PR Watch, John Stauber, 6/5/2008

Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated US law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

News of the Pentagon's online posting of the documents came from Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who notes that NSNS provided the New York Times "limited information about a military office early in the reporting process."

Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/

More than two weeks after the New York Times reported on the Penatgon's military analyst program to sell controversial policies such as the invasion of Iraq, the broadcast television news outlets implicated in the program are hoping to tough out the scandal by refusing to report it. Recently Media Matters of America (MMA) reported that, according to a search of the Nexis database, "the three major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have still not mentioned the report at all."

The Pew Excellence in Journalism project has a chart showing that " there was virtually no mainstream media follow up to The Times’ expose" with the only national TV coverage being the introduction segment and live debate featuring CMD's John Stauber on the PBS NewsHour.

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro and three dozen colleagues have sent a letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General calling for an investigation of this "propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public."

The Lawyer, 6/5/2008

Following a three-year battle the Information Tribunal has ordered the Government to disclose previously secret records of industry lobbying by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). The tribunal's decision sets an important marker for the way that requests for lobbying materials should be treated in the future.

In July 2005 Friends of the Earth wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) asking for records of lobbying meetings between the CBI and various parts of the DTI that had taken place in the three months since the general election. The information included records of monthly meetings between Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Alan Johnson and then Director General of the CBI, Digby Jones, as well as the notes of a private away-day of senior CBI and DTI officials.

The DTI refused to release the information, but Friends of the Earth's complaint under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act) was upheld, and the DTI - by then rebranded as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) - was ordered to release most of the information requested. The BERR then appealed to the Information Tribunal to overturn that decision.

In the intervening period, and ironically considering Friends of the Earth's concerns about the 'revolving door' between lobbyists and government, Jones had moved from the CBI to become Lord Jones, Minister for Trade, in the very department by then appealing to keep records of his previous meetings secret.

Both the BERR and the CBI claimed that, if the records of the lobbying meetings were disclosed, it could prevent such meetings happening in future, which could damage the Government's policy-making. Deputy director general of the CBI John Cridland told the tribunal: "I hope we aren't going to reach the point where people need to meet by the lake in St James's Park with a rolled-up copy of the Financial Times under their arm in dark glasses, because that wouldn't be a satisfactory replacement for frank, involved discussions." However, the tribunal also heard countervailing evidence from a number of other industry lobbyists who appeared as witnesses for Friends of the Earth. They made clear their own understanding that in a post-FOI Act world, their working assumption was that information about their lobbying was, in principle, susceptible to disclosure and that transparency was the price of privileged access. The tribunal found that "the approach of Friends of the Earth's witnesses is more in keeping with the changed climate resulting from the coming into force of the FOI Act". It expressed concern that the CBI and other lobbying groups "seem to have given little or no thought to the consequences of the FOI Act on their dealings with government and continued, in effect, to operate on the basis of outmoded assumptions".

The tribunal recognised that a "safe space" for the Government to "think" in private was important for policy-making. But it rejected the attempt to extend that safe space to interactions with bodies such as the CBI, saying: "It is not possible to distinguish between their influencing and advisory roles when its officials are meeting with government and it would be naive to take any other view. If lobbyists do have genuine advisory roles, then the adoption of a regulatory system, such as that in the US in relation to third-party contacts, might enable us to take a different view."

Lobbying is a normal and sometimes valuable part of politics. However, while it is conducted in the shadows and to the exclusion of the electorate it represents a threat to our democratic institutions. As the tribunal recognised, the price of privileged access is transparency.

The Times, 6/5/2008

Research assessment exercises are now so secretive that academics are using the Freedom of Information Act to view assessors' reports

Academics have become so frustrated by secrecy surrounding the research assessment exercise (RAE) that they are being forced to deploy the Freedom of Information Act against their own assessors.

RAE panels, which conduct an annual evaluation of the quality of academics' work, were recently instructed to destroy documentation showing how they reached their decisions, reports Times Higher Education (May 1). This would protect them from freedom of information requests and “the associated burden”, say instructions issued by RAE managers last November.

The University and College Union (UCU) is fighting back through an emergency motion from its Higher Education Committee. It will submit a monthly freedom of information request, for all RAE panel evidence including personal notes and draft minutes.

“The destruction of panel evidence destroys any argument that the RAE is somehow an objective and scientific measure of higher education research outputs,” argues the committee's motion.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, agrees. “How can a complaints policy be effective if there is no trace of anything you have left behind?”

Concerns over information and secrecy have also driven a controversial website offline.

WillISeeMyTutor.com allowed prospective students to compare institutions by their staff-to-student ratios. However, its owners have been denied access to official statistics, following complaints that it skewed data.

The Higher Education Statistics Agency (Hesa) claims it refused to continue providing data because the site owners would not reveal their full identities. Such secrecy led Hesa to believe the organisation was not “operating on a basis of good faith”, according to a spokesman.

The Times,  Dominic Kennedy and Rajeev Syal, 6/5/2008

A private health company that became the biggest corporate funder to the Liberal Democrats is a client of the party treasurer’s government lobbying business, The Times has learnt.

Lord Clement-Jones, the Lib Dems’ chief fundraiser since 2005, has come under scrutiny because he helped to get a peerage for a director who sits on the sister companies of Alpha Healthcare, the Lib Dems’ donor.

The discovery of the lobbying link comes as an all-party committee of MPs is to meet on Thursday to consider whether more light should be shed on politicians who are also lobbyists.

In January an investigation by The Times raised concerns about how Lord Hameed, a private hospital chief, was helped to a crossbench peerage by senior Liberal Democrats.

Lord Clement-Jones seconded his nomination. Lord Dholakia, the only Lib Dem on the Lords Appointments Commission, praised the interfaith work of Khalid Hameed when his name came up as a candidate. None of the three declared to the commission that Alpha Healthcare was a donor to the Lib Dems. The company became the main corporate backer of the party with gifts of nearly £400,000. The biggest gift of £125,000 came after the peerage was confirmed.

Lord Hameed, who sits on both of Alpha Healthcare’s sister companies, insisted that he did not know about its donations. Lord Dholakia said that he too was in the dark. But Lord Clement-Jones said he thought that he probably had told Lord Dholakia about the gifts.

The Times has since learnt:

— Lord Dholakia made a “full written declaration” of how he was acquainted with Lord Hameed after the commission had recommended the hospital boss for a peerage. A commission source said that this accorded with normal practice;

— The commission’s internal inquiry into the Times investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing, but omitted to interview Lord Clement-Jones or ask the newspaper for evidence;

— A freedom of information request for the names of everyone Lord Clement-Jones has supported for a peerage was rejected by the commission because it would “breach confidence”.

The ties between Lord Clement-Jones and Alpha Healthcare appear to fly in the face of the Lib Dems’ motion at their 2001 conference that asked peers to refrain from professional lobbying. The Lib Dems’ federal executive regarded that request as “unenforceable”. It noted the safeguards in the Lords’ declaration of interest requirements and agreed to take no further action.

When The Times first began investigating Alpha Healthcare’s donations last autumn, a reporter visited the homes in London of the brothers Dhruv and Bhanu Choudhrie. They run C&C Alpha, a group of companies ultimately owned by entities registered in the tax havens of Guernsey and the British Virgin Islands. Alpha Healthcare is part of the group.

The brothers’ spokesman, Eben Black, called The Times to say that he represented C&C Alpha. Mr Black is also head of media at the global government relations department of DLA Piper, a multinational law firm that offers lobbying services. Lord Clement-Jones is the department chairman.

DLA Piper said it provides media relations services to the Choudhries’ group of companies.

Mr Black said that the first time one of C&C Alpha’s companies became a client was in February 2006. Alpha Healthcare went on its books in September 2007. Alpha Healthcare’s donations to the Lib Dems began in March 2004 and ended in May 2007, according to Electoral Commission records.

Lord Clement-Jones makes no declaration concerning C&C Alpha in the House of Lords register of interest of clients for whom he provides parliamentary services. He said: “I do not act personally for C&C Alpha.” The Lib Dem party treasurer denied that there was a conflict of interest in his roles as treasurer, parliamentarian and lobbyist. “Members of the C&C Alpha Group happen to be both donors to the Liberal Democrats and clients introduced by me to DLA Piper,” he said. “I would ask why the firm should not provide professional services to them, whether legal or media relations services.”

The Lords Appointments Commission told The Times that in 2005 “it was noted that Lord Dholakia was acquainted with Dr Hameed”. This was brought to the commission’s attention. Lord Dholakia also attended the meeting in December 2006 at which Lord Hameed was recommended for a peerage. In February 2007, when the peerage was announced, Lord Dholakia made a written declaration that he knew Lord Hameed as an acquaintance and had “attended a number of his lectures [mainly on faith issues]”.

Lord Dholakia, deputy leader of the Lib Dems in the Lords, told The Times: “I had no knowledge of any donations to the Liberal Democrats. My acquaintance with Lord Hameed, whom I had met half a dozen times before, were fully declared to the commission. The correct procedure was followed with a written statement for the register of members’ interests.This requires members to put in writing what has been made known verbally before.”

The Scotsman, Frank Urquhart, 3/5/2008

Deposed committee chairman who blocked Trump proposal claims his situation requires special help

But Martin Ford, the chairman of Aberdeenshire Council's planning authority who stymied Donald Trump's plans for a £1 billion golf resort, has hired a crisis-management public relations firm in the run-up to the public inquiry into the plans.

Mr Ford was catapulted into the headlines as the Nemesis of Donald Trump when he used his casting vote to reject the plans on 29 November last year.

Earlier this week Mr Ford and the Trump empire were again at loggerheads after the councillor for East Garioch accused the property tycoon of trying to "gag" him at the forthcoming public inquiry into the development.

Mr Ford's register of interests at the council, under the heading of gifts and hospitality, lists "consultancy services received at discounted rate from Fan Hitter PR."

John Cox, the independent councillor for Banff and Buchan who led the call for Councillor Ford to be deposed as chairman of the council's infrastructure services committee, slammed Mr Ford's decision to take on a PR firm.

He declared: "It is definitely not a sensible thing for a councillor to be doing. You have to stand or fall by your own ability.

"It is just beyond belief what councillor Ford is trying to do. Neither I nor any of my colleagues would ever contemplate such a thing but it shows the weaknesses in his case that he is having to go down this line."

Mr Cox, who was one of the seven councillors who voted in favour of the Trump development at the planning meeting, added: "At the end of the day we have to be accountable to ourselves and to the public. But Councillor Ford is a one-man show and perhaps he needs all the help he can get."

Mr Ford, however, defended his decision to accept the offer of assistance from the PR company and its boss, Caroline Weintz.

He explained that Ms Weintz had approached him to offer her help after he was removed from his post. Mr Ford said: "I really didn't think any more about it, but come the new year it was apparent that I was going to need some help."

He was swamped with demands for comments from the media and simply did not have the facilities or the time to cope with the demand.

"It has been put to me why the heck does a local councillor need a PR firm," said Mr Ford. "Well, a normal local councillor doesn't. But I am not leading the life of normal local councillor.

"I am paying for the services at a much reduced rate. It would be inconceivable for me to afford to pay a PR firm."

Ms Weintz explained: "I approached Councillor Ford on behalf of Fan Hitter PR to offer support and advice following the disgraceful removal of him from the Infrastructure Services Committee because I clearly recognised that a great injustice had been carried out and that there were huge principles of democracy at stake. This remains the case."

She added: "Fan Hitter PR specialises in crisis communications management as well as providing PR support.

"A large number of national politicians seek advice and support from public relations companies. It is unusual for local politicians to require public relations support.

"However, Councillor Ford's situation is far from normal."

WHO'S WHO IN THE MENIE ESTATE PUBLIC RELATIONS BATTLE

IN the Trump Corner: the American tycoon's organisation has enlisted the Big Partnership, one of Scotland's largest public relations firms, to deal with the media in the Menie estate planning application.

In the Ford Corner: Fan Hitter, one of Scotland's newest and smallest PR firms. Fan Hitter is headed by Caroline Weintz, the former corporate affairs manager at NHS 24.

Big, established eight years ago, employs 90 staff in four offices, with fee income of £7 million a year. The company's website boast that its client list reads like a Who's Who of UK business, including Deloitte, BP and Stagecoach.

Fan Hitter has a staff of three and was formed last summer. The company's website does not list any clients, although it insists it has a number in Scotland and south of the Border.

Big's website states: "We deploy a range of core PR services including stakeholder engagement campaigns, media relations, media promotions, copywriting, online PR, corporate social responsibility strategies and activities, internal communications and crisis/issues management.

"Big brings together wise counsel, a laser-like focus on client needs, a passion for delivery and access to some of the most sparkling PR talent you'll find anywhere."

Fan Hitter's website states: "Good or bad, words can have a substantial impact on public confidence and self morale. When words cause you a crisis, tackle the problem head on with Fan Hitter PR.

"At Fan Hitter PR we don't do spin – we do more than that – we provide top-of-the-range intelligent and knowledge-based solutions for your PR problems. We take a holistic approach to communications which draws on some of the most highly experienced and respected communications practitioners in Scotland."

AP, Andrew Miga, 3/5/2008

Forty-one House members are calling on the Defense Department inspector general to investigate a public relations effort that relied on retired military officers to defend the administration's Iraq war policies.

"When the Department of Defense misleads the American people by having them believe that they are listening to the views of objective military analysts when in fact these individuals are simply replaying DoD talking points, the department is clearly betraying the public trust," the lawmakers wrote in a joint letter to Defense Department Inspector General Claude M. Kicklighter on Friday.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who organized the letter, said it was important for the inspector general to find out how high-ranking officials within the Pentagon were allowed to operate a program aimed at deceiving the American people.

"Not only must the Inspector General now account for what it did and did not know about this state-sponsored propaganda effort, but they must also explain why, if they knew about the propaganda campaign, it was allowed to proceed," DeLauro said. "Additionally, we are calling for the Inspector General to launch an investigation to ensure no detail surrounding this program remains hidden."

Retired officers who acted as military analysts for major news outlets were given plum access to the Pentagon, with regular briefings by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a sponsored trip to the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.

The lawmakers are seeking information on whether the inspector general investigated the program or senior officials involved in the program. The House members also want to know if the inspector general considers the program to be illegal.

The operation, which has been halted, was first reported by The New York Times.

The Guardian, 3/5/2008

At heart of supermarket's avoidance scheme was Stamp Duty Land Tax - not corporation tax

In February the Guardian published two articles about Tesco's tax practices. At the heart of the story was Tesco's stated desire to realise up to £5bn by cashing in on the rise in value of its massive UK property portfolio through sale and leaseback schemes - while maintaining control of the stores.

It was one of a series of Guardian investigations into the broader question of tax havens, tax avoidance and the problems governments have in collecting revenue in a globalised world, where sophisticated international companies can move their money and assets around.

Five weeks later the supermarket issued a libel writ. Tesco accused the paper of not only getting its facts wrong but having deliberately done so for dishonest and malicious reasons. The company said the allegations went to the heart of its business reputation and amounted to a "devastating attack" on its integrity and ethics. "An important and valuable aspect of its reputation, in which its directors, employees and shareholders take pride, is Tesco's commitment to its corporate and social responsibility," it said.

Tesco's writ was accompanied, for the first time, by a partial disclosure from the company about what it called the "savings" made from the arrangement of highly complicated billion-pound property deals in the offshore tax havens of the Cayman Islands and Jersey. These were the property deals the Guardian had originally written about, claiming they were a matter of legitimate public interest as they were designed to deprive the UK of enormous amounts of revenue.

Tesco's executive director of corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, said she wanted to "set the record straight", adding that the company encouraged debate about Tesco's conduct "so long as [it] is based on fact, not fiction".

Establishing the facts about Tesco's policies towards paying taxes on its property disposals is not easy. The company has created a highly complex set of artificial structures which appear to have no other purpose than to avoid tax and which require a high degree of specialist offshore tax expertise to comprehend.

It now appears to be common ground between the Guardian and the retailer that Tesco has avoided taxes through a complex structure of artificial companies. The difference between the paper's original piece and Tesco concerns the nature of the tax avoided and the amounts which would have been denied the Treasury in the course of the property transactions.

Prior to publication the reporters consulted a number of external experts. Since receiving a writ the Guardian has consulted corporate tax experts, together with specialist accountants, academics and lawyers - including two QCs - in an attempt to "set the record straight" on a factual basis, in line with Tesco's wishes. It has taken this team of experts nearly four weeks to untangle the on and offshore structures designed by Tesco's advisers over many years.

On the basis of this advice the Guardian is clearer - both about errors in the original pieces and in the true facts of the situation. The paper is now in a position for the first time both to correct the errors and to put the record straight, in accordance with Tesco's wishes.

It is now clear to us that the Tesco schemes, designed over a period of years and in several different ways, were to avoid another tax than the one alleged - Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). This was brought in by the government in 2003 worried about widespread avoidance of stamp duty on property and land deals. It is levied at 4% of the gross value of the property, in contrast to corporation tax, which is at a higher rate (30% until it was reduced to 28% from April 1 2008) on any gain and is payable by the purchaser. It is common practice in avoidance deals for the seller and the purchaser to split any saving between them.

We have now established that:

· On a property disposal programme totalling £5bn, the exchequer could be deprived of in the region of £100m of tax.

· Tesco has been involved in a game of cat and mouse with HM Revenue & Customs since 2003.

· On three occasions when the government has closed a loophole to prevent avoidance, Tesco has taken advantage of ingenious schemes to get around it.

· The firm's devices have centred on complex limited partnership arrangements and unit trust schemes based in Jersey, and have included offshore companies.

· Tesco still has 36 stores wrapped up in UK limited partnerships - with Cayman Islands registered partners - which were established in 2006 before the latest loophole was closed. These - called Tesco Blue, Tesco Fuchsia and Tesco Pink - are set up and ready to be used for large scale property deals, and would be free of the 4% SDLT.

On the day Tesco issued proceedings, a press release to the stock exchange from the company admitted tax "savings" on two deals already done (for the first time after months of protracted exchanges with the Guardian): "By structuring these transactions in this way Tesco expects to achieve savings of £23m in stamp duty-related taxes on the transactions completed to date. The maximum additional savings in stamp duty-related taxes that might be achieved from using these structures could be another £30m to £40m."

This analysis makes it plain that the original Guardian articles did not correctly explain the effect of Tesco's tax schemes. It was wrong to state that they were designed to avoid corporation tax. It would have been correct to refer to avoiding SDLT.

As a result, the figure of "up to £1bn" - calculated as the amount which could have been saved on the disposal of £5bn of property - is wrong. The loss to the exchequer is likely to be nearer the region of £90m-£100m.

Tesco said in its writ - and the Guardian now accepts - that the profit from the disposal of the 50% interests in the partnerships which owned the properties were within the charge to UK corporation tax.

It is still not clear how much UK tax was paid since Tesco also said in the writ that these profits were subject to "statutory relief exemptions". It is possible that the gains arising from the sale of the 50% interests in the partnerships will qualify for statutory rollover relief (where assets are sold and the proceeds reinvested) and so any tax potentially due on the sales has been deferred (potentially indefinitely). The claiming of this relief is not tax avoidance.

Tax avoidance - as opposed to tax "planning" or "mitigation" - is commonly defined as the use of artificial or structured arrangements to frustrate the evident intention of parliament. The government brought in SDLT for UK land and buildings in December 2003 because of widespread avoidance of stamp duty.

In a consultative document, Ruth Kelly, then economic secretary to the Treasury, explained the thinking: "The government is concerned about growing avoidance of stamp duty by a minority, at the expense of the majority of taxpayers. In particular, some companies are determined not to pay their full share of duty and structure property transactions in increasingly artificial ways to achieve that. This activity represents a significant threat to the tax base. We are determined to stop this abuse."

But as one loophole closed, another opened. Transactions involving partnerships "created opportunities for avoidance", said the government, closing that gap in 2004.

At the same time ingenious companies were using another way of getting around SDLT: transferring properties into a unit trust - usually in Jersey - which could take advantage of exemption, avoiding SDLT (as well as 0.5% UK stamp duty that would be payable if it was a UK unit trust). This is the arrangement Tesco came up with.

The exasperation felt inside the revenue was clear from an impact assessment of SDLT avoidance published in July 2005, which said: "Tax avoidance costs the exchequer lost revenues each year. It also undermines government public spending objectives and brings unfairness into the tax system itself."

In the budget of March 2006, that particular loophole was shut.

But the battle of wits between the Treasury and large companies continued. They found that by introducing an individual into a partnership along with offshore companies as limited partners they could circumvent the Treasury yet again. This is what Tesco did through one Philip Shirley, a tax consultant. He is named as a partner in at least four of the Tesco colour partnerships.

Again the government caught up, announcing in the pre-budget report of December 2006 measures to counter avoidance using partnerships, sub-sales and leases.

The Tesco schemes in waiting (with the relevant properties in them) were set up in October 2006 before the guillotine came down in December.

The stores could be worth £2.5bn. Because UK tax legislation is rarely retrospective, it seems unlikely SDLT will be triggered.

In a statement issued last night, Tesco said: "Given that the Guardian has not yet filed a defence to the legal proceedings issued against its parent company and editor, we believe that it is completely inappropriate for Tesco to be asked by the Guardian to comment further on matters which may have a bearing on the case.

"Tesco has already made clear in its public statements and in the legal documents served on the Guardian Media Group that savings have been made on stamp duty and Stamp Duty Land tax."

The statement added: "We continue to hope that the Guardian will publish an apology and correction for its false statements."

The Chicago Tribune, Michael Hawthorne, 2/5/2008

SAGINAW, Mich. - The battle over dioxin contamination in this economically stressed region had been raging for years when a top Bush administration official turned up the pressure on Dow Chemical to clean it up.

On Thursday, following months of internal bickering over Mary Gade's interactions with Dow, the administration forced her to quit as head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Midwest office, based in Chicago.

Gade told the Tribune she resigned after two aides to national EPA administrator Stephen Johnson took away her powers as regional administrator and told her to quit or be fired by June 1.

The call came as the Tribune was preparing to publish a story about the dioxin issue and Gade's crusade.

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman in Washington, said Gade has been placed on administrative leave until June 1. He declined further comment, saying the agency does not publicly discuss personnel matters.

Gade has been locked in a heated dispute with Dow about long-delayed plans to clean up dioxin-saturated soil and sediment that extends 50 miles beyond its Midland, Mich., plant into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. The company dumped the highly toxic and persistent chemical into local rivers for most of the last century.

Many local residents see Dow as a lifeline in region plagued by plant closings and layoffs. But all along the two wide streams that cut through this old industrial town, signs warn people to keep off dioxin-contaminated riverbanks and to avoid eating fish pulled from the fast-moving waters. Officials have taken the swings down in one riverside park to discourage kids from playing there. Men in rubber boots and thick gloves occasionally knock on doors, asking residents whether they can dig up a little soil in the yard.

Gade, appointed by President Bush as regional EPA administrator in September 2006, invoked emergency powers last summer to order the company to remove three hotspots of dioxin near its Midland headquarters.

She demanded more dredging in November, when it was revealed that dioxin levels along a park in Saginaw were 1.6 million parts per trillion, the highest amount ever found in the U.S.

Dow then sought to cut a deal on a more comprehensive cleanup. But Gade ended the negotiations in January, saying Dow was refusing to take action necessary to protect public health and wildlife. Dow responded by appealing to officials in Washington, according to heavily redacted letters the Tribune obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Regional EPA administrators typically have wide latitude to enforce environmental laws, but in April Gade drew fire from officials in Washington after she sent contractors to test soil in a Saginaw neighborhood where Dow had found high dioxin levels. The levels in one Saginaw yard were nearly six times higher than the federal cleanup standard, and 65 times higher than what Michigan considers acceptable.

On Thursday, Gade said of her resignation: "There's no question this is about Dow. I stand behind what I did and what my staff did. I'm proud of what we did."

Dioxin, measured in trillionths of a gram because it is so toxic, was a manufacturing byproduct of the herbicide Agent Orange and other chlorinated chemicals. Company documents show Dow knew by the mid-1960s that it could make people sick or even kill them. Citing years of independent studies, the EPA says dioxin causes cancer and disrupts the immune and reproductive systems, even at very low levels.

Concerns about dioxin contamination were behind two of the most infamous environmental disasters in U.S. history: the evacuations of the Love Canal neighborhood in upstate New York and the entire town of Times Beach, Mo.

But in the Saginaw area, cleanup remains stalled, mainly because Dow asserts the contamination does not threaten people or wildlife.

"There is all of this mystique about dioxin," said John Musser, a Dow spokesman. "Just because it's there doesn't mean there is an imminent health threat."

Dow says it has agreed in principle to restore polluted areas but is contesting how it should be done—which critics view as more stalling.

"Denial and delay has been part of Dow's game plan for years," said Michelle Hurd Riddick, a Saginaw nurse and member of the Lone Tree Council, a local environmental group. "They still haven't delivered."

Dow was forced to stop releasing dioxin into waterways in the mid-1980s. But when high levels of dioxin were found in fish from Saginaw Bay around the same time, Dow repeatedly claimed it wasn't responsible, saying the chemical had settled into the water from air pollution caused by forest fires and wood-burning fireplaces.

The company and environmental regulators spent the rest of the decade arguing about dioxin's health effects. Dow insisted the chemical caused only a severe skin rash known as chloracne, even as a growing number of studies found it could cause cancer and other diseases.

Dow and Michigan officials took until 2003 to negotiate legal guidelines for a comprehensive cleanup. The company later paid to scour the interiors of more than 300 homes and spread wood chips outside to reduce exposure to contaminated soil. At the same time, Dow's political allies tried to relax the state's dioxin standards.

More recently, Dow financed a University of Michigan study that the company and its supporters say shows dioxin in soil and sediment has little to do with levels of the chemical in people. The EPA cautions the study hasn't been peer-reviewed and appears to underestimate health risks.

"Dow has powerful sway in that area and in the state as a whole," said Dave Dempsey, a former Michigan activist who was environment adviser in the 1980s to then-Gov. James Blanchard. "But with all of the information out there about dioxin, it's becoming increasingly difficult for them to avoid doing something."

At the center of the latest dispute was Gade, who as a corporate attorney had represented big companies like Dow against environmental regulators. Her aggressive action against Dow surprised the company, local activists and her Washington bosses. But she still won high marks from EPA officials during her last performance evaluation.

The steps Gade took were influenced in part by her experience as an EPA staffer during the early 1980s, when the agency's top official in Washington was forced to resign after he allowed Dow to censor an EPA study documenting dioxin's dangers.

"We have a responsibility to make sure people are living in a healthy and safe environment," Gade said. "This problem has been out there for more than 30 years, and it's unconscionable that action hasn't been taken."

"We know Dow is responsible," said Ralph Dollhopf, associate director of the EPA's regional Superfund office. "The question now is when something will finally be done about it."

In Saginaw, some are reluctant to question one of the area's biggest employers and benefactors. They tout Dow's 3,100 manufacturing jobs and its donations to community and arts groups, including its sponsorship of a struggling civic arena, now known as the Dow Event Center.

Bob VanDeventer, president of the Saginaw County Chamber of Commerce, said local leaders are trying to fight the perception that dioxin makes the area unsafe. He argued "not one illness" can be attributed to dioxin and insisted the only way someone could be exposed to dioxin is if they "eat the dirt."

"Michigan is in the tank economically already," VanDeventer said. "For us, this situation certainly creates more uncertainty as long as it remains unresolved."

Others who were drawn to living along the picturesque Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers fear the contamination will make it impossible to sell their homes or will get them sick.

For more than 40 years, Lloyd and Joy Cooper have lived in a cottage near where the tree-lined rivers meet. Contractors for the EPA and Dow have tested their yard at least four times in two years.

In February Dow told federal regulators they had found dioxin levels of 5,900 parts per trillion in the Collins' neighborhood, above the federal cleanup standard of 1,000 parts per trillion. Michigan's far more stringent limit is 90 parts per trillion.

"It gets pretty frustrating," said Lloyd Cooper, a retired contractor. "It seems like they're dragging this out as long as they can. If they're going to do something, do it and get it over with for good."

The Independent, 2/5/2008

Getting ministers to disclose sensitive material about Iraq and Afghanistan can be like pulling teeth. In the US, dogged perseverance is paying off, says Robert Verkaik, Law Editor

The British military continues to hold a firm line on the non-disclosure of documents relating to the detention and interrogation of "unlawful combatants" and terror suspects in Iraq and Afghanistan. But freedom of information campaigners in America, where the right-to-know law has been established for nearly half a century, are enjoying much more success.

New documents released by the US Department of Defense suggest that America continued to use abusive interrogation methods on detainees even after a 2003 instruction ordering the military to end such practices.

The Department of Defense documents, disclosed this week to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) under the US freedom of information law, also shed light on the use of psychologists in military interrogations and the failure of medical workers to report abuse of detainees.

"The documents reveal that psychologists and medical personnel played a key role in sustaining prisoner abuse – a clear violation of their ethical and legal obligations," claims the ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh. The ACLU obtained the documents – unredacted data from what is known as the Church Report – in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed in 2004.

Contrast this disclosure with a similar request made by a British parliamentarian of the Ministry of Defence earlier this year. Andrew Tyrie MP, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, wrote to the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, asking for information about the agreements between Britain, America, Afghanistan and Iraq relating to the treatment of prisoners transferred from one country's forces to another.

The government reply on 19 March was confusing and failed to address the requirement of the Freedom of Information Act to cite an exemption for not providing the information requested. Mr Browne's letter didn't even refer to the Act.

On 21 April Mr Tyrie wrote again, setting out his concerns about the way the Freedom of Information Act requests were dealt with, making the same requests for information, and copying his letter to the Information Commissioner. He told Mr Browne:

The arrangements in place to ensure that detainees captured by British forces are not subsequently transferred to places where they may be tortured appear to be inadequate. And government responses to my requests for further information on this crucial issue have been a shambles.

In America similar suspicions about the unlawful treatment of prisoners have proved to be justified. The Church Report shows that

the use of some of the [illegal interrogation] techniques . . . continued even until July 2004, despite the fact that many were retracted by the October 2003 memorandum, and some were

subsequently prohibited by the May 2004 memorandum.

Lawyers acting for Iraqi detainees arrested by the British Army believe there was a similar failure of communication governing the rules for the treatment of prisoners in post-invasion Iraq.

"Recent Freedom of Information Act requests to the Ministry of Defence have been refused without proper reasons," Mr Tyrie says:

The UK government appears not to know where people it captures, and subsequently transfers into US custody, are taken. It continues to rely on US assurances, which have been called into question by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

As in America, freedom of information campaigners in the UK are learning that full disclosure of potentially politically damaging material is only secured by recourse to the courts.

The Australian, 3/5/2008 

Freedom of speech has become a critical issue

TODAY'S World Press Freedom Day is about much more than journalists being able to do their jobs unimpeded. It is about the public's right to know the truth about how the governments they elect and the services they pay for, such as police and hospitals, operate. This year, the day comes at the end of an appalling week for press freedom.

On Wednesday, armed police from the Major Fraud Squad raided the Perth office of The Sunday Times newspaper. They spent four hours trying to prise out the source of a story that had embarrassed the Government of Alan Carpenter, a former journalist. The story was in the public interest, relating to a request by Treasurer Eric Ripper for $16 million to pay for advertising for the Government's re-election campaign. It was the second time in a month that police, whose stretched resources would be better employed fighting crime, had entered the Sunday Times offices to uncover the sources of political stories.

Speaking on behalf of the media coalition, Australia's Right to Know, News Limited chairman and chief executive John Hartigan said: "This is a disturbing reminder that governments in Australia will resort to legal muscle to redress political embarrassment. Do we now live in a country where whistleblowers and journalists can expect to be hunted down and charged if they reveal government information that is a matter of legitimate public interest? The answer, regrettably, appears to be yes."

The armed raid, reminiscent of those in countries such as Malaysia, erodes Australia's credibility in speaking out against the intimidation again meted out to the media this week in Fiji. The Fijian Government, known for its brutality, corruption and totalitarian rule, arrested Evan Hannah, managing director of The Fiji Times on Thursday night, forcibly removing him from his home, pending deportation. The arrest came two months after another Australian, Russell Hunter, publisher of the rival Fiji Sun, was arrested in a night-time raid on his home and deported.

Amid such repression, it should be reassuring to know that federal Labor, in the run-up to the November election, promised a mature and open approach to freedom of information. A Rudd government, the ALP's policy document said, would "drive cultural change across the bureaucracy to promote a pro-disclosure attitude". Information would be withheld only "where this is in the public interest". The Australian community would be able to "properly access information in the possession of the commonwealth Government."

These fine commitments have already melted into hollow rhetoric with the federal Government using FOI laws to block the release of advice about the wage-push inflationary effects of its industrial relations changes.

In response to an FOI request from the ABC, the bulk of the 38 pages produced this week were censored. A Treasury official's lily-livered excuse was that full disclosure would "be contrary to public interest as they are internal documents containing information which could raise unnecessary debate on matters considered by cabinet". This ridiculous mindset, reflective of Orwell's Big Brother, deems economic debate "unnecessary" and against the public interest.

In reality, Treasury concerns about Labor's abolition of the Howard government's IR reforms have been known for months. In August, Treasury secretary Ken Henry underlined the importance of flexible labour markets for sustaining full employment. Months after the triumphant abolition of Work Choices, full disclosure of the relevant Treasury advice would have been no more than mildly embarrassing for the Rudd Government. But a cynic might suggest it feared the advice could come back to haunt it in the event of an inflationary wages breakout. The public interest, however, demands openness rather than a cover-up and Mr Rudd's silence on the subject yesterday was deafening.

This penchant for secrecy pervades both sides of politics and much of the legal system, to the detriment of public life. This newspaper, for instance, spent much of the last parliament battling former treasurer Peter Costello's blocking the release of data about bracket creep and the use of the First Home Buyers Scheme. The Australian lost the case in the High Court.

In a report released at last night's Australian Press Freedom Media Dinner in Sydney, the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance noted numerous perturbing instances of censorship. These included the sentencing of former public servant, Allan Kessing, to a nine-month suspended jail term after he was found guilty of leaking a report on serious gaps in airport security to The Australian. The issue was vital to the public interest.

In the US, freedom of speech is fundamental to national culture and guaranteed under the First Amendment. Australia's establishment, in contrast, is increasingly embracing the censorious, "less is more" mentality of the taciturn British civil service. At every turn, civil libertarians battle to keep the public in the dark about lawyers' clients facing charges. States such as Queensland keep pertinent school performance data under wraps, while Tasmania refuses to release details of secret proposals for taxpayers to subsidise pipelines to service the controversial Gunns pulp mill. Secrecy, control and spin have rendered free speech fragile. This is bad for democracy and the issue deserves elevating to the centre of national debate.

The Guardian, Chris Ames, 2/5/2008

Friends of the Earth has claimed a significant legal victory in their campaign to expose the influence of business leaders on government, the group says.

In a decision published this week, the information tribunal has ruled that ministers and officials cannot expect to keep their discussions with lobbyists secret. The tribunal has ordered the business secretary, John Hutton, to disclose details of meetings with industry representatives.

The tribunal ruling largely upholds an earlier decision by the information commissioner, Richard Thomas. The documents requested by Friends of the Earth (FoE) included records of meetings in 2005 between Alan Johnson, then secretary of state at the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).

Discussions covered a range of environmental issues, including climate change, planning reform, nuclear power and energy policy. The documents also include the notes of an "away day" involving senior DTI and CBI officials.

In a 2005 report, the House of Commons environmental audit committee expressed scepticism over CBI claims that environmental regulations damaged competitiveness and accused the CBI of "scaremongering".

Jones is now himself a minister at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), which replaced the DTI last year and brought the appeal against Thomas's decision.

BERR had claimed that the documents were not "environmental information" and therefore did fall under environmental information regulations. The tribunal rejected this.

The case also fell under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). BERR also argued that the discussions should remain confidential because their disclosure could damage policymaking within government. The FOIA provides general right to information but exemptions allow ministers and officials a "private thinking space" when formulating policy.

But, in a landmark decision that is likely to have implications for other areas of government, the tribunal found that there is a strong public interest in scrutiny of the influence that lobbyists have on government. It noted that "this is one of the first cases where the tribunal has been called upon to consider whether a similar private space can be extended to a third party, who is a lobbyist, outside government."

Phil Michaels, the head of legal at FoE, called on the government to respond to the ruling by showing greater openness. He said: "The tribunal has recognised that transparency is particularly important where a group like the CBI has privileged access to government to push their views. It is crucial that the government now changes its outmoded culture of secrecy and recognises the importance of transparency in its dealings with lobby groups."

The tribunal ordered BERR to disclose the documents within four weeks while allowing it to remove some details.

BERR could appeal to the high court and told the Guardian that it is considering the judgement carefully. A spokesman added: "We believe that there are circumstances where it is in the public interest to protect the 'thinking space' necessary for good public policy formulation and to enable the department to have a private discourse with external organisations."

Homeland Security Today, Phil Leggiere , 30/4/2008

New report from Greenpeace decries role of K Street in chemical security legislative process

As HSToday has pointed out in numerous articles over the past few years, most recently in February of this year, (Click here to read the full story) chemical storage and manufacturing facilities represent perhaps the single largest target of opportunity in the US for massive and catastrophic destruction. How to secure them, and whose responsibility that is, has become a hotly contentious issue, with wide frustration at the relative lack of progress. According to environmentalist activist group Greenpeace, the key obstacle to the forging of comprehensive legislation to make plants both more secure and less dangerous to begin with by switching to safer chemicals, is the power of K Street lobbyists over policy. In a report on the role of lobbyists in preventing strong laws and chemical security regulations released today the group attempts to document its claims. Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace Toxics campaign and co-author of the report spoke to HSToday.us to preview the reports contents. 

Click here to read the full report 

HSToday.us: What motivated you to put out this report?

Hind: For the most part chemical plant security is a low profile issue. But if we ever had a Bhopal type incident or a terror attack it would dwarf anything we’ve seen. One of the keys to how proactive we can be on this issue is legislation in Congress, and there you find an army of lobbyists spending millions of dollars, we believe and try to document in this report preventing effective legislation from being enacted. 

HSToday.us: What sort of methodology did you use in putting this together? How was the data compiled?

Hind: We look at the congressional lobbying records of chemical companies and allied businesses, and also the docket of DHS public comments. Then we looked at the membership of trade associations. So there were these layers of a pyramid, trade association lobbyists, company in-house lobbyists and the outside lobby firms hired by these groups. To get this we compiled data from mid-year and year-end lobbying disclosure reports. 

We only looked at companies spending $10 thousand and more, and those registered specifically to work on bills related to chemical security. 

HSToday.us: What’s the current status of legislation on chemical plant security and what motivation or strategy do you attribute to the chemical industry? What are they lobbying for?

Hind: The current chemical facility security law, which expires October 4, 2009 is a 740 word rider attached to the 2007 DHS appropriations bill. The rider actually prohibits DHS from requiring the use of safer more secure technologies and chemicals. 

Over the past year we believe there have been two primary strategies that drive the chemical industry lobby. One is to just run out the clock on the temporary law and letting it lapse next year. The other is to use the agricultural sector to scare rural area congress people from voting for chemical security legislation on the basis that it will take farmer’s chemicals away from them. There’s a lobbying group which calls itself the Agricultural Retailer’s Association which sounds like a Mom and Pop general store group but actually is composed of huge multi-nationals.

HSToday.us: What about the danger or at least the fear of excessive or heavy-handed regulation. Even assuming you’re right that the agricultural group is dominated by, or as you say a “front” for big chemical companies, might not some of their points resonate with smaller businesses?

Hind: We see that as a specious argument. These bills, though we as an environmental activist group support them and are upfront about that ,nonetheless are not environmentalist bills. They are not drawn up in the way an environmentalist would write them. They direct companies to have an assessment performed and to choose environmental alternatives that are economically feasible. 

The Guardian, David Hencke, 30/4/2008

John Lyon, the parliamentary standards commissioner, has launched an investigation into whether a Labour MP abused taxpayers' cash by using his annual parliamentary allowance to put out partisan propaganda against the Tories in the run up to the local elections.

Ian Cawsey, MP for Brigg and Goole, is under fire for attacking Tories in Yorkshire for wanting to downgrade his local fire station as part of a big reorganisation of services in the county and neighbouring Humberside. The MP denies the letter is partisan.

He is one of two Labour MPs reported to the standards commissioner by the Tories for abusing the communications allowance. The commissioner is deciding whether to investigate Eric Martlew, MP for Carlisle.

The rules on the communications allowance tells MPs: "The content of any communications paid from the allowances must not seek to compare the member's party favourably with another, promote one party at the expense of another or seek to undermine the reputation of political opponents."

Cawsey used the allowance to send a letter to 2000 people who wrote to him, protesting about the fire services plan. The letter – headed "Tory Councillors vote to Support the Downgrading of Goole fire station" – went on to accuse the Conservatives on East Riding council of "a betrayal of our town" in voting for the downgrade. This was the contrasted with the opposition by Labour councillors in Goole.

Cawsey defended the letter, saying it was a factual account of what had happened and there was no other way of explaining it. He said there were no local elections in his constituency - although there are local elections in other parts of Humberside and North Lincolnshire which are affected by the fire service re-organisation.

Martlew confirmed a complaint had been made by the Tories against him for a newsletter and survey funded by the allowance. But he said he had cleared it with the parliamentary authorities.

The shadow minister for the cabinet office, Francis Maude, said: "At a time when Labour MPs in marginal seats feel increasingly vulnerable, this is the naked use of taxpayers' money to fund their survival hopes. It's not surprising that politicians are held in such contempt with this sort of cynical raid on the taxpayer.

"The Conservative party is committed to restoring trust in British politics, and scrapping the communications allowance is a major step towards this."

Editors and Publishers, Joe Strupp, 30/4/2008

The massive New York Times probe 10 days ago about retired military officers, prepped by the Pentagon, who served as influential television commentators since the runup to the Iraq war -- and also have conflicting ties to defense contractors -- has sparked a serious backlash among many journalists, such as Howard Kurtz, and others since it ran a week and a half ago.

But one group has remained largely silent: the television networks themselves.

Despite an avalanche of criticism throughout the blogosphere, and by a handful of journalism veterans and critics, the news chiefs and on-air hosts at CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS, have had little reaction to the revelations concerning the "Media Generals."

New York Times editors, meanwhile, have declined to comment on the issue, with staff writer David Barstow, who wrote the original April 20 piece, telling E&P only: "I am continuing to do reporting on the subject. I would like to keep sticking to what I have been doing."

Even when NBC News anchor Brian Williams finally broached the subject yesterday -- on his blog -- he felt the need to criticize the Times first before claiming that the on-air use of retired generals was not a problem. "I can only account for the men I know best," he wrote. "The Times article was about the whole lot of them -- including instances involving other networks and other experts, who can answer for themselves. At no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers. I think they are better men than that, and I believe our news division is better than that."

But Williams defense of two retired generals he worked with does not seem to be enough response for many who follow such issues, including members of Military Reporters and Editors, the association of military writers. The group has come out strongly against the practice this week and also criticized the networks for failing to respond.

"I am a little surprised that there hasn't been more reaction to it," said Ron Martz, MRE president and a former military reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "It is something that resonated in our group. It makes us concerned about how much we have to reveal about the corporate ties of the sources that we use for stories on military affairs."

Martz said MRE has already planned to add at least one panel, or more, on the issue for its annual convention in the fall. "Many of us have used these generals as sources and the story made us sit up and take notice," he added. "I am surprised that the networks haven't reacted more to this. I would think there would be a little bit more response by the networks."

Lou Hansen, a MRE board member and military reporter for The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, agreed. "You would like for them to react more," he said. "You want to know as much about a source as possible. It would be nice for TV to acknowledge something like this. It is a big deal."

Carl Prine, another MRE leader and investigative reporter on military affairs for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, said much of the television non-reaction should not be a surprise, given that networks approach the use of the generals differently, including paying many of them. "Most print reporters ask sources if they have any financial ties," he added. "For T.V., it doesn’t seem that they fully vetted these guys -- or were deceived."

Prine said more needs to be known about the specifics of the contracts the networks have with some of these generals, citing a possible legal issue. "I don’t know what these contracts say," he added. "I don’t see why they would need to pay the people in the first place."

For Don North, a veteran television journalist and now a freelance filmmaker whose experience dates back to covering the Vietnam War, questionable dealings by retired generals are not a surprise. "I gave up trusting what generals had to say a long time ago," says North, whose past work included stints at ABC and NBC. "Gen. [William] Westmoreland gave me cause to do that a long time ago."

As for the television networks' lack of response, North says: "I am not surprised that the network executives, the suits there, have not been rushing to justify themselves. It is their nature to shut the hell up and hope it will blow over."

But the blow-over has not occurred. Among other critiques since the Times story ran has been that from Howard Kurtz, media writer for The Washington Post who also hosts "Reliable Sources" on CNN.

In a chat with online readers this week, Kurtz said: "I don't agree that the MSM cover war and economics poorly but I do think their coverage of this important issue has been pathetic." He later added, "If there has been any coverage of this on CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC or Fox, I've missed it. The story makes the networks look bad, and their response, by and large, has been to ignore it."

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com weighed in this morning, once again, writing: "It has now been more than ten days since the New York Times exposed the Pentagon's domestic propaganda program involving retired generals and, still, not a single major news network has even mentioned the story to their viewers, let alone responded to the numerous questions surrounding their own behavior.

"This steadfast blackout occurs despite the fact that the Pentagon propaganda program almost certainly violates numerous federal laws; both Democratic presidential candidates sternly denounced the Pentagon's conduct; and Congressional inquiries are already underway, all of which forced the Pentagon to announce that it suspended its program....

"Just consider what is going on here. The core credibility of war reporting by Brian Williams and NBC News has been severely undermined by a major NYT expose. That story involves likely illegal behavior by the Pentagon, in which NBC News appears to have been complicit, resulting in the deceitful presentation of highly biased and conflicted individuals as 'independent' news analysts. Yet they refuse to tell their viewers about any of this, and refuse to address any of the questions that have been raised." Greenwald has several lengthy posts, with updates, at:
www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald
*
Several chapters related to this subject are included in E&P Editor Greg Mitchell's new book, "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq." 

The Detroit News, David Shepardson, 1/5/2008

Efforts to influence fuel economy standards largely drive record figure; GM leads industry with $14M.

he automotive industry spent a record $70.3 million lobbying Congress in 2007, a figure largely driven by efforts to influence changes in the fuel economy standards of the nation's cars and trucks, according to a new report by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

That amount was up 19.6 percent from the $58.8 million the industry spent in 2006, according to the report. The industry is expecting to spend the same or less in 2008 because it's an election year and their focus will be on proposed regulatory changes.

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said businesses, labor unions, governments and other interests spent a record $2.79 billion to lobby Washington in 2007, up 7.7 percent or $200 million in spending the year before.

"At a time when our economy is contracting, Washington's lobbying industry has been expanding," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the group. "Lobbying seems to be a recession-proof industry. In some respects, interests seek even more from our government when the economy slows."

General Motors Corp. led the industry in spending in 2007, chalking up $14.3 million. Ford Motor Co. spent $7.2 million. Toyota Motor Corp. followed with $5.9 million.

GM's lobbying expenses fell below other entities and trade groups like the AARP and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America. GM was the fifth largest corporate spender behind General Electric Co., ExxonMobil, AT&T and Amgen, according to the report.

"Our lobbying activity is proportional to the potential competitive and economic impact that proposed legislation could have on our business," said GM spokesman Greg Martin.

Last year, Detroit's automakers battled several contentious issues, including proposals to dramatically boost fuel economy requirements. In December, Congress approved a bill that increases fuel efficiency standards 40 percent to 35 mpg by 2020.

This year, GM has spent $4.1 million on lobbying, the second most of any U.S. corporation behind General Electric, which spent $4.2 million. Separately, GM's political donations this year include $25,000 to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's political action committee, Join Arnold, according to records filed with the California Secretary of State. GM has embraced reforms advocated by Schwarzenegger's PAC, including in health care and redistricting.

GM and other automakers have been at odds with California because the state has sued the Environmental Protection Agency to seek stricter emissions standards than those that exist under the Clean Air Act.

This year marks the first that companies are required to report their lobbying expenses every three months, instead of six.

Among the other automakers:

• Ford Motor Co. has spent $1.92 million in the first three months of 2008. Ford spokesman Mike Moran said the company doesn't expect to significantly boost spending in 2008.

• Of the $5.9 million Toyota spent in 2007, $3.6 million came in the second half of the year. Its total was up from $5.7 million in 2006, according to records filed with the U.S. Senate. Toyota has spent $1.2 million in the first three months of this year.

• Honda Motor Co. spent $1.83 million in 2007, and $462,000 in the first three months of 2008, a figure nearly on pace with last year.

• Nissan North America spent $4 million in 2007, up from $2.6 million in 2006. Nissan spent 1.1 million in the first three months of this year. The company hasn't filed its report for the first three months of 2008 yet.

• Privately owned Chrysler LLC spent $1.4 million in the first three months of the year after spending $4 million in the last six months of 2007. The privately owned company had not file a disclosure report with the Senate. The company spent $2.7 million in the last six months of 2007, most of which came after Daimler AG sold 80.1 percent of its stake in Chrysler.

The trade group representing the Detroit Big Three, Toyota and six other automakers, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, spent $12.8 million in 2007, and $2.6 million in the first three months of this year.

Its counterpart, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, a group largely representing foreign-based automakers, including Toyota, Honda and Nissan, spent about $1 million in 2008 and $280,000 in the first three months of the year.