Senate Proceeding on Sep 25th, 2008 :: 0:20:00 to 0:40:00
Total video length: 2 hours 7 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:183 Duration: 0:20:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:18:25 to 0:48:28( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James Inhofe
Bill: H.R. 7022: To reform the financing of House elections, and for other purposes

0:19:50 to 0:20:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: important to me as an american citizen, as the ranking member of the environment and public works committee. the situation i'm about to discuss reminds me of an old saying, "beware of wolves dressed

0:20:05 to 0:20:23( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 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 an ancient forest are disguised efforts to raise money

0:20:23 to 0:20:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: for democratic political campaigns. take this ad for example displayed on the league of conservation voters, for the l.c.v. web site. this is l.c.v.'s standard text used to raise money for a nonprofit organization.

0:20:40 to 0:20:50( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: in turn, the l.c.v. takes these donations given to -- quote -- "save the environment" and then uses them to fund ads for democratic candidates such as bin lujan from new mexico. l.c.v., similar to other groups

0:20:50 to 0:21:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i'll highlight later, disguises it is as an environmental group dedicated to saving the environment. yet as shown by this political ad, it is an extension of the democratic political party. in the

0:21:05 to 0:21:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 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 p considerae time and

0:21:19 to 0:21:34( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: effort into examining this deception. this examination has uncovered the tangled web of charitable and environmental organizations, phreupl campaigns and large foundation -- political campaigns and large

0:21:34 to 0:21:49( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: foundations. environmental groups are tax-exempt registered i.r.s. 501c charitable organizations. i think it is important people understand there's always confusion here. a 501-c-3 is not supposed to be a

0:21:49 to 0:22:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: political contribution. it is a contribution to a charitable organization. legitimately there are many of them out there that deserve the tax-exempt status that they have. these groups profess to be stewards of the

0:22:04 to 0:22:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: environment and solicit contributions from a variety of sources using these claims. but they demonstrate more interest in hyping extreme environmental scenarios to raise money for raw political

0:22:19 to 0:22:35( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: purposes than working toward actual real-world environmental change for the benefit of all americans. not surprising, given these deceptions, these nonprofit groups are tightly affiliated with and fund the

0:22:35 to 0:22:46( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 501-c-4 lobbying organizations and 527 organizations. we all know that 501-c-4 organizations and 527 organizations are lobbying organizations that get involved in political campaigns. now, with these intertwined

0:22:46 to 0:22:59( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: organizations, it is extremely diicult 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

0:22:59 to 0:23:20( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 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. at

0:23:20 to 0:23:33( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: this time i ask unanimous consent to have the report inserted into the record at the conclusion of my remarks. my staff is not the first to uncover this sham. in december 19 of 2007, an article in

0:23:33 to 0:23:48( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the "wall street journal" highlighted the very same problem, stating -- and i'm quoting now -- "because the i.r.s. doesn't require 501-c organizations to detail election spending or list contributors,

0:23:48 to 0:24:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: it's difficult to track their political activity." the journal analyzed data on 30 separate 501-c groups active in elections from 2000 to006 called from a -- culled from a variety of sources. the data -- this

0:24:04 to 0:24:16( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: is again "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

0:24:16 to 0:24:32( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: at duplicitous activity, skeurgt laws up to the -- skirting laws up to the edge of illegality and burying their political activities under the guise of nonprofit environmental improvement. this chart

0:24:32 to 0:24:48( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 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 either 527 groups or political 501-c-4's.

0:24:48 to 0:25:03( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: let's take a look at the league of conservation voter, which is a poster child for this deceit. the l.c.v. is an i.r.s. registered 501-c-3. it's an organization where contributions to their -- are

0:25:03 to 0:25:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: tax deductible. however, contributors should understand that l.c.v. is a political organization affiliated with a 501-c-4 organization, a political action committee, and 527 organization. all three of

0:25:19 to 0:25:35( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: these are political. l.c.v. represents itself as turning sraoeufplal values into national priorities. and much of i want funds, even its 501-c-3 organization go to fund voter mobilizeation and education

0:25:35 to 0:25:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: drives. in each election cycle l.c.v. endorses political candidates such as -- since the 1996l.c.v. has published a dirty dozen list and bragged about its effectiveness in ousting candidates on the

0:25:47 to 0:26:00( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: list. not surprising, the list singles out all republican candidates, but they always throw in one democrat candidate -- just one -- to make it appear as if it is technically bipartisan. to date 83 names

0:26:00 to 0:26:22( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: have been placed on the l.c.v.'s dirty dozen, 74 of which are republicans and by bipartisan claims it would be expected that l.c.v.'s report would be split evenly. the publishers of the dirty dozen have yet

0:26:22 to 0:26:32( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: to name even a dozen democrats to their list of the last 12 years. in 2006, l.c.v. had two 527 groups -- the league of conservation voters, s.s.f., and the league of conservation voters incorporated,

0:26:32 to 0:26:51( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: s.s.f.-527-2. these 527 groups were fined by the federal election commission for three violations of the federal law. one of the violations was that the l.c.v. knowingly accepted individuals' donations in

0:26:51 to 0:27:31( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: excess of $5,000. l.c.v. collected over $6 million in donations during 2004 that violated the $5,000 individual maximum amount restriction. the ultimate fine was a total of $180,000 by the f.e.c. according

0:36:44 to 0:36:59( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: to an f.e.c. press release, l.c.v. 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

0:36:59 to 0:37:13( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: published in december of 2007. following this incident, the l.c.v. restructured its organization into a 501-c-4 which allows the organization to run with fewer disclosure restrictions. l.c.v. has a long history

0:37:13 to 0:37:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: of direct involvement in political campaigns. in 1996, l.c.v. spent nearly $1.5 million in ads focused on defeating its dirty dozen list targets. 11 democrats and -- oh, yes -- 11 republicans and

0:37:26 to 0:37:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: one democrat. in 1988, l.c.v. spent $2.3 million targeting its dirty dozen list of 12 republicans and, oh, yes, one democrat candidate. in 2000, the l.c.v. spent nearly $4 million, again targeting 11

0:37:43 to 0:37:53( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: republicans and 1 democrat on its dirty dozen list. and i can't forget that in 2000, the l.c.v. also endorsed al gore for president, clearly a political endorsement. in it 2002, l.c.v. once again targeted

0:37:53 to 0:38:08( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 11 republicans congressional candidates and one democrat. mr. president, clearly there is a partisan pattern here. l.c.v. spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in congressional contests against republican

0:38:08 to 0:38:22( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 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 l.c.v. claims to have budgeted $700,000

0:38:22 to 0:38:34( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: for that race. we're talking about against incumbent senator allard from colorado, and hired a cpaign staff of 12 to coordinate phone banks and precinct walks. in addition, l.c.v. ran television and

0:38:34 to 0:38:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: radio advertisements against senator allard. of course, as we all know, senator allard won in spe of that. all together, the l.c.v. reported they spent $1.4 million in independent expenditures during

0:38:47 to 0:39:03( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the 2002 election cle. of that total amount, l.c.v. spent $1.3 million benefitting democrat kapbdz tkats while -- candidates while spending $136,000 for republican candidates. that is the ratio we see consistently

0:39:03 to 0:39:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: through here of 10 to 1 to make it look as if it is not an arm of the democratic party. in 2004 the list contained 12 republicans is one democt. l.c.v. and affiliates spent a record total of $16

0:39:14 to 0:39:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: million during that year's elections targeting 13 candidates. as in previous years, the one democrat on the list retained his seat while four of the 12 republicans were defeated. for the first time

0:39:26 to 0:39:41( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: in 2004 the l.c.v. included a presidential candidate on the list. they endorsed john kerry -- again, all political. in 2006, the l.c.v. chose 15 candidates for their dirty dozen list. the list was comprised

0:39:41 to 0:39:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: of 13 republicans and two democrats. while the two democrats on the dirty dozen list retained their seats, nine republicans lost their seats. i think it's obvious what the effort was here. the

0:39:55 to 0:40:09( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: l.c.v. and its affiliates used its extensive budget of $27 million on campaign activities. in 2006, elections highlighted the intertwined political activities of l.c.v.'s and other groups. a coalition of