• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • NBCNews.com
  • TODAY
  • Nightly News
  • Rock Center
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • msnbc
  • Breaking News
  • Newsvine
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech
  • Science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: Bomb plot briefing may undercut DOJ's case for AP records seizure
  • Recommended: AP, DOJ clash over seriousness of leak that prompted phone records seizure
  • Recommended: IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges
  • Recommended: The case of the missing mustangs; what happened to 1,700 wild horses?

Investigative reporting from NBC News, with your story ideas and documents. Share your ideas. Read about this blog. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 23
    Apr
    2013
    6:15pm, EDT

    Gun groups, defense contractors buck downward trend in lobbying

    Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images file

    Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, speaks during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Jan. 30 in Washington, D.C. The NRA spent more on lobbying in the first quarter than it had on any quarter ever.

    By Dave Levinthal, The Center for Public Integrity

    Gun groups, defense contractors, oil companies and the world’s largest social network increased their spending on lobbying last quarter, bucking an overall downward trend, newly filed congressional disclosures show.


    Follow @openchannelblog

    As debate over gun control raged in the Senate, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Mayors Against Illegal Guns each spent more on federal-level lobbying during the year’s first three months than in any other quarter.

    Raytheon, United Technologies and General Dynamics also fired up their lobbying machines from January to March, easily surpassing their spending from the same period one year ago as budget sequestration forced them to face deep cuts to their bottom lines.

    Northrop Grumman, at $5.8 million, posted its third-biggest lobbying quarter in company history.

    And Facebook’s $2.45 million in first-quarter lobbying expenses obliterated its previous quarterly record — $1.4 million during the final three months of 2012 — as it pressed lawmakers and governmental agencies on a variety of issues, from online advertising and privacy concerns to taxation and supporting visas and permanent residency for highly skilled foreign workers.

    But those are exceptions.


    About three-fifths of the nation’s 100 top lobbying organizations spent less on lobbying during the year’s first quarter than the first quarter of 2012, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of congressional disclosure reports and Center for Responsive Politics data indicates.

    A slight majority of them also spent less on lobbying from January through March than they did from October through December — a period on Capitol Hill marked by an election, then  a congressional recess-induced lull interrupted by a flurry of fiscal cliff activity at the end of the year.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce this quarter retained its perennial perch atop the list of top lobbying spenders, although its collective first-quarter output ($16.8 million, when including affiliates) is dramatically down from recent quarters.

    The Chamber spent nearly $26.4 million during last year’s first quarter. During the final quarter of last year, it spent more than $40.6 million, in large part because it ranks among a small group of lobbies that opt to disclose state- and grassroots-level lobbying (and sometimes political organizing) costs alongside federally focused efforts.

    Attribute the recent drop-off to 2013 not being an election year, Chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff Holmes said, noting that the nation’s largest trade group still spent heavily on its policy agenda to “generate stronger, more robust economic growth and create jobs.”

    That, according to its disclosures, included lobbying on implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law as well as the oversight capabilities of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Google’s lobbying expenditures have been on a torrid pace of late, as the omnipresent Internet company jumped from $1.5 million during the first quarter of 2011 to $5.4 million during the first quarter of 2012. But it throttled back this past quarter, spending less than $3.4 million on a range of topics that include federal regulation of online advertising and consumer privacy.

    Among the dozens of other prominent lobbies that spent less during the first quarter than they did during the same period last year: AT&T ($7.1 million to $4.3 million), General Electric ($5.7 million to $5.2 million), the American Hospital Association ($4.5 million to $3.8 million), Verizon Communications ($4.6 million to $3.7 million), Dow Chemical ($3.3 million to $2.7 million), drug maker Pfizer ($3.6 million to $2.9 million) and the American Bankers Association ($2.7 million to $1.6 million).

    While many defense contractors experienced lobbying growth early this year, Boeing and Lockheed Martin experienced slight spending declines during the first quarter compared to the same period last year.

    Of those that spent more, the National Association of Realtors ($6.1 million to $8.5 million) led all others in overall first quarter spending. But like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Realtors association reports its lobbying activity broadly, and their first quarter spending was significantly down from the final three months of 2012, when it burned through nearly $15.5 million.

    Many oil-related companies and associations reported first-quarter lobbying spikes, including ExxonMobil ($4.2 million to $4.8 million), Koch Industries ($2.3 million to $2.6 million), Chevron ($3.2 million to $3.7 million), the American Petroleum Institute ($1.8 million to $2.1 million) and Occidental Petroleum ($1.6 million to $2.1 million).

    The American Medical Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association, AARP, Altria, America’s Health Insurance Plans and the National Association of Manufacturers also recorded mild to moderate increases.

    While not among the nation’s biggest lobbying spenders, the National Rifle Association spent $810,000 during the first three months of the year to lobby the federal government — the most ever during a first quarter.

    Senate Republicans, aided by a few Democrats, have so far blocked passage of all major gun control legislation championed by President Barack Obama and most Democrats.

    Meanwhile, Mayors Against Illegal Guns spent a quarter-million dollars from January through March — five times what it typically does.

    The organization, led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Tom Menino, had never spent more than $60,000 during a single quarter to lobby the federal government.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, non-partisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. For more of its stories on this to go publicintegrity.org.

    More from Open Channel:

    • Chechnya conflict an incubator for Islamic militants around the world
    • On social media, Tsarnaevs mixed religious fervor and youthful whimsy
    • Texas fertilizer plant also stored explosive chemical used in OKC bombing
    • Chemical industry watchdog falls years behind on safety reports

    Investigate this!

    Read and vote on readers' story tips and suggested topics for investigation or submit your own.

    199 comments

    Many oil-related companies and associations reported first-quarter lobbying spikes, including ExxonMobil ($4.2 million to $4.8 million), Koch Industries ($2.3 million to $2.6 million), Awww, Koch industries backed the wrong guy. Here's to the 47% lookin' at ya!!!!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: lobbying, facebook, featured, nra, cpi, center-for-public-integrity, defense-industry
  • 18
    Apr
    2013
    6:31am, EDT

    Chemical industry watchdog falls years behind on safety reports for deadly accidents

    Eric Risberg / AP file

    Smoke pours from a fire at the Chevron Richmond Refinery, seen behind Alcatraz Island in San Francisco, on Aug. 6. Chemical Safety Board officials say their response to that incident delayed work on reports about other accidents.

    By Jim Morris and Chris Hamby, Center for Public Integrity

    On April 2, 2010, an explosion at the Tesoro Corp. oil refinery in Anacortes, Wash., killed five workers instantly and severely burned two others, who succumbed to their wounds.


    Follow @openchannelblog

    Eighteen days later, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig blew up in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and unleashing a massive oil spill.

    In both cases, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board – an independent agency modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board – launched investigations. Like the NTSB, the Chemical Safety Board is supposed to follow such probes with recommendations aimed at preventing similar tragedies.

    Yet three years after Tesoro and Deepwater Horizon, both inquiries remain open – exemplars of a chemical board under attack for what critics call its sluggish investigative pace and short attention span.

    The number of board accident reports, case studies and safety bulletins has fallen precipitously since 2006, an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found. Thirteen board investigations – one more than five years old – are incomplete.

    “It is unacceptable that after three long years, the CSB has failed to complete its investigation of the tragic Tesoro refinery accident,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a written statement to the Center. “The families of the seven victims and the Anacortes community deserve better, and the CSB must be held accountable for this ridiculous delay.”

    “I think they’re making excuses,” said Shauna Gumbel, whose son, Matt, died 22 days after being burned in the blast. “Why aren’t they assigning more people so they can get the investigation done in a timely manner and the families can move forward?”

    Ted S. Warren / AP file

    Security guards staff a gate at a Tesoro Corp. refinery in Anacortes, Wash., on April 2, 2010, after a fatal explosion and fire.

    Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso and managing director Daniel Horowitz say the board, which has a $10.55 million annual budget, is stretched thin.

    “We’ve made innumerable proposals over the years … pointing out the significant discrepancy between the number of serious accidents and the ones that we can handle from a practical standpoint,” Horowitz said. Congress, he said, has been unwilling to come up with more money.

    Getting sidetracked
    Moure-Eraso, chairman since June 2010, said the Tesoro investigation was sidetracked by an explosion at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, Calif., last August that created a towering black cloud and prompted about 15,000 people in surrounding neighborhoods to seek medical evaluation.

    “We decided that it was important to deploy (to Richmond) because the issues that were raised were issues that affect the whole refinery industry,” Moure-Eraso said.

    Current and former board members and staffers, however, contend the agency’s investigations are poorly managed – an allegation the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general is exploring.

    Former board member William Wark, whose five-year term ended in September 2011, said it’s “embarrassing” that the Tesoro investigation has not been finished. “The basic, bottom line is the agency is grossly mismanaged,” he said.

    The board has 20 investigators – four more than it had in 2008. Yet earlier investigations were often completed more quickly.

    The deadliest accident the board has investigated was the March 2005 explosion at the BP refinery in Texas City, Texas. Fifteen workers were killed and 180 injured. The board’s final report was issued just under two years after the accident.

    Stephen Morton / AP file

    The Imperial Sugar Co. plant on the Savannah River in Port Wentworth, Ga., is seen Feb. 8, 2008, a day after an explosion and fire there killed 14 people.

    A February 2008 blast at the Imperial Sugar plant near Savannah, Ga., killed 14 and injured 36. The final report was issued in 19 months.

    Gerald Poje, a Bill Clinton appointee who served on the board from 1998 to 2004, said he finds it “painful” that more recent investigations have stagnated. “Unfortunately, over  time, people begin to forget and feel less obligated to pay attention to recommendations,” Poje said.

    Falling productivity
    Created by Congress in amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, the Chemical Safety Board was starved of funding and didn’t get up and running until 1998.

    Authorized for five members, the board currently has three, with a fourth awaiting confirmation. Its staff numbers 39.

    The board appeared to hit its stride under Carolyn Merritt, a George W. Bush appointee who served as chair from 2002 to 2007 and died of cancer in 2008.

    In 2006 it released nine products – three full reports, three case studies and three safety bulletins. In 2007 it put out eight, including a 341-page report on the BP-Texas City explosion.

    Production has trended down ever since. Last year, the board released two case studies. So far this year, it has issued one full report, one interim report – on Chevron – and one case study.

    “Would we like to do more? Would we like to do it faster? Sure,” Horowitz said, adding that he expects the Tesoro investigation to be completed by the end of this year.

    The United Steelworkers union, which represents workers in refineries, chemical plants and other hazardous settings, has been among the board’s more vocal critics.

    At a public meeting in January, Steelworkers health, safety and environment director Mike Wright said investigative delays “severely compromise the board’s mission,” adding, “This is a management problem.”

    U.S. Coast Guard / Reuters file

    Fire crews battle the blaze aboard the oil rig Deepwater Horizon off Louisiana on April 21, 2010. Three years later, there is still no report by the Chemical Safety Board on the disaster.

    The EPA’s inspector general is looking into this very subject. In May 2012, the IG notified Moure-Eraso that it planned an audit “to determine whether CSB’s investigative process can be more efficient to enable more investigative work.”

    “We are kind of full-time employment device for the IG,” Moure-Eraso said. “I don’t think that they are competent to basically understand how we work or understand how we conduct investigations.”

    Choosing targets
    The board’s choice of investigative targets has been a point of contention.

    Why, the Steelworkers ask, did the board follow up on an ink plant explosion in East Rutherford, N.J., that injured seven workers last October but not a hydrofluoric acid release that killed a union member in December at the Valero Energy Corp. refinery in Memphis?

    Hydrofluoric acid, a highly toxic gas, is used at about 50 U.S. refineries. The union thought the Valero accident afforded a “golden opportunity” for the board to reinforce the need for “inherently safer technologies,” said Kim Nibarger, a union health and safety specialist. “They said they were too busy.”

    Horowitz said the board was asked to go to New Jersey by one of the state’s senators, Frank Lautenberg. No one in the Tennessee congressional delegation urged the board to look into Valero.

    “We screen (accidents) very carefully,” Horowitz said. “We look at the specific consequences – the number of deaths and injuries and things like that, the number of community evacuations. We look at qualitative factors, one of which is requests from Congress and from our authorizing committees to investigate these issues.”

    Debate continues over whether the board should have investigated the Deepwater Horizon accident, already addressed in at least a half-dozen other federal inquiries, including one by a presidential commission.

    Former board members Wark and William Wright, both appointed by George W. Bush, said they argued against it. “It was offshore. It was something that we had absolutely no business being in,” Wark said.

    “I don’t think there’s anything they’re going to say that’s going to improve offshore drilling right now,” said Wright, whose term expired the same day as Wark’s in 2011.

    Horowitz pointed out that the board, then chaired by John Bresland, was asked to investigate the disaster in early June 2010 by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich. Bresland agreed. Moure-Eraso assumed the chairmanship days later, having been handed a record-high caseload. 

    “We told Congress at that time that we needed additional resources to conduct that work,” Horowitz said. “Well, those resources were never provided.”

    Nonetheless, Horowitz said, the investigation -- which has cost nearly $4 million and should be completed this summer -- was worth doing.

    “We’re the agency that’s going to look in detail and depth at industry standards,” he said. “The presidential oil spill commission took the 30,000-foot view, wrote a good report, but looked in broad strokes.”

    This story was originally published in a longer form by The Center for Public Integrity. Click here to read it in its entirety.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, non-partisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. For more of its stories on this to go publicintegrity.org.

    More from Open Channel:

    • Boston Marathon attack: Bomb-Making 101 available online
    • Inside a bomb investigation: the hunt for forensic clues
    • Anti-immigrant groups go on attack to block 'pathway to citizenship'

    Investigate this!

    Read and vote on readers' story tips and suggested topics for investigation or submit your own.

    98 comments

    No one wants to pay for anything, but expect that somehow trillion dollar industries are somehow magically going to be monitored on a shoestring. And when things to wrong, well, don't face facts that we can't be sure we are safe unless we are willing to provide the watchdogs with proper resources.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: safety, chemical, featured, inspection, cpi, center-for-public-integrity, chemical-safety-board
  • 8
    Mar
    2013
    4:20am, EST

    New names show up on list of top Obama donation bundlers

    By Michael Beckel
    The Center for Public Integrity

    President Barack Obama prides himself on rejecting donations from registered lobbyists, but a newly released list of campaign fundraisers is peppered with leaders from companies and law firms that lobby the federal government.


    Follow @openchannelblog

    New bundlers, whose names were released this week, include Anthony Welters, executive vice president of UnitedHealth Group, and Qualcomm co-founder and former chairman Irwin Jacobs and his wife Joan.

    Each raised at least $500,000 for the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that includes Obama’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and party committees in several battleground states.

    The exact amounts are unknown. The campaign only divulges bundlers’ fundraising activity in broad ranges, with a top category of “more than $500,000.”


    Qualcomm has spent at least $6 million each year since 2007 on federally reportable lobbying efforts, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. UnitedHealth spent at least $2.5 million annually in the same period.

    None of these individuals were bundlers for Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. However, Welters’ wife, Beatrice, raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

    Bundlers are elite political fundraisers who turn to relatives, friends and business associates to raise large sums and deliver the funds in a “bundle” to the candidate. They are often given perks and special access — both on the campaign trail and once politicians are elected.

    Beatrice Welters was one of about two dozen bundlers who were named ambassadors during the president’s first term. Welters was appointed to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, a post from which she resigned last November.

    There’s nothing illegal about registered lobbyists contributing to a presidential campaign, as long as those donations are reported. But Obama’s campaign went further and voluntarily rejected such contributions. Still, some of his bundlers lead or work for law firms that also provide government lobbying services, although they are not lobbyists themselves.

    Other newly disclosed bundlers include:

    • Andy Sandler, the chairman and executive partner at BuckleySandler, which provides legal counsel and lobbying services for the financial services industry. He bundled between $50,000 and $100,000. Records indicate that his firm’s several recent lobbying clients have included the California-based East West Bank, Virginia-based Genworth Financial and the Electronic Signature and Records Association.
    • Walter White, a London-based partner at the multinational legal powerhouse McGuireWoods, who bundled between $50,000 and $100,000. White is the head of McGuireWoods’ emerging markets transactions practice, according to his official bio. McGuireWoods’ current lobbying clients in the United States include Alpha Natural Resources, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), according to federal records.
    • Jim Black, a Germany-based partner at the law firm White & Case, who bundled between $100,000 and $200,000. Black specializes in equity capital markets and mergers and acquisitions, according to his official company bio. Domestically, White & Case’s several lobbying clients include the National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships. 
    • Rick Mayo-Smith, the managing director of Indochina Land, who bundled between $100,000 and $200,000. Indochina Land is the real estate division of Indochina Capital Corp., one of Vietnam's leading financial services groups.

    The White House directed inquiries to Katie Hogan, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign and Obama’s new nonprofit advocacy group, Organizing for Action. Hogan did not respond to requests for comment.

    Overall, the Obama campaign reaped financial riches from 769 bundlers, who collectively raised more than $186 million. Twenty-eight of these bundlers moved into higher dollar categories during the fourth quarter of 2012, the new disclosure reveals.

    Another newly listed Obama campaign bundler is Imad Husain, Obama's freshman-year roommate at Occidental College, who is now a banker in Boston. Husain raised between $50,000 and $100,000, according to the campaign.

    Robyn Beck / AFP - Getty Images file

    Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith in 2010.

    Hollywood is also represented among Obama’s newly identified top fundraisers, with super couple Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith collecting more than $500,000. While hardly a professional lobbyist, Pinkett Smith last year pressed lawmakers to take a stand against human trafficking and forced labor, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations with her husband present.

    They join the ranks of previously identified bundlers such as pop star Gwen Stefani and Warner Brothers CEO and Chairman Barry Meyer.

    Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign did not volunteer bundler information, releasing only the names of registered federal lobbyists who bundled, as federal law compelled it to do. Nearly six dozen lobbyists collectively raised more than $17 million for the Republican’s unsuccessful presidential bid, as the Center for Public Integrity previously reported.

    While Obama is safely in the White House for another four years, his chase for cash may not be over.

    These elite moneymen and women could be tapped to fundraise for Obama’s presidential library, and are already being pursued by Organizing for Action, which is promoting the president’s legislative agenda over the next four years.

    Organizing for Action will host a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., next week where a minimum contribution of $50,000 is required to attend, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday.

    Obama’s nonprofit group will, on a quarterly basis, voluntarily disclose the names and donation amounts of contributors giving $250 or more, Organizing for America National Chairman Jim Messina wrote Thursday in an opinion piece posted on CNN.com.

    The group, to date, has not revealed any donors.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent, investigative news outlet.  For more of its stories go to publicintegrity.org.

    Read more from The Center for Public Integrity on Open Channel:

    • Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states
    • Obama administration deliberating more cuts in nuclear weapons, sources say
    • Study finds breast cancer risk for women in auto plastics factories

    Read more from Open Channel:

    • 'Non-lethal round' fired at Gitmo detainees, US military confirms
    • Iran was holding bin Laden son-in-law Abu Ghaith, US officials say
    • North Korea threat of nuclear attack predictable but worrisome
    • Prison costs: One of Chicago's priciest neighborhoods isn't what you'd expect

    574 comments

    So he was backed by Insurance companies, Major realty people, and Big Pharma. Only the richest people in the world are good enough to buy our new president. Kind of makes sense why Washington is so screwed up now. They are fighting the richest people in the world backed by the president.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: campaign-finance, obama, barack-obama, center-for-public-integrity
  • 14
    Feb
    2013
    8:29am, EST

    Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states

    By Paul Abowd
    The Center for Public Integrity

    In 2009, a network of online media outlets began popping up in state capitals across the nation, each covering the news from a clearly conservative point of view. What wasn’t so clear was how they were funded.


    Follow @openchannelblog

    “The source is 100 percent anonymous,” said Michael Moroney, a spokesman for the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, the think tank that created the outlets.

    In fact, 95 percent of Franklin’s revenue in 2011 came from a charity called Donors Trust, according to Internal Revenue Service records.

    Conservative foundations and individuals use Donors Trust to pass money to a vast network of think tanks and media outlets that push free-market ideology in the states — $86 million in 2011 alone. The arrangement obscures the identity of the donors wishing to keep their charitable giving private, especially “gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues,” according to the group’s website.


    The $6.3 million donation to the Franklin Center was the second-largest gift made in 2011 by the group, a tax-exempt “public charity” that takes tax-deductible donations from donors “dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise,” according to its website. 

    Donors Trust includes 193 contributors, the majority of whom are individuals. “A lot of donors are flying totally under the radar,” says president and CEO Whitney Ball.

    Donor-advised fund
    Since its founding in 1999, Donors Trust and its affiliated organization, Donors Capital Fund, have distributed nearly $400 million, becoming major vehicles for tax-exempt giving from wealthy conservatives such as billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.

    Koch is among an exclusive pool of donors who have used Donors Trust as a “pass-through,” says Marcus Owens, the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, now in private legal practice. “It obscures the source of the money. It becomes a grant from Donors Trust, not a grant from the Koch brothers.”

    Ball helped found Donors Trust in 1999 as a “donor-advised” fund. Donors can open an account and protect their identity from the public and even the recipient of their grants.

    In addition, donor-advised funds offer contributors an extra level of control over where their money ends up, which seeks to remedy what Ball sees as the tendency for foundation money to “drift left.”

    This was a chief concern of Daniel Searle, the late philanthropist and pharmaceutical executive who was one of Donors Trust’s early board members.

    In 1998, with help from Donors Trust co-founder and board chairman Kim Dennis, Searle established an endowment called the Searle Freedom Trust, now worth $114 million, which has in turn given generously to Donors Trust.

    ‘Great guys’
    The Searle Freedom Trust is one of dozens of conservative foundations that have given tens of millions of dollars to Donors Trust from 2001 to 2011. Among the group’s donors is the Knowledge and Progress Fund, a Wichita, Kan.-based foundation run by Charles Koch.

    The foundation gave almost $8 million to Donors Trust between 2005 and 2011.

    Where those funds ended up is a mystery, though some of the recipients, including the Mercatus Center and the Institute for Humane Studies based at George Mason University in Virginia, have also received major funding from foundations set up by Charles Koch and brother David.

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters file

    David Koch is shown in New York on Dec. 10. In 2010, nearly half of the revenue for David Koch's Americans for Prosperity Foundation came from Donors Trust, in the form of $7.6 million in grants.

    Nearly half of the revenue for David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity Foundation came from Donors Trust in 2010, in the form of $7.6 million in grants.

    Representatives for the Koch foundations did not return  calls for comment. 

    Before Donors Trust, Ball was the director of development for the libertarian Cato Institute, which Charles Koch was instrumental in founding.

    “We think they’re great guys,” she says of the Kochs, “but if they weren’t around, we’d still be successful.”

    At a private Koch fundraising meeting in the summer of 2010, Donors Trust hosted cocktails and dessert for what Ball called a “target-rich environment” of wealthy donors.

    Several wealthy conservatives who have attended Koch fundraising parties have Donors Trust accounts, including Amway co-founder and longtime booster of conservative causes Richard DeVos; hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer; and Philip Anschutz, owner of the conservative Examiner newspapers.

    Dozens of other major conservative philanthropies have Donors Trust accounts, including the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Coors family’s Castle Rock Foundation, according to IRS records.

    Money in the states
    For a decade, Donors Trust has bolstered the efforts of D.C.-based conservative think tanks, including Cato, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute — whose president, Arthur C. Brooks, is on the Donors Trust board.

    In recent years, it has taken a strong interest in the states, funding state-level think tanks and three national umbrella organizations that coordinate their activities:  the American Legislative Exchange Council, the State Policy Network (SPN), and the Franklin Center.

    “Gridlock” at the federal level of government means donors see “a better opportunity to make a difference in the states,” says Ball, who sits on the board of the State Policy Network.

    SPN has become a major recipient of Donors Trust money — receiving $10 million in the past five years.

    In 2011, the nearly $2 million in grants from Donors Trust made up about 40 percent of SPN’s revenue for the year, according to tax records obtained by the Center.

    In the past five years, Donors Trust money has gone to at least 51 state-level think tanks affiliated with SPN, located in nearly every state. Last year, SPN used the money to incubate think tanks in Arkansas, Rhode Island and Florida, where it hosted its yearly gathering in November.

    One workshop touted privatization of state and local government services. Another featured anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. A third focused on how “property rights and markets provide the best way to protect the environment.”

    SPN also sponsors the American Legislative Exchange Council, another D.C.-based clearinghouse for state-level policymaking that gets support directly from Donors Trust.

    A laboratory for corporate-friendly laws in the states, ALEC hosts closed-door meetings where corporate lobbyists and state legislators meet to hammer out free-market legislation.

    Ten state-level think tanks got a total of $200,000 from Donors Trust to attend ALEC meetings in 2011 including the Michigan-based Mackinac Center and the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, which introduced a raft of anti-union model bills at ALEC’s spring 2012 conference.

    The Mackinac Center has gotten $2.4 million from Donors Trust since 2008, according to the Bridge Project, a liberal think tank.

    One Donors Trust grant to Mackinac Center was earmarked for “statehouse reporting” efforts. Mackinac put the money toward a media machine of blogs and research studies making the case for the state’s new “right-to-work” law.

    The Mackinac Center works closely with other Donors Trust recipients, including the Franklin Center, which counts Mackinac’s “media” outlets in Michigan as affiliates.

    The Franklin Center, Mackinac and another major recipient of Donors Trust cash, Americans for Prosperity, co-hosted a day-long training for “citizen watchdogs” featuring speakers on “school choice” and “union reform” from the Mackinac Center and Republican state Rep. Tom McMillin, who is also an ALEC member.

    Against the tide
    The California-based Tides Foundation, which Ball calls the “ideological opposite” of Donors Trust, also operates donor-advised funds. The Center has received funding from the Tides Foundation in the past.

    In 2011, Tides raised $91 million and made $96 million in grants, including $26 million to overseas recipients.

    Tides gives grants to the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and liberal groups like the Center for American Progress and the National Resources Defense Council.

    Since 2010, the foundation has received $10 million from George Soros’ Foundation to Promote an Open Society, which has assets of $2.2 billion (Tides has assets of $142 million, and the Donors Trust funds have combined assets of $62 million.)

    Soros’ Open Society Foundations is a donor to the Center for Public Integrity.

    Soros’ foundation listed the specific recipient of its grants to Tides, including its largest gift, a $1 million grant for school nutrition programs. The largest foundations contributing to Donors Trust do not identify the ultimate recipient of their funds, records show.

    Donor-advised funds offer private foundations created by wealthy individuals several tax advantages and a degree of anonymity, but there are also advantages for recipients.

    The Franklin Center, for example, maintains a tax-exemption as a “publicly supported” entity.

    If the organization were perennially accepting 96 percent of its funding from a handful of wealthy donors “it would not count as public support” and could jeopardize its tax status, Owens said.

    Though its donors remain anonymous, the Franklin Center touts “transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility as its watchwords.”

    One of Franklin’s state-based blogs, New Jersey Watchdog, also received $50,000 from AFP in 2011, according to IRS records.

    In 2011 alone, Donors Trust helped the Franklin Center expand by funding state-based reporting projects in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

    Recurring themes on the Franklin Center blogs include “union bosses,” “Marxian” senators and the perils of renewable energy.

    Franklin has noted that its journalists’ work had landed on major networks from Fox to MSNBC. The details of several stories offered by the Franklin-funded outlets have been called into question, however.

    One report from a New Mexico affiliate housed at a free-market think tank also funded by Donors Trust garnered national attention when it reported that millions of dollars in federal stimulus money had been allocated to non-existent congressional districts.

    The government database on stimulus spending had indeed listed non-existent districts as receiving funds, but The Associated Press reported that the problem was due to data errors and that “’phantom congressional districts’ are being used as a phantom issue to suggest that stimulus money has been misspent.”

    When asked to comment on the criticism, Franklin Center spokesman Moroney said: “Franklin Center adheres to the highest degree of journalistic integrity and we stand by our Watchdog.org reporting 100 percent. In this case, the Associated Press had it wrong.”

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet.  For more of its stories go to publicintegrity.org

     

    140 comments

    That sounds illegal. If its not, it should be. A charity shouldn't be funding political groups and "think tanks". Those are not groups who need charity. I hope the IRS goes after them.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, center-for-public-integrity, charles-koch, david-koch, koch-brothers, donors-trust
  • 8
    Feb
    2013
    7:18am, EST

    Obama administration deliberating more cuts in nuclear weapons, sources say

    Getty Images photo

    A Trident II nuclear missile is shown in an undated file photo.

    By R. Jeffrey Smith
    The Center for Public Integrity

    Senior Obama administration officials have agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third without harming national security, according to sources involved in the deliberations.

    They said the officials’ consensus agreement, not yet announced, opens the door to billions of dollars in military savings that might ease the federal deficit. It might also improve prospects for a new arms deal with Russia before the president leaves office, the sources said, but is likely to draw fire from conservatives, if previous debate on the issue is any guide.

    The results of the internal review are reflected in a draft of a classified decision directive prepared for Obama’s signature that guides how U.S. nuclear weapons should be targeted against potential foes, according to four sources with direct knowledge of it. The sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to a reporter about the review, described the president as fully on board, but said he has not signed the document.

    The document directs the first detailed Pentagon revisions in U.S. targeting since 2009, when the military’s nuclear war planners last took account of a substantial shrinkage -- roughly by half from 2000 to 2008 -- in the total number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. It makes clear that an even smaller nuclear force can still meet all defense requirements.


    Although the document offers various options for Obama, his top advisers reached their consensus position last year, after a review that included the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council, the intelligence community, the U.S. Strategic Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the office of Vice President Joseph Biden, according to the sources.

    Several said the results were not disclosed at the time partly because of political concerns that any resulting controversy might rob Obama of popular votes in the November election. Some Republican lawmakers have said they oppose cutting the U.S. arsenal out of concern that it could diminish America’s standing in the world.


    Follow @NBCNewsUS

    The new policy directive, which would formally implement a revised nuclear policy Obama adopted in 2010, endorses the use of a smaller U.S. arsenal to deter attacks or protect American interests by targeting fewer, but more important, military or political sites in Russia, China and several other countries. This can be accomplished by 1,000-1,100 warheads, the sources said, instead of the 1,550 allowed under an existing arms treaty.

    The 2010 policy called for reducing the role of nuclear weapons, arguing that they are “poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.” But many critics have charged that not much of the policy has been implemented. Obama himself even joked in a video message to the Jan. 26 annual dinner of Washington’s exclusive Alfalfa Club, that he could not recall why he won his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize [the Oslo committee attributed it partly to his stimulation of “disarmament and arms control negotiations”].

    With the election behind him and a new national security team selected, Obama is finally prepared to send this new guidance to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to open a new dialogue with Russia about corresponding reductions in deployed weapons beyond those called for in a 2011 treaty, according to two senior U.S. officials involved in the deliberations.

    “It is all done,” said one. “We did so much work on it that there is no interest in going back and taking another look at it.” The second official said completion of the new directive would become public in coming weeks, when Obama may mention the issue in his State of the Union address on Feb. 12, or in another speech specifically dedicated to the subject, similar to the April 2009 Prague address in which he promised to “take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Arms talks now being explored
    While the draft directive opens the door to scrapping a substantial portion of the U.S. arsenal, it does not order those reductions immediately or suggest they be undertaken unilaterally, the officials said. Instead, the administration’s ambition is to negotiate an addendum of sorts to its 2010 New Start treaty with Russia, in the form of a legally binding agreement or an informal understanding. Officials said the latter path could be chosen if gaining the assent of two-thirds of the Senate to a treaty is not possible.

    Preliminary discussions about this ambition occurred in Munich on Feb. 2 between Vice President Joe Biden and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and additional talks are slated in Moscow this month with acting undersecretary of state Rose Gottemoeller and White House national security adviser Thomas Donilon. Obama “believes that there’s room to explore the potential for continued reductions, and that, of course, the best way to do so is in a discussion with Russia,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said on Jan. 31.

    White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment on Feb. 6 on the draft directive.

    The New Start treaty limits each side to deploying no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons by 2018, but uses a counting rule that pretends strategic bombers carry only a single warhead, instead of up to 20. So the actual arsenals after the treaty takes effect are likely to be closer to 1,900, a number that Obama’s advisers now think is too high.

    New Start also imposes no limits on nuclear weapons in each country that are held in storage or considered of “tactical” or short-range use -- a number estimated by independent experts as roughly 2,700 in the United States and 2,680 in Russia. Under the new deal envisioned by the administration, Russia and the United States would agree not only to cut deployed warhead levels below 1,550 to around 1,000 to 1,100 but also -- for the first time -- begin to constrain the size of these additional categories.

    Several officials said that as a result, the total number of nuclear warheads could shrink to less than 3,500 and perhaps as low as 2,500, or a bit more than half the present U.S. arsenal, without harming security or requiring a major reconfiguration of existing missiles or bombers.

    A much steeper reduction, to around 500 total warheads, was debated within the administration last year, but rejected, the officials said. Known as the “deterrence only” plan, it would have aimed U.S. warheads at a narrower range of targets related to the enemy’s economic capacity and no longer emphasized striking the enemy’s leadership and weaponry in the first wave of an attack.

    Nuclear weapons experts have long considered the latter “warfighting” goal destabilizing because it arouses fears among all the combatants of a decapitating, preemptive strike that could obstruct a significant retaliation, but it has been a salient feature of the U.S. nuclear policy for half a century. China, in contrast, has adopted a “deterrence-only” strategy, keeping only a minimal arsenal of missiles aimed partly at targets in or near large cities.

    Some officials at the State Department, the NSC staff, and Biden’s staff urged consideration of the smaller arsenal and new targeting policy, officials said. But “a small brake” was applied by the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who worried that making such a major policy change was too risky at a moment of upheaval in conventional military strategy, and would create too much uncertainty among allies.

    Obama, who followed the deliberations intermittently, “decided we did not need to do deterrence-only targeting now,” but did not rule it out, one of the sources with knowledge of the discussions said.

    Air Force Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, who as head of the Global Strike Command oversees the operations of bombers and land-based missiles capable of carrying more than a thousand nuclear warheads to foreign targets, said at a breakfast with reporters on Feb. 6 that if asked, “can you go below 1500” treaty-accountable weapons, his response is, “Yeah, I think there is some headroom in there.” But he warned that shrinking the force to well below 1,000 would require “major structural changes in how we do this business.”

    Additional cuts would save billions of dollars
    The financial savings from even the modest reduction now being contemplated could be substantial, according to officials and independent experts. Already, to comply with New Start, the Pentagon has been pulling warheads from land-based missiles and making plans to decommission some of the missiles themselves; it is also planning to reduce the number of missile tubes aboard its Trident submarines.

    By pushing the arsenal size even lower, it could close perhaps two of its three land-based missile wings and cut at least two of the 12 new strategic submarines it now plans to build – saving $6 billion to $8 billion for each one. Eliminating a single wing of 150 missiles would save roughly $360 million a year, or $3 billion over a decade, according to Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit research group in Washington. Modernization of the land-based missiles might also be deferred, bringing additional savings.

    Russia, meanwhile, has been  phasing out three older missile types that loomed large during Cold War tensions – the SS-18, the SS-19, and the SS-25 – and is replacing them with a more modern missile, the SS-27, in three forms. It is also planning to build a costly, larger missile, capable of carrying multiple warheads. Pentagon officials are not alarmed by that possibility, but say that a new arms deal could give Russia reason to scale back its own spending.

    “The Russian Federation … would not be able to achieve a militarily significant advantage by any plausible expansion of its strategic nuclear forces, even in a cheating or breakout scenario” because it cannot destroy U.S. missile-carrying submarines at sea, the Defense Department said in a May 2012 classified report to Congress, partially declassified and released last month to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

    Related: Hagel's nuclear abolition endorsement spurs GOP questions on deterrence

    Three participants in the targeting policy review said Russia nonetheless remains the sole U.S. target that still requires potential use of a large number of nuclear warheads to achieve damage that military planners deem adequate, even though Obama famously said last September at the Democratic National Convention that “you don't call Russia our number one enemy — not al-Qaeda, Russia — (laughter) — unless you're still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.”

    U.S. nuclear targets include China, North Korea, and Iran, officials have said. But the list of predictable enemies has been steadily shrinking: Iraq was once on the list – as recently as 1997, the Defense Department studied radioactive fallout distribution patterns from a potential U.S. attack there – but it now poses no threats, and Syria – another perennial listee – is in the midst of imploding and unable even to muster a response to Israel’s recent bombing of an arms factory in its capital.

    Russian arms reductions taken to date make U.S. targeting revisions feasible now, according to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear arms expert at FAS. A decade ago, the U.S. military was targeting 660 Russian missile silos with multiple warheads, he said; now, the number of such silos is less than half that, and in a decade, it is unlikely to exceed 230. Several officials also pointed out that Russia currently fields a smaller and weaker conventional military force than it once did, also allowing U.S. targeting to be scaled back.

    Obama’s new appointees are on board
    Key members of Obama’s new national security team are on board with the reduction strategy.

    “There's talk of going down to a lower number,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 24. “I think, personally, it's possible to get there if you have commensurate levels of -- of inspections, verification, guarantees about the capacity of your nuclear stockpile program, et cetera.”

    Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel drew fire from Republicans at his Jan. 31 confirmation hearing for signing a report last summer that said current stockpiles “vastly exceed what is needed to satisfy reasonable requirements of deterrence” and that nuclear weapons are arguably “more a part of the problem than any solution.”  An appropriately modernized force, the Global Zero report said, would consist of just 900 total strategic weapons on each side, not 5000, and get rid of land-based missiles subject to accidental or unauthorized launch.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told Hagel that cuts of that magnitude would “create instability, rather than confidence and stability; create uncertainty in the world among our allies and our potential adversaries.” He said the current U.S. arsenal projects “an image of solidity and -- and steadfastness” to citizens around the globe.

    Hagel responded at the hearing that the report simply provided illustrative scenarios, not recommendations. But he affirmed the report’s conclusion that “we have to look at” the value and cost of continuing to keep land-based missiles and made no promise to build all 12 new missile-carrying submarines sought by the Navy.

    The United States is not the only nuclear weapons state considering a retrenchment. A senior British treasury official told the London Guardian several weeks ago that given fiscal pressures in London, the country needs a wide debate “over the approach we take to nuclear deterrence” and should consider scaling back either its purchase or deployment of costly new nuclear missile-carrying submarines. Michael Portillo, the defense minister under Conservative Prime Minister John Major in the 1990s, told the Financial Times last month that Britain maintained its arsenal “partly for industrial and employment reasons, and mainly for prestige.” He called it “a tremendous waste of money.”

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is among those urging a major shift. In a speech last month in California, he called for all nuclear-armed states to “reconsider their national nuclear posture,” and said the United States and Russia had a special obligation to undertake deeper cuts. “Nuclear disarmament is off-track,” he said. “Delay comes with a high price tag. The longer we procrastinate, the greater the risk that these weapons will be used, will proliferate or be acquired by terrorists.”

    Some senior U.S.  officials are skeptical that Russian president Vladimir Putin would agree to a new treaty, because his government claims to depend more heavily than Americans on nuclear arms for security; others worry that Republican opposition in the Senate may obstruct ratification of any new treaty.  But there remains high interest, officials said, in at least exploring a new joint, lower limit.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent investigative news outlet. For more of its stories on this topic go to publicintegrity.org.

    More from Open Channel:

    • EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
    • After ethics complaint, Sen. Menendez pays $58,500 for flights to Dominican Republic
    • Exclusive: Your employer may share your salary, and Equifax might sell that data

    Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

    247 comments

    Get rid of as many as possible.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: nuclear, nuclear-weapons, center-for-public-integrity
  • 19
    Nov
    2012
    10:54am, EST

    Study finds breast cancer risk for women in auto plastics factories

    By Jim Morris
    Center for Public Integrity

    WINDSOR, Ontario — For more than three decades, workers, most of them women, have complained of dreadful conditions in many of this city’s plastic automotive parts factories: Pungent fumes and dust that caused nosebleeds, headaches, nausea and dizziness. Blobs of smelly, smoldering plastic dumped directly onto the floor. “It was like hell,” says one woman who still works in the industry.

    The women fretted, usually in private, about what seemed to be an excess of cancer and other diseases in the factories across the river from Detroit. “People were getting sick, but you never really thought about the plastic itself,” said Gina DeSantis, who has worked at a plant near Windsor for 25 years.

    Now, workers like DeSantis are the focal point of a new study that appears to strengthen the tie between breast cancer and toxic exposures.

    The six-year study, conducted by a team of researchers from Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, examined the occupational histories of 1,006 women from Ontario’s Essex and Kent counties who had the disease and 1,146 who didn’t. Adjustments were made for smoking, weight, alcohol use and other lifestyle and reproductive factors.

    The results, published online today in the journal Environmental Health, are striking: Women employed in the automotive plastics industry were almost five times as likely to develop breast cancer, prior to menopause, as women in the control group.

    These workers may handle an array of carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. They include the hardening agent bisphenol A (BPA) — whose presence in polycarbonate water bottles and other products has unnerved some consumers — plus solvents, heavy metals and flame retardants.

    Sandy Knight, who worked at two Windsor plastics plants from 1978 to 1998, had a breast cancer scare in 2000, when she was 41. The cancer was at Stage III — “invasive and fast-growing,” said Knight, 53, who now works at a Ford parts distribution center near Toronto. She had a single mastectomy and, following 10 years of hormonal treatment, is in remission.


    When asked if she believed her disease was work-related, Knight said, “I’m suspicious of it because of all the exposures we had.” She remembers the “nauseating kind of odor,” the burning eyes and headaches, all the women with cancer, sterility and miscarriages. She’s upset that little seems to have changed at some plants.

    “Why am I speaking to people today, in 2012, who are doing the same processes I did in 1980?” Knight asked. “It just seems like we’re fighting the same battle. A lot of these chemicals should be removed from the workplace.”

    The study population included women who had worked at more than 40 plastics factories in the Windsor area. But the implications are broader: Workers in similar plants around the world are exposed to many of the same chemicals. So are members of the public, who encounter the substances — albeit in lower doses — in the course of their daily lives.

    “These workplace chemicals are now present in our air, water, food and consumer products,” said one of the two principal investigators, James Brophy, an adjunct faculty member at the University of Windsor and a former occupational health clinic director. “If we fail to take heed then we are doing so at our own peril.”

    Jeanne Rizzo, president of the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco group that has pressed for more research into environmental causes of a disease that claimed nearly 40,000 lives in the United States last year, called the Windsor study “a very powerful piece of work. The piece that’s really been missing for female breast cancer is occupation.”

    In the United States, an estimated 150,000 female workers in the plastics and synthetic rubber industries are likely exposed to many of the same chemicals as the women in Windsor, including polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, plastic; acrylonitrile; formaldehyde and styrene.

    “I think the findings, although they’re clearly based on Canadian groups, go well beyond Canada,” said another of the Windsor study’s co-authors, Andrew Watterson, director of the Centre for Public Health and Population Health Research at the University of Stirling in Scotland. “They’re going to be significant for plastics workers in Europe, India, China, Africa, the United States. The chemicals will have the same toxic effects. The same diseases will develop.”

    Even minuscule amounts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals like BPA can be worrisome, Watterson said. “This research is raising big questions both about what the standards are" in the workplance, "and even about what happens if conditions are very good, with low-level exposures,” he said.

    In a written statement, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said, “We look forward to reading this paper … and plan to explore how we may use the findings in protecting workers from hazardous exposures.”

    The American Chemistry Council, the main chemical industry trade association in the United States, questioned the study’s conclusions, saying it includes “no actual determination of exposures” to workers. The study’s estimates of risk seem to be based on a small sample and are “statistically very uncertain,” the council said in its statement.

    “The well-established risk factors for breast cancer are not chemical exposures, but rather a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors,” the council wrote.

    Barry Eisenberg, a spokesman for another U.S. trade group, the Society of the Plastics Industry, declined to comment on the study, saying, “We don’t have the expertise.” Eisenberg declined to answer general questions about worker and consumer health, although his group has had an Occupational Health and Environmental Issues Committee since 1985.

    The Canadian Plastics Industry Association did not respond to requests for comment. The president of the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association declined to comment.

    Life in the factories
    Modern cars and trucks are loaded with plastics: bumpers, door panels, license-plate brackets. Dozens of factories in and around Windsor make these parts from plastic pellets melted and shaped in injection molding machines. The parts are then shipped to auto manufacturers.

    The Big Three U.S. automakers expressed varying degrees of concern about conditions in the parts plants.

    General Motors said its suppliers are “independent businesses which must meet the Health and Safety legislation in the jurisdictions in which they operate.” Ford said it “requires suppliers to ensure that our products — no matter where they are made — are manufactured under conditions that demonstrate respect for the people who make them.” And Chrysler said that while its suppliers are “responsible for their own legal compliance,” its policies “restrict us from using suppliers who we learn do not comply with our requirements or environmental and health and safety laws.”

    Conditions in some of the Windsor plants have improved, workers say. In years past, for example, hot plastic would be removed from the molding machines and dumped on the floor, where it might lie for up to an hour. Some companies have altered this process, known as purging, requiring that the reeking muck be put into covered barrels.

    Others have relocated grinding machines — bladed devices that chew up scrap plastic and spit out huge quantities of dust — to isolated areas to reduce worker exposures.

    Workers say, however, that a lack of local ventilation — vacuums that can suck up fumes and dust straight from the molding and grinding machines and direct them outside — is still the norm at many facilities.

    The machines disgorge “pretty toxic stuff – either carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” said Robert DeMatteo, a retired health and safety director for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and lead author of an article on the plastics industry scheduled for publication early next year in the journal New Solutions. “All you’re going to do with general ventilation is just dilute it.”

    Carol Bristow got into the industry in 1989, having grown impatient with a dead-end cashier’s job at the A&P. “I never felt working in a factory would be my calling,” Bristow said. “The first six months I would come home in tears and in pain, almost praying to God that I wouldn’t get my seniority because it seemed like the wrong place to be. But the money kept coming in, and you just adjusted.”

    In 1992, when she was 34, Bristow was diagnosed with cancer in her right breast, which was removed along with about 20 lymph nodes. She kept working and developed endometriosis, a painful condition in which cells from the lining of the uterus grow outside the uterine cavity. Some studies have linked endometriosis with exposure to chemicals such as dioxin, a byproduct of PVC incineration and chlorine production. Bristow underwent a hysterectomy in 2001.

    As all of this was going on, Bristow was being tormented by bladder infections. Benign tumors were removed from her bladder in 2010 and again in August of this year. “I’ll have to be scoped every three months for the rest of my life,” she said, referring to a procedure called cystoscopy, in which a tube-like viewing device is inserted through the urethra into the bladder. One study found that women who had worked in the plastics industry had a more than threefold risk of developing bladder cancer.

    Why does Bristow stay?

    The pay, she explained, is a respectable $22 an hour, with benefits, in a tough economy. “Who’s going to hire me?” she asked.

    The owner of Bristow’s factory, which bought the facility in 2001, says it is unaware of any worker health concerns and has a “consistently strong track record – recognized by workers and regulators – of protecting its employees’ health and safety.”

    ‘Horrifying’ symptoms
    James Brophy and his partner, Margaret Keith, both PhDs with backgrounds in occupational health, began studying Ontario plastics workers in the late 1970s.

    “It wasn’t something we chose to be interested in,” Keith said. “We had people come to us” — notably, a union official from a Windsor plant concerned about what seemed to be an abundance of disease among female workers.

    Keith, Brophy and a physician put together a health questionnaire, which was circulated at five plants. Reports of nosebleeds, headaches and nausea came back. Some operators said the fumes had made them pass out at their machines. “The level of symptoms was pretty horrifying,” Brophy said.

    In 1981, the CBC broadcast a documentary, “Dying for Work,” which highlighted conditions in the Windsor plants. “We thought that would really start the ball rolling” toward better ventilation and other improvements, Keith said. “Absolutely nothing happened.”

    Keith and Brophy lost contact with the plastics workers for more than a decade, until several turned up at their occupational health clinic in 1993 to report that they had had miscarriages or difficulty conceiving. Keith, Brophy and clinic staff developed a second questionnaire for circulation in the plants. “We found a lot of acute symptoms as well as reproductive problems and some cancers,” Keith said.

    Around the same time, Keith and Brophy convinced officials at the Windsor Regional Cancer Center to begin collecting work histories of cancer patients. This led to an initial study, completed in 1999, which found an increased risk of breast cancer among women who farmed. A subsequent study, finished in 2002, looked at the work histories of 564 women with breast cancer and 599 who didn’t have the disease. Again, a strong association between farming and breast cancer was noted; an even stronger link was found among women who’d farmed and then gone to work in the auto industry.

    The new study, funded by groups including the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation-Ontario Region, examined a population twice as large and featured a more detailed questionnaire. Workers in the plastics industry, it found, are exposed to a brew of carcinogenic and estrogenic chemicals, also known as endocrine disruptors, which interfere with the hormone system and can cause tumors, birth defects and developmental disorders. This complex mixture, Brophy said, may be more dangerous than any one compound.

    The study found that, in addition to the plastic workers, women who worked in food canning and agriculture and at bars, casinos and racetracks had elevated breast cancer risks. The highest risk for pre-menopausal women — nearly six times that of the controls — was found in canning, an industry in which workers may be exposed to BPA in epoxy can linings and pesticides released from food during cooking.

    The primary risk factor associated with agriculture is pesticide exposure, the study found. Women who work at bars, casinos and racetracks are exposed to tobacco smoke, it noted, and also subjected to “disruption of circadian rhythms and decreased melatonin production resulting from night work,” which other research has shown to be associated with breast cancer.

    In general, breast cancer is an older woman’s disease; a 60-year-old has a greater chance of developing the disease than does a 30-year-old. Many of the victims in the Windsor plastics factories are in their 30s, 40s and 50s, say six current and former workers, from multiple plants, interviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.

    “We’re sitting here after three decades, and you see the weight of the evidence that these substances pose serious health problems, yet there’s nary a mention of the risk that blue-collar workers bear, particularly women,” Brophy said. “They’re just not on the radar. Had we paid more attention to them, the harm these substances cause would have been seen much sooner and we might have prevented them from becoming so ubiquitous in the environment.”

    The President’s Cancer Panel, an advisory committee in the United States attached to the National Cancer Institute, reported in 2010 that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.” The panel singled out BPA as one of the chemicals that may be causing “grievous harm.”

    The research in Windsor buttresses other recent work on breast cancer and chemicals. A French study in 2011, for example, found elevated risks among women who worked in plastics, rubber and textile manufacturing. A study from Mexico in 2010 found that the presence of metabolites of phthalates — softening agents for plastics that have endocrine-disrupting properties — in urine was “positively associated” with the disease. A 2007 paper from U.S. researchers identified 216 chemicals that had been associated with mammary gland tumors in animals.

    The lone American co-author of the Windsor study, Robert Park of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, said he was “surprised by how strong the findings were. There was a lot of confirmation of prior concerns, which is always the goal but not always achieved by these kinds of studies.”

    ‘Race to the bottom’
    The Canadian plastics workers say they have little faith in their country’s system of workplace regulation. Factory inspections are haphazard, they say, and chemical standards in many cases are weak, meaning few overexposures — by the legal definition, anyway — are cited. Conditions improve incrementally, if at all.

    “It’s a race to the bottom,” said Sari Sairanen, national health and safety director for the Canadian Auto Workers union, which represents about 4,000 workers in parts plants, some of which make plastics. “For the worker, there’s the fear of losing your job or the fear of retribution from your employer if issues are raised.”

    Bristow, a union member, said that many workers seem unwilling to confront their bosses with health questions. Too often, she said, a woman disappears from the factory floor and her co-workers don’t learn until much later that another case of breast cancer has been diagnosed.

    The Ontario Ministry of Labor is committed to the prevention of work-related diseases, a spokesman said in a statement. The ministry uses a multifaceted approach that includes health and safety inspection “blitzes” and the updating of exposure limits, the spokesman wrote. “We make decisions on the latest science and we welcome any report that will bring a better understanding of occupational exposures to ensure that workers are protected from unsafe exposure levels.”

    There is also deep dissatisfaction with workplace regulation in the United States. Adam Finkel, former director of health standards programs for OSHA, said the vast majority of exposure limits enforced by the agency in American workplaces are based on scientific data from the 1960s or earlier, even though an estimated 150 workers die each day of work-related diseases.

    Limits for only 16 substances have been updated, a consequence of industry challenges and hesitancy on OSHA’s part. There are no limits for BPA. The limits that do exist for chemicals used in plastics — say, vinyl chloride, an ingredient in PVC — were designed to address cancer and acute symptoms, not the sort of hormonal damage that can occur when women of childbearing age receive low-level exposures. Only 18 percent of OSHA inspections last year focused on potential health, as opposed to safety, hazards.

    “It’s a terrible record, and I’m getting more pessimistic as the years go by,” said Finkel, who runs the Penn Program on Regulation, a research center at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

    In its statement, OSHA acknowledged, “Many of our current Permissible Exposure Limits are out of date and inadequately protective, and we do not have limits for many other chemicals. OSHA is currently examining ways to strengthen our efforts related to workplace chemical exposures, as well as ways to respond to the identification of new, emerging hazards.”

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s record on chemicals — like OSHA’s — is thin.

    Chemicals found in the workplace — among them BPA and phthalates — also may pose health risks to the general public. Of the more than 80,000 chemicals registered for use today, however, the EPA has required only about 2 percent to undergo even basic testing. At the root of the problem is the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which puts the onus on the EPA to prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be banned or its use restricted. This burden is almost insurmountably high; the EPA has banned narrow uses of only five chemicals since the law was passed.

    The Obama EPA has begun to disallow claims of “confidential business information” that for decades enabled companies to conceal the identities of chemicals when they submitted health and safety data, even if significant risks had been flagged.

    Industry, however, is fighting an attempt by the EPA to extend its anti-secrecy policy to new chemicals; a proposed rule has been under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget for nearly a year.

    A proposal to add BPA, phthalates and a certain class of flame retardants to an EPA “chemicals of concern” list has been at the OMB for more than 900 days. The EPA says that these chemicals “may present an unreasonable risk to human health and/or the environment” and wants to use its authority under the law to list them, a step that would, among other things, require producers to notify the EPA when they exported the chemicals, and the EPA to notify the recipient governments.

    Industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce oppose the action, saying it amounts to an unwarranted blacklisting.

    An EPA spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. An OMB spokesman declined to comment.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration no longer allows the use of BPA in baby bottles or infant-training cups. The FDA acted, however, only after receiving a petition from the American Chemistry Council, which said that manufacturers of these products had already abandoned the chemical to meet consumer preference. “The agency continues to support the safety of BPA for use in products that hold food,” an FDA spokeswoman said in a written statement.

    The Canadian government didn’t wait for an industry petition. It banned BPA in baby bottles two years ago, based on concerns about the chemical’s toxicity.

    Brophy, one of the researchers in Windsor, approves of the ban. But he worries about the women in the plastics plants, who soak up BPA and other chemicals on the job.

    “There seems to be widespread concern about consumer exposures but almost no concern for the most highly exposed population — the blue-collar workers,” he said. “These women remain invisible and their cancer risk largely ignored.”

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent investigative news outlet in Washington DC.  For more of its stories go to publicintegrity.org.

     

    2 comments

    Help Pink Ribbon Care reach their goal of 1,000,000 members for a cure by registering 100% Free at

    Show more
    Explore related topics: breast-cancer, automobile, center-for-public-integrity
  • 15
    Nov
    2012
    9:06am, EST

    Feds fail to fight Medicaid fraud in home health care services, report finds

    By Joe Eaton
    Center for Public Integrity

    Like a growing number of disabled Americans on Medicaid, Keith Foreman, a 57-year-old in Metropolis, Ill., qualified for a personal caregiver to help him with daily activities like dressing, shaving, and preparing meals.

    Foreman, who prosecutors say suffers from a spinal injury, hired his girlfriend, Sheila McDonald, for the job. In 2011, McDonald received almost $5,000 from Medicaid for six months of care she provided to Foreman.

    These personal care services, which are available in all 50 states, are designed to help the sick, elderly, and disabled remain in their homes — and out of expensive nursing facilities.

    But Foreman was not living at home. During the days marked on McDonald’s timesheets, Foreman was housed in the Massac County jail in Illinois, serving time for forging a stolen debit card signature at a local liquor store.

    Like Foreman and McDonald, who both pleaded guilty to charges of making false statements, unscrupulous beneficiaries and home health workers are increasingly targeting personal care services programs for illegal money-making schemes, according to a new federal report. Investigators say lax requirements for both caregivers and patients, along with poor state and federal oversight, has made the rapidly growing programs a lucrative target for fraud.  And this isn’t the first time they’ve issued such a warning.


    Report faults federal oversight of state programs
    A Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report scheduled to be released Thursday faults the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) for inadequate oversight of personal care services programs, whose costs are shared by states and the federal government, as is the norm for Medicaid.  The report, which brings together six years of OIG investigations and 23 reports on the topic, describes a program hindered by poor claims documentation, insufficient monitoring of claims data for fraud and waste, and a crazy-quilt of varied requirements for personal care workers in different states.

    “Historically, CMS has left a lot of the responsibility for overseeing waste, fraud and abuse to the states,” said Christi Grimm, special assistant to the principal deputy inspector general. “As a result, we have 301 different sets of requirements for caregivers across the states.” 

    Although some states mandate criminal background checks and licensing for home health workers, Grimm said others lack even the most basic requirements, including age minimums,

    which has led to cases in which juveniles escape prosecution for fraud and abuse. Worker requirements are set by counties in a number of states, she added, which has led to a hodge-podge of rules that are difficult to enforce, and nearly impossible to monitor.

    “We are asking CMS to step up to the plate,” Grimm said, and use its authority to regulate and monitor the state programs.

    The report includes six previous OIG recommendations to CMS and state agencies which have gone unimplemented. In a 2008 report that found five states may have paid up to $11 million in error for personal care services during one quarter of 2005, OIG recommended that the CMS work with states to stop payments for personal care when patients were receiving care in institutions, not at home. The agency agreed with the recommendation, but according to the OIG, the work has not been completed.

    In addition to asking the agency to address previous recommendations, the report offers four new goals for CMS to improve oversight and monitoring of state plans, including standardizing rules for personal care workers to set minimum age and education levels, and require criminal background checks.

    The report, however, seems unlikely to spur the agency to follow the OIG’s specific suggestions..  In a written response, CMS — part of the Department of Health and Human Services — explicitly concurred with only one of  the OIG recommendations: that it should provide states with claims data to help root out cases in which beneficiaries are simultaneously receiving both institutional care and home health services.  In response to the recommendation on establishing federal guidelines for personal care workers, CMS pointed out there is a shortage of care attendants.

     “Personal care services are an important part of keeping people in their homes and out of nursing homes, which lowers costs and improves the quality of life of the patient,” said CMS spokesman Brian Cook. “We are working to protect personal care from fraud and abuse by promoting stronger training programs for workers who provide personal care, working with states on background check programs for these workers, and developing new data methods to analyze claims for potential fraud and abuse."

    Grimm called the CMS response to the report unacceptable. “It’s not uncommon for CMS … to identify things on the horizon, or things they hope to do, but not necessarily commit to doing something,” Grimm said, adding that CMS’s efforts so far simply have not worked. “[CMS] has the authority to do what we are asking. It has not done it yet. And it hasn’t committed to doing it after reading our report.”

    A wealth of opportunities
    According to investigators, most fraud schemes in personal care services involve billing for care that was not provided or was not allowed. Self-directed programs, which allow beneficiaries to hire and manage their helpers, may be particularly vulnerable, but some prosecutions have also involved home health care agencies.

    In January, for example, the owner of a Minnesota home health care company outside Minneapolis was sentenced to two years in prison for cheating Medicaid out of more than $650,000 in charges for personal care services. In March, the owner of Families First Home Health Care in Sparta, N.C., pleaded guilty to fraud and money laundering stemming from a scheme in which she billed Medicaid for personal care services she did not perform and split the proceeds with plan members.

    “Fraud goes where the money is,” said Barbara Zelner, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Units, which represents state law enforcement agencies that investigate Medicaid fraud.  After nursing homes, Zelner said, home health represents one of the larger slices of state Medicaid budgets.

    Personal care services programs have grown quickly since a 1999 Supreme Court decision held that unjustified segregation of the disabled is a civil rights violation. The ruling led to increased spending for home health services; in 2011, Medicaid paid more than $12 billion for personal care services, up 35 percent since 2005, according to the OIG. Investigators say program fraud has kept pace. In 2010, state Medicaid fraud units investigated more than 1,000 cases involving personal care services, more than any other type of Medicaid service.

    Not everyone agrees with the OIG’s views on personal care services.  In 2011, an OIG review of Medicaid claims for personal care services in New Jersey found that 40 percent should have been denied. Sherl Brand, president of the Home Care Association of New Jersey, which advocates for home health care providers, questions the OIG’s work, saying the agency often draw broad conclusions from examinations of a limited number of claims. “It is almost a bit ridiculous because of the extrapolation they do,” Brand said.

    New Jersey home health workers face criminal background checks and certification and licensure requirements, Brand said. Personal care services programs save money, she said, in addition to helping disabled people live better lives. When New Jersey was faced with budget cuts, Brand said the association determined the average weekly cost for personal care services was $242 dollars a week, only slightly higher than the cost of a single day in a nursing home.

    But as funding for the programs increase, fraud follows. Kirk Ogrosky, a former top federal health care fraud prosecutor who is now a partner at the Washington law firm Arnold & Porter, said home health has long been a hotbed of fraud, both in Medicaid and in Medicare. The fraud, he said, is not hard to uncover. Ogrosky recalled that after an extensive analysis of Medicare claims, he sent agents out to interview questionable beneficiaries. When the agents knocked on the doors, they often learned the person they were looking for was at work, Ogrosky recalled.  “That’s utterly preposterous,” he said, “since home health requires that you are homebound.”

    In other cases, Ogrosky said, agents found that home health care agencies were filing claims for beneficiaries who did not live at the homes indicated on the claims. “One of my favorite stories is about a homeless guy we found,” Ogrosky said. “He didn’t even have a home to be homebound to.”

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet. For more of its stories visit publicintegrity.org.

    74 comments

    How about cleaning up your own house before you tell me I have to pay more taxes to support this crap. I don't mind paying taxes, but I can't afford to give my money to thieves. And maybe the Government should take the same viewpoint. Stop giving our money to thieves!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: fraud, health, medicaid, featured, center-for-public-integrity
  • 22
    Oct
    2012
    6:58am, EDT

    Tracking the secret money behind an anti-environmental political group

    By Paul Abowd
    The Center for Public Integrity

    Voters haven’t had a clue who is behind American Tradition Partnership — the Colorado group pushing to rewrite Montana’s campaign finance laws — and that’s just the way the secretive nonprofit wants it.

    A 2010 fundraising pitch to its donors promised that “no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped,” and “the only thing we plan on reporting is our success to contributors like you.”

    “Montana has very strict limits on contributions to candidates,” reads the document, obtained by The Center for Public Integrity. “but there is no limit to how much you give to this program.”

    As for the state’s ban on corporate money in elections?

    “Corporate contributions are completely legal,” the pitch assures potential funders. “This is one of the rare programs you will find where that’s the case.”

    “You can get some traction with that pitch,” says Dennis Unsworth, who led the state’s investigation of the group in 2010 that unearthed the document. “If you can offer to influence the elections outside the law, that’s a great calling card.”

    For three election cycles, ATP has plastered the state with mailers attacking "radical environmental groups" and moderate Republicans.

    While ATP’s funders are still mostly a mystery, the Center for Public Integrity has identified what records indicate is the secretive organization’s founding donor — an anti-union owner of Colorado’s largest furniture chain — and discovered a long list of affiliations with national tea party groups funded by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.

    This election, ATP has vowed to keep Attorney General Steve Bullock out of the governor’s mansion. In October, voters received a brazen multi-page newspaper-style flier placing the Democratic candidate in a photo lineup with three registered sex offenders.


    But the group hit the national spotlight thanks to three landmark court battles with Bullock and the state of Montana.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision invalidated a federal ban on corporate spending similar to what 24 states had on their books, but Montana held fast to its law. ATP sued to overturn it, losing to Bullock in the state’s high court. But in June, the nonprofit prevailed on appeal to the nation’s highest court.

    ATP is pushing past its Citizens United challenge with two more suits to eliminate Montana’s low contribution limits and disclosure rules, setting up a potential challenge to contribution limits nationwide.

    Tea party ties
    One of ATP’s founders is former Montana Congressman Ron Marlenee, who served from 1977 until the state dropped from two House seats to one in 1992. Marlenee used his D.C. Rolodex to raise money for the fledgling pro-energy group, which registered in Colorado in 2008.

    Marlenee rallied a tea party crowd in Bozeman in 2010, appearing on stage with a half-burned American flag, which he said he wrestled away from a “liberal Marxist” protester.

    ATP has joined tea party lobbying efforts, signing at least two letters to Congress in the last year urging an end to tax credits for renewable resource industries. The letters were signed by Koch-funded groups including Americans for Prosperity and tea party boosters FreedomWorks, Club for Growth and Art Pope’s John Locke Foundation.

    In its 2008 application for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization, ATP listed its “primary donor” as Jacob Jabs, Colorado’s largest furniture retailer and a donor to Republican candidates and causes. Jabs pledged a $300,000 contribution to get ATP on its feet, according to IRS records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

    Jabs, through a spokesman, on Monday said he did not make a donation and has "never heard of" ATP or the group's previous incarnation.

    "He did not commit to the funds indicated by Athena Dalton in the filing so clearly he did not give them funds," wrote Charlie Shaulis, director of communications for American Furniture Warehouse, Jabs' company, in an email to I-News Network in Colorado.

    Dalton wrote a letter to the IRS asking the agency to speed up the process for awarding it nonprofit status. The letter states that the approval was needed quickly, otherwise Jabs would not make a contribution. The agency gave it the thumbs up four days later.

    The amount of the gift would be double Jabs’ total federal campaign contributions since 1997, which have gone exclusively to Republican candidates and party organizations, according to FEC records. 

    Jabs also poured money into a failed “right to work” ballot initiative in Colorado, becoming a television spokesman for the 2008 anti-union effort.

    ATP shares resources and a D.C. mailing address with an affiliated 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit called the American Tradition Institute, which works in tandem with a network of Koch-funded think tanks  to oppose wind energy and dispute the reality of climate change. It has launched lawsuits against state mandates for renewable energy usage and targeted climate scientists in academia.

    The libertarian Koch brothers, Charles and David, have become better known in recent years with the rise of the tea party. They are principal owners of Koch Industries Inc., the second-largest privately owned company in the U.S., with major investments in the energy industry. 

    ATI has accepted donations from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a free-market think tank underwritten by Exxon Mobil and Koch foundation money, according to a report by the Institute for Southern Studies.

    Its director of litigation Chris Horner is also a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank that has taken a half-million dollars from Koch foundations since 1998, according to the report.

    ‘We won’t be shut up, or shut down’
    In 2008, American Tradition Partnership flooded the state with mailers attacking ten state legislators, but reported only $12,000 in spending for the entire election.

    An investigation by the state’s Commission on Political Practices concluded that the group had broken state law requiring outside spending groups to register as political action committees and disclose all donors and spending.

    Commissioner Unsworth concluded in October 2010 that ATP had registered a “sham organization” called the Coalition for Energy and Environment and vastly under-reported its activity. The PAC’s reported spending, said the state, would have barely covered the cost of postage for the raft of glossy, full-color mailers ATP sent out.

    ATP filed forms with the IRS the same year, reporting more than $600,000 in spending.

    ATP maintains that its spending on mailers, most targeting moderate Republicans running for state legislative seats, is “educational” and therefore falls outside the state’s definition of “express advocacy” that would require it to disclose its funders and its spending on the mailers.

    ATP did not face penalties and did not disband. Instead, it changed its name from Western Tradition Partnership and sued to strike down Montana’s disclosure laws.

    The case is set for trial in March 2013.

    “We won’t be shut up or shut down,” ATP said in a press release in June.

    ATP’s years-long court battles have pushed the group into the public spotlight, threatening the secrecy of its donors. The group has vigorously resisted discovery proceedings in court, missing several deadlines to produce evidence requested by the state.

    Lawyers in Bullock’s office filed a motion to compel ATP to present evidence, including bank records, or drop their lawsuit. It has not complied. According to a court filing, ATP’s lawyer Jim Brown emailed the state’s lawyers in late August, explaining, “I have a difficult client."

    Nonetheless, the state has won access to bank records for the organization. If a judge makes them public, they could offer voters a glimpse at the group’s funders.

    ‘I was the screen’
    The group rarely communicates with the press and it hires unknowing lawyers to sign campaign finance reports and its 2008 nonprofit incorporation documents in Colorado.

    Scott Shires has been sued and fined for his election activities, but the Colorado political consultant says his reputation really took a hit after he signed ATP’s forms. When Montana released the results of its 2010 investigation, Shires’ name began showing up in the press, and he says he cut ties to the organization.

    “The operatives writing these stupid ads and mailings don’t want to be identified,” said Shires. “I was the screen that allowed them to hide — plausible deniability is something a lot of these groups are interested in.”

    Shires listed himself as “President” of ATP when he signed the group’s request for exempt status with the IRS in 2008.

    He is widely known for registering hundreds of political committees in Colorado, mostly Republican groups. The work involves some risk. He pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns for a client in 2008, a misdemeanor charge. He was also caught up in a scandal that linked former U.S. Rep. and 2008 Senate candidate Bob Schaffer with the beneficiary of a questionable congressional earmark.

    As of May 2012, an IRS filing still listed Shires as the group’s president, and he remains one of the few names publicly associated with the group.

    ATP Executive Director Donald Ferguson did not return numerous calls for comment.

    ‘Not really sure who is in charge’
    The left-leaning Montana Conservation Voters claims ATP was unfazed by the 2010 investigation and is “right back to doing the same thing,” according to the group’s board member Ben Graybill, who filed the original complaint.

    This year, ATP has registered a PAC in the state. It sent mailers prior to the June primary election, but has reported zero spending to the state.

    Its filings are signed by Montana attorney Chris Gallus, who was “surprised” to receive a call from the Center regarding ATP. He claims no leadership role in the organization, and said he’s “not really sure who is in charge.”

    Gallus said he has not been contacted by ATP since being hired to sign their PAC reports, and does not anticipate filing any spending reports on their behalf. “Until that changes, my involvement is the same as the date I signed their forms.”

    The organization sent out a questionnaire to candidates in early October, asking about their stance on land development and environmental regulations in resource-rich Montana.

    “Will you oppose legislation which would categorically limit development of any specific energy resource?” reads one. “Will you oppose legislation that would rescind, reduce or shorten the tax holiday on oil & gas wells?” reads another.

    Candidates who don’t respond, or don’t respond with answers favorable to ATP’s interests, are often targeted by a direct mail campaign similar to those launched at Bullock.

    Its adversary, the Montana conservation group, endorses candidates for the state legislature who align with its mission to “protect clean water, public health, and our incredible outdoor heritage.” Its mid-October mailers praise Bullock for leading “the fight against corporate control of our elections.”

    Unlike ATP, the group reports its direct and independent spending to the state and lists its donors.

    “They’re scofflaws,” said Theresa Keaveny, executive director of the Montana conservation group.

    Keaveny says ATP is not only in violation of Montana law, but also IRS rules for 501c(4) groups, which dictate ATP must not spend a majority of its funds on political activity.

    According to its 2008 application for exempt status, obtained by the Center, ATP promised not to “spend any money attempting to influence” elections. It also promised not to “directly or indirectly participate or intervene on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office.”

    It would, however spend “70 percent” of its time and resources to “educate citizens” about “land and resource development issues.”

    Jabs did not return a request to comment for this story.

    Governor’s race a toss up

    Bullock, a Democrat, is running against Republican Rick Hill. It’s expected to be a close race despite Montana’s majority-Republican voting population.

    “We want citizens deciding elections, not corporations,” said Bullock in an October debate during which he touted his record as a campaign finance crusader.

    While outside spending groups, including the Republican and Democratic governors associations, have swarmed the state with ads, the two candidates have had to abide by Montana’s low contribution limits — for most of the campaign.

    In October, ATP made national news when a federal judge agreed with the organization and its high-profile campaign finance lawyer, James Bopp, and struck down contribution limits on individuals, PACs, and parties — including the $630 cap on individual giving to Bullock and Hill.

    "The political establishment can no longer tell citizens to shut up because they've reached their speech limit," said ATP Montana Director Doug Lair in a press release.

    Montana joined the ranks of 12 other states with no limits on contributions to candidates, but only temporarily. A week later, a federal appeals court stayed the lower court decision pending a full appeal, putting the state’s contribution limits back in force.

    Bullock’s opponent took advantage of the six-day free-for-all between the ruling and the stay, accepting a $500,000 contribution from the state’s Republican Party. The gift dwarfed Montana’s $22,600 limit on party giving to candidates.

    ‘Who’s saying these crazy things’
    A month before the vote, Montana residents woke up to a fake newspaper on their doorstep called “The Montana Statesman.”

    The publication calls itself “the largest and most trusted news source” but is actually a series of ATP-funded attacks on Bullock. It leads with a giant headline that reads “Bullock Admits Failure.”

    The “news” story claims that the attorney general has let “1 in 4 sex offenders go unregistered.” It includes four photos: three registered sex offenders and Bullock.

    The group can continue to raise money on the promise that “no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped make this program possible,” as its 2010 briefing to donors reads. “You can just sit back on election night and see what a difference you’ve made.”

    Unsworth says his 2010 investigation did not stop ATP, and outside spending that has already flooded the state, is sure to intensify, particularly in light of the Citizens United decision. He calls the advertising a “mess of trash that lays at the feet of the public,” paid for by “funny money with no legal constraints.”

    “We don’t know who’s saying these crazy things,” he added, “so the public has to suffer and our political system suffers as a result.”

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet. For more of its stories on this topic go to http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/consider-source.

    Update (Oct . 22, 7:00 p.m. ET): This story was updated to reflect that Jabs, through a spokesman, denied making a contribution to ATP.

    More from Open Channel:

  • Child sex abuse survivor on release of Boy Scout files: This 'empowers us'
  • US nonprofit 'names and shames' businesses to put bite into Iran sanctions
  • Man pleads guilty in plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to US
  • Help 'Free the Files' on election TV ad spending
  • Lobbyists rake in $14 million for Romney, new public records show
  • Mystery kidney disease decimates Central American sugarcane workers
  • Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. investigated for possible financial improprieties
  • Why did environmental nonprofit donate to conservative pro-coal group?
  • Doping agency paints Armstrong as leader of long-running cheating scheme
  • Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

     



    26 comments

    This only proves what unlimited money can and will do to this country. Citizens United case was nothing more than the Supreme courts legalization of bought elections. Corporations can and will overthrow OUR country and do whatever they want. The era of checks and balance is over,when our kids are dy …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: campaign-finance, center-for-public-integrity, election-2012, money-in-politics, american-tradition-partnership
  • 4
    Oct
    2012
    6:21am, EDT

    Health insurance industry, which praised Obamacare, gives to kill it

    By Reity Obrien
    Center for Public Integrity

    The health insurance industry presented itself as a key ally of President Barack Obama’s health care law while at the same time making hefty contributions to members of Congress who are trying to get rid of it, according to contribution records.

    Between January of 2007 and August of 2012, the political action committees of the 11 largest health insurance companies and their primary trade group gave $10.2 million to federal politicians, with nearly two-thirds of the total going to Republicans who oppose the law or support its repeal, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis of Federal Election Commission filings.

    The 11 top companies, according to the Fortune 500 list, controlled 35 percent of the industry in 2011, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The top industry trade group is America’s Health Insurance Plans.

    Much of the money rolled in as health insurance industry leaders lauded the Democrats’ reform efforts.


    “We are ready to be accountable to these [new] rules,” Karen Ignagni, AHIP’s president and CEO told the Senate Finance Committee in May 2009, roughly almost a year before Obama’s landmark legislation was signed into law. And when a month after Obama’s Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, Ignagni said her organization was “strongly committed” to [its] “successful implementation.”

    Likewise, Ron Williams, then chairman and CEO of Aetna, the country’s fifth-largest health insurance company, also spoke favorably about the bill — at first.


    Follow Open Channel from NBC News on Twitter and Facebook.


    “I believe that President Obama and this Congress have charted a course of change,” Williams said in a June 2009 statement. “I want to make clear that we too are committed to expanding access, controlling costs and improving the quality and value of care people receive.”

    But Williams, who left Aetna in April 2011, has since changed his mind. This past June, Williams penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for health care reform at the state level and criticizing the federal law’s mandate.

    Cantor, Ryan among top beneficiaries
    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., ranks as the top recipient of PAC money from the top insurers since 2007, according to the Center’s analysis. Cantor, a tea party favorite and one of the law’s most vocal critics, has received about $258,000 from AHIP and the top industry PACs.

    In January 2011, Cantor introduced the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” the first of 33 repeal efforts that have reached the House floor.

    That same year, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint — which together control 28 percent of the health insurance market — maxed out to Cantor, giving $10,000 apiece to his campaign committee. That doesn’t include additional sums that went into the congressman’s leadership PAC.

    Behind Cantor, Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., ranks second in health insurance industry contributions. The chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee has pulled in more than $234,000 from these PACs since 2007.

    “The American people have told us they don’t want to be forced to buy health insurance that they don’t want and they can’t afford,” Camp declared in February 2010. A year later, Camp sponsored a bill that would cut $11.6 billion in funding for the law.

    Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., now the Republican nominee for vice president Mitt Romney’s running mate, is also among the top recipients of funds from health insurance companies and a leader in House’s efforts to repeal the health care law.

    The dozen PACs studied by the Center donated $187,000 to Ryan between 2007 and 2012, placing the Wisconsin congressman fourth on the list. Just this year, Ryan, who chairs the influential House Budget Committee, has sponsored two major budget plans that have called for the law’s repeal.

    Other top recipients of health insurance PAC money during this period include House Speaker John Boehner ($209,500), Republican House Whip Kevin McCarthy of California ($149,700), Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is the ranking GOP member of the Senate Finance Committee ($151,500), and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. ($142,400).

    Why back the repeal?
    So if the health insurance industry was in favor of key parts of the law, why is it supporting members of Congress who are so bent on killing it?

    Part of the reason is that the legislation’s centerpiece, the requirement that almost everyone sign up for health insurance or pay a penalty, is expected to benefit the health insurance industry. Democrats supported the provision; Republicans despise it — despite its origins as a conservative idea.

    More than a decade ago, an individual health insurance mandate was proposed by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation. During the 1993 health care debate, Republican lawmakers supported legislation that included an individual mandate. And the idea was endorsed by Republican Mitt Romney during his reforms as governor of Massachusetts.

    During Congress' recent debate over health care reform, the industry was "playing supporters because there is nothing the health insurance industry wanted more than an individual mandate to force people to buy their product," says Carmen Balber, who monitors health policy at the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog.

    At the time the reform law passed, the Democratic Party controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. By supporting the law, the industry was able to stay in the game on a very complex piece of legislation.

    While the industry certainly did support parts of the law — such as the individual mandate — there were plenty of provisions it did not like and would like to see repealed.

    AHIP and WellPoint — the industry’s top PAC contributor — did not reply to the Center’s telephone or email inquiries requesting comment. Representatives from Aetna, Amerigroup, Cigna and Humana declined to comment for this story.

    Rome said he suspects the industry views support of Republican candidates — who will undoubtedly vote for deregulation — as a long-term investment.

    For example, under the new law, insurance companies must spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on medical care for individual and small business policyholders — and 85 cents for large groups. That’s a provision the industry would like to see repealed.

    Insurers must send policyholders or their employers rebate checks if the ratio drops below those levels.

    In recent statements, AHIP claims the provision, known as the “medical loss ratio requirement,” could inhibit innovation and drive up administrative costs because of new reporting requirements.

    Indeed, AHIP has lobbied extensively for a new bill that — according to Consumer Watchdog’s Balber — “would effectively gut the medical loss ratio requirement,” by allowing insurance companies to include broker compensation as a medical care cost in the ratio.

    This legislation, introduced as H.R. 1206, is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and was forwarded to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Sept. 11. Rogers ranks 19th on the Center’s list of top health insurance beneficiaries, receiving $90,500 over the nearly six-year period. AHIP supports Rogers' bill, as do several trade associations representing brokers and agents, claiming broker salaries commissions are not necessarily administrative costs, but rather a “human resource” expense because independent brokers and agents help patients select plans.

    But to Balber, factoring insurance broker salaries as a medical cost — and thus, part of the 80 percent requirement — is “absurd.” Such a shift in premium calculation would negate the cost-cutting benefits of the medical loss ratio provision — what she considers the law’s strongest consumer protection.

    Looking forward
    Since the Democrats’ Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the political environment has changed dramatically.

    Democrats no longer hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the House is controlled by Republicans and the president is in a tight race for re-election.

    Despite his party’s unified attack on the health care law, Romney, whose own health insurance reforms in Massachusetts were a model for Obama’s plan, has recently hinted at willingness to compromise on some of its politically popular elements.

    “Well, I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform,” Romney, the GOP's presidential nominee, said in a Sept.9 interview with David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press.

    While the individual mandate is widely viewed as unpopular, the opposite is true for many provisions such as the prohibition on companies refusing to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, the closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug “donut hole” and the option for young adults to stay on their parent’s plan until age 26. According to Bob Laszewski, an insurance industry consultant, a Romney administration would not be able to secure enough votes in the Senate to repeal the law, even if it wanted to.

    A more realistic legislative outcome is that congressional Republicans will attempt to defund the law through budget reconciliation rules — a scenario that would likely hurt insurance company balance sheets, he said.

    GOP defunding efforts would leave insurance companies subject to the law’s politically popular insurance regulations — like covering patients with pre-existing conditions — but without government subsidies that are provided in some parts of the plan.

    “If Romney wins, I think you’re going to see the insurance industry very concerned about Republicans trying to choke health care reform,” Laszewski said.

    Andrea Fuller, Lydia Mulvaney and Michael Beckel contributed to this report.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, non-partisan investigative news organization in Washington, DC.

     For more of its stories on this topic, please go to http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/consider-source.

    More from Open Channel:

       

    • Homeland Security 'fusion' centers intrusive, ineffective, report says
    • Ex-Penn State football aide McQueary files $4 million whistleblower suit
    • Energy firm uses 'land grabs' to obtain fracking rights, pays landowners zero
    • Environmentalists, Persian Gulf oil barons have common enemy: fracking
    • Wild horses sold by US later ending up at slaughterhouses?
    • Class-action suit against FEMA trailer makers settled for $42.6 million
    • RNC cuts ties with firm over voter registration allegations
    • Big GOP donor among 2 indicted in Dominican resort scam
    • Black youths exposed to more alcohol advertising, study finds

     


     

    Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

     


    303 comments

    I used to be for Obama's healthcare act. My rationale was that, I'm already paying for my own insurance, adding more payers should lower my total cost. A few weeks ago, my opinion changed when I found out that my companies current health insurance plan (which is very good) is considered a "Cadillac  …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: health-care, featured, center-for-public-integrity, obamacare
  • 10
    Jul
    2012
    6:04am, EDT

    Deadly black lung surges back in coal country

    James Crisp / AP Images for The Center for Public Integrity

    Ray Marcum, left, and Thomas Marcum share fishing stories at Jenny Wiley State Park near Prestonsburg, Ky.

    By Chris Hamby
    Center for Public Integrity

    PRESTONSBURG, Ky. — Ray Marcum bears the marks of a bygone era of coal mining. At 83, his voice is raspy, his eastern Kentucky accent thick and his forearms leathery. A black pouch of Stoker’s 24C chewing tobacco pokes out of the back pocket of his jeans. “I started chewing in the mines to keep the coal dust out of my mouth,” he says.

    Plenty of that dust still found its way to his lungs. For the past 30 years, he’s gotten a monthly check to compensate him for the disease that steals his breath — the old bane of miners known as black lung.


    Follow Open Channel on Twitter and Facebook.


    In mid-century, when Marcum worked, dust filled the mines largely uncontrolled. Almost half of miners who worked at least 25 years contracted the disease. Amid strikes throughout the West Virginia coalfields, Congress made a promise in 1969: Mining companies would have to keep dust levels down, and black lung would be virtually eradicated.


    Marcum doesn’t have to look far to see that hasn’t happened. There’s his middle son, Donald, who skipped his senior year of high school to enter the mines here near the West Virginia border. At 51, he’s had eight pieces of his lungs removed, and he sometimes has trouble making it through a prayer when he’s filling in as a preacher at Solid Rock Baptist Church.

    There’s James, the youngest, who passed on college to enter the mines. At 50, his ability to breathe is rapidly declining, and his doctor has already discussed hooking him up to an oxygen tank part-time.

    Both began working in the late 1970s — years after dust rules took effect — and both began having symptoms in their 30s. Donald now has the most severe, fastest-progressing form of the disease, known as complicated coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. James and the oldest Marcum son, Thomas, 59, have a simpler form, but James has reached the worst stage and is deteriorating.

    James Crisp / AP Images for The Center for Public Integrity

    Bottom row from left: Ray Marcum, Donald Marcum. Top row from left: Thomas Marcum and James Marcum pose for a photograph at Jenny Wiley State Park near Prestonsburg, Ky. Each has black lung, despite a 1969 law designed to eradicate the disease.

    Men with lungs like the Marcums’ are not supposed to exist. In the hard-won 1969 law, Congress demanded that dust be controlled and new cases of disease be prevented. The idea was that, even if black lung didn’t disappear, there would be a small number of mild cases and virtually no one like Donald and James Marcum, said Dr. Donald Rasmussen, a pioneer in recognizing and diagnosing black lung.

    “In 1969, I publicly proclaimed that the disease would go away before we learned more about it,” Rasmussen, now 84 and still diagnosing miners, said in a recent interview at his office in Beckley, W.Va. “I was dead wrong.”

    Throughout the coalfields of Appalachia, in small community clinics and in government labs, it has become clear: Black lung is back.

    'Should not be occurring'
    The disease's resurgence represents a failure to deliver on a 40-year-old pledge to miners in which few are blameless, an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and NPR has found. The system for monitoring dust levels is tailor-made for cheating, and mining companies haven’t been shy about doing so. Meanwhile, regulators often have neglected to enforce even these porous rules. Again and again, attempts at reform have failed.

    A Center analysis of databases maintained by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration found that miners have been breathing too much dust for years, but MSHA has issued relatively few violations and routinely allowed companies extra time to fix problems.

    MSHA chief Joe Main issued a statement in response to the findings: “The current rules have been in effect for decades, do not adequately protect miners from disease and are in need of reform. That is why MSHA has proposed several changes to overhaul the current standards and reduce miners' exposure to unhealthy dust.” Similar attempts at reform have died twice before.

    From 1968 through 2007, black lung caused or contributed to roughly 75,000 deaths in the United States, according to government data. In the decades following passage of the 1969 law, rates of the disease dropped significantly. Then, in the late 1990s, this trend reversed.

    Many of the newer cases have taken a particularly ugly form. While rates of black lung overall have increased, incidence of the most severe, fast-progressing type has jumped significantly. These cases, moreover, are occurring in younger and younger miners. Of particular concern are “hot spots” identified in central Appalachia by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, a government research agency. Though levels of disease are still below what they were before 1970, medical experts and miners’ advocates are alarmed.

    “I think any reasonable epidemiologist would have to consider this an epidemic,” said Scott Laney, a NIOSH epidemiologist. “All cases of (black lung) are preventable in this day and age, but these cases of (the most severe form) are just astounding … This is a rare disease that should not be occurring.”

    The National Mining Association, the main trade group representing mining companies, disputes some of NIOSH’s data but agrees that black lung’s resurgence is a problem in need of attention. To the association, however, it is primarily a regional phenomenon of central Appalachia — one that doesn’t justify new national rules. What’s needed, the group says, is further study and better enforcement of current standards.

    Researchers are struggling to explain what, after years of progress, has caused the backsliding and why black lung, traditionally viewed as an old man’s disease, is striking younger miners and robbing them of their breath faster and faster. They are trying to figure out why men like the Marcums are the new face of black lung.

    'A diabolical torture'
    "They call me Lucky," retired miner James Foster says as he takes off his shirt and presses his chest against an X-ray machine in the back of an RV in Wharton, W.Va. "Worked 37 years in all kinds of mines. Been covered up twice. Been electrocuted."

    His brushes with death aside, he’s here because he fears there may be one hazard he can’t dodge. “I come in here to file for my black lung,” he says. During a recent heart surgery, he says, doctors said they saw what appeared to be signs of the disease.

    He’s one of a handful of miners on an April afternoon to move through the RV parked at the fire department in Wharton, in the heart of coal country. Inside, a team of NIOSH workers shepherds them from station to station: medical history, questionnaire, breathing test, chest X-ray. Foster hopes the tests will provide evidence he can use to submit a claim for benefits. Other miners are still working and want to make sure their lungs are clear.

    It is from this rolling medical unit, in part, that NIOSH has documented the return of black lung. For decades, miners have been entitled to free X-rays every five years, and this has helped track the drop in the disease’s prevalence. After the data started showing a reversal, NIOSH sent its RV out to gather more data in 2005.

    What these researchers found, combined with data from routine medical monitoring, was worrisome: From the 1970s through the 1990s, the proportion of miners with signs of black lung among those who submitted X-rays dropped from 6.5 percent to 2.1 percent. During the most recent decade, however, it jumped to 3.2 percent.

    Even more disturbing: Prevalence of the most severe form of the disease tripled between the 1980s and the 2000s and has almost reached the levels of the 1970s.

    In a triangle of Appalachia — southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky and western Virginia — the numbers were even higher. The rolling unit found a disease prevalence of 9 percent in Kentucky from 2005 to 2009, for example.

    A wake-up call for some came after the Upper Big Branch explosion in southern West Virginia in April 2010, which killed 29 miners. Of the 24 who had enough lung tissue for an autopsy, 17 had signs of black lung. Some had fewer than 10 years of experience in mines; they ranged in age from 25 to 61.

    The disease leaves miners’ lungs scarred, shriveled and black. They struggle to do routine tasks and are eventually forced to choose between eating and breathing.

    “No human being should have to go through the misery that dying of [black lung] entails,” said Dr. Edward Petsonk, who treats patients with black lung and works with NIOSH. “It is like a screw being slowly tightened across your throat. Day and night towards the end, the miner struggles to get enough oxygen. It is really almost a diabolical torture.”

    Underpinnings of an epidemic
    There are theories about why the disease has returned, but no definitive answers. One likely explanation: Miners are breathing a more potent mix of dust. Coal seams are surrounded by rock, much of which contains the mineral silica. When ground up, silica is more toxic to the lungs than coal dust and can cause faster-progressing disease.

    With larger coal seams becoming mined out, companies are turning to thinner seams surrounded by more rock. At the same time, because of the price of coal and advances in mining equipment, it now makes more sense economically for companies to cut through large amounts of rock to get at the coal. Companies haul it all out and then separate the rock from the coal at processing plants.

    “In central Appalachia, you look at what’s coming out of the mines, and it’s probably 60 percent rock on a good day,” said Rick Honaker, a University of Kentucky professor who consults for mining companies and has seen their data.

    NIOSH research suggests this may be having an effect. A particular marker on a chest X-ray is often indicative of silica-related disease. Comparing miners’ X-rays taken from 2000 to 2008 with those taken during the 1980s, researchers found that the proportion bearing these markers had nearly quadrupled and, in central Appalachia, had increased almost eight times over.

    Rules are supposed to limit the amount of silica in the air in mines, but a Center analysis of MSHA’s dust sampling database, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that the agency has long failed to control silica dust.

    In each of the past 25 years, the average of all silica samples — taking into account only those deemed valid by MSHA — has been higher than the allowed limit. Last year, for example, roughly 40 percent of the valid samples were above this limit. What’s more, the limit MSHA enforces is already twice the level NIOSH determined to be safe in 1974.

    The National Mining Association contends that what appears to be a nationwide increase in black lung is actually a spike in silica-related disease in Appalachia. “The problem here is, look, these people were overexposed to horrendous levels of silica, for God’s sake,” said Bob Glenn, an expert hired by the association. “Why hasn’t something been done?”

    To the association, this means there is no need for a new rule on coal dust, just better enforcement of the silica standard.
    Another possible explanation for the uptick in disease:  The number of hours worked by miners has steadily increased over the past three decades, MSHA data show. Ten- and 12-hour shifts and six- or seven-day workweeks are now common.

    “I have stayed (in a mine) sometimes two days and never come out,” said Donald Marcum. Sometimes, he said, “you’d just lay down beside the power box, sleep an hour or two and stay right there.”

    Longer hours mean more exposure to dust and less recovery time. The lungs can clear some dust by themselves if given the chance, and many miners said in interviews that they often spit up a mixture of mucus and dust.

    At the same time, production has increased, thanks in part to powerful new equipment. A longwall shearer, for example, can carve out huge swaths of coal in little time.

    Mark McCowan ran one of these behemoths for the final years of his career. “By the time I was 40 years old, I had mined more coal than most miners mine in a lifetime,” he recalled, sitting in his living room in Pounding Mill, Va. “You would get in some areas of the coal face where, when you mine, you can’t see the hand in front of your face. … I would eat so much dust I would throw up.”

    McCowan was diagnosed with black lung at age 40. His disease has progressed to the most severe form; now 47, he finds it harder and harder to breathe. He pointed to a photo of a beaming, blond-haired 2-year-old on his wall — his grandson, Haiden. McCowan sees him two or three times a week and plays with him for as long as his lungs can take. “My biggest fear,” he said, “is I won’t live long enough for him to remember me.”

    Decades of cheating
    Donald Marcum knew he was at least a passive participant in something that was against the rules, maybe even criminal. Every couple of months, his bosses had to send MSHA five samples showing they were keeping dust levels under control. The man with the greatest potential exposure — often Donald because he was running a continuous mining machine, which chews through coal and rock and generates clouds of dust — was supposed to wear a pump to collect dust for eight hours.

    That almost never happened. Most of the time, he said, the mine foreman or someone else would take the pump and hang it in the cleaner air near the mine’s entrance.

    When MSHA inspectors showed up to take their own samples, it wasn’t so easy to cheat. Donald would actually wear the pump, but he and his co-workers would mine only about half as much coal as they normally did, generating far less dust.

    “We just done what we was told because we needed to feed our families and really didn’t look at what it might be doing to our health,” he said.

    Donald’s experience echoed what Center and NPR reporters heard from retired miners throughout West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia who had worked underground as recently as 2008. Dust pumps ended up in lunchboxes or mine offices. Mine officials stalled regulators who had shown up for a surprise inspection and radioed to the men underground, who fixed the ventilation and cleaned up the work site.

    It’s difficult to tell how widespread such practices are, but many former miners described some variation of cheating occurring regularly at almost every mine where they had worked — and a culture of fear fostered by the companies. “We always set and thought, you know, maybe if we didn’t do it this way, that they’d come in and shut the mines down.  Then we'd be out of work,” said David Neil, a 52-year-old West Virginia miner with black lung who now drives a coal-hauling truck.

    Tim Bailey, a lawyer in Charleston, W.Va., zeroes in on this type of cheating when he sues a coal company on behalf of a miner with black lung. In general, the only option for miners who get the disease is to file a claim with the state or the U.S. Department of Labor to try to get benefits. But Bailey takes a different tack, drawing on a state law that allows workers to sue their employer in cases of knowing exposure to dangerous conditions.

    This often amounts to proving that the company manipulated its dust samples. In depositions, miners have described hanging dust pumps in cleaner air or getting advance warnings of inspections. Over the past eight years, he’s handled about 40 such cases. In each case, he said, the coal company eventually settled.

    “These are criminal acts,” Bailey said. “What’s different about these black lung cases is that the cheating is such a part of everyday practices.”

    Then there are the numbers themselves. For decades, the average sample submitted by a coal company has been far below the limit. NIOSH researchers used a formula to estimate the prevalence of black lung that would be expected based on the dust samples and compared this with the disease rates actually occurring.

    What the researchers found was surprising: The two didn’t match up at all. In some areas of the country, there was actually less black lung than they’d predicted. But in central Appalachia, the disease rates were much higher — more than three times the predicted levels in eastern Kentucky, for example.

    It was possible, researchers concluded, that the nature of the dust had become more potent. Another possibility: The dust samples reflected the results of rampant cheating.

    Many of the games described by miners today remain unchanged from those outlined by miners who testified at a 1978 MSHA hearing. The early 1990s saw the “abnormal white center” scandal, in which MSHA figured out that many coal company officials had blown dust off the sampling filters, leaving a white center, before submitting them. A spate of criminal convictions of companies and some employees and contractors followed. This time period accounted for the bulk of the 185 guilty pleas or convictions for dust sampling fraud between 1980 and 2002, according to data provided by MSHA to the Center and NPR.

    The agency said it had no records of criminal convictions or guilty pleas since 2002 and wouldn't say whether any criminal cases had been pursued. MSHA did provide data indicating that it had decertified 14 mine officials since 2009, pulling their authority to conduct dust samples.

    “I don’t know if any (cheating) is going on today,” said Bruce Watzman, the National Mining Association’s senior vice president for regulatory affairs. “I hope not. We encourage our members to fulfill their obligations under the law.”

    Cheating aside, the system for monitoring dust levels is almost designed not to detect problems. Nor has MSHA always been swift to act when violations do surface.

    From 2000 to 2011, MSHA received more than 53,000 valid samples — both from companies and its own inspectors — that showed an underground miner had been exposed to more dust than was allowed, yet the agency issued just under 2,400 violations, a Center analysis of MSHA data showed.

    This may be attributable, in part, to the way the rules are written. When companies submit five samples to MSHA, some are allowed to be above the limit. Only the average of these five has to be low enough, allowing companies to negate high samples taken from miners enshrouded in dust. What’s more, the pump runs for only eight hours, even if the miner works 10 or 12.

    While an inspector is sampling, a company is allowed to mine as little as half the amount of coal it normally does. Companies that typically cared little about hanging curtains to keep air flowing through the mine or making sure water sprays used to suppress dust were working suddenly did when it came time to sample, several miners said.

    Even when a company gets caught with samples that are too high, all it has to do to make the citation go away is take five of its own samples that indicate compliance. “The analogy I use is, if I pull you over for speeding, going 80 in a 50,” Bailey said, “and I tell you … here’s a journal, and I want you to record your speed on this same piece of road for the next five days. And, if at the end of those five days, your speed is below the speed limit, then I am going to tear your ticket up.”

    Sometimes MSHA has allowed dust citations to go uncorrected for weeks or even months, potentially leaving miners overexposed, a Center analysis of agency data shows. MSHA sets a date by which a violation must be fixed, but, from 2000 to 2011, the agency granted extensions for 57 percent of the violations.

    Long extensions have been particularly common in southern West Virginia, one of the key “hot spots” of disease resurgence identified by NIOSH. In this area, which accounted for about 30 percent of the nation’s dust sampling violations, MSHA gave companies an extension about two-thirds of the time and allowed, on average, about 58 extra days to prove compliance.

    Asked about these numbers, the agency said in a statement, “The majority of these extensions … are for good reasons such as getting approved dust controls implemented or allowing the operator time to collect additional samples to submit to MSHA.”

    Monitoring system 'severely compromised'
    Even before the reappearance of black lung, the need for change was apparent. A proposed MSHA rule led to hearings in 1978, during which miners testified to widespread manipulation of dust samples. That proposal stalled and was withdrawn by the Reagan administration.

    In 1995, NIOSH reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded that the limits for both coal dust and silica should be cut in half and periodic medical exams for miners should be enhanced. The same year, the secretary of labor appointed a committee to determine how to eliminate black lung.

    The committee’s report offered a roadmap for reform. It recommended that MSHA consider lowering the coal mine dust standard. It suggested the agency reduce miners’ silica exposure and establish a separate limit for this more potent type of dust. Samples should be taken while the mine was producing at least 90 percent of what it normally did, the panel said, and samples should be adjusted to reflect longer work shifts.

    Perhaps its strongest recommendation: “The committee believes that the credibility of the current system of mine operator sampling to monitor compliance with exposure limits has been severely compromised. … One of MSHA’s highest priorities should be to take full responsibility for all compliance sampling.”

    In July 2000, MSHA proposed a rule that would have adopted some of these recommendations. Before the rule became final, though, George W. Bush took office, and the rule died.

    “It’s really fairly remarkable that we came up with these recommendations back in 1996 during a Democratic administration, and nothing has happened,” said David Wegman, who was chairman of the committee and is now an emeritus professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell’s School of Health and Environment.

    History may be repeating itself. MSHA proposed a rule in 2010 that would cut the overall limit for dust in half and require companies to use continuous personal dust monitors, which would provide real-time measurements. The current pumps have to be sent to a lab, where analysis can take weeks.

    Under the rule, the samples would be weighted to account for shifts longer than eight hours, and companies could be cited for a single sample over the limit — rather than an average of five — or a weekly accumulation of exposure above a certain limit. The rule would also expand the free X-ray monitoring program to include lung function tests and medical assessments.

    Still, the rule leaves much of the sampling in the hands of the coal companies themselves. Asked why, Main said, “It’s an enormous task for the government to take on.”

    Even the industry favors MSHA’s taking over all compliance sampling. “We need to get to a point where we remove this cloud of controversy and instill in the minds of everyone that the samples are accurate,” the National Mining Association’s Watzman said.
    There isn’t much in the rule that the association supports, however. The real-time dust monitors — a centerpiece of the proposal — are still not accurate enough to be the basis of citations, Watzman argued. Dennis O’Dell, safety director for the United Mine Workers of America, said the few problems with the monitors are “little things that can be tweaked.” The union favors the proposed rule, though it would like to see portions of it changed.

    All of this may be moot. A presidential election is approaching, and many fear a change in administrations could mean what it meant in the early 1980s and the early 2000s: the death of reform.

    'I never said nothing'
    In coal country, weakness is a sin. Mining is just about the only career choice, and one generation often follows another underground.

    Convincing a miner to go to a clinic, get an X-ray or file a claim for benefits can be a challenge. “They're not going to come and complain about how they feel, just because that's part of our culture,” said Debbie Wills, sitting in the clinic in tiny Cedar Grove, W.Va., where she helps miners get evaluated and file for black lung benefits.

    At the same time, fear is almost as deeply rooted. Many miners don’t want their employers to know they have signs of black lung — or even that they’ve been X-rayed. Anita Wolfe, who runs NIOSH’s surveillance program and is often out with the RV that screens miners, said she has seen men approaching on foot from miles away because they didn’t want anyone to see their cars parked nearby.

    Thanks to a rule MSHA issued in 1980, a miner whose X-ray shows signs of black lung receives a letter that requires his employer to transfer him to a less dusty job and pay him the same as before. The miner alone sees the letter, and he can use it whenever he wants.

    Only about 30 percent of the nearly 3,000 letters issued to miners since 1980 have been used, according to MSHA data provided to the Center and NPR.

    Sometimes miners avoid screening because they just don’t want to know. A diagnosis of black lung would likely mean having to leave the mines — the best-paying job around and the only way they know to provide for their families. “It's very known throughout the coal community there's no cure for this,” Wills said. “They want to pretend like everything's OK until they just can't do it anymore.”
    All of this has led NIOSH to believe that the resurgence of black lung may actually be worse than its numbers reveal. “We know that there is disease out there that we are not identifying because miners are avoiding participation based upon disease status,” NIOSH epidemiologist Laney said.

    Take James Marcum: He spent his last semester of high school taking a class at the University of Kentucky because he already had enough credits to graduate. His father, having filed for black lung benefits a few years earlier, encouraged him to go to school and stay out of the mines.

    Nonetheless, James took a summer job at a mine to earn money for college. “I started earning them $800-a-week paydays and said, ‘Why would I want to go to college when I’m earning this kind of money?’ ” he recalled, standing in the shadow of Dewey Dam at the family’s annual picnic at Jenny Wiley State Park in Prestonsburg, Ky.

    He spent about 90 percent of his 20-year mining career, he estimated, operating a continuous miner. In 1991, the motor of the machine he was running caught fire, and smoke overcame him.

    When doctors examined him and took X-rays, they found what appeared to be black lung. James kept the news to himself and didn’t file for benefits, afraid he’d lose his job if he did. “It was good money,” he said. “I had my kids to raise, and I just had to work. … I never said nothing. I just went on and done my job.”

    About six years later, James found himself back in the hospital. He’d been caught between two pieces of the continuous miner and injured his back. Alone in that section of the mine when the accident happened, he finished his shift and went to the hospital the next morning.

    Doctors again took X-rays, and, this time, his lungs were so bad he had to see a specialist. A biopsy confirmed that he had black lung.

    Since then, breathing has become more and more difficult for him, especially during the past year. “I miss hunting bad,” he said. “I used to take my boys hunting. But I just ain’t able no more. … I ain’t got the air to do it.”

    The youngest of the three Marcum brothers, he has shown the worst decline in lung function. At the family’s picnic, while Donald socialized and Thomas talked to their father, Ray, over plates of fried chicken, coleslaw and potato salad, James sat quietly.
    He glanced at his oldest son, 26, who now works in a mine. Without realizing it, James paraphrased his father: “I tried to get him out. He won’t come out. He loves the job.”

    Submit ideas Share your story ideas with Open Channel

    Send documents Send us a document

    Facebook Follow Open Channel on Facebook

    Twitter Keep up with Open Channel on Twitter

    E-mail alerts Sign up for e-mail alerts

     

    709 comments

    My suggestion: Put the offices for all mining company executives right in the middle of the mines. Bet it wouldn't take long to get the coal dust under control.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: coal, mining, featured, black-lung, center-for-public-integrity
  • 4
    Jul
    2012
    9:46am, EDT

    Teen son in 'the box': California rejects limit on solitary confinement

    By Susan Ferriss
    Center for Public Integrity

    At the first-ever congressional hearing on the subject of solitary confinement, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois recently observed that it’s not always “the worst of the worst” who are subjected to the practice. Mentally-ill inmates, immigrants and juvenile offenders are put in solitary as well. And perhaps, said a series of witnesses at the hearing, the time has come to rethink the issue. 

    Many states are now doing just that. But the debate is not devoid of its own unique politics. 

    In California, for instance, an effort to require every-four-hour mental-health evaluations of minors who are “segregated” from other wards died a quick death this spring — even though the Golden State’s legislature is one of the nation’s most liberal and the measure was endorsed by The Los Angeles Times. The legislation failed by one vote to move beyond the seven-member state Senate Public Safety Committee. Three of five Democrats voted for the bill, including the Senate’s top leader, Democrat Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento. But two Democrats and the committee’s only two Republicans voted against it. 


    Follow Open Channel on Twitter and Facebook.


    Depending on who’s talking, the idea faltered because it was flawed, unnecessary and would cost the Golden State money it doesn’t have — or it died because law-enforcement groups with savvy lobbying and financial clout leaned on key legislators to kill it. The dispute is the latest in a series of Sacramento battles over policies pitting liberal juvenile-justice reformers against cops and corrections officers. 

    'There is no solitary confinement'
    Others states have been forced into statewide restrictions. Last year, in response to a lawsuit, Mississippi agreed to tight limits on solitary confinement for juveniles who are in adult prison. Montana settled a lawsuit by adopting strict terms, including a requirement that wardens approve putting juveniles into solitary or “behavior management” isolation for more than 72 hours. In April, West Virginia joined six other states in prohibiting solitary confinement as a way to punish minors in detention. 

    That same month, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry announced its opposition to solitary confinement for juvenile offenders, warning that the practice deepens depression, psychosis and suicidal tendencies. Indeed, a 2009 U.S. Department of Justice study showed that half of the 110 suicides by juvenile wards over a four-year period in the late 1990s were committed by those in solitary confinement. More than two-thirds had been put into facilities for non-violent offenses. 

    Adult inmates in California who’ve been held in solitary for years as a way to sever gang ties are currently suing the state, arguing that solitary’s corrosive psychological impact undermines their ability to re-enter society. 

    Against this backdrop, earlier this year the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a small Oakland, Calif., nonprofit that works with parents of juvenile offenders, approached state Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat, about the possibility of sponsoring legislation that would put limits on solitary for juveniles. 

    Yee’s bill, introduced in February, called for licensed mental-health clinicians to evaluate minors placed in isolation within an hour’s time and then every four hours afterward. Staff would have to create intervention plans before putting any minor identified as suicidal in isolation. Staff would also need a supervisor’s written permission before isolating wards for more than 24 hours straight in a one-week period. 

    The regulations would have applied to state institutions, where mostly more serious or violent juvenile offenders — about 1,000 now — are held, as well as to county facilities, where many thousands more mostly lower-level wards are now housed. 

    “We spend so much money locking up kids,” said Jennifer Kim, a legislative advocate for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. “Let’s divert some of that to make sure that we not exacerbating mental-health issues.” 

    Bill Sessa, a spokesman for the state Division of Juvenile Justice, strongly disputed the need for the bill, calling it a “solution looking for problem that doesn’t exist,” at least in state juvenile-offender facilities. The state’s three facilities are now under strict court orders, and treatment of offenders is monitored by outside auditors and highly prescribed, he said. “There is no solitary confinement,” Sessa said. 

    Teenage son put in 'the box'
    But Lina Roldan, a Southern California mother, says that in late 2010 her teenage son was put into isolation after using a plastic fork to try to cut his neck at a California state-run correctional facility in the city of Stockton. In response, she said, guards put the teen into a room she said wards called “the box” for 24 hours. Another time, Roldan said, her son was in isolation in a room for 48 hours straight. She claims he received no mental-health help. 

    “They waited until he cut his head open, hitting it against the wall, and then they sent him to a hospital,” she said in an interview. 

    Sessa said he couldn’t discuss a specific case. But he called Roldan’s characterization “untrue,” and said rules require wards to get mental-health assessments when they enter facilities and to benefit from frequent psychological aid if their condition requires it. “There is no ‘box,’ “he said. “This isn’t the Shawshank Redemption.” 

    In 2005, state juvenile facilities came under attack after an 18-year-old ward, Joseph Daniel Maldonado, hanged himself in the same youth facility where Roldan said her son was isolated in 2010. A state inspector general report, also in 2005, blamed staff for failing to respond to respond to Maldonado’s pleas for psychological help and for failing to enter his room quickly after knocks on his door went unanswered during guard rounds. The report revealed how Maldonado and other wards had been confined to their cells all day for eight weeks. The previous year, guards had been filmed punching and kicking wards. 

    For the safety of other wards and guards, Sessa said, guards do move to segregate offenders in their cells if they become violent or disruptive. Counselors are now required, he said, to immediately approach youths who’ve been segregated to try to get them talk through what might be causing outbursts. Wards showing any indication of suicidal tendencies can also be segregated in special cells, under close watch. 

    Sessa accused the Ella Baker Center of spreading “misinformation,” and of wrongly suggesting that California’s three state juvenile facilities — there used to be a dozen — remain as rife with scandalous practices as was alleged in lawsuits that led to court-ordered changes beginning in 2004. 

    “The courts are practically running the facilities,” he said. 

    Still, last year a state audit found nearly 250 violations of California’s state juvenile system’s guidelines, not regulations, against isolating wards for more than 21 hours straight. Court orders require that 40 to 70 percent of wards’ waking hours are spent in constructive activities, said Sara Norman of the Prison Law Office, which sued state juvenile prisons. 

    Sessa did not contest the audit’s findings. But the violations, he said, largely involved a small number of wards with violent tendencies, some with gang affiliations. 

    Barry Krisberg, a criminal-justice expert at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, said he is more concerned now about the county facilities than the state institutions. “There could be whole wings where they could be spending days in confinement. Nobody knows,” said Krisberg, who has served as a monitor of court orders at state facilities. 

    Regulations that govern counties are vague, Krisberg said, and give wide latitude for facility supervisors to set rules for isolating wards for up to 24 hours for a minor violation of facility rules, or longer for a major offense. 

    In April, as Yee’s bill went before the public safety committee, the Los Angeles Times published a spirited editorial that urged legislators to approve the measure. The Times called solitary confinement a practice that remains “as dark as ever” and stands in contrast to California’s progress in improving rehabilitation of young offenders. The editorial also singled out two Los Angeles Democrats who had abstained on a first round of voting on and pressed them to embrace the measure. 

    Unaffordable? 
    As debate on Yee’s bill began, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration and juvenile-justice officials did not take a position. But law-enforcement unions and associations, representing state and county and local police, deputies and probation officers, weighed in against it. 

    The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the state prison guards’ union, summed up its opposition in testimony at a committee hearing and in a letter to legislators. “We recognize that many parties believed that solitary confinement was overused in the past” at state facilities, the guards said. However, the union said, court orders have produced reforms. Yee’s bill would “far exceed” those reforms and “compromise the programming of the ward population,” the guards said, as well as the safety of guards and other wards. 

    The prison guards are a powerful force at the state capitol. Their clout in Sacramento stretches back to the 1980s, when the union first became heavily involved in law-and-order campaigns. It financed a big chunk of the state’s 1994 landmark Three Strikes ballot initiative, which began filling prisons. The union has continued to enjoy a prominent role publicly and in negotiations among lawmakers over public safety reforms and correctional spending. With the state facing lawsuits over overcrowded prisons and pressure to cut costs, the union has often offered its own “blueprints” for change. 

    “They’re the highest paid guards in the country,” said Krisberg of UC Berkeley. And even though the state’s fiscal crisis has required the union to accept hits in employee benefits, he said, “they got everything they wanted this year” at the capitol.

    Krisberg said that local law enforcement is enjoying extra clout right now because the state, in cost-cutting reforms, is transferring responsibility for many adult state inmates to local control. 

    The California State Sheriff’s Association, one of those local interest groups, argued that the definition of solitary in Yee’s bill was too vague and would leave counties vulnerable to lawsuits and the cost of new training. The Peace Officers Research Association of California, with more than 63,000 members, said the bill “would put an additional burden on counties and raise the cost of housing juveniles.” The Chief Probation Officers of California, whose members are now responsible for most young offenders, added that “counties and state facilities do not have licensed mental health staff working 24/7 to perform this function.” 

    Complaints about costs are especially potent right now in California. The state’s fiscal problems have resulted in deep budget cuts that have chopped spending locally and statewide. This year, legislators have wrestled over how to bridge a $16 billion budget deficit. 

    Yee’s bill died before its costs were estimated as part of the legislative process. Kim of the Ella Baker Center said that mental-health evaluations shouldn’t be a cost problem given that taxpayers already spend $185,000 a year on each ward in state custody. Sessa didn’t disagree. 

    David Steinhart, director of the Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program in the Bay Area and a longtime collaborator with staff officials on reforms, said county probation departments have more reason to be concerned about costs — but only to a point. 

    California’s counties are getting a “big state payout” as part of a dramatic juvenile-justice shift that legislators voted for in 2007. The idea was to start requiring that the state’s 58 counties take responsibility for most wards rather than the state. Community-based rehabilitation programs seemed to work better at less cost. 

    Legislators in 2007 gave counties $117,000 for each ward they took, plus $300 million in construction money. Counties have continued to split almost $100 million more a year from the state. This year Gov. Jerry Brown proposed distributing another $200 million to counties if legislators would authorize shutting down the last three state-run facilities and transfer all wards to local custody. Probation chiefs and corrections officers — even union teachers at state facilities — fought the idea, arguing counties were ill-prepared to take more offenders. Brown dropped the idea. 

    Mark Varela, Ventura County’s probation chief and the probation chiefs’ legislative chair, told the Center that his county actually could have handled the mental-health evaluations of wards that Yee’s bill required. Ventura, he said, is using various streams of state money to pay for a “crisis team” that probation can turn to in mental-health emergencies. That move was in line with the recommendations of a statewide task force last year. But Varela conceded that other counties may be facing other kinds of fiscal problems. 

    Wielding power in Sacramento
    The Ella Baker Center advocates say they can’t help but think that debate over proposals like theirs is clouded by the campaign-donations and high-priced lobbying game at the Capitol. Law-enforcement associations “always seem to seem to have unlimited resources to influence politicians,” Kim said. 

    To compete, the Ella Baker Center spent about $115,110 last year and through this past March on lobbying to push Yee’s solitary-confinement bill, among other criminal-justice proposals. At the same time, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association spent more than $421,511 lobbying on an array of bills. The Chief Probation Officers group also spent nearly $370,000 to push its view on the budget and other proposed measures, according to state lobbying records. 

    The correctional guards union has also given California politicians or committees more than $12.4 million in contributions since 2003, according to the National Institute on Money and State Politics. 

    On March 16, state records show, the guards union gave the California Democratic Party $60,000. On March 9, it gave the California Republican Party $15,000. And on May 30, it gave $10,000 to a newly minted California Black Political Action Committee, which is based in Los Angeles. 

    The three Democrats who voted for Yee’s bill and two who voted against it have all received donations from prison guards or other law-enforcement groups during their careers. But none have received more from the prison guards than Sen. Ron Calderon, Democrat of Los Angeles. He cast one of the votes against Yee’s bill after initially abstaining. 

    Between 2004 and 2010, Calderon received $14,050 in donations from the guards union. In March of this year, he reported a $3,900 donation pledged last July from the guards union, records show. The donation went to Calderon’s committee for a run at state controller in 2014. 

    Rocky Rushing, Calderon’s chief of staff, said Calderon’s vote had nothing to do with donations. “It’s not like that at all,” he said. “We were supportive of the intent of the legislation.” The costs of mental-health evaluations of wards every four hours, which Yee’s bill required, would have been “astronomical,” Rushing said. Advocates refused to budge on this matter, he said. Kim of the Baker Center said she felt that delineating a specific number of hours was necessary or checks might not happen. 

    Sen. Curren Price, the other Los Angeles Democrat and committee member — who also abstained before voting against Yee’s bill — said in a statement that he considered Yee’s bill “a provocation” that could have “compromised safety inside juvenile facilities …by ignoring the concerns of rank-and-file personnel.” 

    Price, who is the chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, additionally said the measure would have interfered with court-ordered improvements, and burdened counties. He’s “sympathetic to the issue,” however, and said he’s willing to consider alternatives to regulating solitary confinement of minors. The Ella Baker advocates, who submitted written testimony to Durbin’s office for the June 19 Congressional hearing, said they will try again to get strict, statewide regulations or to stop solitary confinement of juveniles.

    4 comments

    What we have here is a failure to communicate.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: human-rights, california, prison, center-for-public-integrity, solitary-confinement
  • 21
    May
    2012
    6:14am, EDT

    More Americans died in workplace in '09 than during entire Iraq war

    On Sept. 3, 2009, contract laborer Nick Revetta was killed in an explosion at U.S. Steel's Clairton Plant near Pittsburgh. Revetta's death and the events that followed reveal the limitations of a federal law meant to protect American workers.

    By msnbc.com

    When Nicholas Adrian Revetta of suburban Pittsburgh died in an explosion at a U.S. Steel plant on Sept. 3, 2009, his death did not make national headlines. No hearings were held into the accident that killed him. No one was fired or sent to jail.           

    The 32-year-old contract laborer, who left behind a wife and two young children, was one of the 4,551 people killed on the job in America in 2009 -- a number that eclipsed the total number of U.S. fatalities in the nine-year Iraq war. Combined with the estimated 50,000 people who die annually of work-related diseases, it's as if a fully loaded Boeing 737-700 crashed every day.


    The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 entitles American workers to "safe and healthful" conditions in their workplaces. But an examination of Revetta's death by the Center for Public Integrity illustrates how safety can yield to speed, how even fatal accidents can have few consequences for employers -- who are typically fined just $7,900 per fatality -- and how federal investigations can be cut short by what some call a de facto quota system.  

     

    Click here to read the rest of the story.

     

    Submit ideas Share your story ideas with Open Channel

    Send documents Send us a document

    Facebook Follow Open Channel on Facebook

    Twitter Keep up with Open Channel on Twitter

    E-mail alerts Sign up for e-mail alerts

    190 comments

    Should be named OSHlT,not OSHA!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: deaths, job, safety, workplace, featured, osha, center-for-public-integrity
Older posts

Browse

  • featured,
  • documents,
  • terrorism,
  • al-qaida,
  • election-2012,
  • investigative-reporting,
  • iran,
  • crime,
  • reading,
  • military,
  • health,
  • investigation,
  • environment,
  • obama,
  • fbi,
  • campaign-finance,
  • pakistan,
  • u-s,
  • huguette-clark,
  • campaign,
  • updated,
  • cia,
  • guns,
  • news21,
  • voting-fraud,
  • voter-id,
  • who-can-vote,
  • nbc,
  • isikoff,
  • nuclear,
  • penn-state,
  • windrem,
  • security,
  • center-for-public-integrity,
  • osama-bin-laden,
  • politics,
  • romney,
  • wikileaks,
  • shooting,
  • safety,
  • yemen,
  • pentagon
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Bill Dedman

Investigative reporter Bill Dedman of NBC News is always looking for good investigative story ideas and documents. Bill received the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, and has written full time for NBCNews.com since 2006.

Bill Dedman Blogroll

  • Bill's investigative reporting feed on Twitter
  • ABC News The Blotter
  • Center for Investigative Reporting
  • Center for Public Integrity
  • Center for Public Integrity's Paper Trail blog
  • Huffington Post Investigative Fund
  • Investigative Reporters and Editors' Extra! Extra!
  • McClatchey blog Nukes & Spooks
  • New York Times' City Room Records blog
  • New York Times' Open data blog
  • ProPublica
  • ProPublica blog
  • Yahoo! News The Upshot
  • TPM Muckraker
  • Washington Post Investigations
  • WhoWhatWhy forensic journalism
  • New England Center for Investigative Center at Bos
  • Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
  • Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting
  • Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, B
  • MinnPost.com
  • The Washington Independent
  • AU Investivative Reporting Workshop
  • Become a fan on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
Have an idea?
Send your ideas and documents for investigative stories.

Michael Isikoff

Michael Isikoff joined NBC News in July 2010 as national investigative correspondent. He had been at Newsweek since 1994 as an investigative correspondent. He has written extensively on the U.S. government's war on terrorism, the Abu Ghraib scandal, campaign-finance and congressional ethics abuses, presidential politics and other national issues.

Amna Nawaz

Amna Nawaz is Bureau Chief/Correspondent for NBC News' Pakistan bureau. She reports for all NBC News platforms from across the country and the region. Previously, she reported for the network's investigative unit.

Mike Brunker, Investigations Editor, NBC News

Mike Brunker is the investigations editor at NBCNews.com. He's worked for the site (formerly msnbc.com) as a reporter and editor since August 1996. Before that, he was an editor at the San Francisco Examiner and Hayward Daily Review in California.

Mike Brunker, Investigations Editor, NBC News Blogroll

  • White Collar Crime Prof blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy: Legal news now
  • Frederick Lane Blog -- legal news
  • Social Networking Law Blog
  • Sports Law Blog
  • Business of Horse Racing Blog
  • The Long War Journal
  • The Red Tape Chronicles -- consumer/tech news

Azriel James Relph

Azriel James Relph is a researcher for NBC News Investigations. He is a graduate of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, and was a reporter for several years at the Hunts Point Express -- a South Bronx newspaper serving the poorest Congressional District in the United Sates. He has written for Newsweek, The Daily Beast, and MSNBC.com.

Robert Windrem

Robert Windrem is investigative producer for special projects at NBC Nightly News. He is also a Fellow at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. He has worked at NBC News for more than three decades, focusing on issues of international security, strategic policy, intelligence and terrorism.

M. Alex Johnson

M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for NBC News specializing in national affairs, technology and data analysis. He joined NBC News in 1999 from The Washington Post.

M. Alex Johnson Blogroll

  • Alex Johnson — Journalist at Large
  • Ars Technica
  • Krebs on Security
  • GetStats
  • Technolog
  • Sophos Security Trends
  • Muckety
  • Pew Internet Research
  • Investigative Reporters and Editors
  • Fund for Investigative Journalism
  • Data Journalism Blog
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on Facebook
Follow Alex
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

Archives

  • 2013
    • May (31)
    • April (34)
    • March (42)
    • February (21)
    • January (27)
  • 2012
    • December (33)
    • November (30)
    • October (39)
    • September (34)
    • August (46)
    • July (36)
    • June (42)
    • May (52)
    • April (28)
    • March (24)
    • February (38)
    • January (42)
  • 2011
    • December (27)
    • November (23)
    • October (15)
    • September (9)
    • August (6)
    • July (11)
    • June (12)
    • May (12)
    • April (5)
    • March (11)
    • February (11)
    • January (21)
  • 2010
    • December (11)
    • November (13)

Most Commented

  • Cruel or necessary? The true cost of wild horse roundups (773)
  • Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled note inside boat where he was hiding, sources say (719)
  • AP calls government's record seizure a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion' (727)
  • IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges (910)
  • As applications swell, IRS nonprofit division overloaded, understaffed (379)
  • Bomb plot briefing may undercut DOJ's case for AP records seizure (234)
  • The case of the missing mustangs; what happened to 1,700 wild horses? (129)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • US News

NBCNews.com top stories

3147,10
© 2013 NBCNews.com
  • US news on NBCNews.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Closed captioning
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Advertise