Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Defense of Democracies

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

The now-defunct Defense of Democracies was created in February 2008 as a spin-off organization of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) to undertake advocacy campaigns that FDD could not participate in as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Defense of Democracies’ first task was an ad campaign in late February 2008 aimed at pressuring the House of Representatives to pass legislation that would extend a controversial warrantless wiretap program and give impunity to telecommunications corporations that had complied with Bush administration surveillance policy.

Having 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status means an organization “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”[1] Defense of Democracies, however, had 501(c)(4) status; it was a nonprofit that was permitted to lobby and engage in other forms of political action, as long as they were not its primary activity.[2] The group called itself an action fund, whose mission was “to support and encourage policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism.”[3]

Defense of Democracies’ spokesman, Brian Wise, distinguished between the FDD and its spin-off, telling Washington Independent reporter Spencer Ackerman that, “‘Defense of Democracies [provides] issue advocacy, whereas the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is a policy institute and academic institution.’” Wise also acknowledged that FDD created Defense of Democracies for the express purpose of being able to undertake activities that FDD otherwise is forbidden from doing because of its tax status.[4]

Defense of Democracies’ first action was to run a series of television ads in 15 different congressional districts, produced by attack ad guru Larry McCarthy of McCarthy, Marcus, Hennings, Ltd.[5] The campaign of what Newsweek called “secretly financed political attack ads,” accused the House of Representatives of allowing an intelligence-gathering law to lapse, thereby impeding the hunt for Osama bin Laden.[6] The final moments of the 30-second spots were tailored to the particular districts in which they ran. An ad that ran in Connecticut concluded with the following appeal: “Tell Chris Murphy that Congress must do its job and pass the Senate’s Terror Surveillance Bill,” referring to the first-term Connecticut representative.[7] Ads in other districts targeted Reps. Nancy Boyda (D-MO),[8] Joe Courtney (D-CT), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), and Tim Walz (D-MN), all of whom were freshmen representatives, as well as a more general ad targeting Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.[9]

A Hartford, Connecticut news station ran a segment on the attack ads in which Murphy told WTNH’s political correspondent that, “This is a Republican group that is running ads only against targeted Democratic freshmen; these are political ads that really grossly misstate the truth.”[10] Courtney told the station he was angered by the ads’ implication that somehow the House had crippled intelligence collection. “The notion that somehow the system went dark, or that we can’t act quickly to put new taps, is false. The fact of the matter is under the preexisting law, which is in place now, we can put taps on with a three-day window to get court approval after the fact,” he said.[11]

The ads angered several Democrats who sat on the advisory board of Defense of Democracies’ supposedly bipartisan parent group, FDD, leading to their resignation from the board. Among the departed board members was Donna Brazile, former campaign advisor to Al Gore. She issued a statement on February 25, 2008, severing her ties from FDD, saying,  “I strongly condemn [FDD’s] misleading and reckless ad campaign. The organization is using fear mongering for political purposes and worse, their scare tactics have the effect of emboldening terrorists and our enemies abroad by asserting our intelligence agencies are failing to do their job. I am deeply disappointed they would use my name since no one has consulted me about the activities of the group in years.

“When I first joined the foundation several years ago, it was a bi-partisan organization that was committed to defending democratic values and protecting the nation against threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, due to the influence of their funders, in the last few years, FDD has morphed into a radical right wing organization that is doing the dirty work for the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans.”[12]

According to a March 2008 Newsweek report, Clifford May, FDD president and past spokesman of the Republican National Committee, said that he planned “to spend $2 million on the ads, but declined to identify who is financing the effort, saying he set up the group [Defense of Democracies] as a tax-exempt nonprofit.”[13]

Although its spate of television ads pivoted on the implication that some officials were soft on terrorism, the ads did not mention the issue of giving immunity to the telecommunications companies that complied with Bush administration warrantless wiretap programs. Yet the issue—or what the issue stood for—seemed important to Defense of Democracies, which linked to a National Review Online article by Andrew C. McCarthy, co-chair of FDD’s Center for Law and Counterterrorism. In addition to opening his piece by parroting lines from the attack ads, he delivered an impassioned plea for the telecoms to be given retroactive immunity so they will cooperate. Without them, he argued, “we lose our technological edge over enemies who are bent on killing Americans.” He added that democracy is not about being “paralyzed” by judges who “get it wrong”, but that “At bottom, the dispute over the warrantless-surveillance program is about the division of power between the political branches: Is it the executive or the legislative department that has ultimate authority over foreign intelligence collection?[14] (His wife, he disclosed, worked for Verizon.)

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Sources

[1]Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Exemption Requirements, http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html.


[2]Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Social Welfare Organizations, http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96178,00.html; IRS, “Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501 (c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations,” http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf.



[3]Defense of Democracies, “About,” http://defenseofdemocracies.org/.



[4]Spencer Ackerman, “‘Bipartisan’ Think Tank Attacks Democrats,” Washington Independent, February 26, 2008, http://washingtonindependent.com/2173/bipartisan-think-tank-attacks-democrats.



[5]McCarthy, Marcus, Hennings, Ltd., “Defense of Democracies: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” MMH, http://www.mmhdc.com/issuesandies/defenseofdemocracies.htm.



[6]Michael Isikoff, “Attack Ads on the Way” Newsweek, March 10, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/2008/03/01/attack-ads-on-the-way.html#.



[7]“Republican Attack Ad”, YouTube, February 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4LCNgogqDg&feature=player_embedded.



[8]"Defense of DemocraciesAttack Ad Against Rep Nancy Boyda,” YouTube, February 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-juyCoTDUM



[9]McCarthy, Marcus, Hennings, Ltd., “Defense of Democracies: Listening,” MMH, http://www.mmhdc.com/issuesandies/dd_listening.htm.



[10]WTNH News Channel 8, “On the Attack”, Chief Political Correspondent Mark Davis, Posted on YouTube as “Defense of Democracy’s False Advertising,” February 28, 2008, http://youtube.com/watch?v=9esytwNknws.



[11]WTNH News Channel 8, “On the Attack”< Chief Political Correspondent Mark Davis, Posted on YouTube as “Defense of Democracy’s False Advertising,” February 28, 2008, http://youtube.com/watch?v=9esytwNknws.



[12]Donna Brazile, “Statement by Donna Brazile on Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Misleading Attacks on Members of Congress’ Patriotism,” February 25, 2008, http://www.donnabrazile.com/viewBlog.cfm?id=82.



[13]Michael Isikoff, “Attack Ads on the Way” Newsweek, March 10, 2008, http://www.newsweek.com/2008/03/01/attack-ads-on-the-way.html#.



[14]Andrew C. McCarthy, “The Case for Telecom Immunity,” National Review Online, March 4, 2008, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223831/case-telecom-immunity/andrew-c-mccarthy.


Share RightWeb

Defense of Democracies Résumé

Contact Information

Defense of Democracies
1718 M St., NW #245
Washington, DC, 20036
Phone: 202-375-8027



 

Related:

Defense of Democracies News Feed

Joe Biden wants to make defense of democracies the crux of U.S. foreign policy - Seattle TimesIran gets diplomatic win against US in standoff over IRGC-linked oil tanker - Washington ExaminerIran’s aggression and the Shi’ite apocalypse - The Jerusalem PostDesperate for an end to almost 18-year war, US negotiating from position of weakness with Taliban - Washington ExaminerIn Kim’s Threats and Appeasement, Experts See Move to Manipulate Trump - VOA NewsSteel mill sorry for spill that killed fish, closed beaches - newschannel20.comHow Trump trips up his own Afghan peace efforts - POLITICOHere Are Five Lies About Iran That We Need to Refute to Stop Another Illegal War - The InterceptTrump tweets about planned demonstrations: 'Portland is being watched very closely' - newschannel20.com4 Takeaways From a Close Look at Elliott Broidy - The New York TimesNuclear Explosion Threatens Russian Missile Program, Analysts Say - U.S. News & World ReportDid Israel Really Go Too Far Against Omar and Tlaib? - The National Interest OnlineTrump Administration Prioritizes Arms Sales Over Stability, Human Rights - The Globe PostNorth Korea fires more missiles as it declares it 'has nothing to talk' about while US-South Korea exercises continue - Washington ExaminerDonald Trump calls Hong Kong protests 'tough,' 'tricky' but declines to warn Beijing - USA TODAYNew US Defense Secretary Visits Mongolia - VOA NewsVOA Persian Has Turned Into a “Mouthpiece of Trump” - The InterceptBehind the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Embrace of Authoritarianism - LobeLogWho Lost Turkey? - Foreign PolicyShaping a Way Ahead for the Direct Defense of the Liberal Democracies: The Potential Australian Role - Second Line of Defense

Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

A series of escalations in both word and deed have raised fears of U.S.-Iranian military confrontation, either direct or by proxy. It is urgent that cooler heads prevail – in European capitals as in Tehran and Washington – to head off the threat of a disastrous war.


Vladimir Putin excels at taking advantage of mistakes made by Russia’s adversaries to further his country’s interests. Donald Trump’s Iran policy has given Putin plenty of opportunity to do that.


The Trump administration’s claims about purported Iranian threats have been repeated by credulous reporters and TV news programs far and wide.


This is the cartoon that the international edition of the New York Times should have run, at least as regards U.S. policy toward Iran.


The assault on Tripoli by Khalifa Haftar, Libya’s renegade general and leader of the self-anointed Libyan National Army (LNA), has forced an indefinite postponement of key UN peace efforts in the country even as the Trump White House announced that the president recognized Haftar’s “important” role in fighting terrorists.


With all eyes focused these days on Donald Trump and his myriad crimes, John Bolton’s speeches are a reminder that even worse options are waiting in the wings.


Advocates of cutting U.S. aid to Israel rather than using it as leverage must understand how this aid works, how big a challenge it represents for advocacy, and how to make a potentially successful argument against it.


RightWeb
share