[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21663-21670]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me first say that this has been a very 
difficult subject, and I have the utmost respect for the Senator from 
Georgia. As he said, I am looking forward to waiting and seeing a final 
product. I look at what is there right now, and I do have concerns. I 
have concerns as to who the asset managers will be, what institutions 
will be involved, and what types of assets. It would seem to me, as I 
read it, that as the $700 billion is paid down, other assets could be 
purchased, and I just wonder where it would end. I believe some new 
heads will come in and kind of look at these proposals and perhaps come 
up with something that will resolve a looming problem we all are 
concerned about.
  Today, my concern is on a different subject and one that is very 
important to me as an American citizen and as the ranking member of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. The situation I am about to 
discuss reminds me of an old saying: Beware of wolves dressed in 
sheep's clothing. Today's so-called environmental movement can be 
described in much the same way.
  Campaigns to ``save a cuddly animal'' or ``protect the ancient 
forests'' are really disguised efforts to raise money for Democratic 
political campaigns. Take this ad, for example, displayed on the League 
of Conservation Voters'--or the LCV's--Web site. This is LCV's standard 
text used to raise money for a nonprofit organization. In turn, the LCV 
takes these donations, given to ``save the environment,'' and then uses 
them to fund ads for Democratic candidates, such as Ben Lujan from New 
Mexico. LCV, similar to other groups I will highlight later, disguises 
itself as an environmental group dedicated to saving the environment. 
Yet, as shown

[[Page 21664]]

by this political ad, it is simply an extension of the Democratic 
political party.
  In the fall of 2004, I came to the Senate floor to discuss this very 
topic. This report and my remarks today are an update of the 2004 
report. Over the last several months, my staff has put considerable 
time and effort into examining this deception. This examination has 
uncovered the tangled web of charitable and environmental 
organizations, political campaigns, and large foundations. 
Environmental groups are tax-exempt, IRS-registered, 501(c)(3) 
charitable organizations, meaning that contributions to these groups 
are tax deductible. I think it is very important that people 
understand, because there is always confusion here, that a 501(c)(3) is 
not supposed to be a political organization. It is a charitable 
organization. And there are many legitimate ones out there that deserve 
the tax-exempt status they have.
  These groups profess to be stewards of the environment and solicit 
contributions from a variety of sources using these claims, but they 
demonstrate more interest in hyping the extreme environmental scenarios 
to raise money for raw political purposes than working toward actual 
real-world environmental change for the benefit of all Americans. Not 
surprisingly, given these deceptions, these nonprofit groups are 
tightly affiliated with and fund the 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations 
and 527 organizations. And we all know that 501(c)(4) organizations and 
527 organizations are lobbying organizations that get involved in 
political campaigns.
  With these intertwined organizations, it is extremely difficult to 
differentiate the source of funds and track their use. This problem is 
highlighted in a report prepared by my staff which provides preliminary 
examples based on the five most politically active environmental 
groups. The report describes their activities, the foundations that 
provide their financial support, and the interconnected web among these 
organizations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks the staff report to which I just 
referred.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my staff is not the first to uncover this 
sham. A December 19, 2007, article in the Wall Street Journal 
highlighted the very same problem, stating:

       Because the IRS doesn't require 501(c) organizations to 
     detail election spending or to list contributors, it is 
     difficult to track their political activity.

  The Journal analyzed data on 30 separate 501(c) groups active in 
elections from 2000 to 2006, culled from a variety of sources. The 
data--this again is from the Wall Street Journal--showed that the 30 
organizations spent at least $155 million on the 2006 elections, nearly 
twice what they spent in 2000.
  Environmental groups have become experts at duplicitous activity, 
skirting laws up to the edge of illegality and burying their political 
activities under the guise of nonprofit environmental improvement. This 
chart demonstrates this interconnected ``enviro-family affair'' of 
nonprofits and their benefactors. As you can see, the six organizations 
at the bottom of this chart are all either 527 groups or political 
501(c)(4)s.
  Let's take a look at the League of Conservation Voters, which is a 
poster child for this deceit. The LCV is an IRS-registered 501(c)3. 
Contributions to the organization are tax deductible. However, 
contributors should understand that LCV is a political organization 
affiliated with a 501(c)(4) organization, a political action committee, 
and a 527 organization. All three of these are political.
  LCV represents itself as ``turning environmental values into national 
priorities,'' and much of its funds, even from its 501(c)(3) 
organization, goes to fund voter mobilization and education drives.
  In each election cycle, LCV endorses political candidates. Since 
1996, LCV has published a ``Dirty Dozen'' list and bragged about its 
effectiveness in ousting candidates on the list. Not surprisingly, the 
list singles out all Republican candidates, but they almost always 
throw in one Democratic candidate--just one--to make it appear as if it 
is technically bipartisan. To date, 83 names have been placed on the 
LCV's ``Dirty Dozen,'' 74 of which are Republicans. By their bipartisan 
claims, it would be expected that the LCV's support would be split 
evenly. The publishers of the ``Dirty Dozen'' list have yet to name 
even a dozen Democrats to their list in the last 12 years.
  In 2006, LCV had two 527 groups, the League of Conservation Voters 
SSF and the League of Conservation Voters, Inc., SSF-527 II. These 527 
groups were fined by the Federal Election Commission for three 
violations of Federal election law. One of the violations was that LCV 
knowingly accepted individual donations in excess of $5,000. LCV 
collected over $6 million in donations during 2004 that violated the 
$5,000 individual maximum amount restriction, and the ultimate fine was 
a total of $180,000 by the FEC.
  According to an FEC press release, LCV received this fine for acting 
as a clear political committee and violating Federal election law. The 
Wall Street Journal highlighted these violations in an article 
published in December 2007. Following this incident, the LCV 
restructured its organization into a 501(c)(4), which allows the 
organization to run with fewer disclosure restrictions.
  LCV has a long history of direct involvement in political campaigns. 
In 1996, LCV spent nearly $1.5 million in ads focused on defeating its 
``Dirty Dozen'' list targets of 11 Republicans and, oh yes, 1 Democrat. 
In 1988, the LCV spent $2.3 million targeting its ``Dirty Dozen'' list 
of 12 Republicans and, oh yes, 1 Democratic candidate. In 2000, the LCV 
spent nearly $4 million, again targeting 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat 
on its ``Dirty Dozen'' list. And I can't forget that in 2000, the LCV 
also endorsed Al Gore for President--clearly a political endorsement. 
In 2002, LCV once again targeted 11 Republican congressional candidates 
and 1 Democrat. Clearly there is a partisan pattern here. LCV spends 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in congressional contests against 
Republican candidates.
  That same year, the group undertook its strongest single effort to 
date, focused on my friend, Senator Allard, who will be speaking right 
after me. The LCV claims to have budgeted $700,000 for that race--I am 
talking about incumbent Senator Allard from Colorado--and hired a 
campaign staff of 12 to coordinate phone banks and precinct walks. In 
addition, LCV ran television and radio advertisements against Senator 
Allard. Of course, as we all know, Senator Allard won in spite of that.
  Altogether, the LCV reportedly spent $1.4 million in independent 
expenditures during the 2002 election cycle. Of that total amount, LCV 
spent $1.3 million benefitting Democratic candidates while only 
spending $136,000 for Republican candidates. That again is the ratio we 
see consistently, 10 to 1, to make it look as though it is not an arm 
of the Democratic Party. Two years later, in 2004, the ``Dirty Dozen'' 
list contained twelve Republicans and one Democrat. LCV and its 
affiliates spent a new record total of $16 million during that year's 
elections targeting the 13 candidates. As in previous years, the 1 
Democrat on the list retained his seat while 4 of the 12 Republicans 
were defeated. For the first time, in 2004, the LCV included a 
Presidential candidate on their list. The LCV endorsed Senator John 
Kerry for President--again all political.
  In 2006, the LCV chose 15 candidates for their ``Dirty Dozen'' list. 
The list was comprised of 13 Republicans and 2 Democrats. While the two 
Democrats on the ``Dirty Dozen'' list retained their seats, nine 
Republicans lost their seats. The LCV and its affiliates used its 
extensive budget of $27 million on campaign activities.
  The 2006 elections also highlighted the intertwined political 
activities of LCV and other groups. A coalition of environmental 
organizations, that included LCV and the Sierra Club,

[[Page 21665]]

worked together in 2006 to defeat their top target Richard Pombo, then 
chairman of the House Resources Committee. This coalition invested more 
than $1.7 million in the race to defeat him. If that figure alone is 
not startling enough, then look at this chart that shows part of a 
Sierra Club press release that gloats about their activity in this 
House race. We see that the Sierra Club invested $545,000 in this race 
and had 643,000 contacts with voters, and sent 397,000 pieces of mail 
in this race alone--Richard Pombo, in California.
  At the time of this report, the LCV had yet to release a completed 
version of the 2008 ``Dirty Dozen'' list. However, it has released the 
names of nine individuals who will fill up the ranks of the completed 
list. Of those nine, there is one Democrat joining the ``Dirty Dozen.'' 
I would be remiss not to mention that it looks like I will be on their 
list this year. It should come as no surprise that for the 2008 
Presidential election, the LCV has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for 
President.
  As one individual who will be running, I am sure there will be a lot 
of money that will be in my race. I think it is kind of interesting 
that in this day, when we are all concerned with what might be 
happening on Wall Street and some of the people who have made huge 
salaries and then turn around and have a defunct company, we see the 
Environmental Defense Fund's Fred Krupp receiving a salary of $357,000; 
Sierra Club, Carl Pope, $207,000. I am hoping these contributors know 
that not only are their contributions going to organizations that are 
not doing anything about the environment, but they are paying very 
large salaries to large staffs.
  While there is no means of calculating or anticipating what LCV will 
spend this year, as their budget has grown every election cycle, they 
will most likely have at least the $27 million that they did in 2006.
  LCV is certainly not the only organization doing this. The Sierra 
Club, which describes itself as ``America's oldest, largest, and most 
influential grassroots environmental organization,'' has a similar 
record of trickery. The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax-
exempt organization with an affiliated 501(c)(4) group, Sierra Club. 
There is also a 527 organization called the Sierra Club Voter Education 
Fund, which claims to be a ``separate segregated fund of the Sierra 
Club.'' The Sierra Club Foundation does not claim affiliation with this 
527 organization, however the Sierra Club Voters Education Fund does 
not have its own board of directors, officers or trustees.
  In 2006, the Sierra Club 501(c) organizations brought in more than 
$110 million and spent nearly $104 million; the Sierra Club 527, the 
Sierra Club Voter Education Fund, only brought in $60,000, but managed 
to spend nearly $1 million. That is pretty tricky.
  Similar to LCV, the Sierra Club has a history of endorsing candidates 
for political office. Most recently, the Sierra Club announced its 
support of Senator Obama's Presidential bid. While there is no reported 
activity yet from the organization, the Sierra Club has been known to 
run television and radio advertisements both supporting their candidate 
and criticizing the opposition. At the time of this report, Sierra Club 
had announced its support of 13 candidates for seats in the United 
States Senate. Of those 13 candidates, none are Republicans. The 
organization has also announced its endorsement of 156 candidates for 
the U.S. House of Representatives. Of the candidates, four are 
Republicans. Essentially, 98 percent of Sierra Club's endorsements 
favor Democrat candidates.
  Another example is the Natural Resources Defense Council.
  The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is registered as a 
501(c)(3) organization. It is also affiliated with a 501(c)(4) 
organization, the NRDC Action Fund, and a 527 organization, the 
Environmental Accountability Fund. By having at least one of each 
category of tax-exempt organizations, these groups can transfer wealth 
throughout their family of organizations and remain virtually 
undetected. In its 2006 tax filing, Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Inc. transferred $98,801 to NRDC Action Fund, and NRDC Action Fund 
transferred $124,500 to undisclosed ``other organizations'' that same 
year.
  Founded in 1970, NRDC purports to be the ``nation's most effective 
environmental action group'' whose mission is to ``[t]o safeguard the 
Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on 
which all life depends.'' The NRDC claims to use grassroots efforts and 
the power of legal and scientific expertise to achieve its goals, which 
they describe frequently as ``independent.''
  From 2001 through 2005, the NRDC reported on the Bush administration 
by creating the Bush Record. The Record categorized President Bush's 
time in office as an administration that ``will cater to industries 
that put America's health and natural heritage at risk.'' The NRDC 
predicted that Bush would continue ``to undermine environmental 
enforcement and weaken key programs.'' The organization gave up the 
effort and stopped tracking the administration's moves after President 
Bush defeated Senator Kerry in the 2004 election. It is interesting, I 
remember the ``Clear Skies'' legislation that was the largest reduction 
of pollutants of any President in the history of America and it was 
defeated by the Democrats in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  My staff examined two other organizations, Greenpeace and 
Environmental Defense Fund, and found similar patterns of partisan 
fund-raising and spending.
  Greenpeace, like other environmental activist organizations, has 
strong ties to other politically oriented groups. The chairman of the 
board of directors, Donald Ross, is involved in multiple organizations, 
including the LCV, where he is a board member. Ross is also the founder 
of M+R, a campaign strategy firm whose clients include, among others: 
Environmental Defense Fund; LCV; and the Democratic Congressional 
Campaign Committee. Greenpeace is also a client of Earthjustice, the 
legal entity that represents the Sierra Club, NRDC, and Environmental 
Defense Fund. Additionally, Greenpeace remains officially affiliated 
with the Partnership Project, whose members also include Sierra Club, 
Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC and LCV. While Greenpeace may not make 
a Dirty Dozen list, or endorse hundreds of Democratic candidates, it is 
affiliated with and supports the organizations that do. Furthermore, it 
represents those affiliations to the rest of the world.
  Environmental Defense Fund, EDF, describes itself as an organization 
that ``is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all 
people'' by using a scientific approach that is ``nonpartisan, cost-
effective, and fair.'' Environmental Defense Fund is represented by its 
family of organizations, Environmental Defense, Inc., a 501(c)(3) 
organization, and Environmental Defense Action Fund, Inc., a 501(c)(4) 
organization.
  EDF is also intimately connected with other environmental and 
political organizations. Trustee Frank Loy currently serves as one of 
Senator Obama's ``top environmental advisers'' for the 2008 
Presidential campaign. This past year, trustee Douglas Shorenstein 
donated $272,100 to Democratic political objectives, including the 
Hillary Clinton and Al Franken campaigns. Trustee Joanne Woodward, wife 
of noted Hollywood star Paul Newman, donated significantly to both the 
Clinton and Obama campaigns. Until 2006, Teresa Heinz, wife of Senator 
John Kerry served on the board of trustees for EDF. Heinz is also the 
current chairman of Heinz Endowments, a part of the Heinz Family 
Foundation, one of the Nation's 25 largest charitable foundations. 
Current EDF trustee George Woodwell also serves on the board of the 
NRDC.
  EDF reported raising $71.8 million for the 2006 calendar year, and 
reported receiving contributions totaling more than $94 million during 
the 2006 IRS filing period. Of that amount, the organization spent 
$18.9 million to promote their stance on climate change issues, and 
$19.5 million collectively on land and ocean environmental issues.
  In addition to the publicly professed alliances among these groups, 
they are

[[Page 21666]]

all connected by the foundations that provide them with a significant 
amount of funding.
  The Heinz foundations are some of the largest contributors to these 
nonprofit environmental organizations, and, of course, Ms. Teresa Heinz 
Kerry is either chairperson of the board of trustees or member of the 
board of trustees on each foundation. In fact, Ms. Heinz Kerry oversees 
more than $1.5 billion of Heinz foundation resources.
  Last year alone, Heinz gave $160,000 to NRDC directly. Since 2002, 
Heinz has given a total of $740,000 to EDF, LCV, and NRDC specifically. 
Over the past 5 years, Heinz has also given $3.8 million to Tides. 
Tides has donated significantly to all five of the mentioned 
environmental organizations, and receives a large portion of their 
funding from foundations such as Heinz.
  Another major supporter of environmental groups is the Turner 
Foundation, founded in 1990 by Ted Turner. The Turner Foundation 
sponsors special projects including the Partnership Project comprised 
of 20 national environmental groups. Since 2002, the Turner Foundation 
has contributed more than $2.9 million to the Partnership Project. 
Additionally, the Turner Foundation has given more than $1 million to 
the NRDC, $778,875 to EDF, and $6.7 million to the LCV Education Fund.
  The Pew Charitable Trust, which claims it is ``an independent non-
profit serving to inform the public on key issues,'' also gives 
substantially to environmental groups. Two of Pew's environmental 
priorities include global warming and wilderness protection.
  Since 2002, Pew has given a substantial amount of money to 
environmental activist groups directly and through other private funds 
that finance these groups. Pew contributed $431,000 to EDF, $900,000 to 
NRDC, and $700,000 to the Partnership Project, a joint venture of the 
Nation's leading environmental groups. Additionally, Pew gave more than 
$7 million to the Tides Foundation. During that time, the Tides 
Foundation contributed a collective $1.8 million to the following 
organizations: EDF, LCV, Greenpeace, NRDC, and Sierra Club.
  This tangled web of political financing and private dollars should be 
disconcerting and even scary to American's concerned about transparency 
and honesty in our Government. Clearly, where these environmental 
groups are concerned, there is no line between issue advocacy and 
political activity. And most disturbing is the fact that one cannot 
tell if these so-called environmental groups that claim to protect and 
conserve our environment, really spend any money on actually improving 
our environment.
  Why is this important? Well, it is important because our environment 
is important to all of us. Despite what you may hear from these groups 
in their attack advertisements against President Bush and Republican 
candidates across the Nation, our air is cleaner, water more drinkable, 
and our forests are becoming healthier. For instance, over the last 30 
years, we have cut air pollution in half.
  This is also important because these wolves disguised in sheep's 
clothing are deceiving the America people. When an individual gives 
their hard-earned money to one of these organizations, most expect it 
to be used for the environmental cause they support, not political 
campaigning.
  It seems that it is more important to these groups to turn their once 
laudable movement into a political machine misleading the American 
public regarding their purely politically partisan agenda under the 
guise of environmental protection. Again, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
  Our nation's first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, 
said, ``Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its resources 
for the lasting good of men.'' He also said that ``conservation is the 
application of common sense to the common problems for the common 
good.''
  Those words ring true today. Unfortunately, it is clear to me that 
the environmentalist movement is deaf to them. What we find now is the 
fleecing of the American public's pocketbooks by the environmental 
movement for their political gain. We also find exhausting litigation, 
instigation of false claims, misleading science, and scare tactics to 
fool Americans into believing disastrous environmental scenarios that 
are untrue.
  Mr. President, especially in this election year, the American voter 
should see these groups and their many affiliate organizations as they 
are: the newest insidious conspiracy of political action committees and 
perhaps the newest multi-million dollar manipulation of Federal 
election laws.
  As an American citizen concerned about our environment and our 
country, I am dismayed and saddened by this deception. If these groups 
actually used the hundreds of millions of dollars they raise for actual 
environmental improvement, just think how many whales and forests we 
could save.
  These wolves should be seen for what they really are: massive 
democratic political machines, disguised as environmental causes.
  You know, I think a lot of people on this floor understand, both 
Democratic and Republican, and the American people, there has been a 
wake-up call. When you look at what happened in the bill back in 2005 
that came forward on trying to put caps on the greenhouse gases and cap 
and trade, a very expensive system that would cost the American people 
over $300 billion a year.
  At that time, there were only three Senators who came down to oppose 
that bill. Yet this was overwhelmingly defeated. Then fast forward 3 
years to 2008. We had a similar bill on the floor of the Senate a few 
weeks ago. This time, 24 Senators, or 23, came down and joined me to 
tell the truth as to the economic destruction that would come should we 
pass this legislation.
  So I think that wake-up call is there. In spite of the millions of 
dollars that are channeled through 501(c)(3)s to defeat Republican 
candidates, I think reason is winning.

                               Exhibit 1


                              INTRODUCTION

       Environmental activism has become a multibillion dollar 
     industry in the U.S. campaigns to save the whales or stop 
     mining beg average Americans for their support through 
     donation of their hard earned dollars. These environmental 
     campaigns also receive millions from charitable foundations 
     such as the Pew Foundation, Turner Foundation, and Heinz 
     Foundation. But what most don't know when they donate to a 
     cause to ``save the rainforest'' or ``save the polar bear'' 
     is that their money could end up being used for partisan 
     activities that are only tangentially related, if related at 
     all, to the cause for which they are intended.
       The majority of environmental activist groups present 
     themselves as objective, nonpartisan, nonprofit groups that 
     are dedicated to environmental integrity and protection. To 
     accomplish their goals, these groups typically set up 
     501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations with affiliated 501(c)(4) 
     organizations. It is difficult to detail these organizations' 
     specific spending habits. On December 19, 2007, the Wall 
     Street Journal published an article that documented just how 
     difficult this process is, and how political several 501(c) 
     organizations were in the last year. The article stated:
       ``Because the IRS doesn't require 501(c) organizations to 
     detail election spending or to list contributors, it's 
     difficult to track their political activity. The Journal 
     analyzed data on 30 separate 501(c) groups active in 
     elections from 2000 to 2006, culled from a variety of 
     sources. The data show that the 30 organizations spent at 
     least $155 million on the 2006 elections, nearly twice what 
     they spent in 2000.''
       As early as 1995, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 
     noticed a growing problem in today's non-profit sector. The 
     IRS published an educational document about the difficulties 
     in separating such non-profit organizations' nonpartisan 
     status from the legislative and political activities that 
     such organizations undertake. The report stated: ``[T]he work 
     of exempt organizations specialists reflects diverse ways in 
     which political agendas are forwarded. Today, political 
     agendas are being forged by political parties, candidates, 
     legislative caucuses, educational organizations, and 
     political action committees. When entities employed in this 
     process seek recognition of exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) or 
     501(c)(4), questions arise about the scope of political 
     campaign, legislative, and political educational activities 
     permitted under these sections.''
       The IRS categorizes a broad issue that has become very 
     prominent among today's leading environmental activist 
     groups. For years, there has been public and political 
     scrutiny over the activities of major environmental activist 
     groups, such as Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural 
     Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the

[[Page 21667]]

     League of Conservation Voters (LCV), and their financial 
     links to charitable institutions, such as the Tides 
     Foundation and Heinz family foundations. These issues were 
     brought to the public's attention several years ago through 
     various publications such as the 2004 articles in The Hill 
     and The Washington Post.
       This report will focus on the financial intricacies and 
     political ties of major environmental activist groups 
     including the League of Conservation Voters, the 
     Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources 
     Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, and the major 
     foundations that support them.


                            501(c)s and 527s

       The three different types of nonprofit groups analyzed in 
     this report are 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 527 organizations, 
     all of which have tax-exempt status under the Internal 
     Revenue Code. A single group is often affiliated with other 
     types of organizations. For example, the League of 
     Conservation Voters, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) that is affiliated 
     with two 501(c)(4) organizations and two ``527 groups'' and a 
     political action committee (PAC). There are different 
     requirements and restrictions placed upon each group, as 
     analyzed below.
       501(c)(3) nonprofits are tax-exempt organizations that can 
     participate in political issues, but not specific campaigns. 
     These organizations must be organized and operated for a 
     qualifying purpose (e.g., a charitable, educational, or 
     religious purpose) and serve the public interest. They are 
     commonly thought of as charitable organizations. The majority 
     of the funds raised by these organizations come from 
     individual donors and other public sources. The individual 
     donations are tax deductible for the donor as long as they 
     meet certain criteria. One such criterion is that the donor 
     must present receipts for amounts of more than two hundred 
     and fifty dollars. These organizations can lose their tax 
     exempt status by supporting or opposing a candidate and 
     engaging in campaign activities that are specifically linked 
     to election periods, such as a presidential primary election.
       A 501(c)(3) can lobby on their issues, but lobbying cannot 
     be a substantial part of their activities. The organizations 
     can also educate the public and fund research that supports 
     their positions. However, 501(c)(3) organizations cannot 
     ``participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing 
     or distributing of statements), any political campaign on 
     behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public 
     office.'' Some examples of popular 501(c)(3)s are The 
     Salvation Army, United Way, and Habitat for Humanity. Any 
     funds transferred by the 501(c)(3) to an affiliated 
     organization cannot be used for impermissible purposes (e.g., 
     campaign activities).
       Another type of tax-exempt organization is a 501(c)(4) 
     organization. These organizations are typically ``social 
     welfare organizations'' whose purpose is to promote the 
     common good and general human welfare. Unlike 501(c)(3) 
     organizations, donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are not 
     tax deductible. Under the scope of promoting the general 
     welfare, the 501(c)(4) organizations can engage in political 
     activities with fewer restrictions than a 501(c)(3). For 
     example, a 501(c)(4)'s general lobbying efforts are almost 
     unlimited. Additionally, a 501(c)(4) can promote a candidate 
     for office, as long as campaigning is not the organization's 
     primary purpose. A 501(c)(4) can generally receive and give 
     funds to both its affiliated 501(c)(3)s and 527s without 
     risking its tax-exempt status. Any transferred funds, 
     however, may be subject to tax if those funds are used for a 
     taxable purpose.
       One of the most prominent examples of a 501(c)(4) campaign 
     is Moveon.org Civic Action, more commonly known as 
     Moveon.org. This organization, which began in 2002, is most 
     famous for its television and print advertisements 
     campaigning against the war in Iraq. The organization also 
     utilizes electronic mail and petitions to achieve its goals. 
     Under the scope of promoting the social welfare, Moveon.org 
     is legally able to become politically involved to campaign 
     for its goals and objectives.
       Many 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations also have 
     affiliated 527 political organizations. Because 527s are 
     political organizations, they can cross the partisan barrier 
     that is off-limits to 501(c)(3) organizations. For example, a 
     527 organization can attempt to directly influence the 
     election, appointment, or nomination of a particular 
     political candidate for public office. 527 political 
     organizations include the entities that are regulated as 
     political committees under federal election law, such as 
     political action committees (PACs). They also include 
     organizations that appear intended to influence federal 
     elections in ways that may be outside the scope of federal 
     election law and therefore are not regulated by the Federal 
     Election Commission (FEC). These latter organizations are 
     commonly referred to as ``527s'' or ``527 groups,'' and that 
     is how this report identifies them. A 501(c)(3) may not 
     transfer money to an affiliated 527 organization for campaign 
     activities, but a 501(c)(4) organization may be able to do so 
     without losing its tax-exempt status, although the funds may 
     be subject to tax.
       A 527 group can conduct several partisan activities similar 
     to a PAC. However, unlike a PAC, a 527 group cannot have as 
     its major purpose the nomination or election of a federal 
     office candidate, cannot expressly advocate for election or 
     defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate, and cannot 
     contribute money directly to a candidate's campaign. 527 
     groups can, however, utilize unregulated ``soft'' money to 
     highlight specific candidate's strengths or weaknesses, and 
     generally promote said candidate without specifically 
     endorsing his or her election. Therefore, a 527 group may be 
     able to essentially operate as a ``soft money'' PAC without 
     having to register with the FEC.
       In recent history, 527s have received increased scrutiny 
     for not complying with IRS regulations, including donor 
     disclosure requirements. Consequently, some organizations may 
     have switched over to campaigning through their 501(c)(4) 
     organizations. The 501(c)(4) retains the ability to engage in 
     campaign activities but is not subject to donor disclosure 
     requirements.
       It is the ability to shift funds easily among these 
     different organizations that has generated a stir of 
     political attention and has raised some very serious 
     questions about the validity of each. Supposed ``nonprofit, 
     nonpartisan organizations'' can shift funds very easily to 
     organizations formed for the sole purpose of partisan, 
     political activity. 501(c)(3) organizations can shift funds 
     to 501(c)(4) organizations, which can participate in partisan 
     activities, although the funds could not lawfully be used for 
     campaign activities. A 501(c)(4) can shift funds to a 527 
     organization, often founded for political campaign purposes. 
     Clearly, without a system for tracking funding in these types 
     of organizations, a donor could contribute to a nonpartisan, 
     nonprofit organization and the donation could ultimately be 
     used for partisan political activities. While this practice, 
     if caught, would cause a 501(c)(3) organization to lose its 
     tax-exempt status, it is nearly impossible to detect these 
     funding shifts.
       There are also questions about the exact scope and 
     limitations placed upon 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4)s, 527s and PACs. 
     With the existence of the 501(c)(4) and the PAC, what is the 
     point of the 527? With significant partisan campaign activity 
     undertaken by 501(c)(4) and 527 groups which are regulated by 
     the IRS, how do lawmakers control and police how much money 
     is actually being spent on campaigns, when the FEC's role in 
     regulating these organizations is often unclear?
       Outlined below are several examples that highlight the 
     complexity of the web of nonprofit organizations and their 
     political activities.


                     league of conservation voters

       LCV represents itself as ``turning environmental values 
     into national priorities.'' The organization's mission is 
     ``to advocate for sound environmental policies and to elect 
     pro-environmental candidates who will adopt and implement 
     such policies.''
       The LCV is registered as a 501(c)(4) organization, with 
     affiliations to several other organizations: the League of 
     Conservation Voters Education Fund, a 501(c)(3), which claims 
     to refrain from campaign activities, and the LCV 
     Accountability Project, another 501(c)(4) organization. These 
     affiliates, referred to as a ``family of organizations,'' are 
     committed to running ``tough and effective campaigns to 
     defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders 
     who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America.'' The 
     very purpose of LCV is to campaign against anti-environmental 
     candidates, an action that a 501(c)(3) cannot engage in. LCV 
     does, however, make the claim that the LCV Education Fund is 
     a separate entity, committed ``to bring[ing] the environment 
     to the center of the public's attention as an issue critical 
     to good public policy and a healthy political system.''
       In 2006, LCV had two 527 groups: the League of Conservation 
     Voters--SSF, and the League of Conservation Voters Inc. SSF--
     527 II. These 527 groups were fined by the FEC for violating 
     the following three separate provisions: Failure to register 
     with the FEC as a PAC, failure to report contributions and 
     expenditures to the FEC, and knowingly accepting individual's 
     donations in excess of $5,000. (The FEC found that more than 
     $6 million of LCV's expenditures during 2004 violated the 
     $5,000 individual maximum amount restriction.)
       The LCV was fined a total of $180,000 by the FEC. According 
     to an FEC press release, LCV received this fine for acting as 
     a clear political committee and violating federal election 
     law. The organization was required to disclose all current 
     and future contributions and expenditures and register as a 
     PAC should it engage in activities that qualified it as such. 
     The Wall Street Journal highlighted these violations in an 
     article published in December 2007. Following this incident, 
     the LCV restructured its organization into a 501(c)(4), which 
     allows the organization to run with fewer disclosure 
     restrictions.
       Every election cycle, the LCV lists ``the Dirty Dozen,'' a 
     list of federal candidates for election or re-election whom 
     the LCV deems as environmentally unfriendly. The first list 
     was created in 1996, and contained four members of the 
     Senate, and eight members of the House. That year, LCV spent 
     $1.5 million ``sending two hundred and fifty-four pieces of 
     persuasion mail to targeted voters [and] running nine 
     thousand television and radio ads''

[[Page 21668]]

     against the members of the ``Dirty Dozen'' which included 
     eleven Republicans and one Democrat. The one Democrat listed 
     on the ``Dirty Dozen'' regained his seat in the House that 
     year while seven of the Republican candidates on the list 
     were not re-elected.
       In 1998, the ``Dirty Dozen'' list was comprised of eleven 
     Republicans and two Democrats. That year, the LCV spent a 
     total of $2.3 million on election campaigning, ``where our 
     efforts could provide the winning margin of difference.'' The 
     two Democrats on the list retained their seats and nine of 
     the eleven Republicans on the list were defeated.
       In 2000, the LCV spent more than $4 million, ``the largest 
     expenditure in history,'' on the election. Their ``Dirty 
     Dozen'' list focused on eleven Republicans and one Democrat. 
     In that election cycle, seven of the Republicans on the list 
     were defeated; the one Democrat kept his seat.
       Again, in 2002, the ``Dirty Dozen'' list was comprised of 
     eleven Republicans and one Democrat. LCV did not report how 
     much it spent on the year's election cycle. Five Republicans 
     on the list lost their seats while the one Democrat retained 
     his seat.
       Two years later, in 2004, the ``Dirty Dozen'' list 
     contained twelve Republicans and one Democrat. LCV and its 
     affiliates spent a total of $16 million during that year's 
     elections targeting the 13 candidates. As in previous years, 
     the one Democrat on the list retained his seat while four of 
     the twelve Republicans were defeated. For the first time, in 
     2004, the LCV included a presidential administration on their 
     list. The LCV endorsed Senator John Kerry (D-MA) for 
     President.
       In 2006, the LCV chose fifteen candidates for their ``Dirty 
     Dozen'' list. The list was comprised of thirteen Republicans 
     and two Democrats. While the two Democrats on the ``Dirty 
     Dozen'' list retained their seats, nine Republicans lost 
     their seats. During this election, the LCV asked viewers of 
     their web site to choose one candidate for the ``Dirty 
     Dozen'' list. The viewers chose Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) to 
     join the ``Dirty Dozen'' list. Taylor lost his seat in 2006 
     to Heath Shuler (D-NC). The LCV and its affiliates used its 
     extensive budget of $27 million on campaign activities.
       At the time of this report, the LCV had yet to release a 
     completed version of the 2008 ``Dirty Dozen'' list. However, 
     it has released the names of nine individuals who will fill 
     up the ranks of the completed list. Of those nine, there is 
     one Democrat joining the ``Dirty Dozen.''
       While there is no means of calculating or anticipating what 
     LCV will spend this year, as their budget has grown every 
     election cycle, they will most likely have at least the $27 
     million that they did in 2006.
       For more than a decade, the LCV has produced its ``Dirty 
     Dozen'' list, targeting select Congressional figures. The 
     organization has operated under the guise of ``the 
     independent political voice for the environment,'' since even 
     before the publication of the ``Dirty Dozen''. To date, 
     eighty-three names have been placed on the LCV's ``Dirty 
     Dozen'', including seventy-four Republicans. By their 
     bipartisan claims, it would be expected that LCV's support 
     would be split evenly; however, almost 90 percent of LCV's 
     recommendations have been to remove Republican candidates. 
     The publishers of the ``Dirty Dozen'' have yet to name even a 
     dozen Democrats to their list in the past twelve years. It 
     has become increasingly apparent that the LCV has been 
     allowed to participate in partisan politics while conveying 
     the impression of objectivity. The organization, however 
     still continues to make the claim that they don't support one 
     political party over another.


                                  NRDC

       The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is registered 
     as a 501(c)(3) organization. Like the LCV ``family of 
     organizations,'' it is also affiliated with a 501(c)(4) 
     organization, the NRDC Action Fund, and a 527 organization, 
     the Environmental Accountability Fund. By having at least one 
     of each category of tax-exempt organizations, groups can 
     essentially transfer wealth throughout their family of 
     organizations and remain virtually undetected. In its 2006 
     tax filing, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 
     transferred $98,801 to NRDC Action Fund, and NRDC Action Fund 
     transferred $124,500 to undisclosed ``other organizations'' 
     that same year.
       Founded in 1970, NRDC purports to be the ``nation's most 
     effective environmental action group'' whose mission is to 
     ``[t]o safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and 
     animals and the natural systems on which all life depends.'' 
     The NRDC uses grassroots efforts and the power of legal and 
     scientific expertise to achieve its goals, which they 
     describe frequently as ``independent.''
       From 2001 through 2005, the NRDC reported on the Bush 
     Administration by creating the Bush Record. The Record 
     categorized Bush's presidency as an administration that 
     ``will cater to industries that put America's health and 
     natural heritage at risk.'' The NRDC predicted that Bush 
     would continue ``to undermine environmental enforcement and 
     weaken key programs will be made.'' The organization gave up 
     the effort and stopped tracking the Administration's moves 
     after President Bush defeated Sen. Kerry in the 2004 
     election.
       NRDC has also showed their party leanings in popular 
     culture. In an episode of the HBO long-running comedy, Curb 
     Your Enthusiasm, the NRDC was featured in connection with 
     Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). The episode, which features 
     Boxer as the event opener for the NRDC event, initially aired 
     on September 16, 2007. Boxer currently serves as Chairman of 
     the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       At the time of this report, the NRDC had made no formal 
     declaration of support for a presidential candidate.


                              sierra club

       The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt 
     organization with an affiliated 501(c)(4) group, Sierra Club. 
     There is also a 527 organization called the Sierra Club Voter 
     Education Fund, which claims to be a ``separate segregated 
     fund of the Sierra Club.'' The Sierra Club Foundation does 
     not claim affiliation with this 527 organization, however the 
     Sierra Club Voters Education Fund ``does not have its own 
     Board of directors, officers or trustees.'' In 2006, the 
     Sierra Club 501(c) organizations brought in more than $110 
     million and spent nearly $104 million; the Sierra Club Voter 
     Education Fund only brought in $60,000, but managed to spend 
     nearly $1 million.
       The Sierra Club Voter Education Fund has a history of 
     receiving support from its ``unaffiliated and unpartisan 
     company'' of the same name and address. During 2002, the 
     Sierra Club Voter Education Fund reported total contributions 
     of slightly more than $3 million. During that calendar year, 
     the Voter Education Fund reported received $2.25 million, the 
     vast majority of their total revenue, in contributions from 
     the Sierra Club.
       It's not hard to understand why the Sierra Club's web of 
     affiliations, or ``non-affiliations,'' becomes so 
     intertwined. A brief glimpse at the activities of Carl Pope, 
     Sierra Club's executive director, shows a tangle even more 
     convoluted than the organization that he spearheads. In the 
     past five years, Carl Pope has played a major role in the 
     following organizations: Sierra Club; California League of 
     Conservation Voters, executive director; Public Voice; 
     California Common Cause; Zero Population Growth, now 
     Population Connection, political director; America Coming 
     Together, founding member and treasurer; America Votes; 
     American Rights at Work; and America's Families United. In 
     addition to Pope's extensive organizational involvement, he 
     also co-authored a book, ``Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush 
     Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of 
     Environmental Progress.'' The Sierra Club continues to 
     maintain that it is an independent organization whose mission 
     is solely ``to receive, administer, and disburse funds 
     donated for tax-exempt, charitable, scientific, literary, and 
     educational purposes.''
       The Sierra Club has a history of endorsing candidates for 
     political office. Currently, the Sierra Club has announced 
     that it will support Senator Obama's (D-IL) presidential bid. 
     While there is no reported activity yet from the 
     organization, Sierra Club has been historically known to run 
     television and radio advertisements both supporting their 
     candidate and criticizing the opposition. Additionally, at 
     the time of this report, Sierra Club announced its support of 
     thirteen candidates for seats in the United States Senate. Of 
     those thirteen candidates, none are Republicans. The 
     organization has also announced its endorsement of one 
     hundred and fifty-six candidates to the United State House of 
     Representatives. Of the candidates, four are Republicans. 
     Essentially, ninety-eight percent of Sierra Club's 
     endorsements favor Democrat candidates.


                               Greenpeace

       Greenpeace USA presents itself as ``an independent 
     campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and 
     creative communication to expose global environmental 
     problems.'' With two hundred fifty thousand members in the 
     United States (and 2.5 million worldwide) Greenpeace is 
     represented by Greenpeace, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization, 
     and Greenpeace Fund, Inc., a 501(c)(3) organization. Through 
     those organizations, Greenpeace reported that it had raised 
     $11.5 million in 2006; its 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) collectively 
     reported contributions of $26 million for their 2006 tax 
     filings (which extend past the 2006 year).
       Greenpeace, like other environmental activist organizations 
     has strong ties to other politically oriented groups. The 
     chairman of the Board of Directors, Donald Ross, is involved 
     in multiple organizations, including the LCV, where he is a 
     board member. Ross is also the founder of M+R, a campaign 
     strategy firm whose clients include, among others: 
     Environmental Defense Fund, LCV, and the Democratic 
     Congressional Campaign Committee. Greenpeace is also a client 
     of Earthjustice, the legal entity which represents the Sierra 
     Club, NRDC and Environmental Defense Fund. Additionally, 
     Greenpeace remains officially affiliated with the Partnership 
     Project, whose members also include Sierra Club, 
     Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC and LCV. While Greenpeace 
     may not make a Dirty Dozen list, or endorse hundreds of 
     Democratic candidates, it is affiliated and supports the 
     organizations that do. Furthermore, it represents those 
     affiliations to the rest of the world.

[[Page 21669]]




                       Environmental Defense Fund

       Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) describes itself as an 
     organization that ``is dedicated to protecting the 
     environmental rights of all people'' by using a scientific 
     approach that is ``nonpartisan, cost-effective and fair.'' 
     Environmental Defense Fund is represented by its family of 
     organizations, Environmental Defense, Inc., a 501(c)(3) 
     organization, and Environmental Defense Action Fund, Inc., a 
     501(c)(4) organization.
       EDF is also intimately connected with other environmental 
     and political organizations. Frank E. Loy, Environmental 
     Defense Fund's chairman of the board, served as Clinton's 
     Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. Until 2006, 
     Teresa Heinz, wife of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), served on the 
     board of trustees for EDF. Heinz is also the current chairman 
     of Heinz Endowments, a part of the Heinz Family Foundation, 
     one of the nation's twenty-five largest charitable 
     foundations. This report will discuss the Heinz Foundation's 
     activities in more detail later. Current EDF trustee George 
     Woodwell also serves on the board of the NRDC.
       Additionally, the trustees of EDF are connected with 
     partisan activities. Trustee Frank Loy currently serves as 
     one of Senator Obama's ``top environmental advisers'' for the 
     2008 Presidential Campaign. This past year, trustee Douglas 
     Shorenstein donated $272,100 to Democratic political 
     objectives, including the Hillary Clinton and Al Franken 
     campaigns. Trustee Joanne Woodward, wife of noted Hollywood 
     star Paul Newman, donated significantly to both the Clinton 
     and Obama campaigns.
       EDF reported raising $71.8 million for the 2006 calendar 
     year, and reported receiving contributions totaling more than 
     $94 million during the 2006 IRS filing period (which extends 
     beyond the 2006 calendar year). Of that amount, the 
     organization spent $18.9 million to promote their stance on 
     climate change issues, and $19.5 collectively on land and 
     ocean environmental issues.


                              FOUNDATIONS

       All of the above groups receive a significant amount of 
     their funds from foundations that regularly give to groups 
     with allied interests. Note that each foundation and charity 
     mentioned is also organized as a 501(c)(3) and is not able to 
     engage in campaign activities. These foundations, however, do 
     not have to make meaningful disclosures about the purpose of 
     their donations and grants or what happens to the money after 
     it is donated. Therefore, tracking such funds is impossible. 
     Many times these foundations donate significant funds to 
     other foundations who in turn donate significantly to 
     environmental groups. The Tides Foundation has a history of 
     making donations and grants to every environmental group 
     mentioned in this report. While neither the Pew Charitable 
     Trust nor the Heinz family of foundations has given directly 
     to all five mentioned groups, they have donated millions to 
     Tides, creating an interlocking system of money-changing, 
     with no transparency.
       The following are a few of the foundations that regularly 
     give to environmental activist, ``nonpartisan,'' groups such 
     as those mentioned above.
     Pew Charitable Trusts
       Made up of seven different charities, the Pew Charitable 
     Trusts claims that it is an ``independent nonprofit'' that 
     ``applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public 
     policy, inform the public and stimulate civic life.'' In 
     2004, Pew made the switch from a private foundation to a 
     public charity in order to provide the organization more 
     flexibility and range in their efforts. The switch to a 
     public charity gives Pew the ability to lobby on the federal 
     and state level, and combine certain resources required to be 
     separate when Pew was operating as a private foundation.
       The switch to public charity also allows the organization 
     to spend the money generated on issues and in sectors not 
     originally intended by its founders. According to a 2004 Wall 
     Street Journal article, the foundation was set up ``to 
     disburse money to charities and research that the founders 
     believed reflected their values and priorities,'' not to 
     venture into the whims of the current directors.
       The change in Pew's status allows the organization to 
     pursue more partisan activities than it had undertaken 
     previously. The Wall Street Journal article highlighted that 
     Pew, because of its status shift, would now be able to spend 
     five percent of its budget on lobbying efforts, funding ``a 
     lot of K Street lunches.'' With a $4 billion budget, that 
     means that Pew can spend $200 million in lobbying. This means 
     that ``Pew's shift promises to have a seismic impact on the 
     foundation and political worlds.''
       Since the shift, Pew has given a substantial amount of 
     money to environmental activist groups directly, and through 
     other private funds that finance those groups. Pew 
     contributed $431,000 to EDF; $900,000 to NRDC; and $700,000 
     to the Partnership Project, which is a joint venture of the 
     nation's leading environmental groups. The Partnership 
     Project's membership includes such names as LCV, EDF, NRDC, 
     Greenpeace, and Sierra Club. Additionally, Pew gave more than 
     $7 million to the Tides Foundation. During that time, the 
     Tides Foundation contributed a collective $1.8 million to the 
     following organizations: EDF, LCV, Greenpeace, NRDC, and 
     Sierra Club.
     Heinz Foundations
       Based in Pittsburgh, the Heinz family of foundations is 
     made up of several different foundations. Two of the major 
     organizations within this empire are the Heinz Endowments, 
     and the Heinz Family Philanthropies (hereinafter collectively 
     referred to as ``Heinz''). In 2006, the Heinz Endowments 
     combined the Howard Heinz Endowment and the Vira I. Heinz 
     Endowment, two of the Heinz foundations more major funds, 
     with a common purpose ``to develop solutions that are 
     national in scope.'' The Heinz Family Philanthropies are made 
     up of three funds: The Teresa and H. John Heinz III 
     Foundation, the H. John Heinz III Foundation, and the Heinz 
     Family Foundation. The Philanthropies focus on three key 
     issues: healthcare and the elderly, environment concerns, and 
     advancing female opportunities in the workplace.
       At the center of the Heinz empire is Teresa Heinz. She is 
     the current chairman of both the Heinz Endowments and the 
     Heinz Family Philanthropies. As previously stated, Ms. Heinz, 
     wife of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), is known for her 
     environmental and political activities. When her husband ran 
     for President in 2004, the LCV publicly endorsed him--the 
     earliest the organization had ever endorsed a Presidential 
     candidate. LCV had previously received more than $57,000 from 
     Heinz donations, but made the assertion that the money had no 
     effect on their endorsement. Ms. Heinz oversees more than 
     $1.5 billion of Heinz foundation resources.
       Heinz, like Pew, has a history of giving both to 
     environmental organizations individually, as well as to other 
     funds and private foundations that also donate significant 
     sums to environmental activists. Last year alone, Heinz gave 
     $160,000 to NRDC directly. Since 2002, Heinz has given a 
     total of $740,000 to EDF, LCV, and NRDC specifically. Over 
     the past five years, Heinz has also given $3.8 million to 
     Tides. Tides, as previously stated, has donated significantly 
     to all five of the mentioned environmental organizations, and 
     receives a bulk of their funds from foundations such as 
     Heinz.
     Turner Foundation
       Founded in 1990 by Ted Turner, the Turner Foundation is a 
     self-proclaimed ``private, independent family foundation 
     committed to preventing damage to the natural--water, air, 
     and land--on which all life depends.'' Since 1991, the Turner 
     Foundation has reported giving out $297.6 million in grants 
     to organizations ``aimed at creating a better world.'' In its 
     2006 filing, the Turner Foundation raised more than $12 
     million and contributed more than $8.6 million in grants.
       The Turner Foundation focuses its philanthropic efforts 
     almost solely on environmental pursuits. In 2001, for 
     instance, Ted Turner co-founded the ``Nuclear Threat 
     Initiative,'' with former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, to 
     combat the growing nuclear threat. In addition, the 
     Foundation has historically undertaken ``special projects'' 
     which include the League of Conservation Voters Education 
     Fund and the Partnership Project.
       Since 2002, the Turner Foundation has contributed more than 
     $2.9 million to the Partnership Project. The Turner 
     Foundation also contributed significant sums to several of 
     the mentioned members individually. Since 2002, the Turner 
     Foundation has given more than $1 million to the NRDC; 
     $778,875 to EDF; and $6.7 million to the LCV Education Fund.


                               conclusion

       This report by no means paints a complete picture of 
     environmental activism and its political and financial ties 
     to election politics. There are additional activities that 
     the environmental groups mentioned participated in, and 
     additional organizations that the foundations mentioned 
     funded. Each of the groups cited, including the foundations, 
     are represented by a 501(c)(3) organization. Under this 
     structure, these organizations collect funds from individual 
     donors by representing themselves as unbiased, objective, and 
     nonpartisan. They are able to amass wealth because those 
     funds are tax-deductible to their donors.
       Each of these organizations has also, both individually and 
     collectively, given numerous examples of their partisanship 
     activities. The LCV is, by its very nature, a partisan 
     organization. Additionally, its history has shown it to 
     consistently favor Democratic candidates. It is closely 
     followed by the Sierra Club, which is currently only giving 
     two percent of its support to Republican candidates this 
     year. The NRDC has gone on television showing its support for 
     a Democratic Senator. EDF has a board comprised of publicly-
     disclosed advisors and financial supporters to the Senator 
     Barack Obama Presidential Campaign. Greenpeace, aside from 
     being affiliated with all the above organizations, is chaired 
     by a man who is directly associated with the Democratic 
     Congressional Campaign Committee. Furthermore, all of these 
     organizations are associated with each other through the 
     Partnership Project, which has consistently supported the 
     Democratic environmental platform.

[[Page 21670]]

       In conclusion, as we turn to another election year, these 
     environmental groups continue to campaign in much the same 
     manner. With a presidential campaign in full swing, these 
     organizations and foundations are likely to wield an even 
     bigger sword than in years previous. Yet for all of the 
     activities that take place, both those mentioned above and 
     others, these groups remain unchecked. They continue to do 
     business under the scope of charitable organizations. While 
     it is not likely that their partisan habits are going to 
     change, the public should see these nonprofits for what they 
     are, and what they stand for.
       Because of the complicated web of 501(c), 527, and PAC 
     organizations, it is clear that individuals who donate to a 
     501(c)(3) organization intending to contribute to the cause 
     of the organization, have no clear mechanism for verifying 
     that their donation was used for the cause. Unsuspectingly, 
     these donors may be contributing to partisan activities when 
     they originally intended their donation to aide an 
     environmental cause. Additionally, there is not sufficient 
     oversight over these organizations to police their political 
     and campaign activities.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me state my understanding of how we 
are going to proceed now. I believe, in the spirit of going back and 
forth, the Senator from Colorado has indicated he would agree that I 
can go ahead and speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business; 
that he is going to be requesting 15 minutes to speak. At that time, if 
Senator Feingold is here, I know he wanted to speak, too, and Senator 
Bond has been waiting and wants to speak.
  I gather maybe I should do a unanimous consent at this point that I 
be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes and then Senator Allard be 
allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak for 10 minutes after Senator Allard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

                          ____________________