thedailyjournalist, Author at Think Research Expose - Page 24 of 24

Posts by thedailyjournalist:

Strengthening forensic science in the United States

July 23rd, 2013

The Daily Journalist.

After reading this document, one has to conclude, that the real CSI is about as fantizidal as the story of Alice in Wonderland. Unfortunately real scientific standards are not applied in forensic science, as shown in popular shows.

The document written by the National Academy of Sciences will explain how many of these unreliable techniques are presently used to trace criminals in court cases. And how the so call scientifically based procedures applied in criminal investigations, concur in faith and guessing, rather than logic and real certainty.

By The National Academy of Sciences.

Introduction.

On November 22, 2005, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 became law.
Under the terms of the statute, Congress authorized “the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on forensic science, as described in the Senate report.”

The Senate Report to which the Conference Report refers states: While a great deal of analysis exists of the requirements in the discipline of DNA, there exists little to no analysis of the remaining needs of the community outside of the area of DNA. Therefore . . . the Committee directs the Attorney General to provide [funds] to the National Academy of Sciences to create an independent Forensic Science Committee. This Committee shall include members of the forensics community representing operational crime laboratories, medical examiners, and coroners; legal experts; and other scientists as determined appropriate.

The Senate Report also sets forth the charge to the Forensic Science Committee, instructing it to:

(1) assess the present and future resource needs of the forensic science community, to include State and local crime labs, medical examiners, and coroners;

(2) make recommendations for maximizing the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve crimes, investigate deaths, and
protect the public;
(3) identify potential scientific advances that may assist law enforcement in using forensic technologies and techniques to protect the public;

(4) make recommendations for programs that will increase the number of qualified forensic scientists and medical examiners available to work in public crime laboratories;

(5) disseminate best practices and guidelines concerning the collection and analysis of forensic evidence to help ensure quality and consistency in the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve crimes, investigate deaths, and protect the public;

(6) examine the role of the forensic community in the homeland security mission;

(7) [examine] interoperability of Automated Fingerprint Information Systems [AFIS]; and

(8) examine additional issues pertaining to forensic science as determined by the Committee.

In the fall of 2006, a committee was established by the National Academy of Sciences to implement this congressional charge. As recommended in the Senate Report, the persons selected to serve included members of the forensic science community, members of the legal community, and a diverse group of scientists.

Operating under the project title “Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community,” the committee met on eight occasions: January 25-26, April 23-24, June 5-6, September 20-21, and December 6-7, 2007, and March 24-25, June 23-24, and November 14-15, 2008. During these meetings, the committee heard expert testimony and deliberated over the information it heard and received. Between meetings, committee members reviewed numerous published materials, studies, and reports related to the forensic science disciplines, engaged in independent research on the subject, and worked on drafts of the final report.

Experts who provided testimony included federal agency officials; academics and research scholars; private consultants; federal, state, and local law enforcement officials; scientists; medical examiners; a coroner; crime laboratory officials from the public and private sectors; independent investigators; defense attorneys; forensic science practitioners; and leadership of professional and standard setting organizations (see the Acknowledgments and Appendix B for a complete listing of presenters).

SUMMARY

The issues covered during the committee’s hearings and deliberations included: (a) the fundamentals of the scientific method as applied to forensic practice—hypothesis generation and testing, falsifiability and replication, and peer review of scientific publications;

(b) the assessment of forensic methods and technologies—the collection and analysis of forensic data; accuracy and error rates of
forensic analyses; sources of potential bias and human error in interpretation by forensic experts; and proficiency testing of forensic experts;

(d) current training and education in forensic science;

(e) the structure and operation of forensic science laboratories;

(f) the structure and operation of the coroner and medical examiner systems;

(g) budget, future needs, and priorities of the forensic science community and the coroner and medical examiner systems;

(h) the accreditation, certification, and licensing of forensic science operations, medical death investigation systems, and scientists;

(i) Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) and their practices;

(j) forensic science practices— pattern/experience evidence o fingerprints (including the interoperability of AFIS)

– firearms examination

– toolmarks

– bite marks

– impressions (tires, footwear)

– bloodstain pattern analysis

– handwriting

– hair

analytical evidence

– DNA

– coatings (e.g., paint)

– chemicals (including drugs)

– materials (including fibers)

– fluids

– serology

– fire and explosive analysis

– digital evidence;

(k) the effectiveness of coroner systems as compared with medical examiner systems;

(l ) the use of forensic evidence in criminal and civil litigation—

– the collection and flow of evidence from crime scenes to courtrooms

– the manner in which forensic practitioners testify in court

– cases involving the misinterpretation of forensic evidence

– the adversarial system in criminal and civil litigation

– lawyers’ use and misuse of forensic evidence

– judges’ handling of forensic evidence;

(m) forensic practice and projects at various federal agencies, including NIST, the FBI, DHS, U.S. Secret Service, NIJ, DEA, and DOD;

(n) forensic practice in state and local agencies;

(o) nontraditional forensic service providers; and

(p) the forensic science community in the United Kingdom.

The testimonial and documentary evidence considered by the committee was detailed, complex, and sometimes controversial. Given this reality, the committee could not possibly answer every question that it confronted, nor could it devise specific solutions for every problem that it identified. Rather, it reached a consensus on the most important issues now facing the forensic science community and medical examiner system and agreed on 13 specific recommendations to address these issues.

Challenges Facing the Forensic Science Community For decades, the forensic science disciplines have produced valuable
evidence that has contributed to the successful prosecution and conviction of criminals as well as to the exoneration of innocent people. Over the last two decades, advances in some forensic science disciplines, especially the use of DNA technology, have demonstrated that some areas of forensic science have great additional potential to help law enforcement identify criminals. Many crimes that may have gone unsolved are now being solved because forensic science is helping to identify the perpetrators.

Those advances, however, also have revealed that, in some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.
Further advances in the forensic science disciplines will serve three important purposes. First, further improvements will assist law enforcement officials in the course of their investigations to identify perpetrators with higher reliability. Second, further improvements in forensic science practices….

To continue reading: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf

No Comments "

Archaeologist find King Davids kingdom

July 20th, 2013

By Hebrew University.

A joint excavation led by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Antiquities Authorities discovered two of the largest structures ever uncovered from the Kingdom of Judea, the Israel Antiquities Authorities announced on Thursday.

Researchers Prof. Yossi Garfinkel and Saar Ganor identified one of the structures as a palace of King David, while the other as a large storage structure for the kingdom.

The excavation, which lasted seven years, gives evidence to state building and administrative organization during the time of King David.

According to Garfinkel and Ganor, “The ruins are the best example to date of the uncovered fortress city of King David,” giving researchers a step up in understanding the origins of the kingdom of Judah.

“This is indisputable proof of the existence of a central authority in Judah during the time of King David,” the archaeologists said.

Until now, no palaces were clearly attributable to the early tenth century BC. According to the archeologists, the site, named ‘Khirbet Qeiyafa’, was probably destroyed in a battle against the Philistines in 980 BC.

Recent excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the first early Judean city to be dated by 14C, clearly indicate a well planned fortified city in Judah as early as the late 11th-early 10th centuries BC. This new data has far reaching implication for archaeology, history and biblical studies.

Khirbet Qeiyafa is located 30 km southwest of Jerusalem, on the summit of a hill that borders the Elah Valley on the north. This is a key strategic location in the biblical Kingdom of Judah, on the main road from Philistia and the Coastal Plain to Jerusalem and Hebron in the hill country.

The city was constructed on bedrock, 2.3 hectares in area, surrounded by massive fortifications of megalithic stones. Five seasons of excavation were carried out in 2007-2011, five areas of the site (Areas A-E) were examined, and nearly 20% of the city has been uncovered. The expedition excavated 200 m of the city wall, two gates, a pillar building and 10 houses. In this area one of the world’s most famous battles took place, the battle between David and Goliath.

Such urban planning has not been found at any Canaanite or Philistine city, nor in the northern Kingdom of Israel, but is a typical feature of city planning in Judean cities: Beersheba, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Nasbeh and Tell Beth-Shemesh. Khirbet Qeiyafa is the earliest known example of this city plan and indicates that this pattern had already been developed by the time of King David.

The city came to an end in a sudden destruction, as indicated by hundreds of pottery vessels, stone utensils and metal objects left on the floors of the houses. Very rich assemblages of pottery, stone tools and metal objects were found, as well as many cultic objects, scarabs, seals and the most famous Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon, an inscription written with ink on a pottery sherd. The recent excavations also revealed fragments of a special alabaster stone imported from Egypt.

Around the perimeter of the palace were rooms in which various installations were found – evidence of a metal industry, special pottery vessels and fragments of alabaster vessels that were imported from Egypt, archaeologists said.

A pillared building 15 meters long by 6 meters wide was exposed in the north of the city, which was used as an administrative storeroom, they said.

The importance of the discovery of the biblical city led the Israel Antiquities Authority in collaboration with the Natural Parks Authority to reject a proposal to build a new neighborhood close to the site, declaring the area and its surroundings a national park.

No Comments "

Influence Explored: Bank of America, BlackRock, Bank of New York Mellon all invest heavily in Congress

July 20th, 2013

By the Sunlight Foundation.

An article from Reuters yesterday highlights an $8.5 billion settlement reached between Bank of Americaand 530 trusts currently holding $425 billion in mortgage bonds.

The mortgages were sold to investment banks by Countrywide during the real estate boom, and became worth substantially less as homeowners began defaulting on their loans. Countrywide was later purchased by Bank of America, and is now responsible for Countrywide’s debt.

Mortgage bond investors are being organized by Bill Frey of Greenwich Financial to demand that big Wall Street firms buy back mortgage bonds created using home loans that later went bad.

Here’s a look at the influence behind the companies mentioned in the piece:

Countrywide Financial spent $890,630 in campaign contributions and spent $8.6 million on lobbying between 2001 and when it was taken over by Bank of America in July 2008. One of the bills Countrywide lobbied was the Responsible Lending Act.
Bank of America made $3,613,051 in campaign contributions in the 2009-10 election cycle, 62 percent of which went to Republicans.
BlackRock Inc. made $319,590 in campaign contributions in 2009-10, 79 percent of which went to Democrats. The company also spent $390,000 on lobbying in 2009-10.
BlackRock and Bank of America both hired lobbyists for some of the same bills related to the settlement deal, including the Helping Families Save Their homes Act of 2009 which became law, and the Comprehensive Derivatives Regulation Act of 2009, which did not.
Bank of New York Mellon made $792,565 in campaign contributions in 2009-10, 55 percent of which went to Democrats. The bank spent $2.4 million lobbying Congress on issues including the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010, which BlackRock and Bank of America both hired lobbyists for and eventually became law.

‘Influence Explored’ takes an article from the day’s headlines and exposes the influential ways of entities mentioned in the article. Names and corporations are run through Sunlight’s influence tracking tools such as Influence Explorer and Transparency Data to remind readers of the money that powers Washington.

No Comments "

100 Best Blogs For Journalism Students

July 20th, 2013

Report.

With newspapers going under all over the nation, journalism is becoming an increasingly hard field in which to start a career as the number of opportunities in traditional media are rapidly dwindling. Journalism students shouldn’t despair just yet, however, as the web and other digital outlets are offering a host of new opportunities that may help fill the gaps left by the loss of many local papers and print magazines. Yet while new opportunities may be on the horizon for web-savvy journalists, that doesn’t mean that journalism has become any less competitive and to make it into a solid job, students will need to know more than just how to write well.

One way to get a leg up is by studying the trends, technologies, and intricacies of the modern world of journalism, a goal which is most easily accomplished by becoming an avid reader of journalism blogs. We’ve collected a few here that we think are essential reads for journalism students, an update on our original list from 2009, which includes some new names and faces as well as some perennial favorites that we think journalism students shouldn’t miss out on following.

The Daily Journalist is the only site that offers “Neo-Journalism” the next level of journalism.

General

Read up on journalism basics through the insights offered on these blogs.

Poynter.:
This organization’s blog is home to great news on all things journalism and media.
Common Sense Journalism:
Doug Fisher, broadcaster and newspaper reporter, shares his thoughts on new media and traditional media alike on this site.
Data Journalism Blog:
Educate yourself on data-driven journalism when you check out this regularly updated, infographic-heavy blog.
About.com Journalism:
This blog is a great place to learn about everything from AP style to finding a job after graduation.
journajunkie:
Here, readers can find articles on a wide scope of journalism-related topics.
Journalistics:
This journalism blog focuses on social media, PR, media relations, and other modern issues in the profession.
Covering Health:
Health care is a big issue these days and this blog from the Association of Health Care Journalists offers tips and insights into covering it.
MediaBistro:
Read news about media issues, find tips, and even get job leads from this great blog.
The Evolving Newsroom:
Julie Starr shares her thoughts on the news business and newsrooms around the U.S. on this blog.

News

Read news about the news, or at least the people who report it, through these excellent blogs.

Journalism.org:
Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shares data, analysis, news, and reports through this must-read blog.
Editor & Publisher:
Keep up with all the latest news about newspapers and digital publications around the world by following this blog.
sans serif:
Don’t limit your reading to only American topics. On this blog, you’ll learn about journalism in India, from who’s who to what’s working for papers.
newsguild.org:
Newspaper Guild and Communications Workers of America can find relevant news stories of interest through this blog.
Media Guardian:
Read up on media from across the pond in this Guardian-penned blog filled with the latest news.
Adweek:
This blog makes it simple to keep up with news in the press, television, technology, and advertising.
Newspaper Death Watch:
Sadly, newspapers are slowly dying out all over the U.S. Learn more about which ones have fallen on this somewhat macabre blog.
Topix Journalism News:
This aggregate blog brings together journalism stories from thousands of different sites.
I Want Media:
Read up on all the latest media news, from papers to movies, on this simple media-focused blog.
Newspaper and Online News:
The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication maintains this blog, full of information not only about the organization but journalism as a whole.
Alltop Journalism News:
This blog aggregates journalism news from all over the web, bringing it together in one accessible place.

Academia

Hear from students, professors, and experts on journalism on this diverse collection of blogs.

Bob Stepno’s Other Journalism:
Professor Bob Stepno shares his thoughts with former Radford University students, colleagues, and the public on this blog.
Jay Rosen’s Press Think:
Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at NYU, offers up commentary on all things journalism (especially its struggle to survive in our digital world) on this site.
Columbia Journalism Review:
Head to this blog for a look at the world of journalism from all sides, courtesy of the students, professors, and professionals at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Teaching Online Journalism:
The web plays a key role in journalism these days, something you can learn more about from Professor Mindy McAdams via this blog.
Nieman Journalism Lab:
The Nieman Foundation at Harvard maintains this blog, full of journalism ideas, media updates, and more.
Campfire Journalism:
Professor Mark Berkey-Gerard teaches online and multimedia journalism courses at Rowan University, but even those not enrolled in his classes can take advantage of his expertise through this blog.
andydickinson.net:
Here you’ll find professor Andy Dickinson, an expert in digital and online journalism, talking about all kinds of digital media.
JACC Blog:
Read through this blog to learn about the present and future of journalism education at American community colleges.
Innovation in College Media:
This organization’s blog discusses some of the most pressing issues in college media, from content to design and everything in between.
The Online Journalism Review:
The Knight Digital Media Center, USC, and UC Berkeley all contribute to make this blog an informative place for any students or journalists looking to learn more about digital journalism.
Jschool Student Blog:
Students in journalism school in Australia team up to write great posts on life as students on this blog.
CommPilings:
The Annenberg School for Communication’s library shares resources, news, and alerts here.
KDMC Blog:
This site is the official blog of the Knight Digital Media Center, a great place for students to learn more about working with new media in journalism.
University of Vermont Journalism Blog:
Highlighting students and faculty, this university blog can give you a peek into life as a journalism student.
BuzzMachine:
Jeff Jarvis, an associate professor of journalism at CUNY, shares posts on everything from journalism education to new media and technology.
Charlie Beckett:
Charlie Beckett blogs for the London School of Economics and Political Science, touching on the intersection of journalism and society.

New Media

It’s hard to ignore the dominance of the web and other forms of new media in reporting today, so don’t. Instead, learn more about how to leverage these technologies to get your writing and reporting out there.

Journalism 2.0:
Mark Briggs writes and edits this blog that addresses the future of journalism and the growing number of entrepreneurial endeavors that are bringing it into the digital age.
Contentious.com:
Amy Graham shares her thoughts on communication in the digital age on this blog.
Mashable:
While not journalism-focused, this blog is still a must-read for anyone who wants to be at the cutting edge of social media and digital technology.
Online Journalism Blog:
Author of The Online Journalism Handbook Paul Bradshaw, along with the help of several other contributors, writes this blog on the new and sometimes confusing world of online journalism.
MediaShift:
This PBS blog offers news and commentary on the digital media revolution.
Richochet:
Chrys Wu has a passion for both writing and all things techie, which she blends into great informative articles on online journalism here.
paidContent:
Digital content is often where the money’s at these days for journalists who want to make a living. Learn more about this issue on this site, featuring a wide range of internet-focused articles.
Publishing 2.0:
Are you evolving with publishing? This blog will help you keep up with the rapidly changing world of new media in journalism.
Reportr.net:
Alfred Hermida comments on media, technology, and the impact of both on society (and vice versa) through this blog.
Journerdism:
Will Sullivan acts as your guide to mobile news and emerging tech ideas on this blog.
Peter Kafka:
Here, Peter Kafka shares insights into the latest digital technologies that will undoubtedly influence the future of journalism and media.
10,000 Words:
Billed as the place where journalism and technology meet, this blog lives up to that, offering news on the latest web projects from media outlets around the nation.
Media Lab:
MediaShift and the Knight Foundation collaborate to write this blog on reporting, writing, and newspaper publishing in the digital age.
Advancing the Story:
Learn how the digital age is impacting broadcast journalism when you read this blog.
CyberJournalist.net:
Follow the latest and greatest news on how journalists are using the web and new technology to share information.
@PatrickThornton:
Technologist and journalist Patrick Thornton shares his thoughts on the future of journalism here.
Interactive Narratives:
This fascinating blog shows just what can be done to enhance a story when digital media are used.
MediaFile:
This Reuters blog reports on all things media, with a special focus on digital media.
The Richard Jones Journalism Blog:
Digital journalism is the focus on this journalist’s blog, with loads of updates and examples from around the world.
Below the Fold:
Digital communications strategist Gary Goldhammer is a great resource for learning about media in the digital age.

Journalists

Who better to learn about journalism from than those who do it for a living? These blogs are all written by professionals in the field, offering insights into what they do, feel, and think on a daily basis.

Howard Owens:
Howard Owens has been in the news business for a long time, and in the digital media business longer than most. Check out this blog to learn more his experiences, politics, and other topics.
Ryan Sholin:
Explore the future of news with former journalist and current product manager Ryan Sholin.
Abbey Anne’s Blog:
Fresh out of college, this young journalist shares her travels, experiences, and more though her (somewhat hard to read) blog.
DigiDave:
David Cohn has written for a number of leading publications, but some of his most passionate pieces are found right here, focusing on the intersection between media and technology.
Kelly Roche:
Videographer and journalist Kelly Roche shares a wealth of local news on her blog.
SteveOuting.com:
This journalist shares his thoughts on the future of news and media, as well as other topics, on this site.
One Man and His Blog:
Adam Tinworth writes about the intersection of journalism, publishing, social media, and technology.
Steve Yelvington:
Newspaper journalist and media expert Steve Yelvington shares his thoughts on building better online media for news.
The Linchpen:
Greg Linch blogs about journalism, technology, and education on this site.
Martin Stabe:
Get a UK-centric look at the world of new media and online journalism from Martin Stabe, a London-based journalist.
MatthewIngram.com:
Learn more about media, technology, business, and the web from senior GigaOm wrier Mathew Ingram.
Sean Blanda:
Sean Blanda, one of the three co-founders of Technically Media, focuses on digital media, journalism, technology, and other hot topics on this personal blog.
Death Reporting:
Reporter and editor Mark Scahver writes about journalism, research, technology, and other relevant topics here.

Photojournalism

Pictures are worth a thousand words, right? Learn more about what goes into creating some of journalism’s most iconic images.

Robb Montgomery:
International journalist Robb Montgomery shares his expertise on photography, editing, and digital technology on this blog.
Multimedia Shooter:
This blog offers instruction on shooting photos and video that tell a story, as well as reporting on some great job openings.
VideoJournalism:
Think about a story visually with a bit of help from this video journalism blog.
SnappedShot:
Every day you can glimpse an amazing news image on this photo blog.
Maysun Photographer:
Spanish-Portuguese freelance photographer Maysun shares images, essays, and more that can help you learn more about the profession.
Lens Culture Weblog:
Explore the impact of visual images through this blog, sharing amazing stories and updates on photojournalists from around the world.
Mastering Multimedia:
Multimedia producer Colin Mulvany blogs about photography, videography, and more on this site.

Organizations

Keep in touch with leading media groups and organizations through these blogs.

The Society of Professional Journalists Blog Network:
Head to this site to read blogs from a range of professional journalists and writers.
Freepress:
This organization is dedicated to reforming media and ensuring democracy in the U.S.
OPA Blog:
The Online Publishers Association blog is a great place to read more about digital journalism.
Editors Weblog:
The World Editors Forum maintains this blog, full of interesting news stories on journalism, digital media, and more.
Reporters Committee:
Supporting freedom of the press, this organization reports on major cases around the nation where that freedom has been challenged.

Politics and Criticism

These blogs take a hard look at journalism and the way it interacts with politics.

Adrian Monck:
Blogger and broadcast journalist Adrian Monck works at the World Economic Forum these days, and uses his blog to highlight major problems he sees both with media and in world economics.
Reflections of a Newsosaur:
Veteran media executive Alan Mutter shares his perspective on where news-gathering companies are headed on this blog.
Jon Slattery:
U.K.-based freelance journalist Jon Slattery uses his blog as a platform for sharing media criticism from a British perspective.
Save the Media:
Journalist Gina Chen shares ideas and commentary on the dying news industry.
PR Watch:
The Center for Media and Democracy shares updates on the media in politics and controversial issues here.
On the Media:
Readers will find a wealth of commentary on all forms of media on this blog.
Breitbart Big Journalism:
One of several blogs on this site, this blog touches on political topics in journalism.
Rhetorica:
On Rhetorica, readers will find thoughtful commentary on the intersection between politics and journalism.
County Fair:
This Media Matters for America blog reports news and media criticism for readers.
Neiman Watchdog Blog:
This blog encourages reporters to ask questions and get straight answers on the tough issues.

Investigative Journalism

These blogs show the importance and difficulty that comes along with investigative journalism.

Center for Investigative Reporting:
This blog shares investigative reporting stories from around the world, which makes for some pretty inspiring reading.
AnalyticJournalism.com:
Learn tips and tools for getting your story straight (and coming up with a good story to start with) on this crime-focused blog.
The Scoop:
Get the scoop on investigative and computer-assisted reporting from Derek Willis here.

Fun

Need a few laughs? These blogs offer it up.

Overheard in the Newsroom:
This blog catalogs some of the ridiculous and funny things that are said in newsrooms.
Stuff Journalists Like:
Entertaining and interesting, this blog pokes fun at and highlights stuff that journalists will undoubtedly agree is pretty cool.

Citizen Journalism

You don’t need a journalism degree to report the news these days. Learn more about citizen journalists from these blogs.

The Editorialiste:
Blogger Andrew Nusca shares his thoughts on the citizen journalist phenomenon here.
Independent Media Center:
Learn more about independent media outlets and the news they report on this blog.
The NewsMeBack Blog:
This citizen journalism blog shares great books, interviews, articles, and more.
The Citizen Journalist’s Coach:
Susan Carson Cormier is a founder of the National Association of Citizen Journalists and a coach, offering advice and guidance for anyone interested in citizen journalism.

No Comments "

Cloud Penetration Testing

July 19th, 2013

By Ralph LaBarge and Thomas McGuire.

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the results of a series of penetration tests performed on the OpenStack Essex Cloud Management Software. Several different types of penetration tests were performed including network protocol and command line fuzzing, session hijacking and credential theft. Using these techniques exploitable vulnerabilities were discovered that could enable an attacker to gain access to restricted information contained on the OpenStack server, or to gain full administrative privileges on the server.

Key recommendations to address these vulnerabilities are to use a secure protocol, such as HTTPS, for communications between a cloud user and the OpenStack Horizon Dashboard, to encrypt all files that store user or administrative login credentials, and to correct a software bug found in the OpenStack Cinder typedelete command.

KEYWORDS

Cloud, Fuzzing, OpenStack, Penetration Testing, Vulnerability Detection

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses penetration testing of the OpenStack Essex Cloud Management Software package. The paper is organized into nine sections including (I) Introduction, (II) OpenStack Cloud Management Software, (III) Selection of Penetration Testing Software, (IV) Design & Implementation of the Test Cloud, (V) Design & Implementation of the Penetration Test Environment, (VI) Description of the Penetration Tests Performed (VII) Test Results, (VII) Summary and Conclusions, and (IX) References.

2. OPENSTACK CLOUD MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE

OpenStack includes four core services, and a set of ancillary services, which provide an integrated cloud management environment. Core services include “Compute”, “Storage”, “Networking” and “Dashboard”. Shared services include “Identity” and “Image”.

2.1. OpenStack Compute (Nova)

OpenStack Compute is used to provision and manage large networks of virtual machines.
Common use cases for OpenStack Compute include public cloud service providers offering
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud services, IT departments offering private cloud services
within their organizations, Big Data applications using tools like Hadoop, and High-performance
computing (HPC) applications. A partial list of OpenStack Compute features includes:

• Manage virtualized commodity server resources including CPU, memory, disk, and network interfaces

• Manage local area networks including Flat, Flat DHCP, VLAN DHCP, IPv4 and IPv6 networks

• Virtual Machine image management services to store, import, share, and query virtual
images

• Ability to assign (and re-assign) floating IP addresses to VMs

• Role Based Access Control (RBAC) provides security by user, role and project

• VM Image Caching on compute nodes provides faster provisioning of VMs

2.2. OpenStack Storage (Swift & Cinder)

OpenStack Storage provides both object and block storage for use with servers and applications. Object storage is a distributed storage system for static data such as virtual machine images, backups and archives. Objects and files are written to multiple disk drives spread throughout the OpenStack cloud, providing scalability and redundancy. OpenStack also provides persistent
block level storage devices for use with compute instances that require high performance storage for databases, expandable file systems, or a server that requires access to raw block level storage. A partial list of OpenStack Storage features includes:

• Use of commodity hard drives to reduce the cost per storage byte

• Self-healing: Data is copied to several different places across the cloud making the storage system highly redundant and reliable

• Unlimited storage with both horizontal and vertical scaling

• Very large scale: multiple Petabytes with billions of individual objects

• Amazon S3 (Elastic Block Storage) API support

• Built in management utilities provide account management, container management and storage monitoring functions

2.3. OpenStack Networking (Quantum)

OpenStack Networking is an API-driven system for managing cloud networks and IP addresses. A partial list of OpenStack Networking features includes:

• Manages IP addresses, allowing for static, DHCP or floating IP addresses

• Several networking models including flat networks or VLANs

• Allows users to create and manage their own networks

• Support for software-defined networking technology (i.e. OpenFlow)

• Network framework allows for a variety of devices to be integrated into the cloud including intrusion detection systems, load balancers, firewalls, etc.

2.4. OpenStack Dashboard (Horizon)

OpenStack Dashboard allows cloud administrators and users to provision, manage and control cloud compute, storage and networking resources. Cloud administrators use the dashboard to create users and projects, assign users to projects, and set limits on the resources for those projects. Cloud users can also use the dashboard to provision and control the resources that have been allocated to their projects. The OpenStack Dashboard is implemented as an extensible web based application.

2.5. OpenStack Identity (Keystone)

OpenStack Identity maintains a database of users and maps these users to the OpenStack servicesthey are allowed to access. It provides a common authentication system across the cloud and canbe integrated with third party backend directory services (i.e. LDAP). Multiple forms ofauthentication are supported including standard username and password credentials, token-basedsystems and Amazon Web Services style logins. OpenStack Identity allows cloud administrators to set common policies across users and systems, to create users and tenants, and to define permissions for compute, storage and networking resources.

2.6. OpenStack Image (Glance)

The OpenStack Image Service provides discovery, registration and delivery services for disk and server images. Cloud administrators can create base image templates from which cloud users can create new instances. Users and administrators can also create and store snapshots of images.Images can be stored in a variety of common formats including Raw, VHD (Hyper-V), VDI (VirtualBox), qcow2 (Qemu/KVM), VMDK (VMware), and OVF (VMware, others).

3. SELECTION OF PENETRATION TESTING SOFTWARE

Penetration testing software is used to evaluate the security of a computer system or network by simulating an attack. The simulated attack can come from an outsider (e.g. a hacker) or an insider (e.g. a disgruntled employee). Several penetration testing techniques will be used in this research effort, including fuzzing, session hijacking, and credential theft.

3.1. Fuzzing

Fuzzing is used in computer security to describe a number of tools and techniques used to discover vulnerabilities by subjecting a program to a wide variety of inputs. Computer programmers, and testers have used fuzzing techniques since the early 1970’s. [1] The term International Journal on Cloud Computing: Services and Architecture (IJCCSA),Vol.2, No.6, December 2012 46 “fuzzer” was first used in 1988 by Barton Miller, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison (UW-M). Miller, his associates, and students from his Computer Science classes at UW-M developed a series of fuzzers to test the reliability of UNIX system routines and application programs. [2] Another milestone in the history of fuzzing was the initial release of SPIKE in 2001, and its
subsequent presentation at Black Hat 2002 by Dave Aitel of Immunity, Inc.

[3] SPIKE is a fuzzing framework that allows a tester to define the structure of a program’s input as a series of layered blocks. Understanding the structure of the input stream allows fuzzing to be more efficient than simply generating random input data and providing it to a program under test. For example if a program’s input includes a check sum, generating completely random input data to fuzz the program would be extremely inefficient since the random input data would likely not include a valid check sum, and would thus be rejected by the program.

Grammar based fuzzing is a combination of random fuzzing techniques with block-based fuzzing techniques. A minimal definition of the protocol to be fuzzed is created to automatically generate inputs to the program under test that partially complies with the protocol specification. Critical protocol parameters, such as checksums, can be completely specified, while less important
parameters can be randomized. An example of a grammar-based fuzzer is the PROTOS project developed at the University of Oulu in Finland. [4]

Since 2002 the popularity of fuzzing has grown, as has the sophistication and number of opensource and commercial fuzzing tools. Today, fuzzing is widely recognized as a valid computer security test method, and is being used by many commercial software development companies.

Microsoft uses “white-box” fuzzing as part of their quality assurance process. Dr. Patrice Godefroid of Microsoft defines white-box fuzzing as “a new approach to fuzzing pioneered at Microsoft in the SAGE tool and based on symbolic execution and constraint solving techniques.” [5] According to Godefroid a Windows 7 test team found 50% more bugs using a white-box
fuzzer (SAGE) than all other traditional fuzzers combined.

For more on this fantastic article: http://cryptome.org/2013/07/cloud-pentest.pdf

No Comments "

New Bletchley Park and Ethics of Cyber Warfare

July 17th, 2013

By Cryptome.

Naval Postgraduate School lists these IO research projects:

“Initiative to establish a “New Bletchley Park” to exploit, undermine terrorist use of Web/Net, under aegis of VCJCS & USDI”. [Vice Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff & Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.]

“DIA working with Prof. Dorothy Denning and NPS students to secure dot-com domains of contractors.”

Long-ago Cypherpunk nemesis Professor Denning was elected in the first group to the Cyber Security Hall of Fame.

Apropos NSA offensive cyberwar policy which disturbs Bruce Schneier, Denning was interviewed last month on “Ethics of Cyber Warfare:”

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=74613

The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force by one state against another, but in the cyber world, where are the borders and what constitutes force?

Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) Defense Analysis Distinguished Professor Dorothy Denning is viewed by many as an icon in the field of information security, but has spent the last several years adding the ethics of cyber warfare to her fields of exploration.

Denning teaches a class titled, “Conflict in Cyber Space” that attempts to address the legal and ethical issues raised by cyber warfare. Her students include members of NPS’ recently inaugurated Master of Science in Cyber Systems Operations (CSO) degree program, as well as members of the Joint Information Operations program and others on campus. The CSO program is training the Navy’s first generation of cyber warriors.

“We focus on the law of armed conflict as well as issues related to censorship, privacy and surveillance … It is a required course in the CSO program,” said Denning.

Denning helps her students navigate the murky waters of cyber ethics, where battlefields may consist of layers of code rather than the mountains, seas and planes that have historically defined combat areas of operations.

Despite the legal ambiguity of some questions, Denning makes a seemingly powerful case for both the legality and the moral imperative to seek cyber approaches to conventional warfare objectives.

“If you can achieve the same effects with a cyber weapon versus a kinetic weapon, often that option is ethically preferable … If an operation is morally justifiable, than a cyber route is likely preferable, because it causes less harm,” said Denning.

Denning and fellow NPS Assistant Professor Bradley Strawser make the argument in a recent paper addressing cyber ethics.

In “Moral Cyber Weapons,” Denning and Strawser argue, “At least with some kinds of cyber weapons, not only can they adhere to the principles of just war theory, but that a positive duty to employ them can arise, at least in certain contexts … The reason for this moral obligation is that cyber weapons reduce both the risk to one’s own military and the harm to one’s adversary and non-combatants. Overall, cyber weapons are more humane, less destructive, and less risky than kinetic weapons for achieving certain military effects.”

Denning insists that cyber attacks are not as new as they may appear; pointing out that cyber operations have been used in the past in conjunction with kinetic operations.

“When Israel bombed Syria’s nuclear facility [in 2007], they used a cyber operation to shut off Syria’s missile defense systems,” she notes.

Still, Denning notes that the red line in the realm of cyber warfare – which, if crossed, could lead to kinetic warfare – has not been breached.

“We haven’t crossed the threshold where a cyber attack has initiated a kinetic response,” said Denning. “What we are seeing primarily is espionage, and we have never responded with military force to espionage.”

Much of the espionage that Denning refers to centers on business and economic interests, but Denning is quick to point out that in our global economy, there are limits to what state actors can do without harming their own interests.

“Our interconnected economies serve as a deterrent to cyber sabotage that would damage the economy. I think that a state would be very cautious about damaging another nation’s economy because it would likely damage their own economy in the process,” said Denning.

The conversation that researchers like Denning and Strawser have initiated at NPS will no doubt continue. The U.S. military and both its allies and foes have made tremendous human and economic capital investments into the burgeoning arena of cyber defense. What will come of these investments remains to be seen, but their ethics and conformity with international law is already an area of particular emphasis within the cyber operations community at NPS.

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Centers/IOCenter/ResearchProjects.html

No Comments "

Media: WTC Non-US Death Toll Outnumbers American

July 16th, 2013

By Pen-Researcher.

An interesting report that dates back to the coverage of the Wold Trade Center and how the media played the lines.

15 January 2002. Updated 14 January 2002 by Wayne Madsen:

Just put this together from a few late wire stories:Note: There are sharp differences between some foreign consulate counts and those of immigration/human rights organizations. Some consulates, notably those of Latin American countries, are charged by some groups with reducing the number of citizens killed at the WTC for political reasons.

16 October 2001. Updated by Wayne Madsen.

24 September 2001

A: You list the Netherlands as having 403 casualties, this is inccorect. According to ‘De Telegraaf” there are 3 confirmed dead and 40 missing.http://www.telegraaf.nl/krant/vandaag/teksten/bin.zaken.ramp.nederlanders.html

23 September 2001. Revised by Wayne Madsen.

23 September 2001

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 16:22:18 +0200
From: W [xxx]@cyberia.net.lbI’m just curious about the results of casualties you have published on your page. You don’t seem to mention any casulaties from Lebanon, whereas in reality one of the two killed in this horrific tragedy was a Harvard graduate about to get married in a week. Is this media-bias at its worst or what ? An explanation would be highly appreciated.

Cryptome: The tally shows three missing from Lebanon.

21 September 2001

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:36:24 -0400
From: “Alan H. Martin” <AMartin@MA.UltraNet.Com>From: http://www.boston.com/news/daily/21/tradecenter.htm

The Sept. 11 attacks on the Trade Center spread far beyond America’s borders, with at least 63 countries counting their citizens among the missing. Giuliani said the British consulate had 250 citizens missing. According to the consulates, Germany has 120 to 150 missing and four confirmed dead; India 91 missing; Canada 35 to 50 missing; Japan 24 missing; Australia 20 missing and three dead; Colombia 20 missing and one dead; and the Philippines 19 missing.

21 September 2001

From: <mattr@microobjects.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:38:54 -0500

I noticed there were no Chinese listed, even though China had several companies located in WTC.

21 September 2001.

From: WMadsen777@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:19:20 EDT
Subject: New WTC FiguresForeign Dead and Missing Numbers Increase at World Trade Center

According to Agence France Presse and the Associated Press, the following changes in dead & missing foreign citizens, dual nationals, resident aliens, and undocumented immigrants (upward and downward estimates in parentheses) have been reported as of 21 September: Out of 6333 reported missing by Mayor Giuliani, 3870 are foreigners, 2463 are U.S. citizens. 20 September 2001. [See updated tabulation below.]

20 September 2001

From: “Jari Vuoksenranta” <jariv@nic.fi>
To: WMadsen777@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 23:14:20 +0300
Subject: Foreign Death Toll Exceeds American at WTC
CC: jya@pipeline.comNews reported today that no Finns died on the attack.

http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/tulosta.shtml?pubid=81721
http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/tuoreet/juttu_t.asp?artid=20010920OL31pvm=20010920

20 September 2001. Wayne Madsen writes:

Based on a flurry of e-mail, many readers of cryptome.org pointed out there were new figures and British Prime Minister Tony Blair revised the number of possible British victims. In the case of New Zealand, the victims held dual US citizenship, a situation which undoubtedly applies to some of the other foreign nationals who perished. The list has been revised to reflect these changes and the numbers of foreign nationals who are confirmed dead or missing rises to 3387.

19 September 2001

From: WMadsen777@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:55:42 EDT
Subject: Foreign Death Toll Exceeds American at WTC

WORLD TRADE CENTER NON-US DEATH TOLL OUTNUMBERS AMERICAN

Wayne Madsen

What is being largely lost in the grief and sorrow following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center is the fact that the current count of dead and missing reveals more foreign nationals died in the attack than Americans. Although the major media has reported that other nations lost a number of their citizens, it is not being reported that their numbers, some 3061, are in excess of U.S. casualties, currently estimated at around 2589. These figures do not include any Canadians who may have been lost in the cataclysm. From information culled from a number of wire service accounts, the estimates of dead and missing by country are:

Current “dead and missing” from New York Times, January 15, 2002:

Officials estimate that as of Monday, 3,114 people had died, or were missing and presumed dead, as a result of the attacks on Sept. 11, not including 19 hijackers:

At the World Trade Center

2,890 dead or missing, with 147 dead on two hijacked planes.

At the Pentagon

184 dead or missing, with 59 dead on hijacked plane.

In Pennsylvania

40 dead on hijacked plane.

Non-US dead or missing. Revised 14 January 2002

4,183 plus those missing and undocumented

No explanation for difference between non-US and NY Times account above.

Great Britain    300
India            250
Chile            250
Germany          230 (+130)
Colombia         208 (-)
Pakistan         200
Mexico           150 (-350)
Turkey           120 (-11)
Philippines      117
Russia           117 (+21)
Israel           110 (-23)
El Salvador      101 (+30)
Honduras         100 (-) 
Nigeria           94 (+)
Canada            24 new (-39)
Australia    new: 20 (-2)
  New South Wales    11
  Victoria            3
  Queensland          2
  South Australia     2
  Residents Abroad    2
Bangladesh        55 (+)
Brazil            55 (-)
Greece            50 (+)
Japan             44 (-26)
Ireland           44 (+)
Netherlands       43 (-360)
Hungary           41 (+)(missing)
Italy             38 (-)
Dominican Rep.    31 (+6)
Ecuador           30 (-4)
Poland            30 (+)
South Korea       30 (+)
Guyana            25 (+20)  new: 21 (-4)
Austria           27 (-)
Japan             23 (-)
Cambodia          20
Hong Kong         16 (-3)
South Korea       15 (-)
Czech Republic    15 (+5)
Slovakia          10 (+)
France            10
Spain              8
Yemen              8 (+)
Jamaica            7 (+)  new: 17 (+10)
Taiwan             7 (-)
Guatemala          6 (+)
Haiti              6 (+) (may be more)
Zimbabwe           6
Switzerland        5 (-101)

________________________________________

TOTAL

Yugoslavia         5 (+5)
Iran               5 (+)
Argentina          5 (+)
Trinidad & 
Tobago  4 (+) new: 5 (+1)
China              2 (-2)
Portugal           4 (-)
Egypt              4 (+)  prob. more
Belize             4 (+)  new: 1 (-3)
Malaysia           4 (-)
Lebanon            3 (+)
Ethiopia      new: 3 (+3)
Panama             3 (+)
Antigua & Barbuda  3 (+)  new: 2 (-1)
Grenada            3 (+)  new: 2 (-1)
Peru               3 (-)
Belarus            3 (+)
Venezuela          3
Barbados           3 (+)  new: 4 (+1)
Jordan             2 (+)
New Zealand        2
Zimbabwe           2 (-)
Thailand           2
Indonesia          2 (-)
St.Kitts / Nevis   2 (+) new: 3 (+1)
St.Vincent / Gren. 2 (+) new: 1 (-1)
Paraguay           2
Ukraine            1
Ghana              1 (-)
St Lucia           1 (+)
Sri Lanka          1 (+)
Uruguay            1
Bulgaria           1 (+)
Belgium            1
Costa Rica         1 (+)
Paraguay           1 (-)
Burundi            1 (+)
Kenya              1
Bahamas            1 (+) new: 0 (-1)
Norway             1
Gambia             1 (+1)
Sweden             1
Dominica      new: 1 (+1)
Guinea             "Several missing"
Senegal            "Several missing"
Somaliland    new: a number of
                   undocumented workers
Somalia       new: a few 
                   undocumented workers
Malta              a "few casulaties" 
                   possible
Denmark            0 (-1)
Finland            0 (-1)
_______________________________________

               4,183
                   plus those missing
                   and undocumented

No Comments "

Underground Iranian hacker forum

July 14th, 2013

By Cryptome.

I found this link in an apparent underground Iranian hacker forum – the content are mostly in “inside codes” while being un-encrypted but reading through them long enough proves a group responsible for the attacks to U.S energy sector is preparing for a “release” mostly on nuclear related data. Meanwhile they are also showcasing initial images from a “MicroSTAR” system based in NY that was hijacked a while back and got close to JFK according to FBI and FAA.

Based on previous knowledge this type of “data spill” is a sign of soon to be published data on some organized and long prepared attack result from some state-favored hacking groups, certainly Iranian. I have followed back their messages on Cryptome in recent months and these tidbits fit into their already published “promises”.

I am wondering is this the type of deal the new Iranian government wants to represent itself with to the international community ?

http://rce.ir/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=173&start=20#p1716

No Comments "

Political Activity of 501(c)(4) Tax Exempt Organizations

July 13th, 2013

By Independent Sector Org.

THE ISSUE

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has contributed to an unprecedented influx of money into the election process, raising questions about donor disclosure and political activities by 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations. A highly politicized issue, Members of Congress and the public have begun to both call for, and question, increased scrutiny of 501(c)(4) organizations that appear to be engaged in partisan political activity.

Read the IS Principles on 501(c)(4) Electoral Campaign Activity

Secret move keeps bin Laden records in the shadows

July 11th, 2013

By Richard Lardner.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation’s top special operations commander
ordered military files about the Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s
hideout to be purged from Defense Department computers and sent to
the CIA, where they could be more easily shielded from ever being made
public.

The secret move, described briefly in a draft report by the Pentagon’s
inspector general, set off no alarms within the Obama administration even
though it appears to have sidestepped federal rules and perhaps also the
Freedom of Information Act.

An acknowledgement by Adm. William McRaven of his actions was
quietly removed from the final version of an inspector general’s report
published weeks ago. A spokesman for the admiral declined to comment.
The CIA, noting that the bin Laden mission was overseen by then-CIA
Director Leon Panetta before he became defense secretary, said that the SEALs were effectively
assigned to work temporarily for the CIA, which has presidential authority to conduct covert
operations.

“Documents related to the raid were handled in a manner consistent with the fact that the operation
was conducted under the direction of the CIA director,” agency spokesman Preston Golson said in an
emailed statement. “Records of a CIA operation such as the (bin Laden) raid, which were created
during the conduct of the operation by persons acting under the authority of the CIA Director, are CIA
records.”

Golson said it is “absolutely false” that records were moved to the CIA to avoid the legal requirements
of the Freedom of Information Act.

The records transfer was part of an effort by McRaven to protect the names of the personnel involved
in the raid, according to the inspector general’s draft report.

But secretly moving the records allowed the Pentagon to tell The Associated Press that it couldn’t find
any documents inside the Defense Department that AP had requested more than two years ago, and
could represent a new strategy for the U.S. government to shield even its most sensitive activities from
public scrutiny.

“Welcome to the shell game in place of open government,” said Thomas Blanton, director of the
National Security Archive, a private research institute at George Washington University. “Guess which
shell the records are under. If you guess the right shell, we might show them to you. It’s ridiculous.”
McRaven’s directive sent the only copies of the military’s records about its daring raid to the CIA,
which has special authority to prevent the release of “operational files” in ways that can’t effectively be
challenged in federal court. The Defense Department can prevent the release of its own military files,
too, citing risks to national security. But that can be contested in court, and a judge can compel the
Pentagon to turn over non-sensitive portions of records.

Under federal rules, transferring government records from one executive agency to another must be
approved in writing by the National Archives and Records Administration. There are limited
circumstances when prior approval is not required, such as when the records are moved between two
components of the same executive department. The CIA and Special Operations Command are not
part of the same department.

The Archives was not aware of any request from the U.S. Special Operations Command to transfer itsM]
Ad Info – Ad Feedback records to the CIA, spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman said. She said it was the Archives’ understanding
that the military records belonged to the CIA, so transferring them wouldn’t have required permission
under U.S. rules.

Special Operations Command also is required to comply with rules established by the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff that dictate how long records must be retained. Its July 2012 manual requires that
records about military operations and planning are to be considered permanent and after 25 years,
following a declassification review, transferred to the Archives.

Also, the Federal Records Act would not permit agencies “to purge records just on a whim,” said Dan
Metcalfe, who oversaw the U.S. government’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act as
former director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy. “I don’t think there’s an
exception allowing an agency to say, ‘Well, we didn’t destroy it. We just deleted it here after
transmitting it over there.’ High-level officials ought to know better.”

It was not immediately clear exactly which Defense Department records were purged and transferred,
when it happened or under what authority, if any, they were sent to the CIA. No government agencies
the AP contacted would discuss details of the transfer. The timing may be significant: The Freedom of
Information Act generally applies to records under an agency’s control when a request for them is
received. The AP asked for files about the mission in more than 20 separate requests, mostly
submitted in May 2011 — several were sent a day after Obama announced that the world’s most
wanted terrorist had been killed in a firefight. Obama has pledged to make his administration the most
transparent in U.S. history.

The AP asked the Defense Department and CIA separately for files that included copies of the death
certificate and autopsy report for bin Laden as well as the results of tests to identify the body. While
the Pentagon said it could not locate the files, the CIA, with its special power to prevent the release of
records, has never responded. The CIA also has not responded to a separate request for other
records, including documents identifying and describing the forces and supplies required to execute
the assault on bin Laden’s compound.

The CIA did tell the AP it could not locate any emails from or to Panetta and two other top agency
officials discussing the bin Laden mission.

McRaven’s unusual order would have remained secret had it not been mentioned in a single sentence
on the final page in the inspector general’s draft report that examined whether the Obama
administration gave special access to Hollywood executives planning a film, “Zero Dark Thirty,” about
the raid. The draft report was obtained and posted online last month by the Project on Government
Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington.

McRaven, who oversaw the bin Laden raid, expressed concerns in the report about possible
disclosure of the identities of the SEALs. The Pentagon “provided the operators and their families an
inordinate level of security,” the report said. McRaven also directed that the names and photographs
associated with the raid not be released.

“This effort included purging the combatant command’s systems of all records related to the operation
and providing these records to another government agency,” according to the draft report. The
sentence was dropped from the report’s final version.

Since the raid, one of the SEALs published a book about the raid under a pseudonym but was
subsequently identified by his actual name. And earlier this year the SEAL credited with shooting bin
Laden granted a tell-all, anonymous interview with Esquire about the raid and the challenges of his
retiring from the military after 16 years without a pension.

Current and former Defense Department officials knowledgeable about McRaven’s directive and the
inspector general’s report told AP the description of the order in the draft report was accurate. The
reference to “another government agency” was code for the CIA, they said. These individuals spoke
on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter by name.
There is no indication the inspector general’s office or anyone else in the U.S. government is
investigating the legality of transferring the military records. Bridget Serchak, a spokeswoman for the
inspector general, would not explain why the reference was left out of the final report and what, if any,
actions the office might be taking.

“Our general statement is that any draft is pre-decisional and that drafts go through many reviews
before the final version, including editing or changing language,” Serchak wrote in an email.
The unexplained decision to remove the reference to the purge and transfer of the records “smells of
bad faith,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of
American Scientists. “How should one understand that? That adds insult to injury. It essentially covers
up the action.”

McRaven oversaw the raid while serving as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command,

the secretive outfit in charge of SEAL Team Six and the military’s other specialized counterterrorism
units. McRaven was nominated by Obama to lead Special Operations Command, JSOC’s parent
organization, a month before the raid on bin Laden’s compound. He replaced Adm. Eric Olson as the
command’s top officer in August 2011.
Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command, referred questions to the inspector
general’s office.

The refusal to make available authoritative or contemporaneous records about the bin Laden mission
means that the only official accounts of the mission come from U.S. officials who have described
details of the raid in speeches, interviews and television appearances. In the days after bin Laden’s
death, the White House provided conflicting versions of events, falsely saying bin Laden was armed
and even firing at the SEALs, misidentifying which of bin Laden’s sons was killed and incorrectly
saying bin Laden’s wife died in the shootout. Obama’s press secretary attributed the errors to the “fog
of combat.”

A U.S. judge and a federal appeals court previously sided with the CIA in a lawsuit over publishing
more than 50 “post-mortem” photos and video recordings of bin Laden’s corpse. In the case, brought
by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, the CIA did not say the images were operational
files to keep them secret. It argued successfully that the photos and videos must be withheld from the
public to avoid inciting violence against Americans overseas and compromising secret systems and
techniques used by the CIA and the military.

The Defense Department told the AP in March 2012 it could not locate any photographs or video
taken during the raid or showing bin Laden’s body. It also said it could not find any images of bin
Laden’s body on the USS Carl Vinson, the aircraft carrier from which he was buried at sea. The
Pentagon also said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification
tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin
Laden’s body if he were killed. It said it searched files at the Pentagon, Special Operations Command
headquarters in Tampa, Fla., and the Navy command in San Diego that controls the Carl Vinson.

The Pentagon also refused to confirm or deny the existence of helicopter maintenance logs and
reports about the performance of military gear used in the raid. One of the stealth helicopters that
carried the SEALs in Pakistan crashed during the mission and its wreckage was left behind.
The Defense Department also told the AP in February 2012 that it could not find any emails about the
bin Laden mission or his “Geronimo” code name that were sent or received in the year before the raid
by McRaven. The department did not say they had been moved to the CIA. It also said it could not
find any emails from other senior officers who would have been involved in the mission’s planning. It
found only three such emails written by or sent to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and these
consisted of 12 pages sent to Gates summarizing news reports after the raid.

The Defense Department in November 2012 released copies of 10 emails totaling 31 pages found in
the Carl Vinson’s computer systems. The messages were heavily censored and described how bin
Laden’s body was prepared for burial.

These records were not among those purged and then moved to the CIA. Pentagon spokesman Lt.
Col. James Gregory said the messages from the Carl Vinson “were not relating to the mission itself
and were the property of the Navy.”
———
AP Intelligence Writer Kimberly Dozier contributed to this report

No Comments "

FCC: Problems in human exposure with EMF waves

July 9th, 2013

By Federal Communications Commission.

As many should know people that have mobile phones, lap tops and other technologies are encountering serious problems with magnetic radiation that the Federal Communications Commission does not know how to regulate without lobbyist.

SUMMARY: This document resolves several issues regarding compliance with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) regulations for conducting environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as they relate to the guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields. More specifically, the Commission clarifies evaluation
procedures and references to determine compliance with its limits, including specific absorption rate (SAR) as a primary metric for compliance, consideration of the pinna (outer ear) as an extremity, and measurement of medical implant exposure. The Commission also elaborates on mitigation procedures to ensure compliances with its limits, including labeling and other requirements for occupational exposure classification, clarification of compliance responsibility at multiple transmitter sites, and labeling of fixed consumer transmitters.

Summary of Report and Order

1. This Report and Order (Order) resolves issues raised in the 2003 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (NPRM), specifically certain evaluation matters involving the determination of potential exposure levels by calculation or measurement and certain mitigation matters involving post-evaluation procedures to ensure exposure limits are not exceeded (such as labels, signs,
barriers, enforcement, and occupational issues.

a. Evaluation of RF Exposure

2. Currently, “routine environmental evaluation” is described in the Commission’s rules as “determination of compliance” with its exposure limits, which could be achieved by either computation or measurement. Methods for evaluation of compliance include computation and measurement of field strength, power density, or specific absorption rate (SAR), depending on the
RF source. The guidelines for evaluation of compliance with the Commission’s human exposure limits can be found in OET Bulletin 65.

1. Primacy of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) over Power Density or Field Strength below 6 GHz

3. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to allow evaluation based on specific absorption rate (SAR) in lieu of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) for fixed and mobile RF 3 sources below 6 GHz, since the MPE limits are derived from the SAR limits. Comments received were generally supportive.

4. Decision. The Commission amends its rules as proposed. (SAR evaluation continues to be required as the only acceptable compliance metric for portable devices below 6 GHz.) Entities can continue to use derived MPE evaluation methods for fixed and mobile RF sources where appropriate, as long as compliance with both the whole-body and localized SAR limits are ensured.

5. As SAR is the basic restriction developed to safeguard human health from the effects of RF emissions and MPE limits were derived from whole-body SAR, compliance with the SAR guidelines directly will provide ipso facto the protection specified in the Commission’s RF safety guidelines. However, for whole-body exposure at distances greater than 20 centimeters and below 6 GHz, the Commission continues to consider spatial-averaging techniques as sufficient to use along with MPE to demonstrate compliance with both localized and whole-body SAR limits in non-uniform fields in most cases.
6. In a compliance showing that uses SAR, the proponent must demonstrate that the device was evaluated in all applicable operating configurations and exposure conditions, considering both whole- and partial-body limits and both near- and far-field situations. The Commission will continue to allow MPE for demonstration of compliance with its limits under the conditions it has allowed in the past as a matter of choice SAR evaluation post factum where a violation of the MPE limits is found cannot be used to undermine enforceability of the MPE limits.

2. Technical Evaluation References in Rules

7. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to discontinue the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 Supplement C, an informational document which provides 4 guidance and general statements of its policies with regard to its RF exposure limits for portable and mobile devices, since OET is able to provide more up-to-date information for these devices in its Knowledge Database (KDB). The Commission also proposed to require that adequate documentation be provided with any application relying on computational modeling to demonstrated compliance showing that the test device and exposure conditions have been
correctly modeled.

8. Decision. The Commission amends the rules as proposed to reference the KDB in lieu of Supplement C to provide current guidance and policies on acceptable procedures for evaluating wireless devices. This will provide the Commission with the ability to promptly update this guidance as the work of expert bodies and other research indicate that changes are appropriate. Rulemaking procedures are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for interpretative guidance and general statements of Commission policy.

See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Exceptions to rulemaking include “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” The KDB falls within this scope.

9. The Commission fully intends to continue to use the KDB to provide guidance on techniques and methodologies recommended by internationally and domestically accepted expert standards bodies, such as the IEEE and the IEC, to the extent that their standard procedures ensure compliance with the Commission’s exposure limits. However, it is the responsibility of this Commission to ensure compliance with its exposure limits, and thus this agency will make the ultimate judgment as to whether it should include them.

By issuing the Commission’s own guidance on its policies, it can communicate how best to incorporate the input of all relevant
expert standards, readily use the most appropriate elements of conflicting outside standards, and also provide any additional information that may be helpful for evaluation. 5

10. The Commission also adopts its proposal to modify the language of § 2.1093(d)(3) to require that adequate documentation be provided in all cases relying on computational modeling. Parties are currently required to submit technical documentation supportive of the basis for compliance only upon request by the Commission, which would occur if there is information to
cast doubt on the assertion of compliance. In the case of computational modeling, however, a review of the technical bases for the modeling of the test device and exposure conditions is required in order for the Commission to make a determination of compliance before approval.

3. Pinna (Outer Ear) Classification as an Extremity

11. In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on classifying the pinna (outer ear) as an extremity, to which less stringent exposure criteria would apply. Currently, the outer ear, or “pinna,” is not explicitly included on the list of exceptions from the localized SAR limits for “extremities” in the Commission’s rules. Nor has the Commission treated the pinna as subject to
the localized SAR limits applicable to the head or required parties seeking equipment authorizations to measure or calculate localized SAR in the pinna, as there is no standard for SAR measurement in the pinna. At the time of the NPRM IEEE Std 1528-2003 described the measurement procedure to be used for SAR measurement in the human head from cell phones.

It states in pertinent part that, “[t]he measurement of SAR induced in the external tissues of the head, e.g., the external ear (pinna), is not addressed in this standard.” It stated further that, “[t]his recommended practice does not address the measurement of SAR induced in the external tissues of the head, e.g., the external ear (pinna).” IEEE subsequently initiated deliberations to consider
classifying the pinna as an extremity.

12. Decision. The Commission received comments for and against this classification, and it amends § 1.1310 of its rules to subject the pinnae to the same RF exposure limit currently applicable to hands, wrists, feet, and ankles. The classification of the pinna
as an extremity is supported by the expert determinations of the FDA (which has the expertise and statutory responsibility to carry out a program designed to protect public health and safety 6 from electronic product radiation) and of the IEEE and will have no practical impact on the amount of human exposure to RF radiation, and is therefore appropriate.
4. Part 1 / Part 95 MedRadio (formerly Medical Implant Communications Service) Measurement Consistency 12. Section 1.1307(b)(2) requires initial SAR evaluation for medical devices within the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio Service) by either computation or measurement, but for MedRadio medical implant transmitters, § 95.1221 allows only computation for initial evaluation of these devices. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend § 95.1221 to correct this inconsistency to allow either computation or measurement in both sections.

13. Decision. The Commission amends the rule as proposed. The inconsistency originated with the promulgation of § 95.603(f) and was perpetuated when the Commission relocated that section to another location in part 95, renumbering it as § 95.1221, as a result of the establishment of the new MedRadio Service.

b. Mitigation 14. Mitigation matters are post-evaluation procedures to ensure exposure limits are not exceeded, such as labels, signs, barriers, enforcement, and occupational issues. The Commission includes in this section clarifications related to the application of occupational exposure limits for devices and at fixed transmitter sites.

5. Labeling and Instructions for Mobile and Portable Devices Intended for Occupational Use Only 15. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed more specific labeling and instructional requirements for devices intended to be operated only in an occupational setting. 7 16. Decision. Comments received were generally supportive, and the Commission adopts its proposed changes in §§ 2.1091(d)(3) and 2.1093(d)(1) of its rules.

The Commission is adopting labeling requirements related to occupational/controlled exposure from mobile and portable devices, consistent with its proposals and the comments it received, by modifying §§ 2.1091(d)(3) and 2.1093(d)(1) to provide that labels may be used to satisfy the requirements for making workers aware of the potential for exposure under the conditions proposed in the NPRM.

In addition, the Commission will update OET Laboratory Division publications as necessary to provide more detailed guidance on complying with the requirements for labeling devices intended for occupational use. The Commission does not consider that label placement in the battery compartment helps ensure integrity and legibility of a label, nor is it clearly visible to the user. However, a “screen flash” option on power up is a more practical solution than external labeling, and so the Commission refers in general to either labels or a screen flash as “visual advisories” required in the final rules.

On the other hand, the Commission does not specify a format for visual advisories at this time but rather encourages development of labeling standards using similar symbols, colors, and signal words. With respect to requirements for coordination between equipment manufacturers and end users on training, the Commission is adopting language that coordination with end-user organizations is encouraged but not required. However, as discussed in the R&O training is required for persons subject to exposure in excess of the general population exposure limits.

6. Clarification of Application of Occupational Exposure Limits 17. The Commission’s occupation/controlled limits apply in part when individuals are “fully aware” of and can “exercise control” over their exposure. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to state in its rules that appropriate information and training is necessary to achieve full awareness and control of exposure and to identify what would constitute appropriate information and training.

8 18. Decision. The Commission adopts its proposals with minor modification based on the comments received. The Commission specifies that for individuals exposed as a consequence of

their employment, using the occupational/controlled limits, written and/or verbal (orally communicated) information must be provided, at the discretion of the responsible party as is necessary to ensure compliance with the occupational/controlled limits. In addition, with the exception of transient individuals, appropriate training regarding work practices that will ensure that exposed persons are “fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure” is required to be provided. The Commission concludes that this two-tiered approach will provide sufficient information to ensure that people are adequately protected.

19. Regarding specific guidelines on what kind of information is required and what constitutes adequate training, the Commission will rely primarily on instructional and training resources already available. Section 1.1310 of the Commission’s rules already references OET Bulletin 65 as one resource, and it plans to update this bulletin after the conclusion of this docket to provide additional information regarding RF safety programs and available resources, including information now incorporated in the IEEE C95.7 recommended practice for RF safety programs referenced in the NPRM.

The Commission notes that training is not required for transient individuals, but they must receive written and/or verbal information and notification (for example, using signs) concerning their exposure potential and appropriate means available to
mitigate their exposure. The Commission further notes that the designation of “transient individual” applies to visitors and people traversing the site, not to third-party workers performing maintenance on the site for an extended period.

However, in the event of complaints that result in enforcement investigations, the Commission will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, whether the information requirements are met, and if not whether the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits are appropriate to apply in a specific area where transient access is permitted. The Commission also adds language to remind licensees of their obligation to 9 consider worker as well as public exposure. Finally, the Commission codifies in its rules the extent to which occupation/controlled limits apply to amateur radio licensees.

7. Responsibility for Compliance at Fixed Sites with Multiple Transmitters 20. The Commission’s rules do not address apportionment of responsibility among licensees that exceed 5% of the exposure limits and are not categorically excluded. Comments received suggested that it is necessary for an individual licensee to be assigned primary responsibility for compliance at a multiple use site. However, the Commission clarifies that this is not the case and emphasize cooperation and that failure to comply at multiple use sites can result in penalties for all site occupants that contribute significantly to exposure, not just the newest occupant or the occupant which contributes the most to exposure.

21. Discussion. Given the variety of situations presented by multiple transmitter sites, responsibility for compliance and preparation of Environmental Assessments continues to apply multiple transmitter sites as described in § 1.1307(b)(3) of the Commission’s rules, and “significant” transmitters can be assumed to be based on the same threshold of 5% defined there.

The Commission notes that when routine evaluations are required at such sites, all relevant colocated licensees are responsible for compliance. Therefore, it is in the interest of these licensees to share information about power and other operating characteristics in order to achieve accurate representations of the RF environment. The Commission continues to encourage all site occupants, owners, leasers, and managers to cooperate in these endeavors, and notes that site user agreements are particularly useful and desirable to achieve this end.

As demonstrated in the record, all licensees that exceed five percent of the RF exposure limit at any non-compliant location are jointly and severally responsible, and the Commission may impose forfeiture liability on all such licensees.

10 c. Effective Date

22. Original Proposal. In the NPRM, the Commission recognized that licensees and applicants will need some period of time to become familiar with any changes to the Commission’s rules that could require additional routine evaluation for some previously excluded transmitters and devices and to modify their processes and procedures accordingly. Therefore, the Commission proposed in the NPRM to provide a transition period of six months after it adopts any new rules in this proceeding before they become effective.

The Commission now defers many of its decisions as proposals in the Further NPRM, and those adopted here are not as
extensive as those it originally proposed. The Commission expects that these rules can be readily complied with, and so it adopts an effective date of [60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] for the final rules in this Order.

23. Decision. The Commission will not require a new evaluation of all existing sites that were excluded from evaluation under previous criteria. NEPA is a prospective statute. Moreover, even if NEPA or the Communications Act provided discretionary authority to require such existing sites to be evaluated under the Commission’s new rules, it would find that such
evaluation would not be necessary in this case.

The rule revisions set forth are generally procedural. The Commission is not adopting any changes to the exclusion criteria in the rules at time. In other words, if a site was “categorically excluded” or “exempt” from routine evaluation under the previous rules, it will still be exempt from routine evaluation under the rules the Commission adopts here. The Commission notes, however, that regardless of whether a site is exempt from routine evaluation, licensees are required to ensure that existing sites are in
compliance with the exposure limits. Furthermore, the Commission cautions that it may take enforcement action against licensees that do not comply with the exposure limits in the rules, regardless of whether their transmitters were “categorically excluded” or “exempt” from routine evaluation in the past. 11

24. The Commission’s final changes to its rules in this Order are relatively minor. However, the Commission recognizes that any such changes require a reasonable period of time to be implemented. Therefore, the Commission is setting an effective date of [60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] for its final rules.

d. Deletion of Old Rules and Update of Portable and Mobile Service Evaluation List 25.

The Commission notes that an administrative change is necessary in the rules dealing with RF exposure. When the Commission last adopted major changes to these rules in 1996 and 1997, it also adopted certain “Transition Provisions.” These transition provisions, contained in § 1.1307(b)(4) and (5) of the Commission’s rules, no longer have any effect and are thus not
necessary. “All existing transmitting facilities, operations and devices” the Commission regulates were required to be in compliance with § 1.1307(b)(1) through (b)(3), by September 1, 2000 in accord with § 1.1307(b)(5). The Commission states in § 1.1307(b)(1) of its rules that its exposure limits “are generally applicable to all facilities, operations, and transmitters regulated by the
Commission.”

Thus, there are no facilities operating pursuant to the requirements in effect before the transition period that would become non-compliant with the rules as a result of the elimination of the transition period. Moreover, there are no pending enforcement cases where compliance with the transition deadline is at issue. The Commission is, therefore, sua sponte deleting these transition provisions from this rule part.

26. The Commission also notes that it is making necessary minor administrative changes for clarification and consistency between §§ 1.1307(b)(2), 2.1091(c), and 2.1093, which list services requiring routine RF evaluation for portable and mobile devices. Specifically, the Commission adds “Miscellaneous” to all three sections to correctly name the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Service defined by part 27 of its rules; it adds “the 4.9 GHz Band Service” and “the Medical Device Radioc ommunication Service (MedRadio)” to § 1.1307(b)(2) 12 to reflect their inclusion in § 2.1093(c); and it adds “the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service”to § 2.1091(c) and 2.1093(c), since this change was already adopted in the Report and Order in ET Docket 04-151, published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2005, but was never actually incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. These changes do not affect evaluation requirements for compliance or applicability of these sections to portable or mobile devices.

27. The regulatory changes discussed in the two preceding paragraphs do not require prior notice and opportunity for comment. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for comment are not required “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor[e] in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Here, the Commission for good cause finds that notice and comment are unnecessary for eliminating 47 CFR 1.1307(b)(4) and (5), because these rules have outlived their purpose and no longer serve any function. Similarly, the Commission for good cause finds that notice and comment are unnecessary for amending 47 CFR 1.1307(b)(2), 2.1091(c), and 2.1093.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET Docket 03-137.2

The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA.3 This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

For More: http://cryptome.org/2013/06/fcc-13-0604-01.pdf

No Comments "

The New Lobbying Agenda

July 5th, 2013

By the U.S. House Gov.

In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. We’ve got totals spent on lobbying, beginning in 1998, for everyone from AAI Corp. to Zurich Financial.

You can use the options below to search through our database in several ways: search by name for a company, lobbying firm or individual lobbyist; search for the total spending by a particular industry; view the interests that lobbied a particular government agency; or search for lobbying on a general issue or specific piece of legislation.

Total Lobbying Spending

1998		$1.45 Billion
1999		$1.44 Billion
2000		$1.56 Billion
2001		$1.63 Billion
2002		$1.82 Billion
2003		$2.04 Billion
2004		$2.18 Billion
2005		$2.42 Billion
2006		$2.62 Billion
2007		$2.86 Billion
2008		$3.30 Billion
2009		$3.50 Billion
2010		$3.55 Billion
2011		$3.33 Billion
2012		$3.30 Billion
2013		$0.82 Billion

Number of L0bbyists*

1998		10,408
1999		12,937
2000		12,536
2001		11,832
2002		12,118
2003		12,915
2004		13,169
2005		14,073
2006		14,502
2007		14,845
2008		14,215
2009		13,803
2010		12,972
2011		12,711
2012		12,411
2013		9,434

NOTE: Figures are on this page are calculations by the Center for Responsive Politics based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records. Data for the most recent year was downloaded on April 29, 2013.

Section 1 – Introduction

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1605, provides that: The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; [and] (2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports.

The LDA does not provide the Secretary or the Clerk with the authority to write substantive regulations or issue definitive opinions on the interpretation of the law. The Secretary and Clerk have, from time to time, jointly issued written guidance on the registration and reporting requirements. This document is both a compilation of previously issued guidance documents and our interpretation of the changes that were made to the LDA as a result of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA).

This compilation supersedes all previous guidance documents. This combined guidance document does not have the force of law, nor does it have any binding effect on the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia or any other part of the Executive Branch. To the extent that the guidance relates to the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports, it will serve to inform the public as to how the Secretary and Clerk intend to carry out their responsibilities under the LDA.

Section 2 – What’s New

This revision has been written based upon comments received in the last six months and issues that have arisen as a result of the Secretary’s and Clerk’s statutory and administrative responsibilities. It also includes non-substantive grammatical changes throughout.

Updated Registration Threshold

As required by the LDA, the lobbying disclosure thresholds referenced throughout the Guidance have been updated to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (as determined by the Secretary of Labor) during the preceding 4-year period. After January 1, 2013, an organization employing in-house lobbyists is exempt from registration if its total expenses for lobbying activities does not exceed and is not expected to exceed $12,500 during a quarterly period. The $3,000 income threshold for lobbying firms remains unchanged. See Guidance Section 4 on “Who Must Register and When” for additional information.

Section 3 – Definitions

Actively Participates:: An organization “actively participates” in the planning, supervision, or control of lobbying activities of a client or registrant when that organization (or an employee of the organization in his or her capacity as an employee) engages directly in planning, supervising, or controlling at least some of the lobbying activities of the client or registrant. Examples of activities constituting active participation would include participating in decisions about selecting or retaining lobbyists, formulating priorities among legislative issues, designing lobbying strategies, performing a leadership role in forming an ad hoc coalition, and other similarly substantive planning or managerial roles, such as serving on a committee with responsibility over lobbying decisions.; Organizations that, though members of or affiliated with a client, have only a passive role in the lobbying activities of the client (or of the registrant on behalf of the client), are not considered active participants in the planning, supervision, or control of such lobbying activities. Examples of activities constituting only a passive role would include merely donating or paying dues to the client or registrant, receiving information or reports on legislative matters, occasionally responding to requests for technical expertise or other information in support of the lobbying activities, attending a general meeting of the association or coalition client, or expressing a position with regard to legislative goals in a manner open to, and on a par with, that of all members of a coalition or association – such as through an annual meeting, a questionnaire, or similar vehicle. Mere occasional participation, such as offering an ad hoc informal comment regarding lobbying strategy to the client or registrant, in the absence of any formal or regular supervision or direction of lobbying activities, does not constitute active participation if neither the organization nor its employee has the authority to direct the client or the registrant on lobbying matters and the participation does not otherwise exceed a de minimis role.
Affiliated Organization:: An affiliated organization is any entity other than the client that contributes in excess of $5,000 toward the registrant’s lobbying activities in a quarterly period, and actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control of such lobbying activities. The 2007 amendments to the LDA did not change the way in which LDA identified affiliates (i.e., those that in whole or in major part plan, supervise, or control such lobbying activities) are to be disclosed on Forms LD-1 and LD-2.
Client:: Any person or entity that employs or retains another person for financial or other compensation to conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that person or entity. An organization employing its own lobbyists is considered its own client for reporting purposes.
Contribution Reports:: Form LD-203 is required to be filed semiannually by July 30th and January 30th (or next business day should either of those days fall on a weekend or holiday) covering the first and second calendar halves of the year. Registrants and active lobbyists (who are not terminated for all clients) must file separate reports that detail FECA contributions, honorary contributions, presidential library contributions, and payments for event costs. (See discussion in Guidance Section 7 below.)

Covered Executive Branch Official:

The application of coverage of Section 3(3)(F) of the LDA (who is a covered Executive Branch official) was intended for Schedule C employees only. Senior Executive Service employees are not covered Executive Branch officials as defined in the Act unless they fall within one of the categories below. Covered Executive Branch officials are:

The President
The Vice President
Officers and employees of the Executive Office of the President
Any official serving in an Executive Level I through V position
Any member of the uniformed services serving at grade O-7 or above
Schedule C employees.

Covered Legislative Branch Official:

Covered Legislative Branch officials are:

A Member of Congress
An elected Officer of either the House or the Senate
An employee, or any other individual functioning in the capacity of an employee, who works for a Member, committee, leadership staff of either the Senate or House, a joint committee of Congress, a working group or caucus organized to provide services to Members, and any other Legislative Branch employee serving in a position described under Section 109(13) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

In whole or major part:

The term “in major part” means in substantial part. It is not necessary that an organization or foreign entity exercise majority control or supervision in order to fall within Sections 4(b)(3)(B) and 4(b)(4)(B). In general, 20 percent control or supervision should be considered “substantial” for purposes of these sections.

Lobbying Activities:

Lobbying contacts and any efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation or planning activities, research, and other background work that is intended, at the time of its preparation, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others.

Lobbying Contact:

Any oral, written, or electronic communication to a covered official that is made on behalf of a client with regard to the enumerated subjects at Sections 3(8)(A) of the Act (2 U.S.C. § 1602(8)(A)). Note the exceptions to the definition at Section 3(8)(B) of the Act (2 U.S.C. § 1602(8)(B)). See Discussion at Guidance Section 4 below.

Lobbying Firm: A lobbying firm is a person or entity consisting of one or more individuals who meet the definition of a lobbyist with respect to a client other than that person or entity. The definition includes a self-employed lobbyist.

Lobbying Registration:

An initial registration on Form LD-1 filed pursuant to Section 4 of the Act (2 U.S.C. § 1603).

Lobbying Report:

A quarterly report on Form LD-2 filed pursuant to Section 5 of the Act (2 U.S.C. § 1604).

Lobbyist:

Any individual (1) who is either employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation (2) whose services include more than one lobbying contact; and (3) whose lobbying activities constitute 20 percent or more of his or her services’ time on behalf of that client during any three-month period.

Person or Entity:

Any individual, corporation, company, foundation, association, labor organization, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, group of organizations, or state or local government.

Public Official:

A public official includes an elected or appointed official, or an employee of a Federal, state, or local unit of government in the United States. There are five exceptions to this definition, including a college or university, a government-sponsored enterprise, a public utility, guaranty agency, or an agency of any state functioning as a student loan secondary market. The 1998 amendments to the LDA expanded the definition of a public official in Section 3(15)(F) to add a group of governments acting together as an international organization. Its purpose was to ensure those international organizations, such as the World Bank, would be treated in the same manner as the governments that comprise them.

Registrant:

A lobbying firm or an organization employing in-house lobbyists that files a registration pursuant to Section 4 of the Act.

Section 4 – Lobbying Registration

Who Must Register and When

Lobbying firms are required to file a separate registration for each client. A lobbying firm is exempt from registration for a particular client if its total income from that client for lobbying activities does not exceed and is not expected to exceed $3,000 during a quarterly period.

Note: A lobbyist is not the registrant unless he/she is self-employed. In that case, the self-employed lobbyist is treated as a lobbying firm.

Organizations employing in-house lobbyists file a single registration. An organization is exempt from registration if its total expenses for lobbying activities do not exceed and are not expected to exceed $12,500 during a quarterly period.

The registration requirement of potential registrants is triggered either (1) on the date their employee/lobbyist is employed or retained to make more than one lobbying contact on behalf of a client (and meets the 20% of time threshold), or (2) on the date their employee/lobbyist (who meets the 20% of time threshold) in fact makes a second lobbying contact, whichever is earlier. In either case, registration is required within 45 days.

Example 1: Lobbying firm “A” is retained on May 1, 2008 by Client “B” to make lobbying contacts and conduct lobbying activities. “A” files an LD-1 on behalf of “B” with an effective date of registration of May 1, 2008.

Example 2: Corporation “C” does not employ an individual who meets the definition of “lobbyist.” Employee “X” is told by her supervisor to contact the Congressman representing the district in which Corporation “C” is headquartered. “X” makes a lobbying contact on June 1, 2008. “X” does not anticipate making any further lobbying contacts, but spends 25% of her time on this legislative issue. No registration is required at this point. In August 2008, “X” is instructed to follow up with the Congressman again. “C” registers and discloses August 5, 2008 as the effective date of registration (the date that “X” contacted the Congressman for the second time and thereby met the definition of a lobbyist).

Preparing to File a Registration – Threshold Requirements

In order to determine the applicability of the LDA, one must first look at the definition of “lobbyist” under Section 3(10) of the Act. Under this definition, an individual is a “lobbyist” with respect to a particular client if he or she makes more than one lobbying contact and his or her “lobbying activities” (as defined in Section 3(7)) constitute at least 20 percent of the individual’s time in services forthat client over any three-month period. Note that a registration would not be required for pro bono clients since the monetary thresholds of Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) in the case of a lobbying firm, or of Section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) in the case of an organization employing in-house lobbyists, would not be met. Keep in mind that the obligation to report under the LDA arises from active status as a registrant. Therefore if a registration has been filed for a pro bono client, LD-2 and LD-203 reports would be expected to be filed until the registration is validly terminated.

More than One Lobbying Contact

“More than one lobbying contact” means more than one communication to a covered official. Note that an individual falls within the definition of “lobbyist” by making more than one lobbying contact over the course of services provided for a particular client (even if the second contact occurs in a later quarterly period).

Example 1: Lobbyist “A” telephones Covered Official “B” in the morning to discuss proposed legislation. In the afternoon she telephones Covered Official “C” to discuss the same legislation. Lobbyist “A” has made more than one lobbying contact.

Example 2: Under some circumstances a series of discussions with a particular official might be considered a single communication, such as when a telephone call is interrupted and continued at a later time. Discussions taking place on more than one day with the same covered official, however, should be presumed to be more than one lobbying contact.

Clarification of an Exception to Lobbying Contact

Section 3(8)(B)(ix) excepts from the definition of “lobbying contact” communications “required by subpoena, civil investigative demand, or otherwise compelled by statute, regulation, or other action of the Congress or an agency.” The 1998 amendments to the LDA clarified that communications that are compelled by the action of a Federal agency include communications that are required by a Federal agency contract, grant, loan, permit, or license.

Example: Contractor “A” has a contract to provide technical assistance to Agency “B” on an ongoing basis. Technical communications between Contractor “A’s” personnel and covered officials at Agency “B” would be required by the contract and therefore would not constitute “lobbying contacts.”

Note, however, that this exception would not encompass an attempt by “A” to influence covered officials regarding either matters of policy, or an award of a new contract, since such communications would not be required by the existing contract.

Do Lobbying Activities Constitute 20% Or More of an Individual’s Time?

Lobbying activity is defined in Section 3(7) as “lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, including … background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with the lobbying activities of others.” If the intent of the work is to support ongoing and future lobbying, then it would fall within the definition of lobbying activities. Timing of the work performed, as well as the status of the issue, is also pivotal. Generally, if work such as reporting or monitoring occurs at a time when future lobbying contacts are contemplated, such reporting and monitoring should be considered as a part of planning or coordinating of lobbying contacts, and therefore included as “lobbying activity.” If, on the other hand, a person reports back to the relevant committee or officer regarding the status of a completed effort, that activity would probably not be included as a lobbying activity, if reports are not being used to prepare a lobbying strategy the next time the issue is considered.

Communications excepted from the definition of “lobbying contact” under Section 3(8)(B) of the LDA may be considered “lobbying activities” under some circumstances. Communications excepted by Section 3(8)(B) will constitute “lobbying activities” if they are in support of other communications which constitute “lobbying contacts.”

Example: Under Section 3(8)(B)(v), the term “lobbying contact” does not include “a request for a meeting, a request for the status of an action, or any other similar administrative request, if the request does not include an attempt to influence a covered Executive Branch official or a covered Legislative Branch official.” However, a status request would constitute “lobbying activity” if it were in support of a subsequent lobbying contact.

Please note that the 20% of time threshold applies to registration and not to the reporting section.

Is it Lobbying Contact/Lobbying Activity?

If a communication is limited to routine information gathering questions and there is not an attempt to influence a covered official, the exception of Section 3(8)(B)(v) for “any other similar administrative request” would normally apply. In determining whether there is an attempt to influence a covered official, the identity of the person asking the questions and her relationship to the covered official obviously will be important factors.

Example 1: Lobbyist “A”, a former chief of staff in a congressional office, is now a partner in the law firm retained to lobby for Client “B.” After waiting one year to comply with post employment restrictions on lobbying, Lobbyist “A” telephones the Member on whose staff she served. She asks about the status of legislation affecting Client “B’s” interests. Presumably “B” will expect the call to have been part of an effort to influence the Member, even though only routine matters were raised at that particular time.

Example 2: Company “Z” offers temporary employment to recent college graduates. The graduates are hired to conduct surveys of congressional staff by reading prepared questions and recording the answers. The questions seek only information. These communications do not amount to lobbying contacts.

Lobbying Contacts and Activities Using Section 15 Election (Alternate Reporting Methods)

Section 15 of the LDA permits those organizations that are required to file and do file under Section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and organizations that are subject to Section 162(e) of the IRC to use the tax law definitions of lobbying in lieu of the LDA definitions for determining “contacts” and “lobbying activities” for Executive Branch lobbying. Registrants should note that the tax definition of lobbying is broader with respect to the type of activities reported, while it is narrower with respect to the universe of Executive Branch officials who qualify as covered Executive Branch employees.

Under the 1998 amendments to the LDA, registrants making a Section 15 election must use the Internal Revenue Code definition for Executive Branch lobbying, and the LDA definition for Legislative Branch lobbying. Because there are fewer Executive Branch officials under the IRC definitions than under the LDA definitions, this may result in fewer individuals being listed as lobbyists and fewer lobbying contacts reflected on the Form LD-2.

Also note that definitions under the tax code include “grass-roots” and “state” lobbying, while the LDA excludes those types of lobbying from the definition of “lobbying activities.” The LDA does not permit modification of the tax code definition to exclude such expenditures when reporting lobbying expenses.

Relationship Between 20% of Time and Monetary Threshold

If the definition of “lobbyist” is satisfied with respect to at least one individual for a particular client, the potential registrant (either a lobbying firm or an organization employing the lobbyist, or a self-employed individual lobbyist) isnot required to register if it does not meet the monetary thresholds of Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i), in the case of a “lobbying firm,” or of Section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii), in the case of an organization employing in-house lobbyists. Note that the monetary exemption is computed based on the lobbying activities of the potential registrant as a whole for the particular client in question, not simply on the lobbying activities of those individuals who are “lobbyists.”

Example 1: A law firm has two lawyers who perform services for a particular client. Lawyer “A” spends 15 percent of the time she works for that client on lobbying activities, including some lobbying contacts. Lawyer “B” spends 25 percent of the time he works for the client on lobbying activities, but makes no lobbying contacts. Neither lawyer falls within the definition of “lobbyist,” and therefore the law firm is not required to register for that client, even if the income it receives for lobbying activities on behalf of the client exceeds $3,000.

Example 2: Employee “A” of a trade association is a “lobbyist” who spends 25 percent of his time on lobbying activities on behalf of the association. There are $6,500 of expenses related to Employee “A’s” lobbying activities. Employee “B” is not a “lobbyist” but engages in lobbying activities in support of lobbying contacts made by Employee “A.” There are $6,5 00 of additional expenses related to the lobbying activities of Employee “B.” The trade association is required to register because it employs a “lobbyist” and its total expenses in connection with lobbying activities on its own behalf exceed $12,500.

Example 3: Same as Example 2, except the expenses related to the lobbying activities of Employees “A” and “B” total only $9,000, but the trade association also pays $5,000 to an outside firm for lobbying activities. Registration is still required because payments to outside contractors (including lobbying firms that may be separately registered under the LDA) must be included in the total expenses of an organization employing lobbyists on its own behalf.

Timing

The registration requirement of a potential registrant is triggered either (1) on the date their employee/lobbyist is employed or retained to make more than one lobbying contact on behalf of the client (and meets the 20% of time threshold), or (2) on the date their employee/lobbyist (who meets the 20% of time threshold) in fact makes a second lobbying contact, whichever is earlier. In either case, registration is required within 45 days of that date.

Example: Lobbying Firm “A” is retained to monitor an issue, but whether or not lobbying contacts will be made depends on future legislative developments. In another case, Corporation “B,” which employs an in-house lobbyist, knows that its lobbyist will make contacts but reasonably expects its lobbying expenditures will not amount to $12,500 in a quarterly period. However, issues of interest to “B” turn out to be more controversial than expected, and the $12,500 threshold is in fact met a month later.

Lobbying firm “A” has no registration requirement at the present time. The requirement to register is triggered if and when the firm makes contacts, or reasonably expects that it will make contacts. Corporation “B’s” registration requirement arose as soon as it knew, or reasonably expected, that its lobbying expenditures will exceed $12,500. “B” needs to register immediately.

Listing of Foreign Entities

Each registration must contain the name, address, principal place of business, amount of any contribution greater than $5,000 to the lobbying activities of the registrant, and approximate percentage of ownership in the client of any foreign entity that: holds at least 20% equitable ownership in the client or any affiliate of the client required to be listed on line 13; or directly or indirectly, in whole or major part, plans, supervises, controls, directs, finances, or subsidizes the activities of the client or affiliate of the client required to be listed on line 13; oris an affiliate of either the client, or an organization affiliated with the client identified on Line 13 or 14 of Form LD-1 and has a direct interest in the outcome of the lobbying activity. The purpose of the disclosure is to identify the interests of the foreign entity that may be operating behind the registrant.

Example: Lobbying Firm “A” is retained to lobby on behalf of Company “B,” which is wholly owned by Foreign Company “C.” “C” is wholly owned by Foreign Company “D,” and “D” is wholly owned by Foreign Company “E.” “C,” “D,” and “E” must be disclosed on Line 14.

Section 5 – Special Registration Circumstances

Elaboration on the Definition of Client

In some cases a registrant is retained as part of a larger lobbying effort that encompasses more than one lobbying firm on behalf of a third party. Generally, the entity that is paying the registrant is listed as the client on behalf of the third party. The third party, who is paying the intermediary (client), is listed also on Line 13 of Form LD-1 as an affiliate.

Example: Client “P” retains lobbying firm “F” for general lobbying purposes, but has a new interest in obtaining an outcome in an area new to “P.” “F” realizes that a boutique lobbying firm “L” has an excellent track record for obtaining the type of outcome “P” is seeking, and talks to “P” about subcontracting. “P” agrees with “F’s” strategy. “F” contacts “L” to retain the latter to do the project. “F” is responsible for paying “L.” Within 45 days, “L” registers disclosing “F on behalf of P” as the client, and listing “P” as the affiliate on Line 13 of Form LD-1.

Lobbying Firms Retained Under a Contingent Fee

Law other than the LDA governs whether a firm may be retained on a contingent-fee basis. There is, for example, a general prohibition on the payment of contingent fees in connection with the award of government contracts. Assuming, however, that the agreement is not contrary to law or public policy, an agreement to make lobbying contacts for a contingent fee, like other fee arrangements, triggers a registration requirement at inception. The fee is disclosed on Form LD 2 for the quarterly period that the registrant becomes entitled to it.

Example 1: On January 1, 2008, Lobbying Firm “G” agrees to lobby for Client “H” for a fee contingent on a certain result, and the agreement is permitted under other applicable law. Lobbying activities begin. “G” is required to register by February 14, 2008. The result is not obtained and “G” is not entitled to any fee during the first quarterly period. “G” must report its lobbying activities for the first quarterly period; the income reported is “Less than $5,000.” The desired result does occur in the second quarterly period of 2008. In the report for that period, “G” discloses its lobbying activities for that period and the total contingent fee.

Example 2: Lobbying Firm “J” discusses an arrangement to accept stock options worth $4,500 from Client “M” in lieu of payment of a contingency fee. After determining that acceptance of a success fee is not a violation of another statute, “J” signs a contract with “M,” and registers. Late in the first quarter of the lobbying activities, it appeared “J” achieved the result. “J’s” initial quarterly lobbying report disclosed lobbying income of less than $5,000. “M’s” stock value increased shortly thereafter to be valued at $6,000, so “J” exercised its options. “J” amended the previously filed quarterly report to reflect income of “$5,000 or more,” and rounded the amount to $10,000.

Registration for Entities with Subsidiaries or State and Local Affiliates

Assuming a parent entity or national association and its subsidiary or subordinate are separate legal entities, the parent makes a determination whether it meets the registration threshold based upon its own activities, and does not include subordinate units= lobbying activities in its assessment. Each subordinate must make its own assessment as to whether any of its own employees meet the definition of a lobbyist, and then determine if it meets the registration threshold with respect to lobbying expenses.

Example: Lobbyist “Z” is an employee of Company “A,” which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Company “B.” “Z’s” lobbying activities advance the interests of both. Which company is responsible for registering and reporting under the LDA?

The registration and reporting requirements apply to the organization of which Lobbyist “Z” is an employee. Therefore, Company “A” would register and file the quarterly reports.

If Company “B” contributes $5,000 or more to “Z’s” lobbying activities during a quarterly period and actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control of the lobbying activities, Company “B” must be listed on Company “A’s” Form LD 1, Line 13. A contribution may take any form, and may be direct or indirect. For example, if Company “B” established Company “A” with an initial capital contribution of $1,000,000, which “A” draws upon for employee salaries, including “Z’s,” and to pay for office space used by “Z,” a $5,000 contribution probably has been made.

If Company “B” is a foreign entity, and the facts are otherwise the same as above, “B” would be listed on Line 14 of the Form LD 1 filed by Company “A.” “B’s” interests in specific lobbying issues would also be disclosed on Line 19 of Form LD 2.

The LDA does not make any express provision for combined or consolidated filings. A single filing by a parent corporation may be appropriate in some cases, especially when there are multiple subsidiaries and the lobbyists address the same issues for all and act under the close control of the parent. In this regard, note that the LDA does not contain any specific definition of “employee” (there is only the general definition of Section 3(5)), and the policy of the LDA is to promote disclosure of real parties in interest.

In circumstances in which multiple subsidiaries each have only a fraction of the lobbyist’s time and little control over his work, the parent which in fact exercises actual control can be regarded as the “employer” for LDA purposes. In such cases, the parent may file a single registration, provided that Line 10 of Form LD 1 discloses that the listed lobbyists are employees of subsidiaries and the subsidiaries are identified as affiliated organizations on Line 13.

Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on Registrations

The following examples serve to illustrate hypothetical situations regarding mergers and acquisitions:

Example 1: Corporation “C” registered under the LDA during 2008. Effective upon close of business on December 31, 2008, “C” merged with Corporation “D.” “D,” the surviving corporation, had no lobbyist employees before the merger and is not registered. How and when should this information be reported? Assuming that “D” retains at least one of “C’s” lobbyist employees and will incur lobbying expenses of at least $12,500 during the January March quarterly period, Corporation “D” is required to register. The 45 day period in which its initial registration must be filed begins to run on December 31, 2008, the date “D” first had lobbyist employees, and the registration is due by February 14, 2009. On the other hand, if “D” will not be lobbying after the merger, it is not required to register. In pre merger discussions, Corporation “C” might have agreed to terminate its registration and file its final lobbying report before ceasing its corporate existence. If, however, “C” did not do so, Corporation “D” should terminate the registration and file the outstanding lobbying report in “C’s” name. “D” may simply annotate the signature block on Form LD 2 to indicate that it is filing as successor in interest to “C.”

Example 2: Lobbying Firm “O” is a registrant under the LDA. It merges with Lobbying Firm “P,” which is also a registrant. The new entity will be known as Lobbying Firm “T.” How and when should this information be reported? The answer depends on the particular facts. If Lobbying Firm “T” is a newly created legal entity, it should file a new registration within 45 days. The registrations of both “O” and “P” should be terminated by filing separate termination reports for each remaining registrant/client relationship. But if “T” is simply the new name adopted by “O” following the merger with “P,” with “P” going out of existence, “O” should report its new name and other updated information (such as the names of lobbyist employees of “P” who are retained or hired by “T”) on Form LD 2. “P’s” registration should be terminated, and P should file termination reports for each remaining registrant/client relationship, but only after P ceases to exist.

Example 3: Corporation “J,” a registrant, acquired Corporation “K,” a non registrant. At the time of the acquisition, “J” changed its name to “J & K.” How and when should this information be reported? For LDA purposes, this is simply a change in the name of the registrant. The change should be reported on Line 1 of the next LD-2 quarterly report.

Associations or Coalitions

The LDA provides that “[i]n the case of a coalition or association that employs or retains other persons to conduct lobbying activities, the client is the coalition or association and not its individual members” (Section 3(2)). A bona fide coalition that employs or retains lobbyists on behalf of the coalition may be the client for LDA purposes, even if the coalition is not a legal entity or has no formal name. A registrant lobbying for an unnamed informal coalition needs to adopt some type of identifier for Line 7 of Form LD 1, and indicate “(Informal Coalition)” or another applicable description. For all coalitions and associations, formal or informal, the LDA requires further disclosures, e.g., of organizations other than the client that contribute more than $5,000 toward the lobbying activities of the registrant in the quarterly period, and actively participate in the planning, supervision, or control of the lobbying activities (Section 4(b)(3)). Such organizations are identified on Line 13 of Form LD 1.

Example 1: Association “A” has 20 organizational members who each pay $20,000 as a portion of their annual dues to fund “A’s” lobbying activities. “E” is an employee of Organization “O,” which is a member of “A.” “E” serves as a member of “A’s” board, as a representative of “O.” While “A” carries out various functions, a substantial part of its mission is lobbying on issues of interest to its member organizations. “E’s” board membership constitutes active participation by “O” in the lobbying activities of “A,” and thus “O” would need to be listed as an affiliated organization of “A.”

Example 2: Another association “A” has 1000 organizational members who each pay $20,000 as a portion of their annual dues to fund “A’s” lobbying activities. “E” is an employee of Organization “O,” which is a member of “A.” “E” serves as a member of “A’s” board, as a representative of “O.” “A” performs numerous functions, only a modest portion of which is lobbying. With regard to “A’s” lobbying activities, “A’s” board is only involved in approving an overall budget for such activities, but otherwise leaves supervision, direction, and control of such matters to a separate committee of member organizations. “E’s” board membership in this case does not constitute active participation by “O” in the lobbying activities of “A.”

Example 3: Another association “A” has 1000 organizational members who each pay $1,000 a month in annual dues to “A.” “E” is an employee of Organization “O,” which is a member of “A.” “E” serves as a member of “A’s” lobbying oversight group as a representative of “O.” The lobbying oversight group plans and supervises lobbying strategy for “A.” While “E’s” activities in “A” would constitute active participation, because “O” does not contribute $5,000 in the reporting quarter to the lobbying activities of “A,” “O” would not need to be listed as an affiliate of “A.”

Example 4: Another association “A” has 100 organizational members who each pay $30,000 a month as a portion of their annual dues to fund “A’s” lobbying activities. “E” is an employee of Organization “O,” and attends “A’s” annual meeting/conference, informally provides “O’s” list of legislative priorities to “A,” and also facilitates responses from “O” to occasional requests for information by “A’s” lobbyists. These activities would not make “O” an active participant in the lobbying activities of “A.”

Example 5: Organization “O” joins with a group of nine other organizations to form Coalition “C” to lobby on an issue of interest to it. Each contributes $50,000 to “C’s” budget. “O’s” vice president for government relations is part of the informal group that directs the lobbying strategy for “C.” “O” would be considered an active participant in “C’s” lobbying activities and would have to be disclosed.

Note that a coalition with a foreign entity as a member must identify the foreign entity on Line 14 of Form LD-1 if the foreign entity meets the test of either Section 4(b)(3) or 4(b)(4).

Churches, Integrated Auxiliaries, Conventions or Association of Churches and Religious Orders – Hiring of Outside Firms

Although the definition of a lobbying contact does not include a communication made by a church, its integrated auxiliary, a convention or association of churches and religious orders (Section 3(8)(B)(xviii)), if a church (its integrated auxiliary, a convention or association of churches, and religious orders) hires an outside firm that conducts lobbying activity on its behalf, the outside firm must register if registration is otherwise required.

Registration of Professional Associations of Elected Officials

The Section 3(15) definition of “public official” includes a professional association of elected officials who are exempt from registration. If the association retains an outside firm to lobby, the lobbying firm must register if otherwise required to do so, i.e., the firm employs a lobbyist as defined in Section 3(10) and lobbying income exceeds $3,000 in a quarterly period.

Section 6 – Quarterly Reporting of Lobbying Activities

When and Why a Report is Needed

Each registrant must file a quarterly report on Form LD-2 no later than 20 days (or on the first business day after such 20th day if the 20th day is not a business day) after the end of the quarterly period beginning on the first day of January, April, July, and October of each year in which a registrant is registered. Lobbying firms file separate reports for each client for each quarterly reporting period, while organizations employing in-house lobbyists file one report covering their in-house lobbying activities for each quarterly reporting period. All reports must be filed electronically (with exceptions as noted below). The Secretary and Clerk do not have the authority under the LDA to grant extensions to registrants.

The obligation to report under the LDA arises from active status as a registrant (i.e., a registration on file that has not been validly terminated). Section 5(a) of the LDA requires a registrant to file a report for the quarterly period in which it incurred its registration requirement, and for each quarterly period thereafter, through and including the reporting period encompassing the date of registration termination. A timely report using Form LD-2 is required even though the registration was in effect for only part of the reporting period. So long as a registration is on file and has not been terminated, a registrant must report its lobbying activities even if those activities during a particular quarterly period would not trigger a registration requirement in the first instance (e.g., a lobbying firm’s income from a client amounted to less than $3,000 during a particular quarterly period). A registrant with no lobbying activity during a quarterly period checks the no activity box on Form LD-2.

Example 1: “A” is the only lobbyist of Lobbying Firm “Z” listed in the registration filed for Client “Y” on February 14, 2008. During January March 2008, “A” lobbied for “Y” nearly full time. During the April – June period in 2008, however, “A” made only one lobbying contact for “Y” in April, but lobbying fees for the quarter were $10,000. For the April – June quarterly period, even though “A” had minimal lobbying activities, Lobbying Firm “Z” must report “A’s” lobbying activities (due to “A’s” being listed as a lobbyist) and must report the $10,000 lobbying fees.

Example 2: Lobbying Firm “Z” is retained by Client “X” on June 1, 2008 for thirty days to lobby on a particular issue that is on the legislative calendar and the issue is settled prior to the departure of House and Senate Members for the July 4th recess. Firm “Z” must file its registration by July 15, file its Q2 LD-2 Report by July 20, and, if it chooses to terminate, file its termination report by October 20.

Disclosing that a Client is a State or Local Government or Instrumentality

If the client is a state or local government or instrumentality, check the box on Line 7 of Form LD-2.

Mandatory Electronic Filing

Section 5 of the LDA was amended to require the mandatory electronic filing of all documents required by the LDA. The only exception to mandatory electronic filing is for the purpose of amending reports in the format previously filed, or for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Each electronic lobbying disclosure form provides usability for people with vision impairments who have the appropriate software and hardware. If you have questions regarding additional ADA accommodations, please contact the Senate Office of Public Records at 202-224-0758.

Preparing to File the Quarterly Report – Income or Expense Recording

The LDA does not contain any special record keeping provisions, but requires, in the case of an outside lobbying firm (including self-employed individuals), a good faith estimate of all income received from the client, other than payments for matters unrelated to lobbying activities. In the case of an organization employing in-house lobbyists, the LDA requires a good faith estimate of the total expenses of its lobbying activities. As long as the registrant has a reasonable system in place and complies in good faith with that system, the requirement of reporting expenses or income would be met. Since Section 6(a)(5) requires the Secretary and Clerk to “retain registrations for a period of at least 6 years after they are terminated and reports for a period of at least 6 years after they are filed,” we recommend registrants retain copies of their filings and supporting documentation for the same length of time.

Lobbying Firm Income

Lobbying firms report income earned or accrued from lobbying activities during a quarterly period, even though the client may not be billed or make payment until a later time. For a lobbying firm, gross income from the client for lobbying activities is reportable, including reimbursable expenses, costs, or disbursements that are in addition to fees and separately invoiced. Line 12 of Form LD-2 provides boxes for a lobbying firm to report income of less than $5,000, or of $5,000 or more. If lobbying income is $5,000 or more, a lobbying firm must provide a good faith estimate of the actual dollar amount rounded to the nearest $10,000.

Organization Expenses Using LDA Expense Reporting Method

Organizations that employ in-house lobbyists may incur lobbying-related expenses in the form of employee compensation, office overhead, or payments to vendors, which may include lobbying firms. Organizations must report expenses as they are incurred, though payment may be made later. Line 13 of Form LD-2 provides for an organization to report lobbying expenses of less than $5,000, or $5,000 or more. If lobbying expenses are $5,000 or more, the organization must provide a good faith estimate of the actual dollar amountrounded to the nearest $10,000. Organizations using the LDA expense reporting method mark the “Method A” box on Line 14 of Form LD-2.

To ensure complete reporting, the Secretary and Clerk have consistently interpreted Section 5(b)(4) to require such organizations to report all of their expenses incurred in connection with lobbying activities, including all payments to retained lobby firms or outside entities, without considering whether any particular payee has a separate obligation to register and report under the LDA. Logically, if an organization employing in-house lobbyists also retains a lobbying firm, the expense reported by the organization should be greater than the fees reported by the lobbying firm of which the organization is a client. An organization must contact any other organization to which it pays membership dues in order to learn what portion of the dues is used by the latter organization for lobbying activities. It is necessary for the former organization to include the portion of the dues that is designated for lobbying activities in the total of lobbying expenses reported by the former organization. A registrant cannot apportion the lobbying expense part of the dues to avoid disclosure. Dues payments for lobbying activities should be included in the estimate for the quarter in which they are paid.

All employee time spent in lobbying activities must be included in determining the organization’s lobbying expenses, even if the employee does not meet the statutory definition of a “lobbyist.”

Example: The CEO of a registrant, “Defense Contractor,” travels to Washington to meet with a covered DOD official regarding the renewal of a government contract. “Defense Contractor” has already determined that its CEO is not a “lobbyist,” because he does not spend 20 percent of his time on “lobbying activities” during a quarterly period. Nonetheless, the expenses reasonably allocable to the CEO’s lobbying activities (e.g., plane ticket to Washington, salary and benefit costs, etc.) will be reportable.

Similarly, all expenses of lobbying activities incurred during a quarterly period are reportable. The Section 3(7) definition of lobbying activities is not limited to lobbying contacts. Examples of lobbying expenses to be included are reflected below.

Example 1: A research assistant in the Washington office of the registrant, “Defense Contractor” (described in the example above) researches and prepares the talking points for the CEO’s lobbying contact with the covered DOD official. Likewise, the expenses reasonably allocable to the research assistant’s lobbying activities will be included in “Defense Contractor’s” expense estimate for the quarterly period.

Example 2: Corporation “R” is a registrant that is interested in building a bypass around a city in state “S.” “R’s” governmental affairs team is comprised of lobbyists who are federally-focused, and lobbyists who are state-focused. The entire staff prepares a strategic lobbying plan to support the building of the bypass. This includes both federal and state lobbying. In this example, the time spent by the state level lobbyists preparing the materials would be included in “R’s” good faith estimate of lobbying expenses for the quarter because, at the time the materials were prepared, they were to be used for federal lobbying.

Example 3: Same circumstances as Example 2, but in this situation, the aforementioned strategic lobbying plan includes hiring one firm to help with the production of the plan, and another firm to place advertising in media in “S” to encourage citizens in “S” to contact their representatives about the importance of building the bypass. The total cost of producing the plan, but not the cost of the advertising media fees, must be included in “R’s” good faith estimate of lobbying expenses for the quarter.

The examples below are intended to be illustrative of the possibilities of LDA expense reporting, and are not intended to require detailed accounting rules.

Example 1: An organization employing in-house lobbyists might choose to estimate lobbying expenses by asking each professional staffer to track his/her percentages of time devoted to lobbying activities. These percentages could be averaged to compute the percentage of the organization’s total effort (and budget) that is devoted to lobbying activities. Under this example the organization would include salary costs (including a percentage of support staff salaries), overhead, and expenses, including any third-party costs attributable to lobbying.

Example 2: Another organization, which lobbies out of its Washington office, might avoid the need for detailed breakdowns by including the entire budget or expenses (whichever, the organization believes in good faith is closer to the actual amount) of its Washington office.

Organizations Reporting Expenses Under Section 15 (Optional IRC Reporting Methods)

Section 15(a) of the LDA allows entities that are required to report and do report lobbying expenditures under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code to use IRC definitions for purposes of LDA Sections (4)(a)(3) and 5(b)(4). Charitable organizations, as described in IRC Section 501(c)(3), are required to report to the Internal Revenue Service their lobbying expenditures in conformity with Section 6033(b)(8) of the IRC. They may treat as LDA expenses the amounts they treat for “influencing legislation” under the IRC.

Section 15(b) of the LDA allows entities that are subject to section 162(e) of the IRC to use IRC definitions for purposes of LDA Sections (4)(a)(3) and 5(b)(4). The eligible entities include for-profit organizations (other than lobbying firms) and tax-exempt organizations such as trade associations that calculate their lobbying expenses for IRC purposes with reference to IRC Section 162(e) rules. We believe that this reporting option is available to include also a small number of trade association registrants not required by the IRC to report non-deductible lobbying expenses to their members (i.e., those whose members are tax-exempt).

If an eligible organization elects to report under Section 15, it must do so consistently for all reports covering a calendar year. The electing organization also must report all expenses that fall within the applicable Internal Revenue Code definition. The total that is ultimately reportable to the Internal Revenue Service is the figure that would be used for Line 13 reporting. Line 13 of Form LD-2 would require any organization to report if the amount of lobbying expenses was less than $5,000, or $5,000 or more. If the expense amount is $5,000 or more, it should be rounded to the nearest $10,000. Line 14 of Form LD-2 requires the electing organization to mark as applicable, either the “Method B” box (IRC Section 6033(b)(8)) or the “Method C” box (IRC Section 162(e)). The Secretary and Clerk are aware that the IRC and LDA are not harmonized in terms of expense reporting. Registrants are advised that if they elect to report under Section 15, they may not subtract lobbying expenses for lobbying state and local officials and grassroots lobbying from the total expenses reported under the LDA. Doing so alters the IRS reportable total, and is not permitted.

Quarterly Reporting of Lobbying Activities – Contents of Report

The two core disclosures required by Section 5(b) and 5(c) of the LDA and incorporated into Form LD-2 are: (1) lobbying income or expenses; and (2) lobbying issues. Form LD-2 has been designed to allow registrants the greatest flexibility in terms of document length to correspond with the varying amounts of information relating to the core disclosures. The following examples illustrate how the nature of the core disclosures builds the form.

Example 1: Registrant “A” represents Client “B” to monitor an issue of interest to B and make occasional lobbying contacts as necessary. During the Q1 2008 reporting period, “A” received $3,000 from “B,” but had no lobbying activity because “B’s” issue was dormant. “A” would complete Form LD-2, , mark the box on Line 11 labeled “No Lobbying Activity,” mark Line 12 as “Less than $5,000,” and file the report.

Example 2: Same circumstances as above, except that “A” has two lobbyists who make lobbying contacts on a single lobbying issue with the Senate and the House. In this case, “A” will need to complete the Lobbying Activity section of Form LD-2 and file the report.

Example 3: Same circumstances as example 2, but one of the lobbyists retires during the reporting period. In this case, an update page of Form LD-2 would be required, listing the lobbyist’s name on Line 23, which has the effect of reflecting the removal of the lobbyist’s name (his/her retirement) from “A’s” registration and reports.

Section 5(b) of the LDA requires specific information on the nature of the lobbying activities. The Lobbying Activity Section of Form LD-2 requires the registrant to:

Disclose the general lobbying issue area code (list 1 code per page).
Identify the specific issues on which the lobbyist(s) engaged in lobbying activities.
Identify the Houses of Congress and Federal Agencies contacted.
Disclose the lobbyists who had any activity in the general issue area.
Describe the interest of a foreign entity if applicable.

When reporting specific lobbying issues, some registrants have listed only House or Senate bill numbers on the issues page without further indication of their clients’ specific lobbying issues. Such disclosures are not adequate, for several reasons. First, Section 5(b)(2)(A) of the LDA requires disclosure of “specific issues upon which a lobbyist employed by the registrant engaged in lobbying activities, including … bill numbers[.]” As we read the law, a bill number is a required disclosure when the lobbying activities concern a bill, but is not in itself a complete disclosure. Further, in many cases, a bill number standing alone does not inform the public of the client’s specific issue. Many bills are lengthy and complex, or may contain various provisions that are not always directly related to the main subject or title. If a registrant’s client is interested in only one or a few specific provisions of a much larger bill, a lobbying report containing a mere bill number will not disclose the specific lobbying issue. Even if a bill concerns only one specific subject, a lobbying report disclosing only a bill number is still inadequate, because a member of the public would need access to information outside of the filing to ascertain that subject. In our view, the LDA contemplates disclosures that are adequate to inform the public of the lobbying client’s specific issues from a review of the Form LD 2, without independent familiarity with bill numbers or the client’s interest in specific subject matters within larger bills. The disclosures on Line 16 must include bill numbers, where applicable, but must always contain information that is adequate, standing alone, to inform the public of the specific lobbying issues.

Example: Client “A’s” general lobbying issue area is “Environment.” During the first quarter of 2008, lobbyists for “A” made contacts concerning the Department of Defense appropriations for environmental restoration. For fiscal 2009, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act was part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2009, H.R. 3610, a lengthy and complex bill that did not have numbered sections throughout. Title II contained separate but unnumbered provisions making appropriations for “Environmental Restoration, Army,” “Environmental Restoration, Navy,” “Environmental Restoration, Air Force,” “Environmental Restoration, Defense Wide,” and “Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites.” Lobbying contacts for Client “A” addressed all environmental restoration funding within the Defense Department bill. An appropriate disclosure of the specific lobbying issue would read as follows: H.R. 3610, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2009, Title II, all provisions relating to environmental restoration.

The TAR code is used for tariff bills, including miscellaneous tariff bills. Filers must use this general issue area code to report lobbying activity related to tariff issues, including miscellaneous tariff issues. For any other trade-related issues, filers should use the TRD code.

Example: Registrant “R” is retained by Client “B” to pursue a bill to provide a temporary tariff suspension for chemical X, and a separate bill to provide a temporary tariff reduction for chemical Y. During the first quarter of 2008, “R” made lobbying contacts concerning both matters on behalf of “B” and a separate bill was introduced for each matter (S.123 for chemical X and S.456 for chemical Y). “R” reports in its LD-2 filing for Q1 that the general issue area code for these bills is “TAR,” and the specific issues lobbied upon were the substance of the bills, citing to the bill number, if a bill has been introduced (e.g., “temporary tariff suspension for chemical X (S.123) and temporary tariff reduction for chemical Y (S.456)”). In the Q3 reporting period, the two chemical tariff provisions are each rolled into an omnibus bill (e.g., S.789, the “Miscellaneous Tariff Bill”). If “R” had lobbying activities during the Q3 reporting period encompassing all three bills, then “R” reports that the general issue area code for these bills is “TAR” and the specific issues lobbied upon were the substance of the bills (e.g., “temporary tariff suspension for chemical X and temporary tariff reduction for chemical Y, included in the original bills (S.123 and S.456) and in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (S.789)”). In Q4, “R” had lobbying activities focusing on the omnibus bill which “R” then discloses on its Q4 report, using TAR for the general issue area code as well as reporting the specific issues lobbied upon (“modification focused on tariff suspension for chemical X and tariff reduction for chemical Y, included in Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (S.789)”).

The Houses of Congress and Federal agencies contacted by lobbyists during the reporting period must be disclosed on Line 17 of Form LD-2, picking from the list of government entities provided on the form. If the list does not display the government entity contacted, then select the department in which the entity is housed. In the event that no lobbying contacts were made, the registrant must mark the “Check if None” box.

Previously identified lobbyists and new lobbyists for this reporting period must be listed on Line 18 of Form LD-2 if they had any lobbying activities during the reporting period, whether or not they made lobbying contacts. The Lobbying Activity Section is only intended to reflect lobbying activity by lobbyists, and not activity of those who are not lobbyists. The registrant does not report the names of individuals who may perform some lobbying activities, but who do not and are not expected to meet the LDA definition of a lobbyist.

Example: Lobbying Firm “A” filed its initial registration for Client “B” on February 14, listing Lobbyists “X,” “Y,” and “Z.” From January through March, Lobbyists “W” (hired in February) and “X” and “Y” made contacts for “B,” while Lobbyist “Z” was assigned work for other clients. Lobbyist “Z” is expected, however, to be active on behalf of Client “B” after Spring Recess until adjournment. In its Q1 LD-2 report for Client “B,” filed on or before April 20, Lobbying Firm “A” lists “W,” “X,” and “Y” on Line 18. “W” is also identified as “new,” and Firm “A” would disclose if “W” occupied a covered position within the last twenty years. “Z” is not listed on the Form LD 2 filed for Client “B” for the January – March quarterly period, but because of the current expectation that he will lobby during the April – June quarterly period, his name is not deleted as a lobbyist for “B.”

New lobbyists must be disclosed in the appropriate Lobbying Activity section for the reporting period in which the individual first meets the definition of lobbyist. Filers need to list a new lobbyist’s previous covered executive or legislative branch positions held within twenty (20) years of first acting as a lobbyist for a client. Once a filer has met the previously described statutory requirement for listing a new lobbyist’s previous covered position(s), then the filer does not have to list those positions again for subsequent reports concerning the same client. If a Registrant lists that lobbyist for the first time on a report/registration regarding a different client, then the Registrant must list that lobbyist’s previous covered positions held within twenty (20) years of first acting as a lobbyist for the new client.

We are aware that there will be situations in which a registrant expects an individual to become a lobbyist and wishes to disclose the name of that individual as a matter of public record. Section 5 of the LDA, however, provides that updated registration information is contained in the registrant’s next quarterly report. Therefore, there may be a period of time in which an individual is legitimately making lobbying contacts but is not identified on the public record until the next quarterly report is filed. In such cases, the registrant reports updated information as the LDA requires.

A foreign entity is reported on Line 19 of Form LD-2 if both of two circumstances apply: 1) the foreign entity must be an entity that is required to be identified on Form LD 1 or on the registration information update page. That, in turn, depends on whether the entity meets one of the three conditions of Section 4(b)(4) of the LDA; and 2) the entity must have an interest in the specific lobbying issues listed on Line 16. If a foreign entity has an interest in the specific issues, Line 19 requires a description of that interest. For the sake of clarity the registrant should indicate whether the foreign entity(s) is/are the same as identified on the registration. The requirement to disclose a foreign interest on Line 19 on Form LD-2 is not contingent upon the entity making a contribution of $5,000 or more to the registrant during that particular reporting period.

Example: “[Name of foreign entity], identified on Form LD-1, exports [type of product] to United States and would benefit from [specific desired outcome].”

Section 7 – Semiannual Reporting of Certain Contributions

When and Why a Report is Needed

Registrants and lobbyists must file a semiannual report on Form LD-203 by July 30 and January 30 (or on the next business day should either day occur on a weekend or holiday) for each semiannual period in which a registrant or lobbyist remains active (and regardless of whether they do or do not make reportable contributions). An “active” registrant is one that has not filed a valid termination report for all clients. An “active” lobbyist is an individual who has been listed on any registrant’s Form LD-1 or LD-2 and who has not been terminated by the registrant on Line 23 of an LD-2. If a lobbyist is listed as active for all or any part of a semi-annual period, he or she must file an LD-203 report for that period (see Guidance Section 8). Section 5 of the LDA states that “each person or organization who is registered or is required to register…and each employee who is or is required to be listed as a lobbyist… shall file a report.” Thus, the requirement to file an LD-203 report falls upon all lobbyists who were listed on an LD-1 or LD-2 report, regardless of whether they were required to be listed (as in the case in which a registrant listed an individual as a lobbyist in an abundance of caution). Any lobbyist who is reported on Line 10 of Form LD-1 or Line 18 of Form LD-2 must file an LD-203 report, unless that lobbyist has been listed on Line 23 of Form LD-2 as removed for all clients of the registrant prior to the beginning of the relevant LD-203 filing period. The Secretary and the Clerk view Lines 10 (LD-1), 18 and 23 (LD-2) as determinative for an individual lobbyist’s obligation to file an LD-203 report, rather than the mechanics of the contributions electronic filing system, which is not relevant in the determination of a filer’s legal obligations.

Sole proprietors and small lobbying firms are reminded that two contribution reports are required: one filed by the registrant and one filed by the listed lobbyist (even if the lobbyist is the registrant and vice versa).

Filers are expected to use reasonable care when filling out and submitting LD-1, LD-2, and LD-203 forms.

The coverage periods for the semiannual reports are January 1 through June 30, and July 1 through December 31. The Secretary and the Clerk do not have the authority under the LDA to grant extensions for filing LDA documents.

Mandatory Electronic Filing

It is necessary for each active lobbyist to obtain his/her individual user identification number and password in order to file semiannual LD-203 reports electronically with the Secretary and Clerk. Each and every registrant and lobbyist is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality and use of the user password and for all filings made using their assigned user ID and password. Filers should notify the Secretary and Clerk immediately upon learning of any unauthorized use of a user ID and/or password, as it is presumed that filings are made by the filer.

Semiannual Reporting of Certain Contributions – Contents of Report

The core information required by Section 5(d) of the LDA and incorporated into Form LD-203 is: (1) certain contributions that are not disclosed in the LD-2 report; and (2) a certification that the filer has read and understands the gift and travel provisions in the Rules of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and that the filer has not knowingly violated the aforementioned Rules.

The beginning part of Form LD-203 contains identifying information. Section 5(d) requires specific information regarding certain contributions and payments made by the filer (i.e., each active registrant and active lobbyist), as well as any political committee established or controlled by the filer. In determining contributions and/or payments to report, it is important to note that, in some cases, a leadership PAC (as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act, FECA) or a former leadership PAC (for example, in the case of a lobbyist who was previously a covered official) may be a political committee established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a lobbyist. Also, a political committee that has changed from a principal campaign committee into a multicandidate committee (defined in the FECA) could be considered to have been established by a covered official or federal candidate. Finally, the FECA defines those organizations that may establish separate segregated funds (SSFs).

The middle part of Form LD-203 requires the filer to disclose for itself, and for any political committee the filer establishes or controls:

The date, recipient, and amount of funds contributed (including in-kind contributions) to any Federal candidate or officeholder, leadership PAC, or political party committee (registered with the Federal Election Commission), if the aggregate during the period to that recipient equals or exceeds $200. Please note that contributions to state and/or local candidates and committees not required to be registered with the Federal Election Commission need not be disclosed.
The date, the name of honoree and/or honorees, the payee(s) and amount of funds paid for an event to honor or recognize a covered Legislative Branch or covered Executive Branch official (except for information required to be disclosed by another entity under 2 U.S.C § 434).
The date, the name of honoree and or honorees, the payee(s) and amount of funds paid to an entity or person that is named for a covered Legislative Branch official, or to an entity or person in recognition of such official (except for information required to be disclosed by another entity under 2 U.S.C § 434).
The date, recipient, the name of the covered official, the payee(s) and amount of funds paid to an entity established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a covered Legislative or Executive Branch official or to an entity designated by such official (except for information required to be disclosed by another entity under 2 U.S.C § 434).

A non-voting board member (e.g. honorary or ex-officio) does not control an organization for these purposes. For purposes of the LDA, the term “designated,” for instance, includes a covered legislative branch official’s or covered executive branch official’s directing a charitable contribution in lieu of an honoraria pursuant to House, Senate, or executive branch Ethics rules. It also includes a payment that is directed to an entity by a covered official who is also on the board of the entity. In contrast, a contribution following a mere statement of support or solicitation does not necessarily constitute a reportable event under Section 5(d) of the LDA without some further role by a covered official.

Please note that a charitable organization established by a person before that person became a covered official and where that covered official has no relationship to the organization after becoming a covered official, is not considered to be one established by a covered official.

Please also note that a covered official’s de minimis contribution to a charity (in proportion to the charity’s overall receipts of contributions) is not an indication of financing, maintaining, or controlling the charity (although supplemental facts might require reporting the contribution).

The date, the name of honoree and/or honorees, the payee(s) and amount of funds paid for a meeting, retreat, conference, or other similar event held by, or in the name of, one or more covered Legislative Branch or covered Executive Branch officials (except for information required to be disclosed by another entity under 2 U.S.C § 434). Costs related to non-preferential sponsorship of a multi-candidate primary/general election debate for a particular office do not have to be disclosed on an LD-203 report.
The date, the name of honoree, the payee(s) and amount of funds equal to or exceeding $200 paid to each Presidential library foundation and each Presidential inaugural committee. Please note that contributions to the official Presidential Transition Organization (“PTO”) of the President-elect and Vice President-elect are reportable under the Presidential Transition Act.

In the case of items 2–6 above, if a lobbyist makes a reportable payment but is reimbursed by a registrant, the Registrant reports the payment as its own, rather than the lobbyist reporting the payment.

This section of the LDA has been written broadly, and, in light of other provisions in HLOGA (P.L. 110-81), it would be prudent to consult with the appropriate Ethics Committee, as well as the Office of Government Ethics, in order to determine if any event listed above is otherwise prohibited under law, Senate or House Rules, or Executive Branch regulations. For some events, it may be prudent to consult with the Federal Election Commission as well. Please note that HLOGA and the Federal Election Campaign Act are not harmonized to contributions of exactly $200.

Example 1: In State “A,” a group of constituents involved in widget manufacturing decide to honor Senator “Y” and Representative “T” with the “Widget Manufacturing Legislative Leaders of 2008” plaques. Registrant “B” is aware that “Y” has checked with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics regarding her ability to accept the award and attend the coffee, and “T” has checked with the House Committee on Ethics. “B” pays caterer “Z” $500 and Hotel “H” $200 to partially fund the event. “B” would report that it paid $500 to “Z” and $200 to “H” on November 20, 2008 for the purpose of an event to honor or recognize “Y” and “T” with the plaques.

Example 2: After checking to discover if the activity is permissible, Lobbyist “C” contributes $300 on June 1, 2008 to Any State University toward the endowment of a chair named for Senator “Y.” “C” would report the information above noting that the payment was made to Any State for the endowment of “Y’s” chair.

Example 3: Senator “Y” has been asked to speak at a conference held in Washington, DC, sponsored by a professional association of which Registrant “B” is a member. “B” makes a donation of $100 to Charity “X” in lieu of the association paying a speaking fee (i.e., a contribution in lieu of honoraria). “B” would disclose a contribution of $100 on the date of the payment, with the notation that the payment was made as a contribution in lieu of honoraria to an entity designated by “Y.”

Example 4: There is a large regional conference on “Saving Our River,” sponsored by three 501(c)(3) organizations. Senator “Y” and Representative “T” are given “Champions of Our River” awards at a dinner event that is part of the conference. Registrant “B” contributes $3,000 specifically for the costs of the dinner event, paying one of the sponsors directly. At the time of the specific or restricted contribution, “B” was aware that “Y” and “T” would be honorees. Regardless of whether “B” is a sponsor under House or Senate gift rules and although B is not listed on the invitation as a sponsor (or the like) nor is publicly held out as a sponsor (or the like), since “B” partially paid for the cost of the event, “B” would disclose a payment of $3,000 on the relevant date payable to the sponsor with the notation that “Y” and “T” were honored.

Example 5: Registrant “B,” an industry organization, hosts its annual gala dinner and gives a “Legislator of the Year” award to Representative “T.” Revenues from the gala dinner help fund Registrant “B’s” activities throughout the year. Registrant “B” must report: 1) the cost of the event (hotel, food, flowers, etc., but not indirect costs such as host staff salaries and host office overhead); 2), the payee(s) (as a convenience to filers, separate vendors may be aggregated by using the term “various vendors”); and 3) that the event honored Representative “T.” Please note that “B” must still separately report the cost of any item that “B” gave “T.” The fact that the event helped raise funds for the organization does not change the reporting requirement, though it could be noted in the filing.

Example 6: Registrant “B,” an industry organization, has an annual two-day “Washington fly-in” for its members. Among the events for its members is an event on “The Importance of Industry G to the U.S. Economy.” Senator “T” is listed on the invitation as a speaker at the event. Based on these facts alone, Registrant “B” would not need to report the event under this section. For a covered official to speak at such an event would not, in and of itself, form the basis for concluding that the official is to be honored or recognized. Supplemental facts might require reporting the cost of the event. For example, if Senator “T” were given a special award, recognition, or honor (which may not necessarily be through the receipt of a physical object) by the organization at the event, the cost of the event would have to be reported, even if the invitation did not indicate that such would be given. Simply designating a covered official as a “speaker” at an event at which the covered official receives a special award, recognition or honor, will not permit the filer to avoid or evade reporting the expenses of the event.

Example 7: Senator “Y” and Representative “T” are “honorary co-hosts” of an event sponsored by Registrant “R” to raise funds for a charity, which is not established, financed, maintained, or controlled by either legislator. “Y” and “T’s” passive allowance of their names to be used as “co-hosts,” in and of itself, is not sufficient to be considered “honored or recognized.” The purpose of the event is to raise funds for Charity “V,” not to honor or recognize “Y” or “T.” Nor are these facts (i.e. being passive honorary co-hosts), in and of themselves, sufficient to treat the event as being held “by or in the name” of “Y” or “T.” Supplemental facts might require reporting the cost of the event.

Example 8: Registrant “R” sponsors an event to promote “Widget Awareness.” “The Honorable Cabinet Secretary Z” is listed on the invitation as an “attendee” or “special invitee” but will not receive an honor or award at the event. Based on these facts alone, “R” would not need to include the costs of this event on “R’s” disclosure under this section. Mere listing of “Z’s” anticipated attendance at an event the purpose of which is to promote Widget Awareness, in and of itself, is not sufficient to be considered “honored or recognized”. Use of the phrase “The Honorable” in this context is consistent with widely accepted notions of protocol applicable to referencing certain very senior government officials. Supplemental facts might require reporting the cost of the event. For instance, if “Z” received a special, award, honor, or recognition by “R” at the event, “R” would have to report the costs of the event noting that “Z” was being honored or recognized.

Example 9: Registrant “B” buys a table at a dinner event sponsored by a 501(c) organization to honor Representative “T” but Registrant “B” is not considered a sponsor of the event under House and Senate gift rules. Lobbyist “C” pays the $150 individual ticket cost to attend the dinner, but is not considered a sponsor of the event under House and Senate gift rules. The purchase of a table or ticket to another entity’s event, in and of itself, is not sufficient to be considered paying the “cost of an event.” Supplemental facts might require reporting the cost of the event. For example, if (1) “B” or “C” undertake activities such that “B” or “C” becomes a sponsor of the event for House and/or Senate gift rule purposes; or (2) “B” or “ C” purchase enough tickets/tables so that it would appear that they are paying the costs of the event and/or would not appear to be just ticket or table-buyers (regardless of whether “B” or “C” is a sponsor under House or Senate gift rules), then “B” or “C” would need to report the costs incurred by “B” or “C” (as the case may be) for the event, noting that Representative “T” was the honoree. In the case of filers purchasing multiple tickets and/or tables to an event, a case-by-case analysis will be needed to determine if the quantity is such that it would appear that the filer is paying the costs of the event.

Example 10: Lobbyists “C” and “D” serve on the board of a PAC as member and treasurer respectively. As board members, they are in positions that control direction of the PAC’s contributions. Since both are controlling to whom the PAC’s contributions are given, they must disclose applicable contributions of the PAC on their semi-annual LD-203 reports. If “C” and “D” serve on the board of a Separate Segregated Fund (SSF), they may report that they are board members of an SSF in lieu of reporting the SSF’s applicable contributions as long as the SSF’s contributions are reported in the connected organization’s LD-203 report.

Example 11: Registrant “L” holds an annual fundraising event that honors one person from each of the 50 states whom “L” deems to have played a significant role for the cause “L” supports. In 2009, four of the honorees were covered legislative and executive officials. “L” must disclose the total amount that it paid for the event, disclosing in the payee section “various vendors,” and disclosing the names of the four covered officials. Although not required, and thus at its option , “L” could note in the comments section that 4 of the 50 honorees were covered officials. Section 5(d) of the LDA does not contemplate a breakdown, delineation or separation of expenses

Example 12: Registrant “O” is a university. In June 2009, in conjunction with its commencement event, “O” conferred an honorary degree upon Senator “P.” “O” would report all payments relating to the commencement event (chair rental, lunch for honorees, etc.) on its LD-203 report, listing “various vendors” as the payee, and Senator “P” as the honoree. Although not required, and thus at its option, “O” could comment that “P” received an honorary degree.

The final part of the LD-203 form is a certification that the filer has read and is familiar with those provisions of the Standing Rules of the Senate and the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to the provisions of gifts and travel and has not provided, requested or directed a gift, including travel, with knowledge that receipt of the gift would violate either Chamber’s Rules. The form contains a check box for the certification, and the user ID and password process will verify the filer identity. Each and every registrant and lobbyist is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality and use of the user password and for all filings made using their assigned user ID and password. Filers should notify the Secretary and Clerk immediately upon learning of any unauthorized use of a user ID and/or password, as it is presumed that filings are made by the filer.

Please note that in the case of a registrant, a signatory is an individual who is responsible for the accuracy of the information contained in the filing. In all cases an individual lobbyist is responsible for all information contained in his or her report. Under section 6 of the LDA, the Secretary and Clerk refer the names of registrants and lobbyists who fail to provide an appropriate response within sixty (60) days to either officer’s written communication rather than the name of the signatory. Both signatories and any third-party preparers should retain appropriate documentation to verify report contents. Third-party preparers should also retain appropriate documentation to demonstrate that they have authorization to make such filings on behalf of all filers (including lobbyist-employees of registrants) using their services.

Each registrant and active lobbyist, regardless of any contribution activity or any lack thereof, must file Form LD-203 semiannually due to the certification provision.

Section 8 – Termination of a Lobbyist/Termination of a Registrant

Termination of a Lobbyist

The LDA is not specific as to how far into the future the registrant should project an expectation that an individual will act as a lobbyist. It seems neither realistic nor necessary to expect registrants to make such projections beyond the next succeeding quarterly reporting period. Accordingly, if a registrant reasonably expects an individual to meet the definition of a lobbyist in either the current or next quarterly period, the lobbyist should remain in an “active” status. If a registrant does not believe this to be the case, the lobbyist can be removed from the list of lobbyists for the registrant. A registrant may remove a lobbyist only when (i) that individual’s lobbying activities on behalf of that client did not constitute at the end of the current quarter, and are not reasonably expected in the upcoming quarter to constitute, 20 percent of the time that such employee is engaged in total activities for that client; or (ii) that individual does not reasonably expect to make further lobbying contacts. In order to properly terminate a lobbyist, the registrant must complete Line 23 of Form LD-2, which is used to remove names of employees who are no longer expected to act as lobbyists for the client due to changed job duties, assignments, or employment status. Amending the LD-1 or LD-2 reports to erase a lobbyist listed on lines 10 or 18, respectively, is not a proper termination.

Example 1: Lobbying Firm “Y” registers for Client “Z” on March 15, 2008, listing employees “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D” on Line 10 of Form LD 1. For the first quarterly reporting period in 2008, “Y” will list “A,” “B,” and “C” on Line 18 of Form LD 2. “D” has no lobbying activities for that quarterly period, so he would not be listed. During the second quarter of 2008, “D” leaves firm “Y” to start his own lobbying business. For the second quarterly period, “Y” will report that “D” no longer meets the definition of “lobbyist” for Client “Z” on Line 23 of Form LD-2.

Example 2: Lobbying Firm “Y” registers for Client “Z” as above listing the aforementioned “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D” as lobbyists on March 15, 2008. One month after registration, “C” and “D,” who engaged in lobbying activities for “Z” as partners of “Y,” decide to leave the partnership effective June 1, 2008. On the Q2 Report for 2008, “Y” would report any lobbying activity for “C” and “D” on Line 18 of Form LD-2. “Y” would also reflect “C” and “D’s” departure by listing them on Line 23 of Form LD-2 in the same filing.

An individual who no longer meets the definition of lobbyist under Section 3(10) of the LDA can be relieved from having to file an LD-203 report for future semiannual periods by proper removal from the registrant’s active lobbyists list. This is accomplished by the registrant listing such an individual on Line 23 of the LD-2 quarterly report for each client for which the individual was previously listed. The obligation to file an LD-203 report arises from being listed as a lobbyist and not being terminated by the registrant/employer. Thus, if a lobbyist has not been properly terminated by being listed on Line 23 of the Form LD-2 for every client for which the lobbyist was listed, the Secretary and Clerk will expect to receive a semi-annual report from him/her.

Example: Registrant “A” employs Lobbyist “C” who has lobbying activity on behalf of Client “R” in January and February 2008. In March, Lobbyist “C” no longer expects to engage in lobbying activities for “R” or any other client in the firm, although “C” will continue to do non-lobbying consultation for numerous clients. “A” removes Lobbyist “C” as an active lobbyist by listing “C” on Line 23 of the LD-2 form for the Q1 reporting period, and “C” is not listed on subsequent quarterly LD-2 reports. However in July, Lobbyist “C” is required to file an LD-203 report due July 30 disclosing his activity from January 1 through the date of his termination.

Termination of a Registrant/Client Relationship

Under Section 4(d) of the LDA, a lobbying firm may terminate a registration for a particular client when it is no longer employed or retained by that client to conduct lobbying activities and anticipates no further lobbying activities for that client. An organization employing in-house lobbyists may terminate its registration when in-house lobbying activities have ceased and are not expected to resume. Similarly, in situations in which a registration is filed in anticipation of meeting the registration threshold that subsequently is not met, a registrant also has the option of termination. Just as we interpret that the obligation to report quarterly under the LDA arises from active status as a registrant, we believe that a report disclosing the final lobbying activity of a registrant is mandatory. In order to terminate the registration, the registrant must file Form LD 2 by the next quarterly filing date, checking the “Termination Report” box, and supplying the date that the lobbying activity terminated. A valid termination report discloses lobbying income or expenses and any lobbying activity by lobbyists during the period up to and including the termination date.

Example 1: Lobbying Firm “A” accepted a contract with Client “B” on January 1, 2008, began lobbying activities, and timely registered on or before February 14. On March 31, the contract with “B” ended. Lobbying Firm “A” must file Form LD 2 by April 20, 2008, disclosing the lobbying income from and lobbying activity for Client “B” that took place during the period January 1 through March 31. The firm will check the “Q1” box on Line 8, the “Termination Report” box on Line 10, and fill in “3/31/2008” in the Termination Date space (also on Line 10).

Example 2: Corporation “C” filed its registration on February 14, 2008, listing employee “E” as its only lobbyist. Through March 31, “E” spends less than 20 percent of her total time in lobbying activities. “C” would not have filed a registration if it had foreseen that its lobbying activities would be so limited, and there is no expectation that “E” or any other employee of “C” will meet the LDA Section 3(10) definition of “lobbyist” for the April – June quarterly period nor that lobbying expenses will exceed $12,500. While Corporation “C” as a registrant must file a report for January March 2008, “C” will check the “Termination Report” box on Form LD 2, write in 3/31/08, disclose the amount of expenses for the reporting period, and “E’s” lobbying activity for the reporting period.

Section 9 – Relationship of LDA to Other Statutes

LDA and FARA

The technical amendments to the LDA made in 1998 reflect a determination that the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) standards are appropriate for lobbying on behalf of foreign governments and political parties, but that LDA disclosure standards should apply to other foreign lobbying. An agent of a foreign commercial entity is exempt under FARA if the agent has engaged in lobbying activities and registers under the LDA. An agent of a foreign commercial entity not required to register under the LDA (such as those not meeting the de minimis registration thresholds) may voluntarily register under the LDA. The amendments reaffirm the bright line distinction between governmental and non-governmental representations, and are not meant to shroud foreign government enterprises. Questions relating to the Foreign Agents Registration Act must be directed to the Department of Justice Foreign Agent Registration Unit at (202) 514 1231.

LDA and IRC

Restrictions on lobbying by tax-exempt organizations are governed by the definitions in the IRC, not those of the LDA. The LDA and the IRC intersect in three different ways.

First, Section 15 of the LDA defines which registrants are eligible for the “safe harbor.” LDA Section 15 allows entities that are required to report and do report lobbying expenditures under Section 6033(b)(8) of the IRC to use IRC definitions for purposes of LDA Sections 4(a)(3) and 5(b)(4). Section 15(b) of the LDA allows entities that are subject to Section 162(e) of the IRC to use IRC definitions for purposes of LDA Sections 4(a)(3) and 5(b)(4).

Second, Section 15 of the LDA advises registrants regarding how they should use IRC definitions. Prior to the 1998 technical amendments, the statute was not clear as to the extent to which eligible organizations could use IRC definitions for other (i.e., non-expense) reporting and disclosure requirements of the LDA. As a result of the amendments, registrants who make the Section 15 expense election must use for other reporting the IRC definitions (including the IRC definition of a covered Executive Branch official) for Executive Branch lobbying, and the LDA definitions for Legislative Branch lobbying.

Third, Section 15 allows electing registrants to insert the amount that is ultimately reportable to the Internal Revenue Service for LDA quarterly reports.

LDA and False Statements Accountability Act of 1996

The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, amending 18 U.S.C. § 1001, makes it a crime knowingly and willfully: (1) to falsify, conceal or cover up a material fact by trick, scheme or device; (2) to make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) to make or use any false writing or document knowing it to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branch. The False Statements Accountability Act does not assign any responsibilities to the Clerk and Secretary.

LDA and Prohibitions on the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying

The LDA does not itself regulate lobbying by federal grantees, or contractors, though other laws, as well as contractual prohibitions, may apply. Questions concerning lobbying activities of federal grantees or contractors should be directed to the appropriate agency or office administrating the contract or grant.

Note, however, that Section 18 of the LDA prohibits 501(c)(4) organizations who engage in lobbying activities from receiving federal funds through an award, grant, or loan.

Section 10 – Public Availability

The Act requires the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make all registrations and reports available for public inspection over the Internet as soon as technically practicable after the report is filed.

Section 11 – Review and Compliance

The Secretary of the Senate (Office of Public Records) and the Clerk of the House (Legislative Resource Center) must review, verify, and request corrections in writing to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports filed under the LDA.

Section 12 – Penalties

Whoever knowingly fails: (1) to correct a defective filing within 60 days after notice of such a defect by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House; or (2) to comply with any other provision of the Act, may be subject to a civil fine of not more than $200,000, and whoever knowingly and corruptly fails to comply with any provision of this Act may be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.

No Comments "

prospects and challenges for north africa europe solar energy initiatives

July 5th, 2013

By Helios Global.

The search for new and alternative sources of energy remains one of the world’s most pressing challenges. To make an impact, these energy sources must be economically feasible, industrially viable, plentiful, practical, and easily accessible. In this regard, a number of trends involving solar energy demand in Europe, and North Africa’s potential to meet that demand, warrant a closer look.

Recent years have seen an increased interest in North Africa’s potential to provide solar energy to Europe. This trend is driven by a number of factors, including the growing concern over the environmental and economic impacts of fossil fuel dependence, and post-Fukushima worries surrounding the safety of nuclear power. Solar energy is renewable and clean. Advances in solar-derived electricity production, utilizing both photovoltaic (PV) generators – in which the sun’s rays are converted to electricity using solar cell panels – and concentrated solar power (CSP) plants – in which the sun’s rays are used to heat water to power steam turbine generators – have enhanced solar power’s profile as a valuable complement to petroleum and natural gas.

Additionally, traditional challenges to solar power’s viability as a reliable, marketable source of electricity on a regional or even global scale are closer than ever to being overcome. High voltage direct current (HVDC) power lines can transmit electricity over great distances with little volume loss, while breakthroughs in solar energy storage (using molten salt in heat transfer systems, for instance) make it possible to use solar energy collected during the day at night, when it is often needed most.

Given its geographic peculiarities and proximity to Europe, North Africa appears well placed to serve as a source of solar energy for Europe. The largest trading partners for North African countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, among others, are European. North Africa has enormous solar energy generating capacity, with vast portions of sparsely inhabited or uninhabited desert areas providing an attractive setting for large-scale solar energy infrastructure projects. European-directed initiatives like DESERTEC and Nur-Energie promise to harness the power of the plentiful North African sun, converting solar energy into electricity and then transmitting that electricity to Europe via HVDC lines. By connecting North African solar energy production plants to European energy grids, the DESERTEC Industrial Initiative aims to provide 15% of Europe’s electricity by 2050, producing 100 gigawatts – the equivalent of 100 nuclear power plants – of electrical power through a combination of solar, wind, and natural gas.

Outlook

Despite the theoretical advantages of a robust North Africa-Europe solar energy relationship, serious challenges have emerged. For a number of reasons, renewable energy projects often cost far more to implement than fossil fuel energy projects. The global economic crisis has also resulted in reduced enthusiasm for projects such as DESERTEC. European countries central to the effort to transmit electricity generated at North African solar power plants to Europe, such as Spain, have been hesitant to commit funds to the projects in an era of painful austerity. In late 2012, two of the most prominent private sector sponsors of DESERTEC, the German industrial firms Siemens and Bosch, pulled out of the $515 billion initiative. The withdrawal of major German partners is of particular interest, given the fact that Germany is one of the world’s largest investors in solar and other alternative energy projects.

From a technical standpoint, large-scale solar energy projects can be difficult and expensive to maintain, especially in the desert. For instance, the mirrors that are crucial to CSP plant operations can be easily damaged or polluted by sand and debris in the windy environment. These mirrors must be cleaned, and the CSP plants themselves must be cooled, requiring thousands of gallons of water a day. Given that water is a rare commodity in the desert, this raises economic and political questions concerning the practicality of solar energy production in North Africa, and the extent to which regional governments and local residents will be willing to have precious water resources diverted to the maintenance of energy production facilities.

Energy security concerns may also impact North Africa-Europe solar energy partnerships. The wave of popular unrest and residual political instability that has gripped the region may make Europe reluctant to depend on North Africa for significant portions of its electricity due to worries over sudden shifts in the regional political climate. That said, robust trade between North Africa and Europe continues, and North African suppliers continue to supply Europe with critical deliveries of oil and natural gas. Should North African countries establish solar energy relationships with their northern neighbors, the risk that these relationships would be disrupted is low, regardless of who gains political control of the solar energy production facilities. Just as the flow of energy resources between Venezuela and the United States has never been seriously disrupted despite political and ideological tensions, the North Africa-Europe solar energy trade would likely be insulated from any emerging diplomatic quarrels.

Risks

The key risks for investors in large-scale North Africa-Europe solar energy initiatives lie in their high cost, the technical difficulties inherent in the projects, and the political uncertainties currently surrounding their implementation. Though advances in long distance energy transmission and solar energy generation and storage have been made in recent years, these technologies and methods remain expensive and unwieldy. The start-up and maintenance costs of solar energy projects far exceed those related to fossil fuel projects, and at this point, fossil fuels continue to provide greater, and more reliable, energy outputs. This, combined with the ongoing economic crisis in Europe and the persistence of varying degrees of political instability in North Africa, makes the near-term prospects of large-scale solar energy trade between North Africa and Europe uncertain.

Opportunities

But despite near-term uncertainties, solar energy in North Africa has a promising future. The interest in Europe (and other developed and developing countries) in new and alternative sources of energy, including solar power, is genuine. Due to sustained global demand for oil and, increasingly, natural gas, the price for hydrocarbons will likely remain high. This has been the case even amid the global economic downturn.

The environmental concerns regarding continued reliance on fossil fuels is also affecting strategic-level decisions on energy security. The politics and controversy surrounding the nuclear sector also elevates the prospects for solar power. Germany, for instance, is proceeding to phase-out all of its 17 nuclear power plants by 2022. China has surpassed the United States as the world’s top investor in new and alternative energies, with a sizeable percentage of this investment earmarked toward solar power: In late 2012, China’s State Grid Corporation power company expressed interest in joining the DESERTEC Industrial Initiative.

The coming years will see advances in renewable energy transmission and storage, making solar and wind generation initiatives more attractive to foreign investors and suppliers alike.

To learn more about the prospects and challenges surrounding the solar energy sector in North Africa and related issues, or if you would like to be added to our distribution list to receive future editions of World Trends Watch, contact us. To learn more about Helios Global, visit us at our website. You can also follow World Trends Watch on Twitter at(@HGI_World Trends).

Helios Global authorizes the republication or reprinting of this analysis as long as it is accompanied with the following citation and hyperlink: “Prospects and Challenges for North Africa-Europe Solar Energy Initiatives” has been reproduced with the permission of Helios Global, Inc. Copyright 2013 Helios Global, Inc.”

No Comments "

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

July 1st, 2013

By Daniel Fanelli.

Abstract

The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments.

This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state’s per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology.

Although the confounding effect of institutions’ prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists’ productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.

Introduction

The objectivity and integrity of contemporary science faces many threats. A cause of particular concern is the growing competition for research funding and academic positions, which, combined with an increasing use of bibliometric parameters to evaluate careers (e.g. number of publications and the impact factor of the journals they appeared in), pressures scientists into continuously producing “publishable” results [1].

Competition is encouraged in scientifically advanced countries because it increases the efficiency and productivity of researchers [2]. The flip side of the coin, however, is that it might conflict with their objectivity and integrity, because the success of a scientific paper partly depends on its outcome. In many fields of research, papers are more likely to be published [3],[4], [5], [6], to be cited by colleagues [7], [8], [9] and to be accepted by high-profile journals[10] if they report results that are “positive” – term which in this paper will indicate all results that support the experimental hypothesis against an alternative or a “null” hypothesis of no effect, using or not using tests of statistical significance.

Words like “positive”, “significant”, “negative” or “null” are common scientific jargon, but are obviously misleading, because all results are equally relevant to science, as long as they have been produced by sound logic and methods [11], [12]. Yet, literature surveys and meta-analyses have extensively documented an excess of positive and/or statistically significant results in fields and subfields of, for example, biomedicine [13], biology [14], ecology and evolution [15], psychology [16], economics [17], sociology [18].

Many factors contribute to this publication bias against negative results, which is rooted in the psychology and sociology of science. Like all human beings, scientists are confirmation-biased (i.e. tend to select information that supports their hypotheses about the world) [19], [20], [21], and they are far from indifferent to the outcome of their own research: positive results make them happy and negative ones disappointed [22]. This bias is likely to be reinforced by a positive feedback from the scientific community. Since papers reporting positive results attract more interest and are cited more often, journal editors and peer reviewers might tend to favour them, which will further increase the desirability of a positive outcome to researchers, particularly if their careers are evaluated by counting the number of papers listed in their CVs and the impact factor of the journals they are published in.

Confronted with a “negative” result, therefore, a scientist might be tempted to either not spend time publishing it (what is often called the “file-drawer effect”, because negative papers are imagined to lie in scientists’ drawers) or to turn it somehow into a positive result. This can be done by re-formulating the hypothesis (sometimes referred to as HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known [23]), by selecting the results to be published [24], by tweaking data or analyses to “improve” the outcome, or by willingly and consciously falsifying them [25]. Data fabrication and falsification are probably rare, but other questionable research practices might be relatively common [26].

Quantitative studies have repeatedly shown that financial interests can influence the outcome of biomedical research [27], [28] but they appear to have neglected the much more widespread conflict of interest created by scientists’ need to publish. Yet, fears that the professionalization of research might compromise its objectivity and integrity had been expressed already in the 19th century [29]. Since then, the competitiveness and precariousness of scientific careers have increased [30], and evidence that this might encourage misconduct has accumulated. Scientists in focus groups suggested that the need to compete in academia is a threat to scientific integrity [1], and those guilty of scientific misconduct often invoke excessive pressures to produce as a partial justification for their actions [31]. Surveys suggest that competitive research environments decrease the likelihood to follow scientific ideals [32] and increase the likelihood to witness scientific misconduct [33] (but see [34]). However, no direct, quantitative study has verified the connection between pressures to publish and bias in the scientific literature, so the existence and gravity of the problem are still a matter of speculation and debate [35].

To verify this hypothesis, this study analysed a random sample of papers published between 2000 and 2007 that had a corresponding author based in the US. These papers, published in all disciplines, declared to have tested a hypothesis, and it was determined whether they concluded to have found a “positive” (full or partial) or a “negative” support for the tested hypothesis. Using data compiled by the National Science Foundation, the proportion of “positive” results was then regressed against a sheer measure of academic productivity: the number of articles published per-capita (i.e. per doctorate holder in academia) in each US state, controlling for the effects of per-capita research expenditure. NSF data provides an accurate proxy of a state’s academic productivity, because it controls for multiple authorship by counting papers fractionally. Since the probability for a paper to report a positive result depends significantly on its methodology, on whether it tests one or more hypotheses, on the discipline it belongs to and particularly on whether the discipline is pure or applied [36], these confounding effects were controlled for in the regression models.

Results

A total of 1316 papers were included in the analysis. All US states and the federal district were represented in the sample, except Delaware. The number of papers per state varied between 1 and 150 (mean: 26.32±4.16SE), and the percentage of positive results between 25% and 100% (mean: 82.38±15.15STDV, Figure 1). The number of papers from each state in the sample was almost perfectly correlated with the total number of papers that each state had published in 2003 according to NSF (Pearson’s r = 0.968, N = 50, P<0.001), as well as any other year for which data was available (i.e. 1997, 2001 and 2005, r≥0.963 and p<0.001 in all cases). This shows the sample to be highly representative of academic publication patterns in the US.

Download:

Figure 1. Percentage of positive results by US state.

Percentage and 95% logit-derived confidence interval of papers published between 2000 and 2007 that supported a tested hypothesis, classified by the corresponding author’s US state (sample size for each state is in parentheses). States are indicated by their official USPS abbreviations: AL-Alabama, AK-Alaska, AZ-Arizona, AR-Arkansas, CA-California, CO-Colorado, CT-Connecticut, DC-District of Columbia, FL-Florida, GA-Georgia, HI-Hawaii, ID-Idaho, IL-Illinois, IN-Indiana, IA-Iowa, KS-Kansas, KY-Kentucky, LA-Louisiana, ME-Maine, MD-Maryland, MA-Massachusetts, MI-Michigan, MN-Minnesota, MS-Mississippi, MO-Missouri, MT-Montana, NE-Nebraska, NV-Nevada, NH-New Hampshire, NJ-New Jersey, NM-New Mexico, NY-New York, NC-North Carolina, ND-North Dakota, OH-Ohio, OK-Oklahoma, OR-Oregon, PA-Pennsylvania, RI-Rhode Island, SC-South Carolina, SD-South Dakota, TN-Tennessee, TX-Texas, UT-Utah, VT-Vermont, VA-Virginia, WA-Washington, WV-West Virginia, WI-Wisconsin, WY-Wyoming. All US states were represented in the sample except Delaware.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.g001

The probability of papers to support the tested hypothesis increased significantly with the per capita academic productivity of the state of the corresponding author (b = 1.383±0.682, Wald test = 4.108, df = 1, p = 0.043, Odds-Ratio (95%CI) = 3.988(1.047–15.193), Figure 2). The statistical significance of per capita academic productivity increased when controlling for the per capita R&D expenditure, which tended to have a negative effect instead (respectively, b = 2.644±0.948, Wald = 7.779, p = 0.005, OR(95%CI) = 14.073(2.195–90.241), and b = −5.993±3.185, Wald = 3.539, p = 0.06, OR(95%CI) = 0.002(0–1.285), see Figure 3).

Download:

Figure 2. “Positive” results by per-capita publication rate.

Percentage of papers supporting a tested hypothesis in each US state plotted against the state’s academic article output per science and engineering doctorate holder in academia in 2003 (NSF data). Papers were published between 2000 and 2007 and classified by the US state of the corresponding author. US states are indicated by official USPS abbreviations. For abbreviations legend, see Figure 1.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.g002

Download:

Figure 3. “Positive” results by per-capita R&D expenditure in academia.

Percentage of papers supporting a tested hypothesis in each US state plotted against the state’s academic R&D expenditure per science and engineering doctorate holder in academia in 2003 (NSF data, in million USD). Papers were published between 2000 and 2007 and classified by the US state of the corresponding author. US states are indicated by official USPS abbreviations. For abbreviations legend, see Figure 1.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.g003

The effect of per capita academic productivity remained highly significant when controlling for expenditure and for characteristics of study: broad methodological category, papers testing one vs. multiple hypotheses, and pure vs. applied discipline (Table 1, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.051). Similar results were obtained when controlling for the effect of discipline instead of methodology (Table 2, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.065). Adding an interaction term of discipline by academic productivity did not improve the model significantly overall (Wald = 20.424, df = 19, p = 0.369), although contrasting each discipline’s interaction term with that of Space Science showed significantly positive interaction effects for Neuroscience & Behaviour (b = 8.098±4.122, Wald = 3.860, p = 0.049) and Pharmacology and Toxicology (b = 11.201±4.661, Wald = 5.775, p = 0.016).

Download:

Table 1. Logistic regression slope, standard error, Wald test with statistical significance, odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of the probability for a paper to report a positive result, depending on the following study characteristics: per capita academic productivity of US state of corresponding author, per capita R&D academic expenditure of US state of corresponding author, papers testing more than one hypothesis (only the first of which was considered in this study), papers published in pure as opposed to applied disciplines, and methodological category of paper.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.t001

Download:

Table 2. Logistic regression slope, standard error, Wald test with statistical significance, odds ratio and 95% confidence interval of the probability for a paper to report a positive result, depending on the following study characteristics: per capita academic productivity of US state of corresponding author, per capita R&D academic expenditure of US state of corresponding author, papers testing more than one hypothesis (only the first of which was included in the study), and discipline of journal in which the paper was published (as classified by the Essential Science Indicators database, see methods).

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.t002

The proportion of papers published between 2000 and 2007 that supported the tested hypothesis was completely uncorrelated with the total (i.e. non per capita) number of doctorate holders, total number of papers and total R&D expenditure (b = 0±0 and p≥0.223 for all three cases). Controlling for any of these parameters did not alter the results of the regression in any meaningful way.

Sensitivity analyses

The analyses were run using 2003 data from the Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 report [37], because this year had the most complete data series (all parameters in the report had been calculated for that year), and because it fell almost in the middle of the period 2000–2007. However, state data was also available from the 2004 and 2008 reports, and for the years 2000–2001 and 2005–2006 (year depeding on parameter). Some discrepancies between reports were noted in the data on some states and years (in particular, but not exclusively, for DC). However, similar results were obtained using different data sets or combinations of them. For example, the state productivity averaged over the 2000–2001 and 2005–2006 data series and excluding the 2003 series was still a statistically significant predictor, controlling for expenditure (Per capita number of papers: b = 2.496±1.100, Wald = 5.145, p = 0.023; per capita R&D: b = −6.628±3.742, Wald = 3.138, p = 0.076).

Discussion

In a random sample of 1316 papers that declared to have “tested a hypothesis” in all disciplines, outcomes could be significantly predicted by knowing the addresses of the corresponding authors: those based in US states where researchers publish more papers per capita were significantly more likely to report positive results, independently of their discipline, methodology and research expenditure. The probability for a study to yield a support for the tested hypothesis depends on several research-specific factors, primarily on whether the hypothesis tested is actually true and how much statistical power is available to reject the null hypothesis [38]. However, the geographical origin of the corresponding author should not, in theory, be relevant, nor should parameters measuring the sheer quantity of publications per capita. Although, as discussed below, not all confounding factors in the study could be controlled for, these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only the productivity of researchers, but also their bias against “negative” results.

All main sources of sampling and methodological bias in this study were controlled for. The number of papers from each state in the sample was almost perfectly correlated with the actual number of papers that each state produced in any given year, which confirms that the sampling of papers was completely randomised with respect to address (as well as any other study characteristic including the particular hypothesis tested and the methods employed), and therefore that the sample was highly representative of the US research panorama. The total number of papers, total R&D and total number of doctorate holders were completely uncorrelated to the proportion of positive results, ruling out the possibility that different frequencies of positive results between states are due to sampling effects. Although the analyses were all conducted by one author, expectancy biases can be excluded, because the classification of papers in positive and negative was completely blind to the corresponding address in the paper, and the US states’ data were obtained by an independent source (NSF). We can also exclude that the association between productivity and positive results was an artifact of the effects of methodologies and disciplines of papers (which are elsewhere shown to be significant predictors of positive results [36]), because controlling for these factors increased the size and statistical significance of the regression, suggesting that the effect is truly cross-disciplinary. In sum, these results are likely to represent a genuine pattern characterising academic research in the US.

An unavoidable confounding factor in this study is the quality and prestige of academic institutions, which is intrinsically linked to the productivity of their resident researchers. Indeed, official rankings of universities often include parameters measuring publication rates [39](although the validity of such rankings is controversial [40], [41]). Therefore, it could be argued that the more productive states are also the ones hosting the “best” universities, which provide better academic structures (laboratories, libraries, etc…) and more advanced and stimulating intellectual environments. This could make scientists better at picking up the right hypotheses and more successful in testing them, increasing their chances to obtain true positive results. Separating this quality-of-institution effect from that of bias induced by pressures to publish is difficult, because the two factors are strictly linked: the best universities are also the most competitive, and thus presumably the ones where pressures to produce are highest.

However, the quality-of-institution effect is unlikely to fully explain the findings of this study for at least two reasons. First, because if structures and resources are really important, then positive results should also tend to increase where more R&D expenditure is available, but a negative (though non statistically significant) trend was observed instead. Second, because the variability in frequency of positive results between states is too high to be reasonably explained by the quality factor alone. At one extreme, states yielded as few as 1 in 4 papers that supported the tested hypothesis, at the other extreme, numerous states reported between 95% and 100% positive results, including academically productive ones like Michigan (N = 54 papers in this sample), Ohio (N = 47), District of Columbia (N = 18) and Nebraska (N = 13). In absence of bias of any kind, this would mean that corresponding authors in these states almost never failed to find a support for the hypotheses they tested. But negative results are virtually inevitable, unless all the hypotheses tested were true, experiments were designed and conducted perfectly, and the statistical power available were always 100% – which it rarely is, and is usually much lower [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].

As a matter of fact, the prestige of institutions could be expected to have the opposite influence on published results, in analogy with what has been observed by comparing countries. In the biomedical literature, the statistical significance of results tends to be lower in papers from high-income countries, which suggests that journal editors tend to reject papers from low-income countries unless they have particularly “good” results [47]. If there were a similar editorial bias favouring highly prestigious universities in the US – and some studies suggest that there is [9], [48] – then the more productive states (prestigious institutions) should be allowed to publish more negative results.

A possibility that needs to be considered in all regression analyses is whether the cause-effect relationship could be reversed: could some states be more productive precisely because their researchers tend to do many cheap and non-explorative studies (i.e. many simple experiments that test relatively trivial hypotheses)? This appears unlikely, because it would contradict the observation that the most productive institutions are also the more prestigious, and therefore the ones where the most important research tends to be done.

What happened to the missing negative results? As explained in the Introduction, presumably they either went completely unpublished or were somehow turned into positive through selective reporting, post-hoc re-interpretation, and alteration of methods, analyses and data. The relative frequency of these behaviours remains to be established, but the simple non-publication of results is unlikely to be the only explanation. If it were, then we should have to assume that authors in the more productive states are even more productive than they appear, but wastefully do not publish many negative results they get.

Since positive results in this study are estimated using what is declared in the papers, we cannot exclude the possibility that authors in more productive states simply tend to write the sentence “test the hypothesis” more often when they get positive results. However, it would be problematic to explain why this should be the case and, if it were, then we would still have to understand if and how negative results are published. Ultimately, such an association of word usage with socio-economic parameters would still suggest that publication pressures have some measurable effect on how research is conducted and/or presented.

Selective reporting, reinterpreting and altering results are commonly considered “questionable research practices”: behaviours that might or might not represent falsification of results, depending on whether they express an intention to deceive. There is no doubt that negative results produced by a methodological flaw should either be corrected or not be published at all, and it is likely that many scientists select or manipulate their negative results because they sincerely think their experiments went wrong somewhere – maybe the sample was too small or too heterogeneous, some measurements were inaccurate and should be discarded, the hypothesis should be reformulated, etc… However, in most circumstances this might be nothing more than a “gut feeling” [49]. Moreover, positive results should be treated with the same scrutiny and rigour applied to negative ones, but with all likelihood they are not. This latter form of neglect is probably one of the main sources of bias in science.

Adding an interaction term of discipline by productivity did not increase the accuracy of the model significantly. Although we are currently unable to measure the statistical power of interaction terms in complex logistic regression models, the lack of significance suggests that large disciplinary differences in the effect of publication pressures are unlikely. Interestingly, however, some interdisciplinary variability was observed: Pharmacology and Toxicology, and Neuroscience and Behaviour had a significantly stronger association between productivity and positive results compared to Space Science. Of course, since we had 20 disciplines in the model, the significance of these two terms could be due to chance alone. However, we cannot exclude that a study with higher statistical power could confirm this result and reveal other small, but nonetheless interesting differences between fields.

This study focused on the United States primarily because they are one of the most scientifically productive countries, and are academically diversified but linguistically and culturally rather homogeneous, which eliminated the confounding effect of editorial biases against particular countries, cultures or languages. Moreover, the research output and expenditure of all US states are recorded and reported by NSF periodically and with great accuracy, yielding a reliable dataset. Academic competition might be particularly high in US universities [1], but is surely not unique to them. Therefore, the detrimental effects of the publish-or-perish culture could be manifest in other countries around the world.

Materials and Methods

The sample of papers used in this study was part of a larger sample used to compare bias between disciplines [36]. Papers within this latter were obtained with the following method. The sentence “test* the hypothes*” was used to search all 10837 journals in the Essential Science Indicators database, which classifies journals univocally in 22 disciplines. Only papers published between 2000 and 2007 were sampled. When the number of papers retrieved from one discipline exceeded 150, papers were selected using a random number generator. In one discipline, Plant and Animal Sciences, an additional 50 papers were analysed, in order to increase the statistical power of comparisons involving behavioural studies on non-humans (see below for details on methodological categories). By examining the abstract and/or full-text, it was determined whether the authors of each paper had concluded to have found a positive (full or partial) or negative (null or negative) support. If more than one hypothesis was being tested, only the first one to appear in the text was considered. We excluded meeting abstracts and papers that either did not test a hypothesis or for which sufficient information to determine the outcome was lacking.All data was extracted by the author. An untrained assistant who was given basic written instructions (similar to the paragraph above, plus a few explanatory examples) scored papers the same way as the author in 18 out of 20 cases, and picked up exactly the same sentences for hypothesis and conclusions in all but three cases. The discrepancies were easily explained, showing that the procedure is objective and replicable.To identify methodological categories, the outcome of each paper was classified according to a set of binary variables: 1-outcome measured on biological material; 2- outcome measured on human material; 3-outcome exclusively behavioural (measures of behaviours and interactions between individuals, which in studies on people included surveys, interviews and social and economic data); 4-outcome exclusively non-behavioural (physical, chemical and other measurable parameters including weight, height, death, presence/absence, number of individuals, etc…). Biological studies in vitro for which the human/non-human classification was uncertain were classified as non-human. Different combinations of these variables identified mutually exclusive methodological categories: Physical/Chemical (1-N, 2-N, 3-N, 4-Y); Biological, Non-Behavioural (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-N, 4-Y); Behavioural/Social (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-Y, 4-N), Behavioural/Social + Biological, Non-Behavioural (1-Y, 2-Y/N, 3-Y, 4-Y), Other methodology (1-Y/N, 2-Y/N, 3-N, 4-N). Disciplines were attributed based on how the ESI database had classified the journal in which the paper appeared, and the pure-applied status of discipline followed classifications identified in previous studies (for further details see [36])From this larger sample, all papers with a corresponding address in the US were selected, and the US state of each was recorded. Data on state academic R&D expenditure, number of doctorate holders in academia and number of papers published were taken directly from the State Indicators section of the Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 report [37]. This report compiles data from three different sources: Thomson ISI – Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index; National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics – Survey of Doctorate Recipients; National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics – Academic Research and Development Expenditures. When counting the number of papers by state, NSF corrects for multiple authorship by dividing each paper by the number of institutions involved. The scoring of papers as “positive” and “negative” was completely blind to the corresponding author’s address. As explained in the Results section, data from other reports were extracted and used for sensitivity analyses.

Statistical analyses:

The ability of independent variables to predict the outcome of a paper was tested by standard logistic regression analysis, fitting a model in the form:

in which pi is the probability of the ith paper of reporting a positive result, X1 is the number of papers published per capita (per doctorate holder in academia) in the state of the corresponding author of the ith paper, X2 is the ith paper’s state R&D expenditure per capita, and Xnrepresents the various characteristics of the ith paper that were controlled for in the models (e.g. dummy variables for methodology, discipline, etc…) as specified in the Results section. Statistical significance of the effect of each variable was calculated through Wald’s test. Except where specified, all parameter estimates are reported with their standard error. The relative fit of regression models was estimated with Nagelkerke’s adjusted R2.

Multicollinearity among independent variables was tested by examining tolerance and Variance Inflation Factors for all variables in the model. All variables had tolerance≥0.42 and VIF≤2.383 except one of the methodological dummy variables (Tolerance = 0.34 and VIF = 2.942). To avoid this (modest) sign of possible collinearity, methodological categories were reduced to the minimum number that previous analyses have shown to differ significantly in the frequency of positive results: purely physical and chemical, biological non-behavioural, and behavioural and mixed studies on humans and on non-humans [36]. This removed any presence of collinearity in the model. All analyses were produced using SPSS statistical package.

Figures

Confidence intervals in the graphs were obtained independently from the statistical analyses, using the following logit transformation to calculate the proportion of positive results and standard error:

Where p is the proportion of negative results, and n is the total number of papers. Values for high and low confidence interval were calculated and the final result was back-transformed in percentages using the following equations for proportion and percentages, respectively:

Where x is either Plogit or each of the corresponding 95%CI values.

Acknowledgments

I thank Harry Collins, Robert Evans, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments, Edgar Erdfelder for advice on power analysis, and François Briatte for crosschecking the reliability of data extraction.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: DF. Performed the experiments: DF. Analyzed the data: DF. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DF. Wrote the paper: DF.

References

1.Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC (2007) The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics 13: 437–461. doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2.Feller I (1996) The determinants of research competitiveness among universities. In: Teich AH, editor. Competitiveness in academic research. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science. pp. 35–72.
3.Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ (2000) Publication and related biases. Health Technology Assessment 4:
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4.Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, et al. (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3: e3081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5.Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J (2007) Time to publication for results of clinical trials (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000011.pub2.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6.Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E (2007) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000005.pub3.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7.Kjaergard LL, Gluud C (2002) Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55: 407–410. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00513-3.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8.Etter JF, Stapleton J (2009) Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: 831–837. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.015.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9.Leimu R, Koricheva J (2005) What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 28–32. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10.Murtaugh PA (2002) Journal quality, effect size, and publication bias in meta-analysis. Ecology 83: 1162–1166. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1162:JQESAP]2.0.CO;2.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11.Gigerenzer G, Swijtink Z, Porter T, Daston L, Beatty J, et al. (1990) The empire of chance: How probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.Kline RB (2004) Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
13.Kyzas PA, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis JPA (2007) Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. European Journal of Cancer 43: 2559–2579. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.030.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14.Csada RD, James PC, Espie RHM (1996) The “file drawer problem” of non-significant results: Does it apply to biological research? Oikos 76: 591–593. doi:10.2307/3546355.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15.Jennions MD, Moller AP (2002) Publication bias in ecology and evolution: An empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’ method. Biological Reviews 77: 211–222. doi:10.1017/S1464793101005875.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16.Sterling TD, Rosenbaum WL, Weinkam JJ (1995) Publication decisions revisited – The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice-versa. American Statistician 49: 108–112. doi: 10.2307/2684823.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17.Mookerjee R (2006) A meta-analysis of the export growth hypothesis. Economics Letters 91: 395–401. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2005.12.020.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18.Gerber AS, Malhotra N (2008) Publication bias in empirical sociological research – Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociological Methods & Research 37: 3–30. doi: 10.1177/0049124108318973.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19.Nickerson R (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2: 175–220. doi: 10.1037//1089-2680.2.2.175.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20.Rosenthal R (1976) Experimenter effects in behavioural research. Enlarged edition. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
21.Marsh DM, Hanlon TJ (2007) Seeing what we want to see: Confirmation bias in animal behavior research. Ethology 113: 1089–1098. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01406.x.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22.Mahoney MJ (1979) Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science 1979: 3. doi: 10.1177/030631277900900304.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23.Kerr NL (1998) HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2: 196–217. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24.Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials – Comparison of protocols to published articles. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 291: 2457–2465. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25.De Vries R, Anderson MS, Martinson BC (2006) Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1: 43–50. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26.Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4: e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27.Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research – A systematic review. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 289: 454–465. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.4.454.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28.Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. British Medical Journal 326: 1167–1170B. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29.Babbage C (1830) Reflections on the decline of science in England and on some of its causes. In: Campbell-Kelly M, editor. The Works of Charles Babbage. London Pickering.
30.Shapin S (2008) The scientific life : a moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
31.Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR (2007) Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science & Engineering Ethics 13: 395–414. doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32.Anderson MS, Martinson BC, De Vries R (2007) Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of US scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2: 3–14. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.3.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33.Louis KS, Anderson MS, Rosengerg L (1995) Academic misconduct and values: The deparment’s influence. The Review of Higher Education 18: 393–422.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34.Anderson MS, Louis KS, Earle J (1994) Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education 65: 331–350. doi: 10.2307/2943971.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35.Giles J (2007) Breeding cheats. Nature 445: 242–243.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36.Fanelli D (2010) “Positive” Results Increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE in press.
37.National-Science-Board (2006) Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. NSB 06-01, NSB 06-01A.
38.Wacholder S, Chanock S, Garcia-Closas M, El ghormli L, Rothman N (2004) Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: An approach for molecular epidemiology studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 96: 434–442. doi:10.1093/jnci/djh075.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39.Cai Liu N, Cheng Y (2005) The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe 30: 127–136. doi: 10.1080/03797720500260116.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40.Florian RV (2007) Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics 72: 25–32. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1712-1.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41.Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Kavvoura FK, Tatsioni A, Evangelou E, et al. (2007) International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal. Bmc Medicine 5: doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-5-30.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42.Maddock JE, Rossi JS (2001) Statistical power of articles published in three health psychology-related journals. Health Psychology 20: 76–78. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.20.1.76.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43.Brock JKU (2003) The ‘power’ of international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 34: 90–99. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400006.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44.Jennions MD, Moller AP (2003) A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior. Behavioral Ecology 14: 438–445. doi:10.1093/beheco/14.3.438.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45.Breau RH, Carnat TA, Gaboury I (2006) Inadequate statistical power of negative clinical trials in urological literature. Journal of Urology 176: 263–266. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00505-2.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46.Dyba T, Kampenes VB, Sjoberg DIK (2006) A systematic review of statistical power in software engineering experiments. Information and Software Technology 48: 745–755. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2005.08.009.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47.Yousefi-Nooraie R, Shakiba B, Mortaz-Hejri S (2006) Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 6: 37.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48.Shakiba B, Salmasian H, Yousefi-Nooraie R, Rohanizadegan M (2008) Factors influencing editors’ decision on acceptance or rejection of manuscripts: The authors’ perspective. Archives of Iranian Medicine 11: 257–262.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49.Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435: 737–738. doi: 10.1038/435737a.
- CrossRef
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Schola
Citation: Fanelli D (2010) Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists’ Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271Editor: Enrico Scalas,Received: November 20, 2009; Accepted: March 24, 2010; Published: April 21, 2010Copyright: © 2010 Daniele Fanelli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research was entirely supported by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship (Grant Agreement Number PIEF-GA-2008-221441). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271

No Comments "

What’s The Vatican Up Too?

June 27th, 2013

By. John L. Allen Jr.

Over the past few days, hundreds of people have contacted Vatileaks asking where they can read the papal documents recently leaked from the Vatican that created the scandal that lifted the lid on a world of Catholic clerical intrigue and bitter rivalry in the Holy See. They are found in a new book by Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi called, ‘His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI’. At this stage, it is published only in the Italian language, but maybe soon it will be translated into English so the internal workings of the Vatican can be absorbed by an even larger audience.

The article presented here is by John L. Allen Jr., an American journalist based in Rome who specializes in news about the Catholic Church. He is senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter and vaticanologist of CNN and NPR. This is his learned summary of ‘His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI’.

Pondering the ‘what’, not the ‘who’, of Vatileaks
John L. Allen Jr. on Jun. 01, 2012
All Things Catholic

While the arrest of the pope’s butler has triggered feverish speculation about the “who” of the Vatican leaks scandal, there’s been less attention so far to the “what” of the revelations contained in the sensational new book His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI, published by journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi.

In part, that’s because the scores of documents in the 326-page book are complex and highly diverse, often composed in dense ecclesiastical Italian; in part, that’s because a Vatican whodunit is tough to resist.

Yet the substance of the leaks obviously merits consideration, so below, I present a sampling of the highlights, including material likely to interest English-speaking readers. Later, I’ll roll out more.

First, this caution: The mere fact that a document exists does not automatically make its content credible. Some official documents, even if they’re stamped “top secret,” do little more than record gossip, spin or self-serving opinion. Each purported revelation has to be evaluated on its merits.

Overview
The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI contains 11 chapters, two concerning Nuzzi’s sources and the genesis of the project, and nine devoted to the documents themselves. Nuzzi quotes from the documents throughout the text, and an appendix contains reproductions.

The nine content chapters cover the following subjects:

The Dino Boffo case
Controversies surrounding Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, currently the papal ambassador in Washington, D.C.
Vatican finances
The Vatican’s role in Italian politics
The Vatican security forces
Controversies surrounding Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State
Communion and Liberation, the Legionaries of Christ, and the Lefebvrists
Globalization and its economic impact on the Catholic church
Vatican diplomacy

Nuzzi opens by describing the clandestine circumstances under which he met his principal source, whom he refers to under the code name “Maria.” In light of debate over whether the pope’s butler acted alone (assuming he’s involved at all), it’s interesting to note that Nuzzi describes “Maria” not as an isolated whistle-blower, but a conduit for a larger faction in the Vatican.

Nuzzi points to “a small group of persons with different functions and roles, in various entities of the Holy See, but united in the same choice … to preserve papers which reveal unknown plots, controversies and affairs of the church, in every corner of the world.”

In terms of motive, Nuzzi describes this group as composed of reformers fed up with “crooks and power games” who believe Benedict XVI wants change but who have lost confidence in the people around him to implement it. The decision to leak, Nuzzi writes, is thus motivated by a desire to “accelerate the action of reform undertaken by Ratzinger.”

The Boffo case
For Italians, the story of Dino Boffo, a prominent lay Catholic journalist, is already the stuff of legend. There’s now even an Italian phrase, the “Boffo method,” as a short-hand for a style of character assassination.

At one time the editor of l’Avvenire, the highly influential daily of the Italian bishops’ conference, Boffo resigned amid personal scandal in September 2009. A newspaper owned by the brother of Italy’s then-prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, had published a judicial decree from 2004 that found Boffo guilty of telephonic harassment, along with a set of purported judicial notes indicating Boffo is “a known homosexual who has already come to the attention of the police for this kind of activity.”

It turned out, however, that while the harassment decree was real, the judicial note calling him a “known homosexual” was a fake. That discovery triggered massive speculation about who had sabotaged Boffo, all of which was amply — some would say, excessively — reported at the time, mostly through anonymous sources.

Nuzzi adds a bombshell: two lengthy letters written by Boffo himself, addressed to Monsignor Georg Gänswein, the priest-secretary of Pope Benedict XVI.

With no hesitation whatsoever, Boffo directly accuses Secretary of State Bertone and Gianmaria Vian, editor of the Vatican newspaper, of orchestrating the plot against him. Boffo asserts that Bertone resented his support for “continuity” in the Italian bishops’ conference between its former president, the ultra-powerful Cardinal Camillo Ruini, and its current head, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco. (At the time, Bertone aspired to replace the Italian bishops as the primary interlocutor with the Italian government.)

“I don’t believe, to be honest with you, that Cardinal Bertone was informed of the details of the action conducted by Vian,” Boffo tells Gänswein, “but [Vian] perhaps could count, as in other situations, on accurately interpreting the mind of his superior.”

Gänswein called Boffo after receiving the letter, after which Boffo wrote him again, this time largely to assure the pope’s secretary that he’s not a homosexual.

Nuzzi adds a letter Boffo wrote to Bagnasco in September 2010, this time requesting rehabilitation. Boffo explicitly repeats his charges against Bertone and Vian. Noting that he had received numerous requests to give interviews, Boffo wrote he had declined because, “If I speak, it’s not as if I can skip over the part played by Bertone-Vian.”

One month later, his rehabilitation arrived, when Boffo was hired to run the massive SAT2000 broadcast empire of the Italian bishops.

Nuzzi draws this conclusion: We now know Boffo accused both the Cardinal-Secretary of State and the editor of the Vatican newspaper, by name, of very serious crimes — defamation of character, as well as falsifying a legal document. According to Nuzzi, if Boffo’s accusations were judged credible, then Bertone and Vian should have been prosecuted. If his accusations were considered false, then Boffo was a strange candidate indeed for another high-profile church job.

Nuzzi thus implies that Boffo’s story amounts to a case in which the desire to paper over a public mess and to keep everyone happy (or, at least, equally unhappy) prevailed over establishing the truth.

Vatican finances
Nuzzi’s book offers several nuggets about the dollar-and-cents dimension of Vatican life.

On page 89, he summarizes a receipt for donations during one of Benedict XVI’s general audiences in spring 2006. The haul that day was $62,000, of which $51,000 came in cash and the balance in checks. Nuzzi estimates a typical audience nets between $50,000 and $185,000, depending on the size of the crowd and other factors. If that’s correct, the annual intake from the general audiences would come to roughly $3 million.

Those funds, he writes, are deposited in a Vatican Bank account to be used at the pope’s discretion, usually for charities or other purposes, with Gänswein being the designated administrator of the account.

Nuzzi also provides details on how personalities in and around the Vatican use money, sometimes subtly and sometimes less so, to try to influence decisions.

In 2006, Italian layman Angelo Caloia, at the time the president of the so-called “Vatican Bank,” offered a gift of more than $60,000 to Benedict XVI. Nuzzi publishes the note Caloia attached to the gift:

“Holy Father, these days of Easter and your lofty messages have filled our hearts with joy. The first anniversary of your call to the Throne of Peter has been, for us, a confirmation of the great gift the Lord Jesus has made. In offering heartfelt thanks to the Most High for the grace in which he continually allows us to participate, and with the thought of being able to continue to enjoy your paternal benevolence, I wish to express to you, personally and in the name of all the personnel of the Institute, a deep sentiment of gratitude and heartfelt wishes that the Holy Spirit will always assist you in your ecclesial ministry. Please accept, Holy Father, a modest gesture to help your good works, and bless all of us and our families.”

Nuzzi notes that it’s unclear whether Caloia’s gift came out of his own pocket or bank funds — if the latter, it wasn’t much of a gift, since the money belonged to the pope anyway. In any event, Nuzzi observes that since Caloia hoped to be reappointed bank president, the gift might not have been a completely selfless act. (Caloia remained in his position until 2009.)

Nuzzi also publishes an October 2011 note to Gänswein from Domenico Gianni, the head of the Vatican gendarmes, passing along a list of people who wanted to see the pope’s secretary. Among them were officials of Renault about a helicopter with “advanced technological systems” they planned to donate to the pope for his trips back and forth to his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, and Mercedes, about potential upgrades to the popemobile.

In another chapter, Nuzzi reveals confidential memos written for Gänswein, to be passed on to the pope, by economist Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who replaced Caloia in 2009 at the Vatican Bank, about the impact of globalization on the church. (Gotti Tedeschi was removed last week in what the supervisory council of the Institute for the Works of Religion, the formal name of the “Vatican Bank,” described as a personnel move related to erratic personal behavior and poor job performance.)

Among other things, Gotti Tedeschi warned the pope that the rise of Asian powers like China and India and the relative decline of the West could mean less money for the church.

“The major consequence is that the resources which traditionally have contributed to the needs of the church (donations, investment income) may diminish, while the requirements of evangelization will go up. Further, ‘secularism’ could take advantage of the situation to create a second ‘Roman question’ in aggression directed at the goods of the church (through taxes, ending privileges, exasperated controls, etc.) The ‘Roman question’ of the 21st century will not lie in the expropriation of the church’s goods, but in the loss of their value, in reduced contributions due to the impoverishment of the Christian world, and eventually in the end of privileges and in predictably higher taxes on those goods.”

Gotti Tedeschi recommended the creation of a centralized Vatican agency to study the protection of the church’s assets in a new globalized world.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
It’s long been clear that Secretary of State Bertone is a controversial figure. Many people, including some Vatican insiders, fault Bertone for what they see as a series of administrative missteps during Benedict’s papacy.

Nuzzi’s book confirms that the existence of such internal resistance is not a product of overheated journalistic imagination.

One example dates to early 2009, around the time of the lifting of the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, including one who’s a Holocaust-denier. In roughly the same period, Benedict XVI was also putting the finishing touches on his social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, which would be released that summer.

Nuzzi publishes a Feb. 5, 2009, letter to Benedict XVI from Cardinal Paolo Sardi, formerly a principal ghostwriter for John Paul II and still consulted on Benedict’s texts. Sardi complains that Bertone was mishandling consultations on Benedict’s encyclical, in part because of his frequent trips out of the country.

Toward the end of the letter, Sardi adds a stinging observation.

“A final, painful annotation: For some time in various parts of the church, including among people extremely faithful to it, critical voices have been raised about the lack of coordination and confusion which reins at its center. I’m saddened by that, but I can’t avoid recognizing, from my own modest angle of vision, that there’s some foundation to it. For instance, I’d like to note that I was not consulted on the editing of the decree about the Lefebvrite bishops (and I could have given some suggestions which wouldn’t have been useless). Moreover, yesterday the text sent to Your Holiness on the same subject by the substitute was not shown to me until a few minutes before the deadline, when Monsignor Gänswein yelled [at me] over the telephone to get it back. I’m trying to see in these situations (which, to tell the truth, are numerous) the benevolent intervention of Providence, that wants to prepare me to leave the Secretariat [of State] without regrets.”

Nuzzi also includes the text of a lengthy memo from an unnamed senior Vatican official, presumably at the Prefecture for Economic Affairs, written for Gänswein in spring 2011. The memo ticks off a series of alleged problems with Bertone’s leadership, including ignoring the Vatican’s own internal checks and balances, “demoralization” of personnel, and the appointment of people “who lack the adequate competence” in important jobs.

The conclusion is unequivocal:

“The problematic situations are numerous and of notable gravity, above all because they could have devastating effects in the future, even if they can’t been seen right now and everything looks fine. My direct superiors, with whom I’ve spoken repeatedly, for now don’t believe it’s opportune to do anything. They say that our principal point of reference is the Secretary of State, yet in many cases he’s precisely the problem. Conscience requires that I present these matters to the Holy Father.”

Communion and Liberation and the Legionaries

1. Communion and Liberation

Founded by Fr. Luigi Giussani in Italy, Communion and Liberation is arguably the new movement in the church closest to Pope Benedict XVI. Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger volunteered to celebrate Giussani’s funeral Mass in 2005, and four female members of Memores Domini, a body of consecrated laity linked to the movement, serve in Benedict’s personal household.

Recently, Communion and Liberation has been caught up in controversy in Italy, related to scandals surrounding high-profile politicians linked to the movement. Giussani’s successor, Spanish Fr. Julian Carrón, published an open letter in which he apologized, saying that if people see Communion and Liberation as caught up in money and power, “we must have given them some pretext.”

A more combative side of Carrón comes through in a lengthy private letter to Benedict XVI from March 2011, published in Nuzzi’s book.

Asked to provide his thoughts on who should succeed Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi as the archbishop of Milan, Carrón wrote, “the only candidate that I feel in conscience able to present to the attention of the Holy Father is that of the Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Angelo Scola.”

Although it’s hard to say how decisive Carrón’s opinion was, Scola, who comes out of Communion and Liberation, was named to Milan in June 2011.
Carrón presents a blistering indictment of the Milan archdiocese under both Tettamanzi and his predecessor, Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a hero of the church’s liberal wing.

“The first important fact is the profound crisis of faith of the People of God, in particular of the Ambrosian tradition. In the last thirty years we’ve seen a rupture in this tradition, accepting on principle and promoting in fact the characteristic fracture of modernity between knowledge and faith. … Theological instruction for future priests and for laity, with notable exceptions, moves away on many points from tradition and the magisterium, above all in Biblical studies and systematic theology. A sort of ‘alternative magisterium’ to Rome and the Holy Father is often theorized, which risks becoming a consolidated feature of what it means to be ‘Ambrosian’ today.”

Carrón also blasts the political orientation of the church in Milan under Martini and Tettamanzi, protesting “a certain unilateralism of interventions on social justice, at the expense of other fundamental themes of social doctrine” as well as a “systematic” bias in favor of the political center-left rather than more conservative parties and politicians (some of whom, especially in the Milan area, have ties to Communion and Liberation).

2. The Legionaries of Christ
Critics have long asserted that the Vatican had all the information it needed to act against Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, well before it sentenced him to a life of “prayer and penance” in 2006. Charges of sexual and financial misconduct by Maciel became public in the 1990s, though Vatican officials have insisted those reports were not confirmed until later.

Nuzzi’s book adds another detail, producing the brief notes taken by a papal secretary on Oct. 19, 2011, after a half-hour meeting with Fr. Rafael Moreno, a Mexican priest who served as Maciel’s private assistant for 18 years.

The full text of the unsigned note reproduced by Nuzzi, written on letterhead of the “Particular Secretary of His Holiness,” is as follows:

19 October 2011
Meeting 9:00-9:30 am
By me
Meeting with Fr. Rafael Moreno, priv.sec. of M.M.

Was for 18 years private secretary of M.M.; from this was … [word is illegible]
Destroyed proof against him (incriminating material)
Wanted to inform P.P. II in 2003, but he didn’t want to hear them, didn’t believe
Wanted to inform Card. Sodano, but he didn’t concede an audience to them
Card. De Paolis had too little time

Nuzzi writes that in all probability, “P.P. II” refers to John Paul II. Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, meanwhile, is the Vatican official Benedict XVI has tapped to oversee a reform of the Legionaries.

For Nuzzi, the failure to take Moreno seriously in 2003 is especially damning, given that his testimony came “not from a victim, perhaps motivated by hatred, but the best possible witness: the secretary who for 18 years followed the founder of the congregation day after day, and who, therefore, knew of his double and triple life, the most secret aspects.”

Nuzzi also publishes a lengthy September 2011 report from De Paolis to Benedict XVI, updating the pope on what’s happening in the Legion. In it, De Paolis asserts that progress is being obstructed by a minority who want a root-and-branch reform, including replacing any leaders with personal ties to Maciel. “They continue to engage in propaganda of discouragement and denigration of the process, creating some division and difficulties,” he writes. “In reality the number of opponents … is rather small, but they’re very fierce.”

In a similar vein, Nuzzi publishes a report by Cardinal Domenico Calcagno, president of the Apostolic Patrimony of the Holy See and a veteran Vatican financial expert, on the economic condition of the Legion. While Calcagno writes that the order is suffering from serious debts, “situations of illegality or abuse have not been found.” (Calcagno does recommend reducing the role of a group called “Integer,” a controversial holding company for properties belonging to the Legion and its lay branch, Regnum Christi.)

Perhaps most explosively, Calcagno’s report advises against giving in to demands for large-scale financial compensation for Maciel’s victims.

Calcagno says reconciliation with some victims “has not been difficult,” but it’s more complicated with regard to “those who demand, in the name of justice, enormous sums that the Legion absolutely cannot afford, and which in fact cannot be based on claims of justice.”

“A concession in this area,” Calcagno writes, “beyond being unjust, could provoke an avalanche of equally unsustainable requests.”

Other Nuggets
Nuzzi’s book contains two other items of special interest to English-speaking readers.

1. Bishop William Morris
Bishop William Morris of Toowoomba, Australia, was removed from office in 2011 on charges of favoring women priests, collective absolution, and other deviations from official teaching and practice. Nuzzi publishes a set of November 2009 notes on the Morris case, written by Benedict XVI himself and addressed to Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, at the time the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.

The notes were written after a June 2009 meeting between Benedict and Morris, and after Morris had written a letter objecting to the way his case had been handled.

Among other things, Benedict writes that Morris’ “theological formation … is not adequate for his office,” citing his views on women’s ordination and the possibility of Anglican ministers leading Catholic liturgies.

In his letter, Morris accused the Vatican of a “lack of care for the truth,” in part for implying he had agreed to step down. Benedict appears to take responsibility for that point, blaming it on a problem of language.

“Obviously there was a misunderstanding, created, it seems to me, by my insufficient knowledge of the English language,” Benedict writes. “In our meeting, I tried to convince him that his resignation was desirable, and I thought he expressed his willingness to renounce his functions as bishop of Toowoomba.”

“From his letter, I see this was a misunderstanding,” Benedict writes. “I acknowledge that, but I must say decisively that this isn’t a case of ‘a lack of care for the truth.'”

In the end, Benedict writes, “there’s no doubt of his very good pastoral intentions,” but “the diocesan bishop must be, above all, a teacher of the faith, since the faith is the foundation of pastoral activity.”

Benedict tells Re to recommend that Morris accept “free renunciation of his actual ministry, in favor of a ministry more consistent with his gifts,” and asks Re to “assure him of my prayers.”

2. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn
Nuzzi’s book also includes an encrypted 2011 cable from the papal embassy in Washington back to the Secretariat of State, relaying a request from Cardinal Francis George of Chicago that the Community of Sant’Egidio, a Rome-based movement active on peace and justice issues, be asked to withdraw an award it planned to bestow on Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois for suppressing the death penalty.

According to the cable, George objected to Quinn’s positions on abortion and gay marriage, including policies about serving same-sex couples, which effectively put Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois out of business.

The cable was signed by Monsignor Jean-Francois Lantheaume, the embassy’s charge d’affairs. The full text is:

From: Washington
To: Decryption Off., Decr. N. 300
Date of encryption: 03/11/2011
Date of decryption: 03/11/11

His Eminence Cardinal George, Francis, Archbishop of Chicago, has informed this pontifical embassy that the Community of Sant’Egidio has plans to present an award to the Governor of Illinois, Mr. Quinn, for suppressing the death penalty in that state. Attested that Mr. Quinn is of the Catholic faith, the bishops and Cardinal George retain that this recognition is inopportune for the following reasons:

He promoted the law on homosexual marriage;
He is in favor of abortion;
He withdrew from the Catholic church the right to contract with federal agencies for the adoption of minors.

Cardinal George courteously requests an intervention with the authorities of the Community of Sant’Egidio so that the decision will be reconsidered. On the part of this embassy, a nulla osta [no objection] to what is proposed by His Eminence the Archbishop of Chicago. Lantheaume, charge d’affaires.

No Comments "

Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

June 23rd, 2013

By Marisa Taylor and Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Washington Bureau.

WASHINGTON — Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans’ phone records, the Obama administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.

President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of “insider threat” give agencies latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.

Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.

“Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States,” says a June 1, 2012, Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.

The Obama administration is expected to hasten the program’s implementation as the government grapples with the fallout from the leaks of top secret documents by Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who revealed the agency’s secret telephone data collection program. The case is only the latest in a series of what the government condemns as betrayals by “trusted insiders” who have harmed national security.

“Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” Obama said on May 16 in defending criminal investigations into leaks. “They can put men and women in uniform that I’ve sent into the battlefield at risk. They can put some of our intelligence officers, who are in various, dangerous situations that are easily compromised, at risk. . . . So I make no apologies, and I don’t think the American people would expect me as commander in chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed.”

As part of the initiative, Obama ordered greater protection for whistleblowers who use the proper internal channels to report official waste, fraud and abuse, but that’s hardly comforting to some national security experts and current and former U.S. officials. They worry that the Insider Threat Program won’t just discourage whistleblowing but will have other grave consequences for the public’s right to know and national security.

The program could make it easier for the government to stifle the flow of unclassified and potentially vital information to the public, while creating toxic work environments poisoned by unfounded suspicions and spurious investigations of loyal Americans, according to these current and former officials and experts. Some non-intelligence agencies already are urging employees to watch their co-workers for “indicators” that include stress, divorce and financial problems.

“It was just a matter of time before the Department of Agriculture or the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) started implementing, ‘Hey, let’s get people to snitch on their friends.’ The only thing they haven’t done here is reward it,” said Kel McClanahan, a Washington lawyer who specializes in national security law. “I’m waiting for the time when you turn in a friend and you get a $50 reward.”

The Defense Department anti-leak strategy obtained by McClatchy spells out a zero-tolerance policy. Security managers, it says, “must” reprimand or revoke the security clearances – a career-killing penalty – of workers who commit a single severe infraction or multiple lesser breaches “as an unavoidable negative personnel action.”

Employees must turn themselves and others in for failing to report breaches. “Penalize clearly identifiable failures to report security infractions and violations, including any lack of self-reporting,” the strategic plan says.

The Obama administration already was pursuing an unprecedented number of leak prosecutions, and some in Congress – long one of the most prolific spillers of secrets – favor tightening restrictions on reporters’ access to federal agencies, making many U.S. officials reluctant to even disclose unclassified matters to the public.

The policy, which partly relies on behavior profiles, also could discourage creative thinking and fuel conformist “group think” of the kind that was blamed for the CIA’s erroneous assessment that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction, a judgment that underpinned the 2003 U.S. invasion.

“The real danger is that you get a bland common denominator working in the government,” warned Ilana Greenstein, a former CIA case officer who says she quit the agency after being falsely accused of being a security risk. “You don’t get people speaking up when there’s wrongdoing. You don’t get people who look at things in a different way and who are willing to stand up for things. What you get are people who toe the party line, and that’s really dangerous for national security.”

Obama launched the Insider Threat Program in October 2011 after Army Pfc. Bradley Manning downloaded hundreds of thousands of documents from a classified computer network and sent them to WikiLeaks, the anti-government secrecy group. It also followed the 2009 killing of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, an attack that federal authorities failed to prevent even though they were monitoring his emails to an al Qaida-linked Islamic cleric.

An internal review launched after Manning’s leaks found “wide disparities” in the abilities of U.S. intelligence agencies to detect security risks and determined that all needed improved defenses.

Obama’s executive order formalizes broad practices that the intelligence agencies have followed for years to detect security threats and extends them to agencies that aren’t involved in national security policy but can access classified networks. Across the government, new policies are being developed.

There are, however, signs of problems with the program. Even though it severely restricts the use of removable storage devices on classified networks, Snowden, the former NSA contractor who revealed the agency’s telephone data collection operations, used a thumb drive to acquire the documents he leaked to two newspapers.

“Nothing that’s been done in the past two years stopped Snowden, and so that fact alone casts a shadow over this whole endeavor,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the non-profit Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. “Whatever they’ve done is apparently inadequate.”

U.S. history is replete with cases in which federal agencies missed signs that trusted officials and military officers were stealing secrets. The CIA, for example, failed for some time to uncover Aldrich Ames, a senior officer who was one of the most prolific Soviet spies in U.S. history, despite polygraphs, drunkenness, and sudden and unexplained wealth.

Stopping a spy or a leaker has become even more difficult as the government continues to accumulate information in vast computer databases and has increased the number of people granted access to classified material to nearly 5 million.

Administration officials say the program could help ensure that agencies catch a wide array of threats, especially if employees are properly trained in recognizing behavior that identifies potential security risks.

“If this is done correctly, an organization can get to a person who is having personal issues or problems that if not addressed by a variety of social means may lead that individual to violence, theft or espionage before it even gets to that point,” said a senior Pentagon official, who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly.

Manning, for instance, reportedly was reprimanded for posting YouTube messages describing the interior of a classified intelligence facility where he worked. He also exhibited behavior that could have forewarned his superiors that he posed a security risk, officials said.

Jonathan Pollard, a former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst sentenced in 1987 to life in prison for spying for Israel, wasn’t investigated even though he’d failed polygraph tests and lied to his supervisors. He was caught only after a co-worker saw him leave a top-secret facility with classified documents.

“If the folks who are watching within an organization for that insider threat – the lawyers, security officials and psychologists – can figure out that an individual is having money problems or decreased work performance and that person may be starting to come into the window of being an insider threat, superiors can then approach them and try to remove that stress before they become a threat to the organization,” the Pentagon official said.

The program, however, gives agencies such wide latitude in crafting their responses to insider threats that someone deemed a risk in one agency could be characterized as harmless in another. Even inside an agency, one manager’s disgruntled employee might become another’s threat to national security.

Obama in November approved “minimum standards” giving departments and agencies considerable leeway in developing their insider threat programs, leading to a potential hodgepodge of interpretations. He instructed them to not only root out leakers but people who might be prone to “violent acts against the government or the nation” and “potential espionage.”

The Pentagon established its own sweeping definition of an insider threat as an employee with a clearance who “wittingly or unwittingly” harms “national security interests” through “unauthorized disclosure, data modification, espionage, terrorism, or kinetic actions resulting in loss or degradation of resources or capabilities.”

“An argument can be made that the rape of military personnel represents an insider threat. Nobody has a model of what this insider threat stuff is supposed to look like,” said the senior Pentagon official, explaining that inside the Defense Department “there are a lot of chiefs with their own agendas but no leadership.”

The Department of Education, meanwhile, informs employees that co-workers going through “certain life experiences . . . might turn a trusted user into an insider threat.” Those experiences, the department says in a computer training manual, include “stress, divorce, financial problems” or “frustrations with co-workers or the organization.”

An online tutorial titled “Treason 101” teaches Department of Agriculture and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees to recognize the psychological profile of spies.

A Defense Security Service online pamphlet lists a wide range of “reportable” suspicious behaviors, including working outside of normal duty hours. While conceding that not every behavior “represents a spy in our midst,” the pamphlet adds that “every situation needs to be examined to determine whether our nation’s secrets are at risk.”

The Defense Department, traditionally a leading source of media leaks, is still setting up its program, but it has taken numerous steps. They include creating a unit that reviews news reports every day for leaks of classified defense information and implementing new training courses to teach employees how to recognize security risks, including “high-risk” and “disruptive” behaviors among co-workers, according to Defense Department documents reviewed by McClatchy.

“It’s about people’s profiles, their approach to work, how they interact with management. Are they cheery? Are they looking at Salon.com or The Onion during their lunch break? This is about ‘The Stepford Wives,’” said a second senior Pentagon official, referring to online publications and a 1975 movie about robotically docile housewives. The official said he wanted to remain anonymous to avoid being punished for criticizing the program.

The emphasis on certain behaviors reminded Greenstein of her employee orientation with the CIA, when she was told to be suspicious of unhappy co-workers.

“If someone was having a bad day, the message was watch out for them,” she said.

Some federal agencies also are using the effort to protect a broader range of information. The Army orders its personnel to report unauthorized disclosures of unclassified information, including details concerning military facilities, activities and personnel.

The Peace Corps, which is in the midst of implementing its program, “takes very seriously the obligation to protect sensitive information,” said an email from a Peace Corps official who insisted on anonymity but gave no reason for doing so.

Granting wide discretion is dangerous, some experts and officials warned, when federal agencies are already prone to overreach in their efforts to control information flow.

The Bush administration allegedly tried to silence two former government climate change experts from speaking publicly on the dangers of global warming. More recently, the FDA justified the monitoring of the personal email of its scientists and doctors as a way to detect leaks of unclassified information.

But R. Scott Oswald, a Washington attorney of the Employment Law Group, called the Obama administration “a friend to whistleblowers,” saying it draws a distinction between legitimate whistleblowers who use internal systems to complain of wrongdoing vs. leakers, who illegally make classified information public.

There are numerous cases, however, of government workers who say they’ve been forced to go public because they’ve suffered retaliation after trying to complain about waste, fraud and abuse through internal channels or to Congress. Thomas Drake, a former senior NSA official, was indicted in 2010 under the Espionage Act after he disclosed millions of dollars in waste to a journalist. He’d tried for years to alert his superiors and Congress. The administration eventually dropped the charges against him.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, declined to answer how its insider threat program would accommodate a leak to the news media like the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam that showed how successive administrations had misled the public and Congress on the war.

“The danger is that supervisors and managers will use the profiles for ‘Disgruntled Employees’ and ‘Insider Threats’ to go after legitimate whistleblowers,” said the second Pentagon official. “The executive order says you can’t offend the whistleblower laws. But all of the whistleblower laws are about retaliation. That doesn’t mean you can’t profile them before they’re retaliated against.”

Greenstein said she become the target of scrutiny from security officials after she began raising allegations of mismanagement in the CIA’s operations in Baghdad. But she never leaked her complaints, which included an allegation that her security chief deleted details about safety risks from cables. Instead, she relied on the agency’s internal process to make the allegations.

The CIA, however, tried to get the Justice Department to open a criminal case after Greenstein mentioned during a polygraph test that she was writing a book, which is permitted inside the agency as long as it goes through pre-publication review. The CIA then demanded to see her personal computers. When she got them back months later, all that she’d written had been deleted, Greenstein said.

“They clearly perceived me as an insider threat,” said Greenstein, who has since rewritten the book and has received CIA permission to publish portions of it. “By saying ‘I have a problem with this place and I want to make it better,’ I was instantly turned into a security threat,” she said. The CIA declined to comment.

Email: mtaylor[at]mcclatchydc.com, jlanday[at]mcclatchydc.com

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/20/194513/obamas-crackdown-
views-leaks-as.html#.UcQy89jhddA

No Comments "