How Obama's U.S. Department of Energy Defrauded Americans Out Of
Their Life Savings In A Massive Crony Crime Cover-up
By The Commission - A Wikipedia-like public collaborative peer-to-peer
news authoring network
Silicon Valley corporations funnel money to their covertly established
Dark Money front groups who, in turn do two things.
1.) They send out character assassination attacks AGAINST
opponents of the corporation who covertly work for the corporation, and...
2.) They conduit bribes, in a secret manner, to their crony
candidates like Harris, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Breed, etc., who have
promised them insider deals. When the shill candidate gets elected, these
corrupt politicians support the agenda of the corporation and steer
government funds to the corporation and away from the corporation's
At the Obama Department of Energy, while engaging in Dark Money
corruption, the Energy Department hired Silicon Valley's own people to run
the scam for Silicon Valley oligarchs. These crony crooks were paid in sex
workers, insider trading stock and revolving door jobs and they worked
hand-in-hand with the Federal government to attack and destroy competing
If multi-millionaire politicians are as 'impassioned to serve the
public' as they say, then shouldn't they volunteer, for free, to
serve in office and allow the taxpayers to see all of their stock market
accounts and bank accounts?
Of course they will volunteer to help the public because most of them are
getting "DARK MONEY"
covert payola and they are in office only to serve their own criminal
kick-back schemes. While left wing main stream news outets have long
promoted the Koch Brothers as the force behind Dark Money, it is in fact
left-leaning Greylock Capital, Google, Tom Steyer, Clinton Alliance,
George Soros, Kleiner Perkins, Rothschild Family that operate the majority
of modern Dark Money conduits. Their Dark Money operation is 356 times
larger than that of the Koch Brothers. The left leaning operators, who ran
the Department of Energy during the Obama Administration, use the law
firms of MOFO, Wilson Sonsini, Perkins Coi, Latham Watkins, Covington and
Burling and related firms as their cover-up designers for their covert
Politician's Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid
and 42 others, sent out letters, emails, meeting requests and pitches to
solicit members of the public to join a cause. The top staff of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) sent out the same pleas. They promised a
"wonderful new opportunity for all" in the first market break for
outsiders in 30 years.
They failed to mention one key fact: ALL OF THE TAXPAYER MONEY HAD
ALREADY BEEN SECRETLY PROMISED ("Hard Wired" it is called) TO OBAMA'S, AND
THE DOE BOSSES, FRIENDS, IN ADVANCE.
In meetings, on camera, they promised to give members of the public a fair
shot at a group of new Department of Energy funds that Obama had put in
That is a felony violation of the law. A crime which FBI Director James
Comey, and his staff covered up and which DOE Boss Steven Chu and his staff
actively implemented. Our team knows this, as fact, because they reported
directly to Comey, Chu and their offices.
It was not an 'accident', it was not an 'oversight', it was
not 'an agency just overwhelmed with paper'. It was a precision
controlled, coordinated organized crime effort designed to rape,
both, the U.S. taxpayers and the non-crony applicants for these funds.
The crime used the traditional bribes, crony payola contracts, revolving
doors, sex worker payoffs and other political corruption but it mainly used
a new tactic called "Dark Money'.
Our team knows this because some of them were solicited to participate in
these crimes and some of them had close personal relationships with the
politicians who are now known to have operated these crimes. Some of our
witnesses and insiders have been involved with the DOE since before 2000.
They have 'seen it all'.
Companies, their executives and their investors were induced by
California and New York Senators, White House Staff and the top
staff of the U.S. Department of Energy to invest many years of their
lives, and tens of millions of dollars of their personal cash in a fake
government program which only existed to pay off Obama's political
American taxpayers were lied to and ruined by the U.S Department of Energy
and their damages are increasing monthly. The DOE has NEVER apologized,
NEVER offered fixes and NEVER provided the victims with anything other than
'Fusion-GPS' kinds of attacks on those who asked for help or who reported
the crimes. The stone-walling, cover-ups and obfuscation that the DOE has
engaged in has been historical in scope.
This scam happened in 2008. History has proven that the DOE funds, since
then, were rigged. Congress, the news media and special investigations
have proven that these crimes happened. Nothing has ever been done to help
the victims (over 100 companies and over 1800 individuals) recover from
their state-sponsored losses.
What happened when the victims of these crimes reported the incidents to
authorities? The Obama Administration ordered and operated attacks on the
victims. Those attacks included the following reprisal, retribution and
How does DOE Dark Money work? Let's take a look:
- DOE solicited the victims with false promises and
caused them to expend millions of dollars and years of their
time for projects which DOE had covertly promised to their
friends and were using the victims as a “smokescreen” to cover
their illegal DOE slush-fund for the victims competitors and
- Social Security, SSI, SDI, Disability and other
earned benefits were stone-walled. Applications were “lost”.
Files in the application process “disappeared”. Lois Lerner hard
drive “incidents” took place in order to seek to hide
information and run cover-ups.
- DOE’s Jonathan Silver, Lachlan Seward and Steven Chu
contacted members of the National Venture Capital association
(NVCA) and created national “black-lists” to blockade Victims
from ever receiving investor funding. This was also confirmed in
a widely published disclosure by Tesla Motors Daryl Siry and in
FOIA requests were hidden, frozen, stone-walled,
delayed, lied about and only partially responded to in order to
seek to hide information and run cover-ups.
- State and federal employees played an endless game of
Catch-22 by arbitrarily determining that deadlines had passed
that they, the government officials, had stonewalled and
obfuscated applications for, in order to force these deadlines
that they set, to appear to be missed.
- Some Victims found themselves strangely poisoned, not
unlike the Alexander Litvenko case. Heavy metals and toxic
materials were found right after their work with the Department
of Energy weapons and energy facilities. Many wonder if these
“targets” were intentionally exposed to toxins in retribution
for their testimony. The federal MSDS documents clearly show
that a number of these people were exposed to deadly compounds
and radiations, via DOE, without being provided with proper
HazMat suits which DOE officials knew were required.
- Victims employers were called, and faxed, and ordered
to fire Victims from their places of employment, in the middle
of the day, with no notice, as a retribution tactic.
- On orders from Obama White House officials,
DNC-financed Google, YouTube, Gawker Media and Gizmodo Media
produced attack articles and defamation videos and locked them
on the internet on the top line, of the front page of all Google
searches for a decade in front of 7.5 billion people, around the
world, at a cost of over $40 million dollars in server farms,
production costs and internet rigging. The forensic data
acquired from this attack proved that Google rigs attacks
against individuals on the internet and that all of Google’s
“impressions” are manually controlled by Google’s executives who
are also the main financiers and policy directors of the Obama
Administration. This data was provided to the European Union for
it’s ongoing prosecution of Google’s political manipulation of
- Victims HR and employment records, on recruiting and
hiring databases, were embedded with negative keywords in order
to prevent them from gaining future employment.
- Our associates: Gary D. Conley, Seth Rich, Rajeev
Motwani and over 30 other whistle-blowers in this matter, turned
up dead under strange circumstances. They are not alone in a
series of bizarre deaths related to the DOE investiagtions.
- Disability and VA complaint hearings and benefits
were frozen, delayed, denied or subjected to lost records and
"missing hard drives" as in the Lois Lerner case.
- Paypal and other on-line payments for on-line sales
were delayed, hidden, or re-directed in order to terminate
income potential for Victims who competed with DOE interests and
- DNS redirection, website spoofing which sent Victims
websites to dead ends and other Internet activity manipulations
were conducted. All commercial storefronts and on-line sales
attempts by Victims, had their sites hidden, or search engine
de-linked by an massively resourced facility in order to
terminate revenue potentials for those victims.
Over 50,000 trolls, shills, botnets and synth-blog
deployments were deployed to place defamatory statements and
disinformation about victims in front of 7.5 billion people
around the world on the internet in order to seek to damage
their federal testimony credibility by a massively resourced
- Campaign finance dirty tricks contractors IN-Q-Tel,
Think Progress, Black Cube, Podesta Group, Stratfor, Fusion GPS,
IN-Q-Tel, Media Matters, Gawker Media, Gizmodo Media, Syd
Blumenthal, etc., were hired by DOE Executives and their
campaign financiers to attack Victims who competed with DOE
executives stocks and personal assets.
- Covert DOE partner: Google, transfered large sums of
cash to dirty tricks contractors and then manually locked the
media portion of the attacks into the top lines of the top pages
of all Google searches globally, for years, with hidden embedded
codes in the links and web-pages which multiplied the attacks on
Victims by many magnitudes.
Covert Cartel financier: Google, placed Google’s
lawyer: Michelle Lee, in charge of the U.S. Patent Office and
she, in turn, stacked all of the U.S. Patent Office IPR and
ALICE review boards and offices with Google-supporting employees
in order to rig the U.S. Patent Office to protect Google from
being prosecuted for the vast patent thefts that Google engages
in. Google has hundreds of patent lawsuits for technology theft
and a number of those lawsuits refer to Google’s operations as
“Racketeering”, “Monopolistic Cartel” and “Government Coup-like”
behaviors. Thousands of articles and investigations detail the
fact that Google, “essentially” ran the Obama White House and
provided over 80% of the key White House staff. A
conflict-of-interest unlike any in American history. Google’s
investors personally told Applicant they would “kill him”.
Google and the Obama Administration were “the same entity”.
Applicant testified in the review that got Michelle Lee
terminated and uncovered a tactical political and social warfare
group inside Google who were financed by Federal and State
- Honeytraps and moles were employed by the attackers.
In this tactic, people who covertly worked for the attackers
were employed to approach the “target” in order to spy on and
misdirect the subject.
- Mortgage and rental applications had red flags added
to them in databases to prevent the targets from getting homes
- McCarthy-Era "Black-lists" were created and employed
against Victims who competed with DOE executives and their
campaign financiers to prevent them from funding and future
- Targets were very carefully placed in a position of
not being able to get jobs, unemployment benefits, disability
benefits or acquire any possible sources of income. The
retribution tactics were audacious, overt..and quite illegal.
In the politics
of the United States, dark money is
funds given to nonprofit
organizations—and include 501(c)(4)(social
welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions)
and 501(c)(6) (trade
association) groups—that can receive unlimited donations from corporations,
individuals, and unions, and spend funds to influence elections,
but are not required to disclose their donors. Dark
money first entered politics with Buckley
v. Valeo (1976) when the United
States Supreme Court laid out Eight
Magic Words that define the difference between
electioneering and issue advocacy.
According to the Center
for Responsive Politics, "spending by organizations that do not
disclose their donors has increased from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to
well over $300 million in the 2012
presidential cycle and more than $174 million in the 2014
midterms." The New
York Times editorial board has opined that the
2014 midterm elections were influenced by "the greatest wave of secret,
special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election."
The term was first used by the Sunlight
Foundation to describe undisclosed funds that were
used during the United States 2010 mid-term election. Its
practical effect has been described by Donald
Trump as Congress "being under the magical spell of
In some elections, dark money groups have surpassed traditional political
action committees (PAC) and "super PACs"
(independent-expenditure-only committees) in the volume of spending. In
2014, the group Freedom
Partners was identified as the "poster child" for
the rise of dark money. In
2012, Freedom Partners had the ninth-highest revenues among all U.S. trade
associations which filed tax returns that year, more than "established
heavyweights" such as the American
Petroleum Institute, PhRMA,
Chamber of Commerce. Freedom
Partners largely acted as a conduit for campaign spending; of the $238
million it spent in 2012, 99 percent went to other groups, and Freedom
Partners itself did not have any employees. This
was a major distinction between other high-revenue trade associations, which
typically have many employees and devote only about 6 percent of spending to
grants to outside groups.
The rise of dark money groups was aided by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions
v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2008) and Citizens
United v. FEC (2010). In Citizens
United, the Court ruled (by a 5–4 vote) that corporations and unions
could spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political
2010 election cycle
According to the Center
for Responsive Politics, dark money (which it defined as funds from
outside groups that did not publicly disclose donors, plus groups that
received a substantial portion of their contributions from such
nondisclosing groups) accounted for nearly 44% of outside spending in the
2010 election cycle.
In the 2012 election cycle, more than $308 million in dark
money was spent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. An
estimated 86 percent was spent by conservative groups, 11 percent by liberal
groups and 3 percent by other groups.
The three dark money groups which spent the largest sums were Karl
GPS ($71 million), the Koch
for Prosperity ($36 million) and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce ($35 million), all conservative
Aside from a complex, and still highly covert network created by The
Clinton Foundation, Media Matters and The Podesta Group, the three liberal
groups with the largest dark-money expenditures were the League
of Conservation Voters ($11 million), Patriot
Majority USA, a group focusing on public schools and infrastructure
($7 million), and Planned
Parenthood (almost $7 million).
The 2014 election cycle saw the largest amount of dark money ever
spent in a congressional election; the New York Timeseditorial
board described 2014 "the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money
the eve of the election, Republican-leaning dark money groups dominated,
with $94.6 million in expenditures, exceeding dark money expenditures by
Democratic-leaning dark money groups ($28.4 million), and by expenditures
that could not be classified ($1.9 million). Karl
Rove's dark money group Crossroads
GPS alone spent over $47 million in the 2014
In the Senate elections, dark money spending was highly concentrated in a
handful of targeted competitive states, and especially in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky,
the eleven most competitive Senate races, $342 million was spent by
non-party outside groups, significantly more than the $89 million spent by
the political parties.
In the 2014 Kentucky election, a key player was the "Kentucky Opportunity
Coalition," a group supporting Mitch
McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, whom
the New York Times editorial
board has described as "the most prominent advocate for unlimited secret
campaign spending in Washington." The
Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" group, raised
more than $21 million, while McConnell raised about $32 million and
McConnell's opponent, Democratic candidate Alison
Lundergan Grimes, raised about $19 million. According
to a Center
for Public Integrity analysis of data provided by
advertising tracking firm Kantar Media/CMAG, the group ran more than 12,400
television advertisements. Every
Kentucky Opportunity Coalition's television advertisements mentioned either
McConnell or Grimes; overall, about 53 percent of the group's ads praised
McConnell while the rest were attack
ads against Grimes. The
Kentucky Opportunity Coalition relied heavily on political consultants in
Washington, D.C. and Virginia linked to Karl
Rove's Crossroads groups, and
received $390,000 in a grant from Crossroads GPS. Described
as "mysterious," the group was listed by a Post
Office box, and
the only name formally associated with the group was political operative J.
Scott Jennings, a deputy political director in the George
W. Bush administration, a worker for McConnell's previous campaigns. Melanie
Sloan of the watchdog organization Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said
that the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition was "nothing more than a sham."
Dark money also played a role in other competitive Senate seats in 2014. In
ten competitive Senate seats, the winners had the following in dark-money
support, according to an analysis by the Brennan
Center for Justice at New
York University School of Law:
In North Carolina, the pro-Tillis group "Carolina Rising" received nearly
all (98.7%) of its funds from Crossroads GPS; the Center
for Responsive Politics highlighted this as an
example of how Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) group, "evades limits on
political activity through grants" to other 501(c)(4) groups. In
the 2014 cycle, Crossroads GPS also gave $5.25 million to the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, $2 million to the American Future Fund, and $390,000 to the
Kentucky Opportunity Coalition. In
total, Crossroads GPS spent more than $13.6 million on grants to other
groups, which it described as being for the purposes of "social welfare."
Money as %
In 2014, the Democratic Party-aligned dark money group Patriot Majority USA,
a 501(c)(4), spent almost $13.7 million on "direct and indirect political
campaign activities," airing 15,000 television ads in targeted Senate races. About
half of the $30 raised by the group came from five anonymous donors. The
group was led by Craig Varoga, "a staunch ally" of Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid, Democrat of Nevada.
In Alaska, Mark
Begich was "one of the few Democratic candidates to
come close to receiving as much support from dark money as his Republican
pro-Begich Alaska Salmon PAC, funded entirely by the League of Conservation
Voters and its Alaska affiliate, spent funds in support of Begich.
to the Center for Responsive Politics, by October 2015, $4.88 million in
dark money had already been spent for the 2016 election cycle, "more than
10 times the $440,000 that was spent at this point during the 2012 cycle." The
money was spent by six groups - five conservative groups (including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $3 million, and Americans for
Prosperity, which spent $1.5 million) and one liberal group (Planned
Parenthood, which spent just under $75,000).
According to Richard Skinner of the Sunlight
Foundation, "the focus of early dark money being spent in the 2016
cycle" is on competitive U.S. Senate elections and some U.S. House of
Representatives races. However,
dark money also is playing a role in the 2016
Republican presidential primaries; by June 2015, at least four
Republican presidential candidates were raising funds via 501(c)(4)
Jindal's America Next, Rick
Perry's Americans for Economic Freedom, John
Kasich's Balanced Budget Forever, and Jeb
Bush's Right to Rise.
to (and relationship with) super PACs
Dark money (501(c)) groups and super
501(c) "dark money" groups are distinct from super
both types of entity can raise and spend unlimited sums of money, super PACs
"must disclose their donors," while 501(c) groups "must not have politics as
their primary purpose but don't have to disclose who gives them money." However,
a single individual or group can create both types of entity and combine
their powers, making it difficult to trace the original source of funds. ProPublica explains:
"Say some like-minded people form both a Super-PAC and a nonprofit
501(c)(4). Corporations and individuals could then donate as much as they
want to the nonprofit, which isn't required to publicly disclose funders.
The nonprofit could then donate as much as it wanted to the Super-PAC, which
lists the nonprofit's donation but not the original contributors." In
at least one high-profile case, a donor to a super PAC kept his name hidden
by using an LLC formed
for the purpose of hiding their personal name. One
super PAC, that originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that no
one could find, led to a subsequent filing where the previously "secret
donors" were revealed.
(regulated by FEC)
(regulated by IRS)
of contributors required?
of expenditures required?
tax filings (Form 990s)
(Typically delayed by year or
often submitted long after elections have ended)
on dollar amount of contributions?
be wholly political?
(political activity cannot be
majority of expenditures)
During the 2016 election cycle, "dark money" contributions via shell LLCs
became increasingly common. The
Associated Press, Center for Public Integrity, and Sunlight Foundation all
"flagged dozens of donations of anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million routed
through non-disclosing LLCs to super PACs" backing various presidential
candidates, including Marco
Bush, and Carly
A. Smith, a former FEC chairman who is now with the Center
for Competitive Politics, a group that opposes campaign-finance
reform, argues that this practice is not problematic, writing that "it is
possibly the making of a campaign contribution in
the name of another," a violation of existing law.
According to Kathy Kiely, managing editor of the Sunlight Foundation,
"untraceable dark money is a preferred tactic of conservatives, while
Democrats tend to use traceable super PACs."
first federal law requiring disclosure of campaign contributions, the Federal
Corrupt Practices Act, was passed in 1910. By the late 1970s,
virtually all states and the federal government required public disclosure
of campaign contributions and information on political donors. Most states
and the federal government also required public disclosure of information
about donors and amounts spent on independent expenditures, that is,
expenditures made independently of a candidate's campaign.
In January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for
all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications,
for all sponsors.
Yet despite disclosure rules, it is possible to spend money without voters
knowing the identities of donors before the election.In
federal elections, for example, political
action committees have the option to choose to file
reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" basis. This
allows funds raised by PACs in the final days of the election to be spent
and votes cast before the report is due.
In addition to PACs, non-profit groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to
Crossroads may make expenditures in connection with political races. Since
these non-profits are not political committees, as defined in the Federal
Election Campaign Act, they have few reporting requirements beyond the
amounts of their expenditures. They are not required by law to publicly
disclose information on their donors. As a result, voters do not know who
gave money to these groups. Reports have disclosed instances where
non-profits were managed by close associates, former staff, or a candidate's
family member, and this has led to concern that the candidates benefiting
from their expenditures would be able to know who donated the funds to the
non-profit group, but the public would not. 
For example, in the 2012 election cycle, one organization, the National
Organization for Marriage, or NOM, operated two non-profit arms that
received millions in donations from just a few donors. It in turn funded
several different PACs.
While these PACs had to disclose that NOM contributed the funds, they were
not required to disclose who gave money to NOM.
On March 30, 2012 a U.S. District Court ruled that all groups that spend
money on electioneering communications must report all donors that give more
than $1,000. However,
this ruling was overturned on appeal.
and regulatory proposals and debate over dark moneyAccording
Law School's Richard Briffault, disclosure of campaign expenditures,
contributions, and donors is intended to deter corruption.
Elections Commission, which regulates federal elections, has been
unable to control dark money. According to the Center for Public Integrity,
FEC commissioners are voting on many fewer enforcement matters than in the
past because of "an overtaxed staff and commissioner disagreement." The
IRS (rather than the FEC) is responsible for oversight of 501(c)(4) groups. The
IRS "found itself ill-prepared for the groundswell" of such groups taking
and spending unlimited amounts of money for political purposes in the wake
of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. The
agency particularly "struggled to identify which organizations appeared to
be spending more than the recommended 50 percent of their annual budgets on
political activities—and even to define what 'political spending' was." When
the IRS began looking at nonprofit spending, it was accused
of improper targeting in a 2013 controversy.
"With the FEC and IRS duly sidelined" advocates for disclosure turned to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC); nine academics from
universities across the U.S. filed petitioned the SEC in August 2011 for the
agency to "develop rules to require public companies to disclose to shareholders the
use of corporate resources for political activities." The
petition received over a million comments in the following month, "a record
amount for the SEC, with the overwhelming majority of voters asking for
better disclosure." According
Bebchuk, a Harvard professor of law, economics, and finance who helped
draft the petition, the request had drawn the support of "nearly a dozen
senators and more than 40 members of the House." Under
current SEC regulations, public
corporations must file a Form
8-K report to publicly announce major events of
interest to shareholders. The Sunlight
Foundation, a group which advocates for a comprehensive disclosure
regime, has proposed that the 8-K rule should be updated to require that
aggregate spending of $10,000 on political activities (such as monetary
contributions, in-kind contributions, and membership dues or other payments
to organizations that engage in political activities) should be disclosed
and made publicly available via the 8-K system.
In 2015, Republicans in Congress successfully pushed for a rider in
a 2015 omnibus
spending bill that bars the IRS from clarifying the
social-welfare tax exemption to combat dark money "from advocacy groups that
claim to be social welfare organizations rather than political committees."
Other provisions in the 2015 bill bar the SEC from requiring corporations to
disclose campaign spending to shareholders, and a ban application of the
gift tax to nonprofit donors. The Obama administration opposed these
provisions, but President Obama eventually acceded to them in December 2015,
with the White House declining to comment. The nonpartisan Campaign
Legal Center said in a statement that the dark-money
provision ensures "that the door to secret foreign dollars in U.S. elections
remains wide open through secret contributions to these ostensibly
'nonpolitical' groups that run campaign ads without any disclosure of their
for Competitive Politics (CCP), chaired by former
FEC chairman Bradley
A. Smith, opposes legislation to require the disclosure of
dark-money groups, saying: "Our view is that many people will be driven
out of politics if they are forced to disclose their names and their
personal information. The purpose of disclosure is to help people monitor
the government, not for the government to monitor the people." The
Center for Competitive Politics views "dark money" as a pejorative term,
stating that the phrase "evokes an emotional, fearful reaction" and
contending that "many of the statistics published on the topic aim to
mislead rather than enlighten." The
CCP maintains that dark money "comprises a very small percentage of total
campaign spending," calculating the percent of money spent in federal
elections by organizations that did not provide itemized disclosure of
their donors as 4.3% in 2012 and 3.7% in 2014.
The U.S. Department of Energy was complicit in the processing of Dark
Money payola cycling to Obama's financiers as a 'hand-on' operator of a
All of the ruckus with Donald Trump and California/DOE VS. Trump is
almost entirely based on West Coast and New York corrupt senators, and
their insiders, freaking out about their Dark Money organized crime payola
scam coming apart and getting exposed.
a reason why David Brock chooses to house an unregistered
Professional Solicitor in his office to raise money for
his conglomerate of Super PACs and non-profits.
Solicitors are required to disclose their active solicitation
contracts. Brock wants his unregistered solicitor, the Bonner Group,
to keep their client list hidden for a very specific reason.
BROCK IS LAUNDERING MONEY
Brock has 7 non-profits, 3 Super PACs, one 527-committee, one
LLC, one joint fundraising committee, and one unregistered solicitor
crammed into his office
in Washington DC.
records expose a constant flow of money between these organizations.
Bonner Group, his professional solicitor, works off a commission.
time money gets passed around, Bonner receives a
required to disclose who they give cash grants to.
they aren’t required to disclose who gave them cash grants.
weak system of one way verification is being abused by Brock.
He’s been cycling money between his organizations for
years, and the Bonner Group’s 12.5% commission gets triggered
after every pass.
Matters for America raised $10,021,188.
Bonner Group was credited for raising these funds. Media Matters
paid them a $1,147,882 commission.
same year, Media Matters gave a $930,000 cash grant to David
Education Forum, an organization that shares office space with Media
the Franklin Education Forum reported $994,000 in total
contributions. 93.6% of that total came from Media
though, the Franklin Education Forum gave full credit to Bonner for
raising that money. They paid the fundraiser a $124,250
commission in 2014!
Matters gave a $930,000 cash grant to David
Education Forum credited the
Bonner Group for raising those funds,
triggering the 12.5% commission
Brock paid the
Bonner Group a $124,250 commission to solicit a cash
grant … from
DOESN’T STOP THERE
the Franklin Education Forum retained $869,750, they sent a
$816,224 cash grant to David Brock’s The
The ‘Franklin Education Forum’ is a 501(c)3, and ‘The Franklin Forum’ is
a 501(c)4. They are not the same company.
The Franklin Forum 501(c)4 paid Bonner a commission in
2013, it’s safe to assume fundraiser received a
$102,028 commission in 2014. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell for sure.
They still haven’t filed their taxes for 2014!
for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America.
This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:
Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation
Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission
Matters would retain $930,000
- Next, Media Matters would
give what’s left of your entire
donation, $930,000, to the Franklin
- The Bonner
Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission
- The Franklin
Education Forum would retain $813,750
- The Franklin
Education Forum would then forward
the remaining $813,750 to The
- The Bonner
Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718
Franklin Forum would
the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825,
almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry
from the advertised 12.5% commission.
bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what
David Brock did in 2014.
CAN WE BE SURE THIS IS INTENTIONAL?
Brock is the Chairman for each of these organizations! How
could he not know
what’s going on?
a hands-on Chairman. According to their tax returns, Brock allocates
time, weekly, to his organizations:
Matters: 31.50 hours per week
Education Forum: 3 hours per week
Franklin Forum: 1 hour per week
York Times reports that David Brock shares a
summer rental in the Hamptons with Mary Pat Bonner, the President of the
Brock will have a hard time claiming ignorance on this. These
transfers are intentional. He vacations with his solicitor.
Brock didn’t even bother to give his organizations different phone
all share the same phone number!
even located the Bonner Group’s solicitation
agreement with Media Matters on Florida’s Gift
Givers’ Guide. Clarification on their commission can be found
on page 2:
English: Contractually, David Brock has the option
to exclude certain contributions from triggering the commission.
In spite of this option, he intentionally chooses to trigger
the 12.5% commission for money grants between his organizations.
Yes, we are making the assumption that all of Brock’s organizations
have the same solicitation agreement with the Bonner Group. Given
that his organizations share the same address, board members, and
telephone number, we feel it’s safe to assume they also share the same
BARELY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE
public facing tax returns, along with records submitted to the FEC,
we mapped out all the significant money transfers from 2014 that took
place in Brock’s office:
is all from just one year! No further commentary required.
understand this may be hard to believe. We first came across this in
July, and are still having a hard time wrapping our heads around it.
of the data referenced in this article originated from publicly
accessible sources. Check for yourself – we provided links to
the source material in our article exposing
the organizations operating in Brock’s office, This
data has been sitting out in the open, gathering dust for years!
it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it
probably is a duck.
spent months trying
to find some sort of loophole to justify this activity. But
there aren’t any loopholes. David Brock has something to hide.
Just last week, The
Daily Callerreported the following:
former long-time live-in boyfriend William Grey (whom Brock has thanked in
several of his books) threatened to go to the IRS with damaging
information about how Brock was running his Media Matters empire.
What did Brock do? He paid
Grey $850,000 to keep quiet. Brock reportedly had
to sell his home in Rehoboth, Delaware to come up with the money. This
certainly seems to indicate that Brock was terrified about what the
authorities would uncover.”
to this, Fox
News reported the following:
accused Brock of “financial malfeasance” and threatened to undermine
Brock’s fundraising efforts.
step is I contact all your donors and the IRS,” Grey wrote in an email
dated May 19, 2010. “This is going to stink for you if you do not resolve
believe that the information presented in this article is what has
Brock so terrified. We feel confident in saying, with close to
absolute certainty, that David
Brock is laundering money through his Media Matters
at the argument we’ve been making on The Citizens Audit:
to this, we can also say, with close to absolute certainty, that David
Brock’s Media Matters conglomerate is breaking campaign finance law by
illegally coordinating with the Clinton Campaign:
still have a couple articles worth of content to publish, and hope to
wrap things up by the end of this week. We will then focus our
efforts on promoting and exposing our findings.
you’d like to help, all we ask is that you share this article.
send an email to Andrew@TheCitizensAudit.com to get started.