Appeal in NARA FOIA Case for Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Records

Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability group, took a further step toward gaining such public access, filing an appeal in our fight against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  We are challenging NARA’s wrongful withholding of records pertaining to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) – a temporary commission created by Congress to investigate the causes of the financial crisis– as NARA continues to claim that the requested records must remain secret and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Appellant’s Brief

Appendix

 

Click here to see other posts on our FOIA Request and Litigation for FCIC records.

Washington Post: GreenTech fits pattern of investment that has made big profits for Terry McAuliffe

Read the full story: Washington Post

A section dedicated to GreenTech’s public relations efforts cites only one specific initiative: McAuliffe’s past promotion of electric vehicles on “national television news programs.”

 

Dated March 12, the previously undisclosed prospectus, provided to The Washington Post by the nonprofit watchdog group Cause of Action, notes that McAuliffe is “currently the largest individual shareholder” of GreenTech.

 

The prospectus, along with other documents reviewed by The Post, shows how GreenTech fits into a pattern of investments in which McAuliffe has used government programs, political connections and access to wealthy investors of both parties in pursuit of big profits for himself.

 

That formula has made McAuliffe a millionaire many times over, paving the way for a long list of business ventures, including his law firm, from which he resigned in the 1990s after profiting — along with his partners — from fees paid by domestic and foreign clients seeking results from the federal government.

 

Washington Post cites our GreenTech Report

GreenTech fits pattern of investment that has made big profits for Terry McAuliffe

By  and , Published: September 21

The pitches to potential investors in a new electric-car company have been unabashed about its promise: It will enjoy “billions” in government subsidies and tax credits, will rise to a dominant position in the U.S. electric-car industry and, perhaps most critically, has a politically connected founder with the savvy to make it all happen.

That founder, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe (D), is listed in a recent confidential memorandum to prospective investors as GreenTech Automotive’s “chairman emeritus.” The 70-page document includes photographs and references to McAuliffe’s close ties to former president Bill Clinton. It recounts his political pedigree in detail, from serving as finance director for Jimmy Carter’s 1980 presidential reelection campaign to breaking fundraising records for the Democratic Party and chairing Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

A section dedicated to GreenTech’s public relations efforts cites only one specific initiative: McAuliffe’s past promotion of electric vehicles on “national television news programs.”

Dated March 12, the previously undisclosed prospectus, provided to The Washington Post by the nonprofit watchdog group Cause of Action, notes that McAuliffe is “currently the largest individual shareholder” of GreenTech.

The prospectus, along with other documents reviewed by The Post, shows how GreenTech fits into a pattern of investments in which McAuliffe has used government programs, political connections and access to wealthy investors of both parties in pursuit of big profits for himself.

That formula has made McAuliffe a millionaire many times over, paving the way for a long list of business ventures, including his law firm, from which he resigned in the 1990s after profiting — along with his partners — from fees paid by domestic and foreign clients seeking results from the federal government.

A review of McAuliffe’s business history shows him often coming out ahead personally, even if some investments fail or become embroiled in controversy.

One high-profile example involved Global Crossing, a telecommunications firm whose demise in the 1990s cost investors billions of dollars. McAuliffe was working as a consultant to Global Crossing founder Gary Winnick, a prolific political donor, and became an investor in the company. McAuliffe sold some of his Global Crossing shares before the stock price plummeted and made an estimated $8 million before the company went sour.

Few of McAuliffe’s investments have been as ambitious as GreenTech, which the Democrat pointed to when he launched his candidacy as evidence of his entrepreneurial skill.

But in April, McAuliffe sought to distance himself from GreenTech. He issued a surprise statement saying that he had resigned as chairman that previous December — an announcement that came amid growing questions about GreenTech’s ambitious promises and its conduct in soliciting investors through a special visa program.

Nevertheless, the company’s confidential March memo implies to investors that he would remain involved. Were McAuliffe to win his race for governor, the memo says, he would “resign all positions with [GreenTech] and appoint a representative to vote his shares.”

McAuliffe’s campaign declined to make him available for an interview. Spokesman Josh Schwerin said in an e-mail that the memo “appears to have been written long after Terry resigned and he never saw or approved of this document. Terry left the company in early December and since then has had no official role and no responsibilities. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply not correct.”

GreenTech, in an e-mailed statement, said that McAuliffe was “no longer involved in the day-to-day operations of the company” and that his emeritus title “recognizes his previous contributions to the board’s efforts.” The firm declined to comment on the 70-page “Private Placement Memorandum,”saying that securities counsel advised that it “may not comment directly” on the memo “as these are communications with prospective investors that contain confidential nonpublic information about the company.”

Since the time McAuliffe says he resigned as chairman, GreenTech has become the focus of scrutiny in Washington.

The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation this year looking in part at the firm’s claims to potential investors interested in using the visa program, known as EB-5. The SEC has subpoenaed documents from GreenTech and a sister company, Gulf Coast Funds Management, which is led by Anthony Rodham, brother of Hillary Clinton. Both firms have said they are cooperating.

It is not known precisely what the SEC is investigating. But agency investigators have examined possible fraud among other participants in the visa program, in which foreign investors pay at least $500,000 to companies to gain access to permanent U.S. residency for themselves and their families.

The program requires that the investments create jobs. But critics say the program is loosely regulated, allowing U.S. companies to profit from foreign payments and fees sometimes with little job creation to show for it. In the meantime, these critics say, investors gain entry to the United States, even if they have little direct involvement in the fate of the companies they have ostensibly invested in.

GreenTech has also become a focal point in an increasingly vitriolic dispute within the Department of Homeland Security, where several career employees have raised concerns about favoritism shown to the firm and about whether there has been sufficient scrutiny of foreign nationals whose investments in GreenTech have entitled them to special immigrant visas.

The courtship of Chinese investors by McAuliffe and his partners has already proved fruitful — dozens of investors have contributed tens of millions of dollars to the effort. The March prospectus says that the company has received about $46 million from EB-5 investors, with a goal of $60 million.

The investments have led to little in the way of making cars. In Tunica County, Miss., where a mostly vacant lot sits where GreenTech plans to build a plant, local officials remain hopeful but a bit nervous.

“At this point, it sounds like they’re selling visas,” said state Rep. Gene Alday (R), whose district includes Tunica County.

Special treatment alleged

In Washington, GreenTech’s aggressive pursuit of the special investor visas has prompted complaints by career immigration service staffers who say top managers have given the firm and other politically connected applicants special treatment.

The complaints about Department of Homeland Security managers, now under investigation by the department’s inspector general, have stalled the nomination of the immigration agency’s top official for the No. 2 post at DHS.

Department officials and GreenTech have denied that the company received any favorable treatment. McAuliffe and his partners have complained of repeated delays by the government in approving visa applications, which they said put the project at risk of losing much-needed capital.

But eight career employees of the division have requested “protected status” as whistleblowers so they can make their “preferential treatment” case to members of Congress. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) have reviewed the employee complaints and say they are concerned. Many of the whistleblowers cite alleged favors provided to McAuliffe’s company — among others — to support their claim.

“It’s not often that so many whistleblowers come forward on the same subject, with similar concerns,” Grassley said Friday. “It shows that this isn’t just one person who has a gripe with their boss, but rather fundamental concerns by several career civil servants about political favors and national security.”

Some whistleblowers claimed that top managers ignored or waved off warnings that some GreenTech investors from China merited extra scrutiny before being granted immigrant visas.

Whistleblowers who talked with Senate staff in the past two weeks said their concerns about GreenTech visas were heightened late last year when they learned that some company officials had previously been affiliated with a Chinese firm that had been the subject of a classified government inquiry about national security risks. Ties with the previous firm were severed before McAuliffe joined the newly formed company as a co-founder.

A DHS official familiar with the matter rejected the employee claims, saying staff concerns were heeded. Holds were placed on several GreenTech applicants and were removed “only after further checks were made in coordination with other law enforcement agencies,” said the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter.

Self-described entrepreneur

McAuliffe, 56, has long described himself as an entrepreneur, pegging his start to a driveway-sealing business he launched as a precocious 14-year-old in Syracuse, N.Y.

In the 1980s, McAuliffe was the chairman of a small financial institution, the Federal City Bank of Washington, which made loans to several top Democratic Party leaders. It was cited by regulators in the early 1990s for unsound banking practices and then merged with another bank.

After Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, federal investigators examined a $375,000 fee paid to McAuliffe in case his services were needed to help secure a lease of office space from the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Ultimately, the payment was deemed improper. McAuliffe was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the leasing company — Prudential Insurance — was required to pay a fine.

In the 1990s, McAuliffe launched what might be his most lucrative and substantive business, American Heritage Homes, with Carl H. Lindner Jr., who headed Chiquita Brands International. During this period, the Clinton administration initiated a favorable policy on a complex banana tariff issue, and Lindner, a longtime GOP donor, stepped up his donations to Democrats, staying overnight as Clinton’s guest in the Lincoln Bedroom.

In 1999, the Labor Department reviewed a real estate venture involving McAuliffe that used money from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ pension fund. The department sued the union, saying the deal was a bad investment for its members. Union officials said the deal ultimately provided profits to the labor group. McAuliffe, who had invested only $100,made millions.

McAuliffe has not disclosed his net worth. His campaign referred to the Virginia financial disclosure form that he was required to submit as a candidate, but the form is vague. He lists, for instance, 25 assets worth a minimum of $250,000 each.

Predictions of jobs

McAuliffe joined GreenTech soon after his failed 2009 bid for Virginia governor.

At the start, company documents predicted the firm would have 25,000 employees in the United States capable of producing 1 million electric cars in 2015-17.

In speeches in Virginia and elsewhere, McAuliffe has offered varying predictions of the jobs that would be created by his company. Several times in 2012, he told reporters that 900 U.S. jobs would be created by the year’s end by GreenTech, which is based in McLean. The firm has produced few, if any, cars, and a statement from the company says it employs “more than 80 full time employees.”

The documents obtained by The Post show that GreenTech’s success depends on government help.

A 2009 prospectus said that billions of dollars in subsidies could potentially be granted by Mississippi to support the plant. The current prospectus estimates the combined value of its local and state government aid in Mississippi to be $25 million. So far, the numbers are much smaller. The state lent GreenTech $3 million under the condition that the firm create 350 jobs by December 2014, according to Mississippi Development Authority spokesman Jeff Rent. Tunica County, using a separate $2 million loan from the state, purchased the land where the company has said it will build the factory.

In an e-mailed statement to The Post, the company said that “market and financial conditions and other current events have led GTA to reexamine our original target market and, therefore, our initial projected capacity needs.”

GreenTech’s struggles have become fodder for Republicans and their allies, who have spent months scouring McAuliffe’s business record. Cause of Action, which provided the confidential investor memo to The Post, received more than $900,000 two years ago from the libertarian-leaning Franklin Center, whose Watchdog.org Web site has been sued by GreenTech for defamation.

McAuliffe put his bipartisan political muscle on display during a star-studded event at the GreenTech site in Mississippi last year with former governor Haley Barbour and Bill Clinton. The event showcased models of the “MyCar,” the golf-cart-like 40-mph vehicles that would be the signature product of GreenTech.

Barbour, in an interview, said he had no regrets. “We felt that if they invested $60 million of hard cash, we’d be willing to take a couple-million-dollar risk,” he said.

Barbour, a McAuliffe friend who left office in 2012 after two terms, said McAuliffe’s role was not a factor in the state’s decision to provide help. “It doesn’t disqualify you to know the governor, but you’ve still got to meet the same standards” as any firm appealing for state development aid, he said.

The confidential 2013 memo to potential investors explained in some detail how McAuliffe’s run for governor would affect his role in the firm.

“Until the election, Mr. McAuliffe will dedicate his full time to the election campaign but will remain as a shareholder of GTA’s Parent,” it says. “If Mr. McAuliffe becomes Governor of Virginia, federal and state law requires that he resign all positions with GTA and appoint a representative to vote his shares of GTA’s Parent.

“On January 7, 2013, the board of directors of GTA assigned to Mr. McAuliffe as Chairman of the Company the duties and responsibilities appropriate for a Chairman Emeritus during the course of his gubernatorial campaign,” the memo added. Describing that job, it says: “The Chairman Emeritus of the Company will have such duties and responsibilities as designated by the Board of Directors from time to time.”

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

National Law Journal: Group Wants Justices to Lift Limits on Political Giving

Integer quis lectus in mauris aliquet mollis et in ligula. Sed sed tempor velit. Pellentesque venenatis ipsum a ipsum scelerisque, vitae consectetur lectus accumsan. Nunc dapibus aliquet mollis. Pellentesque vel cursus orci. Donec aliquam at odio non porta. Nam tortor turpis, mollis sed rhoncus ut, pulvinar et magna. Proin pretium feugiat sem, bibendum suscipit erat rhoncus at. Cras tristique, nibh at placerat facilisis, arcu odio blandit neque, id auctor tellus turpis sed diam. Nam venenatis risus a lorem tristique, eu sagittis eros placerat. Nulla non libero nulla.

USA Today: IRS assailed from all sides for lack of transparency

IRS assailed from all sides for lack of transparency

Allies and critics alike frustrated by the IRS’ lack of transparency in Tea Party affair

WASHINGTON — After admitting it targeted Tea Party groups for additional scrutiny in May, the Internal Revenue Service has been called on to explain its formerly obscure process for policing political activity by tax-exempt groups.

And, by almost all accounts, it’s not doing a very good job.

Last week, the non-profit publisher Tax Analysts filed suit against the IRS under the Freedom of Information Act, saying the agency failed to release training materials used by the agency’s Exempt Organizations staff in Cincinnati.

Congressional investigators have complained that the agency has turned over only a small fraction of the records they’ve sought. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said the IRS’ slow response to congressional inquiries “begins to look a lot like obstruction.”

Within the IRS, the Taxpayer Advocate Service has criticized the agency’s Exempt Organizations office for failing to reveal how agents review tax-exempt groups for political activity — in spite of laws requiring disclosure. “This lack of transparency reduced EO’s accountability to the public and made it easier to believe that EO was arbitrarily singling out applications for further review based on ideology,” Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson said in a special report to Congress in June.

Even some of the agency’s biggest supporters say they’ve been frustrated by the IRS’ failure to respond to key questions.

“Steam has been coming out of my ears for the last three months, because the IRS hasn’t been able to defend itself. In a way, they’re their own worst enemy,” said Evelyn Brody, a law professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law. She said the IRS’ reticence is party justified by taxpayer privacy laws, but the agency could still do a better job explaining its processes.

The IRS itself would not comment on the transparency issues, except to say that it does not comment on pending litigation.

Tax Analysts filed its lawsuit in federal court in Washington last week after the IRS failed to meet legal deadlines to respond to its Freedom of Information Act request. Chris Bergin, the president and publisher of Tax Analysts, said it’s perplexing that the IRS won’t release records that might mitigate criticism over its handling of political groups.

“They’re going to keep shooting themselves in the foot until someone forces them not to,” he said. “What’s worse now, is they’ll go deeper into their bunker. They’ll dig down, and they won’t disclose.”

Tax Analysts has filed 15 FOIA lawsuits against the government since 1985, and has won almost all of them, court records show. “We’re not rookies at this,” Bergin said. “We recognize the pattern. And this is the pattern: They keep telling you, telling you, telling you that they’re going to release the records, and then they say, ‘Sue us.’ And we do, and it always ends badly for them.”

The Tax Analysts lawsuit is actually the second FOIA lawsuit to come out of the Tea Party controversy. The Cause of Action Institute, a non-profit organization aligned with conservative causes, filed suit last month to force the agency to disclose any requests for tax returns by the White House.

“We’ve had this fight with the IRS now for almost two years,” executive director Dan Epstein said. “They could simply say, the easiest response for the IRS to say is, no such record exists.”

Instead, the IRS has not explicitly denied that tax returns have been provided to the White House, but said that they would be covered by taxpayer privacy laws if they were.”

A White House spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.

The IRS won’t say how many FOIA requests it’s received about its handling of political groups. USA TODAY and The Cincinnati Enquirer, which are both owned by Gannett, have filed 16 FOIA requests with the agency in the last three months, and the agency has not released any of the requested records.

When USA TODAY requested public inspection files of tax exempt groups, the IRS claimed that they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. And on two successive days in May, USA TODAY reporters visited the IRS’ Freedom of Information Reading Room only to find it closed to the public during its posted hours.

In an Aug. 2 letter to the House Oversight Committee, acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said it was “inaccurate and unfair” to allege the IRS has not fully cooperated with Congress.

He said the agency has devoted 100 employees to gathering documents and that it had facilitated the interviews of 19 IRS employees with congressional investigators.

The IRS is searching for electronic records containing 81 search terms, including “Tea Party,” “conservative,” “liberal,” and the names of White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and author Glenn Beck. As of Aug, 2, the IRS had produced 16,500 of a potential 1.6 million responsive documents to Congress, Werfel said.

Federalist Society Teleforum Update on FOIA

FOIA Update – Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast

July 29, 2013

Daniel Z. EpsteinKip Evan SteinbergAnne L. WeismannMargaret D. StockDean A. Reuter

 

To listen, please right click on the audio file you wish to hear and then select “Save Link As…” or “Save Target As…” After you save the audio file to your computer, you can then listen to it in your audio player of choice.

  FOIA Update – MP3
Running Time: 00:59:24

FOIA UpdateThe Freedom of Information Act has been the subject of several recent developments, each of which raise interesting questions.  On April 2, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC that an agency FOIA determination must include disclosure of the relevant time period and scope of the documents it will produce as well as exemptions claimed for any withheld documents.  Will agencies now refuse to disclose the scope of documents and exemptions unless and until a FOIA requester brings a lawsuit?  If so, does the decision really enhance transparency?  In McBurney et al v. Young, the Supreme Court held that the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) grants only citizens of Virginia the right to access the state of Virginia’s public records.  Does McBurney harm transparency?  On April 15, 2009, Gregory Craig, Counsel to the President, sent  a memorandum to all executive department and agency general counsels, concerning the need to consult the White House regarding FOIA, GAO, congressional and judicial subpoena requests concerning “white house equities”.  To what extent does this memo conflict with the current Administration’s policy on FOIA?

Featuring:

  • Mr. Daniel Epstein, Executive Director, Cause of Action
  • Mr. Kip Steinberg, Principal, Law Office of Kip Evan Steinberg
  • Ms. Anne L. Weismann, Chief Counsel, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
  • Moderator: Ms. Margaret Stock, Counsel to the Firm, Cascadia Cross-Border Law Group
  • Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

 

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Watchdog group accuses Forest City Enterprises of profiteering at taxpayer expense

Read the full story here: Cleveland Plain Dealer

Cause of Action released a report today that claims the Cleveland-based developer used “highly paid lobbyists, political connections, campaign contributions and strategic hiring of government officials” to obtain “lavish public subsidies, tax exempt financing and the seizure of private land from eminent domain condemnations.”

 

Its review of lobbying and political contribution records indicates that the company and its employees spent $23 million on campaign contributions and lobbying at the federal state  and local level over the past decade while receiving “fifty two direct and indirect government subsidies or financial benefits with a total value of at least $2.6 billion.”