More

Second O'Keefe-NPR Video Released, Alleging That NPR Agreed To Shield Donation From Scrutiny [UPDATE]

Npr

First Posted: 03/10/11 06:22 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

A second video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has been made available online, extending the story of the Ron Schiller video "sting" that ended in the dismissal of both Ron Schiller and NPR CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation) earlier this week. Today's offering is not video footage; rather, it's the documentation of several phone calls between a man posing as a spokesman for a nonexistent organization set up to appear to be underwritten by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Betsy Liley, NPR's senior director for institutional giving.

The essentials are these: "Ibrahim Kassam" of the "Muslim Education Action Center" contacts Liley as a follow-up to the conversation you've already seen in the first video -- the one where Ron Schiller says mean things about the Tea Party. Their conversations center on anonymous donations, what level of transparency is expected of NPR as an organization partially funded by taxpayers and whether or not NPR can shield the nonexistent organization from a government audit.

Liley explains that the government is entitled to both audit NPR's programs and examine their financial statements. She goes on to state that an anonymous donation was an option: "If you are concerned in any way about that, that's one reason you might want to be an anonymous donor," he says. "And, we would certainly, if that was your interest, want to shield you from that."

Institutional donations are often given anonymously, and Liley cites several precedents while on the phone -- including one multimillion-dollar donation for which "there was no paperwork in any official place that identified him as that donor." Asked if NPR specifically accepted regular donations on an anonymous basis, Liley answers in the affirmative. She goes on to say, "There are a number of people who choose to make gifts through us because, you know, they don't want their identities known and they like to remain private. And we do accommodate their desires regarding anonymity."

Asked if NPR can actually shield the organization from a government audit, Liley professes uncertainty and a promise to inquire. Liley appears to have followed up in a March 1 email with the following:

Anonymous donation: NPR can list MEAC as an anonymous donor in our database, which would mean we would not disclose the organization's name. We do not publish a list of gifts, so it would not be an issue there.

Audit: The audits of our government grants are conducted by the same audit firm we hire to do our NPR financial audit.

I am awaiting a draft agreement from out legal counsel and will share it when I have it.

NPR has repeatedly said that they had no intention of accepting money from this pretend organization. On the occasion of the disclosure of the first video, NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm stated, "The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept."

Liley's conversations clearly don't jibe with anyone's idea of a "repeated refusal." Behind the scenes, however, things may have been different. Vivian Schiller, for her part, says that NPR's vetting of the organization raised the necessary red flags: "Their address was a UPS store with a post office box. We couldn't find any records of their 501-3 status. We could not find any records of their tax-exempt status. We could find none of their 990 reports."

The question now becomes whether Liley is guilty of something for which she deserves to be fired, or whether she was merely trying to keep a top-dollar donor on the hook while NPR's legal counsel performed their due diligence in vetting MEAC, the results of which were the revelation of ample reason to refuse the donation. If history is any guide, the powers that be at NPR will probably panic and make a hasty decision that won't end up changing the minds of any of the people who want to defund them, anyway.

By the way, here's a pro tip: when an organization one day makes "repeated requests to be photographed delivering a check," and the next day is asking all kinds of questions about how they can keep their donation and their identity from becoming public, you are probably being scammed.

UPDATE: Here is that behind-the-scenes due diligence:

Emails

Key takeaways: Vivian Schiller, in an email to Liley, Joyce Slocum (NPR General Counsel), and Debra Delman, says that -- contra Liley -- the donation "would need to be reported to the IRS, including the name of the donating institution." So much for that promise of total confidentiality. In Slocum's email to "Kasaam," she asks for "publicly accessible information" that's necessary to accept a donation:

The Muslim Education Action Center does not appear in IRS Publication 78, which lists all organizations which have received a 501(c)(3) determination letter from the IRS, and whose status as a tax exempt organization has not been suspended or revoked. (Only churches are exempt from the requirement of obtaining an IRS determination letter, though even many churches voluntarily do so.) Since the Muslim Education Action Center does not appear in Publication 78, we need to ask for a copy of the IRS determination letter as to its 501(c)(3) status.

Also, most tax exempt organizations are required to file an annual form 990 in order to maintain their tax exempt status. Failure to file for three consecutive years results in an automatic revocation of tax exempt status. Again, because such organizations are required to make their three most recently filed annual 990 returns and all related supporting documents available for public inspection, we are usually able to obtain copies of these from the organization's own website, or if not there, from GuideStar or the Foundation Center. We have been unable to locate the 990's for the Muslim Education Action Center through any of these sources, so need to ask that you also provide those for our review.

As MEAC is a fake organization, none of that documentation could have been provided. In response, the organization balked at providing some of the necessary material and put off providing the rest:

On the other hand, information such as a list of our contributors is not possible I'm afraid - much the way NPR does not disclose its donors. If the interest in that information is a desire to solicit from our donors, I can assure you that we are already doing our best to raise funds on your behalf, and fund-raising on this issue has been quite fruitful for us given the ever rising specter of Islamophobia in America. I am also quite confident it will only become easier.

Based upon my experience and the confirmations of our legal counsel, none of this information is legally necessary from either an individual donor or an institution, but we will be happy to oblige on issues like tax status and 990's nonetheless.

As it turns out, Liley was placed on administrative leave the same day Ron Schiller was. Here's the statement from NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm:

The statement made by Betsy Liley in the audiotapes released today regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR's gift practices.

All donations -- anonymous and named -- are fully reported to the IRS. NPR complies with all financial, tax and disclosure regulations.

Through unequivocal words and actions, NPR has renounced and condemned the secretly recorded statements of Ron Schiller and Betsy Liley. Mr. Schiller is no longer with NPR and Ms. Liley has been placed on administrative leave, pending an investigation of the matter.

No stronger statement of disavowal and disapproval is possible. NPR will not be deterred from its news mission and will ultimately be judged by the millions and millions of listeners and readers who have come to rely on us every day.

Again, it appears that Liley played fast and loose with her salesmanship with an eye toward keeping a potential high-dollar donor close to a commitment. She shouldn't have suggested that level of confidentiality was available to any donor. That said, NPR's counsel were clearly of a different mind on the matter.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

FOLLOW HUFFPOST MEDIA

A second video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has been made available online, extending the story of the Ron Schiller video "sting" that ended in the dismissal of both Ron Schiller and NPR CEO V...
A second video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has been made available online, extending the story of the Ron Schiller video "sting" that ended in the dismissal of both Ron Schiller and NPR CEO V...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 950
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
LiberalBuzz 02:42 PM on 03/11/2011
Here is the most interesting thing in my mind.

NPR did what they were legally supposed to do. Nothing wrong and as the story says, just trying to keep a possible big money donor around while they did due diligence. They performed exactly as they should legally.

YET cons are already calling for NPR to be shut down because of what they are lying about which is the claim that NPR secretly accepts  Read More...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Cabo600
Mongo only pawn in game of life.
12:30 PM on 03/17/2011
James O'Keefe, nothing but a two bit amateur scammer who is being aided and abetted by the Republican machine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
neogejo
10:40 PM on 03/12/2011
I add, why isn't he in jail for trying to bug the telephones at a State Senator's office. WHY?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:44 PM on 03/14/2011
dropped to a lessor charge, not that uncommon for a 1st offender
10:50 AM on 03/16/2011
Its NOT so common to drop such a charge in the post 9-11 world in a Federal building when the FBI are involved.

Its not that common at all.

O'Keefe only got away with it because his accomplices daddy is a close friend of Daniel Knowles. If he were any less connected or wealthy, he would see the justice he most certainly deserves.

As innocent people get slandered left and right, and the level of decency in media goes circling the drain (thanks to disgusting evil frauds like O'Keefe, Breitbart or Rose), I hope that the judge Knowles is seriously thinking about what he neglected for the sake of bare nepotism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
neogejo
10:39 PM on 03/12/2011
O'keeke is a puppet in the republican slaughter of the people. Hw will be judged for his actions at another time.
11:14 AM on 03/16/2011
“He will be judged for his actions at another time.”

I often think similarly when I see so many innocent people being maliciously slandered/framed with the most hideous crimes by a low-life like O'Keefe.

Someone like Schiller has the money to recover from such a mendaciously cruel attack (falsely accusing people of being in collusion with international terrorists, or child-traffickers is just that hideous.)

But what about people like JuanCarlos Vera, or Alissa Ploshnick, who do so much good for so many impoverished people?

I think about those who they serve, and how such people don’t have the ability to come online to explain their own perspectives. (It amazes me how many people just don’t realize that many people in the country DO NOT own computers and surf the web... O”keefe takes advantage of that fact when he attacks people like Vera or Ploshnick.)

What would O”keefe say to the people who Vera helped out of homelessness, or the kids whose lives Ploshnick saved? These truths are obviated by his five minutes of highly edited video, and years of good service are reduced to a few damaging soundbytes.

And I blame ALL media, even the HuffPo, AND Mr. Linkins here, for happily indulging this non-sense.

I can only call them either desperate or stupid for being so accommodating to a proven liar and a disgusting pervert (I mean, what about ATTEMPTED SEXUAL BLACKMAIL is it that they DO NOT find disturbing?)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:51 PM on 03/12/2011
O'Keefe is still angry about Eyes on the Prize.
07:03 PM on 03/11/2011
As we have read here many times before,"the truth has a liberal bias." That is a bugger of a problem for NPR. They often hold back on a story I feel to seem unbiased. I really didn't see anything wrong with the recorded meeting with the NPR guy and the fake Muslim. When you are not at work you are entitled to your opinion. (Which I agreed with in this case.) I know several of these bagger types and they all are bigots. It is a very comfortable clan for them. They feed on each other. The CEO where I work calls Obama a "half and half."
The only thing I think NPR did wrong was fire anybody.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:23 PM on 03/16/2011
Well I just hope that at all of this that the Government stops their funding of both NPR and PBS. This country is beyond the original needs of them. Plus the Government shouldn't be in the news business.
08:00 PM on 03/16/2011
Read the contents of the meeting that is unedited. Totally taken out of context. Just a smear job by a snotty nosed kid...
02:13 PM on 03/17/2011
No better NEWS then the BBC
photo
Littlewords
My micro bio was outsourced to my nano-bio: I'm me
05:56 PM on 03/11/2011
O'Keefe strikes again, with the same impact of Mr. Hanky striking in a South Park episode.
05:01 PM on 03/11/2011
Someone will provide an undercover video of O'keefe someday and then he'll go bye bye.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
jeliz
Think for yourselves.
04:58 PM on 03/11/2011
The only reason this boy is filming NPR is to help Republicans rid America of the last bastion of free primarily liberal thought and reporting. Republicans have Fox News and Fox Radio and far left liberals like myself have Channel 8 and NPR radio -- and while Fox News and Radio are owned by Rupert Murdoch, who owns the NYT and every British Newspaper, we get funding because people like Rupert Murdoch would otherwise buy up all such news outlets and turn them into Repulibcan propaganda machines. That should only happen in Communist countries like China or in Nazi Germany.

Public funding of NPR ensures this will not happen. If they only want to take money from Liberals, I'd be for that. I'd even increase the amount I give if they would take it out of my taxes every month. How about that, NPR?
07:11 PM on 03/11/2011
I'm with you. NPR is one of the few widely head and seen medium that Murdoch has to contend with. Straight news is a threating thing for him.
Defund NPR-Unions-board of educaion-planned parenthood-the EPA-are the laundry list of the far right. Read GAME CHANGE by Mark Green if you haven't. It is a few years old and it is like reading history while it happens. Very good time to read it. It falls right in line with all that the anti democracy right is pushing through congress and the states right now..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:34 PM on 03/19/2011
De-fund NPR & PBS now --see if they can stand on their own. See if you liberals will use your own money instead of other peoples money for one of your pet projects. Soros and other Liberal rich people can fund them for now on.
10:49 AM on 03/12/2011
I am a regular listener of NPR. I don't really see it as liberal all that much. But, I have noticed that "asking questions" is considered liberal. Ever been in a discussion and just asked a question of the underlying issue when everything stops and someone asks, "what are you, liberal?".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:35 PM on 03/19/2011
So why do they need our tax dollars for funding then?
04:42 PM on 03/11/2011
.

AIG CFO Edward Joback's WSJ avatar is Obama and Lenin.

Why would he associate the administration that bailed our AIG with Communism?

Maybe he should resign

http://bit.ly/haGdbQ OR full broken URL below...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704005404576177143841656926.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments%26commentId%3D2202699?mg=com-wsj
01:17 PM on 03/12/2011
Edward Joback CFO of AIG Shared Services has since deleted his Obama Lenin avatar and locked his WSJ profile.

The avatar he used is here: http://www.barackobamawebpage.com/images/obama_lenin.jpg

His WSJ spew can be viewed by entering to google - "Edward Joback" site:wsj.com

It is very ungrateful for a CFO AIG to equate the Obama Administration with Communists after that same administration bailed out AIG with taxpayer money.
04:39 PM on 03/11/2011
Thanks to these clips, we now know the truth -- that NPR is as biased against conservatives as the rest of the news media, the federal government, the institution of science, and reality itself.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:49 PM on 03/14/2011
Look everybody has bias that's human nature.
Now it is how you use your bias that can be a problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ouroboros Rex
03:03 PM on 03/16/2011
Not much truth to an O'Keefe clip. lol
04:32 PM on 03/11/2011
So, maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see why were all supposed to be mad at NPR because of what was recorded here.  Could somebody explain to me in small words exactly what ethical breach these clips reveal?
04:37 PM on 03/11/2011
Nobody at NPR cares one bit what these two said, they probably agree with them, but they know it could damage fund raising efforts. Bad timing when you government grant is on the line.
04:40 PM on 03/11/2011
I personally don't give a crap if NPR smiles and takes money from the Anti-christ himself, provided they don't allow that donation to affect their reporting.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:50 PM on 03/14/2011
Or trying to get your Jewish donors to pony up during the next call for donations.
04:29 PM on 03/11/2011
Get used to it lefties. We too have read "rules for radicals" and will use all of your tactics against your agenda. If you people are mad now, wait till we redistrict your butts out of some house seats. " Elections have consequences" Barack Obama.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ouroboros Rex
03:06 PM on 03/16/2011
Talking Texas Republicans' rewriting of redistricting on Mother's Day night, and voting on them the next morning with no debate? We've seen your gerrymnadering. lol
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
paganmist
Girl gamer geek armchair activist
04:27 PM on 03/11/2011
When liberals discover that an employee has shown an unacceptable level of bias - we fire the guy or make him step down.

When conservatives discover that an employee has shown an unacceptable level of bias - they defend the guy to the death, blame the "gotcha media", claim that liberals are to blame, play the victimization card, or make up any number of excuses as to why what they did was actually okay.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:44 PM on 03/11/2011
fake koch phone call stops walker signing; news at 11
04:55 PM on 03/11/2011
then they get a gig on Fox News and announce an interest in running for President.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeHermit
Proud Atheist
04:23 PM on 03/11/2011
I always thought those on the Right wanted to protect annonymity of donors as a freedom of speech. Where revealing the donors would hinder their free speech (donating money is deemed as speech).

However if the same thing is done on the Left, and done with an Islamic sounding name, then it must be a terror group. Just like those of os on the Left assume hidden donations are from Corporations.

Keep in mind I am about as Liberal as they get. I have no connection or sympathy with any terrorist group. I know of no Conservative politician or group that does not have ties to Corporations.

This yellow journalism constantly erroniously tries to tie the Left with terrorism, while the journalism on the Left uses educational assumptions to tie the Right with Corporations.

The Right would like to tie the Left to Corporations too, and they would be correct in doing so, but then they would be attacking their bread basket while trying to smear the Left, so they use the straw man, brown skinned terrorists.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:46 PM on 03/11/2011
obama is a corporate shill
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:46 PM on 03/11/2011
obama is a corporate s hill
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeHermit
Proud Atheist
04:55 PM on 03/11/2011
They pretty much all are. They pretty much all will be. Until there are reforms in campaign financing. It is, sadly, the way the game is played. To not take Corporate money is to hamstring yourself and/or your party. Yet you do so at the cost of your impartiality or ability to govern the people. You are beholden to the people who paid for your ads, travel expenses, hiring of polsters and aides.

And Citizens United only made things exponentially worse.

Those parties who do not accept Corporate money don't even make it to the debates which are moderated by Corporation media as well.

Why we need to have, say PBS be the moderators. But since PBS tends to be more straight truth, they are percieved as "liberal".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramirez
Proud to be an American
04:14 PM on 03/11/2011
From John Nolte at "Big Journalism":
***********************

With their most recent undercover video investigations, independent journalists James O'Keefe and Lila Rose have set a new standard of transparency in the field of journalism -- a standard I call on all media outlets -- print, online, and broadcast -- to adopt and to institute immediately. Within hours of releasing what the AP called "heavily edited" video footage of a high-powered NPR executive's troubling statements with respect to the Tea Party, conservatives, and Jewish control of the media, Mr. O'Keefe then released to the public the full, unedited two-hour video of the entire conversation. Another New Media pioneer, Lila Rose, also released the full video of her undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood.

While the biased AP apparently only whips out the term "heavily edited" when the institutional left is under fire, it's difficult to disagree with them on principle, especially when we live in a world where on a daily basis the network nightly news programs, Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and every facet of the MSM broadcast and publishing world release reports no less "heavily edited" than Rosa and O'Keefe's initial video releasse. However, unlike Rose and O'Keefe, the mainstream media never allows the public to view the full, unedited material in order to judge the full context for ourselves.

This can and must end today. ...


http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/09/we-call-on-the-msm-to-adopt-the-james-okeefe-standard-of-journalistic-excellence/
photo
El Pinche
HENNGGHHG!!??
04:29 PM on 03/11/2011
Smells like Beerfart in here.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:33 PM on 03/14/2011
While I don't care for "sneaks" , this kind thing has been going on in this country for years. CBS made a very successful "news" show out of such tactics, I believe it's called 60 minutes. I remember seeing Chris Wallace running around ambushing people right and left. Made his career on it as did many other so called reporters.
Called Gonzo Journalism right.
It's part of our 1st Amendment rights. The left should really sit down write out the new Bill of Rights as they see them so the rest of us can understand their thinking on these things a bit better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ouroboros Rex
03:10 PM on 03/16/2011
Show us a video from them edited O'Keefe style and presented as an unbroken conversation.