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

Foundation for Defense of Democracies | The Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies - BU TodayOn The Hill, Episode 8: A chat with David Adesnik from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies - FOX 5 DCIn report card on Trump’s foreign policy, criticisms span continents and topics - The Washington PostIran And The Fine Art Of Evading Sanctions - The Jerusalem PostThe Middle East still needs democracy - The Washington PostTrudy Rubin: Warring democracies: Mike Pence and Angela Merkel display open hostility at Munich Security Conference - Hastings TribuneConcerned with Closer Turkish-Russian Ties, Trump Blocks F-35 Sale - Breaking Israel NewsPutin’s 'saber-rattling' speech sparks concerns for new nuclear arms race - Fox NewsChehabi Speaks on Panel at FDD on Islamic Republic of Iran | The Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies - BU TodayTrump’s Foreign Policy Is a Work in Progress - Foreign PolicyInevitable Clash? 40 Years Later, Iran Still Vows to 'Wipe Israel Off the Map' - CBN NewsNew report looks at how the US can better defend against a cascading cyberattack - CyberScoopIn Eastern Europe, U.S. Officials Talk Deals, Not Erosion of Democracy - The New York TimesOPINION: Media and academe group: Fight back, defend democracy - ABS-CBN NewsCIA Lies Low, Waiting for Trump Storm to Pass - Foreign PolicyDemocracies die in daylight - Washington TimesRussian Attacks Hit US-European Think Tank Emails, Says Microsoft - Defense One'Erratic' Trump Undermines Iran, Russia Policies, Report Says - Bloomberg GOV - Bloomberg GovernmentU.S. Congressmen, military expert question relations with Qatar - EgypttodayMidterm election infrastructure deemed meddle-free, but states seek equipment funding - GCN.com

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

François Nicoullaud, the former French ambassador to Iran, discusses the ups and downs of Iran-France relations and the new US sanctions.


Effective alliances require that powerful states shoulder a far larger share of the alliance maintenance costs than other states, a premise that Donald Trump rejects.


The new imbroglio over the INF treaty does not mean a revival of the old Cold War practice of nuclear deterrence. However, it does reveal the inability of the West and Russia to find a way to deal with the latter’s inevitable return to the ranks of major powers, a need that was obvious even at the time the USSR collapsed.


As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump appeared to recognize the obvious problem of the revolving door. But as the appointment of Patrick Shanahan, who spent 30 years at Boeing, as the Trump administration’s acting secretary of defense reveals, little has changed. America is indeed great again, if you happen to be one of those lucky enough to be moving back and forth between plum jobs in the Pentagon and the weapons industry.


Domestic troubles, declining popularity, and a decidedly hawkish anti-Iran foreign policy team may combine to make the perfect storm that pushes Donald Trump to pull the United States into a new war in the Middle East.


The same calculus that brought Iran and world powers to make a deal and has led remaining JCPOA signatories to preserve it without the U.S. still holds: the alternatives to this agreement – a race between sanctions and centrifuges that could culminate in Iran obtaining the bomb or being bombed – would be much worse.


With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll of course be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public. And he won’t care about the consequences.


RightWeb
share