An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion
ABC Channel 5 Cleveland/ Scripps: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has the power to force the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative to publicly disclose the names of foreign governments and the millions they donate each year to the charities but he’s not doing it, a Scripps News investigation has found.
Schneiderman’s failure to require compliance with New York law and written instructions from his own office keeps the public in the dark about whether the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton charities also had special access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, experts in private foundation law say. New York state has long required more transparency from non-profits operating within its borders than many other regulators.
A Scripps Washington Bureau review of tax returns and regulatory filings found that year after year the Clinton charities have ignored New York law and related instructions. However, the office of Attorney General Schneiderman, a Democrat whom Hillary Clinton named to her campaign’s “leadership council” in New York, did not respond to Scripps’ questions about the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which has never publicly disclosed in New York filings the identity of its foreign government contributors or the amounts they give each year. Scripps also discovered CHAI did not report hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign government donations to the state.
However, Schneiderman’s office said it considers the Clinton Foundation, which is a separate charity, “in step” with state rules.
“He’s not doing his job in that case,” said David Nelson, an attorney and former partner at the accounting firm of Ernst & Young who served on the regulations and legislation committee of the Council On Foundations, the philanthropy industry’s equivalent of the American Bar Association.
In 2009, Secretary Clinton’s first year heading the State Department, the Clinton Foundation disclosed to New York only a lump sum of $122 million in foreign government donations, listing the amount on a required form that directs all charities to “list each government contribution (grant) separately.” The foundation continued to provide the lump sum disclosures for foreign governments in every year that followed.
Nelson said, “The Clinton Foundation cannot say they are in compliance with New York regulations.”
Here’s what you need to know
The Internal Revenue Service has long required charities to disclose on their federal tax returns the total amount of contributions they receive from all governments, foreign and domestic. The federal form does not require a charity to publicly identify its government contributors. However, any charity that wishes to operate or raise funds in New York must also, according to a state law, meet more rigid transparency requirements and publicly disclose “the name of each agency” and “the amount of each contribution” received from any government agency, every year.
A partial review by Scripps of charities registered in New York found inconsistent compliance with the instructions.
The New York Attorney General’s office published a set of detailed instructions for all charities to follow. It directs them to make sure the total amount of government contributions disclosed to the state is equal to what the charities report to the IRS. From 2010-2014, for every year it has filed disclosures with the state, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has ignored this direction.
The $225 million discrepancy
By 2010, Hillary Clinton was entering her second year as secretary of state and the Clinton Health Access Initiative had just split off from the Clinton Foundation as part of an agreement with the Obama administration. The separation was intended to help bring “greater transparency” to the Clinton charities during her tenure at the State Department, according to a memorandum of understanding with President Obama’s transition team.
That year, CHAI reported only $242,099 in “Total Government Contributions” to New York regulators, and that number included only domestic grants. But for the same time period in 2010 it told the IRS it received $26,740,319 in foreign and domestic government grants.
By not telling New York about millions in foreign government grants it received that year, CHAI avoided the state’s more stringent disclosure rules that would have required the charity to itemize publicly each domestic and foreign government donation. In a letter written in November 2014, as Clinton began eyeing a run for the White House, CHAI itemized domestic government grants but told the New York attorney general’s office it “also received foreign government contributions and can provide those in more details if needed.”
Every disclosure CHAI has ever made since separating from the Clinton Foundation has come during Schneiderman’s tenure as attorney general. CHAI spokesperson Regan Lachapelle told Scripps that if Schneiderman’s office wants more information, it can ask for it.
“We believe that we are following instructions by recording the (domestic government grants) we receive on the New York form and indicating that we will provide them with foreign government donor information if they would like it,” Lachapelle wrote in an email. “We clearly state in our cover letter that we would provide details on funding from international governments upon request.”
The charity says it provided “aggregate” amounts of all government grants to New York that are found on its federal tax returns. “The officials in New York have never questioned our way of doing this,” Lachapelle said.
John Wonderlich, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog that has a special focus on the flow of political money, says the disclosure rules for all charities in New York are clear and the Clinton charity should follow them.
“It appears as though the Clinton Health Access Initiative is attempting to disclose less than the law requires, and to deflect blame onto the attorney general’s office as though financial disclosure requirements are individually negotiated on a by-request basis,” he said.
Between 2010 and 2014, with no one stepping in, records show a $225 million discrepancy between what CHAI told New York it received in government grants and what it told the IRS. The impact means, experts say, details on the foreign government donations remain out of public view for anybody who might wish to know which governments gave what, and when. The charity did tell New York it received $8.2 million in domestic government grants over the same timeframe, signaling the vast majority of its government money comes from overseas.
While public scrutiny of foreign donations flowing to Clinton charities has largely focused on the Clinton Foundation, tax records show the amount of foreign government money flowing to CHAI was more than six times the amount given to the foundation from 2010-2014, the years after the organizations split.
The Clinton Foundation recently pledged it would stop accepting foreign government donations if Hillary Clinton becomes president. CHAI, as a separate entity, has made no such commitment.
“CHAI’s Board will soon determine its next steps,” Lachappelle said in an email.
Chelsea Clinton is a member of CHAI’s board and her father, President Bill Clinton, is the chairman of the board. Ira Magaziner, the CEO of CHAI and vice chairman of the board, is a longtime Clinton devotee who served as senior adviser for policy development for President Clinton.
“We believe we are in compliance,” Lachapelle wrote. “The state of New York has not notified us otherwise.”
Keeping the details slim
Before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state and in advance of when CHAI split off, the Clinton Foundation disclosed to New York a lump sum amount in foreign government donations of $97 million for 2008 and $122 million for 2009, according to state filings. But records show the charity stopped disclosing even lump sum amounts during her second year at the State Department.
“Every instance where there was an opportunity to be more transparent or less they chose to be less transparent,” Nelson, the tax expert, said.
From 2010-2013, the foundation originally did not disclose to New York any foreign government grants. For three of those four years, it checked a box on regulatory forms signed by the foundation’s chief financial officer claiming it had no government grants. But this past January as Secretary Clinton was campaigning in the presidential primaries, the foundation filed revised disclosures in New York indicating it had in fact received $17.8 million in previously undisclosed foreign government grants from 2010-2013, along with several smaller domestic government donations. In the revisions, the foundation itemized domestic government grants but continued to provide only lump sums for foreign government money.
“It looks like they are being dragged kicking and screaming into any disclosure at all about their foreign (government) donors, and ultimately still failing to live up to the letter of the law,” said the Sunlight Foundation’s Wonderlich.
Balanced to the left?
The attorney general’s own website notes, in the second sentence of its biography for Eric Tradd Schneiderman, that “Eric has taken on the tough fights to protect New Yorkers – because he believes there has to be one set of rules for everyone, no matter how rich or powerful.”
No doubt, the Harvard law grad has made national waves since settling into his job, teaming up with California Attorney General Kamala Harris to push for tougher penalties for big banks following their illegal foreclosure practices and more recently taking on daily fantasy sports companies such as DraftKings and FanDuel that some have compared to gambling operations.
In August, Schneiderman won an important legal victory in federal court against the right-leaning organization Citizens United. A judge ruled the group must disclose key information about its major donors. “Today’s decision is a victory for common sense oversight of New York’s vast nonprofit sector,” Schneiderman said in a statement. “New Yorkers deserve to know their donations are protected against fraud and abuse, and today the court protected that right.”
The Clinton Foundation says it has turned in a list of major donors, which remains confidential, to Schneiderman’s office. But when it comes to the foundation’s failure to publicly disclose all government grants every year, Wonderlich and Nelson look to Schneiderman to enforce the law evenly.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaks during a press conference at the office of the New York Attorney General, July 19, 2016, in New York City. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
The attorney general’s office did not respond to questions about Schneiderman’s role on the Clinton campaign’s leadership council or whether his office was operating in an unbiased manner. Last year, Schneiderman gave the Clinton campaign $2,700, the maximum personal contribution allowed under federal law.
In June, Scripps asked the attorney general’s office about the New York laws that require charities to itemize all government grants – domestic and foreign. The office responded on the same day the press secretary for Schneiderman was quoted as defending the Clinton Foundation’s filings in an article written by Politifact. The press secretary noted in the article that other charities, such as the Carter Center, also have filed disclosures by only providing a lump sum amount for foreign government donations. The attorney general’s office said the article “serves as any comment” for the attorney general, but added, the office was now working on clarifying the rules.
“We intend to provide guidance clarifying our disclosure rules in the months ahead,” the office said in a statement.
Wonderlich, of The Sunlight Foundation, says he is alarmed at the move to “clarify” the rules, which he believes could not be more clear. He says the problem is instead with lax enforcement, adding that changing the disclosure requirements now could rob the public of a valuable window into the operations of all charities, not just those operated by the Clintons.
Former Secretary of State and first lady Hillary Clinton speaks at a press conference announcing a new initiative between the Clinton Foundation, United Nations Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies, titled Data 2x on Dec. 15, 2014, in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
“Even if there have been other organizations that failed to disclose their foreign donors, that’s not an excuse for the Clinton Foundation to not disclose their foreign donors, and it’s not an excuse for Schneiderman’s office to fail to enforce the law,” Wonderlich said.
A Scripps check of filings from separate charities reveals others complied with New York’s instructions and itemized their foreign government grants.
Action Against Hunger disclosed a wide range of donations in 2010 including $8 million from the UK Department of International Development, and other donations from entities including the Canadian Government, Royal Norwegian Embassy, and the French Government. The Catholic Medical Mission Board told New York it received $140,038 in 2011 from Kenya. In 2013, The George W. Bush Foundation revealed it received just under $5 million from the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia and another $500,000 from the embassy of the state of Kuwait.
Brian Cookstra, director of media relations for the Clinton Foundation, did not directly address questions about the appropriateness of lump sum reporting, but he referred Scripps instead to the same Politifact article that quoted the attorney general’s press secretary.
Josh Schwerin, a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, declined to answer questions and also referred Scripps to the article and the Carter Center’s practice of lumping foreign donations together for New York.
Neither the Clinton campaign nor the foundation responded to follow up questions about the state’s regulations or the attorney general’s published instructions to all charities, but the Carter Center did.
Phil Wise, vice president of operations and development for the Carter Center, explained that the center focuses on its charitable work, while contracting out to a private company all the regulatory paperwork various states require.
“We give them the detailed list of every government grant. They decide how best to disclose it,” said Wise, who added that going forward, the Carter Center will always file itemized disclosures with New York for government grants.
Within two hours of hearing from Scripps, Wise sent a detailed list of every domestic and foreign government grant the Carter Center received for fiscal year 2014.
“Basically, we are pretty transparent,” he said.
Limited disclosure
Click image to open documents for Original Clinton Foundation Filings, Revised Clinton Foundation Filings, and Clinton Health Access Initiative Filings
Both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative do voluntarily provide on their web sites general disclosures about all donors, including governments. For instance, CHAI notes that Ireland and New Zealand gave somewhere between $5 million and $10 million at some time since CHAI began filing separately from the Clinton Foundation in 2010. It received $25 million or more from Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom.
The Clinton Foundation on its website offers similar broad ranges of donations over the “lifetime” of the foundation that give no window into when or how often the money rolled in, and in what amounts.
The Clinton charities do not reveal on their websites if donations from governments came all at once, in multiple contributions over time, during Clinton’s time as secretary of state or after. They also do not provide a window into how much money might have rolled in during specific years the governments could have had business before the secretary of state.
“The law requires foreign donors to be disclosed and the [New York] attorney general, the [New York] attorney general’s office is permitting them to go undisclosed,” Wonderlich said. “Voters deserve to have a full picture of what Secretary Clinton, and the Clintons together have created, and all the ways that that might be entangled in a presidency.”
The USS Firebolt is a sea patrol boat. This is the 31st ‘unsafe’ incident this year with the Iranians. Last year it was only 23 incidents. The U.S. Navy is extremely sensitive to these kinds of boats in adversarial waters due to the bombing of the USS Cole where 17 sailors died. The case is commencing once again tomorrow September 7, 2016 at Guantanamo.
USNI: Three of the FIACs maneuvered close to Firebolt, mirroring the ship’s course and speed at a distance of about 500 yards for about eight minutes before leaving. Separate from the regular Iranian Navy, the IRGCN answers directly to the Iranian sectarian government and is given blanket leave to act “boldly and courageously” in the performance of its duties, a former defense official told USNI News. Since 2007, the IRGCN has been in charge of Iran’s costal defense since then has precipitated several international maritime incidents in and around the Persian Gulf.
Iranian boats swarm US warship, force it to change course in Persian Gulf
Stripes: WASHINGTON – An American warship was forced off course after seven Iranian fast attack boats swarmed it Sunday in the central Persian Gulf, continuing a recent pattern of Iranian harassment of U.S. military ships, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.
One of the small Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps watercraft stopped directly in the USS Firebolt’s path where it turned to face the American coastal patrol ship, said U.S. Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. After several attempts at radio communication, the Firebolt was forced to maneuver to avoid a collision. The American ship came within about 100 yards of the boat.
It was at least the fifth time in the last two weeks the Revolutionary Guard boats, controlled by hard-line, anti-American clerics close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, harassed U.S. Navy ships. In one of those incidents, another American coastal patrol ship, the USS Squall, fired three warning shots before the Iranian boats fled. In the previous encounters, the closest the two sides had come was about 200 yards, military officials have said.
“This is clearly a pattern, and it is one we are not happy about,” Davis said on Tuesday. “We would like to see this type of behavior to stop.”
In Sunday’s incident, at least three of the Iranian boats sped within 500 yards of the Firebolt, tailed the ship in “an unsafe and unprofessional manner,” and left the area once it changed course. It was not immediately clear how long the incident lasted.
The Iranian boats were clearly armed, Davis added. Crewmembers aboard the vessels were manning machine guns, but the weapons were never aimed at the Firebolt.
“We would like all players operating in international waters to do so professionally,” Davis said. “When they don’t act professionally, there is risk of collision or accident, or risk of miscalculation or unnecessary escalation.”
Just last week, Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, called out the recent actions by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and warned that continued provocations could cause “an international incident.”
“If they continue to test us, we are going to respond, and we are going to protect ourselves and our partners,” Votel said during a visit to the Pentagon. “Ultimately, we will prevail here. I’m very, very confident of that, and we certainly don’t want that to come to pass, and that’s why I call on them to act in the professional manner that they espouse to act, particularly in international waters.”
The Iranians have typically ignored the Americans’ stated concerns about such actions, saying they have the right to investigate or confront vessels near their shoreline.
The Navy estimates about 10 percent of all its interactions with Iranian military vessels since the beginning of 2015 have been unprofessional.
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) reimburses state and local governments for the costs of incarcerating unauthorized immigrants. Originally authorized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the program was not funded until the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322.) Funding has never fully covered state costs. More here.
Notice to SCAAP Applicants:
Applicants for SCAAP funds are required to certify compliance with all applicable Federal laws at the time of application. In that regard, Members of Congress have asked the Department of Justice to examine whether jurisdictions with “sanctuary policies” (i.e., policies that either prevent law enforcement from… read more
Notice to SCAAP Applicants:
Applicants for SCAAP funds are required to certify compliance with all applicable Federal laws at the time of application. In that regard, Members of Congress have asked the Department of Justice to examine whether jurisdictions with “sanctuary policies” (i.e., policies that either prevent law enforcement from releasing persons without lawful immigration status into Federal custody for deportation, or that prevent state or local law enforcement from sharing certain information with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials) are in violation of 8 U.S.C section 1373. For that reason, all applicants should understand that if OJP receives information that indicates that an applicant may be in violation of 8 U.S.C. section 1373 (or any other applicable federal law) that applicant may be referred to the DOJ Office of Inspector General for investigation; if the applicant is found to be in violation of an applicable federal law by the OIG, the applicant may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, in addition to relevant OJP programmatic penalties, including cancellation of payments, return of funds, participation in the program during the period of ineligibility, or suspension and debarment.
Fiscal Year 2016 SCAAP Application NEW: The Fiscal Year 2016 SCAAP application period has closed. SCAAP participants will be notified of the 2016 award amounts by the end of October 2016.
2016 SCAAP Data: FY 2016 SCAAP Guidelines (PDF) FY 2016 ICE Country Codes (PDF) FY 2016 Inmate Data File Format (PDF)
FY 2015 SCAAP Awards Please see the 2015 awards amounts here.
Update on the Payments for “Unknown” Alien Status Inmate Days
The Department of Justice (DOJ) will continue the reimbursements for the unknown category of SCAAP inmates for the FY 2015 SCAAP awards. SCAAP grantees are strongly encouraged to work collaboratively with DHS in the following programs in order to increase their inmate alien status verifications. Those programs include:
287(g) Program: The 287(g) program allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. This allows the officials in the jurisdictions to match inmate records prior to the SCAAP application process. For more information, see the following web site: www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm.
The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC): LESC is a single national point of contact that provides timely customs information and immigration status and identity information and real-time assistance to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies on aliens suspected, arrested or convicted of criminal activity. For more information, see the following web site: www.ice.gov/LESC/ or call 802-872-6000.
Priority Enforcement Program (PEP): PEP begins at the state and local level when an individual is arrested and booked by a law enforcement officer for a criminal violation and his or her fingerprints are submitted to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks. This same biometric data is also sent to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) so that ICE can determine whether the individual is a priority for removal, consistent with the DHS enforcement priorities described in Secretary Johnson’s November 20, 2014 Secure Communities memorandum. Under PEP, ICE will seek the transfer of a removable individual when that individual has been convicted of an offense listed under the DHS civil immigration enforcement priorities, has intentionally participated in an organized criminal gang to further the illegal activity of the gang, or poses a danger to national security. http://www.ice.gov/pep
Overview:
BJA administers the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) in conjunction with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.
Use of SCAAP Awards
The Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162, Title XI) included the following requirement regarding the use of SCAAP funds: “Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in paragraph (5) that are distributed to a State or political subdivision of a State, including a municipality, may be used only for correctional purposes.” Beginning with FY 2007 SCAAP awards, SCAAP funds must be used for correctional purposes only.
FY 2007-2012 SCAAP Use of Funds List
Salaries for corrections officers
Overtime costs
Corrections work force recruitment and retention
Construction of corrections facilities
Training/education for offenders
Training for corrections officers related to offender population management
Consultants involved with offender population
Medical and mental health services
Vehicle rental/purchase for transport of offenders
Prison industries
Pre-release/reentry programs
Technology involving offender management/inter-agency information sharing
Disaster preparedness continuity of operations for corrections facility
Legislation
SCAAP is governed by Section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1231(i), as amended, and Title II, Subtitle C, Section 20301, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322.
by Josh Stewart and Drew Doggett and Ben Berliner
(Graphic credit: Sunlight Foundation)
SunlightFoundation: Lobbyists wield enormous influence and, depending on your point of view, can bring positive or negative changes to our government. From reptile keepers to balloon enthusiasts, everyone has a constitutional right to petition government. The power some lobbyists hold over both parties in Congress and the White House is welldocumented. But what’s not well documented is how lobbyists play a role in the Democratic party’s nominating process.As Libby Watson noted earlier this year, most delegates to the Democratic National Convention, held this year in Philadelphia, are allocated based on the vote share from primaries and caucuses held in individual states, territories and the District of Columbia. But there are also 712 so-called voting superdelegates. These individuals include former and current elected officials as well as members of the Democratic National Committee. Superdelegates can support whomever they choose and are not bound by any primary or caucus result.
And, as we found, some of the superdelegates also happen to be lobbyists for interests like big banks, payday lenders, health care insurers and unions.
Since February, Sunlight has pored over hundreds of names and affiliations of DNC superdelegates from all over the country. Our methodology included going state by state to the respective lobbying registration database, as well as using data from OpenSecrets.org, to see if an individual was ever registered as a federal or state lobbyist.
At least 63 superdelegates have registered as a lobbyist at the federal level or state level at some point. (Note: As we documented in our state lobbying report card, some states keep poor records of lobbying, so some information may be out of date.)
Those include some pretty big names, such as former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell — who used to lead DLA Piper, a law and lobbying firm — and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who was a registered lobbyist working for Ballard Spahr LLP on telecommunications and health issues as recently as 2012. Richard Gephardt, the former House minority leader, is also a registered lobbyist on behalf of a firm that shares his namesake, the Gephardt Group.
Some other notable lobbyist superdelegates:
Donald L. Fowler is a former Democratic National Committee chair who was a registered lobbyist for the S.C. Credit Union in South Carolina in 2009.
Alexis Tameron was registered to lobby for American Traffic Solutions in Arizona in 2011.
Steve Grossman, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and now a federal lobbyist for HPS Inc. working on issues related to the budget.
By our count, 28 states and D.C. had at least one superdelegate who was at one time a registered lobbyist on the federal or state level. Thanks to K Street, the District of Columbia, unsurprisingly, had the most – a total of eight registered lobbyist superdelegates. Union lobbyists were also well represented among the superdelegates, totaling at least 11, mostly at the state level.
The issues that lobbyists represent are vast and reflect the Democrats’ big tent policy approach. They range from marriage equality to reproductive health to banking to traffic cameras to education, and some foreign governments like Pakistan, who as recently as 2010 were represented by Roy Temple, a superdelegate who worked for Cassidy and Associates.
And then there is Andres Ramirez, a superdelegate from Nevada. According to disclosure documents from the Nevada legislature, as recently as 2015 Ramirez represented a company called Community Loans of America Inc., which is the parent company of several payday and title loan lenders.
Registered lobbyist superdelegates. (To view this spreadsheet in a separate window, click here. It’s currently ordered by state.)
Pulling back another layer into the list of superdelegates reveals that there are several who aren’t officially registered as lobbyists, but are heavily involved in the influence industry. This includes individuals employed wholly or partially by law firms with a lobbying practice, public relations firms and government affairs firms. These shadow lobbyists (explained here), can be just as effective as registered lobbyists, all with little to no disclosure. This loophole became known as the Daschle loophole, after former South Dakota U.S. Senator Tom Daschle, who until recently worked as a “policy adviser” for lobbying firms and held similar titles for many years without registering a lobbyist. Though, Daschle, who is also a superdelegate, did register as a lobbyist this year, for Aetna, a health care company.
Sunlight’s research found that 32 superdelegates have job titles that are either identical or similar to a lobbyist, or work in public relations or advocacy for an organization that participates in lobbying and related activity.
This includes people like former Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, who now serves as the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The movie industry employs several registered lobbyists on behalf of the MPAA but Dodd is not currently registered.
Howard Dean, a former governor from Vermont and DNC chair, also falls in this category. He is a superdelegate and senior adviser to the public policy and regulation practice of Dentons, a powerhouse law firm with a reach on both sides of the aisle.
Other superdelegates who participate in activity similar or related to lobbying but are not registered, include Jennifer McClellan, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. McClellan also works for Verizon as assistant general counsel, “focusing on state regulatory matters” for states.
Boyd Brown of South Carolina runs Resurgens, a government relations (lobbying) firm in South Carolina. The firm’s site says they “bring a concept to lobbying that the rest of the Statehouse lobby does not: countless personal relationships with the House and Senate memberships, state agency contacts and a deep understanding of how things get done inside the South Carolina General Assembly.” Also, Joanne Dowdell is a senior vice president of global government affairs for News Corp, and is similarly not registered as best we could find from federal lobbying registrations.
Shadow lobbyists or influencers: To view this spreadsheet in a separate window, click here. It’s currently ordered by state.
Several superdelegates work for consulting, communications or strategy firms whose work is similar to lobbying:
Alice Huffman, a superdelegate from California, is the president of AC Public Affairs, which offers “public affairs,” “public policy advocacy” and “building opinion leader support.”
Maria Echaveste, also from California, works for NGV LLC, which does “executive branch advocacy” and “legislative strategy.”
Three staffers for the Dewey Square Group are among the superdelegates; though none are lobbyists, the firm was registered to lobby on behalf of clients as recently as 2014.
Then there are even others who don’t really fall into any category, like former President Bill Clinton or Vice President Al Gore. Or donors like Laura Ricketts who is a co-owner of the Chicago Cubs. (In an ideological split, her father, Joe Ricketts, is a GOP megadonor.) Or former Speaker of the New York State Assembly Sheldon Silver, who was a superdelegate until he resigned in March after he was convicted of fraud, money laundering and extortion.
The DNC Rules Committee recently voted to create a commission to study the issue of superdelegates and its role in the Democratic nominating contest. This happened before in 2008, and afterward the party rebuffed the idea of reforming or altering the superdelegate process. It remains to be seen just what the Democratic party will do around the issue of superdelegates, but Sunlight will continue to track how lobbyists and others try to influence politics.
This is actually a procedure where witnesses are often given advanced notices on questions or where the legislators on the committees reach out early setting a scripted stage for congressional testimony. Sadly, the manipulation is common and Hillary’s testimony on Benghazi is part of this theater.
What is interesting is a conservative group had to sue to get these emails and they were not originally turned over in any form including subpoenas by Congress. Meanwhile, Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has advanced his mission now to include obstruction of justice and here.
FNC:Newly released emails suggest a senior Hillary Clinton aide stage-managed her first hearing on the Benghazi terrorist attack by feeding specific topics Clinton wanted to address to Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who at the time was acting chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
“We wired it that Menendez would provide an opportunity to address two topics we needed to debunk (her actions/whereabouts on 9/11, and these email from Chris Stevens about moving locations,)” Clinton media gatekeeper Philippe Reines wrote to Chelsea Clinton the morning of the Jan. 23, 2013 hearing.
Right out of the gate, the first hearing question from Menendez that day covered both topics referenced by Reines.
Menendez asked for Clinton’s “insights on the decision-making process regarding the location of the Mission.” The senator added, “can you also in your response, you touched upon it in your opening statement, but what actions were you and your staff taking the night of September 11 and into September 12?”
The then-secretary of state had an answer on both fronts. She told the committee that “[Ambassador] Chris [Stevens] was committed to not only being in Benghazi but to the location,” and that on the night of the attack, “I was notified of the attack shortly after 4:00 p.m. Over the following hours, we were in continuous meetings and conversations both within the department with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally.”
Stevens was among four Americans killed in the attack.
The emails were obtained by the group Citizens United as part of its ongoing Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department for emails from Chelsea Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s closest aides.
“This email chain provides a rare behind the scenes look at which Benghazi-related issues the Clinton camp had concerns about going into Secretary Clinton’s January 2013 testimony on Capitol Hill, and what they had apparently plotted out beforehand with a Democrat committee member to deal with those concerns,” Citizens United said in a statement. “Citizens United will continue to release all new Benghazi emails we receive through our FOIA lawsuits as they come in — the American people have a right to know the full picture.”
Fox News asked the Clinton campaign as well as Menendez’s office if they coordinated before the 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing; what was meant by the term “wired;” and how the email exchange was consistent with the principle of independent congressional oversight. There was no immediate response from either.
In 2013, the New Jersey senator — who is now facing federal public corruption charges — at the time of the hearing was about to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, replacing John Kerry who was in line to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Menendez has denied any wrongdoing.
A previous release of emails from a separate FOIA action showed that on the night of the attack, Clinton told her daughter, who used the email pseudonym Diane Reynolds on clintonemail.com, that the attacks were the work of an “Al Queda-like group” – with no mention of an obscure anti-Islam video Clinton publicly linked to the 2012 terrorist attack. Chelsea Clinton uses the same pseudonym in the Menendez email.
Reines is a founding member of the Clinton-aligned consulting group Beacon Global Strategies. The online bios for its founders and managing director suggest no group knows more about the Benghazi terrorist attack and the Obama administration’s response.
One of its senior counselors is former CIA Acting Director Mike Morell, who heavily edited the controversial Benghazi talking points, which helped establish the administration’s initial flawed narrative about the attack. Morell recently endorsed Clinton to the New York Times, but later was criticized for not fully disclosing his relationship to Beacon.
In a follow up Q-and-A with the Times, Morell wrote: “Among the many things I do in my post-government life — teaching and writing, serving on corporate boards, speaking publicly on national security issues — is work with Beacon Global Strategies, a firm that has prioritized nonpartisanship. The firm’s advisory board — composed of appointees of both Republican and Democratic presidents, as well as career military officers — make that priority clear. It all stems from a strong and shared belief that our national security is paramount and needs to be devoid of partisan politics.”
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.