ledger reporter and recent MacArthur Genius award winner Jerry Mitchell, and Pulitzer Prize winner Hank Klibanoff -- has been focused for more than two years on race murders and crimes primarily in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. “These cases are not cold when it comes to the relatives and friends of the victims,” said Robert J. Rosenthal, executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting. “Our reporting has found that these cases resonate powerfully today. Too many Americans are unaware of the terror of that era and how it has affected our country in terms of race and reconciliation.” In a Washington Post story, the FBI said that it was discontinuing its pursuit of all but a handful of the cases it believed had great potential for prosecution when the initiative was announced in 2007. Cynthia Deitle, head of the FBI’s civil rights unit, told the Post that agents and prosecutors concluded that almost a fifth of the cases were not racially motivated. In other cases, agents hit dead ends or dead perpetrators. It continues to investigate a few cases. “While we welcomed FBI involvement in these cases,” said Hank Klibanoff, managing editor of the Civil Rights Cold Case Project, “we always felt that our goals – deep reporting, story-telling and racial healing – had significance and value regardless of whether federal agents and prosecutors felt they could win a conviction. So while the FBI might pass on cases because the killers have died, we remain intensely interested because these stories are compelling and worth telling. There are family members of victims and perpetrators who deserve to know what happened, and there are history books and classrooms that are incomplete without this information.” The Civil Rights Cold Case Project also urged the FBI to make all the files of the closed cases available to the public without redactions and without the long and difficult processes demanded by the federal Freedom of Information Act. “There’s no reason now for this history to remain hidden,” Klibanoff said. “And there are compelling reasons for the records to be opened. A perpetrator of a racial murder should not be given special protection from disclosure and scrutiny simply because he had the misfortune of dying before he could be prosecuted.” The Project also urged Congress to pass legislation that would ease public access to government-held records from the modern civil rights era. Working with Northeastern University Law Professor Margaret Burnham and her Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project, Klibanoff has helped develop ideas for legislation that would create an independent review board to examine all those government-held civil rights records and release as many as possible, as soon as possible. The Civil Rights Cold Case Project supports this effort. Congress acted in a similar manner twice before, both in the 1990s, when it created independent review boards to examine the John F. Kennedy Assassination Papers and the Nazi/Japanese War Crimes Papers; in both cases, Congress declared that the federal Freedom of Information Act had fallen short of its purpose – a situation the Civil Rights Cold Case Project believe exists today with civil rights records. Sen. John Kerry recently introduced legislation that would create such a board to examine and release papers related to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Kerry’s office has said the senator would favor broadening the bill to include records of all civil rights murders. The Project’s aim is to secure adequate funding to bring on additional reporters to join the existing team and produce ongoing reporting for newspapers and websites; a series of short and long-form documentaries for public television, in partnership with WNET.org in New York; reporting for National Public Radio; and a groundbreaking website and educational outreach effort that would engage victims’ families and communities in the investigative process. Klibanoff noted that at least two of the handful of cases the FBI is still pursuing were prompted by Civil Rights Cold Case Project reporters. Reporting by John Fleming of The Anniston Star led to federal criminal charges against a former Alabama state trooper for the 1965 shooting death of Jimmie Lee Jackson in Marion, Alabama, an act that helped trigger the historic Selma to Montgomery March. The trooper awaits trial. In Ferriday, Louisiana, weekly newspaper editor Stanley Nelson’s extraordinary reporting on the 1964 murder of black shopkeeper Frank Morris led to a current FBI and local investigation, the posting of a reward and the possibility a grand jury will be empanelled. Nelson, working with thousands of pages of government documents that took nearly two years to obtain and aided by the children of former Klansmen, also has revealed important new information about a violent Klan offshoot, the Silver Dollar group, and its involvement in two other murders: Wharlest Jackson in 1967 and Joe Ed Edwards in 1964. Significant work has been done on those cases by two allies of the cold case project, law professors Paula C. Johnson and Janis L. McDonald, who run the Cold Case Justice Initiative at Syracuse University. Jerry Mitchell of the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Mississippi has been responsible since the late 1980s for prosecutions and convictions in some of the nation’s highest profile civil rights cases, including the assassination of Medgar Evers, the Birmingham church bombing, and the “Mississippi Burning” murders of civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman in Philadelphia, MS. Mitchell continues to find stories in the 40,000 pages of “Mississippi Burning” documents. Two other team members, Canadian filmmaker David Ridgen and Thomas Moore, the brother of a young black man abducted and murdered in Meadville, Mississippi, produced documentary reporting that led to the federal prosecution and conviction of a Klansman for the murder – and a public apology by another Klansman. Project reporter Ben Greenberg continues to break new ground on the 1964 murder of Clifton Walker, who was driving home from work in Woodville, Mississippi, when he was shot multiple times on a lonely road. Greenberg has found witnesses who were long ago believed to have died or disappeared. “Investigative reporting takes enormous time and resources, and it’s even more challenging at a time when reporters are being called on to help their newsrooms by covering an ever-changing array of topics and stories,” Klibanoff said. “It is our hope that we can attract the resources to free up those reporters and many others who want to join us as we dig out and tell these hidden stories from our difficult past.”

California Watch site now features enhanced commenting

Sarah McHie — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:57:04 -0800

Almost immediately after launching our California Watch Web site in early January, we went to work on changes for our “Phase 2.”

The first results of that work relate to our commenting. And the changes just went live.

It is now dramatically easier to register on our site. That means instead of filling out a longer form, we now are requiring only a few simple steps before registered users can comment on our stories, blog posts and databases.

The flipside is that we have eliminated anonymous commenting. We believe this change adds greater credibility and accountability to the online discussion surrounding our work. We recognize that we might lose some comments. But we think the tradeoff is worth it.

It’s also going to be a lot easier to respond to other comments by simply hitting “reply.” Your comment will appear underneath the comment you're responding to.

Expect other refinements on our commenting area in the near future. We really want to add a rating system, allowing readers to weigh in on other comments. It’s another step we can take to encourage responsible commenting.

In the next few days we are going to announce a special contest/promotion on our site that we hope will be fun and will help elevate the debate. It will work like this: At the end of every month through this summer, our staff will choose the most reasoned, incisive comments that appear on our site. There will be no limit to the number we select. It could be one. It could be 100. It could be any number in between. Comments will be judged on clarity of thinking and persuasiveness. The authors will then be entered into a drawing to win a free iPod Touch. You don’t have to agree with our content to be entered into the drawing. You just have to be thoughtful, focused and articulate in making your argument. We think it’s a fun way to encourage a healthy debate and discussion. Watch for more details soon.

In the meantime, I hope you try out our new commenting system. What do you think about our story this weekend that detailed how state workers are walking away from their government jobs with massive vacation payouts? Or how about our story about DUI checkpoints where police are more likely to seize cars from sober, unlicensed drivers? Our staff is also generating several blog items a day on our California Watchblog, And now a better forum for discussion awaits.

More Juarez residents fleeing Mexican drug violence

Andrew Becker — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:59:07 -0800

Almost a half-million people have sought refuge from the drug violence racking the Mexican border metropolis of Juarez, according to a newspaper estimate. The El Paso Times reported this week that the city of Juarez's planning department have found that 110,000 houses have been abandoned from 2005 to the beginning of 2009. The paper extrapolates that "based on average family size, about 420,000 people, or 30 percent of the city's residents, have moved out of Juárez, either to other parts of Mexico or to the United States." Although numbers may be squishy, the paper said local police, real estate agents and demographers "detect an increase in refugees from Mexico living in El Paso." Some of the "refugees" could be tied to the economy as about 75,000 people have lost their jobs since Dec. 2007, the paper reports. The maquiladora industry, which manufactures or assembles products for international distribution, shed most of those positions. But another extraordinary statistic the paper reports is that more than 10,000 businesses — about 40 percent of the city's total — have closed out of fear of extortion and assault, according to the Mexican chamber of commerce. CIR, reporting for The Nation, wrote last year that "Officials on both sides of the border acknowledge these new immigrants but decline to make estimates of how many have fled." What's interesting about the El Paso Times story is the effort to go beyond the local body count — more than 4,600 killed since 2008 — to quantify the economic and social damage that the violence has had in Juarez. While the U.S. has pledged $1.4 billion in aid to Mexico and Central American countries to combat the drug trade, there has been little public discussion between the U.S. and Mexico about the social fallout from the related violence, and possible refugees from the drug war. Elsewhere in Texas, the former head of the infamous Gulf cartel was sentenced behind closed doors in Houston to 25 years in federal prison and ordered to forfeit $50 million, the Houston Chronicle reported. Here is the press release from the U.S. attorney's office.

Chauncey Bailey Project reporters win McGill Medal for Journalistic Courage

Sarah McHie — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:15:00 -0800

Four reporters associated with the Chauncey Bailey Project will be awarded the McGill Medal for Journalistic Courage on Wednesday, March 24, at the UGA Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication. The reporters are Thomas Peele, Josh Richman, Mary Fricker and Bob Butler. The four wrote more than 100 stories about the group, the murder, and the police investigation. Chauncey Bailey was editor of the Oakland Post, who was murdered in 2007 while investigating members of Your Black Muslim Bakery, headquartered in Oakland, California. The four reporters continued to tell the story despite obvious dangers. The award is named after Ralph McGill who was regarded by many as "the conscience of the South" for his editorials challenging racial segregation. Richman and Butler said they were honored and humbled by the award. Peele said, "To win an award that memorializes the work of Ralph McGill is a high honor."

Re-airing of CIR doc reveals Justice Kennedy's concerns about campaign cash

Dan Noyes — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:34:48 -0800

CIR’s television documentary Justice for Sale, a 1999 co-production with Frontline and Bill Moyers as correspondent, receives a timely rebroadcast on the February 19, 2010 edition of Bill Moyers’ Journal (in an edited version revised to fit the Bill Moyers’ Journal format). It is timely because Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently cast the key swing vote in a Supreme Court decision freeing up business and special interest contributions to political campaigns. In the 1999 Justice for Sale broadcast, Kennedy told Moyers of his deep concern about the negative effect of contributions in state judicial elections and warned they can cause the perception or reality that judicial independence is undermined. Clearly Justice Kennedy’s concerns for judicial elections do not bridge the divide between his warning on that issue and his free-swinging approach to political campaign contributions as shown in his opinion announced last month in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which erased two of the court's precedents and decades of legislative restrictions on corporate and special interest spending in political campaigns. Now it’s up to the legislative branch to go back to the drawing board and attempt to design new campaign finance laws that will create the public perception or political reality that Congress and the President are not the captives of special interests and the highest bidder. Justice for Sale is one example in a long line of CIR work that examines the influence of special interests and campaign cash on public affairs. Award-winning Frontline documentaries The Best Campaign Money Can Buy (1992) and So You Want to Buy a President? (1996) examined presidential campaigns. A series of stories in Salon.com in 2004 and 2005 examined the influence of corporate and special interests on the federal judicial nomination process: "Courting Big Business," "Big Biz Battles for Bush's Bench," "The Moneyed Scales of Justice," and "Harriet Miers Is All Business." Other stories have looked at issues ranging from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R.Ky) fundraising methods to how local real estate contributions affect zoning and health and safety issues. Perhaps the one sure bet to come out of the Supreme Court decision to free up special interest money in political campaigns: CIR reporters and others will have their hands full trying to keep up with the resulting stories. Dan Noyes was executive producer for CIR for Justice for Sale. He is a co-founder of CIR and for 30 years was on CIR's staff as a reporter, then editor, and served three stints as executive director or acting executive director.

California's media in crisis

Louis Freedberg — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:47:55 -0800

At precisely the time California newsrooms are shrinking, the state is experiencing its worst budget and governance crisis in decades.

Come meet members of the California Watch leadership team and other media professionals this Friday at noon at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco as they consider the implications of these simultaneous realities.

Quality journalism is still being done around the state, but in a less sustained way than a decade ago. This is certainly the case nationally as a number of reports have asserted. The downsizing of the news media raises troubling questions about how Californians will be informed about what is happening in the state -- in both public and private institutions that affect their lives in fundamental ways.

I'll be moderating the panel, which will consist of Sandy Close, executive director of New America Media; Stuart Drown, executive director of the Little Hoover Commission; Mark Katches, California Watch's editorial director; Martin Reynolds, editor of the Oakland Tribune; and David Lauter, assistant managing editor/California, Los Angeles Times.

For more information, or to buy a ticket, check out this listing on the Commonwealth Club Web site.

A diary of one crazy week inside California Watch

Mark Katches — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:12:40 -0800

Every Monday it feels like our entire staff gets shot out of a cannon.

In the past few weeks we’ve produced a story examining an unusual, and lucrative, stimulus contract; a story detailing the alarming increase in maternal death rates in California; and a story this past weekend revealing how police at sobriety checkpoints are far more likely to seize cars from unlicensed motorists than take drunks off the road.

Sunday’s DUI checkpoint story served as a good example of our hectic, intense workflow. Here’s a day-by-day breakdown of how our collaboration with the Investigative Reporting Program at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, KQED Radio and other news outlets came together last week:

Monday: We started contacting news partners about the checkpoint story, first giving them a several paragraph “budget line.” It pretty closely mirrored the top of the story as written:

California police departments are increasingly turning sobriety checkpoints into profitable operations that are far more likely to seize cars from unlicensed minority motorists than catch drunken drivers on the state’s roadways.
Many of the drivers losing their cars at checkpoints are illegal immigrants, an examination by the University of California, Berkeley’s Investigative Reporting Program in collaboration with California Watch has found.
These unlicensed motorists rarely challenge the impounds, or have the cash to recover their cars.
Impounds at checkpoints in 2009 generated tens of millions of dollars in towing fees and police fines. Additionally, police officers collected checks for about more than $25 million in overtime pay for the DUI crackdowns, funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety.
In the course of its examination, The Investigative Reporting Program reviewed hundreds of pages of city financial records and police reports, and analyzed data documenting the results from checkpoints the past two years. Other findings include:
• Sobriety checkpoints frequently screen traffic within, or near, Hispanic neighborhoods.
• The seizures appear to defy a 2005 federal appellate court ruling that determined police cannot impound cars solely because the driver is unlicensed.
• Departments frequently overstaff checkpoints with officers, all earning overtime pay.

Every day in newsrooms across the country, editors and reporters try to capture the interest of their bosses with tantalizing budget lines. Our situation is unique. We pitch our work to multiple outlets at the same time. Will they want our story? And if so, how will they play it?

Robert Rosenthal, the executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting, and Louis Freedberg, the California Watch director who oversees our distribution efforts, began drumming up interest. They sent the budget line to numerous news organizations and followed up with e-mails and phone calls.

In the meantime, our copy editor William Cooley was looking over the story. Copy editors are a rare breed. The best ones are pains in the behind. And they consider it the highest possible compliment to be labeled as such. That’s what I love about Cooley. He is a talented intern from San Jose State. But he carries himself like a veteran.

He has not shied away from asking major prize-winning veteran reporters and editors to explain their methods or their premise. He asks uncomfortable but important questions. And he’s made some outstanding catches that have saved us from potentially embarrassing moments.

Tuesday: The reporter on the project, Ryan Gabrielson, sat down to go over Cooley’s comments and final questions from Rosenthal and me. Gabrielson is a fellow at the UC Berkeley Investigative Reporting Program. He won both the Pulitzer Prize and George Polk Award in 2009.

Last summer, he was offered a fellowship at UC Berkeley under the direction of the legendary Lowell Bergman. Soon after arriving in California, he began working on the checkpoint story. Bergman and Gabrielson started talking to us about it late last year and a first draft was submitted in January. I started editing it during our “Open Newsroom” on January 21.

We went back and forth on several drafts and were feeling really good about it. But there was work to do. Cooley had thought we needed more attribution and additional context. Gabrielson and I agreed. I also asked to have his methodology reviewed, so Gabrielson sent it to Steve Doig, a Pulitzer-winning journalism professor at Arizona State University and former board member at Investigative Reporters and Editors.

In the meantime, Data analyst Agustin Armendariz and multimedia producer Lisa Pickoff-White polished a snazzy interactive map of all the cities that got federal funding for checkpoints in 2008 and 2009. They built the map with data Gabrielson had gathered during his reporting.

Wednesday: Time to cut the story. The full-length version of Gabrielson’s draft was about 4,500 words – well over 150 inches. No daily newspaper in California would likely print a story of that length. We trimmed it to about 3,800 words – an appropriate length for the California Watch Web site.

Once that was done, the hard work began. I cut the story again – this time by more than half – to about 1,800 words. At that length it could fit in the news pages of our newspaper partners.

I showed it to Gabrielson, and he didn’t have a heart attack. A good sign. Rosenthal and Freedberg continued to work the phones to find media partners and to keep editors informed about our progress.

Based on our budget line, the Sacramento Bee seemed interested. So did the Orange County Register. The Bakersfield Californian and Stockton Record soon came on board. In addition to showing our methodology to an expert in computer-assisted reporting and statistical analysis, such as Doig, Rosenthal thought we needed to write about our methodology so that readers could understand how the reporting process evolved. Gabrielson banged that out.

He also wrote the text for two data pieces that Armendariz helped put together – one focusing on overtime costs and another looking at the UC Berkeley program that helps administer DUI checkpoint money.

Working with Gabrielson was a pleasure. It's comforting to an editor when a reporter can quickly answer every question you toss their way. Gabrielson had great command of the subject, and he worked quickly and efficiently to turn around all of our requests. By midday, we were ready to distribute both versions of the story.

Even though we didn't expect any newsroom to publish the full-length story, we made it available in case editors saw things in the longer draft that they wanted in the condensed version. Once the drafts are dispatched to news outlets, we await questions from editors. Because we're almost always dealing with multiple partners, we end up fielding lots of inquiries from copy editors, project editors and managing editors as the week progresses.

When we launched California Watch last fall, I worried that it might be a little overwhelming to have so many layers of editors. We all know what it’s like to have too many cooks trying to season the soup. So far, knock on wood, it has actually worked. And we saw a perfect example of that just a few hours later. Sacramento Bee Projects Editor Amy Pyle suggested tweaking the first paragraph of our story. It made the top better and tighter. We made a couple of other adjustments and added a new fourth paragraph.

This was the new start (You can see how it differs slightly from the budget line):
Sobriety checkpoints in California are increasingly turning into profitable operations for local police departments that are far more likely to seize cars from unlicensed motorists than catch drunken drivers.

And this was the added fourth paragraph:
In dozens of interviews over the past three months, law enforcement officials and tow truck operators say that vehicles are predominantly taken from minority motorists – often illegal immigrants.

Doig, the Arizona State professor, got back to us and said he was comfortable with our methods. In the meantime, Gabrielson was going through an entirely different editing process with the New York Times. Bergman, who had won a Pulitzer Prize working with the Times, had gotten the newspaper's new Bay Area edition and PBS NewsHour interested months ago.

Gabrielson tailored a tightly focused draft for the Times that contained mostly information about Bay Area checkpoints. And he was going back and forth with editors there about changes to the story. He also prepped for a KQED Radio interview with Michael Montgomery and reviewed final video.

Thursday: La Opinion had begun to translate the story into Spanish. Web production assistant Sarah McHie made sure all our articles and pieces were coming together for our Web site. Pickoff-White produced a cool graphic showing the cities with the highest impound rates. She did this even though she had been laid up in a hospital for two days over the weekend. Now she had been ordered by her doctors to rest at home because she had what appeared to be swine flu. But a little H1N1 wasn't going to stop her.

Gabrielson, meanwhile, headed over to KQED Radio in the morning to tape his radio interview. Later, he watched the NewsHour piece one last time before it got shipped to New York. He also went over the story line-by-line with the New York Times to make more changes to their draft.

Friday: We prepared a Word document with final fixes – just two revised paragraphs that added context in response to a question from Orange County Register Investigative Editor Chris Knap and another from the Sacramento Bee. Through this editing process, the story kept getting stronger.

Some news organizations were still weighing whether to run it. The Modesto Bee told us they would publish the story the following week. The Fresno Bee said they also would like to run it later. Freedberg got back the translated version from La Opinion.

One more time, we all looked over the final pieces that McHie had loaded into our content management system. We rewrote one headline on a graphic, but otherwise everything looked ready. Just as we were leaving the office, we received word that three more Southern California newspapers were interested.

Saturday: Logging in from home, Pickoff-White made sure everything went live at the right time. We posted the stories, charts, graphics and interactive map around 6 p.m.

Our California Watch News Alert went out shortly after, and we started sending out our “tweets” announcing the story. We also posted a link on Facebook. As a small startup, these social media tools are especially important to help spread the word about our work.

The New York Times posted their version early Saturday evening. In the meantime, around the state, several newspaper staffs were getting ready to put the story on their front pages for Sunday. KQED Radio would broadcast an interview with Gabrielson on Monday and the PBS NewsHour would devote a segment to the story Monday night.

Sunday: Finally, an opportunity to exhale – but not all of us. Sarah Terry-Cobo, a freelance journalist who also helps with distribution, scoured the Web for newspaper front pages for our own archives. We also kept pushing the story on Twitter and Facebook. Huffington Post picked up the story, driving thousands of new readers to our site. By the time the day was over, we had shattered our record for the most traffic on californiawatch.org in a single day.

Monday: The cannon goes off again.

CIR's Andrew Becker to speak on effects of Mexican drug war

CIR Staff — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:00:00 -0800

Mexico’s brutal drug war has rattled that country’s sense of security, deepened its economic crisis and shifted attention from other pressing concerns. Leading journalists and scholars explore the roots of the violence, what its lasting impact may be, and how the drug war might be resolved. They examine ways that the narco-violence is affecting – and affected by – the United States. And they discuss how the U.S. press is covering the issue and what stories about Mexico we might be missing. A panel of journalists who have covered Mexico discuss their work and their observations. They will be joined by the director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Latin American Studies to go behind the headlines and talk about the political and economic forces shaping Mexico today. The event is jointly sponsored by the Center for Latin American Studies and the Graduate School of Journalism, both at UC Berkeley. Reporting on Mexico: Drugs, Violence and the Prospects for a Nation’s Future Andrew Becker, Center for Investigative Reporting Steve Fainaru, Washington Post Susan Ferriss, Sacramento Bee Prof. Harley Shaiken, UC Berkeley Center for Latin American Studies Moderated by Tyche Hendricks, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism North Gate Hall Library Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:30 p.m.

CIR and NPR collaborate on three-part series on confidential informants

CIR Staff — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:13:03 -0800

National Public Radio, in collaboration with the Center for Investigative Reporting, will broadcast tonight the first in a three-part series on foreigners who work as confidential informants. CIR reporter Andrew Becker along with Michael Montgomery, a producer with CIR’s California Watch project, produced the third story in the series about an informant who went public with his case last summer after immigration officials tried to deport him. The story will air Saturday, Feb. 13 on NPR’S Weekend Edition program. The Los Angeles Times will run a separate story on the treatment of such informants. CIR’s 10-month investigation on the treatment of informants who do not have legal immigrant status in the United States found several instances of informants who say they have been wronged by drug agents and immigration officials. >> Visit CIR's complete reporting project on immigration courts in the U.S.

Adapting to the news cycle

Louis Freedberg — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:42:37 -0800

As California Watch ramps up distribution of its work, we are experimenting with different ways to reach the California public.

Our goal is to distribute our stories as widely as possible, in as many media formats as possible – in the hope that we will be able to spark a conversation on critically important issues affecting many Californians.

Typically, we like to give media outlets interested in running a story a heads up of a week or two – or more – so they will have an opportunity to supplement our reports with their own local reporting. They may even collaborate with us in the reporting.

This week, however, we had to shorten our distribution time frame considerably on a story Nathanael Johnson had been working on for weeks – the near tripling of maternal mortality rates in California over the past decade.

Nathanael discovered that California's Department of Public Health had been sitting on a report written in 2008 detailing this trend.

On January 26, a nonprofit health organization published an alert pointing to similar distressing trends nationwide. The alert was beginning to attract press attention. A story could break at any time that would take the wind out of all the work Nathanael had already done. So we felt that we should release our story quickly to provide a strong California perspective on a breaking national story.

We knew we could put the story on our Web site and hope that it would go "viral." We considered that as an option but decided even with late notice, we would reach out to other news organizations.

Imagine trying to coordinate publication of a major story with a dozen news outlets, encompassing print, broadcast and online media. With just a day's notice, several media partners responded rapidly, and ran the story on their front pages, including the San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Bakersfield Californian, Santa Rosa Press Democrat and Orange County Register.

Michael Montgomery, who works jointly for California Watch and KQED, prepared a report for KQED's the California Report, which aired on 28 public radio stations around the state. KGO-TV in San Francisco aired a report on its 11 p.m. newscast. New America Media distributed the story to ethnic media outlets. The issue was the subject of a one-hour discussion on KQED's Forum, hosted by Michael Krasny. Alternet also carried the story.

This heartbreaking issue is likely to get even wider attention in the days ahead, as it should. While we would far prefer to give our media partners adequate time to localize our stories, there will be times that we will have to throw out preconceived timetables, and we will have no choice but to move rapidly to get a story into circulation. Being nimble is the name of today's game.

ICE "Industry Day" on detention reform attracts familiar faces

Andrew Becker — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:39:56 -0800

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) last fall held an "Industry Day" on detention reform as a way to get feedback from current and potential contractors and other interested parties. The event was closed to the news media. ICE provided to the Center for Investigative Reporting a list of the companies represented, but would not disclose who the attendees were. The event was held at the Julie Myers Conference room at ICE headquarters. The companies in attendance range from builders to current jailers to the Royal Bank of Canada. Several already have detention-related contracts or are staffed with former ICE or the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials. Here's the list of the companies, as provided by ICE (with light editing): 1. K4 Solutions, Inc. (past DHS contractors) 2. McConnell International, LLC (an executive was formerly with INS.) 3. The Dozoretz Group, LLC (Nina Dozoretz, formerly with the Division of Immigration Health Service; recently returned to the government to work with ICE on detainee health care.) 4. PSA-Dewberry, Inc. (architects) 5. Proteus On Demand Facilities (builders) 6. Kelly, Anderson & Associates (The company has several former high-ranking Homeland Security officials on its staff, including a former chief of the Border Patrol.) 7. Arc Aspicio, LLC 8. Stanley Associates 9. Pike County Corrections Facility (currently holds detainees) 10. Pike County Commissioners Office 11. Northrop Grumman Corporation 12. Worchester County Jail (currently holds detainees) 13. LCS Corrections (ICE contractor) 14. CACI, Inc. (ICE contractor) 15. Emerald Companies (ICE contractor) 16. Nortel Government Solutions (DHS contractor) 17. Youth Services International 18. Capgemini Government Solutions (DHS contractor) 19. USIS (DHS contractor, background investigations) 20. MGT of America (ICE contractor) 21. The CMC Group (builders) 22. Ernst & Young 23. KeyPoint Government Solutions (Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff on board of directors, DHS contractors) 24. The Forest Group, Inc. 25. Community Education Centers, Inc. 26. CCA (ICE contractor) 27. Unique Comp Inc. (CBP contractor) 28. Office of Federal Detention Trustee 29. Management & Training Corporation (ICE contractor) 30. Strategic Business Alliance 31. Health Insurance LLC 32. JJ DeLuca Company, Inc. (construction) 33. NetStar 1 (ICE/DHS contractor, data management) 34. GEO Group (ICE contractor) 35. Global Integrated Security 36. iSECUREtrac 37. Oldcastle Precast Modular & Security (builder) 38. Sundt Construction 39. KIMBALL furniture 40. Royal Bank of Canada 41. Frederick County Adult Detention (ICE contractor) 42. Argyle Corrections Group 43. ManTech (DHS contractor) 44. GEO Transportation (ICE contractor) 45. Volunteers of America 46. Price Waterhouse Coopers (DHS contractor) 47. Correctional Eye Care Services 48. STG International (DIHS contractor) 49. Dun & Bradstreet Gov. Solutions 50. Cornell Companies (ICE contractor) 51. Loredo Lomas Properties (real estate) 52. IBM 53. RTR Technologies engineering 54. Immigration Centers of America (ICE contractor) 55. Nabholtz Construction Corporation 56. Accenture (DHS contractor)

ICE turning toward old hands for new detention practices?

Andrew Becker — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:00:00 -0800

While immigration reform advocates wait for Congress to fix the nation's broken immigration system, the Department of Homeland Security says it’s committed to its pledge to overhaul immigration detention. But the department needs help. And officials are looking for ideas. The agencies that run immigration detention and detainee health care are turning, in some cases, to the same people, consultants and companies that have been advising or working with those agencies for years. For example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the department’s investigative arm and jailers to some 30,000 immigrant detainees on any given day, in the fall hosted an “Industry Day” event, where agency officials outlined to an audience of mostly government contractors their plans and goals to re-make detention. ICE officials told attendees that reform is badly needed, and acknowledged shortcomings, some of which have been outlined in a report issued by DHS in early October. The thrust of the three-hour gathering — which attracted representatives from nearly 60 companies, consultants and detention watchers but was closed to news media — was “to begin a dialogue with current or prospective detention service providers for the purpose of sharing the basic premises of our reform efforts, secure feedback and begin to expand our market research,” according to the event posting on the government contracting Web site FedBizOpps.gov. Attendees included various former immigration officials now in the private sector, defense contractors, the Royal Bank of Canada, IBM and a host of efficiency experts, builders and other consultants, including a company that has former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff on its board of directors. "This is a pivotal moment right now in terms of immigration, in terms of detention reform," said attendee Nina Dozoretz who until recently ran a health-care related consulting firm. "I’m optimistic – there's a big commitment from ICE to move this forward." Dozoretz retired in August 2004 as the associate director of the Division of Immigration Health Services after spending 20 years as a public health service official. In November — shortly after the event and days after she spoke to CIR — Dozoretz returned to ICE to oversee the health-care overhaul for the Office of Detention and Removal Operations. She said that the reform efforts were what brought her back to ICE. Dozoretz, who also worked as vice president for the detention monitor and ICE contractor Nakamoto Group, recently appeared in a New York Times article on the issue of detainee deaths. Homeland Security Department officials have outlined the intended overhaul, including more oversight, centralizing contracts and a custody classification system. The pledged reforms are part of a shift from a broad-based, one-size-fits-all, lock-up system toward a more civil approach. Mike Magee, a Homeland Security consultant who formerly ran ICE’s criminal alien program for state and local prisons and jails, said civil detention is a good idea, but will be difficult to implement. The goal is to spend wiser and use alternatives to detention, such as ankle-bracelet monitors when detention isn’t appropriate or necessary. On Monday, John Morton, the assistant secretary for ICE, spoke about the ongoing reform effort, including a forthcoming detainee locator system, at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. But the big money – and big challenges – remain in detaining immigrants, attendees say. ICE has signed several new contracts to build or expand immigration detention facilities in the past year. The agency’s push to track down more immigrants with criminal charges or convictions may also increase the need for detention bed space. Known as Secure Communities, the ICE program helps local law enforcement agencies screen people in custody for their immigration status. In a recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing, GEO Group Inc., one of the government’s biggest contractors for immigration detention, pointed toward anticipated growth of federal detention, particularly immigrants. That means more money. From GEO's third-quarter report:

"We believe ICE will continue to emphasize the detention and removal of criminal aliens throughout the country. ICE has been allocated approximately $1.4 billion for this purpose. We believe that this federal initiative to target, detain, and deport criminal aliens throughout the country will continue to drive the need for immigration detention beds over the next several years."

For years, ICE has said that deporting criminal aliens has been its top priority, but in practice immigration agents New York Times grabbed whomever they could. This new Secure Communities program claims to re-focus its priority. ICE has plans to roll out the program across the country by 2013, making its database available to every law enforcement agency nationwide. In the first year of its existence, ICE identified more than 111,000 criminal immigrants in 11 states. But there’s no more money in this year’s budget for major reform, attendees were told. Senior agency officials, among them Phyllis Coven, the director of the Office of Detention Planning and Policy, and David Venturella, the director of Detention and Removal Operations, intimated that ICE will request proposals to build new detention facilities. Plans were announced for a 2,200-bed “low-custody” detention facility in Los Angeles, but the date to submit proposals has been delayed more than a month. “I believe these people are all very sincere and have good intentions,” said Peter Michel, CEO of iSECUREtrac, a Nebraska-based company that provides ankle-monitoring technology. “It sounds like they have a pretty big mountain to climb.”

Special Mexico adviser to top ICE official on meteoric rise

Andrew Becker — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:34:00 -0800

Who is Tracey Bardorf? John Morton, the assistant secretary for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, last summer brought on the relatively young former federal prosecutor to be his special adviser for Mexico and border matters. Before joining ICE, Bardorf oversaw the Justice Department’s Mérida Initiative projects and implementation of the Global Trafficking in Persons program, according to her ICE Web site bio. Now 10 years out of law school — she graduated from Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in 2000 — including a few years of corporate litigation before she joined the government, she now, presumably, has the country's top immigration and customs enforcement official’s ear. Or not. She spent about four years as an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona, where she handled firearms, immigration, trafficking in persons and violent crime prosecutions, according to her bio. A search of a federal courts database shows she was involved in about 400 cases before she was detailed to Mexico as the Department of Justice resident legal adviser in Mexico City. Among her notable cases were convictions of child sex traffickers in 2008, a 2007 guilty plea from a Mexican national on aggravated identity theft and illegally re-entering the country after deportation and separate 2006 convictions of coyotes whose misguided border crossings resulted in the deaths of illegal immigrants. In recent months, Bardorf, 35, has popped up on an American Bar Association panel in Washington D.C. in November, speaking about narco-violence along the border and emerging national security law issues, and then again late last year for a meeting between Mexican and U.S. officials in Mexico City. Other than that, there isn't a lot of reliable information about her. So, who is Tracey Bardorf? Bardorf is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. She sat on — and eventually was voted chairwoman of — Arizona’s Clean Elections panel, which monitors the state’s system for public financing of candidates, according to the commission's 2005 annual report. (She resigned in 2006 after serving two years of a five-year term when the Justice Department raised a conflict of interest objection, according to a news report.) She is a graduate of St. Anselm College, a Catholic liberal arts college in New Hampshire, and she attended Phillips Exeter Academy. She is fluent in Spanish, German and French, and is proficient in Italian, according to the annual report. Other than that, based on an unscientific, informal, quick survey of a handful of people, not much else is known about her. Some people had heard of her. Others hadn’t. As far as her efforts with the $1.4 billion anti-narcotics aid package dubbed the Mérida Initiative, which has drawn criticism for being Mexico’s version of Plan Colombia and because of alleged human rights abuses by the Mexican military, there isn’t much public information. (For more information on Mérida, see the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute). A Government Accountability Office report released in December found that the release of funds for the Mérida Initiative was dragging, but that “a broad range of training, exchange, and technical assistance programs have been completed or initiated with the aim of strengthening the capacity of law enforcement and justice sector institutions.” How much of that relates to the Justice Department or even Bardorf's involvement? Good question. A Congressional Research Service report last year states that “many predict that it is likely to take much longer than three years for Mérida to help partner governments make real headway in achieving that goal" but U.S. officials "maintain that some of the most important results of Mérida thus far may be impossible to quantify, such as the increase in communication and cooperation that has developed as a result of the Initiative among U.S., Mexican, and Central American law enforcement and security officials." Maybe that's where Bardorf comes in. But how she became one of Morton's top advisers is a question that remains unanswered. Any ideas? abecker (at) cironline (dot) org

Throwing out the old rule books and starting fresh

Mark Katches — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:52:10 -0800

We really had no institutional baggage to overcome when we built our California Watch team from scratch. No voices telling us, “You can’t do that.” Or, “That’s not the way we do it here.” We weren’t weighted down by the kind of intractable culture that has made it hard for lots of newsrooms across America to adjust and adapt quickly enough to a fast-changing world.

We have pretty much thrown out the old rule books. Here editors will write and report and – gasp – reporters will edit. And even crazier than that: investigative journalists are blogging – a ton. Our hard-working staff has generated close to 100 blog posts in a little more than three weeks, on top of some kick-ass stories, terrific multimedia and nearly two dozen searchable databases. If you missed it, be sure to check out the video by Mark S. Luckie about our team and mission.

In our first few months of operation, the staff of California Watch has begun to mold its own way of doing things – one that stresses innovation, ideas, and a can-do spirit. We will try new things, and we will occasionally miss the mark, but you can’t move forward without throwing out antiquated, obsolete rules and challenging the way journalists have operated. It’s one of the endearing things in our little newsroom that makes this an absolutely thrilling place to be.

Immigration judge misconduct gives asylee another day in court

Andrew Becker — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:03:43 -0800

A Justice Department investigation of an immigration judge's misconduct in Florida gives a Bahamian asylum seeker another day in court. The National Law Journal reports that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility found that Bruce Solow, an immigration judge in Miami, "engaged in professional misconduct when he acted in reckless disregard of his obligation to be fair and impartial." In a 2005 asylum hearing Solow mocked Roscoe Campbell, who said he fled his native Bahamas for fear for his life after reporting to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration corrupt officials engaging in drug-trafficking, according to the article. Solow ordered Campbell and his family deported. The federal appellate courts have excoriated some immigration judges for their conduct, including Anna Ho, a Los Angeles-based immigration judge. The fact that the Justice Department's internal affairs office took a look at the judge's behavior is extraordinary, Nadine Wettstein of the American Immigration Legal Council, told the legal newspaper. Still, there isn't a lot known about the larger issue of judicial misconduct and how the court leadership - and, by extension, the Justice Department - handles complaints. The NLJ writes:

The lack of transparency irritates attorneys and judges alike. The American Immigration Council's Wettstein and other immigration lawyers said complaints against immigration judges to the Executive Office seem to go into a "black hole," and, they added, getting notice of findings made by OPR also seems rare.

Immigration attorneys have also been reluctant, in some cases, to file complaints against certain judges because they may have to argue before the judge again. As the NLJ article points out, the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration court system, has its own procedure for taking complaints against immigration judges and private attorneys. The agency would not release information on the number of complaints received nor would it make public its disciplinary actions, citing privacy concerns, according to the story. The story also makes the point that the Justice Department's process for investigating complaints against immigration judges is "neither swift nor transparent and because of that, it can be unfair -- to aliens, attorneys and immigration judges." We're interested in learning more about the immigration courts. If you have ideas to share, please contact abecker (at) cironline (dot) org.

Clearing the air on carbon credits

Sarah McHie — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:58:56 -0800

Reporter Mark Schapiro was interviewed by Kai Ryssdal of Marketplace on January 20th about his piece in Harper's Magazine outlining how corporations have found loopholes in the carbon cap and trade system, and how to verify those carbon credits. In the interview, Schapiro explains there are companies that go over their emission caps every month, and know exactly by how much. They need to buy carbon credits in order to not go over their cap. The companies then turn to a developing country such as Brazil, which sells the companies the extra credits they need. All the while, the companies are doing nothing to actually reduce the amount of carbon they are emitting. Schapiro writes about the people who measure carbon emissions and the reliability of the measurements. What is the United States going to do when we step in?

Open Newsroom: Bringing our team to a WiFi spot near you

Mark Katches — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:58:40 -0800

If you're sipping your mocha at a coffee shop somewhere in California on Thursday, keep an ear out for the furious tapping on the keyboard. It could be one of us blogging or tweeting, building multimedia packages or pounding out the next big story.

Members of the California Watch and Center for Investigative Reporting staffs will be fanning out around the state and working in coffee shops with WiFi access on Jan. 21 as part of our first "Open Newsroom."

Here's how the idea came about: For most of this week, our operations are being disrupted by an office move. We’re packing up and transporting the whole shebang from our existing location on Newbury Street to a beautifully remodeled landmark building on Center Street in downtown Berkeley. Our Internet connection went down Friday at our old location, and we don't have a place to sit in the new space. If you're trying to call right now, our phones are unattended, if they're plugged in at all. After the holiday today, we're mostly going to be working from home until Jan. 25 when the doors open at our new digs.

We figured we should turn this temporary inconvenience into an opportunity. So we decided to set up shop on Thursday at various WiFi hotspots.

The Open Newsroom concept is part of a goal to connect with readers and get out of the office. We’re hoping it will be a regular part of what we do. On Thursday, please stop by to say hello. We're looking forward to meeting you. And if you have any great story tips, we'll be there to listen.

The locations and hours to find us are on the map below.

The next phase of our Web site is already in the works

Mark Katches — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:29:16 -0800

We’ve gotten lots of feedback on our new California Watch site. People are commenting on the clean look and applauding the simple organization. Several readers have complemented us for the array of searchable databases on our Data Center.

I’ve also gotten some really great feedback about the way we’re making our staff more accessible to readers. Carrie Brown-Smith, a University of Memphis journalism professor, commended us for our bio pages, which include each staffer’s list of coverage priorities and some details about what they are working on – even the stories, journals or Web sites they’re reading.

We felt strongly that our reporters, multimedia producers and editors should let their personalities shine through on these pages and that it might help lift the veil on who we are and what we do.

“I just think that is incredibly smart and utilizes the research on credibility as well,” Brown-Smith wrote in an e-mail to me.

We’ve implemented other subtle innovations – including the way our reporters and a couple of other acclaimed investigative journalists have helped organize our Resources pages. Our resources are organized by topic. They serve as a guide for civic-minded citizens, students, bloggers and young journalists to conduct their own basic investigative reporting.

And we’ve also broken the traditional mold of story crediting by adding the names of our editors who work on each of our major stories. (One reader "tweeted" that it was her favorite thing about our new site.) We think it’s a way to increase accountability and credibility – and also to give props to the traditionally nameless and faceless journalists who partner with our reporters and multimedia producers on stories.

Since our site went live on Jan. 2, we've heard excellent criticisms as well. Some have worried that we’re allowing anonymous commenting, which can encourage the lunatics to dominate discussion boards (although that, thankfully, hasn't happened here). Others have expressed hope that we would allow some type of rating system of comments as a way to encourage responsible commenting. We couldn’t agree more, and we want to make this a top priority to add soon. We hoped to tackle that before our launch, but we set it aside. Too many other things needed to get done first.

We’ve also had readers tell us it's way too difficult to register to comment and to e-mail our staff. We agree. Our site was set up so that you have to be logged in as a registered user to connect with our reporting, editing and multimedia teams. We’re going to try to figure out a way to break down those barriers during the next phase of our site's development. And we're not wasting any time. We're planning to start moving ahead with a slate of enhancements and refinements in the coming weeks.

So if you would like to see changes on our site, now is a perfect time to share your thoughts.

Multimedia takes investigative reporting to the next level

Mark S. Luckie — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:52:16 -0800

In my first job as a crime and legal affairs reporter for the Daytona Beach News-Journal, I spent many days searching through dusty records in courtrooms, police headquarters and the newsroom's library to create extensive news reports based on statistics and data. I hadn't yet heard of "multimedia journalism" and even though I was computer savvy, I didn't know how computers could be used to elevate my work. Fast forward a few years later and I am combining my love of online technology and software with my passion for hardcore news reporting.

There are many ways for investigative reporters to use multimedia and digital journalism tools to give the reader a better understanding of the story at hand. The web serves as an all-encompassing platform for publishing interactive maps, multimedia stories built in Flash or other software, video, audio and other forms of media besides text.

As this blog post from Journalism.co.uk about my transition to California Watch points out, news audiences digest stories in several different ways. If investigative reporters tell a single story using various media or use visual media to quickly convey information, the more readers and viewers the story is likely to attract.

My current position at California Watch allows me to help shape investigative reports using several forms of media and visualizations. The responsibility, however, requires the judgment to know which media is appropriate for a particular story. For example, interactive maps are great, but they aren't appropriate for every story.

At the very least, investigative reporters should be knowledgeable about the tools that can help elevate their reporting with web producers or other newsroom staff to create stories that have the greatest impact possible.

Expect to see a California Watch investigative story just about every week

Mark Katches — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:16:19 -0800

We’ve published more than 80 blog posts on our two blogs, and our new site isn’t even two weeks old. But one question I’ve been asked lately is how often we will be publishing big investigative stories on our site – stories that will also be distributed to news outlets throughout California.

Nailing down publication dates can be tricky. Years of managing investigative projects has taught me how wildly unpredictable these complex, high-stakes stories can be.

But our sincere hope is to have at least one strong enterprise or investigative story each week. We’ve hit that mark so far this month. Reporter Chase Davis analyzed contribution data for a story about local party committees that funnel campaign money to individual candidates in a way that sidesteps state campaign finance laws. It ran January 3 in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the Modesto Bee, the Stockton Record, the Ventura County Star, the Voice of San Diego and the Bakersfield Californian. Last weekend, we distributed a story by freelancer and former Center for Investigative Reporting staffer Will Evans about stimulus grants going to large corporations despite records as environmental polluters and other problems. The Chronicle and Ventura County Star also took that story, as did the San Diego Union Tribune, the Orange County Register, the Los Angeles Daily News and La Opinion, which translated the story into Spanish. We have an exciting environmental-themed story ready for this weekend. We're working now to shore up our distribution partners for that piece. We should have another strong story the week after that.

And the week after that.

Our philosophy is to distribute and publish stories when they are ready, and not to worry about trying so hard to hit a once-a-week target. Some stories will need more time to cook. When we collaborate with news partners on joint reporting projects, it adds a whole new set of moving parts to the machine. And we have to coordinate with our partners to make sure the machine is both well-oiled and moving in the right direction. It's not as easy as it might look.

But when I scan the list of our upcoming stories, I see a lot of machines humming along, nearing the end of the tunnel. So I feel pretty confident we'll be releasing a regular dose of the big story.

That’s on top of the aggressive daily blogging. Our target is to generate eight to 10 new blog posts each day. We'll be using the blog to break news. (We posted details and quotes from the governor's press conference on the budget last week before he had left the podium.) We'll also be updating readers on the status of our investigations, offering up nuggets from our notebooks and providing more insights on our two blogs – the California WatchBlog and the Inside the Newsroom blog.

Additionally, we’ll be adding searchable databases in our Data Center – many of them connected to stories we’re producing along our priority topic areas: money and politics, K-12 schools, higher education, health and welfare, public safety and the environment.

It all adds up to a site that will be active – a dynamic place we hope readers will want to visit multiple times a day.

US-UK Jet-Set Gets Tense

Mark Schapiro — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:56:03 -0800

You may have noticed over the past year that its become far easier to hop on a US airline to fly across the Atlantic to Europe–the result of an "open skies" agreement, implemented in 2008, that leveraged principles of free trade into the air. Now those open skies are looking pretty turbulent as three of the biggest US airlines–United, Continental and Delta, along with the US Air Transport Association–pursue a lawsuit attempting to block Britain's effort to impose emission limits on the airline industry. The UK is the first European country to begin executing a plan by the European Union to reduce emissions from aviation. Air travel contributes about three percent of Europe's total greenhouse gas emissions, but according to the European Commission that rate has risen rapidly, some 87% since 1990, as air travel gets cheaper without accounting for environmental costs. The EU estimates that one person flying from London to New York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions as the average European does by heating their home for a year. En route to Copenhagen, we wrote about the eye-opening experience of having an Air France pilot announcing our flight's carbon footprint. Now it turns out that announcement may have been a portent of much tension to come: The US airline industry has adamantly opposed establishing emission limits on aviation in this country, and is now attempting to staunch the growing gap between the US and Europe's approach to greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, Anglo-American divisions in the airline industry are emerging: British Airways has stated it could voluntarily reduce its emissions to half of 2005 levels over the next decade; and Virgin's Chairman, Richard Branson, has stated he is willing to pay a carbon tax on his aviation business, and has steered some $3 billion in company funds into research projects for non-fossil sources for jet fuels and other greenhouse gas reduction measures. The London lawsuit could be the first in a series of trans-continental legal battles to come, prompted by global industries facing very different approaches to climate change taken by Europe and the United States, where emission limits have thus far been stymied in Congress. Over the next year, FRONTLINE/World and CIR will report on key issues of climate change in a joint project–Carbon Watch–focusing on the multi-billion-dollar carbon trading market. We'll look at which proposals to reduce emissions by 2020 really add up; at the hidden interests behind these solutions; and the new industry players.

Enjoying a cup of coffee and seven Sunday morning papers

Mark Katches — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0800

One of my favorite things to do each morning is to go through the nonprofit Newseum site to check out front pages around the world. It’s especially fun to do when so many of the California papers carry our work. The combined daily circulation of newspapers that ran California Watch content today was in the neighborhood of 1.2 million.

We had two stories out there today. One by Will Evans about stimulus funds going to environmental polluters and other companies with legal woes ran on the front pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Orange County Register, the San Diego Union Tribune, Monterey Herald, Los Angeles Daily News and La Opinion.

Here are links to PDF versions of the front pages of the papers that carried our story today:

Los Angeles Daily News
La Opinion
San Diego Union Tribune
Orange County Register
San Francisco Chronicle
Monterey Herald

Meanwhile, the Stockton Record and Bakersfield Californian ran versions of our story released last week about party central committees routinely funneling campaign cash to candidates around the state in a way that sidesteps individual candidate contribution limits.

Check out the PDFs below:

Stockton Record
Bakersfield Californian

No better way to enjoy the morning coffee.

California Watch is a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting and is now the largest investigative reporting team operating in the state. Visit the Web site for in-depth coverage of K-12 schools, higher education, money and politics, health and welfare, public safety and the environment.

California Watch site tour: React and Act

Mark Katches — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:15:53 -0800

The best watchdog journalism exposes problems. But it can be frustrating for readers when investigative stories leave them feeling hopeless – like nothing can be done about a bad situation.

At California Watch, we hope that our stories will be the starting point – a catalyst for discussion debate and change. We want to facilitate that to the extent that we can by providing a venue or forum about the key topics we’re writing about. We want readers to feel engaged and empowered to be part of the solution. We’re going to try to make that as easy as possible with our React and Act features that will accompany most of our stories. You can find the feature on the right rail of our story pages.

We plan to give you the names, numbers and e-mail addresses of major stakeholders who can make a difference. We used React and Act on our story about stimulus funding going to companies with histories of environmental pollution and other legal woes. We also used React and Act for our story about party central committees sidestepping campaign limits. Check out the way we did it. I think it's pretty cool.

We’ll also be hosting chats with key players – a sort of "virtual round table" discussion set around important issues. After the chats are completed, I'd like our chat moderators to review the chat transcripts and develop talking points from those conversations that policy leaders can use as a roadmap for reform. We’ll also make it easy for you to track the changes that come as a result of our investigative reporting. And we’ll be exploring other ways to help readers engage.

As always, let us know how we’re doing. We’re going to count on feedback from our readers to make refinements and improvements.

The scoop on how California Watch finds its news partners

Mark Katches — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:10:54 -0800

More than 40 media partners have carried California Watch stories – a pretty extraordinary number given that we haven’t been around that long. You can see the names of all our partners if you scroll about half way down our About page.

Here’s the scoop on how we partner up with news organizations. First we look for geographic symmetry. If a story has a strong tie to say, Ventura County, it’s a no brainer for us to approach the Ventura County Star. That's just one example. Newsroom leaders up and down the state have told us they are especially interested in our content provided the stories have a strong local hook.

We also know that stories about statewide politics will appeal to the Sacramento Bee and the San Francisco Chronicle. Other newsrooms have told us they like these stories too, but without a local connection, they probably won’t bite.

Some newsroom leaders have told us that environment and higher education top their lists of topics of interest. Others say public safety and health and welfare coverage matter most.

That works for us. We have plans to cover all of these topics.

Our goal is to reach as broad an audience as we can. But we also understand that individual stories we produce will not appeal to every news outlet in the state. We can live with that. The trick is to find the news outlets that do want the work we’re trying to place. We have a lot of balls in the air and couldn’t be happier with the response we’re receiving from newspapers, TV and radio and online outlets.

Collaboration can take many forms. In some cases, we will partner early with news organizations to tailor our project to regional interests. With the largest investigative team in California on our staff, more often we hope to develop stories that are ready to publish.We are also working in unique ways to partner with ethnic media outlets. So far, our stories have been translated into four languages.

In most ways, my job is no different than the last two places I worked and where I built investigative teams. I manage and edit projects and prepare them for publication. But where things change radically is toward the end of the process. That can mean editing multiple versions of a story and then working with my boss Robert Rosenthal and colleague Louis Freedberg to distribute the stories and find partners who want our work. Each stage of the process has its thrills and its frustrations. But it’s a new world we’ve embraced here at California Watch – a new world with enormous possibilities.

Coming Saturday night: another California Watch barnburner

Mark Katches — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:04:19 -0800

Freelance reporter and Center for Investigative Reporting veteran Will Evans came on board with California Watch in October to look specifically for a focused, compelling story having to do with the awarding of stimulus grants and contracts in California.

And he found a barnburner.

Evans combed through a database of stimulus funding in California, looking specifically at some of the biggest recipients. He also reviewed public records and other databases to find details about stimulus recipients that may surprise you.

Stay tuned. We’ll be posting our story on this site Saturday night by 10 p.m. Several newspapers – including the San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, Ventura County Star, the Orange County Register and La Opinion – are planning to run our story Sunday.

And if you want to check out our database on stimulus recipients to find your own nuggets, have at it. We have $18.5 billion in stimulus spending on our Data Center site, and we’ll be updating it every quarter.

No let up in the pace at California Watch

Robert Rosenthal — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:00:22 -0800

We're airborne, and this is a jamming little office here at California Watch. Jamming and cramming in our too small digs. Thankfully, we are moving in two weeks. Another disruption for us but our new home looks great, and we will have some breathing room. Meanwhile this week has been exhilarating for all of us here. There has been no let up in the pace. It has only intensified as our California Watch site went live. Our blogs and Data Center have been excellent, if I don't say so, and our next California Watch story about stimulus spending is set for a bunch of newspapers and other media partners across California this coming Sunday. We will have strong major investigative stories every week this month and more are in the pipeline. We spent a chunk of this week looking at the site and thinking of ways to make it more user-friendly and accessible. We will be tweaking, and we welcome feedback from you. The positive feedback we have seen from bloggers and media commentators has given us more fuel to go forward. Seeing editorial commentary off our story last weekend on both the Democrats and Republicans moving money around the state feels good, and the decision by the Fair Political Practices Commission to look into some of the money movements Chase Davis detailed is the type of scrutiny we hope to provoke regularly. And we're mostly having fun, which is what journalists in the day were also about. So there's something old, but something very new happening at California Watch.

California Watch site tour: Data Center

Mark Katches — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:27:34 -0800

The Data Center on the new California Watch website will be the place to go for searchable databases of interest in California.

We expect to build this site over time, mostly adding new databases in connection with our stories. Right now, we’re starting with an impressive array of searchable databases. Our list includes stimulus contracts, lobbying and campaign finance records, university fees, FBI crime statistics and California census statistics.

We have close to 20 searchable databases online right now. The steward of our Data Center will be Agustin Armendariz, our computer assisted reporting guru. Agustin has prepared most of the data sets available with lots of help from one of our contributors Sarah Terry-Cobo, California Watch multimedia producer Lisa Pickoff-White and Chase Davis, one of our two money and politics reporters.

If you have ideas for available electronic data that we ought to add, please drop Agustin a line.

Copenhagen Q & A

CIR Staff — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:22:08 -0800

A few weeks ago we asked you to send in your questions on climate change for our reporter Mark Schapiro while he was in Copenhagen covering the talks. Many of you did, sending them via webcam, email and from the summit itself. Questions came in from Tibetans, Russians, Pacific Islanders, Brazilians and many Americans. As soon as the Bella center shut up shop at the weekend, we found the festive if freezing King's Square in downtown Copenhagen to put your questions to Mark, and get his initial thoughts on what had been achieved there. The analysis of what did or should have happened at the summit is only just beginning to surface, and we'll be following the road from Copenhagen to Bonn and Mexico Ciity where the next crucial stages of these talks will take place in the coming months. Over the next year, FRONTLINE/World and CIR will report on key issues of climate change in a joint project—Carbon Watch—focusing on the multi-billion-dollar carbon trading market. We’ll look at which proposals to reduce emissions by 2020 really add up; at the hidden interests behind these solutions; and the new industry players.

Building a newsroom, not tearing it down

Robert Salladay — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:54:00 -0800

The gestation period, from the first conversations about creating California Watch, to its launch today, was nearly two years. It has been a long haul but well worth it.

We are excited and energized about where we are. For me on a personal level, it's a gift and huge source of inspiration to be building a newsroom and hiring journalists after too many years of working in environments where innovation and risk taking were not welcome, and, to be candid, the work of the journalists was devalued.

As a highly visible project of the Center for Investigative Reporting, California Watch is a turn in a new direction. For 32 years, CIR has done valuable investigative reporting, much of it with "Frontline" and "60 Minutes." But never before has CIR had a team of investigative journalists this large, and never before have we had the flexibility to pursue stories that focus on what arguably is the most important, most complicated, and most messed-up state in the nation.

CIR will continue to do stories of national and international importance. And all of the critical values – accuracy, credibility, operating with a non-partisan approach – will be part of California Watch's ethos.

A core belief and value of California Watch will be collaboration with other organizations. They will be media organizations, large and small, traditional and new, legacy and ethnic. We will partner with universities and research organizations, with content creators and distributors. We will use social networking as it exists, and as it evolves, to reach people and have them reach us. Getting information to communities at every level, through their interests and by geography, will be a core strategy.

But the real value will be our stories. We will reveal, disclose and get information into the sunlight that otherwise might stay hidden or inaccessible, and our goal is to tell stories in multiple platforms – in ways that people want to get them.

Through our publishing partners in print, radio, television, on Web sites and on hand-held devices, we will reach a wide range of audiences. We are going to experiment. We are going to have some big successes, and we will learn from what works and does not work. And we will share this information. We want to be a transparent organization that functions as a team, where we are all valued and where we also value those we serve, the public.

Public service journalism will be goal of California's largest investigative team

Mark S. Luckie — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:48:00 -0800

California Watch, a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting, was created to investigate the issues that matter most to Californians. Find out more about the state's largest investigative team, our mission and our new Web site by watching this brief introductory video.

The lunacy of the last day

Mark Schapiro — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:44:00 -0800

Even on a normal day in the Bella Center, we suffered from information overload: there was the official daily program, press conferences, side events and presentations by the country delegations all competing for time. With 15,000 people buzzing through the complex, we seemed to bump into a story at every turn at the cafe, in the coat check line, or from an unlikely tap on the shoulder. In the midst of this, the media center became a refuge of relative calm, as hundreds of journalists quietly typed, edited and filed their reports, trying to make sense of all the activity. But just when we thought we knew what was going on, the whole dynamic changed on the last day. (See the video for that!) Now that the heads of state were in the building -- Jiabao, Obama, Lula, Chavez -- scheduled events were not just "subject to change," they seemed designed to deceive, sending journalists in one direction as VIPs headed in another. The media began roaming in packs. We didn't always know whom we were trying to capture; we just knew we didn't want to miss it. After all, Obama would be speaking -- although we didn't know when -- and finally the "Deal or No Deal" issue would be resolved. When he took the podium around midday, his speech created more questions than answers. The media center began to hum again and negotiators locked themselves behind closed doors. None of us would leave until well past midnight. Days later, and we're still trying to decode the deal in Copenhagen.

Following the money in Copenhagen

Mark Schapiro — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:00:00 -0800

I'm sure there will be a flood of reactions to the "agreement" reached today, which made things pretty quiet and tense in the press center. People were hunched over computers talking in multiple languages, first trying to interpret President Obama's speech -- "hugely disappointing" seemed to be the main reaction -- then following the last-minute back-room bargaining he was engaged in trying to salvage a deal. But I'm going to go against this wave and continue following the aggressive push here toward carbon markets and the debate over how to regulate them. This is where the only real money lies at this point, anyway. During these past two weeks, the Crowne Plaza hotel has been temporary home to the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), which represents global banks, brokerage firms, commodity traders and energy companies at the apex of moving billions of dollars through the global carbon markets. The buying and selling of so-called carbon "offsets" is now the fastest growing commodity market on earth. Worth practically zero in 2005, the market transacted $150 billion last year; and that number is expected to explode into the trillions once the U.S. passes its own emission limits next year. With genuine fears about the economic consequences of a market growing this big this fast, traders at a panel on Thursday were grappling with how much regulation was appropriate as carbon emerges as the epitome of the 21st century commodity. Not surprisingly, there was consensus among the panelists, which included a member of the IETA, an executive with EurEx, a German commodity exchange that opened a carbon trading facility in Chicago last year; and a policy expert with the investment bank, JP Morgan. Carbon is becoming much like any other commodity but with one key distinction: It is designed not to be delivered (like oil or gold) but to be eliminated, presenting an array of potential regulatory challenges. David Hunter, the IETA's director for U.S. policy said the group was firmly against a federal cap and trade bill introduced by Senators Collins (R-ME) and Stabenow (D-MI). Measures in the bill want to avoid some of the highly speculative investments that have driven Europe's carbon market, which is regulated under provisions of the Kyoto treaty. The U.S. bill proposes to cut out middlemen and to strictly limit trading activity between those industries that have emission credits and those industries that need them. Hunter disputes some of the biggest conerns the bill is designed to address -- chiefly that the market is growing so rapidly it could quickly devolve into the bubble-and-bust scenario that kicked off the global economic crisis two years ago, and that the market could be exposed to the same manipulations the electricity industry went through in the 1990s. "Nothing like that could happen in the carbon markets," Hunter told me, "because carbon [commodities] are just a piece of paper." He is right in the fact that, unlike other commodities, no physical commodity is ever actually delivered. Instead, it is an unorthodox financial instrument containing a promise not to emit greenhouse gases. Richard Folland, a senior climate change and energy adviser at J.P. Morgan, now one of the world's largest carbon trading firms after buying British carbon brokers Eco Securities last fall, argued that minimal regulations are necessary but that overly intrusive regulations could end up “diminishing liquidity.” And contrary to fears, he said, expanding the number of "market actors" would make the market more difficult to manipulate not less. Overall, the discussion provided a stark contrast to the main emissions negotiations at the Bella Center. No matter how today's non-binding agreement is received and changes things, the carbon markets will continue to grow at an exponential rate. Inside Bella there was abundant talk about the growing cataclysmic symptoms of global warming, and much dodging around money. At the Crowne Plaza, there was much talk about money, and barely a reference to reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Over the next year, FRONTLINE/World and CIR will report on key issues of climate change in a joint project—Carbon Watch—focusing on the multi-billion-dollar carbon trading market. We’ll look at which proposals to reduce emissions by 2020 really add up; at the hidden interests behind these solutions; and the new industry players. This week, our reporters blog from the Copenhagen climate change summit.

Brazil tells U.S. don't bank on our forests

Mark Schapiro — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:06:04 -0800

Brazil and the United States, the two key players in the REDD negotiations, are now squaring off. Negotiations are down to the wire and one major division remains. Hold on as we head into U.N. speak. Here's what is at the heart of the dispute: Brazil, with the support of the European Union, is arguing that all deals on forests be conducted on a national basis -- so any market mechanisms involved have to be conducted and overseen by national authorities. The Brazilians argue this is the only way they can ensure that deforestation activities don't simply move from one state to another, and the only way to stop this problem is at the national level. The United States, with strong vocal support from Colombia, is arguing that such deals also be conducted on what they call a "sub-national" level -- meaning that individual states or regions, depending on the country, should be allowed to cut their own forest deals, irrespective of whether they fall in line with national policy. Brazil and the United States, the two key players in the REDD negotiations, are now squaring off. Negotiations are down to the wire and one major division remains. This sub-level deal making, say opponents, only encourages shifting the problem of "deforestation into another state." Earlier this week, we spoke with Eduardo Braga, governor of the powerful state of Amazonas in the heart of the Amazon jungle, about his position. Braga has gone through something of a transformation on the question of "states rights" in Brazil. Until recently he has been a strong supporter of Brazilian states being able to negotiate their own forest deals within their borders, which have become a primary revenue source for Amazonia and other heavily forested states. In fact, last year Braga signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the state of California to cooperate on forest preservation projects and alternative energy technologies. The hope on both sides was that the forests of Amazonas could be used to offset emissions by California state industries on the arrival of tighter emissions controls expected next year. This type of transaction may not be as simple now that Brazil's states and federal government are presenting a united front on preventing such unilateral deals from happening. Braga told us that any American partner approaching Brazil with a carbon offset project would have to do their homework first. "We are not going to support your emissions at the cost of the standard of living of our people." That's the difference now," he said. "If you do your homework and establish your target to reduce your emissions of greenhouse gases, then you can come to us to help mitigate further emissions," he told us. Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has conceded that carbon markets may play a limited role in preserving Brazil's and other countries' forests. But to get there, the Brazilian negotiators have added an interesting obstacle course and are calling the shots. The REDD Ahead In the latest REDD negotiations, and echoing Braga's change of heart, Brazil has taken the position that if developed countries want to gain access to the countrys forests to offset their emissions, they must first demonstrate their own commitment to reducing greenhouse gases at home. Specifically, Brazil is asking that no more than 10 percent of a developed country's excess emissions can be written off against forest preservation schemes, and that this would only happen after those countries had already committed to reducing their emissions by 30 percent from 1990 levels. So doing the math, a country with a stated 30 percent reduction goal would have to reach 33 percent to receive the keys to the carbon-rich magic kingdom of the Amazon. According to Kate Dooley, a forest policy analyst for the UK-based NGO FERN (Forests and the European Union Resource Network), this offer is only on the table if developed countries stick to their commitments to continue negotiations on a binding global agreement under the Kyoto protocol. Few close to the REDD talks believe these conditions will be met. Over the next year, FRONTLINE/World and CIR will report on key issues of climate change in a joint project—Carbon Watch—focusing on the multi-billion-dollar carbon trading market. We’ll look at which proposals to reduce emissions by 2020 really add up; at the hidden interests behind these solutions; and the new industry players. This week, our reporters blog from the Copenhagen climate change summit.

Does saving trees = reducing emissions?

Sarah Terry-Cobo — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:09:39 -0800

Why is REDD on so many people’s lips at Copenhagen? Forests are a hot topic in the UN’s climate change negotiations in Copenhagen this week. Many experts are pointing to reduced deforestation projects (known as REDD projects) as an economically cheap way to help developed countries offset CO2 emissions, while preserving forests in developing nations. And while many tropical countries, such as Indonesia, Costa Rica, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Papua New Guinea, are often in favor of REDD proposals, if done incorrectly, these projects can cause a whole host of problems (As Mark Schapiro reported in an article in Mother Jones.) But the devil is in the details, unfortunately. And while delegates from around the world negotiate REDD provisions for carbon emission offsets in Copenhagen, the U.S. is also developing similar forestry proposals in its own climate bills. Global emissions from deforestation About one fifth of total global CO2 emissions come from the forest sector, according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some of these emissions are due to deforestation, which comes from agricultural activities, biofuel plantations and illegal logging for precious woods such as cedar and mahogany, according to research by Dr. Matthew Finer, an ecologist at Save America’s Forests. Some of these emissions are due to "degradation" which comes from accidental fires or controlled burns, and in some cases, from forest dwellers cutting trees—such as palm—for food. This is important, because in some developing countries, more carbon emissions come from deforestation than from energy generation, said Florence Daviet, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute’s climate and energy program, in a telephone interview from Copenhagen. In addition, forestry projects could have a "quite a large impact" on mitigating climate change, said Professor Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, in a telephone interview from Lisbon, Portugal. "Between 25 to 30 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions come from land-use change, so deforestation counts for significant amount of that change," he said. A renowned expert in energy policy and climate change issues, Kammen attended the conference in Denmark, blogging on Berkeley’s website about his involvement and observations. REDD details: biodiversity, additionality Some of the critical details about REDD programs are buried within hundreds of pages in the House and Senate versions of the climate bill, but experts note these details are vital to creating forestry projects that actually reduce emissions and do not produce negative unintended consequences. One is verifying that these carbon reductions are real—essentially that trees exist and are absorbing GHG emissions. This can be achieved through remote sensoring, said WRI’s Daviet, and in some cases is already being done. Another is called “additionality,” which is often referred to in laymen’s terms as “anyway credits.” Alexander Pfaff, an associate professor in Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy has studied REDD projects in Costa Rica and has seen instances in this country where farmers were paid not to cut down forests—even though they would not have cut them anyway. The issue at hand with additionality, “is that if you were going to clear [the forests and stopped], then I changed things. If you weren’t going to clear and I pay you, I’ve changed nothing,” he said in a telephone interview. Yet another issue that is sometimes a point of contention among environmentalists, Pfaff said, is called “co-benefits,” and is a part of both the House and Senate versions of the climate bill. The idea is that a project should reduce carbon from the atmosphere, but also have the co-benefit of protecting habitats for species, preserving water quality, and stabilizing soil. Attaching a value to somewhat intangible things, such as biodiversity, is important, because it helps ensure financial instruments include these services the ecosystem provides, rather than simply paying for sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. Irony: Many perils lurk within the details of REDD Groups concerned with biodiversity and indigenous autonomy are concerned with co-benefits, because a project without them can create perverse incentives. Kammen notes there are instances in China and Brazil in which landowners cleared the forests and reaped the financial benefits from the timber and wood products. They then planted monocultures—large plantations of a single species—and received credit for carbon offsets. “This could have huge negative effects on biodiversity,” he said. “There is the potential for projects [to be harmful] if they don’t reflect biodiversity and to hurt local communities.” Payments for so-called ecosystem services—for protecting water quality and species habitats, among other things—must be reflected in REDD projects, Kammen said. In the House version of the climate bill, projects that have co-benefits for biodiversity do receive more credit than ones that do not. What support is the US giving? There are benefits from REDD projects to US companies that might soon be facing greenhouse gas emission limits from a federal policy. “If you can reduce immediate emissions as a result of land-use change and tree cover change or degradation of forests, it will take immediate pressure off emissions reductions [goals] in the short term,” WRI’s Daviet said. In addition, Kammen said that forestry projects can be done “at a rate of a few dollars per ton of carbon,” which is much less expensive than many other options, especially for electrical utilities or oil refineries. Representative Henry Waxman, expressed his support for REDD provisions within the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the climate bill he co-authored with Representative Edward Markey. “The clearing and degradation of tropical forests is a major driver of global climate change. Forests cover about 30 percent of the Earth’s land surface and hold almost half of the world’s terrestrial carbon,” Rep. Waxman said in an email. “Deforestation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries, amounting to roughly 20 percent of overall emissions globally. Reducing emissions from deforestation is highly cost-effective, compared to many other sources of emissions reductions.” Rep. Waxman is also the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Ignorance could lead to unrealistic expectations Last week the US’s special envoy to the UN, Todd Stern said he would not use public funds to aid climate efforts in China, denying the idea developed nations owe developing countries “reparations” for pollution in the past. But the global demand for things such as cheap timber or biofuels can pressure developing countries to invest in projects that produce the most revenue, said Daviet. “The bigger picture is the demand that drives deforestation in developing countries,” she said, noting our expectations for reducing deforestation may not be realistic if the US continues to buy biofuels on the world market. Over the next year, FRONTLINE/World and CIR will report on key issues of climate change in a joint project—Carbon Watch—focusing on the multi-billion-dollar carbon trading market. We’ll look at which proposals to reduce emissions by 2020 really add up; at the hidden interests behind these solutions; and the new industry players. This week, our reporters blog from the Copenhagen climate change summit.

The U.S. ups ante on forests

Mark Schapiro — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:49:09 -0800

The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack shook up the negotiations on REDD Wednesday when he announced that the United States would release $1 billion over the next 3 years to help tropical countries slow the rate of deforestation. The move, he told us, was intended to signal a new American commitment to forests and climate change. "The United States and the Obama administration is very interested in sending a clear message that we are engaged aggressively in climate change," Vilsack said. We caught up with the secretary at a private dinner sponsored by Avoided Deforestation Partners, a consortium of business and environmental interests looking to the carbon market to finance forest preservation. The move came just as tensions were mounting in negotiations over who would provide the funds to "make forests worth more alive than dead," a phrase often used by forest advocates to highlight their aims. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) estimates that $25 billion will be needed over the next 5 years to significantly slow the rate of deforestation, which contributes as much as 20 percent of all greenhouse gases. Vilsack said that his actions also reflected a new commitment at the USDA to deal with climate change and to help stimulate a new green economy in U.S. agriculture. This includes a move toward more unorthodox carbon offsets such as as no-till farming -- a practice that releases less nitrogen into the atmosphere. It is one example, Vilsack said, of "revitalizing rural America." A former Iowa governor, Vilsack said the funding could not only help reduce forest clearing to plant crops such as soy, but could be an advantage to U.S farmers. "If we can avoid people deforesting acres and acres of forests to plant new crops,” he said, "then we avoid competition with our own agriculture." The administration's move is by far the most serious commitment the U.S. has made to preserve forests. The money is intended to spur the ability of countries like Indonesia, Brazil, Guyana and other tropical forest nations to develop alternative industries to forest degradation, and to do the measurements that are critical to determining how much carbon their forests contain. In the long run, these measurements are essential if forest-based credits are going to be used with any legitimacy by U.S. industries seeking to offset their emissions. Other tensions remain. Industry analysts Point Carbon called a recent draft of the REDD agreement "remarkably void of any references to tradable credits or offsets from forest-related activities." Indeed, the latest draft seems to rely heavily on government aid to fund projects, whereas the United States wants a more market-driven solution, whereby companies will ultimately pay for forest preservation schemes as an offset for exceeding their emissions limits at home. Vilsack's announcement suggests that the U.S. may use its $1 billion to change the power dynamic and push for more market-based approaches worldwide. Over the next year, FRONTLINE/World and CIR will report on key issues of climate change in a joint project—Carbon Watch—focusing on the multi-billion-dollar carbon trading market. We’ll look at which proposals to reduce emissions by 2020 really add up; at the hidden interests behind these solutions; and the new industry players. This week, our reporters blog from the Copenhagen climate change summit.

ICE to stop detaining asylum seekers

Andrew Becker — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:45:29 -0800

The government will generally no longer detain asylum seekers who arrive at U.S. border crossings, airports and other entry points who have a credible fear of persecution or torture in their home country as long as they meet certain requirements, immigration officials announced today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Homeland Security Department's investigative arm and the agency responsible for immigration detention, will put the policy into place starting Jan. 4, according to an ICE press release. ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton said in a statement that the new policy, which changes the agency's stance on locking up people who ask for protection when they arrive at border crossings, is part of ongoing efforts to reform immigration detention. “These new parole procedures for asylum seekers will help ICE focus both on protecting against major threats to public safety and implementing common-sense detention policies,” he said. The new guidelines give the government authority to allow asylum seekers who have not been formally allowed into the country to remain out of immigration jail if they meet requirements determined by an asylum officer or an immigration judge. Normally foreign nationals who seek entrance into the United States but are without a visa or other valid travel documents are not permitted into the country. CIR previously reported with the Los Angeles Times on the detention of Mexican asylum seekers, including police officers, who fled the country because they were afraid for their lives. Arriving asylum seekers must establish their identity and show that they are not a danger to the country or a flight risk, and have a "credible" or valid fear of persecution or torture, as determined by an asylum officer or an immigration jduge. Such refugees must show that they are also eligible for asylum to be considered for release. The parole out of detention doesn't automatically mean that the asylum seeker will be granted protection. The new policy also instructs ICE agents to report monthly on parole rates and decision-making in order to ensure that paroled asylum seekers are complying with requirements. Foreign nationals who are already legally in the country when they ask for asylum are typically not subject to detention.

Native incentives

Andres Cediel — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:19:20 -0800

"Where there are forests, there are indigenous people. Where there are no forests, there are no indigenous people." Onel Masardule, a Kuna leader from Panama, smiled at the simplicity of his statement. You could read this as part fact, or depending on the results of the current negotiations, part prophecy. According to The World Bank, 1.6 billion people depend on forests for their livelihood. If the forests perish, so do they. This fundamental principle has been built into their culture, which is why the most preserved forests on earth are on indigenous lands. Masardule described the forest as his hospital, his house and his supermarket. Joseph Onesimel, a Masai from Kenya, described taking care of the forest as a duty similar to taking care of children. To him, paying someone not to chop down trees makes no sense. "When you go to the bathroom to take a shower, that is your duty. Why should I pay you for that?" As the world's leaders argue about incentives for stopping deforestation, the indigenous leaders I've been talking to keep telling me that protecting the forests should be handed to them. Traditional knowledge has maintained biodiversity for centuries. "Preserving forests is not complicated,” Onesimel told me. But, REDD, the global agreement behind forest preservation, is. Many of the forests where indigenous people live have not been demarcated; property lines have not been drawn; and there are no titles. Before any offsets are sold, land rights are going to have to be settled, which makes Masardule and others wary. Dozens died in violent clashes between the Peruvian government and indigenous groups in the Amazon last summer. The dispute was over oil and gas development, not carbon, but for Masardule it's the most recent example of foreign money trumping indigenous sovereignty. "How can REDD help me if my rights aren't recognized?" Free, prior and informed consent is the basic right all indigenous people are asking for in Copenhagen. In other words, they demand that before any carbon projects are developed on their lands, they be given the right to examine the issue and decide for themselves whether they want to participate. The latest draft of the REDD agreement only mentions indigenous people in the preamble -- not in the legally binding body of the text. The New York Times reported today that a final text of the agreement will be given to ministers on Wednesday, and that all major points, including indigenous rights, have been worked out. Masardule says the agreement will allow industries to keep polluting, while credits are changing hands. "They want to get rich off the disgrace of the whole world,” he said. Over the next year, FRONTLINE/World and CIR will report on key issues of climate change in a joint project—Carbon Watch—focusing on the multi-billion-dollar carbon trading market. We’ll look at which proposals to reduce emissions by 2020 really add up; at the hidden interests behind these solutions; and the new industry players. This week, our reporters blog from the Copenhagen climate change summit.

Forest talks slow over corruption controls

Mark Schapiro — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:55:00 -0800

During the last 24 hours of negotiations, a bloc of countries led by Papua New Guinea, with support from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, have resisted efforts to impose a package of safeguards to ensure the credibility of forest offsets. The three countries -- each with substantial amounts of uncut forests and a questionable ability to oversee them -- are objecting to three major provisions, according to Greg Picker, a former member of the Australian climate negotiating team and now a consultant on forest issues to the delegation. The first of these is the U.N.'s desire to "put boots on the ground” to ensure that trees are actually left standing -- in other words, allow inspectors to move freely within a country's borders to assess the veracity of preservation claims. The second is to clarify land titles and make sure that those paid for the carbon in the trees actually own the land on which the trees are growing. The third is a provision that will assess the "permanence" of these preservation efforts. Papua New Guinea agreed that safeguards were necessary but objected to the presence of international inspectors challenging its national sovereignty. The country has already been tarred by corruption in setting up early offset projects. In September, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on a $100 million carbon trading scandal involving fake carbon certificates in one of PNG's preservation deals.

The fate of trees

Mark Schapiro — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:00:00 -0800

Trees loom large over the proceedings in Copenhagen. Here in this sprawling, climate-controlled complex of low-slung metallic hangars where the negotiations are unfolding, the fate of the earth's forests may rest with decisions reached by the end of the week. The question is how to pay the estimated $15 to $25 billion it will cost over the next five years to start reducing deforestation by 50 percent by 2020 and eliminate it by 2030. These are the goals being set for any serious reductions on greenhouse gas emissions. The first signal of where these forest negotiations are headed came Saturday afternoon, when the Ecosystems Climate Alliance, a group representing a coalition of international and U.S. NGOs, claimed it had obtained a draft of what such a deal would look like. Called REDD, which stands for Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation, the agreement set no clear guidelines on whether public or private money would pay to protect forests -- a critical area of debate. The draft also downplayed another sensitive issue -- getting Prior Informed Consent from the indigenous people living in the forests. Environmental groups across the spectrum, including Global Witness and the Rainforest Action Network are particularly wary of forests being subjected to the forces of a carbon market. Even the Nature Conservancy, which has been pro-market in saving forests, is demanding that provisions for people living in them be a central part of any agreement. If and when private companies will be able to purchase forestlands to preserve them is at the heart of these negotiations. The United States is aligned with tropical nations like Indonesia, the Congo and Papua New Guinea, arguing that the best way to preserve forests is by permitting companies to protect them through offset funds. Meanwhile, the European Union is advocating for a multistage approach, which would begin with public support to prepare countries over the next several years to manage their forests sustainably before subjecting them to the market. Both sides have yet to agree on how much money will be committed, and from where. Rosalind Reeves, a forest campaign manager for the environmental and human rights group Global Witness, working in Kenya, is concerned that linking forest preservation directly to the carbon market could lead to a boom in government corruption, especially in countries that have large areas of tropical forest in tact -- like the Congo and Papua New Guinea. "A lot of people see [the REDD agreement] as a big opportunity to save the forests," Reeves said, "but there are lots of risks attached." If you get a deal that "doesn't protect the natural forests and the rights of the people who live in that forest, and doesn't promote strong governance or include effective monitoring, then you've got problems," she said. Reeves has gone from tracking the illegal wildlife trade to the illegal logging trade and is now trying to ensure that the market solution for preserving forests favored by the United States does not create an entirely new business in carbon crimes. Any agreement is in peril without the ability to properly enforce it. The Lusaka Agreement Task Force is one of the enforcement operations talking to delegates. The group was created under a joint agreement between several African nations and draws from enforcement agencies across West Africa. The group is helping advise on REDD guidelines so that accounting for fraud and other potential abuses are not overlooked. In many parts of the world, land titles are unclear; and the rules governing how to account for forestlands, even tax them, have yet to be written. "You have unclear rules, a whole economy being formed -- it's ripe for criminals," said Davyth Stewart, a former organized crime investigator in Australia's national police force. He's now a lawyer with Global Witness, and focusing on this new market for forests. Over the next year, FRONTLINE/World and CIR will report on key issues of climate change in a joint project—Carbon Watch—focusing on the multi-billion-dollar carbon trading market. We’ll look at which proposals to reduce emissions by 2020 really add up; at the hidden interests behind these solutions; and the new industry players. This week, our reporters blog from the Copenhagen climate change summit.

Editorial: Feinstein needs to balance interests

CIR Staff — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:33:25 -0800

California Watch’s story on corporate farmer Stewart Resnick and Dianne Feinstein sparked a Sac Bee editorial.

Dianne Feinstein was quick to respond in September when a big corporate farmer sought her help in challenging limits on the export of water out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Unfortunately, she's rarely shown that level of interest in representing the concerns of commercial salmon fishermen. They are arguably far more vulnerable to how those flows are regulated. An article by the investigative group California Watch, which appeared in last Monday's Bee, revealed some of Feinstein's priorities. ... It would behoove Feinstein, and the state she represents, if she spent as much personal time with dry-docked salmon fishermenas corporate farmers who have a fairly limited view on the subject of water. The salmon fishermen's claim on the water flows that course though the Delta is just as compelling as agriculture's.

Send your questions to Copenhagen via web-cam

CIR Staff — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:40:46 -0800

The world is watching Copenhagen. Here is your chance to be heard. Send your comments and questions about the climate change summit to CIR senior correspondent Mark Schapiro via FRONTLINE/World's new web-cam tool:

Whatever your concerns are about climate change and wherever you live in the world, we'd love to hear from you. For the next 10 days we have a team from FRONTLINE/World covering the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen. As they report from this chaotic gathering and track down some of the major stakeholders, we wanted to invite our viewers to ask Mark Schapiro, our lead reporter there, your most pressing questions. You can do this by using a great new video record tool. It's simple and fun to use. Just click on the record button below, leave your message, and submit. We will then take a selection of your questions for an interview with Mark that we will post before the summit ends on December 18th.

>> Send your video message here.

Airborne accounting

Mark Schapiro — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:50:56 -0800

On route to Copenhagen, Mark Schapiro’s first blog post follows a surprising mid-air announcement. It was at 33,000 feet, on route from Paris, when I had my first welcome to the climate change talks in Copenhagen. We’d reached our cruising altitude and the captain of the Air France flight came on the public address system, greeting us in French with the usual, ‘Hope you are enjoying your flight," when he launched into this: “This flight amounts to a carbon footprint of 2 liters of fuel per person for every 100 kilometers of the 900 kilometer trip to Copenhagen." That’s the same fuel consumption per person, he told us, as it would take to drive from Paris to Copenhagen, but then came the pilot’s twist: “We’re carrying a lot more people,” he said. I looked around and we were in a packed Airbus 321, carrying almost 200 passengers. His statement got my attention. The stewardess, Fatya, told me it was the first time she’d heard such an announcement in her many trips across the continent. The man next to me, an engineer flying in from Bogota, whose business of recycling equipment to companies in Latin America is booming (a market U.S. manufacturers barely know exists), did some napkin calculations and assured me the pilot was right. This was a lot more carbon-efficient than driving the same route: our Airbus 321 carrying 200 passengers, the average car carrying perhaps four. Air France plans to reduce its average fuel consumption per passenger to 3.7 liters per 100 km by 2012, and the industry’s green-focused trade groups say the new generation of fleets are already more efficient per person per mile than the most modern compact cars. But that's another blog post. The message from Copenhagen, then, had made it into the turbulent, rain-soaked skies of Europe. When we landed, I had a quick word with Captain Gaetan Sroczysnki. He said it was his own decision to make the announcement -- not company policy -- and other pilot friends were doing the same. All of them were aware that airplanes are one of the largest guzzlers of fuel and thus emitters of greenhouse gases. These pilots wanted to acknowledge in their own way the necessity for reducing these levels. There were no such announcements on my flight from San Francisco to Paris. Nor, it turns out, does Captain Sroczysnki’s concern come out of thin air. Here in Europe, the skies are already a major focus of greenhouse gas reduction efforts: The European Union recently issued a list of proposals to limit the emissions from the aviation sector, which is estimated to produce about 3 percent of Europe’s greenhouse gases. All airlines flying in or out of European airports must begin to tally their fuel use and carbon emissions to create a baseline for limits that will be established in 2012. These actions have already prompted the Air Transport Association and major U.S. carriers like United, American Airlines and Continental to threaten a legal challenge to EU laws on the grounds that they violate free-trade provisions and air navigation treaties, some of which date back to 1944. While a new airline emissions limit is still being worked out, observers expect the cap will be around 20 million tons of CO2 for 2012, with a 5 percent reduction on that figure by the following year. Welcome to the friendly skies! During the next two weeks, CIR's Mark Schapiro will be blogging from the Copenhagen climate change summit for Carbon Watch, a joint project "tracking the new currencies of global warming" by the Center for Investigative Reporting and FRONTLINE/World.

Report from Copenhagen

Jackie Bennion — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:56:23 -0800

A lot of conflicting agendas are converging on the U.N. Climate Change Summit this week in Copenhagen, and reporter Mark Schapiro and producer Andres Cediel will be in the thick of the action. Throughout the next two weeks, they will be talking to diplomats, industry leaders, activists, economists, and many others with a stake in how the world proceeds from here. Their coverage of this mother of all gatherings, which will set the course for new global emissions standards once the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012, is part of "Carbon Watch," a joint reporting project of the Center for Investigative Reporting and FRONTLINE. We will be tracking the new currencies of global warming, in particular the multi-billion-dollar carbon market and all it entails. What are the mechanisms behind this new economy, which the French finance minister calls "a regulatory vacuum," and who stands to gain and lose as carbon’s currency rises? Plus what are the hidden agendas already at work among the world’s largest polluters? We began the series with a video report from Brazil, home to the world’s largest carbon sink and an intricate player in a controversial plan by rich nations to pay poorer ones not to cut down their remaining forests. It’s a critical issue on the table at Copenhagen as deforestation is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. This being the international story of our time, our team will be posting regular updates and uploading video interviews throughout the summit and beyond. So stay with us.

Class size report reaches diverse communities

CIR Staff — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:43:11 -0800

California Watch, a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting, is implementing a new distribution model to reach diverse California communities in multimedia formats. On November 19, California Watch published an in-depth report, which found that class sizes in K-3 grades in California are reverting in some districts to levels not seen for over a decade, despite more than $20 billion spent on a program to reduce class size. Since then, the story has been distributed in five languages, through a variety of media outlets – web, broadcast, and print – highlighting California Watch’s approach of focusing on important statewide issues with local appeal and collaborating with media outlets to customize the content and engage local communities. The combined daily print circulation was close to 1,000,000. Many more Californians had access to the story through television, radio and Web-based media. Distribution outlets included the following:

Through a new collaboration with New America Media, Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese translations of the story were distributed to ethnic media around the state. The story ran in The Cali Today (Vietnamese), La Opinion (Spanish), Nguoi Viet (Vietnamese), Sing Tao Daily (Chinese), sina.com (Chinese), Sun-Reporter (African-American), TheLoop21 (African-American), Viet Tribune (Vietnamese), IndyBayArea and topix.com. New America Media also supplemented California Watch’s coverage, with essays by young people from the Central Valley about how crowded classrooms impact their learning experience, and with a report on how class sizes affect African-American students.
The Los Angeles Daily News, San Diego Union Tribune, Modesto Bee and Oakland Tribune published the story on their front pages. The Contra Costa Times, San Mateo County Times, Tri-Valley Herald, Fremont Argus and Hayward Daily Review also carried the story.
KGO-TV (San Francisco) and KCRA-TV (Sacramento) produced television news reports to supplement the California Watch story. (KCRA is a new media partner for California Watch.)
As part of a newly formed partnership with KQED FM, a 6 ½ minute radio report on class size, produced by Michael Montgomery, hired jointly by KQED and California Watch, was broadcast on KQED’s The California Report, airing on 28 public radio stations around the state. KQED’s call-in talk show Forum dedicated an hour to the subject, including participation by the story’s co-author, Louis Freedberg.
The story appeared on more than a dozen Web sites, including truthdig.com, newamericamedia.org, educatedguess.org, and those of all the media partners. It was made available to Associated Press subscribers around the state through AP’s Marketplace feature.

The story was accompanied by a set of interactive tools produced by California Watch including a state-by-state comparison of teacher-student ratios, a Web video featuring interviews with teachers from Plummer Elementary School in Los Angeles, and an interactive map with detailed information on class sizes in the state’s 30 largest school districts. The full report, plus related multimedia material, can be viewed at www.californiawatch.org. About The Investigation California Watch reporters Louis Freedberg and Hugo Cabrera took an in-depth look at a class-size reduction program initiated in 1996 that provided generous subsidies to schools that limited K-3 classrooms to 20 students per teacher. Since then, the state has invested over $20 billion to keep classes at or close to that level. Today, most of California's largest school districts are increasing class sizes – some to as many as 30 students -- eroding the most expensive education reform in the state’s history. The shift has parents and teachers concerned that the academic performance of millions of children will suffer. California’s K-12 teacher-student ratios already rank 48th in the nation. The overall project was coordinated and edited by editorial director Mark Katches. About California Watch and The Center for Investigative Reporting California Watch, the largest investigative team operating in the state, was launched in 2009 by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR). Priority areas of coverage include education, health and welfare, public safety, the environment and the influence of money on the political and regulatory process. The goal is to expose hidden truths, prompt debate and spark change. California Watch receives funding from The James Irvine Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Founded in 1977, the Center for Investigative Reporting is the nation's oldest nonprofit investigative news organization. CIR reports have reached the public through television, print, radio and the web, appearing in outlets such as 60 Minutes, PBS Frontline, NPR, The Los Angeles Times<, Washington Post, Politico and U.S. News & World Report. CIR stories have received numerous journalism awards including the Alfred I. du Pont-Columbia University Silver Baton, George Polk Award, Emmy Award, Investigative Reporters and Editors Award, and National Magazine Award for Reporting Excellence. More importantly, its reports have sparked congressional hearings and legislation, United Nations resolutions, public interest lawsuits and change in corporate policies. CIR founded California Watch to help create a new model for regional investigative and other high-impact reporting.

On the ground in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley

Carrie Ching — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:24:22 -0800

Today, President Obama addresses the nation to reveal a new plan for winning, and ending, the war in Afghanistan—many expect a substantial increase in U.S. troops deployed to the area. Last week, FRONTLINE/World posted an iWitness interview with journalist Elizabeth Rubin, who was embedded with American soldiers in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley, a remote area close to the Pakistan border, for two months in 2007. She returned to the valley nine months later to see how the situation had progressed. Her experiences shed some light on the realities American soldiers face on the ground there. Watch the interview here:
>> Watch additional uncut scenes shot by Rubin in Afghanistan on FRONTLINE/World's iWitness website. Elizabeth Rubin's reporting in Afghanistan was supported in part by CIR's Dick Goldensohn Fund.

Southwest border corruption cases continue to rise

Andrew Becker — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:12:02 -0800

Corruption-related investigations of federal immigration and border agents in the Southwest has increased for the third year in a row, according to records obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting through a Freedom of Information Act request. More than 80 investigations were opened last year by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General in the four Southwest border states against employees of Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agencies that police the border and immigration. The Inspector General, which is the lead Homeland Security agency to investigate criminal corruption cases, had more than 170 open cases, some dating to 2003, at the end of last fiscal year. That figure does not include cases being investigated by the FBI or the internal affairs offices of CBP or ICE. CBP has significantly increased its ranks in recent years, while also hiring more internal affairs agents to combat the threat of corruption. The latest case of an allegedly corrupt customs inspector was announced yesterday by federal officials in El Paso. Martha Alicia Garnica, 43, was arrested and indicted on charges of conspiracy to smuggle undocumented aliens, two counts of bribery and one count of importation of a controlled substance, according to a press release. CBP spokesman Roger Maier said in an email statement that Garnica was hired as customs inspector in February 1997 and became a CBP officer when DHS formed in 2003. Since March 2008 she had been a technician assigned to the El Paso border crossing. "Corruption is an issue CBP takes extremely seriously," Maier said. "Corruption by employees tarnishes our badge and our reputation, brings dishonor to our service and most importantly jeopardizes our border security." An El Paso police spokesman said an officer by the same name worked for the department from 1990 to 1997, but could not confirm it was the same person. November has been a busy time for corruption cases. Two CBP officers have been sentenced, two more will be sentenced later this month, and another this weekpleaded guilty to charges . In South Texas, Raul Montano, 34, pleaded guilty Monday to bribery, cocaine trafficking and illegal immigrant smuggling charges. The former CBP officer will be sentenced in February. Earlier this month, Sergio Lopez Hernandez, a 41-year-old former CBP officer, was sentenced in Federal District Court to more than 11 years in prison for human smuggling, bribery and cocaine possession. The former officer, who worked in Brownsville, Texas, admitted to taking more than $15,000 in bribes when he pleaded guilty in April. In San Diego, John Paul Yanez-Camacho, a former CBP officer at the Otay Mesa border crossing, was sentenced to three years probation after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized access to a government computer. From January 2005 through November 2006 Yanez-Camacho accessed a government database containing confidential information more than 250 times to check on the status of himself, family members, and drug traffickers who he knew from a previous job he held at Tequila Frogs restaurant in Juarez, Mexico, according to court documents. Yanez-Camacho was hired in 2003 by the federal government. Jesus Velasco Esparza, a former CBP officer at the Calexico, Calif., border crossing, will be sentenced for corruption-related charges next week.

Update: Velasco Esparza's sentencing has been postponed until next year. Also, CBP Officer Henry Gauani, 41, of Yuma, Ariz., and his wife were sentenced Nov. 23 to a little more than three years in prison on bribery and drug trafficking charges. They were arrested in January and pleaded guilty in June. Raquel Esquivel, a Border Patrol agent in Texas who was convicted in April by a federal jury of drug-trafficking charges, will be sentenced today.

All told, the Inspector General opened in fiscal year 2009 more than 400 investigations in the four Southwest border states, ranging from misconduct to criminal corruption cases. That number represents the most investigations in any year since the advent of the department in 2003. Overall, the Inspector General has 725 open investigations. Other recent cases: • Yamilkar Fierros, a former Border Patrol agent in Arizona, was arrested Oct. 30 and indicted on charges of accepting bribes. • Former CBP Officer Rudy Trace Soliz III, 43, of Brownsville, was arrested Oct. 29 and charged with human smuggling • Elliott R. Hernandez, 44, of Houston, a Citizenship and Immigration Services officer was arrested Oct. 22 on charges of bribery, fraud in connection with a computer and receiving something of value in exchange for performing an official act to which he is not entitled. • Former CBP Officer Jose Carmelo Magana, 46, of Yuma, Arizona, pleaded guilty on Oct. 21 of charges of bribery and human smuggling. He will be sentenced in January. • Retired CBP Officer Tony Alan Barker, 58, of Sahuarita, Ariz., was detained Oct. 7 on child pornography charges. Barker, a retired Customs and Border Protection officer of 35 years out of Georgia, was indicted in September 2009 by a federal grand jury in Tucson for Attempted Distribution of Child Pornography and Possession of Child Pornography. • Former CBP Officer Javier Cavazos, 50, of Los Fresnos, Texas, was arrested on Sept. 29 and charged with bribery in connection with human smuggling.

"Banished" screening and conversation with Marco Williams

Christa Scharfenberg — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:05:30 -0800

Join Facing History and CIR for a screening and discussion of Banished, our 2007 documentary produced with Marco Williams of Two Tone Productions. At the turn of the last century, in communities across the U.S., white residents forced thousands of black families to flee their homes. Many of these towns remain almost entirely white to this day. Banished tells the story of three of these communities and their black descendants, who return to learn their shocking histories. The event on December 3rd will include excerpts of the film, followed by a conversation with director Marco Williams. A member of the faculty at NYU, Williams is a documentary and fiction film director. His films have been broadcast on cable and public television and have been screened at film festivals throughout the world. As part of Facing History and Ourselves' national series of Community Conversations, this event is free and open to the public. Reservations are recommended. Click here to RSVP. For more information about the event, contact Karen Foster at 510-786-2500 x226 or karen_foster@facing.org.

Talk about increasing class sizes on KQED's Forum

CIR Staff — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:36:23 -0800

California Watch's report on class size increasing in kindergarten through third grade—also carried in broadcast form on KQED’s The California Report—is generating wide interest across the state. As a follow up to the report, KQED’s Forum live call-in program will devote an hour to the topic tomorrow (Friday November 20) beginning at 10 a.m. The programs are a product of a new, innovative arrangement between KQED and the Center for Investigative Reporting, in which the two organizations will collaborate on multiple reporting projects during the year. California Watch director Louis Freedberg, co-author of the report, will participate as a guest on in the program. Other guests will be Norton Grubb, UC Berkeley professor Norton Grubb, Sheila Jordan, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, and Camille Haroldsen, a third grade teacher from Watsonville. For more details, go to http://www.kqed.org/radio/programs/forum. Tune in at 88.5 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area, and 89.3 FM in the Sacramento area.

Putting a price on trees

Mark Schapiro — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:07:56 -0800

The first time I heard there was a $150 billion market in carbon I thought I’d misheard the letter “b.” That was about a year ago. I quickly discovered that, indeed, it was “billion,” not million. But how could you spend $150 billion on something that barely anyone—in the U.S. anyway—understands? The number is the value of carbon offsets that have been traded on the international carbon market. The market was created in 2005 by the cap-and-trade system established in countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol (every developed country has ratified the treaty except the United States). In other words, “cap,” meaning government-mandated emission limits, and “trade,” meaning you can buy your way out of those limits through investments that reduce emissions elsewhere. Roll forward five years, and carbon is now the fastest-growing commodity in the world, with companies buying and selling carbon credits much like pork bellies or silver. Once the U.S. establishes its own set of emission limits—and offsets to meet them—the market for carbon is expected to explode into a multitrillion-dollar business. Finding out what lies behind those numbers led the Center for Investigative Reporting and FRONTLINE/World to launch our Carbon Watch series. Our first step in this ongoing investigation took us far from negotiations in Washington deep into the forests of Brazil. Three major U.S. companies, each with their own huge carbon footprint, invested in 50,000 acres of forestland on Brazil’s southeast coast. By agreeing not to cut down the trees, and thus sequestering the carbon dioxide rather than releasing it into the atmosphere, they’re hoping to obtain offset credits. It’s something we’re likely to see more of: Every major bill now being considered by the U.S. Congress includes the potential for American companies to invest in forests like this one and use them as credits to either offset their own emissions or sell on the market. While most Americans are not aware of what this market is, people in Brazil certainly are. While we visited the carbon reserve in Parana state, my colleague Andres Cediel, the producer of this segment, filmed a high school class in the port town of Antonina, on the edge of Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, one of the most bio-diverse regions on earth. The teacher turned the blackboard over to her star student and asked her to present the basic principles behind how a Brazilian forest could be turned into an offset. It was a scene I would not forget: You can watch it for yourself in the clip above. If a student in Brazil could explain to her peers how the forests in her backyard are being turned into an offset by American companies thousands of miles away, then we should start trying to figure this out. The resulting FRONTLINE/World video and companion print story in the November/December issue of Mother Jones begin the first chapter. We’ll be headed to Washington shortly and next month to Copenhagen where all the key political and financial players will be hammering out a new global climate deal. Stay with us as we investigate the financial, geopolitical and environmental forces at work in this new economy of global warming.

ICE moving forward with new Los Angeles-area immigration lock-up

Andrew Becker — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:46:13 -0800

The federal agency that oversees immigration detention will solicit bids next month for a new 2,200-bed detention center in the Los Angeles area. Update: As of Dec. 14 ICE has delayed its bid solicitation date.

"The Government anticipates release of the solicitation during the first quarter of 2010. The response date will be changed based on the date of release," according to the fedbizopps.gov.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, posted an online notice this week stating that it intends to open bids on Dec. 15 for a contractor to own and operate a low-custody detention facility for men. The facility would be one of the largest immigration lock-ups in the country. Continuing a policy pushed under the Bush administration, the Obama team has moved to deport more criminal aliens, which has also driven a need for more bed space. Los Angeles County is one of the first counties in California to participate in ICE’s Secure Communities program, which screens the immigration status of all booked inmates. Several dozen counties, mostly along the Southwest border, participate in the program, which will be rolled out nationwide over the next few years. Update: ICE announced today that its Secure Communities initiative identified more than 111,000 criminal aliens in local custody during its first year. From the press release:

Since its inception in October 2008, Secure Communities has identified more than 11,000 aliens charged or convicted with Level 1 crimes, such as murder, rape and kidnapping—1,900 of which have already been removed from the United States—and more than 100,000 aliens convicted of Level 2 and 3 crimes, including burglary and serious property crimes. -snip- Currently, DHS prioritizes the deployment of Secure Communities to jurisdictions with the highest volume of dangerous criminal aliens.

Homeland Security officials have said they want to reform immigration detention, including increased use of alternatives to detention such as ankle bracelet monitoring. Immigration advocates have said that the reforms are a good start, but don’t go far enough to address human rights concerns. Officials have also indicated that they aim to shift toward more civil rather than prison-like detention centers. In announcing a number of initiatives, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE chief John Morton last month said ICE has begun the creation of a custody classification system to assign detainees to appropriate facilities based on risk assessment. According to the pre-solicitation notice posted on the federal contracting Web site fedbizopps.gov, the facility will generally house men convicted of non-violent offenses, “non-convicted criminals” and “fugitive aliens and immigration recidivists.” No more than 10 percent of the detainees will be violent criminals. ICE also wants immigration courtrooms at the detention center, which will have two main housing areas of no more than 1,000 detainees each, subdivided into units of approximately 60 beds. The notice also calls for a 200-bed unit for administrative and disciplinary segregation and a 100-bed health care facility with medical, dental, and mental health services. The five-year base contract is expected to be awarded in July. The response deadline is Feb. 22. ICE closed a detention center on Terminal Island in San Pedro about two years ago because of needed repairs. More than 400 detainees were transferred to other facilities in California, Arizona, Texas and Washington, according to the Los Angeles Times.

CIR's Mark Schapiro discusses Carbon Watch project on Boston radio

Sarah McHie — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:22:35 -0800

This morning, CIR's Mark Schapiro was interviewed about his latest project, Carbon Watch, on Boston public radio station WBUR's "Here and Now." Carbon Watch is a joint project of CIR and FRONTLINE/World investigating the carbon offsets industry. Schapiro's first stories take a closer look at one "avoided deforestation" project in Brazil. Schapiro's work was also mentioned by the REDD-Monitor, an online journal that discusses carbon credit projects categorized as REDD—"reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation."

California Watch and KQED announce editorial collaboration

CIR Staff — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:42:27 -0800

California Watch, a division of the Center for Investigative Reporting, and KQED Public Radio today announced a new editorial collaboration that will expand the exposure of investigative and other high-impact stories produced by California Watch, for the benefit of listeners statewide. The new collaboration will result in reports airing on KQED Public Radio’s The California Report, which is distributed to 28 stations throughout the California region, reaching 620,000 listeners per week. The collaboration will include the production of interactive multimedia tools that will be featured on the websites of both organizations; in-depth radio reports produced exclusively for KQED; radio and television appearances by California Watch journalists on KQED programs; and the pooling of editorial resources. Veteran investigative journalist Michael Montgomery will produce the California Watch reports that will air on KQED. In addition, California Watch’s Sacramento-based reporters will share office space with KQED’s Capitol Bureau. “Public radio is a critical distribution outlet and this opportunity to reach large numbers of public radio listeners in California fits right into our strategy of maximizing the impact of our stories by using multiple media platforms,” said Robert Rosenthal, executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting. “KQED has been a long-time partner of the CIR and we are excited about expanding the relationship even further -- in a way that benefits both of our organizations and most importantly, serves Californians.” “This collaboration is groundbreaking, and we are excited to be a part of it,” said Jo Anne Wallace, KQED vice president and general manager. “KQED is always looking for new ways to inform, educate, and engage our audiences. California Watch plans to produce exactly the kind of high quality journalism along with innovative interactive multimedia tools that our audiences want.” The editorial collaboration between KQED and California Watch began earlier in November. Michael Montgomery, who will be based at CIR, and who has reported extensively on the criminal justice system in California, will produce original radio reports for KQED. In addition, he will work with other California Watch journalists on radio releases of their stories that will air on KQED. Montgomery comes to California Watch from American RadioWorks, where he has been a correspondent and producer since 1999. In addition to statewide broadcasts, KQED will seek to distribute California Watch stories nationally and internationally. California Watch broadcasts will also be available for download at www.kqed.org. For more information, contact Scott Walton at KQED, swalton@kqed.org/415-553-2145, or Lisa Cohen at California Watch, 310-395-2544.

CIR's Mark Schapiro talks about visit to carbon offset project in Brazil on Democracy Now

CIR Staff — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:12:51 -0800

On Democracy Now!, CIR's Mark Schapiro discusses his reporting trip into the heart of the carbon offsets market on the Atlantic coast of Brazil–where a tree owned by General Motors is given an offset value of $1. Schapiro's report is part of a joint project between CIR and FRONTLINE/World that launched this week: "Carbon Watch: Tracking the New Currencies of Global Warming" In a FRONTLINE/World video series, and accompanying Mother Jones article, Schapiro speaks with people who were displaced from a preserve where they've lived for generations—a forest now owned by General Motors. The forest was purchased by GM in partnership with the Nature Conservancy as part of an initiative to preserve biodiversity. What does GM get out of the deal? "The potentially lucrative rights to the carbon sequestered in the trees," Schapiro explains in his article. And unfortunately for the Guarani Indians and subsistence farmers who live in and near the forest, the new designation of the land as nature preserve and carbon offset project means they are no longer welcome. "I heard numerous stories of people being harassed, arrested, and shot at while looking for food, wood, or reeds," Schapiro writes. He notes this has dire consequences for the community:

By excluding villagers from the forests, says Jutta Kill, a researcher with the Forests and the European Union Resource Network who has spent months interviewing locals about the project, the reserves are pulling out the communities' lifeline. "In this area," she says, "everyone is cash poor but no one goes hungry. If you take the forest away, you take away everything. The preservation projects here are designed to generate offsets for the largest polluters, and they're doing it by cutting off people from the land." Few of the people here have motors on their boats, she notes; even fewer own cars. People with some of the smallest carbon footprints on Earth are being displaced by companies with some of the biggest.

World leaders prepare for climate change talks in Copenhagen; fossil fuel industry prepares multinational backlash

Carrie Ching — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:24:01 -0800

As the Kyoto Protocol runs out, world leaders plan to reconvene in Copenhagen, Denmark this December to discuss provisions for a new multinational treaty to reduce carbon emissions and prevent climate change. At the same time, fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters are preparing a global campaign to influence negotiations at the conference and protect their interests. Reporters from the Center for Public Integrity in D.C. have joined a team of journalists from eight countries "deemed essential to a successful treaty"— Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, the United States, and European Union—to investigate this multinational lobbying campaign. The report, "The Global Climate Change Lobby," was released by CPI this week. It includes an interactive map showing current levels of greenhouse gas emissions by country. The CPI report coincided with the launch of CIR's collaborative project with FRONTLINE/World to investigate the trillion-dollar carbon trading market: "Carbon Watch." From the CPI report:

Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental calamity, the investigation found. Among our findings: • Both developed and developing countries are under heavy pressure by fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive businesses to slow progress on negotiations and weaken government commitments. The clash cannot simply be framed as one between richer and poorer nations. • China’s moves to hasten development of renewable energy, Brazil’s pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other steps to address climate change in the developing world have prompted a strong pushback from domestic in-country interests determined to maintain the status quo. • Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science that marked the pre-Kyoto battles, lobbyists seeking to dilute the Copenhagen treaty have changed strategy, acknowledging there is a problem while focusing on slowing or easing national commitments. • The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in developed countries, where official registers reveal that thousands of industry representatives have attempted to influence climate legislation. In the United States, there are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists — five lobbyists for every member of Congress — a 400 percent jump from six years earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European Union, hundreds more lobbyists are at work attempting to block or water down strict limits on carbon emissions. • Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts to influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the world’s largest coal company, in Australia and the United States; and oil giant Exxon Mobil in Canada, the European Union, and the United States. Although largely operating at a national level, opponents of a strong climate change treaty are employing similar fear tactics worldwide, including threats of massive blackouts and job losses. • The voices of scores of business advocates for stronger climate change policy, including alternative energy companies and would-be players in the carbon market, can barely be heard above the clamor of the older, well-capitalized, and deeply entrenched industries that have been lobbying on climate change for more than 20 years. • As a result of the forces arrayed against stricter emissions limits, no developed nation has made a firm pledge for the kind of emissions cut scientists say will be needed within the next decade to stave off catastrophic climate change.

CIR and FRONTLINE/World launch "Carbon Watch"

CIR Staff — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Today, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) and FRONTLINE/World launched "Carbon Watch," an investigative collaboration that will track the evolving, soon-to-be trillion-dollar global carbon market. The project will take an ongoing, in-depth look at the often hidden interests behind the proposed solutions to the climate change crisis. This investigation will be presented on multiple platforms – print, radio, television and online – all aggregated on Carbon Watch. The Web site, produced by CIR and FRONTLINE/World, will provide the public with extensive ongoing reporting on the markets created by cap and trade, from original stories to background information, blogs and dispatches from reporters around the world. "Climate change is one of the key issues of our time," said Robert Rosenthal, Executive Director of CIR. "Through this unique collaboration with FRONTLINE/World, our goal is to make it possible for the world to experience what is happening in real-time through blogs, videos and in-depth reporting. ‘Carbon Watch’ provides the public with a compelling multimedia platform and a central place to learn about these critical decisions that will affect our environment, the global economy and the balance of power for years to come." The project is being led by CIR’s award-winning Senior Correspondent Mark Schapiro. "Carbon Watch" launches today with Schapiro’s first story, "The Money Tree," a video report from Brazil. The video, produced in association with Mother Jones magazine – which features a print version of the story in its November/ December issue – follows the trail of a carbon offset project launched in a Brazilian forest by three U.S. companies: General Motors, Chevron and American Electric Power. Schapiro is also the correspondent for a two-part radio series on this topic scheduled to air on American Public Media’s Marketplace in November. His ongoing coverage will include video and blog reports from the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. Further stories will be released in multiple outlets and on this Web site in the months to come. "With 'Carbon Watch,' we've created a groundbreaking joint project in online investigative reporting that allows us to engage a worldwide audience on a complex and unfolding global story," said Sharon Tiller, Series Executive Director, FRONTLINE/World. "This multimedia initiative brings together the best of in-depth reporting and innovative storytelling to create a unique evergreen web destination that covers the business of climate change in a way that goes far beyond current media coverage." For more information on Carbon Watch, visit pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/.

Investigative reporter Jerry Mitchell breaking ground in Civil Rights-era cold cases

Carrie Ching — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:28:19 -0700

Today in the American South, scores of civil rights murders remain unsolved, uninvestigated, unprosecuted, and untold. Those two legacies of violence and silence still haunt the region and continue to damage race relations in the United States. Investigative journalist Jerry Mitchell has been re-opening many of these "cold cases" while reporting at The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Mississippi. His work has resulted in convictions in four cases, and has revealed evidence in several others. Last month, Mitchell was awarded the MacArthur Foundation's "Genius Grant"—a $500,000 award. He talks about his work in an article published today by Editor & Publisher: "Aiding Justice in Civil Rights-era Murder Cases." Mitchell is joined by several other reporters doing similar investigations on unsolved Civil Rights-era murder cases in a collaborative project that will launch next month by the Center for Investigative Reporting, Paperny Films, and WNET in New York. Stay tuned.

Obama administration preparing for immigration reform ... or shuffling the deck?

Andrew Becker — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:54:01 -0700

In another sign that the Obama administration is preparing for — or at least thinking about — sweeping reforms of the nation's broken immigration system, the agency that polices the nation's immigration laws has created a new position to work on issues related to possible new legislation. John W. Salter, who previously ran the Los Angeles legal office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was recently named to the newly created post of ICE Special Counsel for Legal Affairs, ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley confirmed in an email to the Center for Investigative Reporting. Salter's other responsibilities include "working with ICE's Headquarters legal division to prepare legal guidance on complex areas of immigration law, monitoring the development of case law and analyzing the impact of these changes on ICE's litigation strategy and working on issues related to comprehensive immigration reform," Haley wrote. The Obama administration has said that fixing the nation's immigration system will have to wait until next year. In the interim, the Department of Homeland Security, which has been tasked with planning for the legislative push, is drafting language for a possible bill, sources say. Earlier the month, Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, told The New York Times that his agency is preparing for the possibility of giving "legal status to millions of illegal immigrants" as part of a legislative package. Salter assumed his new duties on Sept. 28. He reports to the director of field legal operations. Salter had been the chief counsel in Los Angeles for ICE and the former INS since 1991, according to Haley. The Los Angeles chief counsel's office made big news over the summer with the ICE crackdown on illegal immigrants employed by LA-based clothier American Apparel. The new ICE chief counsel in Los Angeles, the agency's largest field office, is James S. Stolley. From Haley:

Stolley oversees a staff of approximately 100 attorneys and 33 support personnel. During the course of his federal career, Mr. Stolley has held a variety of key legal positions. Most recently, he served as the Chief of Staff to ICE’s Principal Legal Advisor in Washington, D.C. Prior to that, he was the Deputy Chief Counsel for ICE in San Francisco, a position he assumed in 2002. Mr. Stolley received his law degree from the University of Maine School of Law. He began his government career as a trial attorney for the former INS in 1994 in San Francisco.

Let's break this down, abilities, credentials, and degrees aside: ICE's principal legal advisor (top attorney) — whom Mr. Stolley served as chief of staff — is Peter Vincent (bio here). After graduating from the University of Virginia law school in 1995 (he took an bachelor of arts degree with high honors in political science from the University of California, Berkeley), he worked for about seven years in the legal department as a litigator for the multi-national engineering firm Bechtel Corporation before he joined the former INS in July 2002. His first INS job was in the San Francisco chief counsel's office, where Stolley was deputy chief counsel. John T. Morton, assistant secretary for ICE (bio here), graduated from the University of Virginia law school a year before Vincent. He joined the federal government in 1994, first in New York as an INS trial attorney through the Justice Department honors program. He went on to become special assistant to INS general counsel David A. Martin, who took a leave of absence as a law professor at the University of Virginia from 1995 to 1998, to serve in that position. Martin (brief bio here) is now the principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Homeand Security. Quick question: Why would Salter leave a post he held for 18 years?

Mexican human rights activist released by U.S. immigration

Andrew Becker — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:32:58 -0700

Gustavo de la Rosa Hickerson, a human-rights investigator in the northern Mexican state of Chihuahua, was released last Wednesday after being held for about a week. The El Paso Times has the story here.

Second immigration official leaves new federal office

Andrew Becker — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:00:00 -0700

A second high-ranking official in a two-month-old federal office that oversees immigration detention policy and planning has left the government, sources say. Cree Zischke, tasked with addressing detainee health care issues for Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Detention Policy and Planning, departed just weeks after her boss, Dr. Dora Schriro, left ICE in late September to become commissioner of New York City's jails. “I am no longer with the ICE Office of Detention Planning and Policy (sic),” she wrote in an out-of-office auto-reply received on Oct. 14 by the Center for Investigative Reporting. Sources this week confirmed that Zischke is no longer with ICE, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, and has returned to the private sector. Calls seeking comment from Zischke were not returned. Zischke came to ICE from the Arizona Department of Corrections, where she directed a program that addressed health and mental health services, among other concerns, according to her resume posted on LinkedIn, a business-oriented social networking Web site. She followed Schriro, her former boss in Arizona, to Washington, D.C., leaving her prison post in March. Before directing the ICE detention policy and planning office, Schriro had advised Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on immigration detention. Before that, she ran Arizona's prisons when Napolitano was governor of the state. The New York Times reported in September that Schriro left DHS because of “the needs of a sick family member in New York, not any policy disagreements with the administration.” Schriro left the position a little more than a month into her job as the director of the new ICE office, which was unveiled in early August. Phyllis A. Coven, who has spent 17 years in federal government, most recently with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, replaced Schriro as the office's acting director. The decision — and timing — of both departures surprised advocates, Congressional staffers and other government employees, and left many speculating about the reasons. Megan Bremer, managing attorney of the Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center, which offers legal services to detained immigrants in York, Penn., said advocacy groups like hers were optimistic about discussions over reform with Schriro and Zischke, and hoped the same efforts would continue. “Folks in the Department of Homeland Security, like Cree, were really reaching out to advocates, sitting down across the table from us and listening,” she said. “PIRC is very disappointed that the kind of people who have the ability to create partnerships are leaving the government during this critical period of reform." Immigration advocates had put stock in Schriro to overhaul the nation’s immigration detention system, first as a special advisor to Secretary Napolitano, then as the new office’s first director. After Schriro left advocates hoped that Zischke would continue what her former boss had started. In early October Schriro released a 35-page report that outlined recommendations and potential reforms to the immigration detention system, which uses more than 300 facilities around the country to hold more than 30,000 detainees on any given day. Among the announced reforms are new classification systems for detainees, including those with special medical needs, greater oversight of detention facilities and contracts, and an expansion of alternatives to detention.

Canada denying asylum to Mexican police officers

Andrew Becker — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:55:52 -0700

The United States isn't the only country denying asylum to Mexican police officers, despite widely reported drug violence south of the border and allegations that the Mexican government cannot protect its own. The Toronto Globe and Mail last week highlighted what it called a “model” Juarez police officer who unsuccessfully sought protection in his own country before fleeing to Canada. According to the paper, Gustavo Gutierrez Masareno fled Juarez after he confronted the army on civil-rights abuses and began receiving death threats. The Chihuahua Attorney-General's office advised him to go into hiding because it couldn't protect him, he said. The paper also reported that other former Mexican police officers have had their asylum claims rejected by the Canadian government. The New York Times followed a few days later with a long, front-page story on the risks investigators – police and journalists among them – have doing their jobs. In collaboration with the Los Angeles Times, CIR reported in June on the difficulties that Mexican police officers have winning asylum in U.S. immigration courts. The immigration cases of those officers profiled in the article remain in limbo. One is awaiting his court date later this year, another had his asylum application rejected and awaits a judge to decide his fate and the last one expects to file his asylum application shortly. But not all investigators are seeking asylum. As reported earlier this week, a Mexican human rights activist who has temporarily fled his country is fighting to get released from immigration detention because although he is afraid for his life in Mexico, he doesn’t want asylum in the United States. Gustavo de la Rosa Hickerson, 63, directed the Juarez office of the Chihuahua State Human Rights Commission, across the border from El Paso. He had documented 170 incidents of abuse by the Mexican military, and because of this had his life threatened. He had been moving back and forth across the border when he was arrested last week by Customs and Border Protection as he tried to enter the country on a visa. De la Rosa was later transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in El Paso. Both agencies are part of the Department of Homeland Security. His attorney, Carlos Spector, said that as of today de la Rosa was no longer in ICE custody, but he hadn't been released with his visa.

Detective Longmire cleared of misconduct in Chauncey Bailey case

CIR Staff — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:26:48 -0700

The San Francisco Chronicle reported today that Sgt. Derwin Longmire, the Oakland police sergeant who led the investigation into the 2007 slaying of journalist Chauncey Bailey, "has been cleared of internal charges that he compromised the probe to keep the leader of Your Black Muslim Bakery from being implicated." Longmire has been on paid leave for six months as an internal investigation looked into the state attorney general's conclusion that he had mishandled the probe of the Aug. 2, 2007, Bailey slaying. State investigators had found "Longmire's inquiry was 'inexcusably lacking' for allegedly failing to look into bakery leader Yusuf Bey IV's possible role in the killing," the Chronicle reports. Oakland police officials apparently disagreed, and Police Chief Howard Jordan has ordered that he return to duty. Upon returning, he will serve a five-day suspension for minor problems with other homicide cases, the Chronicle reports. Longmire's attorney Michael Rains told the Chronicle that Longmire "always believed that Bey had orchestrated Bailey's killing ... and did nothing to keep him from being charged. Any problems in the case were, at worst, caused by Longmire being 'sloppy and inattentive to detail.'" Reporters at The Chauncey Bailey Project have reported extensively on the ties between Sergeant Longmire and the Bey family, some of whom were suspects in the murder case. An investigation by Thomas Peele, Bob Butler, and Mary Fricker last October found Longmire ignored evidence of Yusuf Bey IV's possible involvement in the Bailey slaying, and that he interfered on behalf of Bey IV in two other felony cases. See the CIR timeline of Longmire's ties to the Bey family and the mounting evidence connecting Bey IV to the Bailey murder here: According to the Chronicle article:

Longmire and Bey IV had known each other for two years before the Bailey killing. Several police investigators interviewed as part of the state probe cited that friendship in faulting the decision to put Longmire on the case. In a memo to [Police Chief Howard] Jordan, acting Capt. Sean Whent, head of the police internal affairs unit, said the state findings showed Longmire "deliberately did an inadequate investigation ... most likely due to a relationship" with Bey. Even Jordan told state investigators in February that given Longmire's friendship with the bakery leader, "I don't see how you can form the conclusion that it's not affecting his ability to investigate the case thoroughly."

Mexican human rights activist detained by U.S. immigration officials

Andrew Becker — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:01:42 -0700

A Mexican human rights investigator who has said his life has been threatened because of his efforts to document alleged abuses by the Mexican military is being detained by U.S. immigration officials after he tried to enter the country through an El Paso border crossing, his attorney said Friday. Gustavo de la Rosa Hickerson, who directed the Juarez office of the Chihuahua State Human Rights Commission in northern Mexico, has documented about 170 incidents of abuse by the Mexican military, ranging from homicide to reckless driving, his attorney said. De la Rosa, 63, last month fled his home near Juarez, which has been racked with drug-related violence the past two years, including nearly 2,000 killings since January. He has been in exile in El Paso since receiving a death threat, which he believes came from the military, as he drove home from work. De La Rosa, however, doesn’t want asylum in the United States, his El Paso-based attorney, Carlos Spector, said. “He doesn’t want to leave his country and abandon his life-long commitment. He wants to continue investigating” allegations of human rights abuses by the military, Spector said. “He doesn’t want to stay in any one place each night.“ The investigator was returning to El Paso on Thursday night around 6 p.m. when he was asked by a Customs and Border Protection officer if he was afraid for his life in his country. De la Rosa, who has a special visa for border residents that allows him to be in the United States for up to 30 days at a time, answered that he was afraid, but he had no intention of asking for asylum, Spector said. He was then arrested. He is now being held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in El Paso, ICE spokeswoman Leticia Zamarripa confirmed today, but declined further comment. Roger Maier, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection in El Paso, said that if a person expresses fear of returning to their home country an asylum officer must conduct an interview to determine if asylum is appropriate. U.S. officials said they had detained de la Rosa for his protection, according to Spector. “There is absolutely no reason why they should be detaining him. He hasn’t been in the country for more than 30 days,” Spector said. “He has every right to be in this country.” Spector suggested that the U.S. government is trying to compel de la Rosa to seek asylum so it can deny it, even though his case appears winnable. “The United States government doesn’t force anyone to file (an asylum application) who doesn’t want to file an application,” said Maria Garcia-Upson, a spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Service, which adjudicates asylum claims. Asylum officers give a detainee 48 hours to contact a family member or an attorney before a credible fear interview. Most credible fear interviews are conducted and decided upon within two weeks, she said. The activist was in his car waiting at a stoplight on Sept. 4 when another car pulled up beside him, Spector said. The driver rolled down his window, pointed his finger and pretended to shoot him, saying "Quiet down or we are going to kill you." The Mexican military has denied any involvement in the threat on his life. De la Rosa, who still occasionally travels into Juarez for meetings, has been negotiating with Mexican officials to receive protection and security measures so he can continue his work, Spector said. The investigator was told that he would be out of a job if he didn’t report back to work by Oct. 6, according to Amnesty International, which has called on the Mexican government to investigate the alleged threat and to provide protection for the investigator and his family. Calls for comment to the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C., and the Mexican consulate in El Paso were not returned.

Retired border agent sentenced

Andrew Becker — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:23:07 -0700

A retired Customs and Border Protection officer was sentenced today in San Diego by a federal judge to three years probation for allowing an illegal immigrant to be smuggled through his inspection lane, according to court records. Alonso Vasquez, 64, was arrested in May 2008 at his home in Escondido following an investigation by the FBI-led Border Corruption Task Force in San Diego, federal agents said. A former marine who served two combat tours in Vietnam and was awarded the Purple Heart for injuries sustained there in 1967, Vasquez worked as an inspector for nearly 30 years, his attorney, Daniel Smith, said. He last worked at the San Ysidro border crossing, the nation's busiest. Vasquez, who retired in 2007, pleaded guilty in March to one count of encouraging and inducing illegal aliens to come to and enter the United States, and aiding and abetting. His retirement came several months after allowing illegal immigrants with false documents to enter the country in February 2007, Smith said. He was indicted in May 2008 on 18 counts, including charges of bringing in illegal aliens for financial gain and conspiracy. The other charges were dropped.

The Chauncey Bailey Project wins two ONA awards

CIR Staff — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:34:56 -0700

The Chauncey Bailey Project won two awards at the 2009 Online Journalism Awards event in San Francisco over the weekend. The Project, a collaboration of two dozen news organization that fielded reporters, photographers, journalism students and editors to investigate the 2007 murder of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey, won the Knight Award for Public Service and the Investigative Journalism Award in the Small Site Category. “We were all extremely proud to be a part of the Chauncey Bailey Project,” said Robert J. Rosenthal, who served as the Project’s executive editor and is executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR). “It’s especially meaningful to be honored by your peers, and we are proud to be part of the team that investigated this story. We want to thank the Online News Association for shining a light on the importance of quality investigative journalism in America and congratulate everyone who worked so hard to deliver a story with such impact.” The collaboration that grew out of Chauncey Bailey’s tragic death is an example of what a diverse group of journalists can do when they agree to collaborate. Soon after Bailey’s murder, Sandy Close of New America Media, Dori Maynard of the Maynard Institute and Linda Jue of the Society of Professional Journalists gathered the many journalists and media outlets that became the Chauncey Bailey Project. Their collective reporting appeared in more than 20 news outlets throughout the Bay Area over the course of two years and led to multiple charges of conspiracy to kill Bailey, investigations of the Oakland Police Departments handling of the homicide, and the suspension of the lead detective on the case. The judges who awarded The Knight Award for Public Service noted that, “The reporting is good and relentless under what were obviously and literally dangerous circumstances,” and that, “The reporters didn't shy away from exposing both criminals and police. The Chauncey Bailey Project is absolutely exemplary -- a type of investigation that we wish more organizations could pursue. Its role is necessary, the reporting great.” In addition to The Knight Award for Public Service, the Project received a $5,000 cash prize from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. When explaining the best Investigative Journalism, Small Site award, judges stated that the Project was, “A tenacious and precise investigation of an institutional scandal that focuses on the murder of a journalist but explains much more about the community that created the conditions for his death.” The review continues, “…an exceptionally written and presented package….Strong photojournalism and timeline storytelling techniques… Outstanding ongoing effort two years hence.” Lisa Pickoff-White, who joined CIR’s California Watch project in August 2009 as a multimedia producer, won a separate award for her student work at the Graduate School of Journalism at U.C. Berkeley. Pickoff-White won the Student Journalism, Small Team award for It Happens at Midnight. The judges stated, “It's fun, it's entertaining, it's creative… It as a fine example of how to tell an online story in multiple components.” Pickoff-White was also one of more than two dozen U.C. Berkeley Journalism students who worked on the Chauncey Bailey Project. The organizations that took part in the Chauncey Bailey Project were:

The Online Journalism Awards were launched in May 2000. They are administered by the Online News Association, in partnership with the University of Miami's School of Communication. Download

Media organizations team together to host Data Camp and Data Contest

CIR Staff — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:16:03 -0700

The Center for Investigative Reporting’s California Watch project, Spot.Us, MAPLight.org, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, Information technology pioneer and philanthropist Mitchell Kapor, and the Sunlight Foundation have teamed up to sponsor the first California Data Camp & DataSF App Contest on November 7, 2009. The one day gathering is open to developers, journalists, community organizers, policy wonks, students and others interested in working with government data to provide insights and information into California and its communities. A variety of issues will be tackled including computer-assisted reporting, data visualization, data access, data transparency, and data management. “This will be a great opportunity to share ideas and brainstorm about ways to use data and technology to bring more transparency and accountability to local, regional and statewide reporting,” said Mark Katches, Editorial Director of California Watch, a new reporting team within CIR that is devoted to statewide watchdog reporting. There will also be a day-long app-building contest using DataSF.org., the clearinghouse of data sets created by the city and county of San Francisco. The winning team will be awarded a prize. “Who knows what could be created out of the Data SF App contest? It could bring us a great new tool to improve civic life by shining a light on public data,” said Spot.Us founder David Cohn. “When government makes data available online for anybody to build over, you can see how government works and where the money goes. That's really good for democracy and for San Francisco,” said Craigslist’s Newmark. “Maps bring to life complex data that's otherwise hidden in excel spreadsheets, making the abstract meaningful and identifiable. Simply, maps make the intangible, tangible," said MAPLight.org’s executive director Daniel Newman. "In the spirit of true participatory democracy MAPLight.org is proud to support this project and development of the next killer transparency app." The event will be held at Citizen Space, 425 Second Street, San Francisco and runs from 8:00 a.m. – 6:30 p.m., followed by dinner. To register, visit http://datacamp.eventbrite.com/. The cost is $10. About The Sponsors California Watch was launched in 2009 by the Center for Investigative Reporting to fill a serious gap in in-depth, solutions-based reporting in the state, to make government more transparent, and to engage the public in new ways on the critically important issues of the day. California Watch is supported by The James Irvine Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Visit www.californiawatch.org for more information. Spot.Us is a nonprofit project that is pioneering community-funded reporting. Through Spot.Us the public can commission journalists to do investigations on important and overlooked stories. The content is then made available to all through a Creative Commons license. It’s a marketplace where independent reporters, community members and news organizations can come together and collaborate. Visit www.spot.us for more information. MAPLight.org is a non-partisan nonprofit that offers users a powerful database that illuminates the connection between campaign donations and legislative votes in unprecedented ways. Visit www.maplight.org for more information. Kapor is the founder of Lotus Development Corp. and has been the chair of the Mozilla Foundation since its inception in 2003. Kapor is also co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and served as its chairman until 1994. He is the original chair and currently sits on the Board of Directors of Linden Lab, the San Francisco company that created the popular virtual world Second World. Kapor is also a member of the advisory board for the Wikimedia Foundation. The Sunlight Foundation is committed to helping citizens, bloggers and journalists be their own best watchdogs, by improving access to existing information and digitizing new information, and by creating new tools and Web sites to enable all of us to collaborate in fostering greater transparency. Visit www.sunlightfoundation.com for more information. Gov 2.0 gathers thought leaders from the information industry, not-for-profits, citizen creators of applications, and decision-makers from all levels of government to improve the ways that we carry out the business of the country. Download

Countdown for new California Watch Web site

Louis Freedberg — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:59:18 -0700

This week, California Watch staffers crowded into CIR's tiny conference room to meet with two guests, Laura Scott and Katherine Lawrence, who had arrived from Denver for the day. They're principals in PingVision, the Web design firm we have chosen from among several excellent candidates to design and develop California Watch's new Web site. PingVision's clients have included BlogHer, Popular Science, the New York Public Library, the Stanford University Center for Internet and Society and Red Blue America. There was a sense of urgency in the room - and not just because Laura and Katherine's plane had been delayed. The launch date for our Web site - and the formal launch of California Watch - is set for early November, which gives PingVision about a month to get the site up and running. The Web site will be the only one devoted to statewide investigative and other in-depth reporting about California. Mark Katches, California Watch's editorial director, articulated a broad and ambitious vision for the site. A major focus would be to highlight solutions. It would showcase the blogs that all California Watch bloggers will begin writing in the next several weeks. "We want this to be a place that people will check in on several times a day," he said. The site also will house searchable databases and be a "one-stop center" for anyone seeking information in California on state and federal campaign contributions, lobbying, business licenses and more. The countdown has begun. Watch out for our new site in a month or so from now.

California not alone in homeland security contract problems

G.W. Schulz — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:55:53 -0700

In 2007, the federal Department of Homeland Security entered into more than $3 billion worth of contracts with private companies for goods and services while not requiring that they compete against each other to make sure taxpayers receive the best value possible. That’s a quarter of all contracts awarded by the department and a major jump from 2003 when Congress created the new federal bureaucracy. It’s known as “sole-source” contracting or non-competitive procurement, and sometimes there are perfectly good reasons for why government bureaucrats would do business with suppliers in such a way. There may be only one company that manufactures a product in demand. Or there’s unusual and compelling urgency, such as during a natural disaster, and the purchase must be made as quickly as possible. However, government agencies are required to demonstrate why a purchase needs to be exempt from federal guidelines otherwise in place to protect taxpayers. The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general says that didn’t happen with dozens of purchases examined for compliance, according to a report released Sept. 15. Inspector General Richard Skinner’s office looked at $417 million worth of spending that took place in 2007 involving sole-source contracts and found that in most cases, contracts were awarded without federal regulations being followed. The Center for Investigative Reporting found in a story earlier this month that communities in California spent millions of dollars on anti-terrorism equipment and emergency preparedness consultants using federal homeland security grants without following the same types of rules that among other things require competition. Government auditors concluded in a March report that cities and counties across the Golden State “preferred to avoid the burden of initiating competitive procurement whenever possible” for the purchase of communications systems, night-vision goggles, bomb-disposal robots and more. California, it turns out, isn’t alone. According to Skinner’s recent report, contract files at the Department of Homeland Security didn’t have documentation to explain why sole-source purchases were necessary. It also wasn’t always clear market research had been done so the best products could be identified. Nor did officials appear to thoroughly plan how they would manage large investments, leading to opportunities for additional waste. In some instances, files were so disorganized and incomplete, it was impossible for the inspector general’s staff to determine if non-competitive contracts were justified, according to the report. Purchasing documents in two cases listed in the report as examples had to be reconstructed “because contract personnel were unable to locate the original files.” Forty percent of the department’s annual budget is consumed through contracts with the private sector, but it continues to struggle with high turnover rates of personnel and an inability to hire contract officers who can effectively police major purchases and hold contractors accountable. Department officials responded in a letter to the inspector general that the report doesn’t mention its “significant strides” in hiring qualified contract overseers. The Department of Homeland Security has doubled its contracting workforce since 2003 and increased its staff by over 20 percent since 2007, according to the letter. Also, a far greater percentage of contracts are awarded competitively now compared to past years, the letter stated. Whether that’s something to be proud of is a matter of perception. Less than half of contract awards in 2006 were competitively bid out to multiple companies, so any improvements made by the department in saving taxpayer money could be viewed as the federal government simply meeting basic expectations. When companies do compete for government business, the difference can be extraordinary. Taxpayers benefitted from more than $7 billion in net savings between 2003 and 2007 at the federal level due to competitive contracting, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Concerns about wasteful spending are nothing new for the Department of Homeland Security. At this time last year, Democratic congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, held a hearing on $15 billion worth of “failed contracts” signed by the department for everything from fences and surveillance equipment on the southwest border with Mexico to new ships and aircraft for the Coast Guard. According to Thompson’s office:

“Billions of dollars have been spent on contracts for programs that have been delayed, deferred and/or discontinued resulting in a waste of taxpayer money. Unfortunately, the wasting of these funds was not haphazard or as a result of conditions that could not have been foreseen. On the contrary, the department has failed to implement a ‘lessons learned’ approach, which has resulted in the same mistakes being made over and over again.”

Agencies fought over probe into explosion

G.W. Schulz — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:20:26 -0700

Late last year, the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed that authorities in Oregon failed to deploy hundreds of thousands of dollars in safety equipment to the scene of a reported bomb that eventually exploded killing two police officers. The Oregon State Police has used federal homeland security grants since 2001 to purchase an ordinance-detection vehicle, two pricey bomb robots and more. Now the Associated Press and others are reporting that federal law enforcement agencies quarreled over who would get to investigate the tragedy, one of several such incidents that threaten to undermine coordinated anti-terrorism and bomb-suppression efforts. The AP obtained a draft report on Sept. 15 from the U.S. Justice Department’s inspector general who found that for years agents from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives competed to reach crime scenes first, refused to exchange information through a joint database and maintained separate facilities for training and forensics. In another November 2007 incident, according to the AP, the two agencies argued with one another in front of local police over whether the discovery of a pipe bomb in Arizona had a connection to terrorism, a case detail needed to trigger FBI jurisdiction. According to the AP:

So-called "battles of the badges" between different law enforcement agencies are nothing new, but the ill will between FBI and ATF dates back decades and has survived the 2002 transfer of ATF from the Treasury Department to Justice. Some had thought putting the agencies in the same department might end the feud, but the Justice Department has spent years trying to get the two sides to cooperate.

After the explosion in Woodburn, Ore., a local prosecutor asked for assistance from the ATF, but the FBI protested. In addition, a spokesman for the state police told CIR at the time of the bombing that his department was unsure why a 28-foot long, $170,000 ordinance-detection vehicle had not been sent to the scene. He said local officials would be requesting help from the federal government to determine what went wrong. Earlier this month, county prosecutors in Oregon announced that they would be pursuing the death penalty for a father and son allegedly involved in the explosion. Police claim to have connected the pair to a bank branch in Woodburn where the bomb was planted. According to published reports, a bomb expert with the state police began prying into the device believing it was bogus when it detonated. He was killed along with another officer, while a third was severely injured. Officers involved in responding to the incident were also honored this month. State records obtained by CIR show that in recent years, the Oregon State Police spent $427,000 on two bomb robots, $265,000 on an armored SWAT truck and $334,000 on more general equipment designed to defeat explosive devices. Other police and fire departments in the region have spent hundreds of thousands more in federal grants for their own ballistics gear, records show.

Photojournalist Mimi Chakarova talks about going undercover for sex trafficking project

CIR Staff — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:50:25 -0700

Last week, photojournalist Mimi Chakarova presented her work on sex trafficking at the Tides Momentum 2009 conference in San Francisco. Chakarova talks about her personal story—specifically her experience growing up in Bulgaria—and how that drives her work. "I want to ... let you know how surreal it is to be here right now. About two weeks ago I was in brothels in Istanbul, posing to be a prostitute for sale," she says as an introduction. Chakarova spent the summer gathering video material for a full-length documentary about sex trafficking in Eastern Europe. This past spring, she co-produced a multimedia website with the Center for Investigative Reporting called The Price of Sex: Women Speak—it includes four intimate video profiles of women who have been trafficked as sex slaves. Watch Chakarova's presentation at the Momentum 2009 conference:

Collaboration wins out over competition

Louis Freedberg — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:27:21 -0700

It’s not often that I get choked up reading an e-mail message from a fellow journalist. But that’s what happened when I got a message from Pedro Rojas, executive editor of La Opinion, the Spanish language daily in Los Angeles. I had asked him whether we could share the Spanish translation that La Opinion had given us of California Watch’s story on homeland security with other papers that were going to run the story the next day. “Go ahead,” Pedro wrote. “We should learn to share in time of challenges.” Pedro Rojas was an example of what the downsizing of the media, along with the imperative to work in multimedia formats, has wrought: a potentially game-changing shift from the media’s dominant ethos of competition to a much more collaborative one. Earlier in the day, we had provided California Watch’s story on homeland security to La Opinion, with a customized LA angle; we waived our normal fee in exchange for a translation of the article, which Pedro provided us in an astonishingly swift three hours -- and we posted it on our web site. Our article appeared, in Spanish, on the front page of La Opinion the next day, 9/11. La Opinion’s gesture underscored the power of collaborative journalism. We encountered other similar ones as we assembled a story that ultimately ran simultaneously in over two dozen newspapers. The lead paragraph of the story described homeland security equipment purchased years ago in Marin County that had never been used. The Marin Independent Journal sent a photographer to take a photo of the unused equipment -- and gave us permission to share it with all our other media partners, again without charge. Dan Noyes, the investigative reporter at KGO TV in San Francisco, was simultaneously working on a television version of our story. He was able to convince Matthew Bettenhausen, the acting secretary of California’s Emergency Management Agency to speak with him. Bettenhausen had avoided talking to Schulz for months, despite repeated requests. KGO placed the entire unedited interview with Bettenhausen on its website -- and allowed us to post it on our website. They also promoted our story in a news story that led KGO’s 11 p.m newscast, sending readers to our website for multimedia features on ours. As we approached our deadline, California Watch reporter George Schulz wrote a memo on homeland security spending in San Joaquin County for the Lodi News Sentinel, which helped News Sentinel reporter Jordan Guinn write a detailed sidebar to accompany Schulz story. These are the kinds of collaborations that California Watch is counting on happening in the months ahead: news organizations sharing resources, sometimes in surprising and unexpected ways.

Charging for our California Watch content

Mark Katches — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:56:15 -0700

Last week we distributed our first big package at California Watch to more than two dozen news organizations across the state. The project on homeland security spending by reporter G.W. Schulz found scores of cases of misspending, waste, questionable purchases and a glaring lack of oversight. The story reached more than 1.88 million print subscribers, plus millions more online and on TV. We delivered the content to our partner news organizations for only a nominal fee. And we customized content for several newspapers. The mission of California Watch is to distribute high-impact investigative and enterprise journalism. But we won’t last long if we give it away. Over the coming months we plan to explore all types of distribution models. The goal will be to develop an equitable payment structure that works for us and for our partners. No one knows exactly what that will look like. We may ultimately ask newsrooms to pay subscription rates for our stories – based on their size, the frequency with which they publish our material, or both. I would imagine that we would charge a bit more to provide custom content to specific newsrooms. We were very happy to provide custom edits of the homeland security package because we were adding more relevant content to readers in select markets. We will probably consider a different rate structure for smaller organizations, ethnic media outlets and news organizations that participate in the content gathering process. For instance, last week we provided our entire package at no charge to the Marin Independent Journal and to La Opinión because they helped put the package together. The Marin Independent Journal provided a great photograph and La Opinión translated the story into Spanish. And we would probably give our content for free to other nonprofit journalism organizations. In the meantime, we’re building a new California Watch web site that we hope to launch on Nov. 1. We’re also going to be exploring other ways to generate revenue in the future. And we welcome ideas. It remains to be seen how this all comes together down the road. Maybe a year from now, news organizations will buy one story from us a year. They could want everything we produce. Or maybe they won’t want to pay at all. It’s way too early to tell the type of demand we’ll experience. But if the first story is any guide, we believe the future is promising.

California homeland security chief responds to questions

CIR Staff — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:34:57 -0700

On KGO-TV, Matthew Bettenhausen, Acting Secretary of the California Emergency Management Agency, responds to questions in unedited interview with investigative reporter Dan Noyes about homeland security expenditures in California:

California Watch story on KGO and two dozen other outlets around the state

CIR Staff — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:44:05 -0700

California Watch launched its first project today, an investigation into homeland security grant spending by agencies around the Golden State. Versions of this story ran in more than two dozen news organizations—newspapers, TV, and online news sites. It's the broadest release of a nonprofit news initiative to date, reaching more than a million newspaper subscribers. This is part of a collaborative project by California Watch, the Center for Public Integrity and CIR examining the effectiveness of America’s homeland security efforts. This report by Dan Noyes ran on ABC KGO-TV: Other news partners included The San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, Contra Costa Times, Lodi News, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Los Angeles Daily News, Orange County Register and the Voice of San Diego. A few of our media partners pitched in with valuable in-kind contributions to the project. Our friends at La Opinión translated the story into Spanish, and the Marin Independent Journal sent one of their photographers out to shoot the unopened boxes of equipment purchased and then shared their photos with all of the other outlets around the state running the story. Thanks to all of our inaugural media partners for making this project such a success!

California Watch tackles homeland security issues in first project

Mark Katches — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:29:13 -0700

Today, newsrooms across the state are running the first project produced by California Watch, the largest investigative reporting team in the state. The series of stories written by reporter G.W. Schulz focus on waste and mismanagement in the state’s homeland security grant programs. He had a lot to work with. Schulz, a staff member at the Center for Investigative Reporting, found scores of examples of waste, questionable expenditures and a lack of oversight. One agency bought a plasma TV with Homeland Security funds. Another bought a Segway. One agency tried to use Homeland Security money to buy a lawnmower. (It was eventually blocked.) Millions of dollars went toward projects that weren’t competitively bid or broke other federal rules. We pegged the release to the eighth anniversary of 9/11. The response has been phenomenal. In addition to running the package on our Web site at californiawatch.org, parts of the package ran in more than two dozen news organizations from San Jose to San Diego with a combined reach well in excess of 1 million people. One of our partners, La Opinión, translated the story into Spanish. It’s been a wild ride getting to this point. The goal was to distribute the package to as many news outlets as we could. To make it as painless as possible, Schulz and I worked together to edit the story three different ways – a full-length version that measured more than 100 inches and two shorter versions, one about 30 inches and the other about 45 inches long. We figured that very few, if any, news organizations could accommodate the full-length version, which is available exclusively on our website. Even the 45-inch version would be a stretch for some smaller newspapers. The shortest version was tailored to these news organizations. Several newspapers asked us to add local examples. We couldn’t accommodate everyone. In some cases, we provided source documentation to help newsrooms find their own examples. In other cases, Schulz combed through his notes and documents to identify more cases of misspending. He then did some more reporting, enabling us to customize versions of the story for some of the state’s largest newspapers. We did this for the Orange County Register, the San Jose Mercury News, the Contra Costa Times, the Sacramento Bee, the Los Angeles Daily News, La Opinión and the Bakersfield Californian. In the end, we produced 14 versions of the same story. And it has paid off. Almost everyone we approached said they would take the story. We offered the package for a small fee – far less than we probably could have charged. We were more eager to reach a larger audience than raise revenue on our first big story. A special thanks goes to Schulz, who didn’t flinch when we decided to create so many different versions. Carrie Ching, Lisa Pickoff-White and Agustin Armendariz built the multimedia presentation, including an audio slideshow and an interactive map. Let us know what you think.

California Watch helps fill void for investigative journalism

Mark Katches — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:06:50 -0700

Ten years ago, the state Capitol was teeming with reporters, myself among them. More than 80-full-time journalists were based in Sacramento. Today, the number covering the statehouse has dwindled to fewer than 25 full-time reporters. The retrenchment is a sign of the times. Across the board, newsrooms have taken big hits as circulation and revenues plummet. Investigative reporting teams haven’t escaped the carnage. The dramatic decline in resources creates huge challenges for newsrooms that are struggling to fulfill their role as watchdogs. Into that growing void comes California Watch, a new investigative reporting team started this summer by the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. Over the past few months we have assembled the largest investigative reporting unit operating in California today. Our final batch of reporters arrived this week. We are now fully deployed with a staff of 12 reporters, editors and multimedia producers. Our first big project will land Friday. It’s about waste and misspending in the state’s homeland security grant programs. If all goes as planned, the story will be distributed to more than a dozen news organizations across the state at a minimal charge. Those newspapers, Web sites and TV stations are paying for an early jump on the story. We’ve built this formidable new reporting team thanks to generous contributions from the James Irvine Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Our goal is to produce scores of high-impact investigative stories each year. California Watch reporters will juggle quick-turn investigative stories and more ambitious, time-consuming projects. And not a moment too soon. Investigative reporting resources have taken one hit after another in mainstream newsrooms up and down the state. Consider what has happened at the Los Angeles Times, the state’s largest newspaper. When former editor John Carroll presided over the newsroom earlier this decade, the Times reached new heights, winning a string of Pulitzers. Carroll’s newsroom built two investigative reporting units – one in California and another in Washington, D.C. The combined investigative teams included about 20 journalists. Today, the Washington team is less than half the size. The Los Angeles team has shrunk to four reporters. The Times is by no means the exception. Across the state, investigative teams are smaller than they used to be. The San Francisco Chronicle’s investigative team peaked at around six reporters and editors earlier this decade. Today, it no longer exists. The Chronicle’s last man standing, Lance Williams, came to work for California Watch a few weeks ago. That doesn’t mean the Chronicle and the L.A Times aren’t capable of doing outstanding investigative reporting. The Times, in fact, continues to produce top-rate in-depth work. The paper won a Pulitzer last year in explanatory reporting, and reporter Paul Pringle was a finalist in the investigative reporting category. This year, the paper’s Sacramento bureau has detailed how state officials are using taxpayer funds to pay for personal travel and other perks. There have been other strong watchdog stories. Although the Times no longer has as many full-time investigative reporters, the newsroom still devotes a lot of resources to watchdog journalism, mostly from beat reporters who are given time to pursue project work. Still, a great deal of the experienced, dedicated resources are gone. And there’s no denying that at newspapers throughout California, there has been a sharp decline in the reporting ranks. In many small and medium-sized newsrooms around the state, reporters pursuing investigations today are typically beat reporters trying to juggle breaking news and other demands. They may not have the time to fully explore stories that require deep dives. Some newsrooms buck this trend. The Sacramento Bee has actually increased its investigative reporting resources, according to editor Melanie Sill. High-impact investigative journalism takes considerable time and resources. Story for story, it’s by far the most expensive type of journalism any newsroom will produce. I’ve been involved with stories that have taken reporters years to complete. Before joining California Watch as editorial director, for instance, I oversaw a project at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that ran more than 22 months and cost, by my conservative estimate, close to $500,000 in salaries, news gathering and production costs. The series about the failures of federal regulators to protect the public from dangerous chemicals was worth every penny. The reporters Susanne Rust, Meg Kissinger (both mostly full time on the project) and Cary Spivak (who worked on the initial stories for about six months) generated one jaw-dropping story after another. The top editors in Milwaukee, Managing Editor George Stanley and Editor Marty Kaiser are committed to this kind of journalism, no matter the costs. Sadly, not every newsroom sees it the same way. So what can California Watch do about an industry-wide problem? We believe we can help other newsrooms publish important stories about critical issues with minimal expense to them. We don’t view ourselves as a competitor of other newsrooms. Far from it. With our reporting resources, we can help the state’s newsrooms that want to publish more high-impact stories but may no longer have the resources to go it alone. In some cases, we will work side by side with newspapers, TV or radio stations, online publications or other nonprofit start-ups. In other cases, like our homeland security package, we will deliver finished stories that we complete on our own. Ultimately, we believe our projects represent the type of journalism sorely needed – stories that spark debate and generate solutions in a state facing immense fiscal and governance challenges.

California Watch debuts new logo

Mark S. Luckie — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:27:17 -0700

After several weeks of sketches, designs and meetings California Watch has a new logo! The big, bold font paired with the watchful sun visualizes our commitment to investigative journalism and keeping a watchful eye over the people and issues that shape the state. As designer of the California Watch logo, I was initially asked to submit some ideas about what the logo should look like. The proposed logos used a wide variety of layouts, both bold and understated fonts, and several icons, including an outline of the state, an eye, a pair of binoculars, a magnifying glass and a sun.

Almost immediately, the staff decided that Aharoni, the bold, yet modern font eventually used in the final logo, communicated our commitment to bold investigative journalism. The icon was a little more of a toss-up. Some of the icons, like the magnifying glass and the state were rejected for being too cliché and the eye was dismissed for being too similar to the current Center for Investigative Reporting logo. The logo also had to scale well for our social networking pages on Twitter and Facebook. Eventually we decided that the sun, which is symbolic of our watchdog role and to shining a bright light on topics and issues that have been previously shrouded in secrecy, encapsulated what we wanted to communicate to others. The sun also symbolized a ray of hope, which is what the best investigative journalism can be. Rather than simply pinpoint problems and walk away, California Watch wants to encourage a debate that can lead to better solutions. Last week, we posted a few logo designs, including various iterations of the sun, on our blog and Facebook page and asked for your feedback. Some commenters asked why we limited the choices, but we were determined to use a particular font and wanted your feedback on what were our final choices for the logo. The comments helped shape our final selection and we thank you for your feedback. The concept most everyone loved — both readers and our staff alike — included a “C” embedded inside the sun. The final result is an iconic logo that we believe best represents the goals and values of California Watch. Again, we thank you for being a part of this process and would love to hear any additional feedback you may have.

Drug informant sent to federal immigration lock-up

Andrew Becker — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:07:55 -0700

A drug informant facing deportation who recently won a reprieve in his case was scooped up last week by federal agents from a county jail in Minnesota and flown to an immigration detention center in upstate New York, his attorney said. Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez-Peyro, also known as Lalo, was taken out of solitary confinement at 3 a.m. and escorted by a SWAT team onto a plane, in which he was the only prisoner, his attorney, Jodi Goodwin, said. He is now being held at the Buffalo Federal Detention Center in Batavia, New York. The facility is run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. Ramirez-Peyro, a former Mexican police officer turned drug trafficker who became an ICE and Drug Enforcement Administration informant, was a central figure in the notorious "House of Death", a dwelling in Ciudad Juarez where a dozen corpses, the alleged victims of drug-related slayings, were recovered. He witnessed or was involved in several killings, according to government documents. Working undercover, Ramirez-Peyro had infiltrated the Vicente Carillo Fuents drug syndicate, also known as the Juarez Cartel. His information also led to the conviction of more than 50 people. For the past few years Ramirez-Peyro had been in solitary confinement at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minn. Ramirez-Peyro had been placed in protective custody in 2004 after his identity became public and there were two attempts on his life. The stealthy move was not the first time Ramirez-Peyro had been transported undercover. He arrived in Minnesota after being flown by helicopter from South Texas, where he was previously held, Goodwin said. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently remanded the deportation case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for a second time as the board has twice reversed an immigration judge's decision to allow Ramirez-Peyro to stay in the country rather than face the probability of being murdered in Mexico, his native country. Ramirez-Peyro reported the first killing, which took place in August 2003, to his handlers at ICE. He even provided a secret recording to an ICE agent named Raul Bencomo, who is now fighting to get his job back after being fired by ICE. Agents instructed the informant to keep working, but to try to avoid such situations in the future. But Ramirez-Peyro was present for several more killings. The "House of Death" incident became an embarrassment for the U.S. government, and caused considerable friction between the local DEA and ICE offices after a DEA agent was almost killed and the agency's Juarez office was evacuated. The El Paso ICE Office of Investigations is embroiled in controversy again following the May killing of an informant outside of his El Paso home. Jose Daniel Gonzalez-Galeana was a member of the Juarez cartel who lived near the El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen. He was allegedly killed by a group organized by another ICE informant.

Chauncey Bailey Project a finalist in ONA awards

CIR Staff — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:43:31 -0700

The Online News Association announced finalists for its 2009 Online Journalism Awards this week. The Chauncey Bailey Project, a collaborative multimedia reporting project by CIR, New America Media, The Maynard Institute, and the Bay Area News Group, among others, is a candidate in both the Investigative and the Knight Award for Public Service categories. The awards will be announced at the ONA Conference in San Francisco on October 1-3, 2009.

Help us pick our new logo

Mark S. Luckie — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:44:29 -0700

Creating the perfect logo is a seemingly small, but important task. A logo must encapsulate everything that the company stands for and appeal to a wide range of people, in addition to being unique and visually interesting. The California Watch staff agreed that the logo should communicate openness, trust and authority and at the same time be modern and edgy. As we build our news organization from the ground up, we believe in sharing what we are doing with the public -- essentially opening a window into our newsroom. In that spirit of transparency, we are seeking your feedback for our final candidates for the California Watch logo. We look forward to your comments. Logo 1 Logo 2 Logo 3

The Center for Investigative Reporting announces California Watch reporting, editing and multimedia team

CIR Staff — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The Center for Investigative Reporting has recruited a diverse team of 11 reporters, multimedia producers and editors to produce investigative, high impact reporting for its new California Watch initiative. “This dynamic and accomplished group of journalists will drive our latest entrepreneurial venture and focus on solutions to improve the quality of life in the state,” said CIR Executive Director Robert J. Rosenthal. California Watch is being launched at a time when the state is confronting one of the worst budget crises in its history, the recession is inflicting pain and hardship on millions of Californians, and the need for oversight is greater than ever. More than 700 journalists applied for a range of positions with California Watch, an indication of the depth of talent available to cover underreported California stories. "We have built one of the largest investigative teams in the state at a critical time," said Editorial Director Mark Katches, a native Californian and an award-winning investigative reporter and editor. "We will focus on delivering stories that shape the debate and prompt change." The California Watch team collectively brings extensive experience covering the state and exceptional multimedia and data analysis skills: AGUSTIN ARMENDARIZ – DATA ANALYST AND REPORTER: Armendariz worked at the San Diego Union-Tribune where he was a database specialist on the watchdog reporting team. He previously worked at the Center for Public Integrity as a database developer and researcher, where he helped produce investigative projects such as Party Lines, an in-depth look at who pulls the political strings in all 50 states. Armendariz also was a contributor to The Buying of the President 2004, a New York Times bestseller. He earned his M.A. in journalism from American University. CHASE DAVIS – MONEY AND POLITICS REPORTER: Davis previously worked at the Des Moines Register, where he recently wrote about how weak standards and deception hurt Iowa’s ability to monitor air pollution. Before that, he worked as an investigative reporter at the Houston Chronicle, where he uncovered waste and fraud within NASA and exposed glaring ethics issues within the nation’s third-largest county government. Davis is a partner in the media-technology firm Hot Type Consulting. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri School of Journalism. CHRISTINA JEWETT – HEALTH AND WELFARE REPORTER: Jewett worked at ProPublica, where she wrote about a chain of psychiatric hospitals plagued by substandard care and about the FDA’s failures to regulate medical-device safety. Her stories for ProPublica have appeared in the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times. A native of Indiana, Jewett previously worked at the Sacramento Bee. Her reporting on criminal justice has been honored with awards from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. She graduated from Indiana University. COREY G. JOHNSON – K-12 EDUCATION REPORTER: Johnson was a reporter at the Fayetteville Observer in North Carolina where he covered higher education and criminal justice issues. A native of Atlanta, Johnson has exposed secrecy, mismanagement, corruption and abuse of power inside governmental, university and police organizations. He is a graduate of Florida A&M University. MARK S. LUCKIE – MULTIMEDIA PRODUCER: Luckie has worked as a multimedia producer for the Los Angeles Times, the Contra Costa Times and Entertainment Weekly. He is a former crime and justice reporter for the Daytona Beach News-Journal. Mark also is the author of 10,000 Words, a multimedia blog dedicated to digital media trends. Luckie graduated from Bethune-Cookman College in Florida and earned his M.A. from the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. ERICA PEREZ – HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTER: Perez was a reporter with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, where she covered the University of Wisconsin system, the Wisconsin Technical College system and private colleges. A California native, she previously covered K-12 education for the Orange County Register. Before earning her M.A. in journalism from the USC Annenberg School for Communication, Perez taught high school English for two years. She graduated from Stanford University. LISA PICKOFF-WHITE – MULTIMEDIA PRODUCER: Pickoff-White has been a print, multimedia and radio reporter in the Bay Area and Washington, D.C. Her work has appeared in the Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, National Journal, KALX, San Francisco Bay Guardian and UPI. She recently graduated from the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism with an emphasis in new media and was a 2009 Carnegie-Knight News21 Fellow, one of a team of talented journalists from top journalism schools who collaborate to produce innovative journalism on the Web. LANCE WILLIAMS – MONEY AND POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: Williams was an investigative reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, where he helped break many of the newspaper’s exclusive stories on the BALCO steroid scandal. With Mark Fainaru-Wada, he wrote Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports. He has been a reporter in California for 34 years. He has won the George Polk Award, the Scripps Howard First Amendment Award and the Gerald Loeb Award, among other honors. Williams graduated from Brown University and earned his M.A. from the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Before joining the Chronicle, he worked at the San Francisco Examiner, the Oakland Tribune and the Hayward Daily Review. ROBERT SALLADAY – SPECIAL ADVISER AND CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: Salladay has covered California politics and government for more than a decade, including most recently as a reporter and blogger for the Los Angeles Times. His coverage has included the 2000 presidential recount, the California recall election, the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and numerous analytical and investigative pieces about the state. A California native and graduate of UC Berkeley, he received a M.S. from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism and began his career as a reporter for the Fremont Argus, followed by the Oakland Tribune, the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times. While at the Times, he wrote the successful Political Muscle blog. The team reports to California Watch Editorial Director Mark Katches, who is working in tandem with California Watch Director Louis Freedberg and CIR Executive Director Robert Rosenthal. California Watch is a response to the diminished capacity of newsrooms in the state to cover critically important issues affecting all Californians. These include the state of our public schools and community colleges, the impact of budget cuts on the health and welfare of individuals and communities, and the influence of money on politics. Other beats will be added within the coming year. “Working collaboratively with news organizations around the state, our reporting team will help Californians become engaged and participate more fully in the democratic process,” said California Watch Director Louis Freedberg. A project of the 32-year-old Center for Investigative Reporting, California Watch represents a significant step in the growth of non-profit regional and state-focused journalism. It is underwritten by grants from The James Irvine Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. For more information please visit http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/projects/californiawatch/.

Awakening to corruption in Falluja

CIR Staff — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:05:47 -0700

Sheikh Eifan Saddun al-Isawi poses with George W. Bush.

Shane Bauer, a CIR correspondent, writes for Mother Jones about how the Pentagon bought stability in Iraq by funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to the country's next generation of strongmen. Bauer writes an illuminating profile of Sheik Eifan Saddun al-Isawi, "the head of Fallujah's Sahwa, or Awakening, council, the Sunni militia hired by the United States in early 2007 to fight its enemies in Iraq." In "The Shiek Down," Bauer hangs out at Eifan's fortress, takes a ride in his black armored BMW, and observes first-hand the corruption that plagues Falluja and prevents the city from successful reconstruction. Bauer writes:

Eifan is a beneficiary of what some American personnel call the "make-a-sheikh" program, a semiofficial, little discussed policy that since late 2006 has bankrolled Sunni sheikhs who are, in theory, committed to defending American interests in Iraq. The program was a major part of the Awakening, which the Pentagon has touted as a turning point in reducing violence and creating the conditions for an American withdrawal. It was also a reinstitution of a strategy started by Saddam Hussein, who picked out tribal leaders he could manipulate through patronage schemes. The US military didn't give the sheikhs straight-up bribes, which would have raised eyebrows in Washington. Instead, it handed out reconstruction contracts. Sometimes issued at three or four times market value, the contracts have been the grease in the wheels of the Awakening in Anbar—the almost entirely Sunni province in western Iraq where Fallujah is located. ... Five years and hundreds of millions of reconstruction dollars later, Fallujah remains a shell. The "city of mosques" still has minarets with gaping holes left by American rockets during the 2004 siege. Men wander the streets; the World Food Programme says 36 percent of Fallujans have no chance of employment. The city gets no more than eight hours of electricity a day. Sewage fills the streets; a sewer project is four years behind schedule and has cost $98 million, more than three times its original budget. Building after building is nothing but broken-down cement frames. Some have been repurposed by the Iraqi army as watchtowers, others by women drying their laundry. Bullet holes pockmark everything. I walk down the city's main thoroughfare guided by a police officer. As I chat with a man about the collapsed building beside his shop, my notebook out, a group of men approach, eager to air their grievances. "When any country in the world gets money for reconstruction, it shows. But not here," says a burly man who calls himself Nabil. "The contractors just slap something together and put the money in their pockets," he says, slipping invisible bills into an imaginary shirt pocket. "Reconstruction contracts are deals between the Americans and their collaborators. I don't want to name names, but people who didn't have cigarettes in their pockets now have piles of money and brand-new, bulletproof cars."

Shane Bauer is a journalist and photographer based in the Middle East. This story was funded by The Dick Goldensohn Fund from the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute, and New American Media. Read his blogs from Iraq on The Muckraker.

Chakarova's reporting on sex trafficking featured on Women's eNews

CIR Staff — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:36:44 -0700

Women's eNews featured CIR correspondent Mimi Chakarova as "Journalist of the Month"—spotlighting her work on sex trafficking and the multimedia project co-produced with CIR, "The Price of Sex: Women Speak." From eNews:

For the seven-year-long investigative series, Chakarova delved deep into the murky world of sex trafficking, interviewing dozens of women--and even posing as a trafficked woman herself. The result is a handful of profiles, narrated through photography, video and audio, which paint a picture of what these women must endure. Chakarova, in conjunction with the Center for Investigative Reporting, based in Berkeley, Calif., brought these stories to the public in May of this year. They launched www.priceofsex.org, a Web site that unites these women's stories with resources on the issue, allowing people to take action, donate or learn more. Over the course of the project, Chakarova estimates that she spoke with up to 50 women from Eastern Europe who had been trafficked. At times, her subjects were so traumatized that she could not bring herself to continue interviewing. "You feel 'Why am I doing this?' It's painful. In those cases I did not push," Chakarova told Women's eNews in a phone interview.

Drug informant wins reprieve

Andrew Becker — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:39:59 -0700

A Mexican police officer turned drug trafficker turned government informant should not be deported to Mexico where he'd face "almost certain death," a federal appellate court ruled today. In a 21-page published opinion, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower immigration appeals board decision that Guillermo Eduardo "Lalo" Ramirez Peyro, whose infiltration into the notorious Vicente Carillo Fuentes drug syndicate led to the arrest of approximately 50 drug traffickers, was removable from the U.S. The decision comes almost six years to the day since Ramirez Peyro, then working as an informant for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, first participated in a murder at the infamous "House of Death" in Juarez, Mexico, across the border from El Paso, and marks the second time the appellate court had ruled on the controversial case. On August 5, 2003, Ramirez Peyro, while working undercover, handed a plastic bag to two Chihuahua state judicial police officers who struggled to strangle a man at the house. The police officers eventually killed the man while the informant looked on, according to government documents. Ramirez Peyro, who secretly recorded the killing, notified his handler, an ICE agent named Raul Bencomo. After high-level review of the situation, which included officials at ICE headquarters in Washington D.C., the informant was told to continue his work, according to court documents. And the killings at the House of Death continued. A dozen bodies were recovered from the property, and the case almost led to the killing of a DEA agent. Bencomo, meanwhile, was fired by ICE and is fighting to get his job back. The case caused friction between the offices of ICE and the Drug Enforcement Administration and led to the reprimand of several agents, including retired DEA agent Sandalio "Sandy" Gonzalez, who blew the whistle on the case when he was the special-agent-in-charge of the DEA's El Paso field office. Ramirez Peyro, who had two attempts on his life, was placed in protective custody in 2004 and in removal proceedings in early 2005. For the past few years he has been in a Minnesota jail. Twice an immigration judge in Minnesota found Ramirez-Peyro should not be deported to Mexico based on the likelihood that he would be tortured or killed there by Mexican police. Twice the government appealed. And twice the Board of Immigration Appeals overturned the immigration judge's decision. The appellate court, in its opinion, found that the immigration board disregarded several relevant findings because of a narrow interpretation of the law and inappropriately limited its analysis. The court granted Ramirez Peyro's request for his case to be reviewed, vacated the board's opinion, and remanded the case "for proceedings consistent with this opinion." Ramirez Peyro, who spoke by phone today about the decision, sounded exasperated that the case now heads back to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the prospect of more time waiting in jail. "Dios mio," he said. "I think it will be maybe two more years of sitting inside."

Two years after Chauncey Bailey's slaying

CIR Staff — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:18:04 -0700

At a shrine for journalist Chauncey Bailey, mourners remember
his slaying two years ago this week.

On August 2, 2007, journalist Chauncey Bailey was gunned down on a sidewalk in Oakland, California. Within weeks a team of reporters and editors coalesced to form The Chauncey Bailey Project, a collaborative effort to continue Bailey's reporting on Your Black Muslim Bakery, a controversial Oakland group, and to investigate the circumstances of his death and the slow-moving police investigation. Two years later, the relentless reporting by the team—led by Thomas Peele, Bob Butler, and Mary Fricker—has produced tangible results. A nine-part series by The Chauncey Bailey Project, published this week, commemorates Bailey's death and reveals new details about his slaying and the motives behind it. >> Read the series online.

Anna Badkhen talks about violence against Iraqi women on PRI's The World

CIR Staff — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:24:47 -0700

On PRI's The World, anchor Katy Clark interviews CIR correspondent Anna Badkhen about her reporting on increasing violence against Iraqi women. This spring, Badkhen and photojournalist Mimi Chakarova traveled to Baghdad to report on underground shelters where war widows and women who have been raped live in hiding, estranged from their families. Badkhen recently published an article, "Baghdad Underground," for Ms. Magazine's Winter 2009 issue. + Listen to the interview online. + Watch the FRONTLINE/World video that resulted from their reporting trip: "Iraq: Living in Hiding." + Watch CIR's Skype interview with Badkhen and Chakarova, recorded from their hotel room in Baghdad, part of CIR's "The Investigators" web series: Support for Badkhen's reporting was provided in part by CIR's .

CIR hires Lance Williams to join California Watch reporting team

CIR Staff — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The Center for Investigative Reporting announced today that it has hired Lance Williams as an investigative reporter covering money and politics for CIR’s new California Watch project. Williams joins California Watch from the San Francisco Chronicle, where he helped break many of the newspaper’s exclusive stories on the BALCO steroid scandal. With Mark Fainaru-Wada, he wrote Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports. The book, combined with the Chronicle articles, prompted Sen. George Mitchell’s investigation of baseball’s steroid era and led to many reforms. In 2006, Williams and Fainaru-Wada were held in contempt of court and threatened with 18 months in federal prison for refusing to testify about their confidential sources on BALCO. The subpoenas were later withdrawn. Williams has been a reporter in California for 34 years. He has been recognized for his work by winning the George Polk Award, the Scripps Howard First Amendment Award and the Gerald Loeb Award, among other honors. Born in Ohio, he graduated from Brown University and the University of California-Berkeley. Before joining the Chronicle, he worked at the San Francisco Examiner, the Oakland Tribune and the Hayward Daily Review. CIR has received more than 600 applications to the California Watch project. The complete reporting and multimedia team will be announced in early August once final hires are made. “We are pleased to have a veteran reporter of the caliber of Lance Williams join our team,” said CIR Executive Director Robert J. Rosenthal. At a time when newsrooms across the state are shrinking, California Watch will produce high-impact watchdog journalism on a range of issues including the economy, health care, the environment, and education. The project is funded by The James Irvine Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. For further information contact CIR Executive Director Robert J. Rosenthal at 510-809-3162 or California Watch Director Louis Freedberg at 510-809-3168.

Dissenting views on fixing the immigration system

Andrew Becker — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:47:41 -0700

A Council on Foreign Relations report on recommended fixes to the nation's broken immigration system, released yesterday, didn't just outline the numerous ways to address the mess. It also offered some dissenting voices, among them ending the practice of giving citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrant parents. While most of the dissenting voices commented on the heavy emphasis on enforcement policies, Robert Bonner, the former head of Customs and Border Protection and a past administrator of the DEA, said the United States needed to stop givging citizenship to children of illegal immigrants just because they're born here. He added that Canada is the only other Western nation that grants birthright citizenship. The Los Angeles Times brings up the topic today in light of California's ongoing budget and fiscal crisis. Reporters Anna Gorman and Teresa Watanabe write:

Activists "opposed to illegal immigration have launched a campaign for an initiative that would, among other things, cut off welfare payments to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants."

In response, Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California, Davis, School of Law, writing at ImmigrationProf Blog, questions the idea of such an initiative that, in his words, would create a group of "second-class citizens" in exchange for a balanced California budget. He writes:

It is one thing to reduce benefits to undocumente (sic) immigrants. It is quite another to target U.S. citizen children because of the immigration status of their parents. Hopefully, the proposed initiative will never qualify for the ballot. However, given the antipathy that many have for undocumented immigrants and public benefits, one has to worry.

In related news, Senate Democrat Charles Schumer of New York thinks an immigration reform bill will be in shape by Labor Day. He told The Associated Press that an "immigration bill can be done by the end of the year or early next year that works out disagreements between labor and business interests on the flow of legal foreign workers." But back to Bonner for a minute. Speaking of immigration reform, his take on how the government currently processes asylum claims goes widely against what many immigration lawyers argue. He writes in the CFR report:

I believe our current system for processing asylum claims is generally adequate and that the standard should be to meet our treaty obligations in good faith, not to establish “the highest standards of due process,” as the report argues.

Although Bonner does not refer to it, it is now the law to lock up certain asylum seekers. One of Bonner's co-authors, Kathleen Campbell Walker, a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, believes that the government needs to exercise more "prosecutorial discretion," which means choose wisely in what cases you prosecute. She writes:

Further, as noted in the report, enforcement-only approaches do not help either our security or the economy. Such approaches have also eroded the long-standing use of prosecutorial discretion in deal- ing with immigration offenses. Operation Streamline, for example, has clogged the federal courts with first-time misdemeanor offenders, weakening due process protections without improving border security.

This is a core issue for practitioners throughout the immigration court system. While more and more cases are getting pushed into the courts, it's just added to a greater case backlog.

How to fix the nation's broken immigration system?

Andrew Becker — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:00:00 -0700

As can be expected with a new administration in Washington, there has been a stream of reports, studies, and recommendations on how to fix the nation's broken immigration system penned by think-tanks, NGOs, advocacy groups and the like since President Obama took office in January. Among the latest, most sweeping studies, out July 8, is a task force report by the Council on Foreign Relations. Co-chaired by Jeb Bush, a former Republican governor of Florida and George W. Bush's brother, and Thomas McLarty, President Bill Clinton's first White House chief of staff, the bipartisan task force gathers former politicians, bureaucrats and law-enforcement types with human-rights advocates, academics, and attorneys to exhort President Obama that immigration reform must be a "first-tier" priority to ensure national security and maintain America's advantage in the world. With a struggling economy, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and health-care reform already at the top of the list, some government insiders don't expect much movement this year on immigration reform, but it could happen next year. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, recently said as much before a White House meeting on immigration with lawmakers last month. By way of introduction, the task force states what many already know: The current immigration system is a mess. But it goes on to highlight that immigration policy is no longer just a domestic issue; it has wide-ranging foreign policy implications as well. The U.S., the report points out, leads the world with about 25 percent of all immigrants. The task force thinks that the "basic logic" that the 2006 and 2007 bills set forth to overhaul the immigration system was sound, and the logic is that reform needs to be another "grand bargain" that deals with three issues. Those are: 1. Fix the legal immigration system to make it more efficient and appropriately responsive to labor needs and competitiveness. 2. To restore integrity in the system, enforcement must discourage employers and employees from using undocumented workers. 3. Find and implement a "humane and orderly way" for many of the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to "earn" the right to live here legally. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, chairman of a Senate immigration subcommittee that is taking the lead on reform legislation, was quoted by the Washington Post that the recommendations track his plans for the bill, particularly the "biometric" document verification system. "Their basic principles are similar to ours," Schumer said in a statement, ". . . but there are lots of details that must be filled in." In related news, the Obama administration announced today that it strengthened employment eligibility verification by supporting a regulation that requires potential federal contractors to participate in the E-Verify program. Other highlights and recommendations of the Council on Foreign Relations include: • Toss out nationality quotas for skilled workers seeking to be legal residents, otherwise known as green card holders, allow for more unskilled workers to enter with the option of pursuing legal resident status, and expand the seasonal worker program while creating a mandatory employment eligibility verification program that has tougher sanctions for employers who don't comply. The task force does not explicitly call for a guest-worker program. • Pass the DREAM Act, which would give undocumented college students access to federal student loans and provide a pathway to citizenship. • Create a program that lets illegal immigrants earn their way to become legal residents without the broad stroke of amnesty. • Leave enforcement of immigration laws, for the most part, to the feds. • Expand recruiting of noncitizens into the U.S. armed forces. • hire more people to reduce backlogs in determining immigration status. The report singles out Mexico and the importance of sending a signal to our Southern neighbor when it comes to fixing the nation's immigration policy. The task force recommends that the president and Congress establish another independent commission – one of these seems to sprout every decade or so – to exam U.S. immigration laws and regulations. But it also suggests a major reconsideration of some of the harsher and more stringent laws, policies and regulations used within the past 15 years, such as detaining asylees and certain other immigrants who face deportation. Among the authors are Robert Bonner, the former head of US Customs and Border Protection and a past administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; Raul H. Yzaguirre, a past president of the National Council of La Raza; Kathleen Campbell Walker, a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association; and Frances Fragos Townsend, who chaired the Homeland Security Council under the younger Bush's administration.

Link TV and CIR dig deeper with Colombian journalist Hollman Morris

CIR Staff — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:32:05 -0700

Twelve journalists have been killed in Colombia in the past six years. Nearly 400 have had their lives threatened in the same period. Link TV and CIR dig deeper with Hollman Morris, the Colombian journalist who was featured in the first episode of "The Investigators," CIR's web-video series about investigative reporting. On Link TV's "Latin Pulse," CIR's Mark Schapiro talks to Morris via Skype about new developments with his television show, Contravia—including a recent scandal involving the Colombian secret service, which had been conducting systematic surveillance of Morris’ mail, movements, and computer communications for years, according to documents released in the Colombian Congress in March. Watch the episode from Link TV's "Latin Pulse" here: >> Watch CIR's interview with Hollman and Juan Pablo Morris on "The Investigators." Learn more about CIR's web series about investigative reporters.

Sex trafficking "breaks the human spirit"

CIR Staff — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:53:21 -0700

The Inter Press Service, an international news agency focused on development and globalization, published a lengthy review of photojournalist Mimi Chakarova's work on sex trafficking today. Chakarova's multimedia project, The Price of Sex, was produced by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Chakarova's work sensitively presents the tragic stories of women from countries such as Moldova or the Ukraine sold into brutal sexual slavery often by neighbours or acquaintances. The few women who manage to escape find themselves facing not only serious health issues or psychological trauma, but also the social stigma associated with having worked as sex workers. One of the young women interviewed by Chakarova, Jenea, from a small village in southern Moldova, was sold into prostitution by a neighbour who had promised to help her get a job in Moscow. At 18, Jenea found herself locked in a hotel room in Turkey, forced to sleep with as many as 50 men on some days. She escaped after one year. Back in her village, she now lives in a two-room house with her sister and niece, unable to find a job because of prejudice, and health problems - incontinence, a direct result of the sexual abuse suffered in Turkey. "It would have been better for me not to have been born," Jenea says softly, on camera. Chakarova’s research certainly goes further than telling the terrible stories of trafficked women. The detailed personal accounts highlight the problems that need to be addressed if sex trafficking is to be controlled. Poverty emerges time and again as the main cause in each of her stories.

Small numbers of Mexicans fleeing drug violence given refuge

Andrew Becker — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:53:50 -0700

In recent months immigration judges have granted refuge to a small but emerging number of Mexicans fleeing drug-related violence, particularly in South Texas, as described in a recent CIR report published in the Los Angeles Times. Anthony Matulewicz, an immigration attorney in Edinburg, Texas, said he has won two such cases, including asylum for a kidnapped businessman and refuge for a drug informant who was threatened by a Mexican federal officer. Another man from Matamoros, Mexico, across the border from Brownsville, Texas, was given refuge after showing that because he'd refused a local drug lord's request to store drugs and weapons in his home, he’d been threatened, abducted and beaten by police officers who worked for the trafficker, said Henry Cruz, the man’s attorney. The attorneys asked that their clients' identity not be disclosed for safety reasons. Warring drug cartels and corrupted police forces have led to a decline in public security in cities such as Juarez and Tijuana, as CIR recently reported for The Nation. This, in turn, has led to a new class of Mexican refugees fleeing drug violence and lawlessness for safe haven in the United States, as a joint CIR-LA Times collaboration highlighted in March. An increasing number of Mexicans have arrived at U.S. border crossing points to ask for asylum, including nearly 200 last year. But, they have a hard case to make, as the San Antonio Express also recently reported. In U.S. immigration courts, there were only 71 asylum grants, while the courts received more than 3,000 such cases. The majority of Mexican asylum claims in the courts are withdrawn or abandoned. Immigration officials say they don’t know how many of those asylum seekers are fleeing drug violence or related lawlessness, because the asylum process is confidential. Drug cartels are battling over trafficking routes, fighting internal power struggles or retaliating against federal police or the Mexican military. The drug gangs have backed up their increasingly public threats, such as hanging banners with the names of targeted officers or sending warnings through police radio signals, with gruesome displays of violence. Nearly 11,000 people have been killed in Mexico since President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against Mexico’s powerful drug cartels shortly after taking office in December 2006. Calderon has deployed some 45,000 troops around the country. Since 2007, drug violence has claimed the lives of about 900 Mexican police officers — nearly 500 last year alone. Some had ties — real or perceived — to drug traffickers. Many were targeted out of revenge. And in some cases police officers were killed by turn-coat colleagues. The drug-related killings include the top federal police officer in Mexico, numerous police chiefs along the border and seven police officers in a single-day spree in Tijuana in late April. Other police officers and chiefs have quit their jobs, such as Juarez police Chief Robert Orduna who resigned in February after a drug gang threatened to kill a police officer every 48 hours until he quit. For an overview of asylum and refugees, see these reports from the Department of Homeland Security.

Kosovo: Journalists under fire

Michael Montgomery — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:02:05 -0700

Advocacy groups are rallying around embattled Kosovo journalist Jeta Xharra following a vitriolic campaign against her in pro-government newspapers and a series of anonymous death threats. Xharra hosts a popular and controversial television show in Pristina and is affiliated with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN). BIRN reporters collaborated on our investigation into war crimes linked to former members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and Xharra hosted a lively discussion of the project on her show (I joined in via Skype). Former KLA leaders dominate Kosovo’s current government so it wasn’t especially surprising that pro-government newspapers attacked Xharra and BIRN soon after our reports were published. What was surprising was the viciousness and implicit calls to violence in some of the commentaries. Infopress, a newspaper that gets much of its advertising revenue from the government, likened the BIRN journalists to Serbian spies and compared their work to fascist propaganda. A subsequent Infopress commentary said the author "would be honored to shake the hand of any such dutiful Albanian" who took it upon himself to "punish" the BIRN reporting team. Telephoned death threats to Xharra followed the newspaper smears. "In a post-war society such as Kosovo where the wounds are still open, to compare someone to Milosevic's Serbia is not only an insult and incitement to hatred, but could also be life-threatening," Xharra said in a statement published by BIRN-Kosovo. Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, who served as the KLA’s political director during the war, has been silent on the Xharra case, as has Kosovo’s president, Fatmir Sejdiu. Both men enjoy warm relations with Washington and have met with senior members of the Obama administration. Last February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Kosovo as the world’s “newest democracy,” following a meeting with Sejdiu. But a number of human rights and press freedom groups are questioning Kosovo’s commitment to democracy, at least based on the government’s pointed refusal to support Xharra. Here’s what the Committee to Protect Journalist’s Joel Simon said in a June 17 letter to Thaci:

The death threats against Xharra and her team of journalists are deplorable and put Kosovo's fledgling democracy at risk. Press freedom in Kosovo must be protected as a fundamental human right for an independent and stable society. We ask you and your government to immediately and unequivocally condemn this attempt to intimidate an independent journalist and her colleagues, hold accountable all those responsible for making the threats, and ensure the safety of Jeta Xharra and her BIRN-Kosovo colleagues.

So far, Kosovo’s leadership hasn’t responded to appeals from a handful of NGOs. And so far, they’ve refused to order an investigation into the heart of the current allegations: that KLA operatives abducted and then murdered hundreds of Serbs as well as Roma and other Albanians in the months after the official end of the Kosovo war ten years ago. Sources tell me the new European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) has opened a formal inquiry into some of the allegations. But the jury is still out on whether EULEX is ready to challenge Kosovo’s current political bosses if evidence points in their direction. Michael Montgomery has been reporting in the Balkans for twenty years. His recent radio documentary for the BBC investigated the kidnappings of Serbs during and after the war in Kosovo. Montgomery's video journals from that reporting trip appeared in CIR's web video series, "The Investigators."

'The Investigators' featured on PRI's 'The World'

CIR Staff — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:10:32 -0700

Today, Public Radio International featured Michael Montgomery's reporting on Kosovo in their radio program, "The World." They also showcased CIR's web-video journals with Montgomery, part of our web-video series, "The Investigators." From PRI:

At this time ten years ago, the war in Kosovo had officially ended. NATO troops and UN administrators were flooding into the province to enforce a peace agreement with Serbia. Following the peacekeeping force into Kosovo were hundreds of thousands of triumphant ethnic Albanians who had been expelled by Serbian forces during the war. The war was over, but not the violence. In the months that followed, hundreds of people were murdered or disappeared. Many victims were from the minority Serb population. Investigative journalist Michael Montgomery spent years investigating what happened to them. Now with the San Francisco-based Center for Investigate Reporting (CIR), he recently returned to Kosovo to produce a radio documentary for the BBC. Together with a team of Balkan reporters, he uncovered strong evidence that some abductees may have been secretly removed from Kosovo under the noses of NATO and the United Nations.

"The Investigators" is also a regular feature on the Columbia Journalism Review's website.

CIR receives $1.32 million from Knight for California project

CIR Staff — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

A new Knight Foundation initiative seeks new models for investigative reporting, and three journalism organization have received funds:

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation today announced a $15 million initiative to help develop new economic models for investigative reporting on digital platforms. The grants, some on-going, some new and some yet-to-be announced, will promote both local and national investigative reporting in order to help provide the vital stories that citizens need to run their communities and their lives. “Communities are harmed by what they do not know. A community can’t clean up a toxic dump, or remove a corrupt official or right any other wrong if its citizens do not know about it,” said Eric Newton, Knight Foundation’s vice president for journalism. “We’re awash in information, yet it seems to be getting harder to find good investigative reporting.” America’s daily newspapers employ some 10,000 fewer journalists in their newsrooms than they did a decade ago, he noted, and membership in groups like Investigative Reporters and Editors has declined in recent years. By looking for projects that emphasize high-impact stories, digital platforms, diverse revenue streams and national leadership, he said the foundation hopes to “help pioneer models that help keep this important journalism flowing.” The three newest grants are:
Center for Investigative Reporting ($1.32 million): to launch a new multimedia investigative reporting project in California that encourages print, digital and student journalists to collaborate on stories;

Sunlight Foundation ($565,000): to develop web tools so the public can easily access information on Congressional lawmakers, from their campaign contributions and votes;

ProPublica ($1.01 million): to help the investigative reporting organization create a sustainable business model

>> Read the full press release here.

Colombian secret police have been tracking journalist Hollman Morris

Mark Schapiro — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:33:34 -0700

In April, CIR launched our new series The Investigators, highlighting the work of investigative reporters around the world, with an interview with Hollman and Juan Pablo Morris, brothers and creators of the Colombian television show Contravia. The show has been one of the few journalistic sources of independent reporting to investigate human rights abuses by Colombia's right-wing para-military groups and their connections to high political and financial figures. We've just received news from Hollman Morris in Bogota of an extraordinary development: Documents released yesterday in the Colombian Congress confirm that the country’s intelligence service, the DAS, has been conducting systematic surveillance of Morris’ mail, movements, and computer communications for several years. This is part of a larger process at play in Colombia to marginalize independent journalists, human rights activists, and attorneys who are determined to provide unbiased reports on the players, from all sides, in Colombia’s long-running civil war. The revelations are described on Contravia’s website here. Watch CIR's interview with the Morris brothers:

Editorial Director named for California reporting project

CIR Staff — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:17:56 -0700

We are pleased to announce that Mark Katches will be joining the Center for Investigative Reporting as Editorial Director of CIR's new reporting initiative focusing on California. Katches, a native Californian who spent 20 years as a reporter and editor covering major issues in the state, will be leaving the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which he joined in 2006 to help start a nine-person investigative reporting team there. Since joining the Journal Sentinel his team has won numerous national awards for investigative reporting including the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting for a story that exposed a $50 million Milwaukee County pension scandal. That same year, the Journal Sentinel was named "Innovator of the Year" by the Associated Press Managing Editors for its watchdog work. This year, another project he managed, a series that exposed the failures of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration to protect the public from dangerous household chemicals was a Pulitzer finalist in investigative reporting. That story also won the George Polk Award, the John B. Oakes award, and a Scripps-Howard National Journalism Award. Before moving to Milwaukee, Katches worked at the Orange County Register, where he twice directed projects that were Pulitzer finalists, including one in public service. In 2001, he was part of a reporting team that won the Gerald Loeb, Sigma Delta Chi and Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) awards for detailing rising profits from the human tissue trade. "We are very pleased to have Mark Katches direct our editorial team for this new California reporting initiative," said Robert Rosenthal, CIR's Executive Director. "He is a first-rate journalist with a long track record of leading award-winning teams that produce high impact stories in innovative ways." "Katches' deep roots in California, as well as his extensive experience as a journalist reporting and investigating critically important California issues, will help us develop new strategies for informing and engaging Californians about crucial issues that affect them in their daily lives and their communities," said Louis Freedberg, Director of CIR's California reporting venture. Katches served on the board of IRE from 2004 to 2008. He continues to oversee IRE's mentorship program. He taught journalism as an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California from 2003 through 2006. "California is a state facing immense challenges,"Katches said. "It has never been more important for a strong watchdog team to hold those in power accountable and to shine a light on important issues facing citizens of the state. I'm thrilled about returning home to help build and manage a team that will do just that." For more information about CIR's California reporting initiative, read the announcement: "Powerful Journalism to Help Solve Key Issues in California."

On FRONTLINE's website: "A Digital Generation at War"

CIR Staff — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:54:16 -0700

Correspondent Elizabeth Rubin spent the fall of 2007 with Battle Company of the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade in northeastern Afghanistan. The Americans and the Taliban have been locked in a dead heat in the Korengal Valley for more than three years. In 2007, Rubin went on a six-day mission with a platoon into the insurgents' mountain hideouts that resulted in the death of three soldiers. Rubin returned to Battle Company and the Korengal in the summer of 2008. Both times, she took a video camera. + Watch the videos on FRONTLINE's website. Elizabeth Rubin's reporting was supported in part by CIR's Dick Goldensohn Fund for International Investigative Reporting.

Voice of San Diego probes recovery spending with help from CIR

G.W. Schulz — Thu, 21 May 2009 11:27:31 -0700

Reporters are discovering one unique way to examine spending from President Obama’s stimulus package: comparing it to the disarray that surrounded homeland security grants after Sept. 11. With a little help from the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Voice of San Diego produced this story on May 20. We’ve also covered California’s grant spending in the past.

In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, the federal government flooded California with money to help the state ramp up its homeland security effort. San Diego benefited greatly from the spending, reaping more than $20 million in homeland security grants since 2002. But while San Diego and other local governments spent the federal money, the state scrambled to keep track of where all the cash was going. As California's spending on homeland security ballooned from a few million in 2000 to more than $500 million in 2003, the state's effort to account for all the money became akin to "trying to build a bicycle while you're riding it," according to one senior state official. It took the state more than five years to get around to checking on San Diego's spending of the federal grants, according to state and county audits. Those documents reveal that for the first few years the federal money poured into San Diego, few formal procedures existed to track whether the money was actually being spent on the purpose for which Congress made it available: Making San Diegans safer. When the federal government did its own checking, it found that, as a result of the state of California's poor monitoring of the homeland security money, local governments had been allowed to misspend millions of dollars. California was also unable to adequately measure whether the vast amounts of money actually helped to protect the state's citizens, a federal audit concluded. Now, the federal government plans to send California more than $80 billion—an amount that makes the state's homeland security spending look puny—via the stimulus package. The city of San Diego hopes to claim more than $56 million of that money, and the county and other local cities, schools, and agencies hope to pick up tens of millions more.

The Center for Investigative Reporting launches California-focused initiative

CIR Staff — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The Center for Investigative Reporting is launching a new statewide reporting initiative to produce in-depth multimedia journalism specific to California and to engage the public on issues of critical importance to the state. It will launch with a grant of $1.2 million over three years from The James Irvine Foundation. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation also has awarded a grant of $1.2 million for the same time period, primarily for reporting on education, which is in part a challenge grant to encourage other funders to support this new initiative. The project, a new department within CIR, will combine the experience and resources of CIR, the oldest nonprofit investigative reporting organization in the country, and the skills and resources of the California Media Collaborative, established to devise new strategies to improve coverage of key statewide issues. Targeting regional and statewide journalism offers a solution to the crisis in journalism. The project will serve as a watchdog for government and powerful institutions, fulfilling the core mandate of CIR. It will partner with existing news organizations, journalism schools and other institutions to develop innovative ways to inform and engage Californians on issues that affect them in their communities and in their daily lives. “The turmoil in the news industry has had the greatest impact on local and regional news organizations. Their ability to produce investigative and in-depth reporting is becoming more difficult every day. We will monitor government, track private interests and reveal abuses that threaten our democracy,” said Robert J. Rosenthal, CIR’s executive director, and former managing editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and executive editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Rosenthal, who will have overall responsibility for the project, added, “We will hire top journalistic talent to tell stories in new and creative ways and to distribute them throughout the state, to reach a wide and varied audience across multiple platforms.” CIR is pleased to announce that Louis Freedberg will direct the project. Freedberg is founder and director of the California Media Collaborative, which was based at the Commonwealth Club of California, and a veteran journalist who was most recently on the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle. ”How the media cover California matters, arguably more than in any other state,” said Freedberg. “As newsrooms shrink in size, the media have less and less capacity to cover the innovations, institutions and ideas that have made California such a force in the nation and the world, as well as the multiple challenges clouding the state’s future. The need for a vibrant, watchdog press is as acute as ever. “ The project will cover key California issues, including education, the environment, immigration, state governance and public safety. A major focus will be on making statewide data accessible to journalists and the public, connecting the dots on particular issues between communities throughout the state. It also will emphasize “solutions-based” reporting, identifying ways that ordinary Californians, as well as policy makers, can address the issues covered. Social networking tools will encourage audience interaction and help communities solve problems and identify potential issues to be investigated. “This effort holds considerable promise to develop a new model for coverage of state-level issues here and in other parts of the country,” said Kristi Kimball, program officer at the Hewlett Foundation. “We hope other funders will join us to ensure its success and maximize its impact on the state.” CIR is also in discussion with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation about supporting the project because of Knight’s interest in experimental new investigative reporting models. CIR will hire an editorial director and additional reporting staff and will make further announcements about collaborations with media outlets and other partners in the near future.

UN admits evidence from Srebrenica was destroyed

Michael Montgomery — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:18:00 -0700

A top UN war crimes prosecutor has now conceded that prosecution staff in The Hague destroyed hundreds of pieces of evidence recovered at Srebrenica, scene of one of Europe's biggest massacres since the Nazis. Media in Bosnia reported today that Serge Brammertz, chief prosecutor for the Hague-based international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) told a survivor's group that around 1000 items recovered in mass graves at Srebrenica had been destroyed because they posed a health hazard. UN sources who have worked extensively with the tribunal told me tribunal staff dumped the material for a more mundane reason—it smelled bad. Brammertz's reported comments came two days after I wrote that more than 3000 pieces of evidence and artifacts collected over the years by war crimes investigators may have been destroyed at the tribunal. A tribunal spokesperson had earlier declined to comment on the allegations, saying such information was "confidential." Forensic experts I spoke with today questioned the tribunal's rationale for destroying the material. "This kind of stuff smells terribly. It's part of the business," said one expert on evidence preservation. "If that smell bothers you, you shouldn't be in this business." Several experts told me technology is widely available to "freeze-dry" documents such as identity cards and photographs that might be in an advanced state of decay. This process can preserve and even restore documents and remove strong smells. "The goal is always to preserve the maximum amount of evidence," says Michael "Sonny" Trimble, a forensic archeologist with the US Army Corps of Engineers. "To dispose of something simply because it smells violates all the basic principles of evidence preservation." Trimble has worked extensively on excavating mass grave sites, including victims of Saddam Hussein's notorious Anfal Campaign. Trimble says his team used the "freeze-dry" technique to save a number of identity cards found on victims. "The technology is there to preserve material pulled from mass graves," Trimble says. "And most of it is not particularly expensive." However, he added that this kind of work is labor-intensive, with each document sometimes requiring hours of work by a highly-trained preservationist Sources tell me the ICTY relied on these techniques in its early years to save some documents from decay. Why this wasn't done in the case of the Srebrenica material is one of many questions the tribunal will face in the coming days. CIR's "The Investigators" series followed Michael Montgomery on his reporting trip to the Balkans this spring, where he was investigating the killing of Serbs who disappeared after the end of the war in Kosovo. Michael's resulting radio documentary aired on the BBC. Go behind the story with Michael in CIR's web-video journal "Searching for Kosovo's Missing."

Did the UN destroy more war crimes evidence?

Michael Montgomery — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:22:53 -0700

Michael Montgomery reporting in the Balkans.

A scandal is brewing at the United Nations over the possible destruction of thousands of items of evidence and artifacts recovered by UN war crimes investigators in the Balkans. I reported several weeks ago for the BBC about how the UN had apparently mishandled evidence of possible war crimes by Kosovo Albanian guerrillas during and after the 1999 war. (See CIR web-exclusive video journals of my reporting trip here.) My report revealed that officials at the Hague-based UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) had destroyed physical evidence at the center of an investigation into allegations of organ harvesting. The material included used medical supplies—drug vials, syringes and IV drip bags—discovered in 2004 by a UN team during a search of a house in central Albania. The team was investigating allegations that civilians captured in neighboring Kosovo by operatives from the Kosovo Liberation Army were taken to the house, subjected to organ harvesting and then killed. Now, it seems that other items recovered elsewhere by UN investigators and stored in a secure location in The Hague have been destroyed by the ICTY’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). According to three sources with direct knowledge of the episode, items dumped by the OTP included a batch of identity cards recovered from victims of the mass murder at Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia. The identity cards were burned in an industrial incinerator in The Hague and their destruction was authorized by the OTP’s chief of investigations, according to my sources. What’s more, the sources say the OTP did not inform the Bosnian government or families of the Srebrenica victims that the identity cards were being destroyed. In total, as many as 3,000 pieces of evidence and artifacts were destroyed by the OTP, according to Serbia’s war crimes prosecutor. The significance of the other materials remains unclear since the ICTY has refused to comment on the allegations. Two former OTP staffers were shocked by the development. “This material was of enormous historical value,” says one former investigator, who asked not to be named because of ongoing work with the tribunal. “This was the biggest act of killing in Europe since the Nazis. This was genocide. And for some of the families of the victims, this may have been all they had to mark their loss. This should be a scandal.” Outside experts generally give the ICTY good marks in how it catalogues and stores evidence. But they say the Tribunal’s evidence unit has been overloaded by the mass of materials arriving from the Balkans. I emailed Tribunal spokesperson Olga Kavran about the allegations. Here’s our exchange:

April 22, 2009 Ms Kavran: I’m writing to follow up on our recent telephone conversation. I recently produced a radio documentary about the fate of civilians who disappeared during and after the 1999 war in Kosovo. One of the episodes examined in the documentary was a 2004 investigation of a house in central Albania by experts from UNMIK and the ICTY’s Office of the Prosecutor. I reported that items recovered by investigators at the house and sent to the ICTY—including used medical supplies—were eventually destroyed by the OTP. It has come to my attention that other items collected by investigators in the Balkans and shipped to the ICTY have also been destroyed by the OTP (the office of Serbia’s special war crimes prosecutor has cited a figure of 3,000 items in total). The items destroyed included a batch of identity cards recovered in and around Srebrenica following the mass killings there in 1995, according to my sources. Since these items are not part of any ongoing investigation, I am seeking comment about why they were destroyed and, more broadly, the process the OTP follows in deciding whether or not to preserve evidence and artifacts collected in the field. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Michael Montgomery Special Correspondent Center for Investigative Reporting www.cironline.org

Dear Michael, Sorry for not responding sooner. Unfortunately, I am not able to comment or provide you with any details in relation to your question. As a general policy, the Office of the Prosecutor does not disclose to the public or discuss in the media any material collected during investigations unless such material becomes part of public proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal. Like national Prosecutors' Offices, the OTP has developed a practice for the retention, storage and destruction, if necessary, of material which it has obtained. Such internal work practices are also confidential. Best regards, Olga _____________________ Olga Kavran Spokesperson for the Prosecutor

* * * * * CIR's web series "The Investigators" followed Michael Montgomery during his reporting trip to the Balkans this spring. In part one of "Searching for Kosovo's Missing," Montgomery takes viewers to the Albanian house where UN investigators collected evidence of possible organ harvesting.

Andrew Becker on Air America

CIR Staff — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:56:49 -0700

CIR's Andrew Becker speaks about the impact of drug violence along the U.S.-Mexico border on Air America's "Ring of Fire" radio program. Becker's recent story on the issue appeared on The Nation's website on March 20, 2009. Read the story.

Podcast: U.S. citizens detained and deported

CIR Staff — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:13:41 -0700

In a Truthdig podcast, CIR's Andrew Becker talks about the crackdown on illegal immigration, and how Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been detaining and deporting American citizens. >> Listen to the podcast on Truthdig. >> Read Becker's recent article on MotherJones.com: "Observe and Deport" >> Read Becker's article in the Los Angeles Times: "U.S. Citizens Caught Up in Immigration Sweeps"

Broussard talks to grand jury about Chauncey Bailey killing

CIR Staff — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:08:39 -0700

As Devaughndre Broussard spent hours on Tuesday telling a grand jury details about the killing of journalist Chauncey Bailey and two other men, his mother waited outside a closed door and said she still doubts her son pulled the trigger. Broussard’s secret testimony in a sealed courtroom in the basement of the Wiley Manual Courthouse is expected to continue Wednesday morning. >> Read this story and more by The Chauncey Bailey Project.

On BBC: U.S. citizens caught in immigration sweeps

CIR Staff — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:21:37 -0700

CIR reporter Andrew Becker speaks to the BBC World Service's World Update radio program about the increase in U.S. citizens caught in immigration sweeps who have been detained or deported. Becker's recent story on the issue appeared in the Los Angeles Times on April 9, 2009. Read the story.

Chauncey Bailey case investigator suspended

CIR Staff — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:32:56 -0700

The Chauncey Bailey project reported today that Police Sgt. Derwin K. Longmire was suspended from duty Monday for his handling of the investigation into journalist Chauncey Bailey’s killing in August 2007. A timeline produced by the Center for Investigative Reporting last fall chronicles Longmire's involvement with members of Your Black Muslim Bakery: From the article:

Longmire has been under investigation by both the police Internal Affairs Division and the state Justice Department since last year for his handling of the Bailey case and his ties to the former leader of Your Black Muslim Bakery, Yusuf Bey IV, who is jailed and awaiting trial on a host of charges, including kidnapping, torture, real-estate fraud, and assault with a deadly weapon. The Chauncey Bailey Project reported in October that Longmire failed to document in his case notes evidence that pointed to Bey IV’s involvement in Bailey’s killing. Evidence not documented included a tracking device report that showed Bey IV’s car was parked outside Bailey’s residence fewer that seven hours before Bailey was gunned down in downtown Oakland. Longmire also never documented in his case notes the existence of a secretly recorded videotape on which Bey IV mocked and laughed about Bailey’s killing, said he hid the gun used in the assassination in his bedroom closet and bragged that he ordered an underling, Devaughndre Broussard, to confess to protect the bakery. Broussard is the only person charged in Bailey’s death. Broussard confessed that he killed Bailey to stop him from “writing bad things about the bakery” and Bey IV, but he has since recanted. His trial is scheduled for next month.

>> Read the full article. >> View the full timeline of Sgt. Derwin Longmire's involvement with members of Your Black Muslim Bakery.

Golden State lacks control over grant spending, audit finds

G.W. Schulz — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:36:16 -0700

Local officials in California failed to properly account for millions of dollars spent on homeland security efforts in the state, made dubious purchases that may not make communities safer, and could have overpaid millions by not seeking competitive bidding for equipment, according to an audit by the inspector general of the US Department of Homeland Security. In one example cited, a California county bought a $96,600 generator to provide its public works department with emergency power during a catastrophe but didn't factor in a $130,000 overhaul of its electrical system needed to accommodate the generator. So nearly two years after the purchase, the new equipment wasn't ready for a disaster and might never be, county leaders admitted. Another county entered into a multimillion-dollar contract for communications equipment without competitive bidding, which an independent assessment found could have cost taxpayers as much as 26 percent less if other companies had participated. A third county paid more than a half-million dollars to outfit a witness interview room, which was rejected as an illegitimate use of homeland security funds. In addition to citing municipalities for irregularities, the audit was critical of the state homeland security department's oversight of grant spending, saying it's monitoring "was not sufficient to assure grant funds were spent properly." The report noted that only half of the local agencies in California that have received cash since 2001 were visited by state monitors as of December 2007 and the state's weak controls did not ensure purchases made were "eligible, allowable, and supportable in accordance with federal guidelines." According to the audit: "Our reviews of several grant files disclosed that documents such as purchase orders, receipts, or delivery notices, were not present to support millions of dollars in grant expenditures. State officials explained that, in an effort to improve operational efficiency of grant management, subgrantees were not required to provide supporting documentation together with their reimbursement requests." In a letter responding to the audit, California Office of Homeland Security Director Matthew Bettenhausen argued that the state has a system in place for approving local expenditures and that grant managers in his office receive extensive training throughout the year. A spokesman for Bettenhausen said "We're reviewing the report" but declined to address individual findings in the audit. The March 13 report focused on $265 million given to the state from 2004-2006 through the State Homeland Security Program, only a fraction of the at least $1.7 billion awarded to California between 2003 and 2008 through the most common grant programs made available by the federal government. The state has received additional millions from Washington for projects that exclusively target port security, expanded interoperable radio systems, hiring new firefighters, border protection and more. In overall dollars received, California is the leading beneficiary of homeland security grants compared to other states, according to Matt Mayer, a former top official in the federal Department of Homeland Security's Office of Grants and Training. The audit also found that despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in homeland security grants since 2001, California has not adequately evaluated improvements made in emergency response efforts, so it's difficult to tell which areas of the state are better prepared to respond to a major catastrophe. Bettenhausen, in his response letter, disputed that California had failed to measure changes in its ability to manage disasters. He wrote that the state has tracked improvements in its emergency response capabilities and can gauge today how it is better equipped for calamity than before California began receiving the grants. "California has gone above and beyond what is required at the federal level in the measurement of preparedness and capabilities," Bettenhausen wrote. The audit does not name any of the counties singled out in examples of questionable grant expenditures, and Bettenhausen's office would not provide them, although it made assurances to the inspector general that the purchases were valid. Two California counties CIR was able to independently identify from the report, Alameda and Contra Costa, committed $33.4 million to a new emergency communications system using grants funds, but they need at least $34 million more for additional equipment and are unsure where it will come from, according to auditors. So for now, the system is only partially operational. In addition, a contractor may have overcharged them, and auditors are questioning the entire investment. For the most part, local California recipients of the homeland security grants Congress began handing out after Sept. 11 must purchase what they need first, such as equipment and terrorism response training, before being reimbursed with federal money controlled by Sacramento. The grants have allowed cities of all sizes across the country to buy new mobile command vehicles, gas masks, hazmat suits, decontamination shelters, surveillance equipment for identifying terrorists and more. A number of states have struggled to comply with rules created to increase accountability over the grant spending such as seeing to it that cities and counties keep their pricey new gear in a "state of readiness" and maintain documents that validate the purchases they've made. Bettenhausen agreed in his response letter that more monitoring visits needed to occur and vowed to ramp up their frequency, but he complained that the amount of grant funds available specifically for such administrative costs are limited and a backlog of older grant years still exists. However, he promised that more on-site inspections will help ensure "funds are being expended as intended." Suspect equipment purchases were made in cases identified by the auditors. One of the two aforementioned counties not named hired an engineering firm after determining that the $96,600 generator it had purchased with grant funds would be too difficult for its own employees to install. The consultants discovered that an electrical system would first need to be expensively renovated before the generator could be used. Because the county wouldn't put up the money needed to cover the previously unrealized costs, the generator has sat inactive for almost two years. A public works director from the county didn't believe the money would ever be made available, according to the report. Another recipient spent nearly $600,000 on audio recorders and additional equipment to outfit a witness interview room for law enforcement purposes, but such items do not "enhance preparedness for terrorists' attacks or natural disasters," the report found. Auditors recommended that the state recover the costs of both projects. Bettenhausen countered in his letter that the audio equipment "can be used to monitor and record suspects and witnesses involved in a terrorist event." Bettenhausen also promised to make sure that the emergency generator was eventually installed. Many local authorities in California, according to the report's findings, also are not meeting federal procurement guidelines that require competitive bidding for major homeland security purchases, an obligation that's designed to make certain taxpayers receive the most value possible. "As a result, the grants' requirements for fair and open competition in procurement were not always practiced and subgrantees may have paid more than was necessary," the report states. Local grant administrators bought large-ticket items but were not familiar with federal procurement rules and did not have records showing what processes they did use to purchase the gear. The report cited examples totaling $11.6 million worth of questionable transactions, including a $294,000 bomb disposal robot, $81,000 worth of night-vision goggles and a $5.1 million communications system. Multiple purchases were made without competition, or local officials failed to prove that there weren't enough suppliers of specific goods to compete with one another. Nor did grantees conduct cost analyses to determine whether prices were "fair and reasonable" when only one vendor was used without competition. The $5.1 million communications system was supposed to be part of a much larger regional network in the San Francisco Bay Area of northern California, designed to serve multiple dispatch centers and emergency radios so that first responders could more readily talk to one another. Two Bay Area counties, Alameda and Contra Costa, which encircle several California cities including Oakland and Berkeley, manage the interoperability project together, one of many similar but expensive efforts that exist today around the country. Because of the system's original design, according to the report, most of the equipment for an early phase of the undertaking was purchased from the same company that conceived it. The contractor, which is not named in the report but CIR identified as Motorola by searching documents online, estimated that the larger system ultimately would carry a price tag of about $54.8 million, including the cost of transmission towers, repeaters and other equipment. A later independent assessment, however, found that Motorola had added a substantial premium to the price of as much as 26 percent compared to what the cost may have been if more than one company competed to offer a better deal. A spokesman for Motorola declined to comment on the audit's findings. The East Bay Regional Communications System Authority has spent approximately $10 million so far against the contract with Motorola. Bill McCammon, executive director of the authority, told CIR that it has since learned of other less costly alternatives, such as piggy backing on a contract that was competitively bid out to Motorola by Riverside County in southern California. The authority will pursue those options rather than continuing with the existing contract, but McCammon admits some service fees charged by Motorola so far were overpriced. He said that when Alameda County sought a contractor initially for a new radio system, Motorola was the only bidder. Officials chose to proceed with the company anyway because the Department of Homeland Security requires grants to be obligated quickly for projects each year after the federal awards are announced. "It was a question of using those dollars or losing those dollars entirely," McCammon said. "Those funds need to be expended within a certain amount of time." Regardless of the system's estimated cost now, it doesn't include the additional millions it will take to provide the police, sheriffs, firefighters, paramedics, public works personnel and others who would benefit from interoperability with individual radios, thousands of which may be needed. McCammon isn't sure how much more that could cost. As of May 2008, the two counties were looking for a way to meet a funding gap in the project of $34 million, but according to the audit, they don't know how to fill it. McCammon responds that "we're going through a very deliberate process to evaluate our options" with the aid of a communications consultant. Nonetheless, if the system does not eventually work, auditors say that all of the money used from homeland security grants for the project – more than $33 million earmarked so far – should be relinquished. Bettenhausen responded in his letter that the state would not be requiring an "artificial date" for completion of the communications project but would review its implementation plan to see if the system is technically feasible and compatible with other interoperable radio initiatives in the state. The report, meanwhile, did single out another project in California for commendation. The California National Guard created a unique truck-bound system that can bridge disconnected communications systems in a disaster area. But it would still take a few hours for the system to be deployed during an emergency with the help of a military airlift. An early prototype was used during Hurricane Katrina and also California's 2007 wildfire season. Six of the units are being manufactured and will be set up in regions across the state. Other states are examining the system's state-of-the-art design.

Irish company charged in Iranian businessman's weapons scheme

Shahien Nasiripour — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:39:38 -0700

An Irish trading company and three of its officers have been charged with sending helicopter engines and other aircraft parts to Iran as part of Hossein Ali Khoshnevisrad's alleged weapons-smuggling ring. The 25-count indictment unsealed in federal court in Washington Tuesday charges the Mac Aviation Group and the three men of buying goods from U.S. companies and sending them to Iran using front companies in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. As reported first by the Center for Investigative Reporting and The Washington Post, Khoshnevisrad was charged March 16 with multiple export-related crimes for allegedly running a major procurement scheme to acquire millions of dollars worth of U.S. parts for military helicopters and jet fighters for use by Iran's military. He was arrested March 14 after arriving at San Francisco International Airport on a flight from Europe. Mac Aviation is the unidentified Irish trading company mentioned in the criminal complaint against Khoshnevisrad that allegedly helped him procure the U.S.-made goods that ultimately ended up in Iran, including 17 Rolls Royce helicopter engines. The Justice Department is seeking the arrest and deportation of the company's three Irish officers—owner Thomas McGuinn, 72; his son Sean McGuinn, 40, who is the sales director; and commercial manager Sean Byrne. In 1996 Thomas McGuinn pleaded guilty to violating the Arms Export Control Act. He has since been barred by the State Department from engaging in any U.S. export-related activity involving defense goods or services. Exports of the helicopter engines and aircraft parts in the Khoshnevisrad case are regulated by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, which regulates exports of so-called dual-use items—goods that can be used both for civilian and military purposes. Calls to the Bureau of Industry and Security and Rolls Royce, the maker of the helicopter engines, were not returned.

DOCUMENTS:
DOJ release on Khoshnevisrad (March 16, 2009)
DOJ release on announcement (March 24, 2009)

Homeland Security USA: Can a one-way border protection agenda stop drug war violence from heading north?

G.W. Schulz — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:55:45 -0700

Copyrighted image courtesy Tobias Kraft ABC's reality show "Homeland Security USA" would have you believe that no one of suspicion will make it into the United States from Mexico without being captured by the Department of Homeland Security. What if the greatest threat to national security isn't people trying illicitly to bring goods into the United States but criminals who take them out of the country? That question was the subject of a hearing convened March 12 by the House Homeland Security Committee. Experts testified that violent clashes between drug cartels currently underway in northern Mexico will increasingly bleed into the United States if the near-anarchy isn't brought under control. Newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a Democratic former governor of Arizona, has made it a top priority to stem the growing potential for a spillover of violence, calling for "utmost attention" from U.S. officials. Mexican President Felipe Calderón has deployed thousands of armed forces in an attempt to quash a surge in brutality that resulted in 6,200 murders across the country last year, 1,600 alone in Ciudad Juarez, which shares the border with El Paso. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates that as many as 90 percent of the firearms fueling bloodshed south of the border aren't obtained in Mexico, where gun laws are far more restrictive than those in the United States. They're coming from firearms retailers in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and California, exploited by warring narco-traffickers who use straw buyers with clean records to buy the weapons here. The Houston Chronicle, citing investigations by the ATF, revealed in late November that the southern Texas metropolis has become a top source for firearms slipping into Mexico. "All the weapons the drug syndicates are using in Mexico come across the border from the United States," Mexico's ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, told the Chronicle. Authorities linked an M-16 assault rifle purchased at a Houston sporting goods store to the murder of four police officers in Acapulco. Another rifle allegedly purchased at a Houston gun store was connected to the killing of a man kidnapped in Mexico during a soccer game, according to the newspaper. A cell of weapons smugglers bought as many as 45 assault rifles from just one gun shop, and Mexican officials believe the vast majority of thousands of weapons so far seized or found at crime scenes on the southern side of the border originated in the United States. An ATF office in Houston has beefed up its attention to the area, but officials told the Chronicle that legal interpretations of Second Amendment freedoms bar the federal government from keeping a detailed database of weapons and ammo buyers, which hamstrings investigations into the source of the gun flows. Kumar Kibble, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement deputy director, described for the committee last week the case of Ernesto Tornel Olvera-Garza who allegedly began sneaking hunting rifles into Mexico during the summer of 2005. ICE agents concluded that he used straw buyers with no criminal record to fraudulently buy as many as 50 weapons on the U.S. side of the border that were later smuggled southbound, one of which appears to have been involved in the killing of two Mexican soldiers, according to Kibble's testimony. The Department of Homeland Security last year officially launched Operation Armas Cruzadas, a joint campaign with the government of Mexico, to fight gun smuggling networks, and Kibble told the committee that the effort has netted more than 100,000 rounds of ammunition and hundreds of weapons. "The challenge in countering the smuggling activity is compounded by the reliance on the technique called 'ant trafficking,' where small weapons are smuggled through multiple ports-of-entry, on a continued basis," Kibble said at the hearing Despite ICE's new operation, the chaos seems only to be growing worse. The Los Angeles Times reported March 15 on a harrowing new development that's making the bid by Mexican and U.S. authorities to stop drug trafficking truly resemble a war: military-grade weapons being used by cartels to attack one another and police. The list includes armor-piercing ammunition, antitank rockets and grenade launchers. Many of the weapons are shipped over ocean channels from Central America, according to the Times, but some remain from the anti-revolutionary campaigns the United States once helped fight in that region. Others come from illegal global arms networks, redirected from once-legitimate sources with the help of corrupt government officials onto the black market after being manufactured in South Korea, Israel, Spain—and the United States. The Mexican government claims to have seized more than 2,200 grenades over the last two years. In one case, a U.S.-based company with a manufacturing facility in Mexico was robbed of bomb-making equipment. According to the Times story:

The fear of guerrilla warfare was compounded in February when 270 pounds of dynamite and several hundred electric detonators were stolen from a U.S. firm in the state of Durango. On Valentine's Day, about 20 masked gunmen, led by a heavyset man wearing gold rings and chains, stormed the warehouse of a subsidiary of Austin Powder Co., an industrial explosives manufacturer, according to official accounts. They overpowered guards and emptied the warehouse. … In addition to grenades, high-powered guns such as the .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifle have become a weapon of choice in narcotics traffickers' arsenals, [ATF Spokesman Thomas G.] Mangan said. Unlike grenades and antitank weapons, the .50-caliber guns can be obtained by ordinary citizens in the U.S. and smuggled easily into Mexico, like the tons of assault rifles and automatic pistols.

The possibility that Mexico might actually become a "failed state" due to the intensity of the drug war is being considered openly by U.S. military intelligence and members of Congress, a serious matter given that Mexico is a major economic trading partner of the United States. The Homeland Security Committee's vice chair, Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California, said during the March 12 hearing: "We must not overhype the dangers in border cities, such as El Paso, which has seen declining crime rates. However, we know that cartel members are present in some 230 U.S. cities, often times masquerading as local gang members who engage in drug-related kidnappings and home invasions. "In addition, it should be noted that over 200 U.S. citizens have been killed in this drug war, either because they were involved in the cartels or were innocent bystanders. With those concerns in mind, it is essential that the Department of Homeland Security, along with other relevant departments, continue to pursue a contingency plan to address 'spillover' violence along our border." NOTE: The Center for Investigative Reporting spent the last several weeks offering alternative news on the Department of Homeland Security that typically didn't make it onto ABC's reality show "Homeland Security USA." After seven episodes, it appears that the show has been taken off the air without completing the season, perhaps due to poor ratings. It's not clear yet if the remaining episodes will run later, but our reporting on the department will certainly continue.

On NPR: Mexican drug war creeps into U.S. border towns

CIR Staff — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:39:34 -0700

CIR reporter Andrew Becker speaks to National Public Radio's News & Notes about Mexico's drug war and the effect on immigration and border towns in the U.S. From NPR:

A drug war is raging across the border. Over 6,000 people were killed in drug-related violence in Mexico last year. The body count is mounting, and the violence is spilling into the United States. Tony Cox explores how U.S. officials are addressing the growing crisis. Plus, how can travelers stay out of danger? Cox speaks with Andrew Becker — a staff writer for the Center for Investigative Reporting — and Ken Ellingwood, a correspondent in the Mexico City bureau of the Los Angeles Times and the author of Hard Line: Life and Death on the U.S.-Mexico Border.

+ Listen online. + Becker's recent story on the recent wave of asylum-seekers from Mexico appeared in the Los Angeles Times on March 4, 2009. Read the story.

Two former Border Patrol agents plead not guilty to human smuggling charges

Andrew Becker — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:26:50 -0700

Two former Border Patrol agents arrested on charges of smuggling Brazilians and Mexicans into the country on Friday made their first appearance in U.S. Federal District Court in San Diego. The Associated Press reports that a U.S. magistrate judge entered not guilty pleas on behalf of brothers Fidel, 41, and Raul, 39, Villarreal, as uniformed Border Patrol agents looked on disapprovingly at their former co-workers. The brothers, who were extradited from Mexico on Thursday, had been on the lam for more than two years until their arrest last October in Tijuana. Since then the men had been held in Mexico City pending their extradition to the United States. A federal grand jury in April indicted the brothers on 18 counts of bribery, alien smuggling, money laundering and witness tampering, but the indictment was sealed until after their arrest in October. The Villlarreals were allegedly part of a network that smuggled Brazilians and Mexicans into the country through Tijuana, according to court documents. The network included a Mexican police officer who drove the immigrants to remote mountain areas from where the brothers would drive them in a Border Patrol truck further into the country, a Brazilian said in a sworn affidavit, adding that he paid $12,000 to be smuggled into the country. The brothers, who were highlighted in a joint New York Times-PBS Frontline/WORLD production in May 2008, were assigned to different Border Patrol posts in the San Diego area. Fidel Villarreal was a senior agent while Raul Villarreal was once a Border Patrol spokesman, who acted as a "coyote" in public service announcements for the Mexican government warning immigrants about the dangers of human smugglers. The brothers were captured during an early morning raid following a birthday party at a gated apartment complex near the U.S. Consulate. Their father, who lived near the border in National City, Calif., was also at the apartment at that time. Two other suspected smugglers, Armando Garcia and Claudia Gonzalez, who were caught along with the brothers, were also extradited. The brothers had lived with their parents in a San Diego suburb until they abruptly quit the Border Patrol in June 2006 and vanished. Federal agents involved in the investigation speculated that the brothers may have been tipped off about the investigation as it closed in on them, and had chosen to go into hiding. Jan E. Ronis, the attorney for Raul Villarreal, declined to comment on his client's case beyond the fact the brothers are in a difficult position. "Obviously the allegations are serious," he said.

On the ground in Iraq

Janna Brancolini — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:48:34 -0700

An important source for the Super Hornet story in the Baghdad | Los Angeles project by USC Annenberg and CIR was Marine Sgt. Jason Lemieux. He spent hours describing his experiences in Iraq so I could get a better understanding of what things are like on the ground and how soldiers spent their time there for large parts of the war. Marine Sgt. Jason Lemieux doesn't buy it when other veterans of the Iraq War say they don't experience lingering combat symptoms. "You can't be okay," Lemieux said. "All these people who are saying they're okay are just fooling themselves. You can't not have problems." Lemieux did three tours of duty in Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines Lima Company, stationed in 29 Palms, Calif., between 2002 and 2006. He invaded Iraq on March 21, 2003, through Az Zubayr north to Baghdad, and did five months of stability operations in Karbala. He returned to Iraq in January, 2004, and was stationed in Husaybah. Then he extended his contract to redeploy to Ramadi until July of 2006. Now a student at Columbia University, 25-year-old Lemieux is working towards a Bachelors degree in a social science and a Masters degree in International Security Policy. He is plagued by post traumatic stress disorder, patellofemoral syndrome, and tinnitus in both ears — meaning that in addition to PTSD, one of his kneecaps slides outside its joint and his ears ring about once a day. Often he sent e-mails at 4 a.m. his time. Lemieux joined the Marines right out of high school and left for boot camp on September 9, 2001. He thought he was "too cool" for college, and expected to head to Okinawa in December of 2002. When he found out he was Kuwait-bound instead, he didn't think he would survive the initial invasion of Iraq — let alone two more tours of duty. "From what they taught us about urban warfare, I knew it was just a fucking complete disaster to be the attacker in urban warfare," he said. "Untrained units can take 80 percent casualties, and with good training you can pump that down to 40 percent. "[I thought], 'If we're really going to go to Iraq and invade a city of 8 million people, there's no way I'm coming home.' So I'm calling my mom and telling her it's bad and I'm crying and I'm not expecting to come home alive if we invade this country." Lemieux doesn't sound like much of a crier. He and his fellow Marines listened to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" on a smuggled Walkman as their unit sped towards the battle. Lemieux said he couldn't believe it was actually happening. Once they reached Iraq, the Marines realized every unit they were supposed to attack had fled — including ones in Baghdad. Lima 3/7 set up stability and support operations, something none of them expected to do. Marines are supposed to be expeditionary fighting forces that come in, take control of an area, and turn it over to the army. The hanging around began to devastate the Marines' morales. "I felt like, 'If I'm going to be risking my life, I want it to be doing a job that only I can do,'" Lemieux said. "Any soldier in all of our massive army can sit here and smuggle whiskey and eat half-chickens and walk around Karbala like we own the streets." Lemieux doesn't think his unit suffered a single major casuality in their five months there. Although the soldiers got used to the non-threat situation — many of them stopped wearing their armor and did not keep security watches while eating in restaurants — tense situations arose when Marines would talk to women and violate gender customs. There was almost no infrastructure, and the soldiers had to go out into the town and pay $1.50 to use a satellite phone if they wanted to call home. It was just one of the ways the Marines helped the local economy. "This guy would sell juice and soda to Marines on a bicycle; by the time we left, he was driving a gas-powered scooter," Lemieux said. Lemieux went home and celebrated his "glorious victory" over Saddam Hussein. He drank a lot and assured people that he wouldn't have to go back to Iraq — that was the army's job. But when he returned to 3/7 Lima, he was deployed to Husaybah, a border town that was once home to about 300,000 people. Lemieux's unit entered a hostile situation because the economy depended largely on smuggling goods across the border from Syria, but the military saw that as a threat to security. The residents of Husaybah were also terrified by the mounted infantry that was patrolling their streets, and winning over the population proved to be more difficult than the commanding officers had anticipated. Insurgent attacks were frequent. "Husaybah was a blood bath," Lemieux said. "A meat grinder." The Marines went out on security patrols with two goals: catch someone planting an IED or wait to get attacked so they could fight back. They would set up for hours at a time in a family's house, forcing the family to stay in one room and making the home a target for insurgents. Often the ambush never came, and the American soldiers were mostly killed by IEDs left long before they got there. The Marines had no one to fight back. "Your friends get hurt, and this psychological thing happens," Lemieux said. "You don't know who did it and you can't get the person. The most comfortable thing to do is believe that everybody is the enemy. So as more and more IEDs go off and more people get hurt and killed, that's what everybody believes. They don't have any outlet for their aggression." When they weren't being attacked, the Marines experienced sheer boredom, Lemieux said. He also thought their training left them ill-prepared to deal with insurgency warfare. In California, they had been trained on 6-foot dummies that stood still out in the open. In Iraq, moving people shot at them from behind the cover of buildings. The Marines did drills that were supposed to teach them to identify IEDs, but in reality this was a nearly impossible feat, Lemieux said. "Improvised explosive devices are so easy to camouflage. You can pave one in the sidewalk, bury it in the dirt," he explained. "You can't find them. They're nearly perfect, and you'll never find the guy who detonated it. He could be a mile away, in any building, with any remote." In the end, the soldiers didn't want to "play nice, make friends, and win over the population," Lemieux said. People started treating one another badly, roughing up civilians, and a vicious cycle formed. Lemieux said many of the Marines thought American causalities were completely arbitrary in Iraq. They compared life and death to the lottery, but Lemieux thought the randomness stemmed from improper execution of urban warfare. He said there were times when the whole platoon would come to a stop in the streets for an hour or two, and he was sure they would get hit. Other times the micro-terrain was ignored, and often soldiers were told to stand on rooftops even though it silhouetted them against the sky and made them easy sniper targets. "This kid gets shot right in the back of his armor plate. Dead center, beautiful shot," Lemieux said. "It was clearly not taken in haste. Luckily the plate stopped the round — otherwise it might have hit him right in the spine." Lemieux said the lesson learned from that was not to keep people off the roof, but rather, "Don't vote for John Kerry because he votes against SAPI (Small Arms Protective Insert) plates." Although the goal of the patrols was to catch Iraqis laying IEDs, Lemieux could only recall five times his unit caught people with them throughout his three tours of duty. Lemieux and a friend in his unit began reading books about the Soviet/Afghan wars in hope of finding something they could apply to their situation in Iraq. "[The Iraqis] would do the exact same things to us that were going on there," Lemieux said . "It was just eerie." Lemieux's platoon leader was not interested in the history lessons, though. He would tell Lemieux he couldn't believe everything he read, and that, "You can't always go by the book." "He would ridicule me in front of the whole platoon so I looked like a piece of shit," Lemieux said. He believes many parts of the military are completely insular, and, "everything they need to know, they know already. It's maddening." Lemieux left Husaybah in September, 2004, and the whole unit had "massive psychological problems." The soldiers all had to fill out post-deployment health questionnaires that consisted of three questions:

1. Did you experience an event in the past month that you go out of your way not to think about? 2. Do you have upsetting nightmares? 3. Do you have trouble or difficulty concentrating or remembering things?

Lemieux, like most of his unit, answered yes to all three questions. Each yes is considered a red flag. The only people who didn't answer yes were the ones who didn't want to get identified with psych problems, Lemieux said. A month or two later, the Marines met with a medical officer who asked if the answers still held true. Lemieux lied and said no; he estimated that about 90 percent of the others in his unit did the same. "I didn't want the stigma from the unit," he said. "I thought I would be kicked out of the Marine Corps in shame. That record would follow me out in the civilian world." After his first tour of duty, Lemieux began seeking psychological help. His commanding officers refused to get him an appointment, and when he made one on his own, they asked him to keep it quiet. "The stigma gets to the point where if I'm seeking treatment, it makes the platoon leader look weak because he has someone who didn't get the training or leadership he needed," Lemieux said. Despite his dislike for his Platoon Commander in Husaybah and the psychological trauma of war, Lemieux extended his contract with the Marines for 10 months in 2005, and returned to Iraq. "I'm staring at the contract," he said. "I'm sitting there thinking, 'This is fucking crazy. This is nuts, why I am doing this?'" Lemieux agreed to go back, though, because he wanted to help bring home all the new, inexperienced Marines. "You develop this very tight bond and they're like a family," he said. "You've gotta take care of these guys." On September 4, 2005, Lemieux left for Ramadi. Although there were many similarities — boredom, insular mindsets, unwavering faith in current tactics — Lemieux had significantly more respect for his commanding officer in Ramadi. Many platoon leaders had figured out that security patrols were not helpful, and Lemieux's commanding officer began requiring two or three intelligence reports before they went on a raid in search of insurgents. "We got a 40 percent success rate, which blew us out of the water," Lemieux said. Before, residents would accuse their business rivals of hiding weapons because they knew the American soldiers would destroy the property in search of IEDs and put their competition out of business for a while, Lemieux said. By late 2005, intelligence officers were getting better at identifying legitimate claims. Soldiers also began to show more restraint when dealing with civilians because penalties increased and commanding officers were more strict about the rules of engagement. There was also less pent-up aggression because fewer attacks were directed at the American troops. Lemieux smoked cigarettes non-stop in Husaybah because he thought an IED would kill him long before lung cancer had the chance. He finally quit in Ramadi because he realized he would probably make it out of Iraq. There were still constant attacks in the region, though. As soon as his military contract ended in July, 2006, Lemieux sought help for his PTSD. He moved to Anaheim, Calif., and waited for his classes to start at Fullerton College in August, 2006. At the encouragement of a former roommate, he applied to and was accepted to Columbia University in 2008. He is paying for his education with vocational rehabilitation money from the U.S. Veterans Affairs office. Lemieux signed up for Iraq Veterans Against the War almost as soon as his enlistment was done in July, 2006, and he served as the secretary of the national Board of Directors until January, 2009.

Homeland Security USA: Tiny Alaska town buys ballistic shields, command vehicle with grant funds

G.W. Schulz — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:54:05 -0700

Readers might recall that during the election season last year, the Center for Investigative Reporting published an in-depth look at how Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's modest hometown in Alaska spent the millions of dollars it had received in antiterrorism grants since Congress began doling them out in huge portions to cities big and small after Sept. 11. We reported the story using detailed grant spending records obtained from officials in Alaska through the state's open-government laws. Recently, we decided to go back and have a second look at the documents after another tiny Alaska community, Skagway, population 823 (see photo at right), made a celebrity appearance in episode seven of ABC's ongoing reality television show "Homeland Security USA." Skagway plays host to what is probably the most isolated point of entry into the United States, guarded resolutely by a pair of Customs and Border Protection officers. As the show's narrator describes it, Skagway is "nestled between the frozen peaks and icy waters of the Yukon just a snowball's throw from Canada." Despite its small size, records show that between 2003 and 2007, Skagway received at least $1.2 million in homeland security grants from the federal government. The town was awarded another $352,414 by the feds between 2002 and 2005 through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant, for which fire departments apply directly from the Department of Homeland Security. Town leaders could argue that their border crossing is as important to protect as any other, but Skagway is so small and lightly populated that its police force has just four officers. The Skagway Fire Department has only two full-time employees, otherwise relying on volunteers to answer "over 200 calls annually," according to its website. The cash infusions from homeland security allowed Skagway to purchase a $54,000 "incident response vehicle," an $842 pair of stabilized binoculars and $1,700 worth of traffic cones. Another $13,600 was spent on ballistic shin guards, shields and level IV vests, and $2,000 covered hazmat suits, gloves and chemical-resistant boots, while even more went toward decontamination showers and shelters. Nearly $4,000 allowed the purchase of a personal identification badging system (we're struggling to imagine that Skagway's municipal workforce is large enough to lose track of who's who), $9,000 went toward constructing new fences and gates and a similar amount covered the deployment of surveillance cameras, plus $7,300 for a thermal-image camera. Another $171,268 helped cover two 32-foot Packcat public safety boats (one of which you can see at the bottom of the page here), at least $186,223 was spent on new digital radio equipment and another $498,000 went toward purchasing a communications base system. A CBP officer from the Department of Homeland Security named Boyd Worley guards the quiet Skagway border outpost with his wife. Both became federal employees in the 1970s, and even their daughter works for the department at the Port of Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands off the southwest corner of Alaska's mainland. The Skagway port of entry doesn't experience a lot of action, which is why the producers of "Homeland Security USA" thought it would be amusing to profile the border point in the first place. As Boyd Worley says, hardly 30 trucks a day pass through the area. Conversely, there are about 50 million border crossings each year from Tijuana, Mexico, into the United States via the San Ysidro port of entry near San Diego. "Skagway may be a small port far, far away from the lower 48 states," Worley tells the camera. "But still, if a terrorist were trying to get into the U.S., once he got by us, it's domestic all the way to Washington, D.C." As the show's producers ride along with Worley in his Chevrolet Suburban, he tells them how sometimes motorists traveling the highway toward Skagway don't realize they're approaching a roadblock until the last minute when they see the sign. "They freak out and throw their dope out the window," Worley snickers. Suddenly he gasps and turns serious. "Oh my God, right here in front of us," he exclaims. "Look at that." It's a boulder that had fallen from a nearby rock face at some point in the past and is just sitting right there in the middle of the highway! "That's quite a boulder," he adds. What will the Department of Homeland Security do? "What we'll do is go back to the station and phone the Department of Transportation guys," Worley assures viewers. But the oversized rock will have to wait a little while, he says, because everyone in that equally small office had punched out at 3 p.m. Whether any town in Alaska is likely to be hit by terrorists or not, the state on a per-capita basis is among the top recipients in the United States of the most common emergency preparedness grants distributed annually by the Department of Homeland Security. Former Vice President Dick Cheney's sparsely populated home state of Wyoming is one of the few that ranks higher than Alaska in per-person grant spending. Between 2002 and 2008, the federal government awarded Alaska at least $87 million dollars in major grants, which state officials then distributed to local cities and boroughs (the state's equivalent of a county). Alaska received another $18.2 million from the assistant to firefighters program during that period. Our story from late last year combined spending totals for Palin's hometown, Wasilla, population 7,028, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough that surrounds it. The area has benefited from at least $4.2 million in grant funds over the last five years. Among the purchases were two incident response vehicles costing a combined $1 million. One of the two vehicles, a mobile command communications truck, is specially outfitted with a four-wheel drive chassis, a conference room with a projector screen and an incinerator toilet that operates without water. Another $130,000 in grant funds was required to outfit the new truck with interoperable radios that could reach the state's emergency communications system and a satellite for Internet access and video conferences. A local emergency services director told us then that the fire department had trouble figuring out where to keep the vehicle, so it was being stored in a commercial building next door to a firehouse in Wasilla. Leasing expenses for the space at that time cost at least $9,000 in grant funds, records showed. We weren't able to reach the Central Mat-Su Fire Department recently to find out where the truck is now. Wasilla also spent $250,000 to build a 100-foot tall communications tower on behalf of its small police department for "detecting, disrupting and responding to acts of terrorism," city officials wrote in a progress report. Other small towns in Alaska made high-priced purchases, too, not just Wasilla and Skagway. A city called Whittier located about an hour from Anchorage spent nearly $30,000 on two Anthrax detectors. The state's Department of Health and Social Services told us there'd never been a reported case of Anthrax infection in Alaska history. The port city of Bethel spent $6,300 on a "surveillance shotgun listening device," more than $20,000 on video surveillance for its water treatment plant and $44,000 on seven ATVs. The town has fewer than 6,000 people.

Homeland Security USA: Obama wants to hire ‘thousands’ for domestic intel

G.W. Schulz — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:30:12 -0700

The Center for Investigative Reporting’s weekly blog feature examining the reality television show “Homeland Security USA” is taking a break to bring you this public service announcement regarding President Barack Obama’s call for an army of new intelligence specialists. Overlooked in media reports of President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget was $260 million for the Department of Homeland Security to pay for thousands more state and regional intelligence analysts. These are the folks who work to improve the quality of available information on potential terrorists and encourage the wider sharing of it among law enforcement authorities. But the analysts would most likely be staffed at controversial fusion centers that grew quickly across the country after Sept. 11 to collect and examine data in search of evidence that terrorists are planning an attack. California has four fusion centers, and many around the nation are jointly staffed by state police, FBI agents and federal analysts from the Homeland Security Department. The use of such domestic intelligence forces raises serious questions about potential civil liberties abuses and has the familiar ring of the FBI’s scandalous domestic counterintelligence program, COINTELPRO, and so-called police Red Squads that had to be reined in after committing widespread constitutional offenses in the 70s. At the very least, such a significant expansion of domestic intelligence gathering and analysis comes as a surprise considering Obama’s pledge that the era of government secrecy is over. On the contrary, some fusion centers have proved reluctant to provide watchdogs and reporters with information about what they’re up to. Last year, EPIC sued the Virginia State Police to force open records describing the activities of its fusion center. Intelligence-led policing is the latest trend in law enforcement, but the concept—and many enforcement tactics—are not new, which is why some civil libertarians are worried. Half-a-century ago, local police spy units sought to unravel communist conspiracies in the United States—now their focus is the never-ending War on Terror. Cops obviously want to expose and preempt major crimes before they occur, rather than simply investigating the deadly aftermath when it’s too late to save victims. But since so many states are unlikely to be struck by terrorists, fusion centers have had to expand their intelligence mission to cover all crimes and potential hazards, partly to convince local legislators they’re worth financing with taxpayer money into the future. A refresher course on this subject is offered in the late ACLU attorney Frank Donner’s definitive 1990 book on domestic intelligence gathering, Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America. In it, he noted that local law enforcement for decades eavesdropped on thousands of people and groups with abandon and then shared the information with other cities, thus tarring as subversive anyone who appeared in the mountains of collected data files and suspicious activities reports, regardless of whether they’d actually committed a crime. The super-secret Red Squad in New York City, known euphemistically as the Bureau of Special Services, or BOSS, spied and compiled data on every person and organization even loosely involved in political activism and deemed by police to be seditious or radical, including civil rights activists and elderly peace protestors. The bureau even spied on Mensa, the social club for braniacs, and neighborhood organizations that protested noise coming from a nearby airport. The Red Squads also used paid infiltrators in attempts to provoke political activists into violating the law, conducted raids and arrests without warrants and beat protestors in the streets, all of which eventually caused enough of an uproar that many of the intelligence units agreed to legal settlements limiting the range of allowable surveillance tactics. Not surprisingly to those who remember the past, much of the same problematic conduct is again being revealed. Some of it is the result of a modern-day development–electronic surveillance—that has been added to the menu of law enforcement tools The Washington Post has published recent stories showing that the Maryland State Police collected intelligence on dozens of peaceful advocates and groups, including Amnesty International, labeling them in a database as terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security, according to the Post, provided officials in Maryland with information about upcoming antiwar demonstrations gleaned from e-mails that the federal government had somehow acquired. An organizer of the protests told the Post that federal agents would have had to infiltrate his group’s email lists to know about its plans. The New York Times examined video footage in 2005 showing NYPD officers not just participating in protests undercover but actually seeming to incite reactions from demonstrators. The Times reporter who wrote the story, Jim Dwyer, has widely documented covert modern-day intelligence gathering on political activists by police in New York. In 2002, the ACLU helped unearth spy files revealing a decades-long push by the Denver Police Department to collect intelligence on thousands of people and hundreds of organizations, including peace activists and mainstream human rights groups. On Feb. 26, the Texas Observer obtained a confidential and “bizarre, conspiracy-laden” memo from a fusion center warning local law enforcement of recent alleged threats to the Lone Star State from Muslim organizations and antiwar groups. (For even more on contemporary surveillance techniques that pose complex issues for a free society, see the eye-opening 2005 book from Washington Post reporter Robert O’Harrow, Jr., No Place to Hide, published in partnership with CIR. O’Harrow is currently a CIR advisor.) Congressional investigations in the 70s led to significant reforms of how law enforcement can handle data collected on individuals and political organizations. The Justice Department for years imposed regulations on electronic data systems maintained by local police requiring that intelligence be collected only on individuals reasonably suspected of having committed a crime. If the data becomes “misleading, obsolete, or otherwise unreliable,” the information is supposed to be purged after five years to protect the privacy rights of innocent Americans. But following 9/11, police and federal authorities mounted a resistance effort against landmark 1970s-era privacy laws in a drive to expand information collection and sharing. No one is sure if all the fusion centers even comply with the guidelines, according to an early 2008 report from the Congressional Research Service: “The federal government has no formal and systematic means of auditing whether each center is appropriately protecting civil liberties, or using federally funded intelligence analysts in a manner that is consistent with national goals and objectives for fusion centers.” In any case, during the waning months of the Bush Administration, Justice Department officials quietly proposed lightening many of the restrictions so that police could keep data on Americans for much longer than the previously established five years. It would also be far easier for police to exchange the sensitive information with their federal counterparts, as opposed to the past when it could only be transmitted on a “need-to-know” basis. The changes were unveiled as part of a larger effort by the Bush White House during the final moments of his term to make it easier for everyone in law enforcement, from the FBI to local patrol officers, to engage in domestic intelligence collection. Regarding the proposed change, the Justice Department wrote in the Federal Register last July that “The five-year retention period was established before the events of 9/11 and the advent of the current terrorist threat environment. This relatively short retention period may not be long enough to cover terrorist planning cycles and/or the need for historical data for terrorism threat assessment. New technologies for data storage and analysis make possible the extended retention and potential usefulness of this information for purposes of such threat assessments.” CIR placed several calls to the Justice Department’s press office in recent months while working on another story to ask about the status of the proposed changes, but no one has returned the calls. You can find more on the proposed changes here and here. The Department of Homeland Security has moved to create recent guidelines for fusion centers specifically, including recommendations on how to respect civil liberties. But besides helping to finance their establishment, federal officials have mostly avoided regulating fusion centers, leaving them to fall under state laws. Nearly 60 fusion centers exist across the United States today, and their construction came with the help of $400 million in federal antiterrorism grants handed out between 2001 and 2006. Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff initially attempted to limit how much states could use the grants to pay overtime costs for personnel and hire new intelligence analysts in an effort to keep them from becoming too reliant on the money. But he was forced to change his tune last October when Congress mandated through a new bill that Chertoff allow up to half of the $1.7 billion doled out nationally from major emergency preparedness programs during 2009 to be used for covering intelligence specialists and other staff positions. Much of the energy behind fusion centers is coming from the Democrat Party. While it seems that groups such as the ACLU would have an easier time finding sympathy with the Democrats now in control of the White House and Congress, the party is still out to convince voters it can do a better job than Republicans securing the homeland, and that means not appearing to coddle terrorists. Newly appointed homeland security secretary, Democrat Janet Napolitano, testified in Washington Feb. 25 that partnering with state and local governments would be a major priority during her tenure. “The fusion of information between the federal, state and local levels is what makes the intelligence-gathering process critically valuable to preventing threats from materializing. … The creation of a seamless network we can use to share this information among levels of government is a critical part of improving our partnerships.” A “seamless network” of domestic intelligence outposts operated by police who may not have sufficient experience in handling sensitive data is exactly what worries the ACLU, EPIC, and other pro-privacy organizations. Her comments were no doubt welcomed by Congressman Bennie Thompson, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee and also a Democrat, who has rarely missed an opportunity to criticize the Bush White House for not doing enough to back fusion centers and other antiterrorism initiatives. When Democrats retook the House following the 2006 midterm elections, their first legislation was the 9/11 Commission Act, which among other things codified the Department of Homeland Security’s role in supporting fusion centers. Now comes President Obama to reinforce the administration’s support for fusion centers by endorsing a significant increase in the number of intelligence analysts. There is no question that good intelligence can lead to better law enforcement and possibly avert terrorist activity, and it is possible that better communication between law enforcers could have detected the activities of the terrorists who committed the Sept. 11 attacks. At the same time, intelligence gathering run amok can produce unconstitutional abuses, as groups such as the ACLU and EPIC have pointed out. Simply throwing thousands more analysts into this complex area of law enforcement without due regard to that risk might produce other than the desired results.

In Iraq, we need "language and culture, not expensive weapons"

Janna Brancolini — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:46:36 -0700

Marine Sgt. Kevin Stendal. Photo by Olivier Morel

Discussions with Kevin Stendal inspired the Super Hornet story featured in Baghdad | Los Angeles, a collaborative project by USC Annenberg and CIR. We met Stendal in a coffee house in Anaheim and spent two hours discussing not only his experiences, but the "big picture" in Iraq: counter-insurgency tactics, the military industrial complex, and media coverage that reported on isolated incidents but didn't draw connections. Chris and I thought the Super Hornet story would be a good way to look at the Iraq War as a system, and to look at the inner-connectedness of its parts. Nothing prepared Marine Sgt. Kevin Stendal for his first day in Iraq. He had been going on afternoon runs in 85-degree California heat before his deployment in order to acclimate to Middle East weather, but the 125- to 135-degree days he faced in Iraq were still a shock to his system. "I felt drunk, a little light-headed," he said. "I didn't want to move. I was short-tempered." It was June, 2004, as Stendal rode in the back of a 7-ton truck to Al Qa'im, where the light armored reconnaissance unit he was joining was stationed (1st LAR). Although Stendal was supposed to be scanning for threats, he felt like he was going to pass out. A sergeant was peeing off the side of the truck, and it was flying back and hitting some of the soldiers. A third sergeant passed out, so they had to stop the convoy. After a tense break in the middle of a crowded city, the unit continued. Finally, the truck arrived on the base, and Stendal thought the stress would subside for at least a little while. The Marines pulled up to refuel, and someone yelled, "Fire!" Flames were shooting out of the vehicle, and people began diving off the 8-foot-high truck bed, completely disregarding the military's requirement to keep their weapons clean. "That was just the first day," Stendal said, unable to suppress an ironic smile. Stendal, a native of Redondo Beach, Calif., joined the marines after high school in 1988. He did his four-year commitment and thought he was finished with the military, but he re-enlisted after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He saw soldiers on the news using MK153 SMAW anti-tank assault launchers — the same weapons system he had been trained on at age 18. "I'm watching these guys [on TV], thinking I wasn't pulling my weight," he said. He thinks the mass punishment of boot camp and the solidarity of his first unit made him feel responsible for the soldiers in Iraq. Stendal, a resident of Costa Mesa, Calif., is now a 39-year-old divorcee with two kids. A veterinary technician studying nursing at Fullerton College, he sketches diagrams to explain events and concepts as he talks. One map he drew demonstrated the layout of his unit's first casualty. In April, 2004, a couple months before Stendal arrived, a group of 1st LAR soldiers realized the Iraqi police weren't at their checkpoints as they drove toward a bridge that was code-named Golden Gate. They crossed the bridge, and insurgents cut power to the town on the other side. An IED went off, and insurgents launched rocket-propelled grenades at the vehicle. One soldier was cut in half. "There was no way for him to do anything differently," Stendal said. "No training, athletics, anything. Whoever was sitting in that seat was going to die. Stuff like that happened all the time." "It was hard not to be fatalistic," he continued. "We're crossing that bridge and everybody's showing me bullet holes. Obviously it made an impression on people every time we drove through." Stendal said that for him, the constant stress was coupled with an overwhelming sense of futility. "I never got a strong sense we were accomplishing any goals," he explained. One frustrating task was patrolling the Syrian border for smugglers. The area Stendal's unit covered was about 30 to 40 miles long, so smugglers could cross when patrols were miles away. The Marines could see tracks in the sand where people entered Iraq while they were at the other end of the border. Stendal was also present when an informant told his commanding officer that the Iraqi border patrol that was supposed to be working with the American soldiers was signaling smugglers across once the marines were out of sight. They had to dress the informant in marine utilities so the border patrol wouldn't recognize him from a distance. "Iraqi contractors working on American bases died for less," Stendal said. The only "smuggler interdicted" award on record was actually for stopping a man who was trying to sneak into Syria to get a better price for his sheep, Stendal said. With that type of pervasive poverty, it was hard not to feel like a thug. "The poverty was like nothing I'd ever seen before," he said. "There were mud huts with holes for windows, dirt floors, and sheet metal on hinges. Their possessions were like the stuff you'd see in a homeless person's cart. We'd drag them out of their houses at gunpoint. It was hard not to feel sorry." Cultural differences only exacerbated an already tense situation. In a culture where it's an insult to show someone the bottom of your foot, Marines would throw a man on the ground and put a foot on him in front of his whole family. Some would gawk at the women and make jokes. "This is a culture where you don't even look at a woman," Stendal said. "Even if they couldn't understand everything, they understood the gestures and that you're insulting them." Stendal believes this martial law and cultural unawareness undermined the Americans' mission objectives. "Rocket assisted mortars were launched at our base from inside the town. People would claim they had seen nothing, and this is in high traffic areas," he said. "It was the same with IEDs being planted. Nobody ever tried to warn us. The hearts and minds were on the side of the insurgency. We were the bad guys who came in and brutalized the population." Stendal said the Americans treated the Iraqis as though they were inferior. He thought they needed to show more respect and put themselves in a subordinate position because every dead civilian recruited for the insurgency. "A friend saw an intelligence report where two insurgents joined because their brother was killed by a stray bullet," he said. "They were honor-bound to join even though they weren't philosophically opposed to the Americans. It's mathematically impossible to win that way." Worse, Stendal said, was that American soldiers internalized the belief that stated mission objectives were not as important as getting out alive. "The Iraqis were expendable," he explained. "I was guilty of that too. Success was measured in Americans not dying. That's tactical. But the strategic goal was to implement democracy. There's no connection." Stendal said this means Americans can control all the terrain in the country, but still be losing the war. "I remember being in Iraq and Marines were saying, 'If only Iraqis knew how to fight, we would be kicking their butts.' They're expecting their fighting to conform to our training instead of vice versa." When Stendal came home, he tried to tell people about his experiences but was met with disinterest or "unempowered concern." He looked for an organization that was trying to do something about it, and joined Iraq Veterans Against the War in June, 2007. Stendal has faced criticism for opposing the war from both civilians and veterans. They tell him he has no business questioning the government, or that IVAW is a disgrace. He said most Iraq veterans he talks to experienced the same things he did, but they can't bring themselves to go against the military. "Everybody's got their stories about the bullshit, but people don't make connections," he said. "They don't realize these things are proof we shouldn't be there." Despite the opposition, Stendal said it's becoming easier for veterans to speak out against the war. After two or three tours of duty, soldiers are getting frustrated because they feel like bullies instead of liberators. But most civilians still aren't paying enough attention. "Most of the people I talk to haven't given it a lot of thought," he said. He believes this is due to a myriad of factors, including a cultural climate that does not support anti-war movements, the all-volunteer army, and media coverage that only skims the surface of what's happening in Iraq. "They talk about the most superficial things—car bombs and, 'Doesn't it suck to be there?' Not tactics," Stendal said. "Sophistication and restraint, language and culture are what we need, not expensive weapons." Visit the Baghdad | Los Angeles project website.

Homeland Security USA: Is the Coast Guard spending too much on defense?

G.W. Schulz — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:14:30 -0800

Non-homeland security missions: • Marine safety • Search and rescue • Aids-to-navigation • Living marine resources • Marine environmental protection • Ice operations

Homeland security missions: • Ports, waterways and coastal security • Drug interdiction • Migrant interdiction • Defense readiness • Other law enforcement (such as blocking illegal incursions into U.S. waters)

In recent installments of "The Outtakes" focusing on ABC's reality television series, "Homeland Security USA," the Center for Investigative Reporting has posted some intriguing statistics for readers gleaned from federal reports that show how much the U.S. Coast Guard has spent executing its more traditional responsibilities such as search and rescue compared to its so-called "homeland security missions," expanded significantly after 9/11. We already know that the FBI's big push into securing the homeland meant fewer agents were available to investigative Wall Street corruption and real estate fraud during and after the market meltdown. The bureau today is still dedicating only a fraction of the resources and personnel to financial fraud that it did for the savings and loan scandals of the 80s and 90s. But the Coast Guard's area of expertise is uniquely water bound. Figures we looked at showed the Coast Guard budgeted $100 million more in 2009 to finance drug and migrant interdictions—both of which are considered "homeland security missions"—than it set aside for reducing maritime fatalities and injuries and conducting search and rescue efforts, arguably its core mandate. However, we stopped short of wondering aloud whether the Coast Guard is sacrificing some of its older missions. Perhaps Congress or the White House applied pressure on the Coast Guard to stop more immigrants and drug smugglers from attempting to enter the United States via the open seas, even though a battery of other federal agencies have similar responsibilities. Or maybe there are just fewer fishermen being threatened by dangerous waters and in need of help. Now, a recent December report from the Inspector General's Office in the Department of Homeland Security says the Coast Guard is spending more time on law enforcement-type activities and that could mean it's less capable in the future of meeting its marine safety and environmental protection obligations. According to the report:

"Our analysis of the Coast Guard's mission performance, resource hours and budget projections shows a clear trend toward emphasizing the homeland security missions, which will lead to continuing difficulty in meeting future performance targets for the non-homeland security missions … Coast Guard budget projections in dollars and personnel from [fiscal years] 2007 through 2009 illustrate decreases for the non-homeland security missions in contrast to significant increases for the homeland security missions, especially for the ports, waterways, and coastal security mission."

The report also seems to make clear why Coast Guard officials would so vigorously dispute the inspector general's findings and insist homeland security isn't taking over its time and resources. Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which laid the groundwork for the creation of the department by folding numerous agencies into one mammoth bureaucracy, specifically instructs that the Coast Guard's responsibilities not be altered as a result of its inclusion in the department:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the authorities, functions, and capabilities of the Coast Guard to perform its missions shall be maintained intact and without significant reduction after the transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department, except as specified in subsequent Acts. … No mission, function, or asset (including for purposes of this subsection any ship, aircraft, or helicopter) of the Coast Guard may be diverted to the principal and continuing use of any other organization, unit, or entity of the Department, except for details or assignments that do not reduce the Coast Guard's capability to perform its missions. … The Secretary may not substantially or significantly reduce the missions of the Coast Guard or the Coast Guard's capability to perform those missions, except as specified in subsequent Acts."

For good measure, the law then mandates that the inspector general review the Coast Guard's performance each year "with a particular emphasis on examining the non-homeland security missions" to make certain that Section 888 is being followed. The Coast Guard's homeland security apparatus, meanwhile, made a star appearance in episode four of ABC's "Homeland Security USA." In one segment, intelligence received by Customs and Border Protection indicates that 93 Dominican migrants are attempting to make their way illegally to the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico in what's known as a "yola," a rustic wooden boat that's mostly ill-suited for raging deep-ocean waters. A CBP prop plane stuffed with sensitive radars and night-vision cameras spots the hapless craft where its engines have failed and the people onboard are at risk of tumbling into the ocean amid a brewing storm. As part of a joint operation involving numerous agencies charged with protecting Puerto Rico's 434 miles of coastline, a Blackhawk helicopter and Coast Guard cutter known as Matinucus are dispatched to the Mona Passage to scoop up the migrants before the yola capsizes. "We called our command center and told them that all law-enforcement aspects of the case would have to be put on hold—that this was a search and rescue case because of the sea conditions," Jay Guyer of the Coast Guard tells the audience. The boat's passengers are plucked from the whitecaps during a three hour-long operation and given food and water before being escorted back to the Dominican Republic. The show's camera team interviews a few survivors as Matinucus leaves the battered yola in its sizeable wake. "Unfortunately," one says in Spanish, "I will have to do this again because the economic situation in our country doesn't permit us … there is no source of work, there is no work. You must go out and risk losing your life for a future." The yola's captain is allegedly a well-known human smuggler named Manuel de la Cruz, or "Bigfoot," who is arrested on camera and faces up to 10 years in prison for violating U.S. immigration laws, viewers are told. But most of the CBP and Coast Guard officials involved cast the mission as a Good Samaritan gesture to save the Dominican migrants from certain tragedy rather than an assignment to enforce American boundaries. "I think the significance of this operation is there's multi-agencies working together to put someone behind bars for endangering aliens on the high seas out there," U.S. Border Patrol Chief Mike Debruhl says. "The law enforcement aspect is a very important job, but also from a humanitarian aspect—I feel we absolutely saved 93 lives tonight," Guyer adds. Behind the scenes, Puerto Rico's civilian population is apparently not always excited about its role of hosting U.S. law-enforcement authorities. In a job description for the area posted online, the Coast Guard warns applicants and transferees, "Do not travel to Puerto Rico in uniform. Wear civilian clothes. Although patriotism is on the rise here, uniforms will still make you a target in the metro area." As for its homeland security missions, Coast Guard officials complained that budget projections used as data for the inspector general's recent conclusions could be misleading. But the independent watchdog office also looked at where the Coast Guard has applied its resource hours and personnel since 2001, not just its budgeted dollars. The amount of time devoted to non-homeland security missions has dropped with fair consistency and now makes up less than half the total number of resource hours even taking into account the Coast Guard's search and rescue role in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Far more hours were spent during 2007, for example, on drug and migrant interdiction and defense readiness than on marine safety, search and rescue and environmental protection. That might explain why the Coast Guard has failed to meet some of its traditional performance targets. The Coast Guard promised to limit the five-year average number of commercial deaths and injuries on oceans and waterways under American jurisdiction in 2008 to less than or equal to 225. But 244 actually occurred. The Coast Guard further promised to save 87 percent of mariners facing imminent danger last year, but the percent actually reached was 83 percent. Translated, that means 808 people lost their lives in such situations during 2008, an increase of 20 over 2007, despite the fact that the number of cases involving endangered mariners dropped significantly during that period, which arguably should have meant fewer deaths rather than more. Four of six non-homeland security performance targets were not met in 2006 and 2007, and the Coast Guard's promise to enforce federal fishing regulations and protect marine environments hasn't been fully met since 2003. On the other hand, the Coast Guard has mostly succeeded in meeting its homeland security performance targets for the last several years. For instance, it set a record during 2007 for the pounds of cocaine seized in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Pacific, a total of 355,754. In addition, its resource hours devoted to stopping undocumented migrants from entering the United States have skyrocketed since 2001. One of the most notable areas the Coast Guard ventured into heavily after Sept. 11 is so-called "defense readiness," i.e. its role in promoting national security and participating in defense operations with other entities such as the Navy. Resource hours there have climbed 500 percent in recent years and the Coast Guard has made major purchases of state-of-the-art ships known as "national security cutters," part of a buying spree of new "Deepwater" assets. The U.S. Coast Guard’s national security cutter Bertholf, built by private contractors, cost $256 million more than anticipated and was delayed by two years. The Deepwater program is a years-long $24 billion effort to upgrade the Coast Guard's vessels and aircraft by acquiring hundreds of new boats, planes and helicopters and modern surveillance and reconnaissance systems. It started in the mid-1990s and is the largest acquisition campaign in the Coast Guard's history. But the program has suffocated under extraordinary cost overruns, differences with a private sector contractor over what was to be delivered and a Justice Department probe. A joint venture by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman received an immense $17 billion contract to administer Deepwater in 2002, but the Government Accountability Office warned at the time that there could be serious risks associated with such a large, single acquisition. Rather than buy big new assets individually like different sets of ships and helicopters, the Coast Guard decided to purchase everything in a single package hoping that by doing so it could foster more integration across all of its systems (such as among communications links). Watchdogs like the GAO and inspector general later found that the contractors were allowed too much authority in defining performance standards, the contract's operational requirements were vaguely worded, and the contract award and incentive fees paid to the companies as work progressed were based on "attitude and effort" rather than clear and successful outcomes. According to a Congressional Research Service report on Deepwater published in October 2008:

"Some observers expressed the view that using a [private contractor] to implement the Deepwater program made a complex program more complex, and set the stage for waste, fraud and abuse by effectively outsourcing oversight of the program to the private sector and by creating a conflict of interest for the private sector in executing the program."

The first three of eight scheduled national security cutters were supposed to cost an estimated $863 million total, but the price tags for each of them have essentially doubled due to a series of unanticipated costs so that now the overall amount is expected to be an eye-popping $1.6 billion. One of the main reasons for the massive cost increases are new post-9/11 specifications for the cutters requiring upgraded weapons systems, increased defenses against chemical, biological and radiological attacks and communications systems that are interoperable with the Defense Department and other homeland security agencies. Two GAO investigators, Stephen Caldwell and John Hutton, testified to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security in March 2008:

"The new and modernized assets the Coast Guard expects to acquire under the Deepwater Program are intended to be used to help meet a wide range of missions. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Coast Guard's priorities and focus had to shift suddenly and dramatically toward protecting the nation's vast and sprawling network of ports and waterways. Coast Guard cutters, aircraft, boats, and personnel normally used for non-homeland security missions were shifted to homeland security missions, which previously consumed only a small portion of the agency's operating resources. Although we have previously reported that the Coast Guard is restoring activity levels for many of its non-homeland security missions, the Coast Guard continues to face challenges in balancing its resources between the homeland and non-homeland security missions."

The first national security cutter was to be delivered in 2006, but it fell two years behind. Then, in early 2007, the Inspector General's Office released a scathing report on the cutters finding among other things that the Coast Guard started construction on the ships while aware that potential design flaws in their hulls existed, which could result in them being too weak to survive a 30-year service life. The Coast Guard originally conceived of building 12 national security cutters. But in a bid to promote efficiency through innovation, the number was reduced to eight after officials decided they could outfit the cutters with vertical unmanned aerial vehicles, or predator drones, and use them to expand the range of ocean on which the Coast Guard could conduct surveillance. Early proposals called for buying 45 new drones at a cost of half-a-billion dollars. Instead, the House Appropriations Committee later concluded in a report that the unmanned aerial vehicle "has not worked as planned, and the Coast Guard has nothing to show for the $114,550,590 it has obligated for this project." Further, delays in obtaining new patrol boats have forced the Coast Guard to pay for maintaining its older ones, and Deepwater consumes nearly all of the money the Coast Guard sets aside annually for general acquisition, construction and improvements. "This leaves relatively little funding for non-homeland security assets," according to a GAO report published last year. Attempts to modernize eight existing patrol boats led to the discovery of structural damage in their hulls and other problems. The Coast Guard ultimately had to scrap them and acknowledge in 2007 that the effort to refurbish the boats was a failure, but not before spending $96 million, which federal officials sought as a refund from Northrop and Lockheed last year. Media reports eventually surfaced that the Justice Department was investigating certain work conducted as part of the contract, including the national security cutters and the installation of communications systems on new and renovated Coast Guard ships. Making the public aware of all this bad news hasn't been easy for overseers. The Congressional Research Service noted last year that the Coast Guard and its contractors had in the past resisted attempts by the inspector general to investigate problems with Deepwater and officials "appeared to have altered briefing slides on the [national security cutter] effort so as to downplay the design flaws to certain audiences." The program's troubles finally led Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen to make a series of frank public statements in April of 2007 admitting problems with Deepwater and announcing reforms that are still underway today, including the removal of private contractors from some management duties:

"We understand all too well what has been ailing us within Deepwater in the past 5 years: We've relied too much on contractors to do the work of government as a result of tightening budgets, a dearth of contracting expertise in the federal government, and a loss of focus on critical governmental roles and responsibilities in the management and oversight of acquisition programs. We struggle with balancing the benefits of innovation and technology offered through the private sector against the government's fundamental reliance on robust competition. A useful balance can be achieved, but it requires due diligence on our part. … Both industry and government have failed to fully understand each other's needs and requirements, all too often resulting in both organizations operating at counter-odds to one another that have benefited neither industry nor government. … [B]oth industry and government have failed to accurately predict and control costs. We must improve."

So far, the producers of "Homeland Security USA" haven't found time to address the Department of Homeland Security's pricey procurement headaches.

What's in your lipstick?

CIR Staff — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:55:43 -0800

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! talks to CIR Editorial Director Mark Schapiro about his book, Exposed, and the lack of oversight by the FDA when it comes to the safety of chemicals in household products:

When a woman puts on mascara or lipstick or powder—I mean, someone’s tested it, haven’t they? ... Unfortunately, this is an illusion that a lot of Americans have, basically, that somebody out there in the government is assessing the safety of the ingredients in the cosmetics that they put on their body. ... There’s a deep mythology I think people have here in this country that the government is looking out for their health and safety, when it comes to chemicals. And what I talk about in the book is really how that is unfortunately not the case and what the consequences are for our health, but also for our economic and political status in the world.

>> Watch the Democracy Now! program online.

Chauncey Bailey Project featured in New York Times

CIR Staff — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:59:42 -0800

The investigative prowess of reporters and editors working on The Chauncey Bailey Project was applauded by The New York Times:

[The Project] has had a deep impact on the city’s public life, revealing a jailhouse videotape that suggested a wider conspiracy in the murder and which the police seemingly ignored, and helping force the resignation of the Oakland police chief, Wayne Tucker. The group has said that much of its work is done, but it says it will not shutter the operation completely until the investigation of Yusuf Bey IV, a son of the founder of the bakery, has been completed.

Congratulations to reporters Tom Peele, Mary Fricker, and Bob Butler, and the many others who have contributed to the project.

Homeland Security USA: Building a border fence costs a fortune

G.W. Schulz — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:45:37 -0800

Producers of the reality show "Homeland Security USA" airing this season on ABC promised it would deliver to America's living room day-to-day excitement from several of the law-enforcement missions for which the Department of Homeland Security is responsible: coastline protection, airport security and customs inspection. But a prominent focus of the show after several episodes has specifically been the enforcement of immigration laws. While such television is ratings gold, in order for the show to preserve the sense of adventure involved in chasing immigrants across the frontier, its producers must all-but-skip any serious conversation about the true cost of beefing up immigration enforcement, as the Bush White House did with massive investments in new technology and personnel to protect the nation's borders and stop the wave of people attempting to enter the United States. Unfortunately, the much-ballyhooed immigration suppression efforts—such as constructing hundreds of miles of fencing—have been racked with delays and outsized project costs, according to recent reports. The show's inherent voyeurism is exciting, to be sure. Suspense builds as the narrator asks intriguingly whether an immigration suspect being approached carefully under night cover by border agents is armed and will put up a fight. After waiting dutifully through a commercial break, the viewer learns there will be no thrilling shootout and the hapless detainee goes away quietly. Or the U.S. Border Patrol discovers a group of men traversing the desert on their way to America. The suspects have tattoos and the narrator implies that they must be gang members coming here to commit crimes rather than find work. The arresting officers seem to feel more at ease, too, having established that they possess tattoos, as if otherwise they'd experience a moral dilemma in simply enforcing immigration laws. A scene in episode three of the show opens on the Sonoran desert, which covers parts of Arizona and California straddling a 400-mile section of the U.S.-Mexico border. "For the air and marine interdiction team, protecting it from drug smugglers and human traffickers requires a number of innovative techniques," the narrator tells viewers. Customs and Border Protection, for instance, has groups of ATVs, officers on horseback, helicopters and a network of unmanned aerial vehicles with which to guard the border. The predator drones are part of a multi-million dollar fleet of sophisticated toy planes that with the assistance of remote control and a series of ground antennas can sweep across the desert "like a silent watchdog in the sky," the narrator marvels. Guided from inside a fortified RV trailer near Tucson, the drones have a wingspan of 66 feet and are armed with powerful cameras that enable their earth-bound pilots to identify smugglers from 19,000 feet in the air and many miles away. After what seems like just a few moments of the show's team being present, the drone operators spot what looks like a line of ants crossing a television monitor in front of them. A horse patrol is immediately dispatched to where the drone spotted the would-be migrants who are quickly overcome in the desert. "I see moms with young kids who really have no idea what they're getting into. They have sweatshirts on but no blankets," Border Agent Dove Haber tells viewers. " … I'm a mom and can't help but empathize with these kids who have no say in what happens." Another agent says "coyotes" who are paid to help immigrants across the border frequently tell them it's only a short journey, but the long trek can actually take six or seven days on foot. It's not the only time the show seems to encourage the audience to feel for the plight of immigrants. At the El Paso, Texas border in one scene, a woman crosses the pedestrian bridge from Mexico and arrives at the checkpoint with gauze stuffed into her mouth claiming she is a legal citizen and simply returning to the United States after receiving dental work. A border protection agent is doubtful, however, and becomes convinced the woman's legal residency card, which purports to show she's already a U.S. resident, is bogus and the stuffing in her mouth used to make her look slightly more like the photo on her documents. During a pat-down the officers find two cards containing the image of St. Toribio Romo, the patron saint of migrants that some devout Mexican Catholics believe will help ensure their safe passage across the border. On this day, St. Toribio is up against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the keepsakes only give the woman away. She'll be headed back to Mexico. Before doing so, the show's camera crew interviews the woman briefly as a soundtrack of compassionate piano notes plays softly. She'd saved her money for five years in order to make the journey, the woman says, and it was her first attempt to cross the border. "Where I live there is little work and I believed there were other possibilities," she says in Spanish. She is afraid of being sent back to Juarez, the Mexican border town currently engulfed in some of the worst drug-war violence the area has ever seen. In the end, the show seems to say, the Department of Homeland Security has a job to do. Meanwhile, all of this great television comes with a pricetag. The U.S. Coast Guard alone plans to spend $2 billion during 2009 on its drug and migrant interdiction efforts, nearly as much as it budgeted for search and rescue operations and reducing maritime fatalities and injuries. That money is in addition to the amounts already appropriated for the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, which share similar homeland security responsibilities with the Coast Guard. The money spent by ICE alone for removing deportees from the United States doubled in just a few years to more than $3 billion in 2009. In late 2005, the Department of Homeland Security launched the Secure Border Initiative, which included constructing hundreds of miles of fencing along the nation's borderlines and using new surveillance widgets to expand the eyes and ears of authorities. Congress appropriated approximately $3.6 billion for the initiative between 2006 and 2009 alone. As part of the program, the feds hoped to have two different types of new fencing stretched across the U.S. border with Mexico. One was an anti-vehicle barrier made of concrete pylons hammered into the sand every few meters, while in other areas, cross sections of steel are used that look like large Xs necklaced for miles across the earth amid the desert sagebrush and cacti. But most of the fencing is designed to block entry by pedestrians and comes in different types, from tall, steel picket fencing to walls of chain link. The federal government hoped to have 370 miles of pedestrian fencing and 300 miles of vehicle fencing completed as part of the program by December of 2008. But the United States shares nearly 2,000 miles of border with Mexico, and as a Government Accountability Office report published Jan. 29 pointed out, the costs were ballooning by September of last year as homeland security officials negotiated with private owners over land acquisition. As of October, only about 215 miles of combined vehicle and pedestrian fencing had been finished. Customs and Border Protection, which is responsible for the fence, estimates that building it on private property costs the American taxpayer $800,000 in additional funding on top of what it already takes to erect just one mile of it. Pedestrian fencing during 2008 cost the federal government an average of $3.9 million for each mile, but at times it reached as high as $15.1 million per mile. Vehicle fencing required an average of about $1 million per mile but climbed as high as $1.8 million. Authorities had constructed about 32 miles more of secondary fencing by October that runs parallel to the primary fence for additional protection. It cost approximately $2 million per mile. The difficult terrain that surrounds major cities like San Diego can cause the per-mile cost of secondary fencing to climb even higher to as much as $16 million. Included in such extra costs are a "need to undertake significant earth and drainage work, construct all-weather access roads, and deploy additional lighting," the GAO report points out. The per-mile price tags described above are far more than what the Congressional Budget Office had originally estimated for the fencing project. Using private contractors, as the Bush Administration has done significantly, is supposed to make the cost of government cheaper for the American taxpayer. As much as 40 percent of the Department of Homeland Security's activities are outsourced to private corporations. But last month's GAO report found that "costs for fencing completed by commercial contractors are higher than for fencing built by the Border Patrol or the military." Steel alone for the fence project has reached $224 million so far. A program within the initiative known as SBInet called for deploying a "virtual border" of ground sensors, cameras, radars and lights strung on towers. Combined, planners hoped the massive IT deployment would figuratively and physically throw a spotlight on the southwest border and prevent illegal entry. But a prototype of the system experienced significant delays "because the contractor-delivered system did not perform as intended," the GAO concluded in another report last year, stating in addition that "contractor oversight was limited." The Inspector General's Office for the Department of Homeland Security came to its own conclusions in a November 2006 report:

The department does not have the capacity needed to effectively plan, oversee, and execute the SBInet program; administer its contracts; and control costs and schedule. The department's acquisition management capacity lacks the appropriate work force, business processes, and management controls for planning and executing a new-start major acquisition program such as SBInet.

In fact, the inspector general noted then that in hastily rolling out the Secure Border Initiative, the Department of Homeland Security had sacrificed key oversight functions that could have saved vast sums of money. Overall, the tech side of the program suffered multiple glitches throughout 2008 and the department could have saved the nearly $400 million spent on SBInet last year alone to construct 200 additional miles of physical vehicle barriers instead, the GAO found. Work being conducted by the contractor Boeing Company had to be halted last summer after it was discovered that homeland security officials had not obtained the required permission to build on some land controlled by the Department of the Interior. Individual states have attempted to launch their own border protection initiatives, but those efforts, too, have suffered from unexpected costs or logistical setbacks. Gov. Rick Perry handed $2 million in federal grant money awarded to Texas over to a coalition of border sheriffs last year to launch a Web camera program that citizens could watch online and use to aid in the capture of illegal immigrants and smugglers. But the El Paso Times obtained documents under the Texas Public Information Act in January showing that the project "fell short of expectations during the first six months of operation." Perry's office admitted to the newspaper that the program had experienced some failures but said the problem was the yardstick measuring outcomes rather than the concept itself. Only a dozen or so cameras out of 200 promised had been installed during the six-month period. The coalition had vowed to conduct as many as 1,200 arrests in the first year of the project, but after six months just three had occurred based on tips from viewers. They hoped in addition to report 4,500 suspected immigration violations during the year, but again the first six months netted only six. A similar early attempt by the governor had already proved problematic even before the coalition of sheriffs received the $2 million. According to the El Paso Times:

The camera project is one Perry has been struggling to get off the ground since he announced in June 2006 he would spend $5 million to line the Texas border with hundreds of cameras and stream the video feed live on the Web. Anyone, anywhere with an Internet connection could troll the border for scofflaws, he promised. … After several starts and stops, Perry launched a $200,000 month-long test with 21 cameras in November 2006. An El Paso Times review of documents from the test showed despite the 28 million hits on the test Web site, the cameras helped border law enforcement apprehend only 10 undocumented immigrants, make one drug bust and interrupt one smuggling route. Some lawmakers panned the program as ineffective, and in 2007 legislators denied Perry's request to fund more cameras and resume the online offensive.

Federal judge awards $1.4M in attorneys' fees to Taser plaintiffs

Shahien Nasiripour — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:24:03 -0800

The federal judge in the Heston case has ordered Taser International to pay $1.4 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys. In a decision posted last Friday Judge James Ware awarded Peter Williamson and John Burton $1.4 million in fees. Referring to Heston as "an extraordinary case," Judge Ware said the attorneys have provided "a significant benefit to the public" in securing a jury verdict against Taser. In December 2008, CIR and California Lawyer magazine profiled Heston, a lawsuit brought by the family of Robert C. Heston, a Salinas, Calif. man who died after multiple Taser shocks by police. The jury found Taser International partly responsible for his death and initially awarded the family $6.2 million in damages (the amount was eventually reduced to $153,000). It's the only time Taser International has been found legally liable for a death. Here's part of Judge Ware's explanation for awarding attorneys fees:

The use of Tasers by police departments has become increasingly widespread. Their growing prevalence as a law enforcement weapon makes the warnings given about their use an issue of significant societal importance. Thus, the issue of whether Defendant TASER owes a duty to warn police about the risks of cardiac arrest under certain circumstances concerns an important right affecting the public interest. Here, Plaintiffs directly affected a public interest because their lawsuit alleged that Defendant TASER breached a duty to warn police departments about certain risks associated with metabolic acidosis and prolonged exposure to electric shock from Tasers. Ultimately, Plaintiffs were successful in proving that Defendant TASER's negligent failure to warn Salinas police officers that prolonged application of electric current from Tasers increased the risk of death from metabolic acidosis, in part, resulting in the unintended death of Robert C. Heston. Here, as discussed at trial, Defendant TASER markets its products as an effective non-lethal tool for law enforcement. Indeed, Defendant TASER highlights the non-lethal nature of its Tasers when used under a variety of circumstances, including multiple or prolonged deployments. From the evidence in this case, the jury found that TASER's [stun gun] is likely to be dangerous where "prolonged exposure to electric shock from the device potentially causes acidosis to a degree which poses a risk of cardiac arrest in a person against whom the device is deployed," and that Defendant TASER's failure to warn of such a risk "was a substantial factor in causing the officers to use the device in such a way." In support of their motion, Plaintiffs provide evidence that, as a result of this verdict, law enforcement officials all over the world are re-considering and potentially reforming their usage and training policies for Tasers. The notoriety of Plaintiffs' first-of-its-kind verdict, in some circumstances, has prompted a number of TASER customers and prospective customers to consider the risk of repeated and prolonged Taser electric charges on individuals in an excited or delirious state. Additionally, while Defendant TASER has yet to adopt a warning addressing the risks of metabolic acidosis, Plaintiffs insist that it will eventually address the risk of acidosis in its training policies and warnings. Defendant TASER contends that Plaintiffs have not caused any changes to its policies because it adopted warnings concerning prolonged exposure to TASER electrical charges before the initiation of Plaintiffs' suit. However, the warnings provided by Defendant TASER concern "strong muscle contractions that may impair breathing and respiration," and recommend avoiding prolonged or extensive multiple discharges "to minimize the potential for over-exertion of the subject or potential impairment of full ability to breathe over a protracted time period." Such warnings do not address the obligation Defendant TASER owed Robert C. Heston to warn police about the risk of causing metabolic acidosis to the point of cardiac arrest.

Burton and Williamson originally requested $1.6 million, plus up to an additional $2.8 million in consideration of their unprecedented win against the stun-gun maker.

Homeland Security USA: Becoming a citizen is fraught with difficulties

G.W. Schulz — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:02:25 -0800

A theme has begun to emerge from the first four episodes of ABC's reality television show "Homeland Security USA." Occasionally the narrative breaks from its usual "Cops"-style, heart-pounding segments of border agents drawing their weapons on a suspect or airport security seizing smuggled narcotics to focus briefly on the warm personal story of a homeland security employee. The profiles at times are genuinely touching. In episode two, a Customs and Border Protection officer born in the United States but of East Indian ancestry tells how he's proud to fight the war on stereotypes each day by wearing a turban and beard to work, a dress-code exception he was allowed after filing a religious waver as a Sikh. When co-workers jokingly ask how they, too, can be permitted to wear a beard, he laughs and says all they have to do is "find the faith." In another scene, a CBP inspector describes how he immigrated to the United States from a country so embattled with strife—the former Yugoslavia—that it literally didn't exist on the map by the time he arrived. "He's simply returning the favor," the narrator says of Officer Dejan Mladenovic's decision to pursue a job at the Department of Homeland Security. "Fifteen years ago the United States kept him safe, offering him asylum from his wore-torn Communist homeland." Mladenovic gets to extend the same opportunity to a woman from Cuba while camera teams are present. She approaches Washington state's border from Canada, arriving at his station and telling the officers she was politically persecuted by the island country's regime. America so loathes Fidel Castro's leadership that Cuban nationals receive special treatment when trying to make their way here, and in just five hours, she's permitted entry into the United States where a group of relatives are waiting. "Welcome to America," Mladenovic tells her almost tearfully before seeing the woman off. But like so many other truths about the Department of Homeland Security that the show has neglected to mention so far, her case is a rarity. The process for becoming a United States citizen is typically much longer and more tedious for thousands of other people seeking residency here, and the system in place for processing their applications is in many ways tragically broken. The Government Accountability Office in December 2008 released a report showing that many applicants wait years to learn whether they'll be permitted to stay partly because the FBI is so far behind on just one phase of the rigmarole—conducting background checks to ensure terrorists aren't being granted permanent residency status. At its worst, as many as 24,000 people waited more than two years for the checks and an untold number more sat for as long as three years (the latter figure isn't included in the report). The bureau had a total backlog of 329,000 cases requiring background checks as of May 2007. Officials counter that those figures since have been substantially reduced to a more appropriate number. That's apparently due to federal employees, known as adjudicators who process such applications, complaining that no actions could be taken on the cases until the FBI had completed the necessary background checks. Applications nonetheless were so backed up in July of 2007 that officials in Texas had to rent six 10-by-40 foot pods to store them temporarily in a parking lot, each file containing payments to cover application fees and other sensitive personally identifiable information that belonged in a secure location. The GAO report also described the FBI's background checks themselves as "often vague or not useful for adjudicators to determine whether or not an individual was eligible." Despite major investments in antiterrorism technology after 9/11, the system used for matching names against FBI data is "outdated and potentially ineffective, increasing the risks that submitted names [are] not accurately searched," according to the report. Adjudicators have access to their own sources of information for confirming what appears on an immigrant's application, but it's entirely up to them whether they decide to verify it, and as a result, the system is highly vulnerable to fraud. The processors don't even have to check the Department of Homeland Security's own internal database of past applicants to see if someone's been married multiple times and filed a petition after each one to make their new hubby a resident. Agents arrested a Miami woman in December of 2007 charging her with nine counts of bigamy, while her boyfriend was accused a month later of marrying four women for profit so they could obtain lawful status. Cheaters, then, make it exceedingly difficult for others with legitimate refugee or asylum claims to become American citizens after enduring torture or endless civil war elsewhere in the world. According to one GAO estimate, a stunning 33 percent of so-called "religious workers" seeking residency submitted bogus information to support claims about what they intended to do in the United States. In some cases, a church they said invited them here didn't exist at all and they weren't actually priests or ministers. Innumerable such cases were rubber-stamped by adjudicators anyway. The process for becoming an American citizen can be expedited—but it costs money. The same GAO report describes corruption scandals that have rocked Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security in charge of processing residency applications. During the summer of 2006, for example, an adjudicator was accused of conspiring with a private business that prepared applications for clients based on fraudulent marriages and other dubious documentation. In another case, an agency supervisor pled guilty to accepting up to $600,000 in bribes from private brokers who paid for him to fabricate immigration papers. The brokers involved in the scheme earned more than $2.5 million, according to the report, a figure that compounds the immigration issue by showing how much in savings some people can be forced to give up if they want to become "legalized." One might think the legalization process would be easier for those who are victims of a crime and agree to testify on behalf of police and prosecutors. Not so, said the Los Angeles Times in a Jan. 26 story. More than 13,000 people have applied for special visas created in 2000 by Congress that would grant them temporary legal status if they came forward and helped put perpetrators behind bars. But the program has stalled for eight years, and despite the volume of applicants, only a few dozen of the visas have actually been distributed so far. The first so-called "U-visa" wasn't issued until last summer. One young woman who applied for the visa was savagely attacked by her deranged boyfriend who allegedly chased her from their Los Angeles apartment, threw her into a door, kicked her and then stabbed her. She attempted a second escape but he caught her again and stabbed the woman repeatedly, according to the story. A detective in the case signed her visa application after she identified the attacker, but more than a year later she's still waiting. Another man agreed to testify against two assailants who sliced, choked and burned him with a hot iron. With the victim's help, the pair was eventually convicted of carjacking, robbery and kidnapping. But a year later, the victim hasn't heard from the government about his U-visa. Judging by the number of applications still pending, it will probably be a while. *Border corruption update* In recent installments of "The Outtakes," CIR has reported on several instances of corruption at the Department of Homeland Security that undermine the federal government's moral resolve in the War on Terror but aren't expected to appear in the "script" of ABC's flattering reality show on the agency. New incidents continue to surface. Federal prosecutors announced Jan. 28 that a Customs and Border Protection officer and his wife allegedly agreed to receive bribery payments totaling $33,000 in exchange for allowing 600,000 ecstasy pills into the United States through the Yuma Port of Entry in Arizona. The pills were fake, according to the federal government, and used to bust the duo as part of a sting operation coordinated by the FBI, the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security and the internal affairs unit of CBP. In August of 2008, according to court records in the case, an informant tipped officials of potential misconduct involving the husband, 41-year-old Henry Gauani, aka "Mr. Wong," who had allegedly allowed undocumented Chinese immigrants to pass illegally through his inspection lane. The FBI outfitted the informant with a wire this past November and sent the person to the couple's home, according to a complaint drafted by a special agent with the Inspector General's Office. The three allegedly discussed the deal during multiple meetings, and at one point, Mr. Wong even proposed driving to Mexico and retrieving the pills himself to eliminate the need for costly go-betweens, meaning he would be paid the extra cash. In an unrelated case that surfaced Jan. 28, federal authorities charged a CBP officer named Sergio Lopez Hernandez with drug possession, importation and allowing unauthorized immigrants into the United States, according to the Brownsville Herald and court records. Investigators purportedly set up surveillance and witnessed Lopez Hernandez allowing four cars through his inspection lane in Texas that were identified as being used for smuggling undocumented immigrants. One of the cars, according to reports, contained 15 kilos of cocaine. The officer allegedly allowed other illegal immigrants through his lane during separate undercover operations conducted by federal officials. The probe began after the feds were notified that Lopez Hernandez had previously allowed both immigrants, for which he allegedly received $500 each, and narcotics to be smuggled into the United States. An affidavit from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement internal affairs investigator says that $85,000 was found in a safe during a raid of Lopez Hernandez's Brownsville residence. He's currently being held without bail.

Homeland Security USA: Corruption among federal agents continues

G.W. Schulz — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:01:21 -0800

Episode two of ABC's newest experiment with reality television, "Homeland Security USA," deploys action-packed sequences to take viewers inside the frontlines of a leading post-9/11 initiative for the Bush Administration: the final deportation of illegal immigrants. Behind the scenes, however, further troubling incidents occurred recently amid the department's own law-enforcement ranks that join a long list of misconduct allegations unlikely to make it into the final edits of the show where the only criminals are foreign smugglers and immigrants. On Jan. 9, prosecutors accused 44-year-old Michael Clifford, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from Massachusetts, of having sex with an 11-year-old girl in Rio de Janeiro while there on official duty for the Department of Homeland Security. Clifford propositioned the girl outside of a cafe late at night, took her back to his hotel and snapped photographs of the two engaged in sexual acts, according to the allegations. Investigators say security camera footage from the hotel showed Clifford entering with the child and then sending her away in the morning. He is currently in detention. Then, the day before Clifford was arrested, a federal judge in an unrelated case sentenced former U.S. Border Patrol Agent Juan Sanchez of Arizona to 15 years in prison after he pled guilty to drug, bribery and worker's compensation fraud charges. Prosecutors say he smuggled thousands of pounds of marijuana in his work vehicle over a period of two years into the United States. He also received a total of $45,000 in bribes, according to the charges, and continued to illegally collect worker's compensation benefits after recovering from an on-duty vehicle accident without notifying officials that his condition had improved. Prosecutors imply in court records that they believe the accident was in fact staged. It occurred after he was made aware of the evidence against him but before accusations were officially lodged. Sanchez was alone at the time and crashed into a guardrail. Photos of the vehicle (shown at right) contained in court records show minimal damage to the front bumper. He nonetheless claimed that the accident caused him to suffer "complete retrograde amnesia" in which he forgot everything about his life, including the allegations that he'd partnered with a smuggler from Sonora, Mexico, to transport multiple payloads of narcotics into Arizona, as many as three dozen bundles at a time. So how could a man with no memory accept a deal and admit he committed a crime? According to a plea memorandum:

"Sanchez proposes establishing a factual basis to the charges by stating that he has reviewed the videotape of himself transporting drugs in his U.S. Border Patrol vehicle, and has reviewed all the photographs and reports (including his confession) associated with the drug and bribery charges and although they do not refresh his recollection, they have convinced him that he is guilty of those offenses."

Sanchez received monthly worker's comp checks of between $3,800 and $4,000 for approximately three years literally until the day of his agreement, all while a cloud of suspicion hung over him. As part of the plea, though, he'll have to pay $48,000 in restitution to the Department of Labor, according to court records. None of these new details of real-life corruption at the department are expected to make appearances on “Homeland Security USA.” Instead, while the cameras roll during one scene of episode two, ICE agents from a deportation unit coincidentally based in Massachusetts and driving unmarked cars descend on an unsuspecting contractor as he is exiting his driveway. Officials say the man has overstayed his welcome as an illegal immigrant in the United States by about 13 years, and after placing him in cuffs, they tell "Danny," as the narrator calls him, that he'll be heading for detention. He cries into the camera exclaiming that he has sole custody of his children and one of them is suffering from autism. He can't leave them now, Danny wails. The officers try their best to soothe him before he's transported to a holding cell, and from there, presumably, out of the country to a destination not revealed for viewers. "He committed a crime. He violated the immigration laws of the United States," an ICE supervisor later declares into the camera. "At that point, he became a fugitive. The bottom line is, there will be folks from this agency out looking for you." Spending by the Department of Homeland Security on detention and removal operations carried out by ICE officials ballooned from $1.6 billion in 2005 to more than $3.1 billion budgeted for this year. The workforce responsible for such efforts doubled during that period to 8,360 federal employees. The department set a goal of removing 342,200 people from the country this year and charging a quarter-of-a-million of them with violating immigration laws. Some once-ailing private jail operators like the Corrections Corporation of America who are these days cashing in on new federal contracts also appear pleased with the Bush White House's decision to detain immigrants behind bars for months as they await hearings for possible deportation rather than releasing some of them on bail before their court dates arrive, as immigration authorities once did. It’s not clear whether the new Obama administration will enforce that policy. "Homeland Security USA" has been a public relations coup of sorts for the department, presenting its activities like final deportation strictly in glowing terms and without criticism. But the federal government's newest bureaucracy battles with its own demons frequently enough these days that the department manages to ruin any improvements made of its image from the gracious help of a prime-time TV slot and weekly access to millions of Americans. In yet another recent separate case, three employees at an ICE facility housing immigrant detainees pled guilty Jan. 6 to stealing prescription painkillers and other drugs intended for inmates and distributing the medication among themselves and co-workers. Court documents show that two of the defendants, Lisa Schwab and Richard Lawson, were pharmacists at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in New York, while the third, Leonard Iannello, was a private guard working for Asset Protection & Security Services, a frequent ICE contractor. Schwab confessed to a special agent from the Inspector General's Office that she gave the barbiturate Fioricet to a colleague "almost daily" for two or three years and handed muscle relaxers off to a second, among other things. She alleges that her co-defendant, Lawson, took a "large quantity" of expired psychotropic and pain medications home so they would avoid the notice of inspectors from an accrediting commission. Old pharmaceutical drugs are supposed to be returned to the distributor so the federal government can receive a refund. Schwab also claims that Lawson took a bottle of liquid vitamin K and several needles "to treat his pet dog for an exposure to rat poison," she wrote in a sworn statement. The episodes of “Homeland Security USA” that have aired so far are available for free on ABC’s Web site.

QUICK FACTS: • Amount spent by the U.S. Coast Guard on drug interdiction in 2005: $1 billion • Amount budgeted for drug interdiction in 2009: $1.4 billion • Amount spent by the U.S. Coast Guard on migrant interdiction in 2005: $549 million • Amount budgeted for migrant interdiction in 2009: $568 million • Amount spent by the U.S. Coast Guard on reducing maritime fatalities and injuries in 2005: $613 million • Amount budgeted for reducing maritime fatalities and injuries in 2009: $778 million • Amount spent by the U.S. Coast Guard on search and rescue efforts in 2005: $911 million • Amount budgeted for search and rescue operations in 2009: $1.1 billion • Cap at which the U.S. Coast Guard promised to limit the five-year average number of commercial deaths and injuries on oceans and waterways under American jurisdiction in 2008: less than or equal to 225 • Actual five-year average number of commercial deaths and injuries: 244 • Percent of mariners facing imminent danger in 2008 that the U.S. Coast Guard promised to save: 87 • Percent of mariners actually saved: 83.6 • Cap at which the U.S. Coast Guard promised to keep the number of collisions and groundings in oceans and waterways under American jurisdiction during 2008: less than or equal to 1,756 • Actual number of collisions and groundings: 1,857 *The U.S. Coast Guard was folded into the Department of Homeland Security upon its creation in 2003.

Homeland Security USA: Survey reveals low morale at DHS

G.W. Schulz — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:11:20 -0800

Quick Facts:
• Amount spent as of August on steel alone for the federal government’s southwest border fence currently under construction to keep illegal immigrants out of the United States: $224 million.

• Miles of pedestrian fencing completed by the Department of Homeland Security for the project as of Dec. 19: 286.

• Actual miles of border the United States shares with Mexico: about 1,950.

Turns out we weren't the only ones critical of ABC's newest reality television show, "Homeland Security USA." Unenthusiastic reviews circulated swiftly on the Web last week amid the show’s Jan. 6 premier (see more reviews here, here, and here). As it happens, however, the toughest crowd the real Homeland Security USA has to win over might not be television critics who have never worked as law-enforcement officers but rather the department's own 218,000-plus employees, portrayed in the show by producer Arnold Shapiro as action figures unwavering in their commitment to the war on terror. On Jan. 8, just two days after the inaugural episode of the show, the Office of Personnel Management released the 2008 Human Capital Survey, which examines the level of job satisfaction among federal employees. As far as staff morale is concerned, the results didn't bode well for the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS employees described by Shapiro in an Associated Press interview as “average men and women on the front lines protecting our country from various things illegal and dangerous," apparently have greater-than-average negative feelings about department higher-ups and each other. The survey invites federal employees to rate their work and workplace by agreeing or disagreeing with such statements as "I have trust and confidence in my supervisor," "My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills," and "Creativity and innovation are rewarded." The Department of Homeland Security outpaced a long list of others in generating negative responses from its nearly 10,000 responding employees. It had one of the highest numbers of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, "My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment." Ditto for the statement, "I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things." Questions regarding the outlook DHS employees had on their agency supervisors also elicited a comparatively higher number of negative responses, including those asking whether senior leaders seemed to exhibit honesty and integrity and whether personnel felt safe blowing the whistle on corruption or law-breaking without fear of reprisal. That’s not surprising considering multiple recent stories in the media about corrupt department employees being charged with crimes related to their work. The department also faired poorly when employees were asked simply "Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?" A number of employees didn't believe there were enough opportunities for advancement in the department. More than 45 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, "Promotions in my work unit are based on merit." Nor did they believe agency supervisors did enough to support their need to balance work and family issues (only the Department of Transportation received more negative responses in this area). When DHS conducted its own internal survey of homeland security employees in 2007, much of the same bad news surfaced. Only a fraction of respondents believed pay raises were based on how well they performed their jobs, 41 percent didn't think creativity and innovation were rewarded and 53 percent said a high rate of staff turnover made it difficult to get the job done. Problems with the department's revolving door continue to be publicized. A project newly unveiled Jan. 7 from the Center for Public Integrity, "Broken Government," noted that top homeland security officials left their jobs at a rate of 14.5 and 12.8 percent, respectively, in 2005 and 2006. That figure is double the average for similar positions at other cabinet-level departments. Senior staffers frequently use their experience to pull down bigger salaries working in the private sector, as U.S. News &World Report found in 2005. Further, more than 45 percent of the internal-survey respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve." Department managers were quick to cast some of the internal-survey results as positive in public statements. An overwhelming majority of employees said the work they do is important and that they cooperate well with one another to complete tasks – a plus considering turf wars that otherwise poison much of the potential for information-sharing and teamwork in the federal law-enforcement bureaucracy. The department's same internal survey conducted the following year resulted overall in only 50 percent "favorable" responses, more or less equivalent to 2007. Grumbling among homeland security personnel is considered to be an ongoing challenge for the federal government's newest bureaucracy, as it conceded in an annual report to the public released this month. (Detailed results from the latest internal DHS survey aren't available online just yet.) An acute staff shortage in some areas had already caused headaches for DHS. Private contractors handle 40 percent of its workload, but the department can't hire enough federal employees to police the contracts and make sure taxpayers get their money's worth. Many of the contracts, as a result, are disastrously executed. A deputy from the watchdog Inspector General's Office told Congress in September that DHS has hardly half the bare minimum of personnel it needs to properly oversee the contracts, and a significant portion of the people who are there will be eligible for retirement in the next few years. A recent end-of-the-year report from the inspector general found only modest progress has been made in closing the gap since DHS was created in 2003 by absorbing and consolidating a number of federal law-enforcement agencies. According to the deputy's testimony:

"Until a fully trained acquisition workforce is developed, it will be difficult to achieve further progress needed for an efficient, effective, and accountable acquisition function."

It’s doubtful that any inkling of poor employee morale or other negative news such as tales of corruption and mismanagement that have plagued the department since its establishment will ever been seen in ABC’s latest experiment with reality television, “Homeland Security USA.” Producer Shapiro obtained unprecedented access with his cameras to major agencies within the department, but he also reportedly allowed officials to "pre-screen" the show's run of 13 episodes. As for the initial reviews last week, some merely laughed off the show's premise while others were more serious in faulting Shapiro for agreeing to present the department only in a positive light. In mocking honor of the show's debut, Hollywood blog Defamer used the department's overly simplistic, color-coded terror alerts to rate the likelihood viewers would turn to the season premiers of other shows on television instead. "Homeland Security USA" received a "green" or "low" probability that viewers would be interested, falling behind "The Biggest Loser," "Scrubs," "Gray Matters" and "Nip/Tuck." As Defamer put it:

"Yes, we support the troops and pay our taxes, but if this spins off into a show about the real-life workings of the Department of Health and Human Services, we are moving to Edmonton."

(Sister blog Gawker belittled a TSA employee who approached tears on camera during the first episode as he vowed to "protect my public.") The Boston Herald offered a slightly more unique perspective wondering aloud if it's a good idea to let "millions know the techniques agents use to identify and apprehend suspects." Reuters called it mundane and speculated that since some aspects of the department's activities are by their very nature repetitive – e.g. searching cars and emptying suitcases – the fast-paced camera work and red-alert soundtrack wouldn't be enough to sustain interest. Perhaps some stories about border guards aiding Mexican drug runners or accepting bribes would boost the show’s ratings.

Homeland Security USA: Television show chronicles the war on terror

G.W. Schulz — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:31:11 -0800

The inaugural episode of ABC's newest reality television series did exactly as producer Arnold Shapiro told viewers it would: unabashedly celebrated the Department of Homeland Security. It also failed in every conceivable way to critically examine the largest reorganization of the federal government since World War II. "Homeland Security USA" is the latest iteration of reality TV that like the show “Cops” romanticizes actual working police catching bad guys, except that now the cops aren't just snagging small-time drunks and corner crack dealers. They're federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security with far greater power using the latest technology to keep America safe from terrorists and stop international organized criminals from trafficking massive quantities of narcotics into the United States. Shapiro received full access with his camera teams to nearly every agency folded into the Department of Homeland Security when it was created in 2003, from the United States Coast Guard to Customs and Border Protection, an accomplishment no investigative journalist ever could attain. But he made a deal with the devil in exchange that would cause any journalism ethics professor to blush in embarrassment. Shapiro agreed to grant the department “pre-screening” rights over the series, according to the New York Times. Missing, then, from the Jan. 6 premier—and presumably from future episodes—are allegations like those unearthed by journalists and other watchdogs that some federal air marshals, for example, have accepted bribes, trafficked cocaine themselves, and even sought to have a woman killed in one stupefying instance. Gone are reports of border agents taking luxury cars as payment in exchange for secretly allowing illegal immigrants to cross into the United States. Not included either are the innumerable accounts from government overseers of dubious multimillion-dollar technology investments made by the department that are later abandoned after being deemed worthless. Homeland Security USA Law-enforcement bureaucrats featured in "Homeland Security USA" instead are cast as motivated not by the reliability of a government paycheck and an otherwise limitless federal budget with which to purchase new toys that frequently fail but by a simple desire to protect American families from the world's ghastly horrors. "I love investigative journalism, but that's not what we're doing," Shapiro told the Hollywood Reporter in May. "This show is heartening. It makes you feel good about these people who are doing their best to protect us." By no means do the American people begrudge law-enforcement officials for doing their jobs. Quite the opposite. They want police heroes to maintain the highest professional standards possible and for serious lawbreakers to be placed behind bars. So it's indeed disheartening to realize that what some of the best news stories published and aired in recent years showed was the many ways in which the Department of Homeland Security has actually failed to protect America's borders and keep dangerous criminals off of jet airliners, disconcerting truths that clash spectacularly with Shapiro's own take on reality, which ABC officials say will span 13 episodes. For instance, a partnership between the journalism nonprofit ProPublica and USA Today published in November revealed that the Air Marshal Service, dramatically expanded after 9/11 and a significant defense against an air-based terrorist attack, contained in its ranks at least 18 people charged with felonies. One air marshal was hired despite at the time being under an FBI investigation for skimming drug profits while working as a sheriff's deputy in Arkansas. Another allegedly snuck cash and cocaine past airport security. Yet another allegedly tried to hire someone to murder his wife. Additional marshals had already been fired from past law-enforcement positions for misconduct but were hired by the Department of Homeland Security anyway. According to the story:

"Since 9/11, air marshals have taken bribes, committed bank fraud, hired an escort while on layover and doctored hotel receipts to pad expenses, records show. They've been found sleeping on planes and lost the travel documents of U.S. diplomats while on a whiskey-tasting trip in Scotland."

The show's first episode, titled "This is Your Car on Drugs," focuses on the exploits of Customs and Border Protection. In one segment, a young woman arrives from Switzerland at the Los Angeles International Airport "with no working papers but a suitcase full of titillating surprises!" ABC described it in advanced press copy sent out before the show aired. She had revealing apparel in her suitcase, we learned during the Jan. 6 airing. Meanwhile, the department's Inspector General discovered something else at LAX in October. Computer systems there managed by homeland security officials are susceptible to a cyber attack because they're poorly guarded, according to a report. One data system maintained by the Transportation Security Administration allowed anonymous access, which meant a hacker could log on without proper credentials. In another incident, customs authorities installed high-speed wireless Internet access at the airport for their use, but it was hampered by technical problems and no one could say after a full year if it had ever actually worked. The report pointed to a 2007 mishap when customs officials suffered a major network outage at LAX that halted operations for hours and disrupted the travel plans of thousands who were stranded on the airport's tarmac and elsewhere. An aging IT infrastructure apparently exacerbated the problem. In another segment of the show, border patrol officials inspect vehicles at the southwest border and execute a drug bust while cameras are rolling. Multiple large packages of marijuana spill out of the spare tire and gas tank of the car as border agents grin broadly nearby. Later at Washington state's border with Canada, 77 pounds of cocaine are found stuffed inside baby diapers after Shapiro's protagonists grow suspicious of a Ford Explorer. "The money that funds narcotics also funds terrorism, and the more of that we can stop, the better," one agent tells America following the catch. But when reporters Lowell Bergman and Andrew Becker teamed up for a project with Frontline/World and the New York Times last May, they found that there were roughly 200 open corruption investigations at three major homeland security components with border responsibilities: Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services. The journalists (one a Center for Investigative Reporting co-founder and the other currently a staff reporter) profiled nine customs officers and border agents who'd been arrested between 2005 and 2008. Two of them, brothers named Raul and Fidel Villareal, disappeared for several months while under investigation before being captured in Tijuana last October and charged with smuggling Mexicans and Brazilians into the United States, using a government-issued vehicle to transport illegals to San Diego and laundering money. Another man, Michael Gilliland, admitted receiving between $70,000 and $120,000 in bribes to wave cars piloted by smugglers through his inspection lane unmolested. A former marine who joined the Department of Homeland Security is believed to have made as much as $80,000 in such bribes. Others sprung detainees from ICE detention facilities. One FBI agent told Becker and Bergman:

"There's more pressure on the other side of the border from the smuggling organizations to elicit the help of a corrupt border official. The pool of individuals who are susceptible to corruption has grown."

Becker then reported for the Times in November that police arrested a veteran customs inspector in Del Rio, Texas, for allegedly helping to smuggle 3,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States over a period of five years. Media outlets in Texas all-but-missed the story because the press release announcing his indictment sent out by the regional U.S. Attorney's Office neglected to mention the man was an employee of the Department of Homeland Security. But a standard note at the bottom disclosing that the department's Inspector General was involved in the probe provided a crucial tip. The customs officer also is accused of accepting $30,000 to falsify a passport application on someone else's behalf. As producer Shapiro resides in an editing room melding together rapid-fire segments of brilliant television that portrays law-enforcement technology as infallible and witless criminals and terrorists as sure-to-be-caught, others have filed Freedom of Information Act requests, studied little-noticed congressional reports and interviewed disenchanted whistleblowers to show that while the multibillion-dollar Department of Homeland Security does protect America from the world's dark side, it also persists as a sinkhole for taxpayer dollars and a revolving door for government executives who turn their civil-service jaunts into lucrative private-sector careers. U.S. News & World Report in 2005 described the seamless transition for top homeland security officials to corporate positions. Just before Tom Ridge took over as head of the new agency, two of his top aides joined a lobbying firm that represents major homeland security contractors including Boeing and BearingPoint. At least six others with big titles at the department, including Ridge himself who eventually joined the board of a firm developing security technology, made similar moves. We likely won’t learn it from “Homeland Security USA,” but the department is continually battered by corruption, including reports in 2007 that former FEMA officials charged the federal government double what their private consulting firms paid for subcontracted employees during the Katrina clean-up, rates they insisted were "industry standard." In fact, the first episode didn't touch the department's heavy reliance on private contractors, which made up a whole 40 percent of its activities last year. Then there are the department’s widespread problems with mismanagement. In one extraordinarily ironic case, homeland security officials had to completely scrap a $52 million computer system that was supposed to better enable it to manage an annual budget of approximately $50 billion. The department had originally intended to spend $229 million creating the failed eMerge2 program. There was "little to show for it" despite the amount already poured into the system, according to one Government Accountability Office report. Like the once wildly popular reality show "Cops," Shapiro threatens to create the false impression that police are not vulnerable to corruption or breaking the law to enforce it and that the law-enforcement lobby in the United States always acts in the best interests of the American people and their taxpayer dollars. It would be equally false to assume that investigative journalism, which asks tough questions of the department, is intended to disrespect those who work in law enforcement or to be sympathetic of criminals who illegally move dangerous weapons in and out of the country, engage in human trafficking of sex victims or further destroy America's inner cities with powerfully addictive drugs. The New York Times called "Homeland Security USA" a "recruitment video" and the Washington Post piled on dismissing it as "a sorry excuse for a television show." Either way, the television medium won't be used this time to share with the public a reality of the department's many colossal mistakes and stumbles since its establishment. So details of them remain tucked away in mile-high stacks of reports from the GAO and Inspector General awaiting exposure by the more curious among us. G.W. Schulz is working on a project at the Center for Investigative Reporting about homeland security in the United States, “America’s War Within."

Gear purchased with grant money didn't save two killed in blast

G.W. Schulz — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:30:52 -0800

A bomb explosion at an Oregon bank Dec. 12 that killed two police officers and seriously injured a third has raised questions about why officials didn't utilize sophisticated and costly equipment purchased by the state to prevent precisely these incidents from occurring. Officials plan to ask the FBI to help determine what went wrong. One of the two men killed in the Woodburn, Ore. blast was a bomb expert with the Oregon State Police. Also killed was a Woodburn police captain. The city’s police chief lost part of his leg and remains hospitalized. Two suspects have been arrested in the case. Reporters have revealed that state police failed to deploy at the scene an Explosive Ordinance Detection vehicle purchased for its bomb squad with the help of a 2006 federal grant, but no further details about the equipment were previously made public. Records obtained from the state by the Center for Investigative Reporting show that the Oregon State Police in 2004 alone spent more than $600,000 in federal homeland security grants on bomb mitigation and armored-response equipment that apparently wasn't used to aid in ensuring the safety of the three men. The purchases include the ordinance detection vehicle, a 28-foot long International assembled by Braun Northwest Inc., a Washington state-based company that specializes in emergency equipment. The vehicle cost $170,000, according to records. "Our response has been that we're not going to go into details at this time because we don't know all the facts about the equipment that was there," Lt. Gregg Hastings, a spokesman for the state police, told CIR Dec. 19. After a criminal investigation is complete, officials plan to ask the FBI for help in conducting an internal review. Hastings concedes that the ordinance-detection vehicle, based in Salem about 18 miles away, was not on the scene. "We have a lot more to learn here and we need to sit down with the FBI," he said. Records obtained by CIR show that the Oregon State Police spent $427,000 from the grant funds on two bomb robots described in the documents only as F6A models, similar to this here manufactured by defense giant Northrop Grumman. The state police spent another $265,000 on an armored SWAT truck known as a Lenco B.E.A.R, of which there are two models here. You can see Flickr photos of the department’s actual SWAT vehicle at this link. Images of two different bomb-response trucks owned by the state police, including the International, can be seen here on the department’s Web site. The records show that the state police spent an additional $334,000 on more general equipment designed for defeating explosive devices, but those expenditures are not itemized in the grant documents CIR obtained. In all, records show that since 2002, the Oregon State Police Department has been awarded approximately $8.8 million by the federal government in homeland security grants for a variety of purchases including search and rescue gear, personal protective equipment and hundreds of thousands in new interoperable communications improvements. Other emergency personnel in the region have tools that could have been used to carefully diffuse the bomb. The Salem Fire Department, located not far from Woodburn, has spent more than $300,000 in homeland security grants since 2002 on 15 ballistic helmets, a $17,400 bomb suit, a $183,000 robot and $28,000 worth of X-ray equipment, according to state records. Bomb robots can neutralize an ordinance device by triggering it with a water cannon or shotgun shell. The bomb can also be detonated safely after being placed in a containment vessel, one of which the state police department owns. Hastings said that the Salem Fire Department was not involved in responding to the initial calls regarding bomb threats made at two neighboring Woodburn banks. The police bureau in Portland, Ore., situated about 30 miles from Woodburn, possesses at least $219,000 worth of bomb-mitigation equipment purchased with 2003 homeland security grants including a $166,000 robot. The Portland Office of Emergency Management made $38,000 in such expenditures using 2004 grants, while the Port of Portland purchased a $40,000 Ford Expedition for bomb-response purposes with 2003 grant funds. According to an affidavit and news accounts, the bomb squad technician killed in the Dec. 12 explosion believed the device was a hoax after a false-alarm call was made earlier that day about a bomb being located nearby at a Wells Fargo location. In a move that surprised some bomb experts interviewed by the Oregonian newspaper, the expert attempted to open the green metal box and examine its contents for evidence after a bank manager found it. The technician had conducted an X-ray examination of the box and concluded it was harmless. Hal Lowder, an explosives expert based in Atlanta, told the Oregonian that because police sometimes receive a high volume of calls involving hoax devices, they can be lulled into a routine that causes them to lower their guard. "That's why we always stress keeping your fingers out of it," Lowder told the paper. "An X-ray is just not 100 percent," Lowder told the newspaper. “You may miss something because there's so many variables. It sounds like he made a judgment call, just a bad call. ... I hate to say bad things, but taking a bomb apart is just not done anymore." Specialists added that perpetrators sometimes lure police into a bomb’s destructive range by planting a mock device. Within days of the incident police arrested 57-year-old Bruce Turnidge and his son Joshua, 32, for the crime, although no motive has been established. According to news accounts, the Turnidge family helped found the Salem Academy Christian schools. Police were searching the father's 750-acre farm Dec. 16 for more evidence. Each man has been charged with several counts of aggravated murder, assault, possession and conspiracy. According to an affidavit, investigators obtained purchase records and surveillance footage from two area Wal-Mart locations that allegedly linked Joshua Turnidge to items used in the bombing. The evidence cited in the affidavit includes two disposable cell phones, airtime cards for the phones and a can of green spray paint. Numbers associated with the phones were reportedly used in threatening calls made to a Wells Fargo bank warning that if the building wasn't vacated, “all of them would die.” Services were held on Friday and Saturday respectively for Woodburn Police Capt. Thomas Tennant and Oregon State Police Trooper William Hakim. Woodburn Police Chief Scott Russell remains hospitalized in serious condition.

Is environmental reform at odds with economic growth?

CIR Staff — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:13:18 -0800

Tonight on KQED public radio in San Francisco, Mark Schapiro appears on Health Dialogues in a discussion about toxins in consumer products, and efforts by the California Green Chemistry Initiative signed by Governor Schwarzenegger to put California at the forefront of chemical reform, aligning state laws more closely to those of the European Union. Also, in this month's issue of Mother Jones, Schapiro writes about the economic consequences of the EU’s environmental initiatives, which challenge many of the cost predictions by industry and the long-reining American presumption that such measures are incompatible with economic growth.

New report links at least 50 deaths to Taser

Shahien Nasiripour — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:54:10 -0800

At least 50 deaths in the U.S. since 2001 are linked to Taser stun guns, according to autopsy reports and research compiled by Amnesty International. Tuesday's report generated headlines from Britain to Iran. Though it's not the first time deaths have been reported following police Taser strikes (Amnesty now counts 334 in the U.S.; the Arizona Republic counts 400+ in the U.S. and Canada), it is the first time an organization has reported that there are at least 50 deaths in which coroners and medical examiners have cited the Taser as a factor. It was just one nugget in the 130-page report. There were recommendations regarding Tasers (suspend use or limit them to life-threatening situations); chilling examples of misuse; and other noteworthy statistics—for example, of the 334 people who have died nationwide since 2001 following police Taser strikes (Amnesty's count), 90 percent were unarmed. Newspapers from Boston to Las Vegas jumped on the report. But Wall Street didn't care. A quick primer: Government agencies are the biggest purchasers of Tasers (thus comprising a huge chunk of Taser International's revenue). Those agencies are ultimately responsive to voters and taxpayers. Negative headlines can sway public opinion, which in turn affect decisions made by policymakers (e.g. equipping the local police department with Tasers). So when cities decide not to buy Tasers it impacts the company's sales, thus Taser's stock price. (Taser CEO Rick Smith has talked about this, and we detailed it in "Gannett Papers Shocked by Taser's Claims.") In this case, however, Amnesty's critical report didn't impact investors. Between Monday—the day before Amnesty released its report—to Wednesday's close, Taser's stock price jumped 15 percent. By comparison, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index and the Nasdaq—the market Taser shares trade on—were up about four percent. This isn't the first time investors didn't punish Taser because of a negative Amnesty report. In November 2004 Amnesty released its first full report on Taser-related deaths, also on a Tuesday. Between the previous day's close (Monday) to the following day's close (Wednesday) Taser's stock price went up 11 percent. During that same period the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq barely moved—both markets crawled about one percent higher. Amnesty International, it seems, doesn't carry much weight on Wall Street.

Irvine Foundation awards CIR with $1.2 million

CIR Staff — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The James Irvine Foundation announced $21 million in new grants, including $1.2 million to fund an innovative reporting project by the Center for Investigative Reporting as part of Irvine’s California Perspectives program. Read full press release here.

State to participate in examination of Chauncey Bailey case; more evidence ignored

CIR Staff — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:14:58 -0800

Who's in charge of investigating the handling of Chauncey Bailey's murder case? It seems to be a political hot potato, according to a new article from The Chauncey Bailey Project. The California Attorney General's office recently sent a letter to Mayor Ron Dellums declaring that state investigators want to be present when Oakland police internal affairs detectives interview members of their command staff. But the Attorney General's office will not take over the entire investigation, which according to the letter, is what Oakland internal affairs investigators requested. The Oakland police being investigated by internal affairs include Detective Sgt. Derwin Longmire, the lead investigator of Bailey's killing; his boss, homicide unit Lt. Ersie Joyner; and Deputy Chief Jeffrey Loman. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle this week also added more details about police blunders in the Bailey murder case. An eye-witness account of the actions and statements of Your Black Muslim Bakery's leader Yusuf Bey IV immediately before and after Bailey's shooting on August 2, 2007, apparently was put in a different case file. The eye-witness report surfaced two months ago when a prosecutor found it by chance after requesting access to the other file. The Chauncey Bailey Project reported that police ignored several key pieces of evidence, including this eye-witness account, in an October 25 story:

The Bailey Project has also learned that police have a statement from another bakery associate who said Bey IV called a meeting the night before the killing. He ordered his followers to pray for strength, said two police officers knowledgeable of the statement. The bakery associate told police that Bey IV, Mackey and Broussard also prayed together separately and complained that they had to wake at 5 a.m. the next day. After the killing, there was a mood of celebration at the bakery, the associate told police. Officers asked that the person’s name not be revealed, saying disclosure could endanger the person’s life.

The Chronicle provided further details this week:

... A woman who worked at the black self-empowerment organization on San Pablo Avenue in Oakland had told police that bakery leader Yusuf Bey IV was in a celebratory mood at the news of Bailey's slaying on Aug. 2, 2007. "That will teach 'em to f- with me," she quoted Bey as saying. The woman also related how Bey was "not happy" with Bailey's reporting on the bakery's financial collapse, and said she had overheard a telephone conversation in which Bey and another man apparently were "scoping out" Bailey's whereabouts the day before the Oakland Post editor was shot to death on a downtown Oakland street. Hours before the killing, she said, Bey awoke at 5 a.m. to pray.

Oakland police admitted to the blunder Monday. Deputy Chief Jeff Israel told the Chronicle that Sergeant Derwin Longmire, the lead detective investigating Bailey's murder, had been notified of the eye-witness account, but the detectives involved later decided the statement was not relevant to Bailey's case. "We definitely made a mistake here, no question," Israel told the Chronicle. "It's very troubling ... After I've listened to the interview, it was obviously relevant."

New report finds Taser shocks stronger than company claims possible

Shahien Nasiripour — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:43:24 -0800

We'd be remiss if we didn't single out other great investigations into Taser, like this one from CBC News and Radio-Canada. The two news organizations teamed up to produce an amazing piece that aired Thursday night in Canada. The Arizona Republic, Taser International's hometown paper, published a piece on the findings in Friday's paper. Here's their lede:

A new study has found that the type of Taser stun gun used most by police officers can fire more electricity than the company says is possible, which the study's authors say raises the risk of cardiac arrest as much as 50 percent in some people. The study, led by a Montreal biomedical engineer and a U.S. defense contractor at the request of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., also concluded that even stun guns firing at expected electrical levels carry some risk of inducing a heart attack, depending on the circumstances. The researchers' analysis contradicts Taser's position that electric shocks from the weapons cannot kill. The study said the results raise questions about quality control in the stun gun's manufacturing and decline in performance over time.

The CBC News/Radio-Canada investigation is accessible online, as are the accompanying stories and source documents. A portion:

Pierre Savard, a biomedical engineer at the University of Montreal, designed the technical procedure for the CBC's testing based on Taser International's specifications. Savard told CBC News it is scientifically significant that about nine percent of the Tasers fired in the tests delivered more current than they are supposed to do, especially since he believes no one is verifying the company's claims. "I think it's important because Taser is not subjected to international standards," Savard said. "When you use a cellphone, well, cellphones have to respect a set of standards … for the electric magnetic field that it emits. The Taser, well, nobody knows except Taser International." Savard said the cause of the increased current could be either due to faulty quality control during the stun guns' manufacturing or electrical components that deteriorate with age. The findings are troubling, since police officers are trained to aim a Taser at the chest, said Savard, who studies heart rhythms and how they are affected by electrical stimulation. "When you combine an increased current intensity with a dart that falls right over the heart for somebody who has cardiovascular disease or other conditions such as using drugs, for example, it can all add up to a fatal issue," Savard said.

The piece is the CBC's latest in their ongoing investigation into Tasers, which really took off after the October 2007 death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish man who died after being shocked by police Tasers at Vancouver International Airport. Canada's press has been leading the way in Taser coverage over the past year as interest in the U.S. has waned. This piece is the latest example of that.

New EU law requires chemical companies to come clean

CIR Staff — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:29:30 -0800

Today is the deadline for international chemical companies to comply with a sweeping new European law requiring proof that products they export are safe. On Marketplace, CIR's Mark Schapiro talks about the law, which may force American companies to make safer chemicals. Under the new regulation, called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), the companies will have to pre-register their products—revealing detailed data about the chemical ingredients and their toxicity—before they are allowed to sell the products in Europe. Will American chemical companies—who've resisted regulations at home that require giving up such information to consumers—clean up their act? Or will they simply stop selling certain products that don't meet the EU standards in Europe? On the program, Schapiro points out:

If the United States does not keep up with what the European Union is doing now, what's going to happen is we are going to become the dumping ground for products that are banned in Europe.

>> Listen to the full report on Marketplace.

Overseas Press Club concerned by 'muddled investigation' of Bailey's murder

CIR Staff — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:32:43 -0800

The Overseas Press Club sent a letter to the California Attorney General in support of a re-investigation of Chauncey Bailey's murder:

November 17, 2008 Hon. Edmund G. Brown Attorney General California Department of Justice P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244 Attn: Public Inquiry Unit Dear Mr. Attorney General: The Overseas Press Club of America, a world-wide organization of six hundred international correspondents and editors, has been defending the rights of journalists around the world for nearly seven decades. It is rare that we find it necessary to speak out for freedom of the press in the United States. But the case of Chauncey Bailey, murdered editor of the Oakland Post, demands that we join the voices of so many others in calling for a fresh investigation of his murder. Now that you have agreed to open an investigation, as has the Alameda County District Attorney, we hope that this case can finally be resolved. The Oakland police and the detective in charge of the investigation, Sargeant Longmire, have so muddled the investigation, shown favoritism and failed to bring out basic evidence that the case built up against Devaughndre Broussard seems unlikely to stand up in court. Sargeant Longmire had an association with Yusuf Bey IV, Broussard’s employer and head of the now-defunct, Your Black Muslim Bakery. Bey has a long criminal record and is now under arrest for a kidnapping. Within hours of the murder, Sgt. Longmire had decided to charge Broussard without bothering to follow up several important leads. Two years earlier, he had interfered on Bey’s behalf in two criminal investigations being conducted by other officers. Presumably, you are far more familiar with these and many other details than we are. Our concern arises because a journalist has been silenced by murder. Bailey, as you know, had been investigating the Your Black Muslin Bakery. We note that Paul Cobb, publisher of the Post Newspaper Group, has since reported threats on his life. Some employees at the Oakland Post have quit for fear of violence, advertising is drying up and the paper itself may become a second victim of the assassination. Murder is a common way of silencing journalists in some other countries but is fortunately rare in the United States. Chauncey Bailey’s case should not become an example of how to silence the press here. The mayor of Oakland has ordered a new investigation and at the same time requested your intervention. The mayor and others clearly believe, as we do, that this case should be investigated anew by an organization with the powers and prestige of your office. We ask for the courtesy of an early reply. Very truly yours, Jeremy Main Kevin McDermott Freedom of the Press Committee

Banished wins anthropology award

CIR Staff — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:05:40 -0800

The Society for Visual Anthropology said Banished—a documentary co-produced by CIR about racial cleansings in small American towns—"has great anthropological value" and honored the film with an Award of Commendation. From the SVA website:

From the first minutes of filmmaker Marco Williams’ Banished, viewers know that they are in the hands of a master storyteller. Williams’ multi-layered and complex story takes us into the cultural history of racial cleansing in the American South. The film focuses on the long forgotten banishment of African American families from several southern towns in the early 1900s. It takes us on an historical and emotional journey from yellowed newspaper clippings of the time to the present day descendants of the banished families and their struggle to gain recognition, justice and compensation for the land and possessions appropriated from their ancestors over a hundred years ago. Banished never takes an easy or obvious turn. It refuses to reduce the issues to good and evil. Instead it subtly, carefully weighs the complexity of race, history, memory and the clouded path towards seeking reconciliation and justice for injustices of a distant past. Marco Williams’ respectful on-camera probing results in surprisingly honest and emotional responses from allies and opponents alike. One’s allegiances keep shifting in viewing this film, making the questions it raises more critical and lasting than the answers, questions the audiences will be thinking about days, months, perhaps years after viewing. Banished has great anthropological value. It reveals the structure of land holding African American families at the turn of the century and the consequences of their banishment and disenfranchisement on their descendants generations later. It also reveals much about the values of “black free” towns in the South today and the long shadows cast there by injustices of the past.

Ad-ing it all up

Will Evans — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:12:33 -0800

The game is over. Some won, some lost, and a lot of people laid down their money. Scores of independent groups went into hyperdrive for this election, reaching millions of people with some of the most vicious attack ads of the year. We saw new groups pop up out of nowhere; we saw old groups go to unprecedented lengths to help their candidates of choice; and we saw organized labor, corporate America and the partisan wealthy flood them all with money. For the last few months, we've tracked their moves at the Secret Money Project. We hope our reporting helped illuminate the sometimes-opaque forces of influence, and serves as a resource in the future. While independent groups mostly stayed a sidenote during the campaigns -- particularly the heavily financed presidential contest -- they did leave their marks.

American Issues Project produced an ad in August that linked Senator Obama to one-time anti-war militant Bill Ayers. It kept Ayers in the mix as a campaign issue at a time when Sen. John McCain's organization wasn't ready to take that step.

At virtually the same time, the liberal Brave New Films made a viral video raising questions about McCain's multiple homes. The video led a print reporter to ask McCain about the real estate, and the candidate flubbed the answer, creating a new campaign issue.

The Clarion Fund inundated the presidential swing states with a DVD called "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." It was a classic example of the murky space between campaigning and issue advocacy that many of these groups occupy. NPR listeners and npr.org readers told us about the DVD, and we give them our profuse thanks. All of them all told us the video seemed meant to promote McCain. As for the Clarion Fund, it hired a new public relations firm after we aired our broadcast story. But it never clarified its financing or activities -- as, indeed, it had no need to; the fund is a 501(c)(3) charity with minimal disclosure requirements. People speaking for the fund insisted there was no partisan agenda, and said they had distributed 28 million copies of the DVD in key election states only to attract the attention of reporters covering the race.

The biggest player among these groups was the Service Employees International Union, and sometimes it seemed to reach everywhere in the liberal establishment. And long before the election, SEIU had already budgeted $10 million to hold their favored candidates accountable to the union's agenda in 2009. But figuring out what impact the groups actually had on the campaigns is a tricky proposition. For one thing, the mish-mash of tax rules, campaign finance laws and Supreme Court decisions made it impossible to know precisely how much money they spent. We gave it a good try here, by adding together all the money that groups reported spending on election-related communications since July: PRESIDENTIAL RACE Conservative Groups: $40.9 million Liberal Groups: $53.1 million SENATE RACES Conservative Groups: $40.4 million Liberal Groups: $29.6 million This is a vast undercount, since many groups only have to report election ads that show up on TV or radio or that explicitly say to vote for or against a candidate.We recorded $4.2 million for MoveOn.org, for example, while the group engaged in plenty of other activities and said in a press release that it spent more than $30 million overall. Chalk it up to a system that, for better or worse, doesn't require vast amounts of election-related activity to be reported. Money, in any case, doesn't necessarily equal impact. Many organizations spent big on mobilizing their members and getting out the vote, and that counts for something. But what about those attack ads? All ads and groups are measured nowadays against the standard of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 group that wounded Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's aspirations. Nobody achieved Swift Boat status this year, though some tried hard, on the left (Brave New PAC) and right (National Republican Trust and American Issues Project). Perhaps the media, which hyped the Swift Boat group in 2004, learned their lesson and avoided giving any attack too much credit, theorizes John Geer, an expert on negative advertising at Vanderbilt University. Tom Matzzie, a Democratic strategist, has his own diagnosis: that the Internet has made it too easy to fact-check dishonest ads. Conservative operative Chris LaCivita, who went from Swift Boat Veterans in 2004 to American Issues Project this year, says it was just money. He says AIP simply couldn't raise enough from big donors after Wall Street crashed. And maybe attack groups never got a direct shot at a candidate's core message. The Swift Boat ads took aim at Kerry's war record, which he was running on. But this year, when the economy became the main issue for voters, attacks on Senator Obama's nefarious "associations" or McCain's health seemed less relevant. Plus, Senator Obama buried McCain and his allies with the biggest pot of money ever spent on an election. "With Obama's fundraising advantage, all the 527s kinda got crowded out," Geer says. "We're going to go to a system where the next presidential candidates are both going to have to raise so much money...that all of the sudden these people who are funding these 527s have to think about whether it's worth putting their money down." An interest group's goal is not only to help a candidate win, but also to ingratiate itself with the politician or party, says Steve Weissman, of the Campaign Finance Institute. Even if labor unions and such groups as MoveOn.org and Planned Parenthood didn't necessarily tip the election to Senator Obama, they dedicated a vast amount of money and resources to his cause, and now can hope that he feels indebted to them. Let's take a look at who racked up some chits. (Click on the links to watch the groups' ads and read about their funding and leadership.) PRESIDENTIAL RACE **Liberal Groups** 1. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION = $23,107,433 2. UNITED AUTO WORKERS = $4,860,571 3. MOVEON.ORG = $4,185,821 4. AFSCME = $2,312,723 5. PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND = $2,096,495 6. ADVANCING WISCONSIN = $2,094,687 7. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS = $1,997,375 8. PROGRESSIVE FUTURE = $1,496,323 9. SIERRA CLUB = $1,213,068 10. HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA NOW = $1,132,085 11. NARAL PRO-CHOICE AMERICA = $1,117,991 12. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ACTION FUND = $1,021,241 **Conservative Groups** 1. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION = $6,946,238 2. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN TRUST = $6,592,925 3. VETS FOR FREEDOM = $4,596,149 4. NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE = $4,504,422 5. LET FREEDOM RING = $3,257,939 6. AMERICAN ISSUES PROJECT = $2,878,873 7. REPUBLICAN MAJORITY CAMPAIGN = $1,851,120 8. FOCUS ON THE FAMILY ACTION = $1,332,862 9. RIGHTCHANGE.COM = $1,318,691 10. REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION = $1,267,002 11. COMMITTEE FOR TRUTH IN POLITICS = $1,192,510* 12. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FUND = $1,167,810 *The total for the Committee for Truth in Politics is an estimate by the Campaign Media Analysis Group. The group argues in a pending lawsuit that it doesn't have to report its expenditures. The biggest spenders on the left were obviously labor unions. George Soros -- who made himself a political lightning rod by bankrolling anti-Bush groups in 2004 -- in this cycle gave $3.5 million to Fund for America, $1 million to America Votes, about half a million to other liberal groups, and that's all that we know of. Hollywood producer Steve Bing also spent $2.5 million on the Fund for America, and about a million more on other pro-Democratic groups. On the right, pharmaceutical executive Fred Eshelman apparently outspent Soros, dumping $5.5 million into his anti-Obama 527, RightChange.com. Other conservative megadonors include Texas businessman Harold Simmons, who gave $2.9 million to American Issues Project, and retired physician John Templeton Jr., who gave at least $2.7 million to Let Freedom Ring. In contrast, a few conservative political action committees were able to raise remarkable sums via strictly regulated small donations. The National Republican Trust, for example, reported spending an incredible $6.6 million on the election, despite being founded in September. Now, shifting to congressional races ... We set out to cover Senate races, figuring that several contests could be pivotal to the chamber's makeup next year, while the House was clearly destined to become more Democratic. Outside groups saw it that way too, and piled into Senate contests as the election drew near. Weissman says independent groups focused more on congressional races than in 2004. In some of the closest contests, outside groups with huge warchests had the potential to make a significant difference, he says. (See our chart of groups below.) And speaking of collecting chits, the pharmaceutical industry, under the guise of America's Agenda: Health Care for Kids, went so far as to spend millions on incumbents of both parties -- many of them in completely safe seats. Surely a good way to make friends in Congress. A popular strategy on the left was funneling union money through independent 527s to produce attack ads. Unions produced their own ads, but they also provided almost all the funding for Patriot Majority to blitz key Senate races. Union money flowed to Citizens for Strength and Security, Majority Action, Campaign Money Watch -- all of them 527s that report their contributions. On the right, this election cycle saw the creation of several new 501(c)(4) nonprofits, which don't have to disclose their donors, focusing on congressional races. High-powered examples include the Employee Freedom Action Committee and American Future Fund, as well as Coloradans for Economic Growth and American Energy Alliance. Freedom's Watch also fits the bill, though we know it's bankrolled by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. Of course, Americans for Job Security has been doing this for years, and appears to be unfazed by a complaint to the Internal Revenue Service that it's violating its tax status. Weissman, in a recent report on independent groups, points to the increasing popularity of 501(c)(4) advocacy groups and 501(c)(6) trade associations on the right and the left as a major trend of this election season. "The impact," he tells us, "is that there's more ads out there that you don't quite know who's behind them." That's why we started the Secret Money Project, to help shed some light on the groups trying to influence your vote. We hope it's proved enlightening. -- Will Evans and Peter Overby SENATE RACES **Liberal Groups** 1. PATRIOT MAJORITY = $5,171,393 2. AMERICA'S AGENDA: HEALTH CARE FOR KIDS = $4,403,124 3. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION = $2,662,464 4. CAMPAIGN MONEY WATCH = $2,357,409 5. AMERICAN RIGHTS AT WORK = $2,300,049 6. LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS = $1,626,664 7. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION = $1,328,032 8. AFSCME = $1,291,950 9. CITIZENS FOR STRENGTH AND SECURITY = $1,163,352 10. ALLIANCE FOR A BETTER MINNESOTA = $1,077,453 11. MAJORITY ACTION = $1,025,276 12. PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACTION FUND = $1,016,052 **Conservative Groups** 1. U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE = $13,251,304 2. FREEDOM'S WATCH = $5,577,688 3. AMERICANS FOR JOB SECURITY = $5,279,833 4. EMPLOYEE FREEDOM ACTION COMMITTEE = $3,528,389* 5. AMERICAN FUTURE FUND = $1,610,238 6. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS = $1,307,147 7. CLUB FOR GROWTH = $1,122,889 8. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION = $1,079,801 9. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION = $922,000 10. AMERICA'S AGENDA: HEALTH CARE FOR KIDS = $879,660 11. AMERICAN ENERGY ALLIANCE = $777,092 12. COLORADANS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH = $670,562 *The Employee Freedom Action Committee's total is an estimate by the Campaign Media Analysis Group, since the group didn't have to file government reports on its expenditures. For example, the group ended its ad campaigns in Senate races just before the reporting requirements clicked in. Its ads after that didn't mention candidates by name, again avoiding filing requirements. METHODOLOGY: We compiled our totals using Federal Election Commission filings by groups on their independent expenditures (messages explicitly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate) and electioneering communications (broadcast ads mentioning a candidate close to the election). Our starting date was July 1, the beginning of the first month after the presidential primaries ended. When an organization had an affiliated PAC, 527 and 501(c)(4), we added all the money together. We also combined the spending of unions and their locals, as well as national groups with their state affiliates. When a group reported one bulk expenditure for presidential, Senate and House ads, we tried to approximate the split. Our totals are certainly an undercount. Here are some reasons why: Massive voter mobilization efforts aren't counted. Some groups may have not reported independent expenditures, claiming they didn't expressly advocate for a candidate. Some other groups appeared to tailor their campaigns to avoid reporting requirements. Even with the numbers we do have, some groups filed inaccurate or incomplete reports. So don't take this as a full accounting, but rather a window into the world of independent groups, given the level of transparency that we currently have. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Report says LAX vulnerable to cyber attack

G.W. Schulz — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:52:11 -0800

Computer systems and other equipment used by customs and border officials, the U.S. Coast Guard and transportation security personnel for homeland security operations at Los Angeles International Airport are vulnerable to theft and tampering, according to a report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security. The report, heavily redacted for national-security reasons, noted that telecommunications equipment and servers used by the agencies are left unobserved and contain poorly protected passwords. It includes a photo of a wide-open door leading to a server room used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The door is always left open because the room doesn't have a ventilation system sufficient enough to keep it cool, according to the report. "Anyone entering the server room would have access to ICE back-up tapes, server, router, and switches because they are not stored in a locked cabinet," the IG found. The access controls at an ICE field office in El Segundo, Calif., which assists with investigations of illegal exports, are weak, the report concluded, and employees have wide access to multiple files increasing "the risk of loss or theft of ICE mission-sensitive data." "Unauthorized personnel may have the ability to write, alter, or delete data that reside on shared resources." Also, according to the report, a data system maintained by the TSA is configured to allow anonymous access to one of its servers, meaning a hacker could log in without proper credentials. “Malicious code" could be placed on another of the TSA's systems containing shared data. The TSA also didn't have water sprinklers or fire extinguishers in a server room and telecommunications closet, while relying on a simple portable fan to keep the heat off IT equipment in a separate area. Several federal agencies adopted the use of new databases after 9/11 containing detailed personal information about Americans and foreigners, the idea being that the more they knew about national and international travelers, the likelier authorities would be able to spot a rogue airline passenger before he or she struck. But the portions of the report made public last week don't reveal which systems used by the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, ICE and others are susceptible to a cyber assault. The report points to an incident last year in which customs officials suffered a major network outage at LAX, one of the world’s largest airports, that stalled operations for hours and disrupted the travel plans of 17,000 passengers. The airport's terminals filled with travelers waiting to be processed, others were forced to remain sitting on airliners for hours following international flights and some planes had to be redirected to other airports. An aging IT infrastructure at the airport exacerbated the outage. According to the Los Angeles Times, airport employees had to distribute food, water and baby diapers to stranded passengers and refuel planes to keep their air conditioning systems running. Inspectors say that another agency, Customs and Border Protection, has installed new hardware since then to prevent a recurrence. But additional problems remain. In November of 2006, customs authorities installed a high-speed connection for wireless Internet access at LAX, but a year later federal agents who were supposed to be able to use the system to better communicate couldn't to do so because of technical problems. No one interviewed by the inspector general could say whether it had ever been used. A room containing IT equipment for use by CBP personnel had shoddy electrical wiring, missing ceiling tiles and dust. The IG's conclusions were released on the same day that a group of security consultants from one of the world's most tightly controlled airports near Tel Aviv announced they’d completed an assessment of LAX. Past reports by the team haven't been made public, but according to a Contra Costa Times story about the most recent review, the airport has made "significant progress" since 2006, implying that safety measures weren't strong previously. It's not clear if the release of that news, with its improved outlook on security at LAX, was intended to coincide with the inspector general's less sanguine report.

Fat lady hasn't sung in Georgia

Will Evans — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:24:30 -0800

And you thought you were done with political ads on TV. Well, not if you're in Georgia. Because Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) seems stuck below the 50-percent mark in Tuesday's balloting, the race under state law seems destined for a December run-off. Freedom's Watch doesn't have much going on these days, and it isn't wasting any time. The group—which, depending on how you see it, either failed to fend off Democratic takeovers in Congress or succeeded in preventing worse Republican losses—has a new ad trashing Jim Martin, the Democrat challenging Chambliss. "Jim Martin says he's a champion of lower taxes," the ad says. "I guess that must have been another Jim Martin who criticized a $100 million tax cut plan for Georgia families ... His evil twin maybe? Or just the same old tax-and-spend Martin policies." Both candidates also bought air time for their own ads. And so it continues ... This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

What they don't want you to know

Will Evans — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:17:52 -0800

Now that it's over, we can look back and ponder which independent groups might have had an impact on the election, which attack ads left a mark, and who might have blown millions of dollars. But there's at least one group that doesn't want us to know anything. It's in court, suing to strike down the disclosure requirements that tell us who runs ads near an election, how much gets spent and, sometimes, who puts up the cash. The Committee for Truth in Politics was launched by a North Carolina Republican operative in late September, and spent $1.2 million on anti-Obama ads. Here's one that criticized Obama's abortion stance and another that falsely accused him of supporting early release for sex offenders. The ads aired in the midst of the general election campaign, but the committee hasn't reported anything about them. We know only because we subscribe to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which has developed a sophisticated system to track ads on TV and estimates how much they cost. The committee, represented by Republican lawyer extraordinaire James Bopp, argues it shouldn't have to reveal a thing. Bopp has sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing that what the group spends on ads is none of the government's, or the public's, business. "We believe that the U.S. Constitution protects them from having to file that report," says Bopp. "The problem is having to file a report at all. To be regulated at all. To be accountable to the government at all." Bopp is building on his success in a Supreme Court case last year that struck down a critical campaign finance regulation. As the law stands now, there are two basic kinds of election-related ads that require disclosure to the government and the public: Those that explicitly advocate for the support or defeat of a candidate (independent expenditures) and those that don't go that far but identify a candidate close to the election (electioneering communications). The Supreme Court, ruling last year on a Bopp lawsuit known as Wisconsin Right To Life, overturned some restrictions on the second kind of ads, so they can now be financed with corporate or union money. Bopp argues that if an ad doesn't fall into the first category, it's not truly related to the election. Therefore, it doesn't fall under the purview of the FEC. Tara Malloy, of the Campaign Legal Center, begs to differ. Her organization is filing amicus briefs in support of the FEC. Malloy says that even if the Supreme Court ruled against funding restrictions for electioneering communications, those ads are still about the election. Besides, she says, the court has upheld disclosure rules that have nothing to do with elections -- like lobbying disclosure regulations. "This is just sort of wishful thinking on the part of Bopp," she says. It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court in 2003 let stand the restrictions on electioneering ads. That was when it ruled on the McCain-Feingold law -- but it also predates the court's latest ideological shift and Bopp's Wisconsin case. Rules saying who can or can't pay for an ad are harsh, and need to be weighed with extreme care, Malloy acknowledges. But rules for public disclosure are the "least restrictive type of campaign finance regulation," so they should face a lighter level of scrutiny, she argues. The Supreme Court, she says, has determined that disclosure in general is important for three reasons: to prevent corruption, to inform the electorate "and thereby ensure the integrity of the government," and to tell us what's happening so we can gauge if further regulation is needed. "Most people, when they see an ad critical of a candidate shortly before an election, they are going to assume it has something to do with the election," Mallow says. "It would be very helpful for the citizen to know who's funding it, what their interests might be." Bopp, on the other hand, makes an analogy to prove his point. What if, he says, journalists had to tell the government every time they wrote a story mentioning a federal candidate? What if they had to report which candidates they named, who published the story and who paid for it? "Bottom line -- that's the reason they wrote the First Amendment, to protect both citizens and the press from this sort of government regulation." Bopp has appealed the Committee for Truth in Politics case to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. And he's got others pending. "The mushrooms are cropping up everywhere," as Malloy says. Keep an eye on that Supreme Court docket. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Reinvestigating the Bailey case

CIR Staff — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:10:23 -0800

The Committee to Protect Journalists, an international organization that defends journalists worldwide, issued a statement today in support of the decision by California authorities to reinvestigate the Chauncey Bailey murder case: From the CPJ website:

Bailey slaying to be investigated anew New York, November 4, 2008--The Committee to Protect Journalists welcomes the decision by California authorities to undertake additional investigations into the August 2007 murder of U.S. editor Chauncey Bailey. The move follows a lengthy report by a consortium of San Francisco Bay-area news organizations and journalists known as the Chauncey Bailey Project. In an October 25 report, the group outlined alleged police irregularities in the investigation; other questions were raised earlier this year by the CBS News program "60 Minutes." The alleged irregularities include a failure to pursue evidence that the murder was the product of a conspiracy. To date, one suspect has been charged in the crime. In a lengthy statement released on Saturday in response to the Chauncey Bailey Project report, Oakland police said the investigation has been handled appropriately. But the statement, authorized by Assistant Chief Howard Jordan, confirms several facts reported by the Chauncey Bailey Project. The Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff told journalists last week that he would take the unusual step of assigning his own investigators to examine the case. On Thursday, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown to open another investigation into the murder. "It is imperative that an investigative agency outside the city also conduct an investigation," he wrote in an October 30 letter to Brown. Dellums told journalists he was making the request in response to the report by the Chauncey Bailey Project. "We welcome the additional investigations into the slaying of our colleague Chauncey Bailey," said CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney. "The report put together by Bay-area journalists raises a number of very important and troubling questions that must be resolved." Bailey was killed three blocks from his office by a masked person firing a shotgun. At the time, the journalist was investigating the financial dealings of Your Black Muslim Bakery, a local business that was associated with criminal activities, according to one of his sources, Saleem Bey, who later appeared on "60 Minutes." Witnesses said they saw a driver waiting in a white getaway van at the time of the murder, according to the Chauncey Bailey Project. Hours after the shooting, police analyzing shotgun shells found at the scene discovered the same weapon was suspected in a separate shooting linked to the bakery, according to the Chauncey Bailey Project. Oakland police confirmed in their statement Saturday that bakery associates were considered murder suspects within 24 hours of Bailey's slaying. Early on the morning after the killing, Oakland police raided the bakery and made several arrests on unrelated charges involving the kidnapping and torture of two women. Detectives began to question those suspects about the Bailey murder. The lead detective, Sgt. Derwin Longmire, has had a long association with the proprietor of the bakery, Yusuf Bey IV, who is indicted on a series of unrelated felony charges. Assistant Chief Jordan told Anderson Cooper of "60 Minutes" in February that he was aware of Sgt. Longmire's longtime relationship with the suspect Yusuf Bey IV. Jordan said it was "unusual, but not unethical" for the sergeant to be assigned to the murder case. Longmire did not respond to requests for an interview, according to the Chauncey Bailey Project. He did not immediately return a message left by CPJ seeking comment. The Oakland Police Department statement defended Longmire's handling of the case, saying that he properly pursued evidence and leads. After police raided the bakery, Longmire put two of those arrested--Bey and bakery employee Devaughndre Broussard--together in an interrogation room by themselves, according to "60 Minutes." Oakland police did not record their subsequent conversation. Assistant Chief Jordan told "60 Minutes" that "in a perfect world" the conversation "should have" been recorded. Broussard told "60 Minutes" that Bey pressured him to take responsibility for the murder during their conversation in the interrogation room. After the conversation, Broussard confessed to Bailey's murder, saying he had acted as a lone gunman. Broussard's statement to police was widely reported, but he later recanted after speaking with a lawyer. Broussard told "60 Minutes" that he was innocent, but that he knew who killed Bailey and that he would reveal this information at his own trial. The Chauncey Bailey Project report raises questions about a tracking device as well. Police investigating alleged crimes unrelated to the Bailey murder had placed the device on Bey's car prior to the murder. Data from the device shows Bey's car being parked outside Bailey's apartment building seven hours before his murder, according to the Chauncey Bailey Project. Police sources told the group that Bey, Broussard, and a third man--bakery employee Antoine Mackey--were in the vehicle at the time. Mackey was among those arrested during the raid of the bakery. The report from the Chauncey Bailey Project also questions whether Bey's cell phone records were analyzed. The Oakland police statement said that Sgt. Longmire sought the cell phone records in two search warrants, but that he had to wait for the cellular company to provide the records. The records have since been delivered to the Office of the Alameda district attorney. The Chauncey Bailey Project, which said it independently obtained the cell phone records, reported that Bey was involved in a series of calls within minutes of the killing, including one to Mackay. Mackay, according to the Chauncey Bailey Project, is currently incarcerated on an unrelated burglary. He has not commented publicly. Also in its report, the Chauncey Bailey Project questions whether Oakland police followed up on a video of Bey speaking with two other men in an interrogation room at the San Leandro Police Department. The video, posted on the Web site of the Chauncey Bailey Project, has the imprint of the San Leandro Police Department including the date and time of recording. Much of the dialogue is difficult to understand, although the Chauncey Bailey Project enhanced the recording. Several key parts of the recorded video are clear. San Francisco Bay-area media outlets have broadcast the video. The video shows Bey telling associates in the interrogation room that he put the gun used to kill Bailey in his closet after the shooting. On the video, Bey mocked the fatal blast to the journalist's head and boasted that Sgt. Longmire was protecting him from being charged. Bey also is heard saying that he and Longmire decided to blame Broussard alone for the murder. The other suspects in the room are Bey's brother, Joshua, and Tamon Halfin, both of whom are associated with the bakery, according to the project. Police in the San Leandro Police Department recorded their conversation as part of their investigation in the kidnapping and torture case, according to the Chauncey Bailey Project. Once detectives saw that the recording included dialogue related to the Bailey murder, they turned over the tape over to homicide detectives. While disputing several specific charges by the Chauncey Bailey Project, the Oakland police statement does not address why no other suspect besides the alleged gunman has been charged. Neither does the statement address the San Leandro police video. Asked by CPJ if Oakland police had any comment about the video, Public Information Officer Jeff Thomason said: "We're letting the statement speak for itself. We're not going to comment further." Bey was asked by police on June 11, 2008, about the video, according to the Chauncey Bailey Project. He said he was trying to mislead police by making up stories, and he denied having any role in the Bailey murder.

And they keep coming ...

Will Evans — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:39:42 -0800

Independent groups are vying to get in the last word before the election's over, so we'll try too. Here's a litte potpourri of last-minute efforts... And it doesn't get more last-minute than this: Vets for Freedom just busted out with a TV ad today, airing in Pennsylvania and Ohio, channeling some veterans' anger at Obama. The ad (below) starts out talking about Dwight Eisenhower and some letters he wrote and how Obama only wrote one letter, except that's a metaphor...but the real message is that Obama only saw failure in the courageous efforts of Iraq War veterans. It ends with a spoof of one of Obama's slogans, saying, "Can we win our war? Yes we can." Meanwhle, RightChange.com picked up a star of Republican Big Money: Bob Perry, the mega-donor who gave millions to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. Perry gave $100,000 to RightChange's campaign against Obama and in defense of Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). It's somehow reasuring to know that Perry isn't slacking off this election season. Progressive Future, which we already profiled, put up an anti-McCain ad on cable that's more about mood than message. It shows images of people struggling with the economic downturn set to Paul Simon singing, "I don't know a soul who's not been battered..." When Simon gets to the lyrics, "I wonder what's gone wrong," the ad ends up on a Bush-McCain hug. Missouri Right to Life, the state affiliate of National Right to Life Committee, launched an emotionally charged anti-abortion ad against Obama. The ad features Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse who became an anti-abortion activist when she discovered babies that survived botched abortion being left to die. Stanek leads her own group, Born Alive Truth, which also produced anti-Obama ads. In this ad, Stanek says Obama was "unmoved" by her story and "thought that infanticide was acceptable." Because he voted against "born alive infant" legislation in the state senate, Stanek says, "His opposition was responsible for living babies being left out to die." A similar claim by Stanek's own ad was criticized by Factcheck.org. Good thing ads are repeating the same claims these days, because otherwise there wouldn't be time to fact-check them before polls close. Born Alive Truth, for its part, just received $75,000 from Norm Miller, a born-again Christian businessman who chairs a Dallas company with this mission: "To glorify God as we supply our customers worldwide with top quality, value-priced batteries, related electrical power-source products, and distribution services." Meanwhile, Focus on the Family Action continues to pump money into airing Born Alive Truth's ad, running it on the radio in Indiana and on TV in Colorado and Florida. And now for everyone's favorite "black-belt patriot," as he calls himself: Chuck Norris. In a National Rifle Association ad running in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and on cable, Norris says, "If some thug breaks into my home, I could use by roundhouse kick. But I prefer he look down the barrell of my gun." Norris, who supported Mike Huckabee in the Republican primaries (check out this ad) tells us to protect our rights, and beware of anti-gun politicians who pretend to support those rights. Norris apparently thinks he's a candidate -- he delivers the "I approve this message" line, while standing in front of a house that has a sign reading, "We don't dial 911" over a picture of a gun. Norris then delivers one of his famous punches at the camera, as the voiceover says, "Just let 'em try and outlaw those guns." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

The union of politics and telemarketing—what's not to like?

Will Evans — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:47:53 -0800

Robocalls—those recorded, automatically dailed phone messages—have been lighting up phones everywhere the past few days. Nobody seems to like getting them. Some are inocuous—the standard fare of campaigns and candidates. But then there are underhanded, unaccountable calls meant to confuse voters. For example, calls have been going out into Virginia and Pennsylvania telling people to vote tomorrow, on Nov. 5, according to Jonah Goldman, director of Election Protection at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. Goldman says he doesn't know who's responsible, but similar misleading messages are being distributed via email, Facebook and flyers, often targeting young and minority voters. A third kind of robocall comes from independent groups trying to influence your vote. The Republican Jewish Coalition, for example, is sending anti-Obama robocalls to Jewish voters. The call quotes Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) saying that Obama lacked the "political courage" to leave Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. The RJC labels the United Church of Christ congregation "anti-Semitic" and "anti-American." The call hammers home the point with this: "If Obama doesn't have the courage to do the right thing here at home, can he stand up to dictators and tyrants who seek to do us harm? We should all be concerned about Barack Obama." The National Political Do Not Call Registry tracks all sorts of robocalls—and lets you report them. Christina Perkins, of eastern Virginia, told us she got her first robocall last week, and was a bit taken aback. The call, she says, started out asking if she is a registered voter, without identifying who wanted to know. The second question, "Are you pro-life?" struck Perkins as "sort of out of left field." She answered, "No," to which the robocall replied by saying that Obama would "raise your taxes by almost $3,000." Does that change your mind about Obama, the call asked? Perkins said, "No," and the message concluded by saying the group that sponsored it was in support of John McCain. Perkins couldn't remember the exact name of the group, but we traced it back to Christian conservative leader, one-time presidential hopeful and former Reagan advisor Gary Bauer. Bauer, who heads Americans United to Preserve Marriage and the group American Values, hired ccAdvertising to do the calls in Virginia, said his spokeswoman, Kristi Hamrick. Hamrick said Bauer also ran some get-out-the-vote radio ads in battleground states. Hamrick said she wasn't sure which Bauer organization paid for the robocalls But it appears to be Americans United to Preserve Marriage. In 2004, Americans United to Preserve Marriage ran ads attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and a Democratic Senate candidate on gay marraige. The biggest donors for that effort were Tom Ward and Aubrey McClendon, founders of the Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy Corporation. They're also in the group of investors that bought the Seattle SuperSonics basketball team and turned them into the Oklahoma City Thunder. Ward, a billionaire who now heads another oil and gas company, gave Bauer's group an additional $50,000 at the end of last year. The group also got $50,000 from developer Jeffrey Armour last year and another $50,000 from attorney Jeffrey Czech this August. Both Southern Californians, they each gave $1,000 to Bauer's 2000 presidential campaign. Armour also gave $75,000 to the anti-gay marraige intiative on the California ballot. ccAdvertising, the firm hired by Bauer, has the capacity to make 3.5 million phone calls every day, and is operating in nearly every state on behalf of its clients, says chief operating officer Jason Flanary. Clients include Common Sense Issues and the Alaska Republican Party as well as McDonald's and Starbucks. Flanary and ccAdvertising's president, Gabriel Joseph, spun off a separate political action committee in September, called Americans in Contact, which does pro-McCain robocalls. The calls ask voters their preference for president. If the voter says Obama, the robocall plays two "education components," which say that Obama will raise taxes and received campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to Flanary. If the voter answers McCain, the call asks for donations to the PAC. The goal, Flanary says, is to "identify conservatives around the country and to engage them in the political process." As for the Gary Bauer call, Christina Perkins says, "I was irritated, just because I would have liked to know up front who was calling. After the first question, it became immediately apparent there was an agenda that was being pushed, which is irritating. I have my number on the no-call list for a reason." Too bad. She's now had several robocalls since that first one. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Advancing Wisconsin with national money

Will Evans — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:24:42 -0800

With all the new groups that we've seen shoveling money into high-profile TV and radio ads, it's easy to overlook the outfits working to influence the election while staying below the radar. Advancing Wisconsin is one of those low-visibility operations, and it's getting bankrolled by national pro-Democrat groups. A 501(c)(4) formed in May, the group does phone calls, mailers and door-to-door canvassing to help elect Obama. It spent $435,000 in the last week and $1.9 million this election season, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mike Tate, the executive director, knows that many groups like his fade away after the eleciton. But his fellow organizers are determined to form a "permanent grassroots field-organizing infrastructure in Wisconsin," he says. In the future, the group plans to advocate around the state budget and state supreme court races. This idea of an eternal, localized political structure is a hot one among Democrats and liberals. Similar organizations exist in several other states, and big donors are looking kindly on them. How kindly? Advancing Wisconsin got $230,000 earlier this year from Fund for America, a group funded most notably by George Soros and organized labor. Fund for America was supposed to be a centralized funder for liberal groups, but disbanded in June. Another $650,000 arrived in Advancing Wisconsin's coffers this fall from America Votes 2006. The umbrella group America Votes was organized in '04, to coordinate voter mobilization against President Bush, and continues to operate. America Votes 2006 (stay with us here; this is how a lot of American politics is financed) recently received $500,000 from both Rockefeller heir Alida Messinger and Chicago publisher Fred Eychaner, and a combined $250,000 from brother-and-sister billionaires Jon and Pat Stryker, heirs to the Stryker medical techonology company. America Votes 2006 also picked up $200,000 each from Getty Oil heir Anne G. Earhart, Steelcase office furniture heir John R. Hunting and Peter B. Lewis, chair of Progressive Insurance. Lewis historically has been one of the financial stalwarts of the Left. But back to Advancing Wisconsin. Mike Tate, the director, was state director for Howard Dean's fervent-but-short try for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004. Dean now heads the Democratic National Committee. Tate was also Wisconsin's deputy director for America Coming Together, a pro-Democratic get-out-the-vote operation in 2004. Advancing Wisconsin's program and campaign manager is Meagan Mahaffey, previously director of the Wisconsin Democratic Party (and before that with America Coming Together and Dean). The operations director is Awais Khaleel, who was a college student superdelegate at the presidential convention and a member of the Democratic National Committee. (Tate says Khaleel gave up the DNC seat before working on Advancing Wisconsin's campaign.) All in all, this Wisconsin group's leadership has pretty strong connections to the national Democratic Party apparatus and those who help to underwrite it. No wonder Advancing Wisconsin is well funded. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Blue ads in red territory

Will Evans — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:14:55 -0800

Eugene Hedlund acknowledges that when Hollywood and New York filmmakers prepare political ads to target Middle America, they can spark a "backlash." So the self-described former Republican voter's political action committee, TruthandHope.org, teamed up with Hollywood and New York filmmakers to let Middle America speak for itself. The PAC, founded to support Democrat Howard Dean in his unsucessful 2004 presidential campaign, is running a series of ads spotlighting Obama supporters in solid Republican country -- all of them ordinary folks speaking straight to the camera. Each ad runs in the area where it was shot-- a strategy that produces its own kind of backlash, with the Obama advocates taking heat from their neighbors. Several ads in southeast Missouri focus on Darrell Hanschen, who runs a small pharmacy in Jackson, MO. He talks about health care ("Let's get somebody in there who cares about someone who walks the street of Jackson") and taxes ("Joe the Plumber makes more money than any plumber that I know of"). Here, he talks about a friend who's weighing whether to vote for "the black guy." Hedlund says one of the doctors in town said he'd never give Hanschen any more business. "These guys have stepped out in red areas, but we're trying to circle the wagons to give 'em some support," said Hedlund. Whenever someone like the pharmacist has a problem, Hedlund sends out an alert to his fundraising list, and supporters send messages of solidarity or sometimes even offer financial support, Hedlund said. Hedlund is a California mortgage banker who says he supported John McCain in the 2000 primaries and George Bush in the general election that year. The ad buys are all pretty small, but they add up to about $110,000 in all. In other ads: 81-year-old World War II vet Jack Moore of Nixa, MO, shows off his gun collection and says, "No way will Obama take my guns away." Dana Snodgrass, a small business owner in Joplin, MO, says, "I don't think George Bush and Republican Party truly care about the common people." A guy who repairs rock-crushing equipment in Nevada says, "We've already had the guy we'd like to have a beer with ... What we need now is the smartest guy." And a veteran in Columbus, OH, says he voted for McCain in 2000, but "I wouldn't do that today." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Big bucks let freedom ring

Will Evans — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:57:34 -0800

We know that Let Freedom Ring is one of the most active anti-Obama organizations this election. It's spending millions of dollars on a seemingly infinite supply of new ads. And now we know who's bankrolling the massive effort. Benefactor number one is John Templeton Jr., who is also chairman of Let Freedom Ring. He plunked down $2.7 million so far. He may have given more, for activities the group doesn't have to report. Templeton, whose father was a famous investor, was a co-chair of the faith and values steering committee of unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. A born-again Christian, he's also one of the biggest donors to a ballot initiative in California this year that would ban same-sex marriage; he and his wife gave $1.2 million. Some of Templeton's other gifts this year: $776,000 to the College Republican National Committee, $550,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee and $200,000 to the Club for Growth. Let Freedom Ring also received $500,000 in September from Virginia James aka Virginia Manheimer, a school voucher activist and donor. James is also a co-founder of the Club for Growth, which she gave $700,000 this year. "Smaller" donors to Let Freedom Ring include Foster Friess and Nathan Bachman, who each gave $100,000. Friess is a sucessful Wyoming investor who formerly served as president of the Council for National Policy, an umbrella group for the religious right. Friess explains his opposition to Obama via YouTube. Bachman is an Ohio investor who gave $10,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. And here, below, is a sample of what that money buys: an emotional "Best Of" compendium of conservative complaints against Obama: Rev. Wright; Bill Ayres; Tony Rezko; "clinging" to guns and religion; contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae; ACORN; and taxes and spending. Let Freedom Ring put up the ad on TV this weekend. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

"The culture of death" and other last-minute volleys

Will Evans — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:37:07 -0800

With the campaign din becoming ever more shrill in these last hours, opponents of Barack Obama are hoping an anti-abortion message can cut through to sympathetic voters. The National Pro-Life Alliance put up this ad in New Mexico, targeting both Obama and the Democratic candidate for Senate, Rep. Tom Udall. The ad recounts an incident in which two teenagers dumped their newborn baby in a Dumpster. It occurred 12 years ago in Delaware. The urgently delivered voiceover likens it to partial-birth abortion, and notes that Udall and Obama "voted to continue this grisly procedure." The group used identical language in Senate ads as far back as 2000. The Virginia-based alliance started in 1993 partially in response to the election of Bill Clinton, and now has 600,000 members, said its president Martin Fox, a Catholic priest in Ohio. The group is currently pushing legislation that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Common Sense Issues, which pushed for Mike Huckabee during the Republican primaries and then backed out of the presidential race, recently jumped back in with an ad attacking Obama on abortion. Running in the newly competitive states of North Dakota and Montana, the ad shows footage of Obama saying that the question of when a fetus gets human rights is "above my pay grade." That line has become one of Obama's biggest faux pas, seized upon by pro-life activists. The ad includes an interview with Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion doctor and founding member of what is now NARAL Pro-Choice America, who became an outspoken anti-abortion activist in the 1970s. He calls legalized abortion "the greatest mistake this nation has ever conceived." Family Research Council Action's PAC launched an ad in Virginia, with a more bipartisan approach. It quotes the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a respected Democrat, as saying partial-birth abortion is "too close to infanticide." The ad contrasts that with Obama, who it says voted against a ban on the practice. "The culture of death has a good friend in Barack Obama," it says. FRC PAC also has radio ads supporting Republican senators in Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia (listen here). And today, on the eve of election day, FRC Action placed this anti-Obama ad in eight Ohio newspapers. Pro-choice forces are active as well. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America each spent more than $200,000 in the last week, mostly on mailers, phone calls and canvassing for Obama and other Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Then again, National Right To Life spent more than half a million in the last week to help McCain and other Republicans. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Catholics can't vote for Obama?

Will Evans — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:32:00 -0800

Retired Texas Bishop Rene Gracida says that Catholics cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama. Now, in a last-ditch attempt to derail Latino support for Obama, an anti-abortion crusader and anti-illegal immigration activist have teamed up to blast out Gracida's message by email to nearly three million Latino voters and reaching even more people by radio. Randall Terry, the aggressive anti-abortion organizer who founded Operation Rescue, says it was his idea. He enlisted Gracida, who made national headlines in 1990 by excommunicating three Catholics for assisting with abortions. In 2004, Gracida gave a special benediction for the Republican National Convention. In the English-language version of his anti-Obama message, Gracida says, "A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate." You can hear the Spanish version here. Terry called the email blast "a blockbuster because Obama is desperate to take the Hispanic vote." He told us the emails went to "2.9 million Hispanic voters" as well as "100,000 whites." He corrected that to "100,000 Americans," then quickly said that didn't sound quite right either. He said he hasn't had much sleep, due to this last-minute effort. RightMarch.com provided financial and logistical support for the campaign, buying a bit of radio time in Ohio, and procuring the massive email list to reach Latinos. RightMarch's president, William Greene, made illegal immigration his top issue last year, when he lost a special election for Congress in Georgia. A fundraising letter of support for Greene from the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps PAC (which we profiled here) described Greene thusly:

Bill has been a leader in the fight against illegal immigration as a grassroots activist, delivering millions of messages to Capitol Hill from constituents, demanding NO AMNESTY for illegals;

He has personally mustered with us on the U.S.-Mexican border as a volunteer with the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, standing watch to report the illegals streaming unhindered across our officially undefended Arizona border;

Bill has helped us to raise tens of thousands of dollars for MCDC operations and projects, such as the Border Fence Project...

He has pushed hard for congressional bills to de-fund pro-illegal immigration groups like the ACLU and La Raza, to take away their ill-gotten gains stolen from the pockets of unwilling and unsuspecting taxpayers. Terry said radio hosts are picking up the Bishop Gracida ad and broadcasting it for free. Some individuals are paying for airtime themselves, he said, and one businessman in Ohio paid for a TV version of the ad. "The glory of this is that it's free," Terry said. "It's viral!" This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Ads hit McCain in home state, Obama in Florida

Will Evans — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:24:45 -0800

Arizona is McCain territory -- he's made his home there since 1982 -- and losing it to Barack Obama would sting. So it's no wonder MoveOn.org wants to make that happen. With Obama's campaign gearing up in the state, the liberal group joins in with this TV ad, showcasing a Republican vet who is voting for Obama. Obama's homestate of Illinois isn't really in play, so his foes are hitting him where it will hurt most. The Republican Jewish Coalition extended its ad buy in Florida with a $104,000 donation from David Kaufman, a Connecticut businessman who runs an eye care center. It's down to the wire, folks, so this is your last chance to lay down $100k for the cause! Whichever cause that might be. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

GOP Trust PAC gets on the air

Will Evans — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:17:09 -0700

The National Republican Trust PAC is finally putting some advertising muscle behind all its claims about being able to beat Obama. The group yesterday laid down $880,000 on an ad buy, pretty big for an insta-PAC created last month. We earlier blogged that the PAC was spending more on fundraising emails than actual airtime, but this completely changes the calculation. You know you're bigtime when Factcheck.org dedicates a full article to debunking your ad. National Republican Trust got that distinction this week, with the added bonus of being accused of producing "one of the sleaziest false TV ads of the campaign." The PAC even pumped out another ad, again accusing Obama of wanting to give government benefits to illegal immigrants, with a cherry on top: Obama "wants to redistribute your money." It's the Republican attack point of the moment, with only moments to spare. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Swift Boat donor defends Mitch McConnell

Will Evans — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:12:07 -0700

Swift Boat Veterans founding donor Bob Perry is funding a new 527 organization, but this one is a lot less expensive. The First Amendment Alliance is airing radio ads against Democrat Bruce Lunsford, who is in a tight race with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Perry, a Texas developer, gave $50,000 this month to the group. He's better known for giving $4.4 million in seed money to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which helped to defeat John Kerry in 2004. The Alliance is run by political consultant Anthony Holm, who doubles as Perry's spokesperson. Holm's consulting firm includes other connected Republicans, such as the daughter of Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). He told us in a phone interview that he has done work in the past for Vice President Dick Cheney. Holm serves as the Alliance's only director. He said he didn't have time to share more information about the Alliance or its ads. The group, which was formed last year, also received $75,000 from the holding company of Mischer Investments, another Texas real estate developer. The company was built by the late Walter Mischer Sr., a longtime Houston powerbroker. A third donor was Connecticut investor Jonathan Farber, who gave $20,000. Farber's private equity firm invests in the oil and gas industry. This isn't Bob Perry's only project. Also this year, Perry gave $750,000 to the Republican Governors Association, $650,000 to the Club for Growth, and $100,000 to the College Republican National Committee. Overall, though, Perry didn't take to federal 527s like he did in 2004. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

RightChange gets money from controversial businessman

Will Evans — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:08:22 -0700

RightChange.com's blitz of anti-Obama ads has been bankrolled mainly with more than $5 million from pharmaceutical executive Fred Eshelman. But this month the 527 organization diversified: it put out a new ad (below) supporting Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole in its home state of North Carolina. And it reported receiving $100,000 from a controversial businessman named R. Craig Estey. In trying to figure out who Estey is, we found some interesting background. Estey runs a chain of gambling parlors in Nevada called Dotty's. He also operated one of the biggest video gambling operations in Oregon until the state lottery ran him out of town. In December 2006, Oregon Lottery Director Dale Penn wrote Estey to terminate his state lottery contract because "you do not satisfy the requirements of good character, honesty, and integrity that apply to all Lottery Retailers." It all started with a domestic dispute Estey had in 2005, when he allegedly held a gun to his then-wife's head and threatened her life. Gaming officials from Nevada looked into it. The Gaming Control Board said that Estey initially lied to its investigators before admitting his wife's version of events. He eventually agreed to a $200,000 fine from the Nevada Gaming Commission. The Oregon State Lottery eventually found out about the case from a newspaper columnist. Because of the incident, the lying and the fact that Estey didn't notify Oregon officials of his problems, Penn wrote that "your continued association with the Oregon Lottery poses a threat to the actual or apparent integrity, fairness and security of the Lottery and is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and trust in keeping with the sensitive nature of the Lottery." We tried to contact Estey through his lawyer on Wednesday but Estey hasn't responded. He sold his Oregon company last year but is still operating in Nevada. And now, Estey is venturing into the not-quite-ended 2008 campaign. View ads from RightChange here. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Uppercase or lowercase—big difference

Will Evans — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:44:52 -0700

Let Freedom Ring is putting a lot of money behind its current kitchen-sink blast of anti-Obama ads. Attention must be paid. The latest in the freedom-ringing fusillade shows Obama saying he will not develop new nuclear weapons and will "slow our development of future combat systems." The footage is from what the ad calls an "Obama campaign-produced solicitation video" from last October. Notice that the ad uses the lowercase form for "future combat systems," implying that Obama wants to slow development of all combat systems. McCain has used the same line against Obama. But as the Army Times and the libertarian Cato Institute point out, Future Combat Systems -- uppercase -- is a specific military program that McCain also has opposed. In any case, the ad segues to Reagan appointee Frank Gaffney, who says that leaders who convey an unwillingness to use military might show weakness to "our enemies" and "weakness invites agression." Gaffney's dead-serious monologue also featured in the gaffe ad starring Joe Biden. Joe the Gaffer makes another appearance in an extended version of the ad (also on TV), with his much-publicized prediction that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

McCain-Palin: The nightmare before Christmas?

Will Evans — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:40:20 -0700

At some moment in the last month, Danny Elfman had an idea. It wasn't another creepy soundtrack to another Tim Burton film. It wasn't a reunion tour with his old band Oingo Boingo. It was, rather, about his "greatest fear": President Sarah Palin. In no time, Elfman and followers formed a political action committee, a Web site (OurGreatestFear.org) and a political ad now doing a small run in Ohio and Pennsylvania. "This is the story of one person who was feeling really frustrated and demoralized and thought, 'You know what? I'm going to do something about it,'" said Sheila Shirazi, who is handling press for Elfman's group. In the ad, a voiceover suggests John McCain may die in office, as his face morphs into that of Palin, the White House in the background. Our greatest question, though, is why no spooky music? Elfman, after all, scored such movies as Beetle Juice, Edward Scissorhands, Nightmare Before Christmas, and even creepier ones like Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. And besides, it's almost Halloween. But no. Those hoping for a dark and twisted soundtrack to the election will be disappointed. Explains Shirazi, "Danny's actually a fairly modest person. I think that he really wanted this to be about the message. He didn't want anything to take away from it." Elfman supposedly plans to continue his PAC to focus on other candidates in future elections. We can't help but recall all the musical cliches in political ads, and hope Elfman can get over that modesty thing. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Reagan endorses Obama! Or not ...

Will Evans — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:34:14 -0700

Okay, so Ronald Reagan isn't around to actually endorse anyone. But that won't stop political operatives from invoking his presidency to boost their candidate. A new, liberal Colorado-based group called Progressive Future is bringing back the Gipper to put in a plug for Obama, while the conservative Let Freedom Ring calls Obama the "anti-Reagan." Progressive Future's ad, airing in Florida and Ohio, starts off with footage of Reagan delivering his powerful rhetorical question of the 1980 debate against Jimmy Carter: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" (One of the strategists who came up with the line later modestly called it "probably the most devastating line Mr. Reagan used against Mr. Carter." The strategist was writing a column hoping that John Kerry wouldn't use it with success against President Bush.) The ad continues with Reagan's speech, set against images of Dick Cheney, Osama Bin Laden, rising gas prices, a home foreclosure, and, crucially, Bush together with John McCain. Reagan says, "If you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have." And just as he mentions "another choice," there is Obama set against a giant American flag, gazing off into the distance at those Reagan Democrats he needs on Tuesday. Obama himself played off the line last week at a Florida rally, saying, "At this rate, the question isn't just 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?', it's 'Are you better off than you were four weeks ago?'" But Obama isn't running against an incumbent, as Reagan was. McCain aired his own ad saying, "We're worse off than we were four years ago," distancing himself from Bush's legacy. Let Freedom Ring -- as part of an endless stream of new ads, some on TV and some Web-only -- tries to cast some of Reagan's glow on McCain instead of Obama. This new video calls Obama the "anti-Reagan" and says to McCain, "Your economic policies are the policies of Ronald Reagan." We already dug up the background on Let Freedom Ring. Now let's take a look at Progressive Future and its dizzying array of affiliated groups. Progressive Future is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit founded last year at the urging of Doug Phelps, chair of US PIRG and its umbrella organization, the Public Interest Network. US PIRG is itself an umbrella for state-level public interest research groups that got started by Ralph Nader decades ago. Progressive Future is also part of the Public Interest Network, along with Green Corps. The network also includes Environment America, which is busy campaigning for Obama and Democratic Senate candidates like Al Franken in Minnesota and Mark Udall in Colorado. (Environment America is -- hold on to your hat -- itself an umbrella of state-based groups.) Okay, zoom back in to Progressive Future. It was formed to foment a grassroots activist base on issues like universal healthcare, alternative energy and an end to war in Iraq, says program director Adam Lioz. "The Right had been out-organizing the progressive side" and it was time for that to change, said Lioz, who came from US PIRG. This long-term grassroots approach is a hot strategy among liberals. In a story on independent groups that aired on Morning Edition today, organizer Tom Matzzie called it one of the success stories of the 2008 election cycle. Progressive Future's board of directors includes Pete Maysmith, who used to be at Common Cause; Mo Kirk, who works for the Public Interest Network and used to be at Oregon State PIRG; and Naomi Roth of Work for Progress. The group is now active in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, according to Lioz. Earlier this year, it joined with yet another network of liberal groups, called Progress Now (which we profiled here) to form Progress Florida. Which brings us to this blog's humble plea to liberal groups. Please -- please -- can you just form one network and stick with that one? It would be a lot less confusing. Please? This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Union power—more than meets the eye

Will Evans — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:09:08 -0700

Organized labor is in the mail, on the airwaves and on the streets for Obama and other Democratic candidates. And there's even more union activity underneath the surface. Besides their own ads and massive get-out-the-vote campaigns, which we detail below, unions are bankrolling the attack ads of several other advocacy organizations. Here are some new disclosures:

Citizens for Strength and Security, which is advertising against Sens. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), recently got $700,000 from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The 527 also got $100,000 from an affiliated group, Citizens for Safety and Security, which in turn was funded by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA). With the influx, CSS jumped into the Louisiana Senate race with a new ad against Republican challenger John Kennedy.

Campaign Money Watch, running ads against McCain and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) just got $300,000 from the Association of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Patriot Majority, running ads against Dole, Wicker and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), just reported a $1.65 million haul from AFSCME, in addition to $1.5 million from the union earlier in the month, not to mention even more before October. The United Auto Workers, meanwhile, announced radio ads supporting Democratic Senate candidates. And SEIU just launched a $425,000 ad buy in Ohio accusing McCain of supporting tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas. (Factcheck.org calls this line of attack misleading.) The ad features a Dayton, OH, former factory worker whose job, she says, was shipped to China. "I was Meghan the Factory Worker, " she says, mimicking the McCain campaign's favorite mascot, Joe the Plumber, "and John McCain's votes on outsourcing haven't helped me one bit." And then there's the massive union ground game. The AFL-CIO announced: "Beginning Saturday, tens of thousands of AFL-CIO volunteers will visit more than 3.9 million union households, make 5.5 million calls and distribute more than 2 million leaflets at worksites through Election Day." AFSCME has 40,000 members out trying to mobilize voters. LIUNA plans to spend $15 million on the election, more than twice what it spent in 2004. The National Education Association sent more than 21 million mailers and made more than 2 million calls to members in battleground states. And on and on and on, with a GOTV effort the Democrats count on every two years.

Parting shots from the Left

Will Evans — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:30:00 -0700

It's the final push, folks, and they're pushing hard. Here's a wave of liberal ads hoping to unseat Senate Republicans -- and a video representation of Republican fear. People for the American Way rolls out TV ads criticizing Republican senators for supporting "judges who hurt our families." The ads say that Susan Collins of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina "stood with George Bush and helped put his extreme nominees on our nation's highest court." Here's the one about Collins, who is the group's focus: Patriot Majority continues to batter Republican incumbents and continues to receive giant bundles of union cash. Recent ads include one accusing Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) of siding with "corporate interests and one faulting Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) for supporting free trade agreements. Another takes on Dole, saying, "They know us as Tar Heels for standing our ground. But when Elizabeth Dole votes with George Bush 92 percent of the time, the ground starts to crumble." The ground-crumbling metaphor is aided by a visual in the ad. Patriot Majority reported getting $1.5 million from AFSCME this month, as well as $125,000 from the Teamsters and $25,000 from Patricia Bauman, who is president of the liberal Bauman Foundation and board member of Catalist, a data-mining firm that works for Democrats. It's enough to drive Freedom's Watch crazy. The conservative group has been one of biggest players running ads to stem the onslaught of Democratic Senate candidates.(Here's a recent one taking on Jeff Merkley, who's challenging Smith in Oregon.) In a video to be e-mailed to the Freedom's Watch rank and file tomorrow, you can feel the fear of the nightmare scenario: a filibuster-proof Democratic majority. The dark and ominous video takes aim at Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, calling his "reckless policies" the cause of current economic woes. It warns that the DSCC is "spending nearly $100 million on a smear campaign funded by special interests." It continues, "A filibuster-proof Senate means unchecked power to pass their tax increases, their pork-barrel spending, and no ability to block activist judicial nominees." And the capper: "Too much power in one party's hand is too risky for America." The irony of the last line -- since it was merely two years ago that voters ended six years of one-party GOP rule by giving congressional majorities to the Democrats -- is only surpassed by the sense of frustration, just days before the eleciton. There are even more liberal Senate ads -- silly and serious. Let's get the serious ads out of the way: Citizens for Strength and Security, a North Carolina-based 527, is branching out to Mississippi. Here, it blames Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) for helping to send jobs overseas and increase our debt to China, similar to the Republicans-sell-us-to-China ads we blogged on yesterday, from Truth From American Workers. This new one blames Wicker for supporting "unfair trade deals" such as NAFTA, even showing a fake billboard that reads, "Senor Wicker, Gracias por NAFTA." Also on the serious side, VoteVets brings its battleworn ad on body armor to Georgia to see if it will work against Chambliss. Now for a little levity, and we use the word loosely. The League of Conservation Voters' radio ad in New Hampshire proposes some sarcastic slogans for Sununu's campaign, all in that bombastic announcer tone that we know so well. For example, "John Sununu. Using your tax dollars to make the filthy rich richer." The silly part comes when the ad starts trying to rhyme Sununu (think mumu or booboo). Not the lightest touch ever in a political ad, but at least there's no ominous synthesizer music. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Trust in small business, not Obama

Will Evans — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:45:19 -0700

It's sort of like a reverse coattails effect. A pro-business political action committee is running ads boosting vulnerable Republican senators by contrasting them with Obama. In fact, the spots seem more like anti-Obama ads than ads supporting pro-business Republicans, as they are billed by the Trust in Small Business PAC. The cookie-cutter ads start out saying "Barack Obama's endless promises guarantee a huge expansion of federal programs, paid for with tax increases on the back of small business." Gloomy images of shuttered shops give way to a vibrant businesses and triumpant music as the ad says, "Vote for a proven friend of small business." Those proven friends are Sens. John Sununu (NH), Elizabeth Dole (NC), Mitch McConnell (KY), Roger Wicker (MS), Saxby Chambliss (GA) and Louisiana Senate challenger John Kennedy. You can watch all of the ads here. The PAC, which aired ads in 2006 Senate races, is run by Mari Rusch, who used to be national finance director for the National Federation of Independent Business. NFIB is also running ads in close Senate races. The Obama-is-bad-so-Republican-is-good message may have some traction in states like Louisiana and Mississippi, rated "Solid GOP" for McCain by NPR's Ken Rudin. But maybe not so much in New Hampshire, which is "Leaning Democrat" for Obama. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Latest campaign boogeyman: China

Will Evans — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:40:58 -0700

Maybe "McChina" would have sounded better. Reaching back to the 1970s for its rhetoric, a Kentucky-based labor group is sounding the alarm that John McCain and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are selling us out to "Communist China." A radio ad from a 527 group called Truth From American Workers features the voice of Chris Sanders, general counsel of United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 227. "Wall Street's in trouble because George Bush and Mitch McConnell pulled the regulators off Wall Street so the tycoons there could speculate, with our money," he says. "And we're deep in debt, again, to Communist China no less." Three other radio spots imitate the quick-fire babble of an auctioneer who is auctioning off U.S. manufacturing jobs and government debt. China is the top bidder. In Ohio and Indiana, the ads blame McCain: "Tell John McCain to stop sending our jobs and our dollars to China. We need them around here." In Kentucky, a different version of the ad blames McConnell. Listen to all four ads here. Truth From American Workers' treasurer is Larry Fox, another official from Local 227. The group's leadership also includes representatives from the United Mine Workers and a Teamsters Union local, but UFCW seems to be the overriding connection. UFCW and its locals gave the group $170,000, more than any other entity so far. The group used to be called Working Families for Kentucky, but changed its name in September. Funny thing about that: Working Families for Kentucky was formed -- just last year -- to oppose Bruce Lunsford in the Democratic primary for governor. Lunsford did end up losing that primary, and you might recognize his name. He's the Democratic challenger to McConnell, the guy the unions now want to unseat. For old times' sake, here's the anti-Lunsford ad the group produced in 2007. You won't see it on TV in Kentucky.

Clarion DVD now circulated by religious right group

Will Evans — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:25:23 -0700

Remember the Clarion Fund and its DVD, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West"? The DVD -- and the fund's murky background -- caused an uproar when Clarion spread 28 million copies of the disk throughout battleground states, all in the name of attracting media attention. Now the DVD has a new distributor, a California-based publication called The Judeo-Christian View. Where Clarion's roots traced back to Israel, the View connects to significant figures in the conservative Christian political movement. It pulls "Obsession" closer to being precisely what the Clarion Fund has insisted it is not: a political message delivered at the peak of a presidential campaign. The View says it mailed "Obsession" and other materials, discussing Barack Obama's and John McCain's views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues, to more than 325,000 clergy earlier this month. Its conclusion is that Obama's views are "at odds with the ancient Biblical faiths." The View's general publisher is O'Neal Dozier, once a linebacker for the New York Jets and Chicago Bears, now pastor of the Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, FL. The publisher is Gary L. Cass, who's also head of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, where the homepage currently offers "7 Reasons Why Barack Obama Is Not A Christian." Dozier is active at the crossroads of religion and Republican politics, meeting with President Bush four times in 2005, in delegations of African-American clergy. When Jeb Bush, the president's brother, was governor of Florida, he appointed Dozier to one of several state panels that recommended judicial nominees. But he removed Dozier in 2006, after the pastor called Islam a "cult" during a radio interview and judicial candidates said he asked them inappropriate questions. Republican Charlie Crist, who followed Bush as governor, initially put Dozier on his campaign's Strengthening Florida's Families advisory group, but then dismissed him after the "cult" comment and some other remarks. Dozier earlier was involved in Freedom Watch, a group set up by Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman (and not to be confused with Freedom's Watch, a well-funded conservative group active in this year's campaigns). Cass said he, not Dozier, is the proprietor of The Judeo-Christian View. He told us the big mailing was done this month "to take advantage of interest in the political season to launch" the publication. And to deepen the mystery over how "Obsession" is distributed, Cass was vague as to how his publication acquired DVDs for the mailing. He said they came from Clarion but declined to say if they were purchased or contributed. Referring to Clarion, he said, "Let's just say we have a good working relationship with them." Cass's Christian Anti-Defamation Commission claims an advisory board with some stars of the Christian Right: Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition; Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association; and Steve Baldwin, executive director of the Council for National Policy, a little-known but well-placed umbrella group for funding and policy on the religious right. The Judeo-Christian View mailing includes "Obsession," a second video presentation and two documents. The video is a sermon titled "Same-Sex Marriage and Child Sacrifice" (Dozier's term for late-term abortions) and discusses Obama's views in detail. It also briefly mentions McCain. There's a "mild" version of the video sermon -- -- and an "adult graphic version," which you can find here. The documents are essentially text versions of the video sermon. One says of Obama, "We contend that on these paramount issues of natural marriage, family and children, his policies are at odds with the 4,000-year-old, Judeo-Christian view; instead, they would move America further down the low road toward paganism...." They also say that by accepting homosexuality, an Obama presidency would inflame Islamic radicals, who would hate America even more for condoning homosexual relationships. And just in case, the packet includes clickable links to Web pages that guide a religious leader through the tax code limits on political speech by tax-exempt religious organizations. For Michael Mumme, a United Methodist pastor in Woodsboro, TX, the "polemical" and partisan content of the mailing was a big turn-off. "In a sermon it just wouldn't fly, in a mainline denomination, to refer to either political candidate and their views," Mumme told us. "It could happen in certain churches. But most of the time, regardless of who wins the election, Christians need to be advocating on behalf of 'the least of these' whether it's a Democratic administration or a Republican one." Cass said reaction to the mailing has been mixed. If it has an impact, that will be evident this Sunday, with the last regular church services before Election Day. —Peter Overby and Will Evans This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

MoveOn money behind the curtain

Will Evans — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:48:08 -0700

"Paid for by MoveOn Political Action" appears at the end of only one TV ad these days, but MoveOn.org is involved in more behind the scenes. MoveOn, for example, gave $583,000 to bankroll Health Care for America Now's recent ad hammering McCain's health care policy. MoveOn also gave $400,000 this month to Campaign Money Watch, which recently ran an ad against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and today has a new one taking on McCain. (Private equity billionaire Jerome Kohlberg, a long-time advocate for campaign finance reform, also pitched in $130,000.) The new CMW ad, aimed at conservative viewers in Florida, Virginia and on national cable, spotlights McCain's penchant for gambling and his contributions from the gambling industry. Here's a Las Vegas Review-Journal story on the subject. The ad starts by comparing McCain to "celebrities" who "love to gamble" like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. It's a sarcastic allusion to a much-discussed McCain campaign ad comparing Obama to the pop stars. It may seem a bit odd that an organization dedicated to the public financing of elections would go after McCain, the only candidate who actually decided to take public financing for his campaign. Obama's explosive fundraising, meanwhile, is being blamed by some for the imminent demise of the system. But David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch, explained to us a while ago, "Our view is that the current system is broken. Candidates are going to fund their campaigns in whichever way they think will bring them to victory." For Donnelly, the question is, "Which candidate has pledged to make fixing the presidential system a priority?" His answer: "Obama has." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Anti-Obama ads, amid an onslaught of emails

Will Evans — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:07:29 -0700

Every election season, some independent groups sizzle with controversy and impact, and others fizzle. We couldn't tell at first, but the National Republican Trust PAC appears to be of the sizzling variety. The political action committee -- founded by a trio who have tried to prove a link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks -- has new anti-Obama ads on the air and a fundraising machine in overdrive. One ad dredges up inflammatory comments by Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the other says Obama wants to give driver's licenses and government benefits to "illegals." A fundraising email today said the group has raised $1 million for its "emergency effort to stop Barack Obama" and seeks $1 million more for the campaign's final week. The email promises, "Almost all of our net dollars raised -- after marketing costs -- are going directly into our ad war against Obama." That phrase "after marketing costs" is significant. Of $903,000 in expenditures against Obama reported this month, about 56 percent, or $507,000, went to paying for fundraising emails like the one we just mentioned. Media buys and production accounted for 39 percent, or $356,000. The rest, $40,000, went to advertising, direct mail and phone calls. Peter Leitner, the group's treasurer, told us, "There's a lag in reporting. We're spending a large amount of money on the media buys...The biggest ticket item is the airtime." Here's the Rev. Wright ad, which says, "For 20 years, Barack Obama followed a preacher of hate." This ad (below) reprises the PAC's first one, which tied Obama's support for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. This ad continues with the immigration theme to say, "Obama's plan gives illegals social security benefits and raises taxes for his health care plan to cover them. Who pays? You do." All the ads are stamped with the slogan, "Barack Obama. Too Radical. Too Risky." The fundraising emails go even further. Another one sent out today says, "Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president -- he is a dangerous one." Far from only asking for money, the ever-flowing emails blast out the message too: "Doesn't he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered. Doesn't he want to prevent that from ever happening again? If he supports driver's licenses for illegals, the answer is clear." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

I'm not endorsing, but vote for him anyway

Will Evans — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:56:13 -0700

On his latest Focus on the Family Action radio broadcast, evangelical leader James Dobson says, "While I will not endorse either candidate this year...I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency." With Dobson's definition of "supportive," who needs an endorsement? Dobson was reading from his October newsletter, which goes out to millions and lays out his reasons for supporting McCain and, even more vigorously, opposing Obama. Also on the radio recently, Dobson said, "I want our listeners to know that I have never, never been so concerned about the state of our nation," pointing to the willingness of many voters to elect "a leader, Barack Obama, who supports and will promote the most radical and unconscionable forms of abortion and policies that will result in many, many more babies dying." Before that, Dobson dedicated another broadcast to talking with two women behind Born Alive Truth, a new 527 airing anti-Obama TV ads. Focus on the Family Action itself recently spent $112,000 airing a radio version of the ad in stations across Colorado. Now that's "supportive." The abortion issue is at the top of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's agenda as well, but the group has so far kept the debate out if its ads, even as it attacks McCain and running mate Sarah Palin. Planned Parenthood's newest ad (below) focuses instead on the group's own study ripping apart McCain's health care plan. Airing in the Washington D.C. market, which covers Obama-friendly Northern Virginia, it features a nurse calling the McCain plan "bad medicine." And yes, Planned Parenthood did endorse Obama. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Even the advertiser calls ad 'bizarre'

Will Evans — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:21:23 -0700

Usually advocacy groups avoid spending money on attack ads against politicians they can't beat. But the brand-new 2020 Action Fund, challenging Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe in deep-red Oklahoma, is in it for the long haul. Even the spokesman for the Boston-based group calls its new ad "borderline bizarre." The bizarre starts with a metaphor: old stock footage of a guy kicking another guy in the rear, repeatedly. The ad blames Inhofe for opposing energy independence, good wages and jobs. Then comes an impressionistic collage of images including a spinning globe, a man eating something, flying dollar signs, some sort of parade and money grabbed from a table. Words appear on the screen saying "15 Months $2 Trillion...Gone From Your Pensions." Get it? That's Inhofe doing the kicking, and Oklahoma taking it. The ad's punch line: "Kick back, Oklahoma." It's far from clear in the ad, but the 2020 Action Fund is dedicated to opposing politicians who get in the way of climate change legislation. The number one target: Inhofe, who, as ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, has railed against global warming concerns and called the problem a "hoax." The 2020 Action Fund was incorporated this month by Brooke Coleman, whose other roles include founder of the Northeast Biofuels Collaborative, the New Fuels Alliance and the Renewable Energy Action Project. You get the picture. The group is a 501(c)(4) with a related 510(c)(3) called the 2020 Project. Another 2020 Project campaign is FoodPriceTruth.org, which gets financial support from the biofuels industry and defends ethanol against a "smear campaign." The 2020 Project was founded by Coleman, as well as Miles Cooley and William Kheel. Cooley is a California lawyer who is also on the board of the John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. Kheel is a media consultant who has worked for the organizations of a relative, famed labor lawyer Ted Kheel, as well as corporations like Motorola and Walt Disney. "We are concerned about the direction of the country," Coleman told us. The 2020 Action Fund wants to reduce the country's dependence on petroleum, but from a different angle than most environmentalists. Since climate change is "abstract" to most people and it's hard to wage political war on the issue, the group aims to target politicians on whatever issues they are vulnerable -- all in the unsaid name of renewable energy and a sustainable future. Check out the group's Web site on Inhofe and there's nary a mention of the environment. "You don't pay a real steep price for voting against renewable energy credits," Coleman says. "We want to be part of the price. We want to play in election time and we want to play when climate change [legislation] comes up in 2009. We're not going to do the people that we're targeting any favors." The group plans to monitor progress on climate change in 2009, draw up a list of the main "obstructionists" and target the top culprits for the 2010 eleciton cycle. For now, it's Inhofe. But the group doesn't have any illusions about defeating him. "We're not really in this to beat him," Coleman says. "We're in this to announce our presence." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Promoting an ethnic wedge issue

Will Evans — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:16:24 -0700

A Republican Latino group with ties to the Bush Administration is airing radio ads alleging that Obama puts African Americans before Latinos and Africa before Latin America. The 527 group, Latinos For Reform, is new this month and now it's running a Spanish-language ad in Pennsylvania and Colorado. The ad translates, in part, as:

Barack Obama a friend of the Latino community? The record demonstrates the opposite. Did you know that after the 2000 census that showed a tremendous growth of Latinos in Chicago, Obama told reporters in Chicago that while everyone agrees that the Hispanic population has grown, they cannot expand by taking power from the African-American community. You heard right...but there's more. Did you know that Obama has never hired a Latino to a senior position in his office throughout his legislative career? Did you know that Obama has opposed trade with Mexico, Central America and Colombia, yet supports free trade with Africa?

The chairman of Latinos For Reform is Robert Deposada, who has served in the leadership of the Hispanic Business Roundtable and The Latino Coalition, and was formerly director of Hispanic affairs for the Republican National Committee. In 2001, President Bush appointed Deposada to a commission to advance the administration's plan for privatizing Social Security. The treasurer of Latinos For Reform is high-powered Republican lobbyist Juan Carlos Benitez, whose firm brags that he "has exceptionally close ties to the White House." Benitez was a Pioneer -- he raised more than $100,000 for the 2004 re-election campaign -- and President Bush named him special counsel for immigration-related unfair employment practices. Benitez also raised between $50,000 and $100,000 this election cycle for McCain. In a press release, Deposada voiced frustration that McCain hasn't put enough effort into courting the Latino vote. "The lackluster and severely underfunded effort to promote Senator McCain among Latino voters needs an urgent bolt of new energy if the Arizona senator is to win the general election," he said. Apparently Latinos For Reform hopes to be that bolt. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

The cameraman always wins

Will Evans — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:12:54 -0700

Why do people assault cameramen? Don't they realize they have cameras? It's a continuing mystery, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce uses one angry-man-versus-cameraman confrontation to blast union-friendly legislation and the Democrats who support it. The new ad, airing in states like Minnesota and Oregon with key Senate races, shows footage of Kentucky AFL-CIO President Bill Londrigan with his hands all over someone's camera, threatening, "I'm going to take this camera and stick it somewhere where you don't want it." The ad is meant to suggest that workers could face this kind of treatment from "union bosses" -- if Senate Democrats can enact a bill that would let workers simply sign a petition to unionize a workplace, rather than hold a secret-ballot vote. Londrigan was reportedly not amused. The Chamber is in the midst of its biggest election-season effort yet, committing some $35 million to help pro-business candidates in House and Senate races. A big part of the campaign focuses on opposing that pro-union bill, called the Employee Free Choice Act. (It's awkward to oppose "free choice," so one business group re-names it the "Employee FORCED Choice Act," helpfully retaining the orginial acronym.) A top issue on Election Day? Hardly. It doesn't even make this list in those "top issues for voters" polls. But it's a huge issue to the business community, which is busy trying to sell it as something voters need to care about. We've had the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace pound away against the legislation. And the business-backed Employee Freedom Action Committee has raised $20 million and is spending it on TV ads. (Here's the action committee's latest.) Americans for Job Security also got into the act with new ads targetting the Act. All of groups are using the issue against Democratic candidates in hot Senate races. Meanwhile -- perhaps ironically? -- the AFL-CIO just launched a multi-state radio campaign "urging citizens to vote and telling them how to be prepared to protect their vote on Election Day." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

From 'oops' to on-air in five days

Will Evans — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:51:52 -0700

How long does it take to go from gaffe to attack ad? Five days, based on our most recent example. You'll recall that on Sunday, Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden said, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy...Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." Biden is famous for flubs, and this seems to be his biggest during the general election. Or as the New York Post put it, "JOE D'OH PUTS O IN 'CRISIS' MODE." So that was Sunday. Already McCain, Palin and conservatives have rubbed it in Obama's face. And now, Let Freedom Ring has launched an ad in battleground states with the audio of Biden's remark. It starts running tomorrow and will eventually be up in Nevada, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania and the pricey Virginia-Washington D.C. market. The ad also features Reagan appointee Frank Gaffney arguing, on something of a tangent, that "weakness invites aggression." It's guaranteed that Biden didn't look as happy as he does in the ad when he realized the impact of his gaffe. But let's not put all the blame on Biden. One of Obama's most memorable "oops" moments -- in a remarkably similar setting -- was when he told a group of supporters at a San Francisco fundraiser last winter that some small town voters "cling to guns or religion" because they are "bitter." Let Freedom Ring lets Obama relive that moment over and over, with an ad (below) featuring some bitter, small town Pennsylvania voters. Guess what? They're all voting for John McCain. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Electioneering by hypnosis in Oregon

Will Evans — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:47:01 -0700

The Democrats have figured it out. The key to defeating Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) is hypnosis. How else to explain these similarly transfixing anti-Smith ads from two liberal groups? The Service Employees International Union offers a spinning kaleidoscope of money, symbolizing the "deep dark hole" of the economy. Add ominous music, show Smith's face; then bring back the kaleidoscope, cue the feel-good chords and show Smith's competition, Democrat Jeff Merkley. In Youtube format, you can watch again and again! If that didn't work, try this: 30 seconds of water spiraling down the drain, countesy of Patriot Majority, a union-funded 527 trying to defeat Smith because he's "draining the middle class." Then the words on the screen dissolve into water and spiral down too....woah. For the full effect, we suggest playing both ads at the same time. A new ad from the League of Conservation Voters seeks to attach Demcratic candidate Merkley firmly to Obama's coattails. After all, Merkley's like a back-up musician to Obama the rock star, or support staff to Obama the head chef, or a teammate to Obama the point guard. Hey -- they're LCV's metaphors, not ours. Desperate for an anti-Merkley ad? Americans for Job Security has your back. The group's ad says Merkley's solution for economic crisis is big government spending and the elimination of logging jobs. Plus, Oregon is lost in some kind of time warp: the facts cited in the ad toggle back and forth between 2003 and 2007-08. Personally, we think the ad would be more effective if everything were spinning. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Sure, the economy is important, but...

Will Evans — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:43:44 -0700

Abortion, religion and judges -- oh my! Move over, economy, the culture wars continue. The Judicial Confirmation Network's most recent ad says it best: "Fixing the economy is crucial, but..." But? Yes, but what? "But America's principles and Constitution are threatened by one more liberal activist vote on the Supreme Court." The $250,000 ad buy goes out to Pennsylvania, Ohio and northern West Virginia. On the other side of the spectrum, Winning Message Action Fund bashes McCain-Palin for wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade. The action fund recently sprang forth from NARAL Pro-Choice New York. The dramatic ad shows women lining up for mug shots, some cringing with the flash of a camera, going to jail because they had abortions after the practice was made illegal. (Generally, it should be noted, anti-abortion legislation mandates prosecution for the doctors, not the women.) The ad airs in Wisconsin and Ohio. How often does one of these independent groups ask what effect its ads have on you? The Matthew 25 Network does that on its Web site, where you can find its latest radio ad "to share with Christians the faith that is the source of Obama's hope." The Web site says, "If this ad has blessed you, please donate here to help us keep it on the air." The ad is mostly audio clips from an Obama speech about his faith -- in fact, the same speech that other groups carefully edited in order to attack the Democrat. You don't have to give us any money, but let us know -- are you feeling blessed by any political ads these days? This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Alan Keyes' revenge

Will Evans — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:40:17 -0700

Think of it as a rematch. In 2004, Alan Keyes -- the Christian conservative activist and perennial long-shot candidate -- lost the Illinois Senate race by a landslide to a state senator named Barack Obama. Now, as Obama runs for president, Keyes is the presidential nominee of America's Independent Party (which sees John McCain as too liberal and the Keyes campaign as an "extension" of the 2004 race against Obama.) Obama certainly doesn't face much of a challenge from Keyes' candidacy, but separately two former top Keyes campaign officials are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars through a Keyes-founded political action committee to defeat Obama. The Life and Liberty PAC, an anti-abortion organization, has spent nearly $700,000 since February on phone calls, direct mail and canvassing against Obama. The group's chair is Mary Parker Lewis, who served as Keyes' chief of staff for his presidential runs in 1996 and 2000, and his treasurer in the 2004 race against Obama. Life and Liberty's chief financial officer is Bill Constantine, who was treasurer for Keyes' 2000 run and is listed as assistant treasurer for the 2004 race. Constantine said that though Keyes founded the PAC, he isn't currently involved. "The issues haven't changed," Constantine told us. "The reasons Barack Obama was bad for Illinois are the same reasons he's bad for America." Life and Liberty PAC is just one component in a cluster of groups linked to Keyes. Keyes, Lewis and Constantine also head up the Keyes-founded Declaration Foundation and affiliated Declaration Alliance, which has spent millions on the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a project that includes patroling the border for illegal immigrants. The constellation of organizations include several political action committees that are blasting out direct mail pieces against Obama. The Declaration Alliance Minuteman Civil Defense Corps PAC, for which Lewis is treasurer and Constantine is listed as a contact, spent $72,000 in the last two months criticizing Obama. Constantine says the committee "has really gained more speed since Sarah Palin joined the McCain campaign." Before Palin, he said, there wasn't any "distinct difference" between the candidates on immigration. The group's mail is done by the Richard Norman Company, a popular direct-mail contractor among Republicans, which did work for Keyes' 2004 campaign as well as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The more simply named Declaration Alliance PAC also reported spending $15,000 against Obama. Another related committee, the Minuteman PAC, spent $95,000 in opposition to Obama since September. Yet another Keyes effort, RenewAmerica, has sent out recent newsletters calling Obama's campaign "Stalinist" and tying him to a "communist terrorist," aka the prime minister of Kenya. Back when Keyes was fighting Obama for the Senate seat, he would send out attack points called "The Daily Obamanation." Obamanation was defined as "the act of saying something to a target audience with the sole purpose of currying favor, while in fact having acted in direct opposition to the expressed idea." One of the pieces accused Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners. Sound familiar? Another called him "The Criminals' Best Friend." Yet another said Obama supported infanticide. For Keyes' former aides, there should be plenty of material to recycle for the 2008 election. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

A tour of Senate ads

Will Evans — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:30:28 -0700

Our business here is to monitor indie political groups and their ads, and business has been good. Advocacy groups haven't run out of money. The bad news? They've run out of ideas. Two new North Carolina ads follow story lines we've heard over and over before (not that that's a bad way to influence voters -- it just makes the blog more boring). Here's one from Freedom's Watch, blaming Democratic Senate candidate Kay Hagan for jacking up taxes. Our takeaway: She wants to tax candy?! Next, Americans for Job Security denounces unions that want to take away secret ballots in union elections. "Hagan's on their side, not ours," the ad says, as an armored truck speeds out of Washington, presumably delivering union cash to Hagan. Watch the ad here. There's a virtually identical ad targeting the Democrat Ronnie Musgrove in a Mississippi Senate race. Moving along to New Hampshire... Labor unions (those bad guys from the last ad) are piling on to Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) by, predictably, tying him to President Bush. The distinguishing factor? The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees uses a rope metaphor (we're at the "end of our rope") and the Service Employees International Union uses a country-store cash register gimmick. We don't have the AFSCME ad in blogable format, so you'll have to trust us. Here's the SEIU ad: Now follow us to Minnesota for a breath of fresh ideas... Here's a theme we haven't seen before in the battle between Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken: guns! The National Rifle Association features a host of people concerned or angry at what they think Franken would do to their gun rights. They even get in a subtle jab at Obama: "I don't want 'change' when it comes to my Second Amendment rights." Moving back down toward Georgia, we stop over in Kentucky. Campaign Money Watch has a confusing ad faulting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for allegedly using his considerable "clout" against the public's interest. It's confusing because after blaming McConnell for blocking lower prescription drug prices and supporting the privatization of Social Security, the ad ends by asking us to "tell him to stop opposing Fair Elections Now Act." Say what? It's less confusing if you know that Campaign Money Watch is part of a group that advocates for public financing of elections, and the Fair Elections Now Act would do that. Is this ad an admission of the obvious, that people care more about pocketbook issues than public financing? And finally, Georgia. In a sign that the Senate race is tightening, Freedom's Watch comes to the rescue of GOP incumbent Saxby Chambliss with an ad (below) boosting him for fighting to lower taxes. Freedom's Watch isn't really known for mushy thank-you ads (see North Carolina above) but then again, NPR political editor Ken Rudin still says the race "leans Republican." If it gets closer, then Georgians will likely get more negative ads. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Teachers come around to Obama

Will Evans — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:11:56 -0700

John McCain is "more of the same" and "not really in touch," while Barack Obama "gets it." That's the message for eight battleground states, in a $2 million radio ad campaign by the American Federation of Teachers. It wasn't always such a love affair between the teachers union and Obama. During the presidential primaries, AFT gave $400,000 to the American Leadership Project, which ran ads backing Hillary Clinton and attacking Obama. That 527 also switched to a new target: McCain. The AFT ads are running until the election in Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. They are tailored to each state by featuring the voices of local teachers and school staff saying -- sometimes showing off their regional accents -- why they think Obama is the best choice. In the New Mexico ad, someone shouts in Spanish, "Adelante Obama!" The voices attest to "tough times" and people "struggling." The voiceover at the end says some version of "Barack Obama will make education a priority, jumpstart our economy and put middle class families first again." You can listen to one or all of them here. The AFT represents 1.4 million people and is headed by Randi Weingarten, who is on the executive council of the AFL-CIO and on the Democratic National Committee. The union also helps fund American Rights At Work, which has run ads targeting Republicans in Senate races this year. The other teachers' union, the National Education Association, stayed neutral in the primary contest between Obama and Clinton, but endorsed Obama for president as soon as the primaries ended. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Citizen Tim takes on Obama himself

Will Evans — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:08:32 -0700

The one form of political advertising that's completely unregulated and free is the speech of an individual citizen, even when money amplifies that speech by putting it on the airwaves. Tim D'Annunzio, who describes himself as a "concerned North Carolina businessman," is doing just that. The former defense contractor has produced four several hard-hitting ads against Obama with now-familiar themes: Taxes, Abortion, Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. The only ad we know is running on TV (below) hits Obama on taxes. In it, D'Annunzio says he was living below the poverty line a decade ago, but built his company, Paraclete Armor & Equipment, into a workforce of hundreds. He says Obama's "promised tax increases will devastate people like me, by taking more than half of my business profits. This will force me to cut jobs and increase prices." A former Army parachute jumper, D'Annunzio founded Paraclete to make body armor for the military and law enforcement. It provides equipment for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and makes millions from defense contracts. The company received more than $26 million in federal contracts since 2001, mostly from the Air Force, according to the government database USASpending.gov. About $2.6 million of the contracts were awarded without competition. In addition, in 2006 the company recevied a $3.5 million loan from the Agriculture Department's Rural Business-Cooperative Service. In 2005, it received a $293,000 loan from the Small Business Administration. Paraclete gave $2,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. A larger, public company, MSA (Mine Safety Appliances Co.), bought Paraclete for $30 million in 2006. (When D'Annunzio says he would have to lay off workers under Obama's tax plan, it's not clear what company he's talking about. We were unable to contact him.) D'Annunzio's other ads are on his Web site. In one, he criticizes Obama's "ultra-liberal stand on abortion" and says, "As a Christian, I cannot vote for Barack Obama." Another focuses on former Weatherman radical Bill Ayers; D'Annunzio says, "I cannot vote for Barack Obama because of his association with terrorists." Yet another skewers Obama for his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and shows Obama without his hand over his heart during the national anthem. "We can't afford a president that uses racially charged comments to divide us," D'Annunzio says. North Carolina has somehow become a home base for Obama-bashing independent operators. If you have any insights into why this is, we'd love to hear them. Besides D'Annunzio, the state is home to the Committee for Truth in Politics and RightChange.com, two of the biggest-spending conservative groups on the air. We'll see soon enough how much money D'Annunzio is willing to commit. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Bringing common sense to the Dakotas

Will Evans — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:50:18 -0700

Give 'em props for originality. Common Sense Issues recently launched a radio ad attacking South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, a Democrat likely to win a race that's been basically ignored by other outside groups and the Beltway crowd. Common Sense Issues also popped up in August in a nearby but even more unlikely place: North Dakota. That radio ad ridiculed Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), even though he isn't up for re-election till 2012. At least Johnson has a race, of sorts -- NPR political editor Ken Rudin rates it "Strong Democratic." Perhaps Common Sense Issues landed in South Dakota because its executive director, Patrick Davis, used to be executive director of the state Republican Party. The new radio ad assails Johnson -- in a humorous way -- for voting against tighter regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while collecting campaign contributions from the mortgage companies. It suggests that listeners "tell Tim Johnson to stop taking money from Washington lobbyists." Common Sense Issues is best known for its "Trust Huckabee" campaign during the Republican presidential primaries. The group received $50,000 in February from Don Carter, who was the founding owner of the Dallas Mavericks. A predecessor organization, Common Sense Ohio, created quite a ruckus in 2006. That operation -- which shares some leadership with Common Sense Issues -- ran radio ads and controversial robocalls supporting GOP candidates in that year's hot Senate races. It was bankrolled by Ohio investor and steadfast Republican donor Carl Lindner and Massachusetts anti-abortion, pro-abstinence advocate Raymond Ruddy. This year, Lindner gave $400,000 to Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future, while Ruddy is the main financier for Born Alive Truth, which is running anti-Obama ads. And Common Sense is relegated to the Dakotas. Times have changed. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

The scoreboard

Will Evans — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:00:00 -0700

Barack Obama clearly has the financial advantage over John McCain when it comes to hard campaign funds. But in the less transparent world of independent groups, conservative organizations have been spending about 75 percent more money on TV time for anti-Obama attack ads than liberal groups have spent to defeat McCain. According to our analysis of the latest numbers from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, conservative groups like Vets for Freedom and American Issues Project have spent about $9,427,000 on TV airtime, while liberal groups like labor unions and MoveOn.org spent $5,351,000 since the beginning of July. That's chump change compared to the candidates' ad buys, but sometimes an outside attack can do what the candidate can't, or won't. For instance, we count four different groups that have run ads linking Obama to former radical Bill Ayers, even when the McCain campaign itself wasn't making that argument. To be sure, this isn't the full picture. Advocacy groups are spending many millions more on radio ads, direct mail, phone calls and canvassing -- and none of that shows up in these numbers. Plus, a group like Brave New PAC spent very little on TV time, but generated a lot of attention for its online anti-McCain videos. One other caveat: CMAG numbers are just estimates, and the ad-tracking service doesn't pick up the National Rifle Association's ads, and others, on local cable stations. To make the calculation, we excluded ad buys that clearly meant to advance a partisan agenda but didn't refer to a presidential candidate, like those from the liberal Health Care for America Now and the conservative Employee Freedom Action Committee. We even took out an American Issues Project ad attacking Senate Democrats because it didn't mention Obama. If you add those in, conservatives have outspent liberals nearly two to one since July. Why July? That's the first month after the primaries ended. Here's the breakdown. Liberal Groups Service Employees International Union = $1,999,602 United Auto Workers = $1,104,206 MoveOn.org = $1,008,080 Planned Parenthood = $330,066 VoteVets = $196,320 Defenders of Wildlife = $156,575 Bring Ohio Back = $127,436 AFL-CIO = $123,274 AFSCME = $82,263 PowerPac = $79,880 United Food & Commercial Workers = $70,841 California Nurses Association = $60,316 Matthew 25 Network = $8,858 Brave New PAC = $3,293 TOTAL = $5,351,010 Conservative Groups Vets for Freedom = $3,906,472 American Issues Project = $1,867,872 RightChange.com = $1,475,581 Committee for Truth in Politics = $1,056,309 Let Freedom Ring = $652,424 Judicial Confirmation Network = $194,283 Born Alive Truth = $165,948 Citizens United = $54,439 Our Country Deserves Better = $28,711 National Republican Trust = $25,162 TOTAL = $9,427,201 There's less than two weeks to go. The liberals could pull ahead -- or the conservatives could pull away. All coming to a TV screen near you. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Choose your weapon

Will Evans — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:00:00 -0700

It's the hunters and the hunted. MoveOn.org uses a wall-mounted moose head in a new TV ad against the McCain-Palin ticket; Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund blames dead polar bears on Sarah Palin; and the National Rifle Association says Obama won't let you defend yourself against criminals. MoveOn's animated talking moose head tells us, "You really gotta question John McCain's judgment pickin' Sarah Palin as his VP." After making some cracks about Palin's national security experience -- or, as the moose would say, her lack thereof -- the hunter's trophy says, "She may be a little 'trigger-happy' -- I should know." The ad will will run in cities Palin visits over the next two weeks. Defenders of Wildlife takes the whole animal-killing thing a bit more seriously, after the jump... The ad faults Palin for blocking efforts to protect the endangered polar bear, showing one bear's bloody carcass and another made into a rug. With a nod to Dick Cheney's hunting habits, the ad concludes, "Do we really want another vice president with these values?" The initial ad buy targets women in Northern Virginia. In the National Rifle Association's new ad (below), the hunted are people, and weapons are protection. Recreating a violent home invasion, the ad says, "Imagine your child screaming in the middle of the night when a convicted felon breaks into your home...You use a firearm to defend yourself and your family. Unbelievably, Barack Obama voted to make you the criminal." Commercials have gotten pretty heavy these days. Except for that talking moose.

Parent of company that sold 'defective' armor pushing for more contracts

G.W. Schulz — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:09:17 -0700

In mid-September, two-dozen law enforcement groups, mostly from the San Francisco Bay Area, gathered for an annual event that organizers billed as the single largest homeland security training exercise of its kind in the United States. The meeting, known as Urban Shield, was held in Dublin, Calif., 20 miles southeast of Oakland, and featured tactical teams dressed in SWAT helmets and boots participating in real-world scenarios as a test of their ability to handle a hostage crisis, prison riot, aircraft takeover and other emergency situations. Drills included the use of a full-size FedEx jetliner, an Amtrak train and a Navy ship. Local volunteers lent a realistic feel by acting as victims and hostages. Manufacturers specializing in police equipment paid for "platinum" and "silver" sponsorship titles in exchange for the right to display their corporate logos and schmooze with potential clients—Taser, firearms-maker Sig Sauer, the private security and logistics firm Blackwater Worldwide and various distributors of safety and first-response equipment. On Urban Shield's website, Greg Ahern, sheriff of the East Bay county of Alameda, singled out one supporter in particular for a "generous contribution" the company made that led it to being designated Urban Shield's chief sponsor: British defense giant BAE Systems. But BAE's presence at Urban Shield 2008 isn't what landed it in the news recently. Two weeks after the event, the U.S. Justice Department announced that a BAE subsidiary known as Armor Holdings Products agreed to a $30 million settlement over claims that it knowingly manufactured and sold defective bullet-proof vests. "This settlement will help ensure that first responders receive the highest quality ballistic protection," Gregory Katsas, as assistant attorney general, said in a statement when the settlement was announced Oct. 7. A BAE spokeswoman did not return a call from CIR seeking comment, but the company in press accounts has denied wrongdoing and asserted that it settled the case merely to avoid costly litigation. Justice officials had alleged that Armor Holdings was aware the vests contained so-called Zylon materials that "quickly degraded over time and were not suitable for ballistic use." The federal government purchased vests from Armor Holdings in addition to reimbursing state and local law-enforcement agencies for them through a Justice Department grant program. A component of the vests that contained Zylon was produced by two other companies, which then supplied it to Armor Holdings. Those providers, Fortune 500 company Honeywell and the Japanese firm Toyobo, were sued by the Justice Department this year and last year respectively. The cases are ongoing. Justice officials also sued three additional companies linked to the Zylon body-armor industry in cases that netted more than $16 million in settlements. As part of the latest settlement, which was arranged without a lawsuit being filed, Armor Holdings agreed to cooperate in a multi-agency probe of the vests that today involves participation from 11 federal offices including criminal investigators from the Army and Air Force, the FBI, Defense Department auditors and the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General. The Zylon case joins another encounter BAE had with the Justice Department last year. Since June of 2007, officials there have been investigating whether payments made to members of the Saudi royal family amid the multibillion-dollar sale of fighter jets amounted to illegal bribery. Armor Holdings stopped selling vests containing Zylon in 2005 before BAE bought the company for $4.5 billion two years later. But the British newspaper Financial Times reported Oct. 8 that the settlement "could result in embarrassment for the UK company, which has made Armor's acquisition a central plank of its drive to establish itself in the US defense sector." Al jazeera on Britian’s probe of BAE and the Saudis In 2006, before the United States awarded it a major vehicle purchase, BAE Systems was the tenth largest company doing business with the federal government, earning $4.5 billion in contracts during that year alone, according to the Project on Government Oversight. The Armor Holdings settlement pales next to the subsidiary's $2.3 billion in 2006 sales, let alone the impact on parent BAE, which that same year earned $24 billion in revenues. In fact, it was another division of Armor Holdings that beefed up BAE's U.S. defense portfolio. Armor Holdings was already a major player in manufacturing newer model Mine Resistant Ambush Protected [MRAP] vehicles—heavily armored four-and-six wheelers jacked high off the ground with enormous tires. The acquisition by BAE occurred just as the Defense Department, battered by a ceaseless stream of roadside bombs and ambushes in Iraq and Afghanistan, greatly expanded its demand for them. The new partners thus were recently awarded $2.2 billion by the Army and Marine Corps to build 3,500 of the vehicles, according to BAE corporate filings. "Politically, the US is now starting the run-up to the next presidential election in November 2008," the company told investors in its last annual report released in late March of this year. "Both parties remain supportive of national security and consequently, whatever the outcome, support for defense spending is expected to remain robust." BAE's sponsorship of Urban Shield makes clear that the company is particularly eager to forge greater relationships with law enforcement and homeland security professionals in the United States as Congress continues to make preparing local police for national security threats a major spending priority. Lawmakers this fiscal year appropriated $2 billion more for homeland security and emergency preparedness grants to local governments than President Bush originally requested in his budget. "My understanding is that they're interested in getting into the field of homeland security," Ahern, the Urban Shield coordinator and sheriff of Alameda County, said of BAE in a CIR interview. "Because Urban Shield is a tactical exercise, they wanted to be a part of it." Indeed, BAE recently boasted in a press release that it supplied police in Denver and St. Paul with equipment and training used to quell disturbances by political demonstrators at the Democratic and Republican national conventions. The gear included riot-control suits, flex-cuff restraints, "hard-knuckle gloves," gas masks, helmets and utility belts. The two cities had received $50 million each in special grants from the Justice Department to cover security preparations. "We take pride in helping ensure that the American men and women who work to protect our citizens and communities are properly equipped and efficiently trained for crowd control situations," BAE division president Scott O'Brien said in the statement. In September, the company made another major announcement that it had purchased for $986 million the British intelligence consultancy Detica, which specializes in analyzing large volumes of data, also known as data mining, for anti-terrorism and homeland security purposes. BAE specifically wants to utilize Detica's capabilities in the United States, a press release stated. As for Sheriff Ahern and Urban Shield, he said the event gives law enforcement professionals a chance to field-test equipment being offered by manufacturers so they can decide for themselves how reliable it is. Ahern is still negotiating with BAE over how much the company will pay for its sponsorship of the event. He said it could range in value from $25,000 to $100,000. He also said BAE offers more than just bullet-proof vests. "BAE is a very reputable company and they have tactical equipment that they believe is very good for law enforcement."

The riskier of two risks

Will Evans — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:57:58 -0700

It's starting to feel like the presidential election has come down to this: Which candidate is riskier? The McCain campaign calls Barack Obama "too risky for America," and that phrase is being echoed by independent groups like the National Republican Trust. But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees calls John McCain "risky on Social Security." And here comes the AFL-CIO with this pronouncement: "John McCain's Plan Puts Retirees at Risk." That's from a mailer sent to 500,000 retirees in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Indiana, Minnesota, North Carolina and Florida. It labels McCain as a "disaster" for retirees; not too long ago, another AFL-CIO mailer dubbed him a "disaster" for the middle class. Click on the image to view the latest mailing: The labor federation's ranks are also continuing phone calls and personal visits to undecided voters. They're clearly not taking any risks. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Jewish Republicans like Hillary?

Will Evans — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:51:50 -0700

If Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary, the Republican Jewish Coalition might be quoting Barack Obama. But, as fate would have it, Obama won -- so the RJC says "Hillary is right." The Republican group has launched a TV ad calling Obama's foreign policy "naive" because he said "I would" when asked if he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. The ad quotes Clinton -- this was back when she and Obama were in the thick of a brutal primary brawl -- saying of Obama, "That was irresponsible and frankly naive." (The question came up at a CNN debate, and stipulated that talks were part of an evolving peace initiative.) Clinton has moved on, of course. She's campaigning for Obama in Florida -- one of the states where the ad is airing. The million-dollar-plus buy will put the ad in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada as well. The TV ad is a first for the Republican Jewish Coalition in this cycle. It's already produced a series of print advertisements attacking Obama in Jewish newspapers, often with the slogan, "Concerned about Barack Obama? You should be." It's a fierce fight for the presidency among Jewish advocacy organizations. The National Jewish Democratic Council has run its own pro-Obama and anti-McCain ads in newspapers. And when the Jewish Council for Education and Research enlisted comedian Sarah Silverman in calling for a "Great Schlep" to help Obama, the Republican Jewish Coalition fired back with a retort by comedian Jackie Mason, who calls Silverman a "yenta," or meddlesome blabbermouth. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Clinton activist still trying to bring down Obama

Will Evans — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:32:02 -0700

Some grudges never die. Even as Hillary Clinton stumps for former rival Barack Obama, some Clinton supporters are still toiling to bring him down. Clinton activist Heidi Li Feldman and her political action committee, The Denver Group, have turned a small amount of contributions into a few amateurish TV ads that have run in such battleground states as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Feldman, a law professor at Georgetown University, says she served as a volunteer legal consultant to Clinton's presidential campaign. The ads, run under the banner "Democrats for Principle before Party," include this one which brings up Obama's former pastor, the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. "A candidate who says he has the judgement to be president from Day One waited until Day 2,411 to cut his ties with someone who said America got what it deserved on 9/11." Then, in a line sure to push the buttons of Democrats old enough to remember, the ad brings up side-by-side pictures of Obama and the late President Richard Nixon, and poses the question liberals used to raise about Nixon: "Would you buy a used car from this man?" The Denver Group doesn't have much money, so the ads won't air widely. The group has raised about $68,374 since forming in June and its big goal now is $15,000 by Election Day, an incredibly small amount by general election standards. Another ad in the Obama-Nixon series says Obama won the Democratic nomination "as a result of a rigged roll-call vote." Never mind that it was Hillary Clinton herself who called off the roll-call vote to nominate Obama by acclamation at the convention. A third ad (below) faults Obama for the costly decision to hold his nomination speech in a football stadium instead of the convention hall in Denver. The chronology is a little problematic: the ad implies that Obama made that decision while Lehman Brothers was collapsing, when actually the investment bank didn't fall until weeks after the speech. With a nifty pun, the ad accuses Obama of turning the economy into "a political football." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Unions out to scare seniors; NRA to scare gun owners

Will Evans — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Unions are working overtime to put Barack Obama over the top in battleground states. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is airing a TV ad accusing John McCain of being "Risky on Social Security." The ad says McCain wants to privatize Social Security, subjecting it to stock-market volatility. One senior says, "We earned that money, now he wants to give it to Wall Street. No way." Obama's been using this same argument, and Factcheck.org calls it a whopper. According to Factcheck, the plan McCain supports wouldn't affect current retirees, since no one born before 1950 would be allowed to put Social Security taxes in private accounts. AFSCME, however, contends that the plan would hurt the entire Social Security system and so would affect all seniors. This is AFSCME's first return to TV since the Democratic primaries, when it supported Hillary Clinton against Obama. The ad will run in Wisconsin until close to Election Day, with more than $1 million worth of air time, according to the union. On another front in the issues war, the AFL-CIO, which includes AFSCME, this week dropped a mailer featuring a union member who says Obama will "protect my gun rights." The mailer went to 80,000 gun-loyal swing voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Click on the image to read the mailer: The union mailer is evidently trying to counteract the National Rifle Assocation's message that Obama wants to take away gun rights. One of the ads says Obama "wants you to believe that he supports your Second Amendment rights, though he's consistently opposed them." It expands the attack on the Democrat by accusing him of "attacking the First Amendment too," because his campaign lawyers sent letters to stations warning them not to air the NRA's ads. The takeaway? "Don't let Barack Obama trample your constitutional rights." Another NRA ad (below) dredges up Obama's controversial comments from last winter, that some working-class voters "cling to guns or religion" because they are "bitter." The ad says, "Gun owners have their own word for Barack Obama." The word: "Radical." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

PAC puts Obama and 9/11 together

Will Evans — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Tying Obama's policies to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a new political action committee is airing a TV ad in Ohio that calls the Democrat "too radical" and "too risky." (Update 10/18: National Republican Trust PAC just sent out another fundraising email with the subject line "Obama Lies Smashed by Neutron Bomb in Ohio." The "neutron bomb" refers to the PAC's TV ad.) The language of the National Republican Trust's ad echoes attacks used by the McCain campaign. The ad focuses on Obama's support for allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses, an issue that came up in the Democratic primaries. "The 9/11 plot depended on easy-to-get licenses. Obama's plan gives a license to any illegal who wants one," says the voiceover, behind images of 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta's drivers license, the smoking twin towers, and then Obama's face where Atta's used to be. The PAC's treasurer, Peter Leitner, says the ad is running in Ohio. The PAC was formed last month by a former Defense Department strategist, a freelance journalist and a lawyer who have tried to prove a link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks. The National Republican Trust's executive director is Scott Wheeler, who has written for the conservative Cybercast News Service and Insight magazine, published by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. His articles include "Iraq-al-Qaida link revealed," "'Dirty-bomb' plot underway in U.S.?" and "Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties." In his 2003 "Iraq-al-Qaida" piece, Wheeler wrote, "Senior investigators and analysts in the U.S. government have concluded that Iraq acted as a state sponsor of terrorism against Americans and logistically supported the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States." President Bush and numerous government reports now say there was no link between Iraq and the 2001 strikes. One of Wheeler's sources for the story was Leitner, who recently retired as a senior strategic trade advisor to the Secretary of Defense. Leitner and the PAC's assistant treasurer, attorney Joshua Ambush, spearheaded efforts to sue Iraq and Saddam Hussein on behalf of the family of top FBI official John O'Neill, who was killed on Sept. 11. Leitner was also a government whistleblower during the Clinton Administration, charging that senior officials ignored warnings about the transfer of technology with military uses to China. Wheeler made a documentary, featuring Leitner, called "Trading With the Enemy: How the Clinton Administration Armed China." Now, Leitner tells us, his security concerns center on Obama. Echoing a persistent rumor on the fringes of anti-Obama sentiment, Leitner says it's not clear that Obama is "even eligible to run for the presidency" because "no one's ever seen his birth certificate." Nonpartisan fact-checkers at Factcheck.org and Politifact.com dispute that theory. "Who is he?" says Leitner. "Almost everything about his background has been locked up in secrecy." Leitner's group has spent about $140,000 blasting out fundraising emails through the conservative news site Newsmax.com, with one email saying that the PAC "is moving to implement a 'shock and awe' strategy against Obama in key states." The email continued, "We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama." Election filings show the PAC also paid $3,000 to the Web site of Clinton-adviser-turned-conservative-pundit Dick Morris for "Email Communication," three days before Morris endorsed the group in a Newsmax email blast. Newsmax, incidentally, featured the group on its front page on Friday. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

ACORN's money tree has many branches

Will Evans — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:36:12 -0700

Conservatives are on the march against the community organization ACORN, accusing its massive voter registration effort of fraud and faulting Obama for having any connections to the group. As we reported this morning, ACORN doesn't necessarily mind the attention. But what exactly is ACORN? Actually, it's many, many things. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now has dozens of affiliated entities, from a home-buying assistance corporation to community radio stations to liberal research and training institutes. The giant web of ACORN organizations, primarily based in Louisiana, has been funded by a mix of labor union money, government grants (which really drive conservatives crazy) and charitable contributions from large foundations. See below for a breakdown of funding sources. Plus, Project Vote -- the voter mobilization organization that works closely with and draws its leadership from ACORN -- paid ACORN and an affiliate $5.4 million in 2006. But where does Project Vote get its money? Normally it's hard to tell, but we obtained a 2006 tax return showing the nonprofit's funders, including: $4.5 million from the charitable trust of the investment management firm Vanguard; $425,000 from the Bauman Family Foundation, which also gives to the People for the American Way; and $396,000 from the liberal phone company Working Assets. Union Money ACORN's biggest union backer, the Service Employees International Union, gave more than $4 million to the community organization and its affiliates from 2006-07, according to Dept. of Labor filings. One SEIU local union, the Illinois Homecare Workers and Home Childcare Providers, sprouted from ACORN's organizing efforts and pays rent to ACORN. ACORN's affiliates also pick up money from the Change to Win labor federation, the Food and Commercial Workers Union and the United Federation of Teachers, among others. Government Grants Much to the dismay of conservatives, the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave ACORN Housing Corp. $8.2 million from 2003 to 2006, according to USAspending.gov. ACORN Housing provides counseling, classes, and access to special loans to low-income homebuyers. HUD has given another $1.6 million to other ACORN affiliates since 2003. The Environmental Protection Agency also chipped in, with $100,000 for ACORN's Louisiana Environmental Justice Project in 2004, for a program to rid homes of lead. The Republican National Committee wants a federal probe of ACORN. But the Justice Department has liked ACORN enough to give a New York ACORN affiliate $138,000 in 2005, for a juvenile delinquency prevention program. Foundations The foundations that give to ACORN & Co. vary widely. There are some classically liberal ones: The Bauman Family Foundation gave $350,000 to ACORN's American Institute for Social Justice. George Soros' Open Society Institute gave $300,000 to that institute and $250,000 to ACORN proper. The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation gave the institute $1.8 million. But some of the biggest donors are mainstream foundations of big corporations, according to data from the Foundation Center. The JPMorgan Chase Foundation gave $2.4 million to ACORN Housing and the Bank of America Charitable Foundation gave $1.4 million. Citigroup's foundation gave $1.5 million to the social justice institute. Other major donors include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gave $1.4 million for an education reform campaign. The Ford Foundation has given $1.3 million, including $257,000 this year for "public education and technical assistance to grassroots groups working to expand access to the Earned Income Tax Credit, living wage ordinances and paid sick days." Foundations affiliated with the late founder of the United Parcel Service gave a combined $6.4 million. Individuals The 527 organization Fund for America was set up last year by top liberal donors and operatives to help fund pro-Democratic organizations this election season, but it ended up folding. The Fund, itself bankrolled by George Soros and others, gave $200,000 to ACORN. ACORN has also had its own affiliated 527s. Communities Voting Together, for example, was founded to "educate and mobilize low income voters in key communities in key battleground states in the run-up to the 2004 presidential elections, focusing on Latino and African-American neighborhoods." The group received $125,000 from film producer Jeanne Levy-Hinte; $100,000 from environmentalist donor John R. Hunting, whose wealth comes from the Steelcase office furniture company; $80,000 from the president of Working Assets, and $70,000 from Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt fortune. There's a lot more to ACORN's financial picture that we can't complete here. ACORN's network is complex, and money often transfers from one affiliate to another, making it hard for outsiders to keep track of it all. But one thing is for sure: ACORN is busy.

PACs to the rescue In Michigan

Will Evans — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:23:33 -0700

John McCain pulled his staff out of Michigan, but his backers aren't ready to give up. Two conservative political action committees are gearing up to sprinkle the state with anti-Obama and pro-McCain-Palin ads. "We've stepped in to fill the void of the McCain campaign's forced retreat in Michigan, and we're going to put the state's 17 Electoral Votes back in play with our plan to spend over $500,000 in the Great Lake State," reads a recent fundraising plea by Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which was formed this year to defeat Obama. Meanwhile, the Republican Majority Campaign recently sent out emails to supporters saying, "MICHIGAN NEEDS YOUR HELP! It is up to the rest of us to keep Mr. Obama from a free win in Michigan!" Our Country Deserves Better promises to run a slew of different ads in Michigan. One recycles a favorite Republican theme: Obama's connections to notorious people. The ad stars former Weatherman radical Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who is headed to jail. "Sorry, Sen. Obama," the ad says. "But if this is the kind of change you want for America, then you can keep the change." Another ad features the PAC's chairman, former California state assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, telling voters, "Obama says our children must learn Spanish, so they can communicate with illegal aliens." Other ads that will run in Michigan include one that ties Obama to what it calls the "failed administration" of Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) and one that says Obama will raise taxes. And finally, the group produced a soaring tribute to Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, heralding her as a "fighter for America" who's not "intimidated by the liberal media." Our Country Deserves Better is also running ads in Nevada and Colorado this week, but Michigan will be the top priority, said PAC coordinator Joe Wierzbicki. Wierzbicki works for the Sacramento-based Republican consulting firm of Sal Russo, who serves as the PAC's chief strategist. (And if you're keeping score of who's who in ad-land, and you think Wierzbicki's name is familiar, that's because he coordinated the Sept. 11 screening of the Clarion Fund's documentary on Islamic militants.) The Republican Majority Campaign says its anti-Obama ads will be up in Michigan in the coming days. The group has already spent about $1.4 million against Obama, including mail and phone campaigns. Republican Majority's executive director is Gary Kreep, who also serves as general counsel to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. The group's Web site features a video on Obama's ties to the former militant Ayers. (That's also the subject of an ad by yet another Republican PAC, Freedom's Defense Fund, which also focuses on Michigan.) But Republican Majority Campaign treasurer Randy Goodwin tells us the ad that will ultimately run in Michigan is "a strictly positive ad for John McCain." That, compared to what we're seeing these days, would be quite a novel tactic.

Where the Wall Street collapse and homeland security meet

G.W. Schulz — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:56:09 -0700

It was only a matter of time perhaps before stories began surfacing that fearful Americans, casting a wary eye on Wall Street, were stockpiling supplies in anticipation of a second Great Depression. We have all the right ingredients, after all. Stir together America's colorful tradition of rugged individualism and survivalist tendencies, the misplaced paranoia leading up to Y2K, and the very real fear that understandably pervaded the country after Sept. 11 and you get a story that surfaced Sept. 30 from a small daily newspaper in Marysville, California. When journalists weeks ago began comparing the credit squeeze on Wall Street to the Great Depression, historians and economists called them crazy and sensationalistic. It's nowhere near as bad today as it was back then, the response went. Anyone alive at the time can tell you that. Too many people just don't have the historical context to understand how bad it's truly been before. There's no Dust Bowl occurring and no one should expect a new Great American Novel to top Steinbeck. The media did overstate things in the beginning, unable to avoid the irresistible reference point. But things kept getting worse, and while it didn't originally look like the most significant financial crisis in America compared to other moments like the 1970s recession or the dot-com bust, the end of last week saw Washington talking about insuring large bank deposits to prevent a run on them and new records were set in both percentage and point drops for the Dow Jones average. In that spirit, the Appeal-Democrat of Marysville, a town with fewer than 12,000 people located 40 miles north of Sacramento, reported in a story headlined "Preparing for financial apocalypse” that residents were buying up survivalist gear fearing a return to breadlines and jobless hobo folk singers. A surplus-store owner heard customers say they were putting up security fences and beginning to grow their own food. They’re also stockpiling dried goods and ammunition. "I've been selling ammo cans by the pallet," Tom King, owner of Sutter Surplus Sales, told the paper. An online seller of Meals Ready-to-Eat, water filters and other survival supplies told the Appeal-Democrat that sales have skyrocketed. “In the last two weeks we've sold 200 percent above normal levels in just about everything,” said the company's sales and marketing manager, Jonathan Dick, according to the story. It seems possible that any recent increased demand for emergency food and equipment nationwide at least would have more to do with the various natural disasters that occurred over the summer like a wave of wildfires in California and Hurricane Ike in Texas. FEMA is buying out wholesale suppliers to support victims who are now homeless. But at King's Marysville store and for the online supplier interviewed by the Appeal-Democrat, customers are openly citing the steady stream of bad news from Wall Street as the reason why they're buying duffel bags and dehydrated edibles. "We had a record day yesterday," the paper quoted Dick saying, referring to the Monday before Congress authorized the bailout. "It's not just extremist people. There's a lot of uncertainty out there right now." Many customers at the Marysville store "mention the current financial crises as their primary reason to stock up on such items."

"'They think the polarization between the haves and have-nots is going to be very extreme,' King said. And when limited resources become even more valuable, 'they'll need to stay mobile.'"

Preparedness video from the Department of Homeland Security

Money to burn

Will Evans — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:38:51 -0700

Most people are fretting about their money these days. But there's a select few who, in the heat of the election season, are eager to give their cash away. We're going to name some names in the liberal donor network... VoteVets is a 501(c)(4) noprofit, so usually we don't know who funds it. But the group had to reveal that its latest ad against Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) was bankrolled mainly by two $100,000 contributions from Northern Californians. One of them, Michael Kieschnick, is president and co-founder of the liberal phone company Working Assets. He also sits on the board of the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. The other, David DesJardins, worked as a software engineer at Google. He made out pretty well. Here's what the San Francisco Chronicle wrote in 2007:

These days, desJardins, wears many hats, none full time. He invests in startups, evangelizes other Googlers on the merits of philanthropy, consults for a Defense Department-sponsored think tank that specializes in encrypted communication, and is the world's top-ranked player of Titan, a board game featuring armies of mythological beasts. All the while, he's remodeling his home in Burlingame and working with an architect to build a second one. Initially, desJardins' time off was consumed with the complexities of managing his financial bounty, including tax planning and setting up a plan for charitable giving (he and his wife created a $20 million fund within the Silicon Valley Community Foundation).

VoteVets also got $15,000 from an actual resident of North Carolina, liberal blogger James Protzner. Meanwhile, Campaign Money Watch, which is running ads against Colorado Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), just reported a cash infusion including... ...A $300,000 bundle from Matt Entenza, a lawyer and former Democratic House minority leader in the Minnesota legislature. Entenza ran for state attorney general in 2006, but dropped out of the race after revelations that he had hired a private investigator to scrutinize his opponent. Entenza went on to found a liberal think tank called Minnesota 2020. Campaign Money Watch also picked up $185,000 from the Colorado heiress of a medical supply company, Pat Stryker. She also gave $150,000 to the liberal voter-mobilization group America Votes and $300,000 to Progressive Majority this year. She's president of the Bohemian Foundation. Another $100,000 came from Chris Findlater, who gives to Majority Action. And oddly, Campaign Money Watch received $122,000 from another liberal 527 group. The union-funded, yoga-teacher-directed Colorado First Project hasn't done much since its anti-Schaffer ad in August. That's something even more rare -- a political group with money to spare.

Using humor against McCain

Will Evans — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:44:29 -0700

Politics is more popular than ever on comedy shows these days. So why not bring comedy to politics? A new ad series by an Ohio 527 organization tries using the funny bone to clobber McCain on the economy, health care and Social Security. The first ad, which debuted in Ohio during Saturday Night Live, mocks McCain's comments that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." A guy in a bar jokes, "So what Sen. McCain is saying is that, 'The recession is not real.'...Gues what? This beer gut—not real!" (The beer gut is real.) Then there's the obligatory unibrow joke, because every attack ad needs one. McCain, by the way, has said he was referring to American workers as the strong fundamentals. (Watch the ad here.) The ad comes from Bring Ohio Back, a group last seen during the 2004 election blasting President Bush with TV ads and hosting get-out-the-vote celebrity bus tours staring Hilary Swank, Steve Buscemi, Robert Redford and Paul Newman. The new ad series is suppossed to represent "a sitcom in 30 seconds," said co-founder Jeff Rusnak, a consultant who worked on Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown's 2006 campaign. "The airwaves are so crowded...we wanted something to penetrate and get people's attention." The series features two guys (Dave and Joe) drinking at a bar and riffing on McCain. They end with one of the guys asking the camera, "What's wrong with John McCain?" Watch them on the group's Web site, and laugh, or not? Now for the group's leadership and funding ... Bring Ohio Back's latest effort started with some public opinion research earlier this year, funded by Rachel Pritzker Hunter, who gave $102,000. The Pritzkers are heirs to the Hyatt fortune, and are big players in Democratic politics. Rachel's mother, psychotherapist and invester Linda Pritzker, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to liberal 527s over the years. Another Pritzker—Penny—is Barack Obama's national finance chair. Penny's brother was national co-chair of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Rusnak and consuntant Gerald Austin founded Bring Ohio Back in 2004. The two have worked together for decades—Austin managed Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign and Rusnak was his assistant. Rusnak also worked for presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and Wesley Clark. So, the question for this ad: Funny, or not funny? You tell us. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

McGovern breaks with Democrats

Will Evans — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:55:30 -0700

After Democrat Barack Obama does battle with Republican John McCain tonight, a prominent Obama supporter is scheduled to pop up in the post-debate ad breaks, stating his opposition to pro-union legislation that enjoys the backing of Obama and Democratic leaders. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee and now a venerated party elder, appears in minute-long ads by the Employee Freedom Action Committee, which is using criticism of the Employee Free Choice Act as a club to beat on Democratic Senate candidates in several states. While unions say the bill will make it easier for workers to join a union without corporate harassment, McGovern and industry-backed groups say it will take away secret ballots in union elections, allowing the organizers to intimidate workers. McGovern says in the ad: "It's hard to believe that any politician would agree to a law denying millions of employees the right to a private vote." At least at first glance, it's also hard to believe that arch-liberal McGovern would team up with Rick Berman, who runs the Employee Freedom Action Committee. It has got to be one of the oddest of odd couples. Berman has made a career of attacking liberal activists, Democrat-backed policies and labor unions on behalf of industry. He assisted Newt Gingrich in his climb to become speaker of the House. The Employee Freedom Action Committee is one of several nonprofits set up by Berman to engage in aggressive public relations without indentifying the donors behind them. This year, he's spending $30 million to attack Democratic Senate candidates with ads about the labor bill. His group will spend $2 million airing the McGovern ad in key Senate races in Kentucky, Oregon, Maine, Mississippi, Louisiana, New Hampshire and Colorado. (Another group, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, is plowing this same anti-union ground in Senate races.) McGovern, on the other hand, is celebrated at Democratic party gatherings. In a dramatic move this spring, he abandoned Hillary Clinton and endorsed Barack Obama in the name of party unity. Then again, when McGovern says in the ad, "I've always been a champion of labor unions," it may be a bit of a stretch. (He goes on to say, "But I fear that today's union leaders are turning their backs on democratic workplace elections.") He was a congressman and senator from South Dakota, a right-to-work state that prohibits "closed" union shops. McGovern came out against the Employee Free Choice Act in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in August. He also turns up at the Web site of the FirstJobs Institute, a component in Berman's network. And not that we believe in grudges, but the record shows that when McGovern was on track to win the nomination in 1972, organized labor did all that it could to stop him. It's also worth wondering what impact the ad might have tonight—a presidential nominee from 36 years ago talking about a bill that's pretty much guaranteed to go unmentioned by the 2008 contenders. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Another wave of union power

Will Evans — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:37:30 -0700

The Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO labor federation are spearheading another massive wave of anti-McCain—er, officially pro-Obama—outreach in battleground states. SEIU says it has sent 75 percent of its staff to key states for a final push on undecided voters before the election. Busloads of volunteers are distributing flyers comparing Obama's health care plan (favorably) to McCain's, with more in the mail. And the union sent DVDs about the health care plans to 225,000 seniors, with follow-up phone calls "making sure they're actually watching the DVD," according to SEIU political director Jon Youngdahl. The DVDs went to Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. "Wer'e trying to reach further and go deeper than we ever had before," said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger. SEIU says it's just bought $1 million of air time in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for an ad featuring two women in a grocery store chatting about health care bills. "And get this," one of them says. "McCain wants to start taxing our benefits." Says the other, "Maybe you should send him your bills." The AFL-CIO, meanwhile, is blasting out a web video via email to hundreds of thousands of voters. The video questions McCain's principles and maverick image. It coins a new slogan for anti-McCain forces: "John McCain: Straight talk—from both sides of his mouth." Working America, the AFL-CIO's affiliate for non-union workers, is sending out 1 million new mailers to battleground states and plans to canvass 100,000 members per week until election day. The mailer calls McCain "An Economic Disaster for the Middle Class," and says he "spent years helping Wall Street fat cats break the rules." Click on the image to see the mailer: Will all this hard-hitting talk on McCain's health care and economic policies cut through the din of personal attacks perpetrated by the candidates' campaigns? SEIU's Burger says, "Voters really want to know about the issues." By the time the unions are done, voters will be inundated with partisan talking points, whether they want it or not. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Broader FBI powers now set in stone

G.W. Schulz — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:16:36 -0700

Source Documents
• New FBI guidelines for investigations in full

• Memo discussing the changes distributed to Justice Department staffers (9/29)

• Testimony of FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (9/23)

Testimony on the changes from FBI Director Robert Mueller:
• Senate Judiciary Committee (9/17)
• House Judiciary Committee (9/16)

• Historical analysis of the guidelines by the Electronic Privacy Information Center Wall Street's $700 billion bailout reasonably dominated the news cycle last week. But something else occurred on Friday just as Washington prepared to leave for the weekend, and the announcement has civil libertarians in an uproar. The Justice Department finalized a new set of more lenient guidelines regulating what tactics FBI agents can use for criminal and national security investigations. Elements of the proposed changes generated attention after Democratic lawmakers heard testimony about them in August and worried publicly in a letter to the Attorney General's Office that they could lead to abuse. The Justice Department also presented the changes to advocacy groups inviting the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and others to read but not copy them before they were released. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and FBI Director Robert Mueller then declared in a joint statement Friday that they'd "consulted" with civil liberties groups and Congress prior to making the changes final implying that the effort was supported across the political spectrum. But that apparently wasn't the case. Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy promptly blasted the changes complaining that the bureau ignored bipartisan requests to share the actual guidelines with Congress and that the FBI had already abused its authority to use so-called national security letters, which forced the turnover of private information or data on individuals without authorization from a court. Leahy also argued that the Justice Department can do a better job balancing necessary zeal in fighting terrorism with constitutional protections that should restrict agents from launching widespread probes of groups and individuals that haven't violated the law. "The Attorney General is once again giving the FBI broad new powers to conduct surveillance and use other intrusive investigative techniques on Americans without requiring any indication of wrongdoing or any approval even from FBI supervisors," Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. The Washington Post reported that the Justice Department was asked to wait until the next president takes office before making any drastic changes to bureau guidelines, but the current White House, which is similarly overhauling how other law-enforcement agencies can collect domestic intelligence as Bush's tenure comes to a close, rejected that idea. The bureau's definition of "assessment" is what seems to startle some observers the most. An assessment is different than a full-blown criminal or national security investigation, the latter of which requires reasonable suspicion, or "factual predication" as the bureau calls it, that a crime has occurred. Groups or individuals targeted for an assessment may simply resemble to an agent a risk to public safety without any advance information indicating that was the case. It's not clear, then, how the bureau determines what groups or people should be spied upon if they haven't broken any laws and whether that process is arbitrary. "[The FBI] cannot be content to wait for leads to come in through the actions of others, but rather must be vigilant in detecting terrorist activities to the full extent permitted by law, with an eye towards early intervention and prevention of acts of terrorism before they occur," the new guidelines state. Among the powers agents now have for an assessment: • Conduct surveillance without an otherwise required court order • Obtain grand jury subpoenas for personal telephone and e-mail accounts • Recruit informants for feeding information about a group or person to the bureau • Examine records maintained by federal, state and local government agencies, which are typically not accessible to the public, like police databases profiling past criminal suspects. In particular, the powers allow agents to "collect information relating to demonstration activities," according to the guidelines, for the purpose of protecting "public health and safety" before a major event, like the party conventions that occurred in St. Paul and Denver. The bureau can gather intelligence to determine where political demonstrators are lodging during the event, how they're traveling there, where demonstration activities are planned and how many people will attend, all without advanced proof that a national-security threat exists. Agents can also access commercial databases containing large volumes of personal information on U.S. citizens, like those maintained by the private company ChoicePoint, which specializes in serving government agencies. The bureau, for its part, says the old rules led to confusion among agents who were limited to varying techniques for intelligence gathering depending solely on whether an investigation was given a "criminal" or "national security" label. "Under the new guidelines, the investigative steps that the FBI may take in a particular investigation will not be driven by irrelevant factors, such as the type of paperwork the agent uses to open the investigation," Mukasey told a crowd during an August anti-terrorism conference in Oregon. "The revisions also aim to eliminate distinctions in the existing rules that make it, in practice, harder to gather information about threats to the national security than it is to conduct 'ordinary' criminal investigations." The Post echoed Mukasey in an editorial Sept. 29 supporting the proposed changes arguing that they give the bureau as much flexibility to deter terrorist strikes as it's traditionally been afforded for basic criminal cases. "The bureau and the Justice Department did not have to seek Congress's input before putting the guidelines into effect; they should be commended for voluntarily doing so and for seeking feedback from religious and civil liberties groups," the paper wrote. The ACLU, however, points out that the previous rules were established in the 1970s after congressional investigations made public the extensive and illegal harassment and surveillance by the FBI of political and social activists including Martin Luther King Jr. The program was known as COINTELPRO and revelations about the breadth of its counterintelligence activities tarnished the bureau's image for years. "The new guidelines provide no safeguards against the FBI's improperly using race and religion as grounds for suspicion," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a statement Friday. "They also fail to sufficiently prevent the government from infiltrating groups whose viewpoints it doesn't like. The FBI has shown time and time again that it is incapable of policing itself and there is good reason to believe that these guidelines will lead to more abuse." The news site Salon.com last week discussed the rule changes with ACLU policy counsel Mike German, a former FBI agent of several years. You can listen to the interview online. Meanwhile, in other homeland security news, the Army Times reported Sept. 30 that a military combat brigade has been given a dedicated assignment on U.S. soil "as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." According to the story, "[The brigade] may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive attack." The news was largely overlooked by the mainstream press, but the blogosphere lit up in response questioning whether the domestic deployment of a military unit violates the 19th century-era Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, both of which were designed to limit the authority of the federal government to use the military internally for law-enforcement purposes. Congress in recent years has battled with the White House over the president's right to declare martial law and use combat troops for suppressing lawlessness within the United States. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer on Oct. 1 did publish an op-ed on the matter from left-wing radio journalist Amy Goodman, who was arrested for obstruction with two producers amid demonstrations at the recent Republican National Convention. Dozens of other journalists were arrested as well.

Jim Bopp's fight to liberate political money

Will Evans — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:41:20 -0700

No sooner had we noted that conservative attorney James Bopp seemed to be setting up to sue the Federal Election Commission over an anti-abortion, anti-Obama ad, we got this news: Bopp sued the FEC Friday over an anti-abortion, anti-Obama ad. Only, it's not the National Right to Life Committee ad we were writing about. Turns out the indefatigable Bopp also represents the Committee for Truth in Politics, recently formed by a North Carolina Republican operative. Bopp is suing to protect the group from any FEC enforcement actions that might prevent it from running its ads—even though the FEC hasn't done anything yet and isn't likely to take any action till after the election. Bopp did essentially the same thing earlier this year on behalf of another group, a 527 called The Real Truth About Obama. That group has also targeted Obama's record on abortion, but its ads haven't run yet. Bopp won't say whether it all ads up to a coordinated legal strategy. But the three simultaneous efforts hammer home his view of federal campaign finance laws: that they chill free speech if you have to ask permission from a slow-moving government agency, or get a preliminary injunction against the agency, before you air a political ad—or else face the threat of fines later. "We have clients that want to do real things," he says. "There's all sorts of people out there that want to participate in our democracy ... They don't want to suffer a future investigation and enforcement action when the Constitution protects what they do." Those who want to regulate political money, of course, see it differently. They say Bopp and his clients want to tear down the legal walls that keep big donors, corporations and undisclosed contributions from having undue electoral influence. And the legal walls are hardly rigid. The McCain-Feingold law made them stronger in 2002. But Bopp blew a new hole in them last year, as lawyer for Wisconsin Right To Life—just his latest of many victories. Meanwhile, the Committee for Truth in Politics says in its lawsuit that it's got another hard-hitting ad to let loose. To quote from the ad:

It's tragic, but true. Two-thirds of all prisoners convicted of rape or sexual assault committed their crime against a child. Even worse, the average child predator exploits seven to two hundred victims in their lifetime. In the Illinois Senate, Barack Obama was the only member that voted to allow early release for convicted sexual abusers.

Besides the Committee for Truth in Politics, the other plaintiff in Bopp's most recent suit is Holly Lynn Koerber. According to the suit, she's a North Carolina resident who "reasonably fears that CTP will be silenced and she will be unable to continue receiving CTP's ads and materially-similar ads, all in violation of her First Amendment rights." Koerber has experience in this. She also served as a plaintiff, along with the Republican Governors Association, in suing the North Carolina State Board of Elections in 2004. The plaintiff's filing identified her as vice-chair of the Pasquotank County Republican Party. Bopp may be the nation's most experienced lawyer in challenging campaign finance laws. For 30 years, he's been general counsel to the National Right To Life Committee, which has spearheaded opposition to restrictions on political money. He's also a member of the Republican National Committee and counsel to Focus on the Family and the Indiana Republican Party. Besides the three cases discussed here, Bopp also represents Citizens United in a lawsuit against the FEC. He lost in lower courts but has appealed to the Supreme Court. And he has other suits against state-level campaign finance agencies. "I'm probably involved in 50 cases right now," he says, admitting that sometimes it's difficult to keep track of them all. Expect more from Mr. Bopp. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Evangelical leader goes all in for McCain

Will Evans — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:35:29 -0700

And to think that anyone thought James Dobson would sit out this presidential race. The Christian Right leader and his advocacy group, Focus on the Family Action, are planning a multi-state strategy to help elect McCain, and to prevent Democratic gains in Congress while they're at it. The group's September newsletter spells out some nightmare scenarios it says could happen with an Obama adminisration: Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton; open homosexuality in the barracks; a Freedom of Choice Act invalidating all abortion limitations. The newsletter then explains the group's action plan for defeating Obama: 1. Harness the media with crafty "marketing ingenuity." 2. Directly target voters "in a big way in up to 16 states with key U.S. Senate and House races." That will include mailers, emails and "carefully targeted radio ads." Click on the image for the full newsletter: For the mailers, Focus on the Family Action has prepared special messages for battleground states. In the Colorado version, for example, Dobson writes:

As a Colorado voter, you are right in the middle of one of the most important and closely watched Senate races in the country. The stakes in this contest could not be higher. If Barack Obama wins the White House -- a very real possibility -- the U.S. Senate will be the last defense against his liberal agenda on abortion and marriage. Sen. Obama has already promised to support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every pro-life law on abortion in the nation. He has also pledged to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act and to allow open homosexuality in our military. The only hope of stopping this radical onslaught will be a strong showing of commonsense conservatives in the Senate.

Of the Senate candidates, Dobson writes that Republican Bob Schaffer "maintained a consistently pro-life and pro-family record in Congress" while Democrat Mark Udall "established an audaciously liberal record." An accompanying chart contrasts their views on marriage, abortion and taxes. Click on the image below to view the mailer: Similar mailers lambast Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Democratic Senate candidates Al Franken of Minnesota and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Still other mailers target House races in Texas, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Michigan and Florida -- all with an emphasis on Obama. View them here. It's unclear, however, how many of these mailers will go out. The September member newsletter contains this postscript:

You should be aware that contributions have been well below budget all summer, which has put us in a position where we may have to scale back some of the plans I've mentioned. Your gift now, however, can still help ensure that we are able to go full force with the full plan -- right up to November 4.

Dobson's money plea, plus that suggestion of a black-robed Hillary Clinton on the high bench, constitute an admirable piece of the direct-mail writer's craft. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Corporations gave authorities 'dozens' of terror tips

G.W. Schulz — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:54:36 -0700

Private companies operating in California are helping to fight the war on terror by handing over unknown information to law-enforcement authorities they believe could be evidence of a potential national security or general criminal threat. That's according to the sheriff of Los Angeles County, Leroy Baca, who testified before a congressional subcommittee Sept. 25 on police intelligence and information sharing between federal and local law-enforcement bureaucracies. Baca helps lead the Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center, one of nearly 70 so-called "fusion centers" that were quickly established across the country after 9/11 and now exist in 49 states. Coordinators say the centers, subsidized with at least $380 million from the Department of Homeland Security, will help defeat the intelligence weaknesses regarded as having enabled the attacks in New York and Washington. Privacy advocates, however, are skeptical that fusion centers have strong enough provisions in place to safeguard the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. The American Civil Liberties Union has published reports calling into question how deeply proponents of fusion centers and anti-terror collaboration want to pry into the private lives of everyday people in search of terrorists. At many fusion centers the movement to promote information sharing has included encouraging private corporations that control large domestic assets like major energy producers and industrial manufacturers to participate by reporting tips when they see something considered suspicious. "Through their large sphere of influence they provide thousands of eyes and ears via corporate security departments who have shared dozens of incidents of investigative interest to the JRIC," Baca told the House Committee on Homeland Security. An employee from the Boeing Company, a major contractor with the federal government, last year told the same House panel that the private sector should be given access to a breadth of government information "both classified and unclassified." Boeing has an employee stationed at a fusion center in Seattle. The ACLU warns that companies with access to sensitive government information could be compelled to use it for retaliating against critics, competitors or employees who try to blow the whistle on corporate misconduct. A report the group published in December says the FBI's infamous 1970s-era counterintelligence program known as COINTELPRO provoked private companies to harass or fire employees who were also outspoken political and social activists. Discovery of the program's frequently illegal activities by later congressional probes led to new rules governing the conduct of agents at the bureau. "While law enforcement officers undergo rigorous training, are sworn to serve their communities, and are paid public salaries, private companies and their employees are motivated to maximize profits," the report reads. "Private companies could be used as proxies to conduct activities that the government would otherwise be prohibited from engaging in." Sheriff Baca created a Homeland Security Advisory Council after Sept. 11 comprised of "senior corporate leaders" in Los Angeles and Orange counties from which the terror leads given to authorities apparently came. Forty-five corporate executives are members of the council and the list includes current and former employees of Fox Broadcasting, Southern California energy giant Edison International, media conglomerate Viacom, a Disney corporate security vice president (and former FBI agent), the head of American Correctional Solutions, a privatization company that contracts with government agencies to provide medical care to prison inmates, top real-estate developers, Hollywood entertainment companies and major banking interests. Alongside them on the council are past local, state and federal government officials including one-time Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan and a former U.S. judge. "Creating links ahead of time and building the private sector into the existing government structure creates new capabilities that enhance our community's ability to prevent, respond to, and recover from a disaster," the council's website reads. As for California fusion centers, there are now three others located in Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco in addition to the one in Los Angeles. But they're far less visible to citizens than any standard local police station, and they place a greater emphasis on conducting domestic spying by sifting through large volumes of often disparate information in search of patterns—a practice known as data mining—as opposed to investigating a crime after it occurs. The first center in California was established two weeks after Sept. 11 by former Gov. Gray Davis, and among other things, it creates regular intelligence bulletins and special reports on individual groups containing background information and "violence potential," according to a Government Accountability Report from last fall. The concept of information fusion represents a trend that swept law enforcement in the United States after Sept. 11 in which authorities collect domestic intelligence using an array of sources to pre-empt both national security threats and more common criminal acts like fraud, drug trafficking and gang violence. The centers are designed to host multiple state and federal law-enforcement groups from the FBI and immigration authorities to state prison guards and local police personnel where they can exchange information housed in secure criminal databases or mine other banks of information such as credit reports and insurance claims.

The cost of haste and waste at DHS

G.W. Schulz — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:40:12 -0700

So the credit crunch incinerated your job? The Department of Homeland Security is looking for a few good men and women. The work isn't glamorous, but you could leave behind a legacy of saving taxpayers billions of dollars. The federal government's newest bureaucracy is persistently and vastly short the procurement officers it needs to ensure efficiency in the massive contracts it hands out to private companies who perform work on behalf of the public, from recruiting thousands of airport screeners to building temporary housing for victims of Hurricane Katrina, two government watchdogs told a congressional subcommittee last week. Homeland security officials also turn to the private sector for help too quickly due to a sense of urgency or desire to make things easier resulting in contracts that impose few demands on private companies that earn hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to make the country safer, the duo added. "We should not allow expediency to completely and consistently overrule sound business practices," a DHS deputy inspector general, James Taylor, told a House subcommittee on oversight Sept. 17. "When that happens, we fail to get the right products and services at the right times for the right prices." A common theme in many of the audit reports criticizing DHS in recent years is that the dogma inside the Beltway after Sept. 11 encouraged preventing another attack or at least bracing for one at all costs. But hindsight shows how often the Homeland Security Department's haste has at times caused it to broker contracts that are counterproductive to its mission let alone negligibly effective. The subcommittee last week presented a table illustrating $15 billion in various DHS contracts believed to be plagued by wasteful spending or mismanagement or both, like Boeing's $1.5 billion agreement to string sensors and cameras along newly constructed towers on the nation's borders with Mexico and Canada, known as the Secure Borders Initiative. In one twist of irony, homeland security officials sunk $52 million into a financial management system called eMerge2 that was supposed to fix accounting and contracting weaknesses in the department. It ultimately had to be scrapped in December of 2005 with "little to show for it," a report from the Government Accountability Office concluded. The tab included $18 million just in contractor costs. Because DHS had originally intended to spend as much as $229 million on the project, the GAO considered it a good idea for homeland security to cut its losses despite how much had already been invested. "The agency has made little progress since that time and has missed an invaluable opportunity to address existing financial management problems," the report said. Meanwhile, Deputy Inspector General Taylor testified last week that DHS hardly has even half the bare minimum of personnel it needs to properly manage the contracts, and 40 percent of those federal employees are eligible for retirement in five years. That means the department is much farther away from an ideal level of contract specialists. And those figures, from April of this year, are considered to be an improvement since the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2003, the largest reorganization of the federal government since World War II. The department today has some of the biggest procurement needs of any other agency at the federal level having spent $12 billion last year alone on everything from airport security systems to Coast Guard ships. For entrepreneurs, the government's promise of security in the homeland is a colossal market opportunity unto itself. Hiring more bureaucrats to enforce the federal government's litany of contract regulations may smack of a knee-jerk response to free marketeers who want Washington to invest greater trust in its private partners. But the lack of oversight, observers say, has led to widespread waste in a fledgling department that commits a whole 40 percent of its $47 billion budget to private-sector contracting for goods and services. A GAO director, John Hutton, piled on to the inspector general's testimony during last week's congressional hearing telling the subcommittee that DHS has poorly planned many of its outsized contracts with private businesses and doesn't clearly define what the companies are supposed to accomplish. "While there are benefits to using contractors to perform services for the government – such as increased flexibility in fulfilling immediate needs – we and others have raised concerns about the federal government's increased reliance on contractor services," Hutton told the committee. "Of key concern is the risk associated with a contractor providing services that closely support inherently governmental functions: the loss of government control over and accountability for mission-related policy and program decisions." Among the other more infamous examples of perceived contracting mishaps by DHS that government auditors described during last week's hearings:

The Transportation Security Administration hired a company called NCS Pearson to recruit tens of thousands of new airport screeners after Sept. 11. But the cost of the contract by its end had ballooned from $104 million to $742 million. Washington Post reporter Robert O'Harrow, an adviser to CIR, obtained secret audits in 2005 that showed Pearson invoiced extraordinary amounts of money to cover its expenses, from $377,273 in unsubstantiated long-distance calls to $1,180 for 20 gallons of Starbucks coffee.

Taylor of the DHS Inspector General's Office told the committee that due to a desire to hurry task completion, homeland security officials will avoid requiring contractors to compete for business, which could otherwise ensure value for taxpayers. A $475 million contract to maintain equipment like metal detectors and X-ray machines used by border protection employees was awarded to the Chenega Technology Services Corporation, but it should have been competitively bid, auditors found. Chenega is a subsidiary of the Alaska Native Corporations, which enjoy an edge on competitors due to special designations, such as "disadvantaged small business," sought for them by Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. The veteran Republican congressman was indicted in July for trying to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts he allegedly received from the Veco Corporation, an Alaska-based energy company on whose behalf he's intervened in Washington. The Native Corporations, meanwhile, don't have to be run by Native Alaskans. Chenega's contract was awarded on Sept. 11, 2003.

Veco, conversely, was acquired by an engineering and construction firm called CH2M HILL last year. CH2M, Taylor pointed out to the committee, was one of four companies, including Bechtel, that received noncompetitive contracts from FEMA worth $3.2 billion in 2005 to build housing units for Katrina victims. From those contracts the department's inspector general found a "waste of government funds and questioned costs of $45.9 million" due to unclear invoices and an uncontrolled growth in costs. Those inadequacies were revealed in a report published last month.

The Transportation Security Administration hired the Unisys Corporation in August of 2002 to improve airport security and communications across the country. Unisys consumed $830 million of the contract ceiling in a short period of time, and by then, many airports were still operating with old telephone systems, dial-up Internet and radios that weren't interoperable with other law-enforcement agencies or couldn't get reception throughout the airport.

Who's behind the "Radical Islam" DVD?

Will Evans — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:38:33 -0700

CIR's Will Evans tracks a controversial DVD about radical Islam for the Secret Money Project. Here's the trailer of the DVD, which appeared as an insert in newspapers across the country: The blogosphere is alive with the sound of buzz—all about an inflammatory DVD on radical Islam being distributed to millions of households at the peak of election season. Critics are calling the DVD, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," anti-Muslim hate, or politicking, or both. It doesn't mention or even obliquely allude to the presidential candidates. It couldn't, since it was made in 2006. But as whisper campaigns dog Obama with rumors that he's a secret Muslim, the DVD showed up as an insert in some 70 newspapers, with an emphasis in swing states. The obvious question: Who is behind it? And the answer: The DVD is distributed by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit set up by the film's producer, Rabbi Raphael Shore. But not much is known about the group. It's a 501(c)(3) charity, which means it can't engage in partisan politics. It did apparently have material on its Web site supporting John McCain, but then took it down. Clarion has connections to Aish HaTorah, a strongly pro-Israel Jewish educational organization promoting Jewish identity and pride. Aish HaTorah has offices in Israel and the U.S. Clarion's corporate filings in Delaware list the same address as Aish HaTorah New York. Clarion's two directors in 2006 were Shore and Jacob Fetman, who served as Aish's CFO. In 2007, the organization listed its directors as Shore, Henry Harris and Rebecca Kabat. Rabbi Harris is educational director at Aish HaTorah NY and Kabat has also worked for Aish. Shore himself has worked for Aish HaTora. He told the Washington Times in 1992 that he "went to Israel 10 years ago to try to 'rescue' his twin brother, Ephraim, from Aish HaTorah," because he though it was a "big hoax." Instead, Shore became convinced and joined the organization's management. (Their other brother, David, created Fox's TV show "House.") Aish's Ephraim Shore has also been president of the organization HonestReporting.com, which, according to Aish's Web site, helped to produce and promote Raphael Shore's film. But don't ask where the Clarion Fund gets its funding. It's not telling. And with its 501(c)(3) status, it doesn't have to. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

NRA takes aim at Obama, Biden

Will Evans — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:20:06 -0700

The National Rifle Association has launched an aggressive multi-media campaign against Obama, saying he "would be the most anti-gun president in American history." The campaign, tuned to reach voters in swing states, includes an arsenal of TV, radio and print ads, all available on this website featuring a not-so-flattering photo of Obama. One TV ad slips in a subtle not-one-of-us message, as a Virginia hunter says, "Now I learn that Barack Obama supports a huge new tax on my guns and ammo … Where is this guy from? He's probably never been hunting a day in his life." Another features a veteran of the war in Iraq saying, "I served my country on the battlefield to protect our freedoms. There's no way I'm voting for a president who will take them away." By the way, Factcheck.org says the NRA distorts Obama's positions. Yet another ad has a Michigan hunter taking aim at Obama's controversial comments that some working-class voters "cling to guns or religion" because they are "bitter." Says the hunter, "Because I believe in traditional American values, go to church, exercise my right to own a firearm, Barack Obama says I'm bitter. Well I'm not bitter, I'm blessed." The message ties in with T-shirts and yard signs emblazoned: "I'm a 'bitter' gun owner and I vote." Each ad ends with the slogan, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama." Obama's running mate earns his own ad from the NRA, which says, "Joe Biden wants you to believe he shares your values because he was born in Scranton. But Pennsylvania gun owners and hunters don't share his values." The NRA is also sending out an anti-Obama fact sheet to its 4 million members. Nothing camouflaged about where the NRA stands in this election. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Nuestra Familia airing on PBS

CIR Staff — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:39:55 -0700

Nuestra Familia, Our Family, CIR's award-winning documentary about Latino gang wars, is being rebroadcast on PBS stations nationwide in September and October. Check local listings on the Voces.tv website. This ground-breaking documentary goes inside one of California’s most violent and organized gangs. It follows a father's painful struggle as he turns his own criminal life around, then sees his son become deeply involved with the Nuestra Familia prison gang. >> Learn more about Nuestra Familia, Our Family. >> Watch the trailer:

Palin's record on earmarks

Will Evans — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:44:08 -0700

My esteemed co-blogger (Peter Overby) has had a couple of broadcast pieces, on Tuesday's ATC and today's Morning Edition, examining Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's complicated record on earmarks. We have some extra goodies on Palin's record here. Gov. Palin and running mate John McCain have trumpeted her opposition to earmarks like the infamous Alaskan "bridge to nowhere," which became a rallying call against congressional pork projects. But when she was running for governor in 2006, Palin told voters she supported projects like the bridge. Here's a clip of Palin at an Alaska Conservation Voters candidate forum saying, "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for."
At another candidate forum, Palin had kind words for Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and his renowned ability to bring home the federal bacon. "And our congressional delegation, God bless 'em. They do a great job for us," she said at the forum hosted by the Alaska Professional Design Council. "Representative Don Young, especially God bless him, with transportation -- Alaska did so well under the very basic provisions of the transportation act that he wrote just a couple of years ago. We had a nice bump there. We're very, very fortunate to receive the largesse that Don Young was able to put together for Alaska."
Now, it was Young who plopped the "bridge to nowhere" in federal legislation to begin with. But even that kind of influence doesn't help him these days. Not too many people are trying to cozy up with Young now that he's in trouble -- and clearly Palin has changed her mind about him. What kind of trouble? The 18-term Alaska congressman is under federal investigation in a corruption scandal that has already nailed several state lawmakers and produced an indictment of Alaska's other earmark champion, Sen. Ted Stevens (R). It's not even clear whether Young survived his primary election last week. His main opponent was Sean Parnell, Palin's lieutenant governor. The free-market Club For Growth ran ads attacking his free and easy use of federal tax money for earmarks. He seemed so vulnerable that Democrats actually spent money to help him because they thought he'd be weaker than Parnell in the general election. Palin, no longer feeling so rosy about Young's "largesse" for Alaska, backed Parnell. This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Liberal group sends a snide "thank you" to Republicans

Will Evans — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:46:22 -0700

A liberal group called Campaign for America's Future has a new ad designed, it seems, mainly to annoy the delegates to the Republican National Convention. The ad starts with the words, "To the conservatives gathered in St. Paul: Thanks for the memories..." It goes on to show images of a submerged New Orleans, a gas pump with its dials spinning, a home-foreclosure sign and President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner. Get it? Here's the thing, though. The ad, according to the group, is airing this week "in 365,000 hotel rooms across the country." So, either hotel guests are a key swing voter demographic we haven't heard about yet, or Campaign for America's Future decided the best way to spend its money was to pester Republican delegates trying to catch a break from the speeches in the solace of their hotel rooms. Campaign for America's Future is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, so it's hard to know who funds it, but the Service Employees International Union gave the group $50,000 in 2007 and the AFL-CIO gave $67,500 from 2006-07.
This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Nuclear (intelligence) fallout

Mark Schapiro — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:08:58 -0700

It was interesting to read the New York Times report on Monday revealing the reasons behind the Swiss government's destruction of evidence pertaining to a family of three Swiss engineers linked to AQ Khan's global nuclear sales enterprise. The Tinner family—father Friedrich and his two sons Urs and Marco—were under investigation for helping orchestrate Khan's sale of sophisticated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran; they were Khan's key European intermediaries. In their story, William Broad and David Sanger revealed the key reasons for the destruction: Pressure from the CIA to hide the role played by the Tinners in supplying them with information that ultimately led to the dismantling of Khan's network. Broad and Sanger delve deeply into the Tinner case as an example of the tensions between two conflicting goals: First, to block nuclear proliferation; and second, to bring the key proliferators to justice. This presents a direct challenge to intelligence agencies, which are often unwilling to share how they gathered evidence on such operations. These are themes that we explored in our hour-long radio documentary, "Business of the Bomb", a collaboration with American RadioWorks, that aired on national public radio stations across the country last April and May. In "Business of the Bomb," ARW correspondent Michael Montgomery and I visited the South African end of Khan's global operation, Tradefin Engineering, a factory outside of Johanessberg where a Swiss, a German and a South African trio of businessmen created key components for the Libyan enrichment facility purchased from Khan by Libya. Investigators found a videotape on the premises used by AQ Khan to advertise his capacity to build, on demand, nuclear enrichment and bomb-making facilities. (We obtained exclusive access to that tape, and present an audio excerpt here; you'll hear the voice of AQ Khan himself pitching to others his success at building Pakistan's nuclear arsenal). In the Tradefin case, the US Department of Energy refused to cooperate with South African authorities in a public trial due to their concerns about revealing intelligence sources and methods. The result? South Africa's ultimately unsuccessful effort to keep the trial secret established an important principle of openness in that country, and, some in South Africa suspect, led to lighter sentences for the principle players, none of whom ultimately had to serve time in prison. "I'd rather not discuss that," said the DoE's head of non-proliferation James Tobey, deputy undersecretary for nuclear non-proliferation at the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration when we asked him about the case. Back in March, up to the last minute before recording our narration, we were trying to confirm the Swiss destruction of evidence in the Tinner case, which I'd learned from an anonymous tip. The tip was confirmed by Margrit Meyer, chief assistant to Swiss Federal Magistrate, who said that the evidence had been destroyed as the case was transferred from the Swiss Attorney General's office to that of the Federal Magistrate for further investigation "Some evidence is not there anymore," she told me in a March telephone interview from her office in the Swiss capital of Berne. Meyer refused to identify the nature of the evidence or how or why it was destroyed. I was astounded to see that his U.S. address was that of the CIA in Washington DC. His given phone number was the CIA switchboard in Langley, Virginia. His title was "Agent."Two months later, in May, Switzerland's President, Pascal Couchepin, announced to the world that the Tinner files, including nuclear bomb designs, had been destroyed. Now Broad and Sanger have added considerable rich detail suggesting it was the United States which requested the file's destruction "less to thwart terrorists than to hide evidence of a clandestine relationship between the Tinners and the CIA." The three men, they report, received at least $1 million in payments from the agency for their inside tips on Khan's operation. One other point of interest to a story that no doubt will continue to unfold: When we were conducting our final reporting back in March, I researched Urs Tinner—the one of the three considered most deeply involved in Khan's illicit enterprise—through the electronic database Accurint. I was astounded at the time to see that his U.S. address was that of the Central Intelligence Agency in Washington DC. His given phone number was the CIA switchboard in Langley, Virginia. His title was "Agent." This seemed so outlandishly brazen at the time that I didn't trust it, that such a secret could be hidden in such full sight (with the help of a subscription to Accurint). Congratulations to Broad and Sanger for confirming the long and extraordinary story behind that address.

Anti-Obama operatives join forces

Will Evans — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:26:00 -0700

Jerome Corsi may be getting all the attention right now for his anti-Obama attack book, but there's another veteran political operative who has been toiling away to take down the Democratic candidate with a Swift-Boat-style campaign. And now, the two are working together. Floyd Brown, whose most famous effort was the "Willie Horton ad" that damaged Democrat Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign in 1988, has been working on a viral campaign to send anti-Obama videos to millions of voters. His main organization, the National Campaign Fund, runs the Web site ExposeObama.com, which features videos linking Obama to gang violence and questioning Obama's assertion that he's never been a Muslim (below). (The Obama campaign's "Fight the Smears" Web site has a special entry for Brown.) Brown, in an interview today, says he has two more upcoming videos based on a collaboration with Corsi, co-author of the book that launched the crippling Swift Boat veterans critique of Democrat John Kerry in 2004. The new ads are based on Corsi's new book, "The Obama Nation." But this election is different from the ones that produced Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Willie Horton ad. Brown is running a strictly regulated political action committee funded only by small donors, instead of a 527 organization with unlimited donations like the Swift Boat group. That 527 and others were later fined by the Federal Election Commission for violating election laws, and Brown says that's enough to scare him off. "Would you go to jail for a political message?" he asked rhetorically. And instead of concentrating on televised ads as he did in 1988, Brown is focusing almost all of his resources on a viral email and web campaign to spread his message. "An ad on Monday Night Football where the guy's getting up to grab a beer [during commercials] is not more effective than where someone sits down and clicks an ad to watch all the way through," said Brown, who also notes that Web ads are much cheaper. "We have just had a blitzing program, to blitz conservative websites and conservative email lists," he said. "We've sent millions of emails." Brown says he's focusing on swaying conservatives because, when his group launched its effort earlier this year, some religious conservatives had a positive view of Obama. That—thanks to controversy over Obama's former pastor and, Brown says, the ExposeObama.com campaign—has faded. Certainly, Brown's group has gained some traction. From April through June it raised nearly half a million dollars from small donors, according to FEC filings. But why hasn't his or any other ads had the same impact as the Swift Boat ads or Willie Horton? Brown tried casting one of his Obama ads as "Willie Horton II," (below), but that hasn't panned out. Brown thinks the Horton ad—which blamed Dukakis for temporarily releasing a convicted felon who then raped a woman—gets too much credit, anyway. Dukakis, he says, helped do himself in. President Clinton, on the other hand, was much better at deflecting attacks. And what about Obama? "If television and Hollywood manipulation are what decide this election, then Obama wins hands down," Brown says. "He's got the dough, he's got people like [David] Geffen and the whole Dreamworks crew. He's had a very effectively crafted campaign." But it's not over yet. "The Willie Horton ad didn't air till Labor Day," Brown says. "There's still a lot of time for things to happen." This originally appeared on The Secret Money Project Blog, a joint project of CIR and National Public Radio tracking the hidden cash in the 2008 election.

Who's paying to influence voters?

Carrie Ching — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:55:11 -0700

A new project by CIR and NPR follows the money behind independent campaign ads leading up to the 2008 election. The Election 2008: Secret Money Project tracks the funders of ads intended to sway voters—much like the ones launched by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the independent organization that attacked Senator John Kerry in 2004. Watch the ads. Read the analysis. See who's paying, and who they're connected to. A recent post on the Secret Money Project by CIR's Will Evans:

Former Swift Boat Donor Finds New Target Mark Udall, meet Bob Perry. Udall, a Democratic member of Congress from Colorado, is running for Senate this year in a race that is attracting out-of-state money from all sides. Perry, a Texas developer, gave $4.4 million to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to help defeat John Kerry in 2004. FEC reports reveal that the Texan dropped $400,000 this month to air an ad criticizing Udall for "wasteful" spending. Perry gave the money to the Club for Growth. The group said in a press release that the ad will be up for 2 weeks. Watch the ad:

Critics call for stricter OSHA regulations

Lisa Pickoff-White — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:30:03 -0700

While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration handed out its third largest fine in history, outside critics and an internal whistleblower are calling for more stringent regulations and for the agency to better police its own workers. The Imperial Sugar explosion in February, which killed 13 workers, put OSHA in the spotlight. While OSHA announced an $8.7 million fine on Friday, Imperial Sugar said that it met OSHA regulations and will fight the fine, according to an article in the New York Times. Critics, on the other hand, want OSHA to tighten rules and ramp up oversight. Safety violations are often grouped into the agency’s “general duty” clause, allowing inspectors to cite companies for unsafe practices that are not specifically regulated.

So while there were 44 violations issued for spark-producing electrical equipment, which is regulated, under the general duty clause there were only two, one at each plant, for faulty ventilation and two for failing to maintain dust collection systems. “It’s basically an admission that their standards have gaps,” Mr. [Eric] Frumin said.

For example, many safety violations aren’t on OSHA’s list of regulations, so inspectors have to cite them as general violations. Large explosions and other tragedies briefly spotlight draw attention to workplace safety. But job-related health issues, as opposed to accidents, account for 80 percent of all workplace problems, Adam Finkel, OSHA’s former director of health standards, notes. In 2002, Finkel leaked documents showing that OSHA was not testing its own inspectors for beryllium exposure. Finkel was transferred to a non-supervisor position within OSHA later that year. OSHA did not start testing inspectors until 2004. A year ago, a federal judge ordered OSHA to release the inspection data after Finkel filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Alternet reports:

The results were "a big eye-opener" for Finkel. Of OSHA's 989 inspectors in March 2005, 271 were tested, and 10 – or 3.7 percent ¬– were confirmed positive for sensitization. Based on information from Newman, the beryllium expert, Finkel had expected only 1 to 2 percent would be positive. As of March 2008, the numbers had increased only slightly, to 11 confirmed positives out of 301 tests. What do those results mean for the hundreds of other OSHA inspectors -- not to mention 1,000 or more retirees? "I don't know if it's the tip of the iceberg or the whole iceberg," Finkel says. So he went back into the ring with OSHA, filing a Freedom of Information Act request to find out how much beryllium the inspectors were exposed to. Then he went a step further, requesting records from all inspections where OSHA took samples for air contaminants.

>>Learn more about whistleblowers in the CIR and Salon report The War on Whistleblowers.

AJR features Chauncey Bailey Project

Rhyen Coombs — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:30:29 -0700

The American Journalism Review features the Chauncey Bailey Project in its August/September issue, with senior writer Sherry Ricchiardi calling it "the biggest journalistic show of force since 1976." From AJR:

During the past 10 months, media professionals in the Bay Area have taken collaborative journalism to new heights as they produced more than 140 stories related to Your Black Muslim Bakery and Bailey's assassination. It's the biggest journalistic show of force since 1976, when reporter Don Bolles' car was blown up by a bomb while he was investigating organized crime in Phoenix. Journalists from all over the country gathered to continue Bolles' work under the banner of the Arizona Project. At the first anniversary of Bailey's death, reporters continue to peel away layers of intrigue about a Bay Area crime family that for years confounded Oakland police and city officials. Leadership of Your Black Muslim Bakery, founded by Yusuf Ali Bey in 1971, has been implicated in such crimes as torture, murder and child rape. As the project broke important stories, a one-for-all-and-all-for-one mentality took hold among the core group of reporters and news managers. "We're competitive with each other until something like this befalls one of us," says [Oakland Tribune reporter Josh] Richman, who has devoted large blocks of time to the investigation. "Then we work as a team to get to the truth."

More recent news on the Chauncey Bailey Project: >The National Association of Black Journalists has honored the project with its Best Practices Award, reports the Oakland Tribune:

"It is horrendous when a journalist is killed for reporting on a story that needs to be told," said Barbara Ciara, president of the association. "This is really something that deserves to be honored, so it was an easy decision."

>The trial of Devaundre Broussard, the bakery handyman charged with murder in the 2007 slaying who since recanted, has been postponed. From the Oakland Tribune:

Judge C. Don Clay granted the delay to allow Broussard's attorney, LeRue Grim, more time to review evidence in the case. Clay set Sept. 19 for a hearing to set a trial date.

According to Grim, the secret police video released by the Chauncey Bailey Project on June 18 may exonerate his client. From KCBS:

Grim claims law enforcement videotape shows Devaughndre Broussard was ordered by Yusuf Bey IV, the leader of the now-defunct Your Black Muslim Bakery, to falsely confess to Bailey's murder.

Watch the video or share it with others on Vimeo, YouTube or blip.tv. See more stories by the Chauncey Bailey Project.

"In a Small Town" up for an Emmy

Carrie Ching — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:00:04 -0700

In 2005, reporters at the Idaho Falls Post Register uncovered a terrible secret: a known pedophile was working as a camp leader within the local Boy Scouts. With "In a Small Town," EXPOSÉ producer Joe Rubin retraced the steps of reporter Peter Zuckerman, who was tipped off by an anonymous source and later faced brutal—and very personal—attacks from the Boys Scouts of America and the Mormon Church. The piece, which already won a CINE Golden Eagle award, is now up for a News and Documentary Emmy Award. >> Watch "In a Small Town" on the PBS EXPOSÉ website. The EXPOSÉ: America's Investigative Reports series is produced by Thirteen/WNET New York in association with CIR.

Deputy at whistleblower office resigns

CIR Staff — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:56:54 -0700

The second-in-command at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a federal agency designed to protect government whistleblowers, resigned last week, saying his boss, U.S. Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch, put "political agendas and personal vendettas" ahead of the OSC's mission. In an article for CIR and Salon last November, James Sandler reported that the system set up to protect whistleblowers has instead been used to punish them. The Office of Special Counsel, Sandler reported, has "long been considered a failure, due to a chronic backlog of cases, lack of resources and poor leadership." The resignation of James Byrne last week is the latest development in a drama that has been unfolding at the OSC for several years. As reported by the Washington Post:

James Byrne's resignation as deputy to Bloch is effective Saturday, The Associated Press reports. Bloch is under federal investigation, accused of destroying evidence potentially showing he retaliated against his own staff. Bloch, appointed by President Bush in 2003 to protect government whistle-blowers and to enforce prohibitions on political activity in the federal workplace, is facing allegations of political bias, obstruction of justice and mismanagement. The inspector general at the Office of Personnel Management has investigated Bloch since 2005 over alleged mistreatment of employees and his handling of whistle-blower cases.

>> Learn more about the Office of Special Counsel and the system designed to protect whistleblowers in a special project from CIR: "The War on Whistleblowers."

Kings of the Hill

Will Evans — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:47:15 -0700

With the federal government poised to rescue teetering mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics of the companies are having their "I told you so" moment. As NPR reports today, those critics point to Freddie's and Fannie's political connections and lobbying power as the reason they haven't been more tightly regulated. CIR's Daniella De Franco and I spotlight some of the big names associated with the mortgage companies, from McCain mega-fundraiser Wayne Berman to Democratic operative Harold Ickes. How did Fannie and Freddie build such an arsenal? Well, they hired some important people. And then there were the presidential appointments to their boards. This from a 2003 Washington Post story:

During a chat at the White House in 1994, retiring Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) recalls President Bill Clinton saying, "You've been a great friend, Dennis, what can I do for you?" "I told him I wanted to be on the board of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mac," DeConcini said in an interview last week. A short time later, Clinton granted the wish, naming the senator to the board of McLean-based Freddie Mac, where DeConcini served for five years and earned tens of thousands of dollars in cash, stock and stock options.

McCain and his lobbyists

Will Evans — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:00:00 -0700

In order to prove he wants to reform big-money Washington politics, GOP presidential candidate John McCain is distancing himself from campaign fundraisers found to be lobbyists for foreign governments by a CIR/ABCNews.com investigation. McCain’s national co-chairman, Tom Loeffler, for example, recently resigned after controversy over his work on behalf of Saudi Arabia. As CIR first reported, Loeffler personally arranged a meeting between McCain and the then-Saudi Ambassador. McCain also let go of advisor Eric Burgeson who, as CIR reported, was hired by the Kurdistan Regional Government. And Doug Goodyear, who was in charge of the Republican national convention, stepped down after Newsweek reported on his ties to a lobbying firm hired by Myanmar’s military junta. Two other McCain fundraisers—Kirsten Chadwick and Peter Madigan—are registered to lobby for foreign governments. Another, Judy Black, has terminated her work for a company owned by the government of Dubai. The McCain campaign set a new policy last week, stating that:

1.) No person working for the Campaign may be a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity. 2.) Part-time volunteers for the Campaign must disclose to the Campaign any status as registered lobbyists or foreign agents. Such persons are prohibited from involvement in any Campaign policy-making on the subjects on which they are registered, including service on policy task forces or participation in policy discussions on those subjects. Such persons are also prohibited from lobbying Senator McCain or his Senate personal office or committee staffs during the period they are volunteering for the campaign.

And also:

5.) Senator McCain has also announced that it will be his policy that anyone serving in a McCain Administration must commit not to lobby the Administration during his presidency.

To view CIR’s chart showing presidential fundraisers who work for foreign governments, click here.

Presidential gunslingers

Carrie Ching — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:00:00 -0700

GOOD magazine does a great job summing up the campaign fundraising race for the 2008 presidential election in this entertaining little video: "America: Love it or Fix it."

FBI raid on whistleblower official

James Sandler — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:27:37 -0700

Late last year, I interviewed United States Special Counsel Scott Bloch for a Salon.com article about the lack of protections for government whistleblowers—federal employees who his office is supposed to protect from retaliating supervisors and political appointees. Now Bloch is making headlines again. News broke Tuesday that federal agents raided Bloch’s home and office as part of an investigation that began in 2005—he was allegedly retaliating against his own whistleblowing employees. Tuesday’s raids came after Bloch hired a commercial computer repair company (Geeks on Call, 1-800-905-GEEK) to scrub his government computer. According to news reports, the FBI and the Office of Personnel Management were investigating whether the “Geeks on Call” episode amounted to destroyed evidence or obstruction of justice since Bloch was under investigation at the time. The OPM has been investigating a host of allegations against Bloch since more than a dozen of his own employees blew the whistle on him in 2005. Back in November, when I asked Bloch about allegations that he had "purged" backlogged cases and retaliated against his own employees, he responded defensively: "People have the right to file complaints if they want to and lawyers can say anything they want. But it’s all fiction. All the stuff is made up ... There are no whistleblowers that have complained to me. I don’t know of anyone who’s complained." He also wrote a lengthy response to the Salon.com article in the comments section of the online magazine:

Reckless accusations are leveled at me and my career officials at OSC, such as that we threw out 1000 cases without justifications. Why does Salon or whistleblower groups then repeat these scurrilous charges when a bi-partisan group of 13 investigators from Congress (House and Senate) came in, over three weeks, looked through our files and questioned my career staff in four areas of enforcement, and gave a clean bill of health in a letter, declaring that we did not throw those cases out without justification and said we were doing a “great job for whistleblowers?” That was in May of 2005, and still these baseless charges are trotted out every chance the press gets.

The FBI has not yet disclosed the motive or findings of this week's raid on Bloch's office. And Bloch has yet to respond to this latest move. On Wednesday, Republican Representative Thomas Davis III (Va.) called on Bloch to resign. “Civil servants depend on the OSC to protect them from discrimination and improper actions by supervisors … In light of the various investigations into Mr. Bloch's conduct, including the FBI probe revealed yesterday, it's hard to believe he can continue to operate effectively," said a statement released by Davis, who is the ranking republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "It's time the OSC put this turbulent period behind it." In an article in today’s Washington Post, the White House refused to comment on the affair because it was a “personnel” matter.

Going behind-the-scenes with investigative reporters

CIR Staff — Mon, 05 May 2008 11:29:09 -0700

When Tom Casciato, executive producer of the PBS series EXPOSÉ, asked investigative reporters nationwide why they do what they do, he came back and declared: "You're all optimists!" Investigative reporters? Optimists? "This surprised me," writes CIR Editorial Director Mark Schapiro in Nieman Reports:

His observation certainly offered a contrast with the public's typical view of investigative journalists, who tend to rank somewhere between lawyers (another profession given an arguably bad rap) and repo men (who might deserve it).... Upon reflection, however, his words started to seem like an accurate observation about the constellation of sometimes gruff, always driven journalists who pursue this line of work. They actually believe that bringing real information to the attention of the public might prompt change—in government policy, in the fate of politicians and government officials, in the behavior of corporations, in individuals or in entities with a link to power.

This, Schapiro points out, was one of the motives behind CIR's collaboration with PBS station WNET to produce EXPOSÉ: America's Investigative Reports. The show, now in its third season and airing monthly as part of Bill Moyers Journal, allows viewers to see what goes on behind-the-scenes with investigative reporters. The hope is that transparency will increase credibility and demonstrate the importance of investigative reporting at a time when many news organizations are downsizing—and the time-consuming (and therefore expensive) investigative reporting process is often the first to go. The Web, Schapiro writes, is one of the best tools we have for creating transparency in reporting. CIR's own Reporter's Notebook, a series of essays by journalists about the backstory of their reporting, and the many source documents we provide online "provide readers not only with documentation that buttresses the reporting, but also with explanations of how our reporters used it." >> Read "Transparency Increases Credibility" by Mark Schapiro in Nieman Reports. >> Check out the EXPOSÉ: America's Investigative Reports website.

Global warnings—from 50 years ago

Carrie Ching — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:14:56 -0700

A 1958 educational film by Frank Capra (director of It's a Wonderful Life) warns of the dangers of global climate change due to burning fossil fuels. The film predicts that excess carbon dioxide emissions will eventually lead to increased temperatures, melting of the polar ice caps, and rising oceans — nearly 50 years before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed the scientific basis for such warnings in its 2007 report.

SFGate: "Hunting for nukes"

CIR Staff — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:23:08 -0700

The San Francisco Chronicle previews "Business of the Bomb: The Modern Nuclear Marketplace," which airs on KQED this week.

Just because weapons of mass destruction weren't found in Iraq doesn't mean they are not proliferating wildly elsewhere. According to a new, locally produced radio documentary ... today's global black market for nuclear weapons has outgrown the system designed to protect the world against proliferation. Deals aren't struck in shadowy back alleys but in country clubs and plush corporate conference rooms, the program reveals. And the dealmakers are not politically motivated ideologues but high-rolling international businesspeople driven by greed.

"Hot Politics" on FRONTLINE tonight

CIR Staff — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:10:47 -0700

This CIR/FRONTLINE co-production goes behind the scenes to explore how bipartisan political and economic forces have prevented the U.S. government from confronting global warming. “Hot Politics,” originally broadcast in April 2007, examines key moments that have shaped the politics of climate change, and how the private sector and local and state governments are now taking bold steps in the absence of federal leadership. >> Stay tuned: The "Hot Politics" production team is working on a new feature-length documentary about the future of energy. >> Watch the episode, extended interviews, and check local broadcast listings. >> Check out CIR web exclusives, including videos and a special report on how energy companies have funded media disinformation campaigns to purposely spread doubt about the science behind climate change.

On EXPOSÉ: Are farm subsidies a cash cow?

CIR Staff — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:25:58 -0700

On the latest EXPOSÉ: America's Investigative Reports, the series looks at a year-long Washington Post investigation examining federal agriculture subsidies. The resulting series, which identified $15 billion in wasteful spending over a five-year period, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting, and Investigative Reporters & Editors (IRE) award. >> Watch "Cash Cows & Cowboy Starter Kits" online. The episode premiered on Bill Moyers Journal on April 11. >> Read the original Washington Post series that the episode is based on.

Need WMDs? Inquire within.

Carrie Ching — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:15:06 -0700

To help spread the word about his laboratory's ability to produce nuclear weapons, Pakistani engineer A.Q. Khan produced a marketing video that he sent to potential clients around the world. One of these promotional videos turned up at a pipe factory warehouse in South Africa. When police raided the warehouse in 2004, they also found a stack of shipping containers marked for export to Libya—inside were machine parts that would have given the Libyans the ability to process enough enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs. It turned out the warehouse was part of an international network—directed by Khan—supplying bomb-building materials to anyone who could pay the price. CIR obtained a five-minute audio excerpt of that marketing video. In this portion, a narrator explains how and why Khan created Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal—prompted, he says, by the nuclear weapons program launched in neighboring India. And A.Q. Khan himself promotes his own success, saying he promised Pakistan's president that the country could "detonate a nuclear device on a week's notice." >> Listen to the audio from Khan's tape in a CIR web exclusive.

Chauncey Bailey Project finds ties to 1968 shootings

Shahien Nasiripour — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:17:56 -0700

Police in Santa Barbara, California, have reopened an investigation into the unsolved 1968 shooting deaths of a couple linked to the late founder of Your Black Muslim Bakery. The couple were members of the same Santa Barbara mosque as the Oakland bakery's founder, Yusuf Ali Bey. Bey died in 2003; his brother, who was the focus of the original police investigation into the killings, now lives in Oakland, California. Police reopened the case after inquiries by The Chauncey Bailey Project, a coalition of Bay Area journalists investigating the assassination of slain Oakland Post Editor Chauncey Bailey. Bailey was killed August 2 while investigating Your Black Muslim Bakery's finances and internal disputes. Police are looking for connections between the 1968 slayings and Bailey's case. >> Read the full article on the Chauncey Bailey Project's website.

The best investigative reporting awarded by IRE

CIR Staff — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:05:02 -0700

The 2007 awards from Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. were announced today. Two awards went to CIR associates: The Chauncey Bailey Project and Loretta Tofani. Tofani reporting was partially funded by CIR's Dick Goldensohn Fund for International Investigative Reporting, and CIR is a media partner in The Chauncey Bailey Project reporting team. The Chauncey Bailey Project received the Tom Renner Award for investigating the slain Oakland Post editor and continuing his reporting on the Your Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland. The IRE judges commented:

These stories would have been difficult to pursue under any circumstances, but it took extreme dedication to get at the truth following the assassination of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey. In the tradition of the Arizona Project, this coalition of Bay area journalists delved into questionable real estate deals and contracts involving the owners of Your Muslim Bakery in Oakland. The reporters raised questions about the thoroughness of a police investigation into the group before Bailey's murder. They probed the interrogation and confession of Bailey's alleged killer. And they carried on the work that Bailey intended to pursue before his death.

Reporter Loretta Tofani also received an IRE medal, the highest honor bestowed by the organization, for her Salt Lake Tribune series "American imports, Chinese deaths." The judges commented:

This ambitious project shows that the mundane creature comforts of American lives have debilitating and sometimes deadly consequences for the people of China who make them. Freelance reporter Tofani and The Salt Lake Tribune take readers to manufacturing plants where young workers touch and inhale carcinogens without gloves, masks or proper ventilation in order to make cheap products that are shipped to America. Through powerful writing, tenacious investigative reporting in often dangerous situations, Tofani exposes the abuse of Chinese workers while American industry conveniently fails to discover bogus safety audits and fake record keeping. Over 15 months of reporting, freelance reporter Tofani analyzed hundreds of pages of records written in Chinese and gained the trust of workers in a closed society. We are inspired by her determination, impressed with her precision and awed by the compassion she brought to this important work.

Tofani wrote about the twists and turns of her reporting process in a Reporter's Notebook for The Muckraker Blog: "How I got the story." In the essay she explains that becoming a furniture importer gave her access to Chinese factories on a level that she never had as a journalist:

I had only been inside the factory for about 15 minutes. But it was enough. I thanked the sales manager. Once outside, I had trouble swallowing. My throat felt tight. I knew that Chinese oil-based paint contained lead. I began wondering about the workers: Didn't they get lung cancer?

The case against phthalates

CIR Staff — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:28:30 -0700

On the Huffington Post, author and CIR editorial director Mark Schapiro responds to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's claims that his new book Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power is contributing to "unfounded health scares." Schapiro writes:

In her post, Dr. Whelan, President of the American Council for Science and Health, claims that "there is no evidence whatsoever—not even a hint—of health problems from phthalates used by children or adults." Alas, there is far more than a "hint" of such evidence.... The problem, despite Dr. Whelan's assertions, is not lack of evidence; the problem has been that no one in a policy-making position inside the U.S. government has been willing to listen to their or any other American scientist's research on the potential endocrine-disrupting effects of phthalates.

Schapiro also points out:

One thing that Ms. Whalen neglected to mention: the American Council on Science and Health, of which she is President, has forty percent of its budget paid for by corporations, according to a statement on the group's website by Whalen herself. The group no longer lists the names of its funders, but in the past, those named have included Chevron, Dow, DuPont, and Pfizer and company foundations including those of Procter&Gamble, and Merck. These companies are among the key players which have helped create, through their influence in Washington, a laissez faire regulatory approach to chemicals that is increasingly leaving the United States behind the rest of the world in our approach to the growing evidence of harm to humans and the environment from toxic chemicals.

>> Read Mark Schapiro's essay on the Huffington Post.

More details on anti-McCain group

Will Evans — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:21:46 -0700

A political organization financed by film producer Steve Bing has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to a liberal group running attack ads against Republican presidential candidate John McCain. American Family Voices Voters’ Alliance gave $300,000 to the Campaign to Defend America last November, according to government filings. The Campaign to Defend America aired ads last month calling McCain the “McSame” as President Bush. As previously reported by CIR and NPR, the Campaign to Defend America ads were financed with $1 million from the Fund for America, a group led and funded by top Democrat donors and operatives. American Family Voices, which ran controversial automated telephone calls to voters in 2006, is headed by Mike Lux, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. Before contributing to the Campaign to Defend America, American Family Voices received $600,000 from liberal mega-donor Bing. Bing gave millions to pro-Democrat groups in the 2004 election cycle, and is currently a bundler for Sen. Hillary Clinton, raising at least $100,000 for her presidential campaign. Bing is also known for his playboy reputation, including a paternity dispute with actress Elizabeth Hurley.

NPR story on McCain's lobbyist connections

Carrie Ching — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:38:05 -0800

An NPR story this morning sums up Senator John McCain's involvement in a 1999 FCC decision over a TV license deal in Pittsburgh. Whether McCain was acting on behalf of broadcast company lobbyists to influence the FCC's decision when he wrote two letters, urging a vote on the license deal, is the point of contention that surfaced during his 2000 presidential campaign, and again last week in an article by The New York Times. Paxson Communications, a broadcast company with TV stations across the country, was the buyer hoping to acquire a Pittsburgh TV outlet. Pittsburgh community activists opposed the deal, which required approval from the FCC. At the time, Senator McCain chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC. McCain had also received at least $30,000 in campaign donations in 1998 and 1999 from company owner Lowell "Bud" Paxson, his family, lawyers, and other company executives. Paxson and allied lobbyists approached McCain in late 1999, asking him to write a letter to the FCC urging a vote on the deal before it expired at the end of the year. According to NPR:

In 2002, McCain recounted the conversation in a deposition on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He said in his deposition that he told Paxson, "I will not write a letter, I cannot write a letter, asking them to approve or deny." But he would be glad to ask them to act, which he did. McCain sent off a strongly worded letter on Nov. 17, and his next letter, on Dec. 11, was even tougher. The commissioners got it just before their year-end meeting. McCain said the five commissioners should each explain in writing if they had acted, and if not, why not. The letter included language, typical for McCain, that he was not trying to influence the decision. But the commission chairman suggested that the senator could have influenced the process and told McCain the letter was "highly unusual."

The FCC commission did vote on the deal, in favor of the Paxson acquisition, but the deal later collapsed. The controversial New York Times story last week about McCain's connection to Paxson lobbyist Vicki Iseman brought this issue back into the media spotlight. NPR's take on the controversy includes a graphic timeline of events, and Vicki Iseman's lobbyist disclosure filing, annotated to show what information is, isn't, and possibly should be included in lobbyist filings. Both the timeline and annotated disclosure form were researched and reported by CIR's staff reporter Will Evans.

Reporting on lobbyists and the presidential campaign

CIR Staff — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:37:00 -0800

Nieman Watchdog interviewed CIR staff reporter Will Evans about his ABCNews.com investigation of lobbyists who work as top fundraisers for presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Evans explains how he happened upon the story when he ran the names of top fundraisers, or bundlers, through FARA, the Justice Department database of lobbyists who work for foreign governments. He says the amount of information he found was surprising.

[FARA] is a good tool for reporters. It includes much more information than the records for domestic lobbyists. This goes back to concerns about Nazi propaganda. The Foreign Agents Registration Act [1938] was passed, with tougher rules for anyone lobbying for a foreign country. So every lobbyist for a foreign country has to file these statements saying who they met with, what they did, why they did it, what they’re getting paid exactly. With domestic lobbyists, they may be doing the same thing, but you don’t know because their disclosure is much more limited.

Evans also points out that Republican candidates so far have not disclosed all of their fundraisers. "This is an issue that campaign finance watchdogs are upset about, that there are no mandatory disclosures of bundlers," he says in the interview. "There are mega fundraisers out there who are helping to bankroll this election, and they aren’t just people who like a candidate. Sometimes they are, but other times they represent specific interests and agendas, and it is important to follow that even past the election—what they get for their role in fundraising and the access that may come with that." >> Read the Q&A with Will Evans on Nieman Watchdog.

60 Minutes reports on Chauncey Bailey's murder

Carrie Ching — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:14:33 -0800

In a 60 Minutes report, Anderson Cooper looks into the history of Your Black Muslim Bakery and the circumstances surrounding Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey's murder. The report includes footage of bakery members performing a "show of force" military drill and interviews with those involved, including accused gunman Devaughndre Broussard. Broussard tells 60 Minutes he didn't shoot Bailey, and that bakery leader Yusef Bey IV told him he had to "take the fall." >> Watch the 60 Minutes report: "The Murder of Chancey Bailey"

Lobbyists skirt laws by throwing fundraiser parties at home

Carrie Ching — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:46:08 -0800

An investigative piece by USA Today shows how lobbyists and politicians skirt laws banning gifts to lawmakers by using homes owned by lobbying firms to throw fundraiser parties. Reporter Ken Dilanian used invitations, interviews, real estate and Federal Election Commission records to document "400 congressional fundraisers at lobbyist-, corporate- or labor-owned Capitol Hill facilities last year through November, benefiting 214 lawmakers—40% of Congress."

In the past decade, 18 lobbying firms, corporations and labor unions have purchased town houses or leased office space near the Capitol, joining more than a dozen others that had operated there for years, according to real estate records. Despite a strict new ban on gifts to lawmakers, lobbyists routinely use these prime locations to legally wine and dine members of Congress while helping them to raise money, campaign records show. The lawmakers get a venue that is often free or low-cost, a short jaunt from the Capitol. The lobbyists get precious uninterrupted moments with lawmakers—the sort of money-fueled proximity the new lobbying law was designed to curtail. The public seldom learns what happens there because the law doesn't always require fundraising details to be reported.

Park police whistleblower wins case against feds

James Sandler — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:55:25 -0800

A high-profile whistleblower scored a crucial victory yesterday in her fight against the federal government, the focus of a CIR/Salon.com feature last November. Teresa Chambers—who was fired as Chief of the U.S. Park Police in 2004—prevailed in a petition she had filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Chambers claimed in her petition that public comments she made about dwindling budgets and increasing crime in the nation’s parks—and her subsequent firing for making those comments—amounted to protected speech under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal Circuit Court yesterday agreed, in a 2-1 decision, that Chambers’ comments were a “substantial and specific danger to public health and safety,” and that a lower court initially ruled incorrectly. The Appeals Court remanded Chambers’ case back to the lower court to reconsider its decision. The Appeals Court, however, sustained other charges of misconduct made against Chambers. Chambers, for her part, is not waiting around. She recently took a job a Police Chief of the Riverdale Park department in Prince George’s County, Maryland. “It could be years before the [lower court] renders its new decision,” Chambers said in response to the recent decision. “In the meantime, I'm very happy in my new position.”

Oakland police officer cracks the case against Your Muslim Bakery leader

CIR Staff — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:52:04 -0800

The latest story by the Chauncey Bailey Project chronicles the methodical investigation by Oakland police officer Jim Saleda, who cracked the case against Black Muslim Bakery patriarch Yusuf Bey for his abuse of women and girls. Also, check out The Chauncey Bailey Project's slick new website, which archives all of the print, audio, and video stories produced so far.

The most dangerous job in journalism

Carrie Ching — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:24:16 -0800

Sometimes the most dangerous stories are the small ones: Local stories on ethnic minorities that get little coverage in the mainstream media. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit "dedicated to defending press freedom worldwide," 11 of the 13 journalists murdered in the United States since 1976 were killed in apparent retaliation for their reporting on ethnic minorities. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle points out that three of those murders happened in the Bay Area. The most recent being the murder of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey, who was reporting on the scandals and financial problems at Your Black Muslim Bakery, "a black-owned business and self-empowerment group." Bailey was gunned down in the street in Oakland on August 2, 2007. From the Chronicle story:

"It's exactly that kind of person who covers the local community in a grassroots level who is most vulnerable to these kinds of attacks," said Abi Wright, a spokesperson for the [Committee to Protect Journalists]. She said writers are more at risk than broadcasters. "It's not the leading guy for the leading newspaper in the country. It's the guy who's covering his local community ... they're closer to the story. They don't have the institutional protections from a larger news organization."

According to the article, the other two Bay Area murders were:

Lam Trong Duong, who had written stories in a Vietnamese language newsletter supportive of the communist government of Vietnam, was shot in 1981 near his apartment in San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood. A group of anti-communist Vietnamese claimed responsibility for the slaying.
Henry Liu, author of a Chinese-language book accusing Taiwanese officials of corruption, was killed in 1984 in his Daly City home by hit men hired by the Taiwanese government.

>> Read "Grassroots ethnic reporting a perilous calling" on SFGate.com. >> Read CPJ's report about journalists killed worldwide in 2007.