banning the...cunningham’s dip into charitable resume building is of a much more pedestrian...

By Adam Conner and Betsy Williams

Last year, America stood alone in the world as the only country that still executedminors. Only six other countries had executed minors in the 1990s, and by 2005 allhad either abolished the practice or publicly disavowed the execution of minors.

It was not until March 1, 2005, that the U.S. Supreme Court ended juvenile execu-tions in America with its 5-4 decision in the Roper v. Simmons case. As Justice Kennedywould write in the majority decision, "In sum, it is fair to say that the United States nowstands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.”

The Simmons decision was the culmination of a campaign begun years before thatillustrated the power of strategic general operating funding from foundations and effec-tive coalition building among nonprofits.

General operating grants over the last decade gave nonprofits the autonomy to coor-dinate their efforts and build expertise. From “Banning the Juvenile Death Penalty” continued on page 12.

IN THIS EDITION

Banning the

Juvenile Death

Penalty

Success through

Funding of

Nonprofit

Advocacy and

Coalition Work

OPINION

The Duke’s

Demise

Philanthropic

Maneuvers

Don’t Excuse

Questionable

Defense Contracts

National

Heritage

Foundation:

Pushing Tax

Laws to the Limit

The Story of

Saipan

DeLay’s Petri Dish

and Another

Abramoff Gold

Mine

1

2

5

8

THE NCRP QUARTERLY / SUMMER 2005

BanningtheJuvenileDeathPenaltySuccess throughFunding ofNonprofitAdvocacy andCoalition Work

It’s time for the nonprofit sector to call a haltto the “charity defense” for admitted andprospective felons. You know—it’s when crooksfacing the scrutiny of a grand jury investigationor a federal congressional inquiry announce andpromote their philanthropy as evidence of goodcharacter, of repentance, sometimes even ofalmost innocence.

California’s Republican CongressmanRandall “Duke” Cunningham is the latest, andnot even the most egregious, player of this get-out-of-jail card in the game of deficient corpo-rate or political ethics. Unfortunately, America’scharities seem generally unwilling to question,much less spurn, such ethically questionablemoney. Nonprofits lining up to play the patsiesfor corporate and political crooks is unseemlyand pathetic, and it’s time they stop.

The case of Duke Cunningham has beenheadline news since it was revealed that heprofited from some beneficial real estate trans-actions by a defense contractor, MZM Inc. Thepresident of the firm, Mitchell Wade, purchasedCunningham’s Del Mar Heights house for$700,000 more than its estimated marketvalue—in other words, giving the congressmana virtual gift of $700,000 on top of the $975,000that the property attracted on resale, andallowed Cunningham to live, when inWashington, D.C., on Wade’s 42-foot yacht(named “Duke Stir”), berthed at the CapitalYacht Club, for a nominal rent of $500 a month.

In return for these perks, plus some generouscontributions to Cunningham’s political cam-paigns and his American Prosperity PAC, MZMappears to have benefited by its relationship withCunningham in his role as a member of theHouse Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.Thanks in part to its Pentagon contracts—itreceived $41 million worth of contracts in 2003and $65 million in 2004—MZM tripled its rev-enues in 2004, elevating the relatively youngdefense contractor to No. 100 on WashingtonTechnology magazine’s list of top federal contrac-tors. Cunningham wasn’t the only MZM benefac-tor in Congress; press reports link House memberVirgil Goode (R-Va.) in particular to sponsoring

legislation that ledto contracts forMZM. Cunning-ham’s willingnessto partake insweetheart realestate deals makeshim a candidatefor an ethics inves-tigation. Cun-ningham, sensinghe had been hit bythe fire fromenemy watchdogs,maneuvered a bitwith press releases

of moderate contrition and innocence, and final-ly announced that he would not run for re-elec-tion in 2006.

How does charity figure into the DukeCunningham story? Like so many before him,the congressman has announced his willingnessto donate part of his take—in this case, the pro-ceeds from the sale of his home—to charity.

Cunningham joins a long line of feloniousphilanthropists making tax-deductible donationsto charities as part of a strategy of touching up asullied public image or clearing one’s name.Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski used corporate fundsto make ostensibly personal charitable dona-tions to burnish his dubious reputation. Enron’sKen Lay emphasized his philanthropic and reli-gious persona while his firm made a mockery ofcorporate ethics and accountability. Nearlyeveryone’s favorite had to be fugitive felon MarcRich, who accumulated boatloads of famouspeople to testify to his philanthropic good heart-edness in order to justify his request for a pardonfrom President Bill Clinton.

Cunningham’s dip into charitable resumebuilding is of a much more pedestrian variety.He has pledged to donate the proceeds from thesale of his new $2.5 million home, which hepurchased soon after selling his home to MZM’sWade, to three local San Diego area charities:Saint Claire’s Home for Abused & BatteredWomen in Escondido, Bishop McKinney’s

2 Summer 2005 Responsive Philanthropy

Responsive PhilanthropyThe quarterly journal of the

National Committee forResponsive Philanthropy

2005, Issue No. 3

2001 S Street, NW, Ste. 620 Washington, DC 20009

Phone 202.387.9177Fax 202.332.5084

E-mail: [email protected]: www.ncrp.org

Yearly subscription: $25(free to members)

ISBN: 1065-0008

NCRP Staff

Rick CohenExecutive Director

Jeff KrehelyDeputy Director

Andrea M. DeArmentFinance Director

Naomi TacuyanCommunications Associate

Omolara FatiregunResearch Associate

Rusty InceDevelopment Associate

Yann DoignonCommunications Assistant

Marissa GuananjaResearch Assistant

Elly KuglerResearch Assistant

Betty FengResearch Assistant

Betsy WilliamsResearch Assistant

Adam ConnerDevelopment and

Communications Intern

© 2005 National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

O P I N I O N

The Duke’s DemisePhilanthropic Maneuvers Don’t Excuse Questionable Defense Contracts

By Rick Cohen

Rick Cohen.

Responsive Philanthropy Summer 2005 3

Cunningham

joins a long line

of felonious

philanthropists

making tax-

deductible

donations to

charities as part

of a strategy of

touching up a

sullied public

image or

clearing one’s

name.

Left: Cunningham’s Del MarHeights home, which hereportedly sold to defensecontractor MZM’s head, MitchellWade, for $1.675 million.Wadesold it for a paltry $975,000,effectively losing $700,000, butpurportedly gaining defensecontracts worth more than $100million for MZM from 2003 to2004. (photo: Dan Anderson)Center: Congressman Randy“Duke” Cunningham. Right:Cunningham’s new home inexclusive Rancho Santa Fe,bought after his Del Mar Heightshome was sold, cost him $2.5million, and was raided by the FBI early in July 2005, along withWade’s yacht in Washington,D.C., for evidence of dealings with defense contractor MZM.(photo: rawstory.com)

School for At Risk Children, and Father JoeCarroll’s homeless shelter network (Father Joe’sVillages). Carroll made the appropriate state-ment of gratitude, as quoted in the NorthCounty Times: “I’m not surprised he pickedthree of his favorite people. … He[Cunningham] was probably saying to thewhole community, ‘I wasn't in this for themoney. Whatever money is made on this housewill be donated to charity.’”

Even as an effort to make a down payment ona less corrupt image, Cunningham’s promiseddonations aren’t simply statements of concernfor battered women, at-risk children, and thehomeless, none having been major emphases ofCunningham’s nine-term congressional record.

While running a network of well-outfittedhomeless shelters primarily in the San Diegoarea, but branching out into other parts of thewest, Father Carroll (actually Monsignor Carroll)has a strong track record of endorsingRepublicans for political office—including acurrent Republican mayoral candidate, SteveFrancis, whose Internet ads flash alternating pic-tures of Francis and Carroll—and working withnational Republicans, including PresidentGeorge W. Bush, who rewarded Carroll’s VillageTraining Institute with a generous CompassionCapital Fund faith-based grant from theDepartment of Health and Human Services.

Carroll is also a stand-up guy for politiciansin political or legal trouble. In 2003, the SanDiego Union-Tribune detailed Carroll’s recenthistory of allegiance for local politicians danc-ing along the edge of the law—or falling overthe edge—including speaking in support of abusinessman serving as a port authority com-missioner who was convicted of felony misuse(conflict of interest) of his public office; support-ing and then hiring a city councilwoman con-victed of violating state political campaign laws;

and offering his St. Vincent’s shelter as a site fora former mayor’s community service after hisconviction for conspiracy and perjury. AsCarroll said about the port authority felon, “WillI stop taking his calls? No. Will I stop taking hismoney? No.”

A December 2004 press release promotinghis most recent book describes Bishop GeorgeDallas McKinney as “spiritual advisory to presi-dents, kings, and business leaders.” The founderof St. Stephen’s Church of God in Christ(COGIC), McKinney endorsed Bush for re-elec-tion, despite the denomination’s national oppo-sition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and his ownrole as a board member of the liberal faith-basedPacific Institute for Community Organization(PICO) network, based in part on their sharedopposition to women’s reproductive choice andthe rights of gays and lesbians to marry. One ofMcKinney’s more distinctive political commentswas to blame abortion for the problems of theSocial Security system: “Part of the problem thatwe’re seeing now with Social Security has to dowith the fact that 40 to 50 million people whohave been killed through abortions have nottaken their role (sic) as productive citizens.”

Cunningham’s connection to McKinney maybe in part connected to their less than salutary atti-tude toward gays and lesbians. McKinney couch-es his LGBT attitudes in a strict interpretation ofthe Bible, a strategy that the Bush administrationused in its re-election campaign to woo supportand endorsements from black church leaders.Unlike the bishop, Cunningham chose to expresshis homophobic attitudes a bit more crudely,describing his prostate cancer treatments as “justnot normal, unless you’re Barney Frank.” In hisresponse to Cunningham, who on the House floorhas referred to gays as “homos” and contendedthat gays in the military would “degrade nationalsecurity,” Frank merely said, “[Cunningham] does

not have a high reputation for the thoughtful, ana-lytical content of his remarks.”

The connections among these charities withsome of the political allies of CongressmanCunningham take an odd turn when one spotsMonsignor Carroll on the board of directors ofthe San Diego Padres Major League Baseballteam. Presumably, Carroll is aware of Padresowner John Moores’ $400,000 in contributions,tops among donors, to Ward Connerly’sAmerican Civil Rights Coalition 2003 campaign(Proposition 54) to ban the state of Californiafrom collecting racial data (Connerly’s organiza-tion had sponsored Proposition 209 some yearsbefore affirmative action programs were effec-tively ended in California).

The charity whitewash of Cunningham doesn’tend with the promise of donating the proceeds ofhis home sale to the charities of his political alliesCarroll and McKinney. The congressman, MZM,and Wade have another connection with ques-tionable dynamics. Defense contractor MZMcontributes to the Sure Foundation, overseen by aboard that includes Mitchell Wade as treasurerand his wife, Christiane, as “president emeritus”and a four-person advisory council, includingCunningham’s wife, Nancy, and daughter, April.

The mission of the Sure Foundation is a nicetouch for a charity supported by a military con-tractor. According to the foundation’s Web site,the mission originally focused on meeting “theurgent and wholistic (sic) needs of children whohave been victims of civil unrest, war or who areliving in a state of poverty, suffering, turmoil orinstability,” though in 2005 the foundation’s mis-sion reportedly expanded to helping children inpoverty. According to its 2003 990-PF, the SureFoundation apparently makes small grants of$3,000 to $30,000 to missionary-orientedhealth, school, and recreation programs inChina, Afghanistan, Serbia and Montenegro,Haiti, Guatemala, Kenya, and other nations.

While one might question a corporation’sdonations to a 501(c)(3) charity whose officersinclude the founder and owner of said corpora-tion and whose advisory board includes familymembers of a member of Congress who hasbenefited from the corporation’s political contri-butions, there’s nothing inherently wrong abouta foundation’s faith-based services to refugeechildren around the world. However,Cunningham’s congressional powers emerged tobenefit the Sure Foundation much like theyappear to have worked for MZM’s burgeoningPentagon contracting business. In 2004, theHouse Appropriations Committee’s District ofColumbia subcommittee authorized a $100,000

grant to the Sure Foundation, whose broadenedmission beyond refugee children enabled it toserve children in the nation’s capital.Cunningham’s specific connection? He wasvice-chair of the subcommittee at the time.

The federal grant to Wade’s philanthropic ven-ture almost equals the foundation’s reportedannual revenues in 2001, 2002, and 2003,according to Sure’s 990-PF filings, giving Wade acharitable foothold visible to his congressionaland Pentagon clients. Wade has made it clear hewants the Sure Foundation “to make inroads inthe District’s poverty-stricken communities” and,to do so, it recruited the ex-wife of former mayorMarion Barry at $10,000 a month to help thefoundation use its $100,000 federal grant toestablish an arts-enrichment program for childrenin elementary schools. Other than Cunningham’spotential influence, it is impossible to discernhow the foundation’s grants to overseas refugeeassistance projects qualify it for a federal grant forfederally funded arts-enrichment programs forkids in Washington, D.C.

At roughly the same time as the pressexposed his dealings with MZM, CongressmanCunningham was lauded as “an honorable man… a war hero … [and] the first Top Gun” by eth-ically challenged House Majority Leader TomDeLay (for whose legal defense fundCunningham had contributed $5,000 of his owncampaign funds) and succeeded in getting theHouse to pass a bill he sponsored givingCongress the power to ban the desecration ofthe American flag.

Samuel Johnson once defined patriotism as“the last refuge of scoundrels,” and AmbroseBierce corrected him that it was the first.Unfortunately, corporate and political rogues,including Marc Rich, Ken Lay, Dennis Kozlowski,and Jack Abramoff, have labored to make charity,like patriotism, yet another safe harbor forscoundrels. Like Father Carroll’s homeless shel-ters and Bishop McKinney’s schools, the nonprof-it sector needs charitable contributions—but notfrom felonious philanthropists, whose donationsreek of priorities little connected to the values ofthe nonprofit sector.

Rick Cohen is executive director of the NationalCommittee for Responsive Philanthropy(NCRP). Since 1976, NCRP has advocated forthe philanthropic community to provide non-profit organizations with essential resourcesand opportunities to work toward social andeconomic justice for disadvantaged and disen-franchised populations and communities.


Samuel Johnson

once defined

patriotism as “the

last refuge of

scoundrels,” and

Ambrose Bierce

corrected him

that it was

the first.

Unfortunately,

corporate and

political rogues,

including Marc

Rich, Ken

Lay, Dennis

Kozlowski, and

Jack Abramoff,

have labored to

make charity, like

patriotism, yet

another safe

harbor for

scoundrels.


A careful study of the National HeritageFoundation’s Web site at www.nhf.org should berequired of members of Congress and leaders ofthe nonprofit and philanthropic sectors who ques-tion the need for additional and tougher govern-ment oversight of nonprofit organizations andfoundations. After just a few clicks through thesite, it becomes clear how easy it is to use the non-profit sector for personal enrichment and benefitunder current laws and regulations.

Established in 1968 by John T. Houk, NationalHeritage Foundation (NHF) currently collects,invests, and manages millions of dollars for nearly9,000 individuals, ostensibly for charitable pur-poses. Claiming that private foundations are tooexpensive and onerous to establish and operate,Houk and his staff persuade people to make char-itable donations to NHF that are then invested forpresent-day or future “grantmaking” to a widerange of organizations and activities. The Web sitepoints out that because NHF is technically a pub-lic charity and not a private foundation, it does nothave to obey foundation self-dealing laws, allow-ing donors to, among other things, “Volunteer atlocal nonprofit organizations and be paid a tax-able income from the funds in your foundation.”

Similarly, in the testimonial section of the NHFWeb site, a financial planner states that “one planI use is to set up a foundation for my clients’ chil-dren. The client makes deductible contributions.Other relatives and friends may make contribu-tions also. The child may then, with the approvaland supervision of the NHF, do charitable work inthe college community. They will be paid taxableincome for approved work, with which they canpay their own college expenses.” In other words,citizens of this country are losing out on tax rev-enue so the child of someone who has retainedinvestment services can be paid to do volunteerwork while in college. Sign me up!

NHF’s corporate model also allows its investorsto avoid many government reporting requirementsthat foundations face (the theory behind such dis-closure requirements is that if individuals take ahuge tax break by setting up a foundation, they areobligated to let the public know what, exactly, isbeing done with the tax-exempt dollars). NHF is

proud that it helps people shirk these responsibil-ities, stating that “individuals and corporationsthat set up foundations at NHF are provided witha specific means to impact areas of charitableinterest, without the hassles of bookkeeping, fed-eral and state reporting, and other time consumingand expensive aspects of administration.”

The 1968 Tax Act—which created new rulesand regulations for private foundations—served asthe impetus for Houk to establish NHF. Despitestatistics that demonstrate the explosive growth ofprivate foundations from the 1970s through today,Houk claims that government oversight of privatefoundations “killed their growth” and has“shrunk” their economic impact. In 1975, therewere 22,000 foundations with assets of $30 bil-lion; in 2002, there were 65,000 with assets of$435 billion. In 2004 alone, the average founda-tion portfolio increased in value by 11.4 percent,nearly four times larger than that year’s inflationrate of about 3 percent. Perhaps Houk was taughtfoundation history by the same person who taughthim geography, considering his claim that “ourFoundations currently have projects in manycountries including Peru, India, Africa [sic] andTibet.”

Equally amusing is Houk’s breathtakinglysophisticated analysis that “we cannot solve theserious problems of society by depending on thegovernment.” In fact, one of the goals of NHF is“replacing tax dollars with charitable dollars, thuslessening the burdens of government” (emphasisNHF’s). Never mind that federal discretionaryspending was about $420 billion in 2003 and thatfoundations made just over $30 billion in grantsthat year. Houk doesn’t seem to have time or ener-gy to deal with such minor, pesky, and inconven-ient details.

The financial planners that bring in the organi-zation’s “charitable” investors presumably take abig cut of the investment returns, considering thatinvestors are charged only a $285 application feewhen they establish a foundation at NHF, and thatin 2003 NHF reported nearly $55 million in totalrevenue and $157 million in assets. Grants anddonations that year totaled about $15 million.

According to the testimonials section of NHF’s

National Heritage Foundation:Pushing Tax Laws to the LimitBy Jeff Krehely

The Web site

points out that

because NHF is

technically a

public charity

and not a

private

foundation, it

does not have

to obey

foundation self-

dealing laws,

allowing donors

to, among other

things,

“Volunteer at

local nonprofit

organizations

and be paid a

taxable income

from the funds

in your

foundation.”


Web site, financial planners are thrilled with theorganization’s services and the connections it helpsthem make and profit from. One person states thatby referring people to NHF, “I gave them the struc-ture to bring their dreams and passions to life intheir community and allowed them to soar asheroes in their community. NOW I HAVE A CAP-TIVE AUDIENCE TO TALK WITH THEM ABOUTTHEIR PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND ESTATEPLANNING” (enthusiastic emphasis is NHF’s).Another financial planner states that “recently on abusiness trip I met a man who mentioned a $5.5million dollar Federal Tax he and his wife would befacing soon. Because of the ideas I have beenexposed to with NHF over the last few years, I nowhave a new $11 Million dollar client [sic].”

The Houks also market their services to a ripe,growing, vulnerable market of new multimillion-aire athletes. A section of NHF’s Web site is enti-tled “An Athlete Needs a Foundation at theNational Heritage Foundation [referred to asFANHFs]! Desperately!” and explains that athletescould benefit from NHF’s services in a variety ofways. For example, the Web site mentions an ath-lete’s “image,” stating, “… doesn’t today’s athleteneed to pay attention to ‘image’. [sic] Too oftenthese days the good things done in the communi-ty go unnoticed, while ‘wife beating’, ‘drinking’,‘extra marital activity’, and the like make theheadlines. A foundation at the National HeritageFoundation can make certain that the right thingshit the headlines.”

Even after an athlete retires from the field,court, or diamond, NHF can still help: “The pro-fessional life of an athlete may be meteoric. But itis also woefully short. What will the athlete do inretirement—in the off season—why he or shewould work for the FANHF [sic]. He or she can

then really be the role model that Charles Barkleyeschews, speaking at Churches, Schools andCommunity and National Organizations, takinghis fee from his FANHF according to the hourlycompensation ok’d by NHF.”

But it’s not only professional athletes and finan-cial planners who benefit from NHF. The HoukFamily itself also does rather well. Houk familymembers in 2003 earned nearly $300,000 insalary and other benefits from NHF. Marian M.Houk also owns office space that NHF rents fromher for $1,000 per month. Another employee—who doesn’t seem to be related to the Houks—owns an accounting company that provides serv-ices to NHF for nearly $140,000 per year.

The 2003 grants list that NHF provided to theInternal Revenue Service (IRS) did not note a pur-pose for any of the grants, and many of the entriesare fascinating. In addition to thousands of dollarsgiven to individuals, the following donations weremade:

• T. Bergeron Construction in Minnesotareceived a $500 grant.

• Maryland Settlement Services received twogrants, one for $3,060 and another for $4,797.

• A payment of $956 was made to “MarylandChild Support Account.”

• GMAC Mortgage in North Carolina received a$1,297.18 grant.

• Cosmopolitan Real Estate Settlements (noaddress given) received a $6,500 grant.

• University Test Preparation Services, which ison the University of Pennsylvania’s campus,received four grants of $45 each.

• Pitt County Memorial Hospital in NorthCarolina received a grant for $1,475.01 (the listcontains many “grants” to hospitals and doc-tors’ offices for similar strange amounts).

• Washington Gas in Washington, D.C.,received a $695.38 grant.

• Sprint phone company in Florida received a$120 grant, while Sprint in California received$106.96.

• Nationwide Mutual Insurance in Pennsylvaniareceived three grants of $718.01, $720.58,and $715.43 (similar to “grants” to hospitalsand doctors’ offices, insurance companiesreceived many donations from NHF).

• PECO Energy in Pennsylvania was given a$923.35 grant.

• Comfort Suites, a hotel chain, received a $276grant (no address was disclosed).

• The Car Store in Minnesota received two grantsof $139.75 and $349.98.

• Bruns Motors in Maryland received a $1,375grant.

Despite the folksy, casuallanguage that dominates

NHF’s Web site, it’s a slickorganization that knows howto push nonprofit tax law to

the limit, while generatinghundreds of thousands of

dollars in profits for the Houkfamily and the cadre of

“investors” involved with theorganization.

• The Van Man in Maryland received an $808grant.

• BB&T Bankcard Corp. in North Carolinareceived a $1,260 grant, sent to the sameaddress (a P.O. box) listed on BB&T’s Web siteto which credit card holders are to send pay-ments.

• County Propane, LLC in Pennsylvania receiveda $499.89 grant.

NHF is no stranger to criticism or scrutiny.Several of its investment schemes were mentionedin J.J. McNabb’s testimony in 2004 before theSenate Finance Committee on nonprofit and foun-dation accountability. In 2000, columnist MollyIvins and the Wall Street Journal both wrote aboutone of NHF’s most duplicitous come-ons to poten-tial donors: getting a tax break for donating toNHF and setting up a “foundation,” then using thedonation to pay yourself to run the “foundation.”The Internal Revenue Service investigated Houk inthe past for a similar endeavor, which he was run-ning while working at Jerry Falwell’s LibertyUniversity (Falwell himself is another of the chari-table sector’s best and brightest). Houk and theorganization were charged with two counts of

mismanagement by the IRS , resulting in Houk’stermination. In 1987, however, a judge in the caseruled in Houk’s favor, and the charges weredropped. NHF was “reborn” (in his words) shortlyafter the ruling.

Despite the folksy, casual language that domi-nates NHF’s Web site, it’s a slick organization thatknows how to push nonprofit tax law to the limit,while generating hundreds of thousands of dollarsin profits for the Houk family and the cadre of“investors” involved with the organization.Because the organization is offering substantial taxbreaks to its donors and investors for its “charita-ble” work, all of society is footing the bill for thisbarefaced profiteering. What’s worse, NHF isthriving right under the nose of the IRS and stateregulatory agencies, trumpeting its ability to takeadvantage of loopholes in the tax code—all in thename of charity and doing good. If this organiza-tion’s activities are still legal or being ignored bygovernment agencies at the end of the SenateFinance Committee’s current efforts to reform non-profit and philanthropic accountability, then theentire process will all be for naught.

Jeff Krehely is deputy director of NCRP.


TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Please email [email protected] for any questions, concerns or feedback about www.ncrp.org.

www.ncrp.orgAs you may have already noticed, NCRP recently expanded its Web site and significantly improved access to itscurrent and previous philanthropic research, the latest legislative developments, and NCRP news and updates.

A NEW LOOK THAT’S AS SHARP AS OUR COMMENTARY

PUBLICATIONSwww.ncrp.org/publications/index.asp

All NCRP publications have now beenreorganized under recognizable themesand issue areas, including but not limitedto: conservative philanthropy, core operat-ing support, local research, and social jus-tice philanthropy. Also our secure Verisign-powered store catalogue makes orderingpublications easy and worry free.

RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPYwww.ncrp.org/rparticles.aspSelected RP articles are now available onncrp.org. The articles cover topics such as philan-thropy in the wake of 9/11, corporate philanthrop-ic abuse, political misuse of philanthropy, affirma-tive action, and GLBT advocacy.

BILLS ON THE HILLwww.ncrp.org/legislation.aspAn overview of current legislation in the 109th Congress that have the potential toaffect philanthropy and charitable giving. This comprehensive matrix includesNCRP’s analysis of these bills.

NCRP’s ongoing investigations into the char-itable activities of powerful Beltway figureheadssuch as Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Jack Abramoffhave never ceased to uncover more and morequestionable financial dealings. The SenateFinance Committee investigation on uberlobby-ist Jack Abramoff and his Capital AthleticFoundation this past spring, the Indian AffairsCommittee hearing earlier this summer on hisIndian lobbying activities, and an ongoingHouse Ethics Committee investigation intoHouse Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s relationshipwith Abramoff all bring into renewed focus aJustice Department investigation into the sweat-shops of the Northern Marianas Islands andAbramoff’s role in preserving the substandardlabor conditions of the garment industry there.Covered before in NCRP articles on Abramoff1

and Nike’s sweatshops,2 the Marianas representsyet another strand in Abramoff’s unethical weav-ing of politics, business, and charity.

“Made in the U.S.A.” labels are not supposedto conjure up images of migrant laborers work-ing 90-hour weeks, living in subpar conditions,and making $3.05 an hour. This was exactly thesituation on an island that House MajorityLeader Tom DeLay once laughingly referred toas his “perfect petri dish of capitalism.” How didhorrid labor conditions like these—in a U.S.protectorate nonetheless—flourish well into the1990s, and what did Jack Abramoff have to dowith it?

Saipan, the island capital of the U.S.Commonwealth of the Northern MarianasIslands (CNMI) in the western Pacific, and itssweatshops, were indeed the perfect petri dishin paradise. Under their 1986 charter, the CNMImandates its own immigration and labor regula-tions. As a result, the CNMI had a workforce thatwas 91 percent migrant workers from China, thePhilippines, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh and vir-tually no federally mandated regulations.3 Overthe decades, corporations like Wal-Mart, Gap,Ralph Lauren, Levi Strauss, Tommy Hilfiger,Calvin Klein, and Liz Claiborne have all benefit-ed handsomely from the lax regulations onlabor, since clothing, technically made in theU.S.A. except without the overhead of decentand humane labor conditions, can travel tarifffree to the mainland. The abuses weren’t limitedto the garment industry. Construction andtourism workers were also mistreated andunderpaid. Even worse, female workers alreadyexploited with long workdays were allegedlyfunneled into a thriving sex trade.4

The CNMI first hired Abramoff in 1994 whenthe threat of federal regulations from the Clintonadministration caused Marianas Gov. FroilanTenorio (D) to turn to Abramoff. Abramoff hadboasted of close ties with DeLay and currentEthics Committee Chair Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), who chaired the House Subcommitteeon Native American and Insular Affairs. An auditin 2001 revealed that the CNMI and various gar-ment industry affiliated organizations (namelythe Western Pacific Economic Council and theSaipan Garment Manufacturers Association) hadpaid a total of $9.5 million to Abramoff and his


The Story of SaipanDeLay’s Petri Dish and Another Abramoff Gold Mine

By Naomi T. Tacuyan

A protester burns a GAP shirtin front of a GAP store on

November 28, 1999, indowntown Seattle to protest

alleged sweatshop conditionsand low wages on the island ofSaipan. Protesters from Global

Exchange and other anti-WorldTrade Organization activists

rallied in the downtownshopping area. (Photo: John G.Mabanglo/AFP/Getty Images)

lobbying partners and firms—including $6.7million to Preston Gates & Ellis, and $500,000to Greenberg Traurig in 2001, after Abramoffhad joined the firm. A $1.2 million contract wasawarded to David Lapin—brother of DanielLapin, co-founder and current Toward Traditionpresident who introduced DeLay and Abramoffto each other—to teach a nine-day course on“ethics in government.” Both Lapin brothershave guest appearances in the Indian Affairsinvestigation into Abramoff and his lobbyingdeals. The audit found no evidence of servicesperformed by Lapin. The audit also revealed thatthe CNMI overpaid for eight years of Abramofflobbying contracts. Some payments did not evenhave a contract attached. The audit found it “dif-ficult to justify [his] hiring based on his work.”

Both lobbying firms now linked toAbramoff—Preston Gates, and GreenbergTraurig—had the CNMI on the books as a “goldmine account.” In December 1997, Abramoffpaid for DeLay, his wife and daughter, and 14staffers (including Abramoff sidekick, formerDeLay spokesman, and Preston Gates associateMike Scanlon) to visit Saipan. (Airfare was atleast $75,000; he billed the CNMI for the timespent arranging the trip.) At a banquet speech inhonor of venture capitalist Willie Tan (aRepublican National Committee bankroller whohad allegedly volunteered to bankroll a publicrelations counteroffensive against the mediaoutrage about the sweatshops), DeLay praisedthe CNMI for its free markets and promised todefend it. At the very same speech in which heclaims Abramoff as one of his “closest and dear-est friends,” he also praised Saipan for wantingto be “self-sustaining and self-sufficient.” Notsurprisingly, DeLay’s celebrity visit was not a rar-ity for such a remote island location. Over theyears, Saipan has footed the bill for 85 con-gressmen, their spouses, and aides to travel tothe island.

This neat little corporate utopia had not goneunchecked. The conditions were brought to lightby Reagan administration officials, and under-scored by an official of the first Bush adminis-tration in a congressional hearing in 1992.5 ANative American and Insular Affairs Committeehearing in 1996 bore no results after then-Chairman Hastings declared the CNMI an "eco-nomic success story," and called Clinton admin-istration interference a threat to workers’ jobsand livelihood. He “urged Congress to continuea hands-off approach, in part by rejecting impo-sition of a minimum wage.”6 Afterward,Hastings received almost $10,000 from PrestonGates and Greenberg Traurig employees. While

the amount is considered inconsequential, it isstill important to note that Abramoff personallycontributed $1,000 to Hastings’ campaign chestbetween September 1996 and November 1997.

In June 1997, then Majority Whip DeLay andMajority Leader Dick Armey wrote a letter to theMarianas government promising to block anylegislation attempting to regulate the garmentindustry. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)—then-chairman of the House Resources Committee—toured Saipan, met secretly with the island’smigrant workforce, and in 1997 and 1998 sub-mitted reports7 to the House and requested ahearing on his findings, but was rejected by Rep.Don Young, an Alaska Republican. “The whip[DeLay] has said he’s not going to let that hap-pen,” Young told Miller.8 In 1997, Miller alsointroduced a bill that would extend federal laborand immigration regulations to the CNMI. Onlythe immigration legislation was passed in2000.9 Subsequently, former Sen. FrankMurkowski—current governor of Alaska, whoisn’t exactly labor-friendly (he flunked every lib-eral and labor organization’s score card andaced conservative organizations’ score cardswhen he was in office)—was outraged afterhearing testimony about the sweatshops onSaipan. In early 2000, Murkowski introduced areform bill to extend federal labor regulations tothe CNMI. It passed the Senate unanimously.The bill never got past the House, thanks toAbramoff’s work, DeLay’s influence, andHastings’ committee chairmanship.

In December 1999, Scanlon, along withanother former DeLay aide, Edwin Buckham,visited the CNMI to influence two legislators’votes for the territory’s House of Representativesspeaker. The result of their success? Newly elect-ed Speaker Ben Fitial pushed through a renewed$100,000 per month Abramoff contract, and thelegislators—Alejo Mendiola and NormanPalacios—who had switched sides found them-selves the winners of federal budget appropria-tions, “apparently supported by DeLay.”10

Another Abramoff venture almost made its wayonto Saipan in the form of SunCruz Casinos, aFlorida-based fleet of floating casinos belonging toGus Boulis, a Greek entrepreneur. Federal investi-gators had found Boulis in violation of theShipping Act (he had purchased vessels withoutbeing a U.S. citizen). Boulis had to sell SunCruzand turned to his law firm—Preston Gates Ellis &Rouvelas Meeds LLP—to help him find buyers.Abramoff stepped up with a name—Adam Kidan,a former Georgetown Law classmate and NewYork businessman with alleged family mafia ties.Unbeknownst to Preston Gates, Abramoff had


“Made in the

U.S.A.” labels are

not supposed to

conjure up

images of

migrant laborers

working 90-hour

weeks, living in

subpar

conditions, and

making $3.05 an

hour.This was

exactly the

situation on an

island that

House Majority

Leader Tom

DeLay once

laughingly

referred to as his

“perfect petri

dish of

capitalism.”

joined Kidan in a 50-50 partnership of theSunCruz venture. Kidan would put up the money,and Abramoff, according to his lawyers, “woulduse his lobbying expertise and network to helpexpand the new company's markets both in theU.S. and abroad.” Lo and behold, part ofAbramoff’s plans as new CEO to step up SunCruz’soperations was to place a casino in Saipan’s port.Preston Gates learned of the potential conflict ofinterest and informed Boulis, who knew of italready and did not seem to mind. As revealed ina May 2005 Washington Post story, when negoti-ations went awry and Boulis demanded more,Scanlon turned to Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), whoofficially denounced Boulis and his business prac-tices in the Congressional Record. With $60 mil-lion in financing secured, the Boulis-PrestonGates-Abramoff-Kidan deal went through smooth-ly on official paper, but under the surface weretwo promissory notes in lieu of actual payments toBoulis. Sparks flew as Kidan revamped SunCruzand fired Boulis-loyal employees. Abramoff andKidan paid themselves hefty $500,000 salaries.Boulis clamored for his payments, physicallybrawling with Kidan in a meeting, and in February2001 was killed. Four years later, his murder is yetto be solved. Kidan’s mismanagement threwSunCruz into a bankruptcy auction. Saipan’s portnever saw a floating casino. By 2001, Abramoffhad moved on to Greenberg Traurig. By 2002,Abramoff’s schemes were focused on lobbyingmoney from Indian tribes, what is revealed now asa whopping $82 million. Abramoff, Kidan, andthe SunCruz venture underwent a federal bankfraud investigation.

Abramoff lost his Marianas gold mine in2002 when Juan Babauta won the gubernatorialelections, beating out, among others, Ben Fitial,to whom Abramoff donated $5,000. Fitial, stillspeaker, laments the loss of Abramoff’s assis-tance, and asserts, “Tom DeLay, he’s the onewho can help us.”

The pro-garment factory CNMI leaders andelected officials, with only corporate interests inmind, still hail Abramoff as being their defenderof freedom. The Saipan Tribune—the CNMI’sonly newspaper, which is owned by the propri-etor of the largest garment company in theCNMI—hailed Abramoff as their “freedom fight-er” in Congress.

“It is probably no exaggeration to suggestthat Jack Abramoff is a kind of hero to theindigenous people of the CNMI. Through hiswork at Preston Gates, our commissionedadvocate, he has kept our islands free. Hehas upheld the principles of liberty, autono-my, and maximum local self-government inthe Northern Marianas. He has protected usfrom unwarranted federal encroachmentsupon our relatively free markets.”

“But Mr. Abramoff is not a mere lobbyist.He is a dedicated champion of free marketsand individual liberty. He is ideologicallycommitted to supporting organizations thatactively support and promote ideas on liber-ty—organizations such as the Cato Instituteand Citizens Against Government Waste.”

”Mr. Abramoff, in a very real sense, is anardent champion of the little guy—of themuch maligned Northern Marianas as wellas the Choctaw Indian tribe of Mississippi.He does us a valuable service, demonstrat-ing once again that the true champions ofthe little guy cannot be found in the USDemocratic Party, which promotes a victimmentality that expects solutions from theFederal Government. On the contrary, menlike Abramoff support our own self-reliance.”

Even now, Governor Babauta (a Democrat inname only, it seems) refers to any U.S. attempt atregulation as a pseudo-dictatorial “federaltakeover” that keeps investors away.

In 2002, Rep. Miller lamented, “Sadly, theCongress has refused year after year to respondto the disgraceful conditions in the Marianas,not only in the garment industry but in the con-struction and hotel industry as well. All of ourefforts to correct these abuses have met withstonewalled indifference from the leadership of


An audit in 2001

revealed that the

CNMI and

various garment

industry affiliated

organizations

(namely the

Western Pacific

Economic Council

and the Saipan

Garment

Manufacturers

Association) had

paid a total of

$9.5 million to

Abramoff and his

lobbying partners

and firms.

Congress.”11 This year, Rep. Miller reiterates hisconcern for the Pacific Islands by calling for aHouse Resources Committee investigation intoAbramoff’s CNMI activities.12

Good investigative work on potential politi-cal and philanthropic misdeeds starts with theedict “follow the money,” but it is not so simplewhen it comes to chronicling Abramoff’s com-plex and arcane corporate, political, and phil-anthropic dealings. Abramoff’s initial nonprofitventure was the International FreedomFoundation, which he helped found in 1985 andwas receiving $1.2 million a year from SouthAfrica’s apertheid regime. It was disbanded in1992. The Marianas labor fight occurred side byside with Abramoff’s questionable financialtransactions with the National Council forPublic Policy Research (NCPPR) and his veryown Capital Athletic Foundation (CAF). Forexample, as revealed in June’s Indian Affairshearing, Abramoff, as a board member of theNCPPR, instructed Amy Ridenour, the center’spresident, to pay out $1 million in Choctaw con-tributions. Some $450,000 was to go to the CAF,and $500,000 was to go to the CapitolCampaign Strategies, a Mike Scanlon-foundedpolitical consulting firm.13 Abramoff appears tohave drawn just about no lines between busi-ness and charity, often soliciting consultingassociates for charitable donations, and usingtheir names to legitimize his 990 filings.According to Guidestar.org, three of four CAFboard members worked under Abramoff atGreenberg Taurig. It seems that one of them,Todd Boulanger, was not even aware of thefoundation’s existence.14 In early August of thisyear, Abramoff and Kidan were indicted by afederal grand jury in Florida on SunCruz-relatedfraud and conspiracy charges. Abramoff surren-dered to FBI agents in Los Angeles the sameday.15

DeLay continues to defend his opposition ofCNMI labor reform. In May of this year, a DeLayspokesman said that the legislation “would havestrangled the Marianas’ burgeoning economy,”and praised the CNMI’s commitment "to imple-ment free-market reforms that would dramati-cally increase employment opportunities andliving standards."

For a majority leader whose party touts“moral values” and the high ground, it is sad tobe caught, yet again, flaunting a lack of value orrespect for human decency. Abramoff, with thepowerful assistance of the likes of Tom DeLay,Doc Hastings, and Bob Ney, had for almost adecade enabled the CNMI to circumvent feder-al labor laws, turned a blind eye to sex traffick-

ing, and funneled money to his pockets usinghis charity CAF and shaky business ventures likeSunCruz Casinos. The only real value evident isthe value of the dollar—certainly not one wecan attribute as being “moral.”

Notes1. “Abramoff: Well-Connected to the Well-Heeled of the

Right.” Rick Cohen. Responsive Philanthropy, Fall 2004. 2. “Swoosh Philanthropy Redux.” Rick Cohen. Responsive

Philanthropy, Winter 2003/2004.3. CNN.com. “The real scandal of Tom DeLay.” May 9, 2005.

Mark Shields.4. “Is this the USA?” 20/20 ABC News. 3/13/98.5. h t tp : / /www.sp inwatch .o rg /modules .php?name=

News&file=article&sid=9546. Los Angeles Times.7. “Economic Miracle or Mirage: The Human Cost of

Development in the Commonwealth of the NorthernMarianas Islands.” Committee on Resources, DemocraticStaff. U.S. House of Representatives. 4/27/97; “Beneath theAmerican Flag: Labor and Human Rights Abuses in theCNMI.” Rep. George Miller and the Committee onResources, Democratic Staff. U.S. House ofRepresentatives. 3/26/98.

8. The Hammer: Tom DeLay: God, Money, and the Rise of theRepublican Congress. Lou Dubose and Jan Reid. Copyright©2004.

9. http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/cnmiletter.pdf10. Los Angeles Times, May 2005.11. h t t p : / / w w w. i b e w. o r g / s t o r i e s / 0 2 j o u r n a l / 0 2 0 7 /

p16_p3.htm12. http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/cnmiletter.pdf13. Wall Street Journal.14. "Lineup of Lobbyists on 'Team Abramoff.'" Influence

(www.influence.biz). 7/6/2005.15. CNN.com. “Lobbyist Abramoff indicted on fraud charges"

August 11, 2005. Rich Phillips, Kevin Bohn, Dree de Clamecy.

Naomi T. Tacuyan is communications associateof NCRP. Naomi hails from the island of Guam,the westernmost territory of the United Statesand the southernmost island of the MarianasIsland chain.


We are proud to release Social Justice Philanthropy: The LatestTrend or a Lasting Lens for Grantmaking? The new reportdefines and discusses the concept of social justice philanthro-

py, provides an assessment of its future in philanthropy, and explores how grant-makers define and apply the concept of social justice to their work.

The report’s findings indicate that social justice philanthropy is fraught with manydefinitional variations, as well as disagreements on how to apply social justice con-cepts to grantmaking. While many agree that social justice philanthropy is somehowconcerned with a more equitable redistribution of economic, political, and socialpower, there is little consensus on what a more just society would look like, or if phi-lanthropy is capable of fostering these changes.

To obtain more information, make a membership contribution, or order a PDFor printed copy using a credit card (Visa or Mastercard), please visit NCRP atwww.ncrp.org or call 202-387-9177. Social Justice Philanthropy costs $20 percopy ($10 for NCRP members).

Available Now Social Justice Philanthropy:The Latest Trend or a Lasting Lens for Grantmaking?


2002 to 2005, a collaboration of foundationsand nonprofits planned a comprehensive cam-paign for the eventual Supreme Court show-down.

Four foundations, among others, led the way.During the preliminary stage, the John D. andKatherine T. MacArthur Foundation and theOpen Society Institute (OSI) supported generalresearch and justice reform. Then, the JEHTFoundation and Atlantic Philanthropies joinedOSI for the Simmons v. Roper coalition in 2004.This combination of sustained support for a tar-geted campaign would make victory possible.

OpportunityThe 2002 case of Atkins v. Virginia, in which theSupreme Court banned the execution of thementally retarded, jumpstarted the campaign toabolish the juvenile death penalty. The courtdetermined that executing people who were notfully culpable for their actions was cruel andunusual, by America’s “evolving standards ofdecency.” The justices relied on state laws todetermine a national consensus, noting that amajority of states either prohibited the executionof the mentally retarded or had eliminated thedeath penalty entirely, and determined “thatdeath is not a suitable punishment for a mental-ly retarded criminal.” Atkins provided the legallogic to use for another legal battle.

A coalition began to organize against thejuvenile death penalty in 2002 and would even-tually include the American Bar Association(ABA), Juvenile Justice Center, NationalCoalition to Abolish the Death Penalty(NCADP), Justice Project, Death PenaltyInformation Center, American Civil LibertiesUnion (ACLU), Physicians for Human Rights,National Juvenile Defender’s Center, andAmnesty International.

In organizational meetings following theAtkins decision, the coalition began to lay out acomprehensive strategy that focused on over-turning the death penalty in the states, whichwould then provide the legal ammunition toattack the juvenile death penalty at the SupremeCourt using the “evolving standards of decency”argument. “We knew, from a footnote in theAtkins opinion, that the Supreme Court countsstates, so we wanted to give them states,” saysDavid Elliot, the communications director for

NCADP. By 2002, 29 states had banned thejuvenile death penalty, compared with the 30that had outlawed the execution of the mentallyretarded before Atkins. Another key to winningthe case would lie in convincing at least one oftwo swing votes on the court—the two moderateconservative justices, Sandra Day O’Connor andAnthony Kennedy. O’Connor “was particularlyinterested in state activity, and the consensuswas that the time was right to push for change,”says Adam Ortiz, a former Soros Criminal Justicefellow with the ABA’s Juvenile Justice Center.

In order to win, the campaign had to take fulladvantage of each group’s strengths. Patti Puritzof the ABA’s Juvenile Justice Center took on therole of coordinator, playing “a critical role inconvening all of the groups and in fostering col-laboration,” according to Steven Hawkins of theJEHT Foundation.

The campaign would consist of three primaryparts: message, grassroots organizing, and legalstrategy. The Justice Project handled the mediawork; grassroots organizing in the states wassplit between NCADP, the Juvenile JusticeCenter, and Amnesty International. The JuvenileJustice Center also coordinated the legal strate-gy, coalition partners, and amicus briefs, inpreparation for any case the Supreme Courtwould accept.

The Death Penalty Information Center andother organizations provided their assistancewhile continuing their public education andinformation campaigns against capital punish-ment and lobbying for the passage of theInnocence Protection Act in Congress.

Early FundingThis coalition operated to an extent rarely seenin the philanthropic community. Cooperation isoften a stumbling point for nonprofit groupsaccustomed to competing for the same pot ofmoney, but shared goals, good organization,and previous collaboration on the Atkins case—all coupled with foundation support—helpedthings run smoothly and allowed the coalition topursue its goals.

Many of the groups received general operat-ing support or broad project grants for justiceadvocacy from OSI. Flexible funding givesgroups the freedom to organize themselves andkeeps organizations ready to respond to situa-

Foundation Cooperation Was Key to Successful Advovacy Campaign“Ending the Juvenile Death Penalty” continued from page 1

tions not apparent when the grants were made.Explains Jacqueline Baillargeon of OSI on fund-ing strategy, “Two years earlier, when you’remaking that grant, it’s not clear the court willtake up the [juvenile death penalty] case.”

Other early funding united groups from dif-ferent disciplines. The MacArthur Foundationhad already been funding efforts against harshyouth crime laws in 1996, bankrolling pro-grams like Northwestern University’s Childrenand Family Justice Center and the ChildWelfare League’s Juvenile Justice Division.These associations studied how teenageminds work and what that means for the jus-tice system. In 2001, the MacArthurFoundation created the Research Network onAdolescent Development and Juvenile Justice,centered at Temple University, which juxta-posed the scientific research with the legalissues. Since 2000, the foundation has spentover $23 million advancing juvenile justicereform, creating useful partnerships acrossdisciplines.

Smaller funders also teamed up; the ArcaFoundation and the Butler Family Fund some-times combined resources through the TidesFoundation’s Death Penalty Mobilization Fund.Foundations large and small helped build thecapacity and expertise of groups central to thejuvenile death penalty struggle.

MessageA resonant message was needed, one with thegoal of reframing the debate and moving thefocus from capital punishment to children. Themessage gurus refined the emotional sentimentsalong with the new scientific research to comeup with the direct and pointed message “Kidsare different.”

Integrated in their powerful argument wasnew scientific research, including theMacArthur Research Networks’ banner study“Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence,” byLaurence Steinberg and Elizabeth Scott, thatshowed adolescents’ brains work differentlyfrom adults’ brains. This brought a new fact-based approach to a traditionally emotionalargument.

A resource kit containing scientific researchand organizations’ testimonials and briefs wascompiled. Entitled “Kids are Different: EvolvingStandards of Decency and the Juvenile DeathPenalty,” the kit was then distributed across thecountry.

A message alone is not enough to shift pub-lic, legislative, or Supreme Court opinion. Thecrux of the “evolving standards of decency”

legal strategy depended on successful lobbyingof the state legislatures by the grassroots organi-zations.

NCADP and the Juvenile Justice Center, withAmnesty International, split up the states andbegan their work with statewide lobbying and agrassroots campaign that included print andradio advertising. Their first success came inWyoming when the Legislature agreed to con-sider the measure. To the surprise of many, thebill encountered little opposition and waspassed overwhelmingly. On March 3, 2004,Governor Dave Freudenthal signed it, makingWyoming the 30th state in America to ban thejuvenile death penalty.

On the same day, Wyoming’s neighborSouth Dakota became the 31st state to ban theexecution of minors. The bill, signed byGovernor Mike Rounds, brought to a close ahard-fought campaign that had culminated inan exceedingly close vote in the South DakotaState House, where the measure passed byonly two votes.

David Elliot of NCADP recalls the pivotal rolethat young organizers played: “We organizedstudents on college campuses. … We taughtthem to lobby their state legislators. … The stu-dents flipped two legislators. So the studentsgave us the victory in South Dakota.”

Roper v. Simmons ArisesThe long-expected case that would adapt theAtkins argument for juveniles surfaced in 2003.From Missouri’s death row, ChristopherSimmons asked the state Supreme Court toreconsider his sentence in light of Atkins. In1993, 17-year-old Simmons and a youngerfriend had bound and drowned a woman fromtheir hometown in a confused robbery attempt.Without the aid of a lawyer or even his parents,Simmons waived his Miranda rights, made aconfession after about two hours of interroga-tion, and reenacted the crime on videotape. Hepled not guilty at trial, but his earlier admissionsensured prosecutors a conviction and death sen-tence.

The Missouri Supreme Court declared itunconstitutional to execute a juvenile offenderlike Simmons, audaciously applying Atkins logicin an unusual challenge to the U.S. SupremeCourt. This bold argument, combined with fourjustices’ existing wishes to address the juveniledeath penalty, convinced the high court toaccept the case in January 2004. Simmons’ storywas hardly the most sympathetic, but this wouldbe the case to settle the issue of the juveniledeath penalty.


The Simmons

decision was the

culmination of a

campaign begun

years before that

illustrated the

power of strategic

general operating

funding from

foundations and

effective coalition

building among

nonprofits.

Organizing Around SimmonsOnce the Supreme Court agreed to hear thecase, opponents of the juvenile death penaltyknew they needed coordination and funding.Early in 2004, nonprofit leaders invited repre-sentatives from OSI, the JEHT Foundation, andAtlantic Philanthropies to their planning meet-ing. The advocates then established who wasresponsible for each area of the campaign. Thenand there, they submitted the proposal; thefoundations studied it, figured out “which piecesof it made the most sense,” according toBaillargeon, and agreed to fund the effort.

During the almost yearlong “Campaign toEnd Juvenile Executions,” the three foundationsgranted the coalition a total of $1.55 million.Meanwhile, the foundations continued support-ing related issues, spending $4.4 million on cap-ital punishment advocacy during 2004.

From the beginning, the coalition was unitedby past work and common purpose. OSI hadfunded some groups before, and many advo-cates were veterans of the Atkins campaign.Steven Hawkins’ experience on both sides of thecheckbook, as a senior program manager at theJEHT Foundation and former executive directorof the NCADP, helped strengthen the coalition.

Taking It to the CourtWhile the advocates had strengthened thenationwide consensus against executing juve-nile offenders, the legal team had to convincethe U.S. Supreme Court of these results. PattiPuritz of the Juvenile Justice Center recruited abroad, impressive array of organizations to sub-mit amicus briefs.

The effort yielded 16 separate amicus briefs,signed by 17 Nobel Peace Prize laureates; pro-fessional organizations, including the AmericanMedical Association and American BarAssociation; and other respected experts. Theseamici promoted three core arguments. First, amedical argument asserted that children are dif-ferent: As the MacArthur Research Networkshowed, their brains are not fully developed forplanning and self-control, making youths lessculpable for their crimes, less competent tostand trial, and less deterred by the existence ofa death penalty. Second, international law andhuman rights standards prohibit the execution ofjuvenile offenders. Third, many Americansoppose the policy, as shown by widespread reli-gious opposition to the death penalty, manylaws that specially protect those under age 18,and juries’ reluctance to actually impose thedeath penalty on young offenders. This nation-wide consensus against the juvenile death

penalty was most clearly demonstrated by thelong and growing list of states that banned thejuvenile death penalty.

The Supreme Court heard the Simmons casein October 2004, and on March 1, 2005, abol-ished the juvenile death penalty. RebeccaRittgers of Atlantic Philanthropies recalled thatthe advocates “[kept] messages consistent, sim-ple, and to the point,” and these very argumentsbecame the basis of the majority opinion. Thedecision, written by swing voter Justice Kennedyand joined by the four previously supportive jus-tices, drew on the three points presented in theamicus briefs.

Based on the successful advocacy work bycoalition members in South Dakota, Wyoming,and elsewhere, governors, state legislatures,judges, and juries had demonstrated their bur-geoning reluctance to allow juvenile execu-tions; to the U.S. Supreme Court, this showed aconsensus that the juvenile death penalty wasunacceptable. Further, based on scientific evi-dence, the court considered execution dispro-portionate to juveniles’ level of responsibilityand thus a cruel and unusual punishment: “Thedifferences between juvenile and adult offend-ers are too marked and well understood to riskallowing a youthful person to receive the deathpenalty despite insufficient culpability.” Thedecision acknowledged international law andhuman rights arguments as “respected and sig-nificant confirmation for our own conclusions,”without considering them binding.

With the Roper v. Simmons decision, theSupreme Court ended America’s shameful dis-tinction of being the last country in the world toofficially permit the juvenile death penalty.About 70 juvenile offenders across the countrywere spared from death sentences.

Ultimately, this victory helps change howAmericans think about the death penalty. AsRichard Dieter of the Death Penalty InformationCenter puts it, “[Juries] are returning more lifesentences: less death sentences and more lifesentences.”

The coalition struck a remarkable balance,running a disciplined campaign with a consis-tent message and strategy, without any oneorganization or funder taking too much control.Coalitions must be orderly enough to meritfunding. In a public policy roundtable, NCRPfounder Pablo Eisenberg explained,“Foundations hesitate to fund coalitions becausethey can’t control the outcome. … Yet increas-ingly on public policy issues [coalitions] areproving to be essential.”1


Funders and

coalitions can

take away two

central lessons.

First, years of

general

operating

support and

grants for

previous

projects

positioned

these groups to

be effective.

Consistent

funding can

establish the

capacity and

expertise for

important

projects later

on and gives

groups the

leeway to

create the

coalitions they

consider

productive.

1234Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate.Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join.Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew.

This coalition demonstrated its organizationby involving foundations throughout its earlyplanning. “Good, coordinated campaigns thathave clear lines of authority and responsibilityand clear targets and objectives can pay off,”offers Hawkins. “The groups, I think, did a verygood job keeping funders in the loop,” and thethree foundations rewarded the groups withcontinuing commitment.

Lasting Impacts and LessonsThe anti-juvenile death penalty campaign wouldultimately succeed due to the coordination andcommitment of the member groups, as well asfoundations’ trust and flexibility. Baillargeon ofOSI declares, “This is a very good example ofhow, on the ground, the advocates and funderscame together in a way that leveraged every-one’s resources.”

The victory was a testament to the benefits offunder-advocate coalitions, and foundations thatfund future public policy coalitions. Funders andcoalitions can take away two central lessons.First, years of general operating support andgrants for previous projects positioned thesegroups to be effective. Consistent funding canestablish the capacity and expertise for importantprojects later on and gives groups the leeway tocreate the coalitions they consider productive.

Second, certain funding arrangements mayhelp unite a coalition. Close collaboration on

strategy and budgeting, initiated by the advo-cates or funders, builds trust. Coordinated,responsive funding reduces competitionbetween grantees and increases their capacity,effectiveness, and, ultimately, their chances forsuccess.

Often in social justice advocacy the distancein reaching long-term objectives can seem over-whelming, making it difficult to keep advocatesmotivated and foundations committed to fund-ing. As John Terzano notes, “You need the dedi-cation and commitment for the long haul.Anyone who wants to engage in social justicechange has to take the long view.”

Notes1. Georgetown Public Policy Institute, The Cost of

Caution: Advocacy, Public Policy, and America’sFoundations (April 21, 2005, National Press Club,Washington, D.C.).

Adam Conner and Betsy Williams have joinedNCRP this summer to assist with develop-ment, communications, and research. Conner,a senior at George Washington Universitymajoring in political communication, hailsfrom Los Alamos, New Mexico. Williams, ofSan Jose, California, will be a senior at YaleUniversity, studying civil society and urbangovernance within the major of ethics, politicsand economics.


Four issues of NCRP'squarterly, ResponsivePhilanthropy. Find phil-anthropic news and per-spectives you won't getanywhere else. We digdeeper into storiesglossed over in the main-stream and say the thingsthat no one else will say.

Publication discounts.Members receive a 50%discount off NCRP'sgroundbreaking reports,including Funding theCulture Wars:Philanthropy, Church andState(2005); Axis ofIdeology: ConservativeFoundations and PublicPolicy (2004), State ofPhilanthropy 2004.

E-mail updates andaction alerts. Receiveour bi-monthly “NCRP inthe News” email, whichcontains timely NCRPstatements and commen-tary on philanthropicissues, as well as mediacoverage of NCRP thatyou may have missed.

Most importantly, avoice. Should philanthro-py be more open andaccountable to under-served communities?Should philanthropy nur-ture and advocate for pro-gressive social change?Should philanthropy mon-itor institutions of power?We think so. If you agree,help strengthen NCRP’svoice for social justice.

If you are not already a member, you might consider joining or contributing to NCRP and helping us continue withour research and advocacy for philanthropic policies and practices that are necessary to address critical publicneeds. Among other benefits, membership includes:

Join NCRP

Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate.Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join.Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew. Join. Donate. Renew.Join. Donate. Renew. www.ncrp.org

Nonprofit

Organization

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Washington, D.C.

PERMIT NO. 273

2001 S Street NW • Suite 620 • Washington, DC 20009

Address Service Requested

NCRP Board of DirectorsJames Abernathy Environmental Support Center

Christine Ahn Women of Color Resource CenterBruce Astrein Arizona Community Foundation

Gary Bass OMB WatchPaul S. Castro Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles Lana Cowell Greater Community Shares of Cleveland

(NCRP Board Secretary)Louis Delgado Philanthropy & Nonprofit Sector

Program, Loyola University ChicagoMike Doyle Community Shares of Illinois

Pablo Eisenberg Georgetown University Public Policy InstituteAngelo Falcon PRLDEF Institute for Puerto Rican PolicyRichard Farias Tejano Center for Community Concerns

Angel Fernandez-Chavero Community Foundation for Greater New HavenDeborah Felder Maine Initiatives

Margaret Fung Asian American Legal Defense & Education FundDavid R. Jones Community Service Society

(NCRP Board Vice Chair)Rhoda Karpatkin Consumers Union (NCRP Board Treasurer)

Larry Kressley Public Welfare FoundationJulianne Malveaux Last Word Productions Inc.

Peter B. Manzo Center for Nonprofit ManagementWilliam Merritt National Black United Fund

Nadia Moritz The Young Women’s ProjectTerry Odendahl Georgetown University Center for Public and

Nonprofit Leadership and Public Policy Institute (NCRP Board Chair)

Alan Rabinowitz Peppercorn FoundationRussell Roybal National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Greg Truog Community Shares USAHelen Vinton Southern Mutual Help AssociationBill Watanabe Little Tokyo Service Center

ww

w.n

crp.

org

MISSED A RESPONSIVE PHILANTHROPY ISSUE OR ARTICLE?

Visit www.ncrp.org/rparticles.asp to view selected articles from pre-vious Responsive Philanthropy issues spanning 2000 to 2004. Pleasecheck back on a regular basis as we continue to add and update ourarchives. Here’s a sampling of what you may have missed:

Strange Bedfellows by Rick Cohen (Spring 2004)NCRP Executive Director Rick Cohen casts his eyes west to the RioGrande and to two high-profile political leaders on opposite sidesof the river. Both Mexican First Lady Marta Sahagun de Fox andU.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay have charitable founda-tions that are more concerned with allowing special interestgroups to purchase political access and influence than with givingaway money.

Saying 'No' To Forever by Jeff Krehely (Spring 2004)Not all foundations plan on lasting forever, as Jeff Krehely discov-ered when he examined the largely unreported phenomena offoundations deliberately spending down and not existing in perpe-tuity.

Paying to Mind the Store by Rick Cohen & Jeff Krehely (Spring 2004) NCRP Executive Director and Deputy Director lay out the case forreducing the foundation excise tax from 2 percent to 1 percent, asproposed in the 2005 Bush budget, but only if the revenue raisedis directed towards its original purpose of funding governmentoversight for foundations and the non-profit sector.

banning the...cunningham’s dip into charitable resume building is of a much more pedestrian...

Documents