Campaign dollars and sense

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 11, 2002 | by Jennifer G. Hickey

The Sierra Club is but one of the environmental organizations that freely assisted the staff of the Senate Energy Committee as the energy bill backed by Daschle was formulated, according to a committee spokesman. The spokesman notes that in authoring a bill of such magnitude a wide range of interests were consulted and advice solicited. Furthermore, while reformers may be attentive to alleged influence bought through direct contributions of soft money, they pay scant attention to the lobbying efforts and the influence of the huge contributions from the nonprofit sector and their affiliated political-action committees.

According to the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a conservative group that tracks funding from non-profits, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) received $770,000 in 1999 and $385,000 in 1998 from the Pew Charitable Trusts to work on the "implementation of the Food Quality Act of 1996." The NRDC also was the recipient of nearly $2 million in grants between 1993 and 2000 from the Turner Foundation, headed by CNN founder Ted Turner and, according to a recent Associated Press account, the NRDC filed arsenic-related lawsuits against the government despite receiving $4.9 million in federal research grants.

Reformers postoring from the editorial pages and the halls of Congress speak of the dangers of soft money, but there is a real question of where advocacy ends and terrorism begins. In testimony before the House Resources subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Richard Berman of the CCF detailed how some contributions to seemingly benign groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), find their way into terrorist hands.

According to Berman, PETA gave a direct contribution of $5,000 in fiscal 2000 to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) to "support their program activities." Several witnesses, including James F. Jarboe, section chief in the counterterrorism office of the FBI, testified that ELF and its sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front, have "emerged as a serious terrorist threat" and "have committed more than 600 criminal acts" since 1996.

While activists proclaim in communiques and on Websites to resort to violence as a matter of conviction, former ELF spokesman Craig Rosebraugh checked his convictions at the hearing-room door, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights more than 50 times during the hearing. In fact, he only answered two questions: his name and his nationality.

"It's the Robin Hood mystique" Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) said of some who support Rosebraugh and other ELFers. "Well, we intend to bring lots of attention to their cause because most of their cause is criminal. It's criminal in its principles, it's criminal in its actions" McInnis said outside the hearing room, adding that a voluntary invitation to the alleged enviroterrorists had been made well before Sept. 11.

Noting the seriousness of the matter, McInnis said his committee would submit further written questions to Rosebraugh and, "if he refuses to answer those questions, we can determine by committee vote which questions the committee believes fall within the Fifth Amendment.... And if he does not answer a second time, the subcommittee would take a vote on contempt of Congress."