Out to change the law of the land - property rights movement - Cover Story

0 Comments | Insight on the News, May 17, 1993 | by Richard Miniter

By contrast, Reigle's main opponent, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, raised nearly $6.6 million in the fiscal year ending June 30 -- or about $18,060 a day. The foundation raises more in a day than Reigle does in a year. "She seems very concerned about our finances and where we get our money," Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, told the Baltimore Business Journal recently. "I can't name one person who works here who couldn't make more money in the private -- or the public -- sector."

Baker's $83,500 annual salary plus nontaxable benefits are public record because the foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization under Internal Revenue Service regulations. All donations to such groups are tax write-offs for the donors, and careful records of all expenses must be kept and made available to the public.

Since Reigle's group has not sought what she calls "tax shelter status," it forgoes several benefits. It does not receive special postal rates or free or low-cost advertising, and, of course, cannot shelter its donors from higher income taxes.

The same can be said for Ann Corcoran, who edits the Land Rights Letter in Sharpsburg, Md.; Nancie Marzulla, the president of Defenders of Property Rights in Washington, D.C., Joanna Waugh, a key officer in Stop Taking Our Property of Chesterton, Ind.; and a host of other small land rights groups.

Many private property groups were started and are run by women who usually cannot afford to pay themselves a salary Most major environmental organizations are run by salaried men, such as Sierra Club President J. Michael McCloskey, who makes more than $107,000 a year plus benefits, and National Wildlife Federation President Jay Hair, who earns more than $228,000 a year plus benefits.

Despite what they tell the press, environmental leaders know that the property rights movement is not well-funded by industry or anyone else and is not connected to the Wise Use movement, a largely Western effort to save logging, mining and oil drilling jobs on public lands.

What environmentalists really know about the land rights movement became clear at an Environmental Grantmakers Association meeting held on Orcas Island, off the coast of Washington state, this past October. The gathering included more than 130 corporate foundations, including Apple Computer, Chevron Companies, the Proctor & Gamble Fund and the Ford Foundation, which meet periodically to decide what the environmental movement needs to bankroll next.

High on the agenda was the threat posed by the property rights movement. Debra Callahan, who recently completed a study of land rights groups sponsored by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, led the discussion. On a tape of the session, Callahan concedes: "Around the country as you talk to [land rights] activists ... really the vast majority are not formally associated with Wise Use.

"It's really a mistake in the nomenclature to refer to this stuff as Wise Use. But we do it!" says Callahan, raising her voice. Later, Callahan suggests that environmentalists link the land rights movement to causes that she regards as extremist, such as the John Birch Society and Lyndon LaRouche, as a way to counter its influence. Environmental groups began using Callahan's strategy this past winter.