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.

Print Friendly

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


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

Print Friendly

Not only is Monica Crowley, Donald Trump’s pick to head communications for the National Security Council, the subject of a wide-ranging plagiarism scandal, she pushed fringe conspiracy theories about “Islamist infiltration in the U.S.”


Print Friendly

From a territorial perspective the Security Council resolution 2334, stating that Israel′s settlement activity constitutes a “flagrant violation” of international law, represents an escalation in the way the international community relates to Israel’s borders and its settlements in the West Bank.


Print Friendly

On Oct. 27, 2016, the UN adopted a resolution to launch negotiations in 2017 on a treaty outlawing nuclear weapon. Two weeks later the US elected Donald Trump, who subsequently argued that the US must “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”


Print Friendly

As Trump supporters gear up for a fight to weaken or destroy the Iran nuclear deal, a new poll has found that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. public opposes withdrawing from the agreement.


Print Friendly

For all of its faults, the Obama administration was acutely aware of the limits to the use of American military force, whether it was struggling with terrorist organizations or contemplating the impact the use of force would have on achieving U.S. national security objectives.


Print Friendly

A senior Israeli government minister has announced that he will introduce legislation to effectively annex Israel’s third-largest settlement, part of a plan to incrementally annex parts of the West Bank .


Print Friendly

A group of 37 American scientists–including Nobel laureates, nuclear specialists, and former White House advisers–has sent an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump in support of the Iran nuclear deal.


RightWeb
share