Hoyer's and Rockefeller's Strange Corporate Bedfellow

AT&T's 2007 Financial Review [pdf] includes this brief snippet:

NSA Litigation There are 24 pending lawsuits that allege that we and other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance to the National Security Agency (NSA) in connection with intelligence activities that were initiated following the events of September 11, 2001. In the first filed case, Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc. and Does 1-20, a purported class action filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, plaintiffs allege that the defendants have disclosed and are currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call records concerning communications to which Plaintiffs were a party. Plaintiffs seek damages, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and other federal and California statutes. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The United States asserted the "state secrets privilege" and related statutory privileges and also filed a motion asking the court to either dismiss the complaint or issue a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss of both parties. Specifically, the Court ruled that the state secrets privilege does not prevent AT&T from asserting any statutory defense it may have, as appropriate, regarding allegations that it assisted the government in monitoring communication content. However, with regard to the calling records allegations, the Court noted that it would not require AT&T to disclose what relationship, if any, it has with the government. We and the U.S. government filed interlocutory appeals in July 2006. The case was argued before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 15, 2007. We are awaiting a decision. Management believes these actions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend these matters.

Part of AT&T's vigorous defense and fight for amnesty appears to be the deployment of a well-known right-wing "think tank," Frontiers of Freedom in the districts of freshman Democrats, including Kirsten Gillibrand and Tim Walz.

A local blog, Bluestem Prairie, decided to do a little digging with a stellar report about the organization that was joining in on the attack with these robocalls.

Turns out, the FF has been fronting for corporations, including, AT&T for a while now. Here's what Common Cause has uncovered:

Frontiers of Freedom does not disclose its financial backers, but the Wall Street Journal reported in 2001 that the organization's main contributors were corporations such as Philip Morris, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.^[38] At the time, Frontiers of Freedom lobbied heavily against environmental regulations designed to reduce global warming,^[39] and also railed against plaintiffs who sued the tobacco companies after contracting lung cancer from smoking.^[40]

More recently, the Larstan Business Group accused Frontiers of Freedom of engaging in Astroturf lobbying on behalf of the telephone companies.^[41]   Larstan's report, it should be noted, was commissioned by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association,^[42] the main trade association for the cable television industry.

The report points out that Frontiers of Freedom has flip-flopped from being a critic of the telephone industry, to being one of its champions.  According to Larstan, in 2004, Frontiers of Freedom lambasted "the Bell monopolies" for not "do[ing] any of the
heavy-lifting normally associated with a free market,"^[43] and instead relying on government regulation to build their business. But in 2005, the organization praised the merger of AT&T and SBC Communications^[44] - two of the telephone industries biggest players - and also endorsed^[45] the Bell-backed regulations designed to ease their entry into the cable television business.  Qwest Communications has alleged that Frontiers of Freedom accepts contributions from AT&T.[46]

That charge from Qwest was leveled by Michael Ceballos, president of Qwest's operation in Wyoming, in an opinion column written in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle on July 27, 2005 (now offline, obtained through subscription) written in response to another by FF's founder, Malcom Wallop (former Senator from Wyoming):

As Mr. Wallop noted, he has over the years written critical columns about Qwest. Mr. Wallop is the founder and chairman of Frontiers of Freedom. AT&T contributes to this organization. The timing and distribution of these columns have occurred during times when AT&T was in a dispute with Qwest. We are not surprised at the timing of Mr. Wallop's column because Qwest has recently expressed concern over the proposed merger of AT&T and SBC.

As noted, FF doesn't disclose its financial backers, and a search of AT&T's site has yet to produce conclusive proof that AT&T is currently bankrolling the organization. But given their commitment to AT&T and their diligence in their "grassroots" lobbying for AT&T in that merger and now for telco amnesty, it seems a likely conclusion. Particularly when one considers the group's history with Exxon:

If you were the least bit nervous about all the worrying reports - from leading scientists, insurance companies and even the Pentagon - about human-induced climate change, don't worry: the Frontiers of Freedom (FF), a right-leaning think tank, is here to reassure you.

FF has established the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP) to alert "policy makers, the media, and the public to unreliable scientific claims and unjustified alarmism which often lead to public harm." If you are so inclined, you can subscribe to the "non-profit, non-partisan" Climate & Environment Weekly, CSPP's email bulletin that keeps track of why climate change is not the problem many make it out to be.

But if you want to find out who funds FF's climate change program, you won't find out by checking their website or annual report. However, over at ExxonMobil's website you'll discover that the CSPP was established in 2002 with a $100,000 grant from the world's biggest oil company.

ExxonMobil is so supportive of FF that in the last five years it has invested another $617,000 of shareholder cash to promote "informed discussion" on climate change issues.

They've also been active in "Hands Off the Internet," the astro-turfing group that fronts for AT&T and the other telephone and cable companies fighting against Net Neutrality. And in fighting  a pro-consumer effort in the Minnesota legislator that "would guarantee customers accurate information about billing and service area coverage." They've also been neck-deep in the recent debate over the Air Force's huge tanker contract, weighing in on the side of Boeing.

Looking into that deal, and the "public policy" groups involved in the process, the Washington Post noted:

Welcome to that special place where business and Washington intersect, where things often are not what they seem and keeping track of the players and their motives is as hard as following the aces in hands of a cardsharp... The companies have engaged top-shelf public relations specialists, opinion shapers and former military officials who now serve as their consultants. And they have enlisted vocal and sometimes stealthy support from policy and nonprofit groups, endorsements that carry the aura of integrity.

Which brings us smack dab back to telco amnesty and the fight over the FISA bill. What was true for the Northrop/Boeing contretemps is true for the fight for amnesty these groups. For all the urgent and inflammatory rhetoric about national security; for every group with a noble sounding name like Defense of Democracies, or Frontiers of Freedom, this fight is about corporate power and influence over the public good.

A group like Frontiers of Freedom has no higher concern than how well the pockets of its cronies are lined at the public expense, and in the great Reagan economic tradition, how much of that lucre trickles down to them. And make no mistake, their efforts are geared toward one key goal: electing Republicans to allow this cozy little system to be perpetuated.

That these groups exist and that they have undue influence on policy in a Bush administration is not great revelation. But any Democrat throwing their lot in with them to support the Protect AT&T Act should go in with their eyes wide open, and realize that in doing so, they are potentially sowing the seeds for their own potential defeat.

Furthering the aims of these organizations, of AT&T, of the Republicans at the expense of all else--little things like "First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act"--is a short-sighted and self-destructive path for any Democrat.