• 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: Fracking boom triggers water battle in North Dakota
  • 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

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
  • 9
    Apr
    2013
    3:30pm, EDT

    FBI 'investigating' McConnell's complaint about Mother Jones? Not quite

    Senator Mitch McConnell responds to audio recordings from a strategy session being leaked from his campaign office. The recordings featured talk about his potential challenger actress Ashley Judd.

    By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News

    For the FBI, the word "investigating" is a term of art – just look at a federal official's statement on Sen. Mitch McConnell's allegations that a meeting in his campaign offices in February was illegally recorded, with a copy of the recording ending up in the hands of Mother Jones magazine.


    Follow @openchannelblog

    It would appear, from the official's statement, that the case has not reached the point of an investigation: It's worth noting that the official says the FBI "is looking into" the allegations.

    As a general matter, it would be a federal crime to plant a bug in someone's office to record their conversations. It would not be a crime, however, if someone who was taking part in the campaign staff meeting was the person who made the recording. 

    Mother Jones, which on Tuesday published a story based on the recording, hints at that possibility in its most recent statement, when it says, "It is our understanding that the tape was not the product of a Watergate-style bugging operation."


    As for the magazine's potential legal liability, the federal wiretap law appears to make it a crime to disclose the contents of a bugged conversation "knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained" illegally.

    Alex Wong / Getty Images

    Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell

    However, in 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a case involving a recording obtained under somewhat similar circumstances, that the First Amendment protects the public discloser. The recording in that case was of an intercepted phone call between the president and the chief negotiator of a Pennsylvania teachers' union during contentious contract talks with the local school board.  A radio talk show host played the tape and was sued, but the court held, by a vote of 6-3, that the disclosure was protected by the First Amendment because it involved an issue of public importance.

    "A stranger's illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about matters of public concern," said Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the court's opinion. 

    More reporting from Open Channel:

    • Disputes over environmental impact of 'fracking' obscure its future
    • Sorting through the claims, counterclaims about environmental impact of 'fracking'
    •  Manhattan DA keeps high-profile murder conviction intact after review
    •  How the US oil, gas boom could shake up global order

     

    82 comments

    When persons working at farm operations/slaughterhouses are caught on camera abusing animals the GOP solution is to make the persons taping them a criminal. When the Treasonous Turtle gleefully discusses slandering his opponent and someone at the meeting is so disgusted with him they blow the whistl …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: fbi, supreme-court, bugging, mitch-mcconnell, mother-jones, wiretap-law
  • 26
    Feb
    2013
    11:37am, EST

    Supreme Court tosses suit against terror surveillance program

    By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News

    The U.S. Supreme Court today essentially put the government's expanded terror surveillance program beyond legal challenge, tossing out a lawsuit filed by a group of lawyers, journalists, and civil rights groups who claimed they were improperly swept up in the law's reach.


    Follow @NBCNewsUS

    By a 5-4 ruling, the court said the challengers couldn't show that they were actually harmed by the government's foreign terrorist surveillance program, set up during the George W. Bush administration to allow the monitoring of suspected terrorists overseas. Congress eventually approved the program, with some changes.

    The issue in this case was what happens when targets of the program talk by phone or e-mail with people in the United States. The challengers claimed that because their jobs required them to talk with people overseas likely to be targeted by the program, they've had to change how they operate – traveling overseas to meet with potential clients and sources instead of talking to them by phone.

    In other words, while the challengers said they couldn't prove their conversations were intercepted, because the expanded terror surveillance program is classified, it was so likely that they had the legal standing to sue.

    Not so, said the five-member majority, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. Their theory, he said, "is too speculative." And even though the challengers say they've had to take expensive measures to avoid the surveillance they fear is taking place, they "cannot manufacture standing by choosing to make expenditures based on hypothetical future harm."

    Writing for the dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said the harm the challengers claim "is as likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen."

    Related:

    • Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
    • Terrorists' mail still not monitored

    101 comments

    Translation: "Big Brother is watching, and there ain't a damned thing you can do about it."

    Show more
    Explore related topics: terrorism, supreme-court, wiretap
  • 16
    Jan
    2013
    5:09am, EST

    Citizen United ruling opened door to $933 million in new election spending

    Shawn Thew / EPA

    Occupy D.C. protesters link arms on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 20, 2012, during protest on the two-year anniversary of the high court's Citizens United ruling.

    By Reity O’Brien and Andrea Fuller, The Center for Public Integrity

    The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision unleashed nearly $1 billion in new political spending in the 2012 election, with media outlets and a small number of political consulting firms raking in the bulk of the proceeds.

    Spending records released by the Federal Election Commission show that throughout the 2012 election, corporations, unions and individuals that could take advantage of the high court’s ruling were responsible for about $933 million of the estimated $6 billion spent during the contest.

    Nearly two-thirds of the new money — about $611 million — went to 10 political consulting firms, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis. All but one of the top 10 recipients bought advertising in various media markets on behalf of super PACs and nonprofits. Eighty-nine percent of the expenditures made to the top 10 went to spots attacking candidates, the data show.


    “For some in the industry, it has been a definite boon,” said Dale Emmons, president of the American Association of Political Consultants. “This election appears to have set a new benchmark on the amount of money that could be spent, because there were no limits on what could be spent.”

    The 2010 Citizens United decision and a lower-court ruling allowed unlimited donations to super PACs and nonprofits, independent groups that used the funds primarily to fund ad campaigns.

    Media buyers keep only a fraction of the total spending — usually 15 percent, according to Federal Communications Commission records, with the rest going to media outlets.

    The winners
    The top recipient of independent spending among media buyers was Mentzer Media Services, the Towson, Md.-based media placement firm run by longtime GOP consultant Bruce Mentzer.

    Mentzer attracted nearly $204 million from conservative super PACs and other outside groups. In a tough year for Republicans, only 26 percent of the candidates who were supposed to benefit from the ads won their races, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

    The firm was the preferred vendor for the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, which paid Mentzer nearly $132 million to purchase air time in presidential battleground states.

    A Mentzer employee who answered the phone declined to comment on the firm’s involvement in the 2012 election.

    Second was Crossroads Media, which was paid about $163 million to buy media time for conservative super PACs and nonprofits in 2012. The firm is run by Michael Dubke, the former president of Americans for Job Security — a pro-Republican nonprofit and one of Crossroads’ top clients.

    Waterfront Strategies, which worked for Democratic groups, ranked third, at $81 million.

    Democratic-aligned Mundy Katowitz Media, fourth on the list, was the preferred vendor for the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action, placing more than $57 million in television ads for the group.

    American Media & Advocacy Group, a favorite of conservative groups, ranked No. 5 at $27 million.

    Target Enterprises — a Los Angeles-based media buyer for conservative super PACs — was paid $17 million, ranking it No. 6. The firm had a dismal success rate, coming in dead last among firms catering to super PACs and nonprofits. Seven percent of its preferred candidates won on Nov. 6.

    A woman who answered the phone at Target Enterprises Tuesday said both principals of the company were “mid-flight” and unavailable for comment.

    The Center analyzed FEC data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. The $933 million in spending came from super PACs, nonprofits and, to a lesser extent, “527” organizations that were the favorite independent spending vehicle in past elections.

    FEC coordination law a ‘joke’
    The Citizens United decision opened a huge new potential market for consultants, but there was a catch. Consultants who work for candidates — but also work for “independent” groups that support those same candidates — have to be careful.

    The high court’s decision did not affect the ban on donations to candidates from corporations and unions, nor did it affect contribution limits from individuals. Instead, it focused on spending by independent groups, unaffiliated with candidates.

    As long as super PACs act independently of the candidate, there is no danger of corruption, the high court reasoned.

    But sometimes the separation between the campaign and the like-minded super PAC or nonprofit can be hard to discern.

    Waterfront Strategies, for example, in its FEC filings lists the same address as GMMB — a well-known Democratic media consulting firm and the preferred vendor for President Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

    Waterfront was the beneficiary of $81 million paid by some of the biggest Democratic outside spending groups — including Majority PAC, a super PAC backing Democrats running for Senate, and the League of Conservation Voters.

    The Huffington Post reported that Waterfront is an internal branch of GMMB. It was incorporated in Delaware, and its president is listed as Raelynn Olson, GMMB's managing partner.

    Both Waterfront and its parent company, GMMB, worked to elect Democrat Richard Carmona in his unsuccessful bid for Arizona’s open U.S. Senate seat. Majority PAC hired Waterfront to purchase airtime for ads supporting Carmona and attacking his Republican opponent, then-Rep. and now Sen. Jeff Flake. Carmona’s campaign hired GMMB for its ad buys in the same race.

    One Majority PAC ad used the same childhood photo of Carmona that was featured in an official Carmona campaign ad.

    GMMB did not reply to requests for comment.

    Setting up spinoffs is more about “optics” than skirting coordination rules, said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

    Under current law, as long as a firm assigns each client separate consultants — and those two don’t coordinate their activities — that constitutes a satisfactory firewall, according to Ryan.

    “That’s a pretty ridiculous and modest constraint on campaign coordination,” Ryan said.

    Texas two-step
    American Media & Advocacy, which also has no website, received nearly $27 million to buy media for super PACs and other outside groups.

    The organization worked for the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that paid for ads attacking Pete Gallego, a Democrat who defeated Republican Francisco Canseco in the race for U.S. House of Representatives in Texas’ 23rd District. The firm also worked for Canseco’s campaign.

    Records show that at least one of American Media’s buyers purchased media in the San Antonio market for both the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Canseco campaign.

    Records show that American Media shares an Alexandria address with the high-profile, bipartisan consulting group Purple Strategies. Purple Strategies failed to respond to the Center’s repeated inquiries about any affiliation that it might have with American Media & Advocacy Group.

    American Media and Advocacy is “well aware of the FEC coordination rules, including the common vendor rules,” said Jim Kahl, the group’s attorney, “and they have procedures in place to comply with them.”

    In Ohio, American Media & Advocacy Group was paid by the Congressional Leadership Fund to purchase ads slamming Democrat Betty Sutton in the House race for District 16. American Media was also working for Sutton’s Republican opponent, Rep. Jim Renacci.

    The same person was listed in records as buying media in the Cleveland market — at the same TV station in at least one case — for both the Renacci campaign and the Congressional Leadership Fund.

    Candidates and super PACs can avoid charges of coordination altogether by sending up smoke signals in cyberspace.

    For example, one of Target Enterprise’s top clients was Freedom PAC, a super PAC that paid the firm nearly $3.4 million for ad buys supporting Rep. Connie Mack, the unsuccessful Republican candidate in the Florida Senate race.

    Freedom PAC released an ad containing some of the same footage that was on the Mack campaign’s YouTube channel.

    Under FEC coordination rules, campaign committees and the outside groups that boost their candidates may share material as long as it is publicly available.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit independent investigative news outlet. To read more of its stories on this topic go to publicintegrity.org

    More from Open Channel:

    • Guns already allowed in schools with little restriction in many states
    • 'Zero Dark Thirty,' the CIA and 'enhanced interrogation techniques'
    • Exclusive: DEA agents arranged prostitute for Secret Service agent

    Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 


    72 comments

    6 Billion dollars to influence the voters into choosing Clown A or Clown B....what a waste

    Show more
    Explore related topics: media, campaign, politics, ads, supreme-court, spending, featured, citizens-united
  • 4
    Dec
    2012
    4:04pm, EST

    Behind US affirmative-action and voting-rights race cases, a little-known conservative recruiter

    Joel Page / Reuters

    Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation, poses at his home in South Thomaston, Maine, on Nov. 9.

    By Joan Biskupic
    Reuters

    SOUTH THOMASTON, Maine - Sometime in the next few months, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide two cases that could fundamentally reshape the rules of race in America.

    In one, a young white woman named Abigail Fisher is suing the University of Texas over affirmative action in college admissions. In the other, an Alabama county wants to strike down a law that requires certain states to get federal permission to change election rules.

    If they win, the names Fisher and Shelby County, Ala., will instantly become synonymous with the elimination of longstanding minority-student preferences and voting-rights laws. But behind them is another name, belonging to a person who is neither a party to the litigation nor even a lawyer, but who is the reason these cases ever came to be.

    He is Edward Blum, a little-known 60-year-old former stockbroker.


    Working largely on his own, with the financial support of a handful of conservative donors, Blum sought out the plaintiffs in the Fisher and Shelby County cases, persuaded them to file suit, matched them with lawyers and secured funding to appeal the cases all the way to the high court. Abigail Fisher is the daughter of an old friend of Blum's - a man who happened to call when Blum was in the midst of a three-year search for a white college applicant who had been rejected despite solid scores. Blum eventually got Shelby County to file suit after trolling government websites and cold-calling a county official.


    Follow Open Channel on Twitter and Facebook.


    Blum introduced Fisher's father and Shelby County officials to the same high-priced but politically sympathetic Washington lawyers, who agreed to work for a cut rate to be billed to Blum's backers. Neither Fisher nor Shelby County is paying to fight the cases that bear their names.

    Related: High court hears biggest race case in six years

    Over the past 20 years, Blum has similarly launched at least a dozen lawsuits attacking race-based protections. In addition to the Fisher and Shelby County cases, two other Blum-backed cases reached the Supreme Court. One struck down majority-black and majority-Latino voting districts in Texas. The other prompted the court to suggest it might eliminate a major portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which the conservative-majority bench may now be poised to do in the Shelby County case.

    A self-described former college liberal, Blum says that over time he came to believe that race-based policies violate the very principles of equality they were created to uphold. Affirmative action, he said, treats whites unfairly and stigmatizes minorities, and the rule that requires certain, mostly Southern, states to obtain special federal permission for electoral changes - Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act - unjustly punishes them for long-abandoned racist practices.

    "The original vision has been turned upside down," said Blum, whose Toyota minivan has license plates reading "1FRSTNE" - short for One First Street Northeast, the address of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

    Jose Luis Magana / Reuters

    Students calling for diversity protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, in this Oct. 10, 2012 file photo. In the next few months, the Court will decide two cases that could fundamentally reshape the rules of race in America.

    Operating from Maine
    Blum, who has a runner's lean build and brown hair flecked with gray, operates from a book-lined office in his white two-story frame house on Penobscot Bay, Maine. He holds an unpaid fellowship with the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and in 2005 formed a not-for-profit legal defense foundation, the Project on Fair Representation, of which he is the sole employee. The organization's website says it devotes "all of its efforts to influencing jurisprudence, public policy, and public attitudes regarding race and ethnicity."

    The Project on Fair Representation, in turn, is fully financed by a tax-exempt charitable group called Donors Trust, which raises money from a variety of benefactors and directs them to conservative foundations and projects. According to Internal Revenue Service documents, Donors Trust spent about $1.2 million from 2006 to 2011, the most recent information available, on Project on Fair Representation activities. Gifts to charities such as Donors Trust are tax deductible; money given directly to a legal-defense fund that is not a charitable organization generally is not.

    Donors Trust, which also handles the administrative side of the Project on Fair Representation, said most of the project's expenses are for legal fees. Blum said he draws an average annual salary of $50,000, paid by Donors Trust from funds earmarked for his project. He said he and his wife, Lark, a retired insurance agent, also support themselves with income from savings, investments and Blum's part-time work as a municipal-bond analyst.

    Blum said contributors to his project so far this year have included the conservative Milwaukee, Wis.-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which gave Donors Trust $100,000 to support Blum's group after Blum wrote them a pitch letter regarding the Fisher case and asking for support with costs. Bradley Foundation president and chief executive Michael Grebe confirmed the gift.

    Another is the Searle Freedom Trust, a foundation of the late drug-company scion Daniel C. Searle, which gave Donors Trust gifts totaling $597,500 from 2005 to 2010 designated for the Project on Fair Representation, Searle's IRS documents show. Kimberly Dennis, CEO of the Searle Freedom Trust, declined to comment on Blum's project. Blum and Whitney Ball, president of Donors Trust, declined to name other backers of the Project on Fair Representation.

    The practice of finding plaintiffs to tee up test cases at the Supreme Court is not new. Liberal groups such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and conservative groups such as the Institute for Justice have been doing it for decades. The organizers typically play prominent roles - either as counsel, as public spokespeople or by filing amicus briefs.

    Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a not-for-profit liberal legal-defense fund that has represented parties on the opposite side of Blum-sponsored litigation, said it is rare that Blum's donors choose to remain anonymous. "There is an issue regarding the transparency of what's going on" when financial backers of high-stakes cases are not known to the public, he said.

    Blum and Donors Trust's Ball say the financing of Blum's work is similar to what is done for liberal causes, and say people have many reasons for seeking to give anonymously.

    The nation's colleges are currently allowed to consider a student's race in the admissions process, a procedure that is now being challenged in the Supreme Court. NBC's Pete Williams reports.

    Son of a shoe salesman
    Blum was born in Benton Harbor, Mich., and moved around as a child. His father, Joseph, was a salesman, mainly of shoes. During a tough time when they were living in Florida, Blum said he drove with his father up to North Carolina textile mills to buy bulk loads of women's underwear, and peddled the packs along the road back South. "He sold them in motels, coffee shops, wherever blue-collar women would give him four bucks for a pack of underwear he bought for a buck and a half," Blum recalled.

    He speaks in plain-Midwestern tones sprinkling his conversation with the Yiddish word emes (pronounced "EM-ess"), which means "truth." A 1973 graduate of the University of Texas, Blum said he started out as a Democrat, but by the early 1980s began reading the neoconservative "Commentary" magazine and changed his views. In 1984, he voted for Ronald Reagan. He soon became a successful stockbroker at Paine Webber in Houston. Then, in the early 1990s, came the "acorn that began all my activities," Blum said.

    After noticing that his heavily Democratic district had trouble fielding a Republican congressional candidate in 1990, Blum decided to enter the 1992 Republican primary. He won it, and in the general election faced an African-American incumbent Democrat. When Blum and Lark walked the district to shake hands with voters, he said, he had to carry a map because the borders zigged and zagged. "Multi-ethnic neighborhoods were split apart," he said. "Block by block. Blacks over here. Whites over here. Hispanics over here."

    Blum lost by a wide margin. At the time, court challenges were starting to mount over "majority minority" districts like his that had been gerrymandered to consolidate minorities and maximize their voting power. In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled that districts appearing to segregate voters by race, even if designed to help minorities, violate the Constitution's guarantee of equality. Blum decided to sue Texas officials, alleging the districts unlawfully segregated voters by race.

    Related: Affirmative action in college admissions? Supreme Court to hear case

    He enlisted five local Republicans to join him, including Al Vera, then a high school government teacher, who became the lead plaintiff. Their complaint went to the Supreme Court. That 1996 case, Bush v. Vera, struck down two majority-black and one majority-Hispanic districts in Texas and ordered the boundaries redrawn. Now retired, Vera said Blum is "like a bulldog once he attaches onto an issue he believes in."

    Blum says he personally fronted about $100,000 of the legal fees in the case, which eventually rose to about $1 million. He initially retained regional lawyers, then sought out a large Washington firm whose top partners had served in Republican presidential administrations. Blum said he and the lawyers eventually recouped virtually all their money, as winners' legal fees are reimbursed in some civil-rights cases. Bert Rein, partner at the firm now known as Wiley Rein, said he doesn't recall specific fees but Blum's account sounds right.

    Blum went to court to watch oral arguments. He felt so vindicated that he decided to devote himself nearly full time to the fight against race-based laws and policies. "Seeing how the whole thing can be put back together with litigation," he said, changed his life. "It really is the emes."

    In 2000, Blum moved to Washington and began working with likeminded conservatives. He spent several years as a senior fellow with the Washington-based conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, and abruptly left in 2006 after a falling-out with Linda Chavez, the center's president. Neither Blum nor Chavez would discuss the circumstances. By his own admission, Blum operates best solo. "With partners, everyone wants to be the shiniest apple," he said. "Operating alone, I don't need to address that."

    Sensing an opportunity
    By the mid-2000s, the makeup of the Supreme Court had tilted rightward, and Blum sensed another opportunity. John Roberts succeeded the late William Rehnquist as Chief Justice in 2005, and in January 2006 the conservative Samuel Alito replaced the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, who several years earlier had cast the crucial swing vote upholding affirmative action in college admissions at the University of Michigan.

    Following the Michigan decision, the University of Texas had instituted a modified version of an affirmative action program it had previously discontinued because a lower court in Texas had blocked it. The university guarantees admission to all state high-school graduates in the top 10 percent of their class, but under the new arrangement also allows in some minorities with lower scores in an effort to enhance diversity.

    Blum figured if he could find a white student who had been rejected with a record that exceeded the lower criteria used for some minority applicants, he might be able to persuade a majority of the nine justices on the Supreme Court that the practice was unconstitutional. Blum said he also wanted someone temperamentally suited to the long haul of litigation.

    He set up a Web address, utnotfair.org, which asked spurned University of Texas students to contact Blum and relate their experiences. He gave speeches to the Young Conservatives of Texas and similar groups, and hounded everyone he knew in the state. "I could bump into people in restaurants and bars that I knew from high school in Houston that had kids graduating from high school," he recalled. "And I was such a noodge: 'If she doesn't get in, I want to represent her.'"

    Susan Walsh / AP

    Abigail Fisher, the Texan involved in the University of Texas affirmative action case, and Blum walk outside the Supreme Court in Washington, on Oct. 10, 2012.

    He says he heard from many students, but after two and a half years, none still seemed right. Someone might have had strong grades, he said, but didn't seem like a person he could work with for a long period or "expose to the press."

    Then, in March 2008, Blum got a call from his old friend Richard Fisher. Blum had met Fisher, an accountant, through business even before Fisher's daughter Abigail, then 18, was born. The Blums and Fishers had socialized together over the years and Blum attended the wedding of Abigail's older sister. Fisher, also a Republican with what he says are strong conservative views, knew of his friend's search.

    Fisher told Blum that Abigail had just received a rejection notice from the University of Texas and was heartbroken. He described her scores, and the men agreed she might make a strong candidate to challenge the Texas admissions system. Blum said he told Fisher: "I want you to prepare Abby for being under a microscope."

    Abigail, a slight, strawberry blonde, said she told her father she was willing to lend her name and story to a court case, but she wanted to go about her life privately. "I assumed that whatever would come of it would take a really long time," Abigail said. "It would be for others."

    Blum told Richard Fisher he had financial backing and Fisher would not have to pay a cent in legal fees. Without Blum's access to funds, Fisher said, he would never have proceeded. Blum would not discuss the cost. But lawyers who argue regularly before the Supreme Court say constitutional challenges that start in district court and wind up at the high court could cost a total $2 million or more in legal fees.

    Blum retained the Wiley Rein firm again, and within a couple of weeks, the lawsuit now known as Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin was filed at the U.S. District Court in Austin. The lower court sided with the university in 2009, upholding its affirmative action plan. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later agreed. Abigail, meanwhile, had enrolled at her second-choice school, Louisiana State University.

    A county in Alabama
    A few months after Blum snagged Abigail Fisher, he found another plaintiff to challenge a policy he abhorred as much as affirmative action: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires all or parts of 16 states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval for any election-law change.

    While surfing the Web one day, he saw on the Department of Justice's site that the agency had rejected a voting map in the city of Calera, at the southwestern tip of Shelby County in central Alabama. That new map dramatically enlarged one of the city's voting districts, diluting African-American voting strength.

    Blum picked up the phone and called the attorney for Calera and greater Shelby County, Frank "Butch" Ellis. The two men immediately clicked. Ellis said he had long been chafing under Section 5 and was intrigued by Blum's call.

    Related: Inside the college admissions process

    At the time, another Section 5 case that Blum was helping finance was already at the Supreme Court. That case, filed by the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District #1, claimed the South had changed, and the requirement that federal permission was needed for election changes was an anachronism. Blum told Ellis that if the Texas utility case didn't strike down the rule, he thought the Shelby County situation might one day make a better case.

    When the Supreme Court in 2009 sidestepped the issue of Section 5's constitutionality and ruled on a narrower issue, Blum called Ellis again. Like the Fishers, Ellis was enticed by Blum's promise that the county's challenge would cost it nothing. Shelby County v. Holder was filed in April 2010, at the U.S. District Court in Washington. Last May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling against Shelby County, and in November, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

    Bert Rein of the Wiley Rein firm, which Blum retained for both Shelby County and Fisher, declined to discuss its fees. When asked how much money he thought each case would cost, Blum said, "Low six figures."

    Plaintiff in pajamas
    On the morning of Feb. 21, 2012, when the Supreme Court announced it was taking the Fisher case, its eponymous plaintiff was still in bed in her Baton Rouge apartment, just a few months from graduation. Her father called to tell her the news, and Abigail began jumping up and down in her pajamas. "That was the most excited I had been throughout the four years," she said. "My dad and Edward were way more passionate about it."

    Blum then stage-managed some publicity for Abigail, who previously had not appeared in public in connection with the lawsuit. He hired a small production company to make a YouTube video about the case, featuring critics of the university's program and Abigail. In it she said students had been accepted with lower grades and fewer activities than she had, and the "only other difference between us was the color of our skin."

    University officials say such differences arise from their interest in bringing together as diverse a group of qualified students as possible. They acknowledge that some minority applicants with lower scores than Fisher have been admitted. But they also say that a significant number of African-American and Hispanic applicants with scores identical or higher than hers have similarly been denied admission at the highly competitive campus.

    Related: Paying $2 million to get your kid into Harvard?

    On the morning of Supreme Court oral arguments in October, Blum arranged a car and driver for himself, Abigail and her parents. When they arrived at the court building, they tried to avoid the protesters in the front, most of whom supported affirmative action and were carrying signs with messages such as "diversity works" and "expand opportunity." Blum and the Fishers headed for a rear door, but were turned away because it was only for employees. They eventually found the proper entrance and took seats in the rear of the courtroom.

    After the hearing, standing in front of the marble-columned building surrounded by her parents, lawyers and Blum, Abigail recited from memory a statement Blum had written for her.

    She thanked the Supreme Court for hearing her case and the lawyers for representing her. "I hope the court rules that a person's race and ethnicity should not be considered when applying to the University of Texas," she said.

    It did not occur to her to thank Blum, she said. He had not put that in the statement.

    More from Open Channel:

    • Toll authority quick to dun drivers; not so good at refunding overpayments
    • 'Frightening tale' about fracking draws rebuttal from industry group
    • American jailed in Cuba wants US to sign 'non-belligerency pact' to speed release
    • Cuba pushes swap: its spies jailed in US for  American jailed in Havana
    • Livestock falling ill in fracking regions
    • Tobacco industry used trade pacts to try to snuff out anti-smoking laws
    • Jeb Bush's reputation as education reformer gets a second look
    • As fighting raged in Syria, Russia sent tons of cash to Damascus, records show

    Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

    268 comments

    So basically this guy had an agenda and financial backing and searched for the situations he needed in order to justify suing. He's basically an ambulance chaser.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: race, supreme-court, affirmative-action, university-of-texas, shelby-county, abigail-fisher, edward-blum
  • 28
    Jun
    2012
    10:43am, EDT

    Full text of US Supreme Court decision on health care laws

    Here is a PDF file of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Thursday upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    This single file contains the court's decision, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, and the several dissenting opinions.


    Follow Open Channel on Twitter and Facebook.


    More health reform coverage:

    • Supreme Court upholds health care law
    • Dems cheer high court as Romney leads GOP charge to repeal health law
    • Thrilled and relieved, sick patients cheer court ruling

    Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS blog examines the Supreme Court's ruling on health care. When asked why Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law, Goldstein said, "I think he believed it."

    186 comments

    This is so great--great for Obama, great for America, and great for our children generations hence, who will be saying, "Thank you, President Obama! Thank you for Obamacare!" And, by the way, it will be known as Obamacare, proudly, forever!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: scotus, health-care, supreme-court, featured, obamacare, affordable-care-act
  • 20
    Jun
    2012
    12:55pm, EDT

    Contempt: Now what?

    By NBC's Pete Williams

    Once the House committee votes in favor of citing Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, it goes to the full House for consideration.

    If the full House votes in favor of the contempt citation, the issue is sent to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. A federal law adopted by Congress in 1857 directs federal prosecutors to refer these matters to a grand jury for possible prosecution. The language is mandatory as to the U.S. attorney: "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

    But from there on, it gets complicated.

    The Justice Department has long taken the position, as a separation of powers matter, that Congress cannot force the Justice Department to undertake a prosecution of an executive branch official. The courts have never resolved the question. 

    The Justice Department, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has further claimed that a U.S. attorney must not initiate a prosecution when the president has asserted executive privilege over what Congress seeks.

    The administration of George W. Bush most recently made this claim during the congressional investigation of the firings of several U.S. attorneys nationwide. Congress subpoenaed former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, and the president directed that neither should testify or produce the requested documents. Though the broad issue of executive privlege went to court, it is still unresolved.

    Another gray area here is how much a president can cover under the umbrella of an assertion of executive privilege. The further a matter gets from the White House and presidential decision making, the more the courts have been unwilling to recognize it.

    On a broader point, the federal courts have been reluctant to referee what they see as fights between the White House and Congress. During the legal battle over Miers, the federal district court in Washington practically begged the two sides to work it out without suing each other.

    "The court strongly encourages the political branches to resume their discourse and negotiations in an effort to resolve their differences constructively," it said.

    And finally, there's this point to remember: if this does end up in court, it could take up to two years to resolve, given the time for a trial and subsequent appeals. However, a contempt citation is valid only during the Congress which approved it. Each term of Congress lasts only two years, so if the issue was still in the courts when this Congress ends in a year and a half, the contempt citation would evaporate, and so would any lawsuit.

    699 comments

    HYSTERICAL! Darrell Issa, one of the most ethically challenged people EVER to be in Congress out on a witch hunt. The Republicans NEVER learn about overreach.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: supreme-court, capitol-hill, barack-obama, fast-and-furious, pete-williams, first-read, eric-holder

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,
  • fracking,
  • oil,
  • safety
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 (32)
    • 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 (775)
  • Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled note inside boat where he was hiding, sources say (721)
  • AP calls government's record seizure a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion' (727)
  • IRS mishandling of Tea Party reviews still unresolved, audit charges (911)
  • 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