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

Trump’s tweet about lifting North Korea sanctions spawns confusion - Los Angeles TimesDonald Trump's Controversial Golan Heights Gamble - The National Interest OnlineTwo Americans Die in Afghanistan Combat - U.S. News & World ReportNew sanctions will make Iranian nuke scientists 'radioactive' abroad, says U.S. official - NBC NewsSaudi Arabia may be courting Asian partners, but it will always need the US - CNNUS slaps sanctions on 2 Chinese firms doing business with North Korea - WTVR CBS 6 NewsWe Are All Realists Now - The National Interest OnlineAnalysis: Victory over Islamic State may be short-lived - The ColumbianCryptocurrency News: Iran Sees Tourists With Bitcoin as Solution to Sanctions - Blockchain ReporterIf we’re abolishing the Electoral College, let’s also have ranked-choice voting for president - Vox.comQ&A: This Alumnus is Leading the Charge for Democracy Around the World - UVA TodayYes, liberal democracy is struggling, and the progressive left isn’t helping - The Washington PostInstead of Democracy Promotion, Sell Trumpism to the World - The National Interest OnlineTrump walked away over Kim Jong Un's failure to make serious concessions: Cliff May - Fox BusinessWe agree about democracy, but not the shape it's in - Futurity: Research NewsNadella: Microsoft will sell war tech to democracies to “protect freedoms” - Ars TechnicaDemocracy, the China challenge, and the 2020 elections in Taiwan - Brookings InstitutionDramatic firefight in Syria; Russia's AI supercomputer; China wants 6 carriers; Top US, Russian generals meet; And a bit more. - Defense OneTrump's wall must not be funded at the expense of countering Russia - Washington ExaminerThe Problem With Defending Democracy in Venezuela, But Not Cuba - Americas Quarterly

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

The Senate on Wednesday passed a measure mandating the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Saudi/UAE-led war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The vote marks the first time since the War Powers Act of 1973 became law that both chambers of Congress have directed the president to withdraw American forces from a conflict.


The Trump administration’s failed “maximum pressure” approach to Iran and North Korea begs the question what the US president’s true objectives are and what options he is left with should the policy ultimately fail.


In the United States, it’s possible to debate any and every policy, domestic and foreign, except for unquestioning support for Israel. That, apparently, is Ilhan Omar’s chief sin.


While Michael Cohen mesmerized the House of Representatives and President Trump resumed his love affair with North Korea’s Kim Jong, one of the most dangerous state-to-state confrontations, centering in Kashmir, began to spiral out of control.


The Trump administration’s irresponsible withdrawal from the landmark Iran nuclear agreement undermined Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and emboldened hardliners who accused him of having been deceived by Washington while negotiating the agreement. However, the Iranian government could use the shock of Zarif’s resignation to push back against hardliners and take charge of both the domestic and foreign affairs of the country while Iran’s foreign opponents should consider the risks of destabilizing the government under the current critical situation.


Europe can play an important role in rebuilding confidence in the non-proliferation regime in the wake of the demise of the INF treaty, including by making it clear to the Trump administration that it wants the United States to refrain from deploying INF-banned missiles in Europe and to consider a NATO-Russian joint declaration on non-first deployment.


The decline in Israel’s appeal to Democrats is directly related to the wider awareness of the country’s increasingly authoritarian nature, its treatment of Palestinians, and its reluctance to take substantive steps toward peace. Pro-Israel liberals face a fundamental paradox trying to reconcile Israel’s illiberalism with their political values.


RightWeb
share