Double Standards of the CBC

Posted on December 30, 2014December 30, 2014 by Denise Simon

The Congressional Black Caucus was created in 1969 by a small group of black members only later to be restructured in 1971 by Charlie Rangel D-NY along with the assistance of Shirley Chisholm and John Conyers.

Then there is the mission to promote events in Africa. Plainly written it is activism.

Parked under corruption in 2013, the CBC has a recent history of fraud.

Corruption: Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.’s guilty plea to fraud charges raises fresh questions about the Congressional Black Caucus. It’s a group with many laudable goals, but why do so many in it succumb to corruption?

A disproportionate share of ethics cases have been brought against this exclusive club.

According to a 2012 National Journal study, five of the six lawmakers under review by the House Ethics Committee were Black Caucus members. Yet just one in 10 House members belong to the group.

It’s a familiar pattern.

In 2009, all eight lawmakers under ethics investigation were African-American. Besides Jackson, they included Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who was later convicted of accepting gifts from donors with business before his tax-writing panel and 11 other ethics violations.

All told, the Journal says, an astonishing one-third of sitting black lawmakers have been named in an ethics probe at some point in their Hill careers.

The stat does not include former lawmakers now doing time in prison, such as ex-Rep. William Jefferson, D-La. FBI agents last decade caught Jefferson red-handed with $90,000 of bribery cash stashed in his office freezer.

Think that is all? Well not so much, even the New York Times had to take a deep look and made some interesting discoveries. Then there is the House and Senate ethics committees that are provided evidence for investigation. The ethics rules are shallow at best but all cases can be referred to Justice for further investigations and prosecutions. Oh wait, that wont happen either….and so it goes, collusion, fraud and deception goes unchecked. That is Washington DC.

WASHINGTON — When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like Wal-Mart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.

Soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing at what amounted to a mortgage-burning party for the $4 million town house.

Most political groups in Washington would have been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations. But by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town.

It has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.)

The caucus says its nonprofit groups are intended to help disadvantaged African-Americans by providing scholarships and internships to students, researching policy and holding seminars on topics like healthy living.

But the bulk of the money has been spent on elaborate conventions that have become a high point of the Washington social season, as well as the headquarters building, golf outings by members of Congress and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort.

In 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation spent more on the caterer for its signature legislative dinner and conference — nearly $700,000 for an event one organizer called “Hollywood on the Potomac” — than it gave out in scholarships, federal tax records show.

At the galas, lobbyists and executives who give to caucus charities get to mingle with lawmakers. They also get seats on committees the caucus has set up to help members of Congress decide what positions to take on the issues of the day. Indeed, the nonprofit groups and the political wing are so deeply connected it is sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Even as it has used its status as a civil rights organization to become a fund-raising power in Washington, the caucus has had to fend off criticism of ties to companies whose business is seen by some as detrimental to its black constituents.

These include cigarette companies, Internet poker operators, beer brewers and the rent-to-own industry, which has become a particular focus of consumer advocates for its practice of charging high monthly fees for appliances, televisions and computers.

Caucus leaders said the giving had not influenced them.

“We’re unbossed and unbought,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the caucus. “Historically, we’ve been known as the conscience of the Congress, and we’re the ones bringing up issues that often go unnoticed or just aren’t on the table.”

But many campaign finance experts question the unusual structure.

“The claim that this is a truly philanthropic motive is bogus — it’s beyond credulity,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, a nonpartisan group that monitors campaign finance and ethics issues. “Members of Congress should not be allowed to have these links. They provide another pocket, and a very deep pocket, for special-interest money that is intended to benefit and influence officeholders.”

Not all caucus members support the donors’ goals, and some issues, like a debate last year over whether to ban menthol cigarettes, have produced divisions.

But caucus members have attracted increasing scrutiny from ethics investigators. All eight open House investigations involve caucus members, and most center on accusations of improper ties to private businesses.

And an examination by The Times shows what can happen when companies offer financial support to caucus members.

For instance, Representative Danny K. Davis, Democrat of Illinois, once backed legislation that would have severely curtailed the rent-to-own industry, criticized in urban districts like his on the West Side of Chicago. But Mr. Davis last year co-sponsored legislation supported by the stores after they led a well-financed campaign to sway the caucus, including a promise to provide computers to a jobs program in Chicago named for him. He denies any connection between the industry’s generosity and his shift.

Growing Influence

The caucus started out 40 years ago as a political club of a handful of black members of Congress. Now it is at the apex of its power: President Obama is a former member, though he was never very active.

Its members, all Democrats, include the third-ranking House member, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina; 4 House committee chairmen; and 18 subcommittee leaders. Among those are Representative Charles E. Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

There are hundreds of caucuses in Congress, representing groups as disparate as Hispanic lawmakers and those with an interest in Scotland. And other members of Congress have nonprofit organizations.

But the Congressional Black Caucus stands alone for its money-raising prowess. As it has gained power, its nonprofit groups — one an outright charity, the other a sort of research group — have seen a surge in contributions, nearly doubling from 2001 to 2008.

Besides the caucus charities, many members — including Mr. Clyburn and Representative William Lacy Clay Jr. of Missouri — also have personal or family charities, which often solicit donations from companies that give to the caucus. And spouses have their own group that sponsors a golf and tennis fund-raiser.

The board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation includes executives and lobbyists from Boeing, Wal-Mart, Dell, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Verizon, Heineken, Anheuser-Busch and the drug makers Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline. All are hefty donors to the caucus.

Some of the biggest donors also have seats on the second caucus nonprofit organization — one that can help their businesses. This group, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, drafts positions on issues before Congress, including health care and climate change.

This means, for example, that the lobbyists and executives from coal, nuclear and power giants like Peabody Energy and Entergy helped draft a report in the caucus’s name that includes their positions on controversial issues. One policy document issued by the Black Caucus Institute last year asserted that the financial impact of climate change legislation should be weighed before it is passed, a major industry stand.

Officials from the Association of American Railroads, another major donor, used their board positions to urge the inclusion of language recommending increased spending on the national freight rail system. A lobbyist for Verizon oversaw a debate on a section that advocated increased federal grants to expand broadband Internet service.

And Larry Duncan, a Lockheed Martin lobbyist, served on a caucus institute panel that recommended that the United States form closer ties with Liberia, even as his company was negotiating a huge airport contract there.

The companies say their service to the caucus is philanthropic.

“Our charitable donations are charitable donations,” said David Sylvia, a spokesman for Altria, which has given caucus charities as much as $1.3 million since 2004, the Times analysis shows, including a donation to a capital fund used to pay off the mortgage of the caucus headquarters.

Elsie L. Scott, chief executive of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, acknowledged that the companies want to influence members. In fact, the fund-raising brochures make clear that the bigger the donation, the greater the access, like a private reception that includes members of Congress for those who give more than $100,000.

“They are trying to get the attention of the C.B.C. members,” Ms. Scott said. “And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. They’re in business, and they want to deal with people who have influence and power.”

She also acknowledged that if her charity did not have “Congressional Black Caucus” in its name, it would gather far less money. “If it were just the Institute for the Advancement of Black People — you already have the N.A.A.C.P.,” she said.

Ms. Scott said she, too, had heard criticism that the caucus foundation takes too much from companies seen as hurting blacks . But she said she was still willing to take their money.

“Black people gamble. Black people smoke. Black people drink,” she said in an interview. “And so if these companies want to take some of the money they’ve earned off of our people and give it to us to support good causes, then we take it.”

Big Parties, Big Money

The biggest caucus event of the year is held each September in Washington.

The 2009 event began with a rooftop party at the new W Hotel, with the names of the biggest sponsors, the pharmaceutical companies Amgen and Eli Lilly, beamed in giant letters onto the walls, next to the logo of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. A separate dinner party and ceremony, sponsored by Disney at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, featured the jazz pianist Marcus Johnson.

The next night, AT&T sponsored a dinner reception at the Willard InterContinental Washington, honoring Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees consumer protection issues.

The Southern Company, the dominant electric utility in four Southeastern states, spent more than $300,000 to host an awards ceremony the next night honoring Ms. Lee, the black caucus chairwoman, with Shaun Robinson, a TV personality from “Access Hollywood,” as a co-host. The bill for limousine services — paid by Southern — exceeded $11,000.

A separate party, sponsored by Macy’s, featured a fashion show and wax models of historic African-American leaders.

All of this was just a buildup for the final night and the biggest event — a black-tie dinner for 4,000, which included President Obama, the actor Danny Glover and the musician Wyclef Jean.

Annual spending on the events, including an annual prayer breakfast that Coca-Cola sponsors and several dozen policy workshops typically sponsored by other corporations, has more than doubled since 2001, costing $3.9 million in 2008. More than $350,000 went to the official decorator and nearly $400,000 to contractors for lighting and show production, according to tax records. (By comparison, the caucus spent $372,000 on internships in 2008, tax records show.)

The sponsorship of these parties by big business is usually counted as a donation in the caucus books. But sometimes the corporations pay vendors directly and simply name the caucus or an individual caucus member as an “honoree” in disclosure records filed with the Senate.

(The New York Times Company is listed as having paid the foundation $5,000 to $15,000 in 2008. It was the cost of renting a booth to sell newspapers at the annual conference.)

Foundation officials say profit from the event is enough to finance programs like seminars on investments, home ownership and healthy living; housing for Washington interns; and about $600,000 in scholarships.

Interns and students interviewed praised the caucus.

“The internship for me came at a very critical moment in my life,” said Ervin Johnson, 24, an intern in 2007, placed by the Justice Department. “Most people don’t have that opportunity.”

Still, Ms. Scott, the foundation’s chief executive, said that members of the caucus’s board had complained about the ballooning bills for the annual conference. And some donors have asked that their money go only toward programs like scholarships. She blamed the high prices charged by vendors mandated by the Washington Convention Center.

Legislative Interests

The companies that host events at the annual conference are engaged in some of the hottest battles in Washington, and they frequently turn to caucus members for help.

Internet poker companies have been big donors, fighting moves to restrict their growth. Caucus members have been among their biggest backers.

Amgen and DaVita, which dominate the kidney treatment and dialysis business nationwide, have donated as much as $1.5 million over the last five years to caucus charities, and the caucus has been one of their strongest allies in a bid to win broader federal reimbursements.

AT&T and Verizon, sponsors of the caucus charities for years, have turned to the caucus in their effort to prevent new federal rules governing how cellphone carriers operate Internet services on their wireless networks.

But few of these alliances have paid off like the caucus’s connection to rent-to-own stores.

Some Democrats in Congress have tried to limit fees charged to consumers who rent televisions or appliances, with critics saying the industry’s advertisements prey on low-income consumers, offering the short-term promise of walking away with a big-screen TV while hiding big long-term fees. Faced with rules that could destroy their business, the industry called on the caucus.

In 2007, it retained Zehra Buck, a former aide to Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and a caucus member, to help expand a lobbying campaign. Its trade association in 2008 became the exclusive sponsor of an annual caucus foundation charity event where its donated televisions, computers and other equipment were auctioned, with the proceeds going to scholarships. It donated to the campaigns of at least 10 caucus members, and to political action committees run by the caucus and its individual members.

It also encouraged member stores to donate to personal charities run by caucus members or to public schools in their districts. Mr. Clay, the Missourian, received $14,000 in industry contributions in 2008 for the annual golf tournament his family runs in St. Louis. The trade association also held a fund-raising event for him in Reno, Nev.

“I’ll always do my best to protect what really matters to you,” Mr. Clay told rent-to-own executives, who agreed to hold their 2008 annual convention in St. Louis, his home district. Mr. Clay declined a request for an interview.

On a visit to Washington, Larry Carrico, then president of the rent-to-own trade association, offered to donate computers and other equipment to a nonprofit job-training group in Chicago named in honor of Mr. Davis, the Illinois congressman who in 2002 voted in favor of tough restrictions on the industry.

Mr. Davis switched sides. Mr. Carrico traveled to Chicago to hand over the donations, including a van with “Congressman Danny K. Davis Job Training Program” painted on its side, all of which helped jump-start a charity run by Lowry Taylor, who also works as a campaign aide to Mr. Davis.

In an interview, Mr. Carrico said support from caucus members came because they understood that his industry had been unfairly criticized and that it provided an important service to consumers in their districts.

While some caucus members still oppose the industry, 13 are co-sponsors of the industry-backed legislation that would ward off tough regulatory restrictions — an alliance that has infuriated consumer advocates.

“It is unfortunate that the members of the black caucus who are supporting this bill did not check with us first,” said Margot Saunders, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. “Because the legislation they are supporting would simply pre-empt state laws that are designed to protect consumers against an industry that rips them off.”

The industry’s own bill, introduced by a caucus member, has not been taken up, but it does not really matter because the move to pass stricter legislation has ground to a halt.

“Without the support of the C.B.C.,” John Cleek, the president of the rent-to-own association, acknowledged in an industry newsletter in 2008, “our mission in Washington would fail.”

Ron Nixon and Griffin Palmer contributed reporting.

The State of Palestine, Yes, No Maybe

Posted on December 30, 2014December 30, 2014 by Denise Simon

Update: As of 5:00 PM, EST

UN REJECTS PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION TO DEMAND ISRAEL WITHDRAW FROM WEST BANK, EAST JERUSALEM

A revised text in the resolution for Palestinian statehood has been presented to the United Nations. There are some interesting demands such that some global leaders are not in support including the United States and Britain. Sadly through all the years of debate over statehood, very few look at history and borders. The debate is a false one when it is understood where “Palestine” was/is.

The draft resolution by the Palestinians calling for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem within three years and revised to include language declaring East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state was presented to the UN Security Council late Monday.
The draft resolution affirms the urgent need to achieve “a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution” to the decades-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict within 12 months and sets a December 31, 2017 deadline for Israel’s occupation to end.

State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki, when asked today if the United States would support a proposed United Nations resolution that would set terms of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, said that “it is not something that we would support.”

The Times of Israel reports:

Washington has seen the text of a draft resolution circulating in the UN Security Council and “it is not something that we would support,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.

“We wouldn’t support any action that would prejudge the outcome of the negotiations and that would set a specific deadline for the withdrawal of forces,” Psaki said.

Psaki’s answer indicates that the United States would veto the resolution if it came before the Security Council.

Psaki’s comments came shortly after Senators Chuck Schumer (D – N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R – S.C.) called on the administration “to make clear that the United States will veto any United Nations resolution … to bypass direct negotiations and impose peace terms on Israel through the United Nations Security Council and other international bodies,” earlier today.

(Reuters) – Britain joined the United States on Tuesday, declaring that it cannot support a new Palestinian draft proposal calling for peace with Israel within a year and an end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories by late 2017.

Jordan on Tuesday circulated to the U.N. Security Council a draft resolution prepared by the Palestinians, who said they want it put to a vote before Thursday. Washington said it could not support the draft because it was not constructive and failed to address Israel’s security needs.

British U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant was asked by reporters whether his delegation could support the Palestinian draft.

“Well no,” he said. “There’s some difficulties with the text, particularly language on time scales, new language on refugees. So I think we would have some difficulties.”

Global Financial Outlook 2015~Grim

Posted on December 30, 2014December 30, 2014 by Denise Simon

What is the financial outlook for 2015? Not good as the monetary experts have created a study group in the United States to examine conditions, causes and solutions.

The Federal Reserve deliberately keeps quiet about how it measures lenders’ performance during downturns, to prevent banks from finding loopholes in the process that would allow them to take more risk, senior regulators have said publicly. It has given banks a little more information recently, but many executives still gripe about the tests.

“You put something in and one year it’s okay and the next year they say ‘no,’ and you’re scratching your head,” said one bank executive. The executive, like others that spoke to Reuters, spoke about the stress tests on the condition of anonymity.

A few years ago, banks might have hesitated to share information with rivals about how they measure risk and how they communicate with the Federal Reserve. Their willingness to talk to competitors about these issues underscores just how exasperated they are with the process. Meanwhile, banks in Europe are failing stress tests as Italy suffered the worst count: nine of the country’s 21 banks examined failed the test. Italy is Europe’s fourth-largest economy.

Greece and Cyprus, southern European countries that required international bailouts, were next. In each country, three of four banks examined did not pass muster.

Five of the Italian banks and one Greek bank have since covered their shortfalls.

Only one of the 25 major banks in Germany, Europe’s strongest economy, failed the test, but it has since raised sufficient capital.

Greece is the indicator for Europe as Greece has undergone the most strenuous financial retooling program in the last few years and yet it is not enough. Banks are all interconnected given the quiet bailouts globally through the International Monetary Fund and associated global banks. So what about Greece?

Greece’s threat to the European economic recovery

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the Greek government’s failure today to secure sufficient votes in parliament to choose a new president for the country. Since such a failure not only forces Greece to hold snap elections by the end of January, which could see the coming to power of a radical left-wing government. It also raises the real possibility that Greece will be forced to exit the Euro in 2015 that would be a major blow to the prospects of a meaningful European economic recovery.

On the basis of current electoral polls, the Syriza Party, headed by Alexis Tsipras, should win the parliamentary elections now scheduled for January 25. Judging by Syriza’s consistent electoral promises, if elected one must expect that Syriza will roll back the austerity policies imposed on Greece by the IMF, the ECB, and the European Union (the so-called “troika”). Syriza must also be expected to reverse many of Greece’s recent structural reforms in the labor market and in the area of privatization policy. In addition, it will more than likely insist on substantial official debt relief from the ECB, the IMF, and its European partners.

The prospect of a Syriza government taking office is already sending shudders through the Greek financial markets and is undermining confidence in the still very depressed Greek economy. One must expect that the election of Syriza will put Greece on a collision course with both the troika and the German government. Since it is difficult to see how the troika and the German government can accede to Greece’s request for either debt relief or for additional budgetary financing at a time that Greece’s economic policy would be going in a direction clearly unacceptable to its European partners. For its part, it is difficult to see how Syriza can quickly make a policy U-turn from a position that it has been consistently espousing these past few years.

To be sure, a month in Greek politics is a long time and Syriza is by no means assured of electoral victory. However, it would seem that even in the best case scenario of a New Democracy win, it would fall well short of the votes needed for forming a majority government. With a deeply divided PASOK Party highly likely to be decimated in the elections, New Democracy will have difficulty in forming a stable coalition government. It is also likely that in the election campaign, New Democracy will emphasize that if re-elected it too will take a tough line with the troika, from which line it will be difficult to withdraw after the elections.

Greece’s already battered economy can ill-afford a prolonged period of political uncertainty, and much less a radical government, especially without the backstop of a troika financial support program. For not only does Greece have substantial official debt amortization payments to make in 2015 — it is also vulnerable to a run on its bank deposits. This would especially appear to be the case in light of the recent Cypriot experience, where Cyprus’s official international lenders insisted on a large write-down of bank deposits in return for their financial support to the country. Without a troika program in place, Greek banks would not be in the position to access the European Central Bank’s rediscount window in the event of a bank run that would almost certainly lead to the further collapse of the Greek economy.

European optimists argue that, unlike in 2010, any spillovers now from a Greek crisis to the rest of the Eurozone would be limited. However, in so doing they overlook Europe’s very poor economic and political fundamentals, which make the Eurozone all too susceptible to renewed contagion from the Greek crisis intensifying. After all, Europe is on the cusp of yet another economic recession and of a prolonged period of Japanese-style price deflation. Meanwhile, its economic periphery remains highly indebted and throughout Europe support for its political elite is crumbling at a time that parties on the extreme-left and the extreme-right of the political spectrum appear to be on the march.

Shadow Hackers Attacking America, No Identity

Posted on December 30, 2014December 30, 2014 by Denise Simon

If the whole truth bubbled to the surface on just how deep, far and wide cyber attacks hit America, they would truly be the most significant threats known to the West. Hackers hit targets in America so often daily that they cannot be measured for frequency or damage, but expert estimates are known and not revealed.

When it comes to the recent Sony hack and that of Xbox and PlayStation, black-hat types are brought in to investigate and opinions are set in motion. Even with all the attention paid to Sony, to date a culprit has not been fingered and certainly no punishment is forthcoming.

So, was the Sony hack really performed by North Korea? Was it at the hands of China as a proxy? Heck was it Russia or Iran? Was it an inside job working in collusion with both domestic and foreign entities? No one really knows or there is a refusal to explain. This is a major problem itself as blame may be misplaced for the sake of fouled diplomacy, fear of future retributions or the possibility of wide-spread panic across the country.

POLITICO Pro

FBI briefed on alternate Sony hack theory

Investigating U.S. Based Islamic Charities

Posted on December 29, 2014December 29, 2014 by Denise Simon

The most famous case was the Holyland Foundation Trial where millions of dollars from the United States found the pockets of global terrorists. Not much came of this in total due in part to Eric Holder. It is imperative that readers trace money and people domestically as it still goes on. Here is a link to use as a launch pad for continues whistleblowing.

Meanwhile, it appears that the UK is beginning to do some good work in investigating charities and it is likely the same thing occurs in America. These people and charities in America have tax exempt status from the IRS.

Charity Commission: British charities investigated for terror risks

William Shawcross, the chair of the Charity Commission, warns that money donated by the British public may already have been sent to Islamic State fighters, as the watchdog opens cases on 86 aid groups at risk from extremists

By Tim Ross, Robert Mendick, and Andrew Gilligan

The government’s charity watchdog has launched a series of formal investigations into British aid organisations, amid concerns that they are at risk of being hijacked by terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

The head of the Charity Commission told The Telegraph he fears that groups distributing money and supplies donated by the public in Britain could be exploited by Islamists to smuggle cash, equipment and fighters to terrorists on the front line.

The regulator has begun scrutinising 86 British charities which it believes could be at risk from extremism, including 37 working to help victims of the Syria crisis, according to new figures released today.

It has launched full-scale investigations into four charities operating in the region, including the group that employed the murdered hostage Alan Henning when he was kidnapped, and another organisation allegedly infiltrated by a suicide bomber.

The number of terrorism-related cases that the regulator is examining has almost doubled since February, amid growing concerns that charities working in the region are potential targets for the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil, also known as Islamic State, and Isis).

William Shawcross, the chair of the Commission, said there was “a risk” that money donated by the British public had already been sent to Isil fighters, who have beheaded two British hostages, among many other victims, and are holding a third.

“It is absolutely terrifying to see these young British men going out to be trained in Syria and coming back here,” Mr Shawcross said.

“Most of them are not going out under the auspices of charities but, when that happens, it is absolutely our duty to come down on it.

“Even if extremist and terrorist abuse is rare, which it is, when it happens it does huge damage to public trust in charities. That’s why I take it very seriously.”

The warning comes at a critical time for global efforts to stem the flow of money to terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

The Telegraph’s Stop the Funding of Terror campaign, which has won wide support in Parliament, the military and overseas, is calling for action to cut off terrorist finance.

The Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, has worked with the government of Qatar as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, among others, to strengthen their systems for regulating charitable groups.

However, despite these efforts, funded by British taxpayers, America warned earlier this month that Qatar and Kuwait remain “permissive” regimes in which terrorist financiers are able to operate.

Analysts fear that millions of dollars in so-called charitable donations raised inside Qatar and Kuwait have been used to buy weapons and supplies for jihadists in Iraq and Syria. In other developments this weekend:

:: The brother of David Haines, the British hostage executed by his captors, has made an impassioned plea to Gulf States to strangle the funding to terror groups operating in Syria and Iraq. Michael Haines told The Telegraph: “We have to attack their finances. We need to fight them on every front that we can find. We have to destroy them.”

:: It has emerged that the cousin of Qatar’s foreign minister has been convicted of funding international terrorism. Abdulaziz bin Khalifa al-Attiyah was found guilty in absentia by a Lebanese court for channelling financial support to al-Qaeda.

:: Lord Lamont, the former chancellor, praised the Telegraph in Parliament for “highlighting the movement of funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East” as he pressed ministers to raise the issue with Gulf rulers.

:: Foreign Office Minister Baroness Anelay promised that Britain was having “robust” talks with Qatar and other Gulf states as she called for “much greater progress” to stop terror financing. The minister revealed that Isil gets most of its money from selling oil, extortion, and hostage ransoms, as well as from foreign donations.

:: The government is facing new questions over the “extraordinary” inconsistencies in British action against terrorist financiers, after it emerged that terrorists whose assets have been frozen under Treasury sanctions may not be banned from travelling to the UK. Stephen Barclay, a Conservative MP, called on his own party leadership to “spell out” why Britain has a different sanctions regime against Qatari terror financiers from America, the UK’s closest intelligence ally.

Last Wednesday, David Cameron raised concerns that the wealthy Gulf state of Qatar had failed to act against rich Qatar-based fundraisers and “charities” that have sent millions of dollars to jihadists fighting in Iraq and Syria.

During a private, one-to-one discussion with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, the Prime Minister urged the Gulf ruler to accelerate efforts to tackle terrorist financiers operating within the country.

Sources said the issue was also raised during a formal lunch in Number 10, which was also attended by Mr Cameron’s chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, his national security adviser Sir Kim Darroch, and the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond.

In Britain, the Charity Commission had already taken action against charities linked to extremists, with the most serious cases going to court as part of terrorism prosecutions.

Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Shawcross said the regulator was stepping up its assault on the abuse of charitable funds by terrorists, as well as other kinds of malpractice including fraud, mismanagement, and mistreatment of vulnerable adults and children.

An extra £8 million has been given to the watchdog, along with planned new powers, to enhance its ability to tackle abuse of charities by Islamists and others, he said.

However, he warned that it was “often very difficult” to ensure that aid and money sent to war zones to help the victims of violence does not end up in the wrong hands.

“Of course there is a risk [that funds raised here in Britain have been transported to Isil jihadists in Iraq and Syria].

“If we find any evidence of it happening through charities we will pursue it robustly in conjunction with the police and other law enforcement agencies.”

He said he was particularly concerned about the large number of small, new charities that have been set up to raise money to help victims of the Syrian crisis, while “aid convoys” delivering supplies to the region were especially vulnerable.

“I think there are 500 British charities that say they operate in Syria in one form or another and 200 of them have been registered since the conflict there began. Some of them are inexperienced and obviously more vulnerable to exploitation than bigger more established charities, the household names.”

Mr Shawcross said the regulator was concerned that “there may not be adequate controls as to where the goods and supplies were being delivered” from the aid convoys. He insisted that “most Muslim charities are run by good people”, many of whom are “more horrified than anybody else by abuse of charities by Islamists”.

Mr Shawcross insisted that “most Muslim charities are run by good people”, many of whom are “more horrified than anybody else by abuse of charities by Islamists”.

“Charities can be abused, people working along the Syrian border can be abused, for Islamist or extremist purposes, there is no question about that – sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly,” he said.

New figures from the Commission show there are 86 case files currently open in which officials are reviewing the operations of charities, at least in part because there are fears that they operate in countries – or for particular causes – which could be targeted by extremists or terrorists.

The regulator’s figures showed that 37 of these 86 charities under scrutiny were working in Syria, by raising money in Britain, sending humanitarian supplies, or participating directly in aid convoys to the worst hit areas.

This workload has increased significantly since February, when the Commission was working on 48 extremism-related cases, about 10 of which involved charities that focused on Syria.

Full “statutory inquiries“ – the Commission’s most serious kind of formal investigation – have begun into four British charities operating in Syria, including the Al-Fatiha Global organisation, which the beheaded hostage Alan Henning was working with when he was kidnapped.

The others are Children in Deen, Aid Convoy and Syria Aid. All four investigations are still “live”, while dozens of other charities are being monitored or scrutinised by the Commission because they are operating in Syria or raising funds for the region in Britain.

Mr Henning was driving an ambulance on behalf of Rochdale Aid 4 Syria, which raised money on behalf of Al-Fatiha Global. He was part of a convoy of 20 vehicles making the 4,000-mile journey to Idlib in north-west Syria when he was kidnapped on Boxing Day last year.

The Charity Commission launched its investigation after one of Al-Fatiha’s leaders was photographed with his arms around two hooded fighters carrying machine guns. A trustee of the charity has challenged the commission’s decision to launch the inquiry.

The investigation into Children in Deen began in April after it emerged that a participant in the Birmingham charity’s aid convoy last year, Abdul Waheed Majeed, had allegedly become Britain’s first suicide bomber in Syria.

Majeed, 41, killed dozens of civilians when he drove a truck full of explosives into the wall of Aleppo prison, enabling hundreds of prisoners to escape.

Last year, the Commission began formal inquiries into Aid Convoy, and Syria Aid, over concerns about the way their funds were being used once inside Syria.

The watchdog issued a formal warning against aid convoys to Syria and urged members of the public to donate to the larger aid agencies and major international charities to minimise the risk that their money will be stolen by extremists.

Masood Ajaib, a trustee of Children in Deen, condemned the actions of Majeed and completely dissociated himself and the charity from any links to violence. He said the commission’s investigation had already hit fundraising and made its operations more difficult.

“We had nothing to do with this and do not support violence,” he said. “All we want to do is help the women and children affected by the biggest humanitarian disaster we have seen for generations.”