[Unity08 Chief Operating Officer Anya T. Harris has written responses to a series of questions regarding Unity08 operations. To facilitate the broad communication of these responses, and in the interest of transparency, which is sorely lacking in politics today, we have decided (with Harris' explicit permission) to post these responses, unedited, as their own post. Read the responses very closely and very carefully. -- Irregular Times]
To any concerned Unity08 followers:
What follows are responses to what we could best ascertain as the latest iterations of Jim Cook’s questions related to our finances (Jim, forgive us if we have failed to precisely capture the latest versions of the questions. We honestly did the best we could and recognize you might think that not be enough.) Couple of important points to note. There is no doubt, we could have done better to provide answers faster. We understand that and will try harder as we go. To set expectations, we are not currently in a position – like it or not, and we don’t- to track and answer each question in real or near real-time. I need to reiterate that we are a small organization with so very much to do that answering these questions competes with other equally important initiatives. This is not meant to convey that they are not important; simply to set expectations. In addition, we know that the community has many questions about how we will collectively achieve our mission. We invite each and everyone of the readers here to join our online chat on Friday, February 16th at 2pm EST with Doug Bailey and Jerry Rafshoon(go to www.unity08.com to sign-up). We know that access to and involvement from founders is important and we will try to have one of these sessions every month or more. Let me also say that we are far from perfect in our operations, but we are doing our best to build this movement. We know that Jim is profiling our $5,000 donors and we have invited him to profile our smaller donors who are many times in number and deserve the same or more visibility as our major donors. We are proud of and grateful for each and everyone of them. Jim, we are also quite certain that you will remain unsatisfied with some or maybe even all of our answers. We hope that we can continue to have open dialogue and perhaps even forge a positive relationship where you feel like your good energy and loyal readers can help us make our vision achievable.
PS. Thank you Jim in advance for making any edits to your postings in the past or video presentations correcting any information to which you now have answers. We appreciate it!
[2/6/07 Update: Unity08 still has not answered these questions. However, I have been able to uncover answers to some of them, and so will address them in clearly bolded updates below. Some of these answers come from the revised 2nd Quarter and 3rd Quarter Form 8872 reports to the IRS, which became available to the public on 2/5/07 via the IRS disclosure website.]
1. Unity08 has made a number of pledges in the past.
A) Unity08 has in multiple places indicated that it is committed to funding solely by small-dollar donations of no more than $5,000. Yet in its lawsuit filed against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on January 10, 2007 in DC District Court, Unity08 specifically requests exemption from any “obligation to register with the FEC, report its receipts or expenditures, or limit the amount of donations that it receives from contributors or the amount that it expends.†Unity08 also states in the lawsuit that “it should accept donations from individuals, which may be in the form of loans, without limitation as to the amount.†Unity08 further states in its lawsuit that were it able to be freed of FEC regulation, “Unity08 would seek and receive much larger donations and loans from willing contributors.â€
Answer: We believe that the FEC misunderstood the nature of the Unity08 organization and concluded that Unity08 was a political committee supporting a candidate. That is simply wrong. We have no candidate – and will not have one – until the convention proposed for the spring of 2008.
Frankly, in order to jump start the ballot access process, we would like to be able to take a few loans to be repaid from contributions of no more than $5,000. (That seems only fair given that the two parties, which don’t have ballot access expenses, can each take gifts of up to five times that amount.) But, we will not accept contributions larger than $5,000.
B) In seeking an official Advisory Opinion on its correct designation as an organization (527 vs. PAC), Unity08 specifically stated that “The FEC will determine whether or not we are a political committee for FEC purposes. Obviously we will follow their opinion.†On another page, Unity08 posed and answered its own question: “Would you and your candidates have to abide by FEC regulations? Of course.†Yet when the FEC’s advisory opinion was issued, informing Unity08 of the need to register as a PAC within 10 days, Unity08 ignored it for two months, and then filed a lawsuit against the FEC.
Our decision not to file with the FEC during ongoing legal proceedings is appropriate and not uncommon in such circumstances. We are challenging the FEC decision that we are a political committee supporting a particular candidate. So we still have not filed with them but, while pursuing our legal challenge, we are following the guidelines of their opinion – that is, limiting our contributions to $5000/year, and publicly reporting all contributions of $200 or more to the IRS.
C) In the summer of 2006, Unity08 pledged to update its financial disclosures twice a month. It broke this pledge. In the fall of 2006, Unity08 pledged to update its financial disclosures once a month. It also broke this pledge. On January 5, 2007, it pledged to update its list of donors on the webpage http://www.unity08.com/donors on January 31, 2007. It broke this pledge as well.
Answer: We posted a revised list of donors a few days later than we anticipated (February 2 vs. Jan. 31) and they are available at www.Unity08.com/donors. The data was prepared in time to make the deadline we established for ourselves, but sometimes, web postings are delayed for a myriad of reasons, as unfortunate as this is. Prior to that, it took us awhile to get organized properly to report accurately and we apologize for that. But, at the very least, I think the process is now under control.
Are there other current pledges being made by Unity08 that it plans to break, or is considering breaking?
Answer: We never set out to intentionally “break plans.†We do the best we can to adhere to deadlines we set forth with all best intentions. Conditions do not always line up the way we hope and we appreciate an understanding that best laid plans sometimes fall a bit short. If for some reason or reasons, we fall short again, we will explain why. This is, in our judgment, no cause for alarm about our motives.
2. The IRS clearly states that “An organization must electronically file Form 8872 if it has, or expects to have, contributions or expenditures exceeding $50,000 for the calendar year.†Unity08 meets this standard. Why has Unity08 not filed its Forms 8872 for the 2nd and 3rd quarter electronically as the IRS appears to require? And did Unity08 file its Form 8872 for the 4th quarter electronically as the IRS appears to require? [2/6/07 Update: Unity08 did file its Form 8872 for the 4th Quarter as the IRS appears to require. But Unity08 did not file its Form 8872 for the 2nd Quarter or 3rd Quarter, either in the original filings or the revisions to correct numerous efforts, in electronic form as the IRS seems to require. Instead, Unity08 filed by paper, which takes the IRS longer to process and retards the disclosure process.]
Answer: We had to re-file our Form 8872 for Q2 & 3 because of some clerical errors that were subsequently corrected. We made a judgment call to re-file it in the same form – on paper – as the original filing. Q4 and all subsequent filings will be made electronically.
3. Will Unity08 commit to post copies of the 2nd Quarter, 3rd Quarter, and 4th Quarter of 2006 on its own website for public review? Will Unity08 commit to post copies of its IRS Form 8872 on its own website into the future? And should it lose the lawsuit it filed on January 10, 2007 against the Federal Election Commission, will Unity08 commit to post copies of FEC disclosures as a Political Action Committee on its own website into the future?
Answer: We recognize that this request is the result of our stated desire to bring a whole new level of transparency to presidential politics. At the same time, we don’t see a standard or precedent for this expectation. As we have said before in answering your questions, we are not required to post our donors on our web site, but choose to do so. We believe that these postings and the publicly available IRS filings more than meet the standard for financial transparency that we set for ourselves and our community.
4. In its initial, factually incorrect 2nd Quarter and 3rd Quarter statements to the IRS, Unity08 claimed its principal business address is 1801 California Street Suite 5050, Denver CO 80202. In its application for status as a corporation, Unity08 listed its principal office address as 1801 California Street Suite 5050, Denver CO 80202. This is identical to the principal business address of Peak Creative Media.
In a lawsuit filed against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in DC District Court (Case 1:07-cv-00053-RWR) Unity08 lists its primary address as 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 514, Washington, DC 20037. This is an office suite in the Watergate complex, also claimed as an address for the law firm of Franch, Jarashow, Burgmeier & Smith, as well as for an organization called the Thoreau Group.
Which is Unity08’s actual primary address?
Answer: Unity08’s primary mailing address is now a P.O. Box in Arlington, VA, to make it more accessible to the Virginia Avenue office that Doug Bailey works out of in his volunteer capacity for Unity08.
We don’t know who the law firm or Thoreau Group are as they have no association with Unity08 (we are not sure why you would associate them with us in this context.
Unity08 announced in the spring of 2006 with the Peak Creative Media address as its headquarters, because Peak Creative Media built the Unity08 website and centralized the web operations from there. Today, the Virginia Avenue office serves that purpose, although we still have some web involvement with Peak.
5. In filing its Form 8871 with the IRS, Unity08 lists Peak Creative Media CEO Jim Jonas as Unity08’s President and CEO, and Douglas L. Bailey as Unity08’s Secretary and Treasurer. In Unity08’s Governance Page, Douglas L. Bailey is listed as Unity08’s President and CEO.
Who are the current officers of Unity08?
Answer: Jim Jonas at Peak Creative Media served as President and CEO for a short period of time. Subsequently, Doug Bailey was appointed President & CEO. Doug operates in this role 24/7 as a volunteer. We still encounter places where Jim Jonas is listed as President or CEO and are working to update all references.
6. Founders’ Council member Douglas L. Bailey has stated that “There is no one on the Founders Council who intends or wants to benefit financially from Unity08.†Does this mean that no members of the Founders’ Council will engage in paid work for Unity08? Does this mean that no members of the Founders’ Council will receive compensation for any work for a campaign resulting from Unity08 nomination? Does this mean that no members of the Founders’ Council will receive compensation for any work for a presidential administration resulting from the successful election of Unity08 candidates to the White House?
Answer: It means that there are no secret or hidden agendas by the Unity08 founders. Doug Bailey, Jerry Rafshoon, Angus King and others – some of our most active founders – receive nothing other than occasional reimbursement for expenses. The law firm Steptoe & Johnson is representing Unity08 in its legal proceedings with the FEC, and Unity08 is incurring fees for those services from that law firm at a standard, appropriate rate. Founders Council member Tom Collier is a partner at that firm.
7. On July 18, 2006, Founders Council Member Doug Bailey indicated of members of the Founders Council that “Some will have expenses reimbursed…. And a few will be providing their business services at standard rates.†Thomas Collier, Robert E. Jordan, John J. Duffy, and Anthony A. Onorato of the law firm Steptoe and Johnson have provided legal services in their filings with the FEC, which resulted in Unity08 needing to be reclassified as a PAC, not a 527. But there is no indication in the 2nd quarter and 3rd quarter reports currently available to the public of any compensation or reimbursement of Collier, Jordan, Duffy, Onorato or the firm of Steptoe and Johnson for their services. Were these services donated? If not, how much compensation or reimbursement has been paid, and how much is due?
These services were not and cannot be donated. Steptoe & Johnson has been charging Unity08 at appropriate and standard rates for work performed. At this point, we have not compensated Steptoe for their services, but will be over time.
8. Anya T. Harris refers to herself in a number of places on and off the Unity08 website as “Chief Operating Officer of Unity08″. Yet there is no mention in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th quarter reports to the IRS (either in the original or revised reports) of Anya Harris (or any Chief Operating Officer) receiving compensation. Has the Chief Operating Officer of Unity08 been compensated in any manner for her work, which includes hiring and supervision as well as the website work she has been carrying out? If so, for what amount and out of what source of funds?
9. The 2nd and 3rd Quarter IRS reports currently available to the public indicate that for over this six month period, Shane Kinkennon has been compensated $7,669.41. Is this a “standard rate†for professional public relations services? Has Mr. Kinkennon been further compensated for his work in this six-month period?
Answer to #8 & #9: Both Anya Harris and Shane Kinkennon are paid monthly by Unity08 for their work on behalf of the movement. Those fees are standard and appropriate for their experience, scope of work and level of effort. All expenses will be reflected in the IRS filings for the quarters in which those payments are remitted.
10. Has any group or person other than Unity08 compensated or reimbursed individuals for their Unity08-related work? If so, who and for how much?
Answer: As is standard for any operating entity, Unity08 has several vendor relationships, which in turn, compensate their staff for services performed on behalf of Unity08. All expenses will be reflected in the IRS filings for the quarters in which those payments are remitted.
11. Unity08’s second quarter statement lists $18,700 (a significant portion of all donations) as having been donated to it in the year 2002. Is this a typographical error? If it is not a typographical error, how does this mesh with the description of Unity08 in its May 30, 2006 press release as a “new grassroots organization†that has been “building for months,†not years?
Answer: Unfortunately, this was a typographical error. It should have been listed as 2006. Your YouTube video posted on 2/12/07 portrays this honest typo as something other than this. Perhaps you could amend your video to reflect that this was a typo. That seems fair to us.
12. Unity08 has commissioned a national poll with Princeton Survey Research. I cannot find any description of expenses associated with a national poll on either the 2nd quarter or 3rd quarter reports of expenses that are currently available to the public. Did Unity08 pay for this poll? If so, please clarify the extent of those expenses. If Unity08 did not pay for this poll, who did pay for the poll?
Answer: One of Unity08’s grassroots advocacy partners paid for the survey, and Unity08 subsequently paid them.
13. What is the total dollar amount of all donations — including those under $200 — received thus far by Unity08?
Answer: If you add the donations reported in Q2, Q3 and Q4 as reported in the IRS filings, the total donations reported is $451,417.
14. If Unity08 has a positive balance in its accounts, what is that balance? If Unity08 is in debt at this point, by how much? From whom is it obtaining loans, if it is in debt?
Answer: Our balance changes daily. The pace of contributions is increasing – particularly the pace of small-dollar online contributions. The founders always envisioned that it would require about $1 million in $5,000 contributions to get us up and running, and at about that time, small-dollar online donations would carry the movement forward. We’re about at the half-way mark for achieving that million-dollar target, and are hopeful that our vision of small dollar donations turns out to be true.
There was no start-up loan, though we are looking at options for that in case we need them. And sure, we’ve built up some debt. But it’s at an appropriate level for an emerging entity like ours.
15. Carolyn Tieger is co-chair of the Unity08 Rules Committee. Thomas C. Collier is the other co-chair of the Unity08 Rules Committee. Sayuri Yamada Matthews is a member of the Unity08 Rules Committee. Tieger is a leader of Porter Novelli, a registered lobbying firm. Collier and Yamada Matthews are registered lobbyists. Are there other members of the Unity08 leadership, or employees of Unity08, who are now or have been leaders of registered lobbying firms or registered lobbyists? If so, who are they?
Answer: Not that we know of, though we did not use this question as a threshold test for joining with us.
16. Carolyn Tieger is a leader of a registered lobbying firm. Thomas C. Collier is a registered lobbyist. In the lawsuit against the FEC, Tieger and Collier claim as plaintiffs that they have contributed money to Unity08 and would like to contribute “substantially more.†How does this square with the claim on Unity08’s home page that “Unlike the other parties we don’t have lobbyists bankrolling our work�
=====
Caveat on #15 and #16:
Look, I’m just a self-employed guy with student loans and two kids. These are people who have a lot more money and resources at their disposal than I have. So I don’t want to get my pants sued off. I also don’t want to be unfair. Really and truly.
For that reason, I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not meant to be a personal attack against Carolyn Tieger, Thomas C. Collier, the lawyer lobbyists who work with Thomas C. Collier, or Sayuri Yamada Matthews. I don’t know them, and I’ve never spoken in person with them. They may be perfectly nice people. The issue is Unity08 and its choices as an organization.
Answer: Tom and Carolyn chose to be involved in Unity08, understanding that we aspire to reduce the role of special interest money in elections. We are glad to have them involved. What Unity08 strives for, as part of its mission, is to reduce the role of huge corporate checks in candidate campaigns. We don’t want to stop corporate and other interests from trying to make their voices heard to elected officials – that’s their right under the law. We just want to reduce the way in which they create opportunities to make their voices heard by using money to get their favorite candidate into office. In other words, we just don’t want elected officials feeling obligated to a select few special interests because those interests bankrolled their campaigns.
Tom and Carolyn’s leadership and their generosity – limited by our $5,000 cap – pose no risk to Unity08’s mission. They share Unity08’s goal of creating something new, where the American people have a greater say than special interests in who gets elected. We’re delighted to have them and their expertise on board, as should anyone who hopes for success for this movement.
=====
17. How can Unity08 reconcile these two statements?
A. FAQ from unitypetition.com:
“Is anyone being paid for this Unity Petition effort?
No. It is entirely volunteer, from top to bottom.â€
B. 4th Quarter 2006 IRS Form 8872:
Recipient’s name, mailing address and ZIP code: Christine McGuire, , NJ
Name of recipient’s employer: N/A
Recipient’s occupation: N/A
Amount of Expenditure: $400
Date of Expenditure: 10/12/2006
Purpose of expenditure: Unity Petition Outreach
=====
Recipient’s name, mailing address and ZIP code: Christine McGuire, NJ
Name of recipient’s employer: N/A
Recipient’s occupation: N/A
Amount of Expenditure: $800
Date of Expenditure: 11/01/2006
Purpose of expenditure: Unity Petition Outreach
=====
Recipient’s name, mailing address and ZIP code: Christine McGuire, NJ
Name of recipient’s employer: N/A
Recipient’s occupation: N/A
Amount of Expenditure: $500
Date of Expenditure: 11/15/2006
Purpose of expenditure: Unity Petition Outreach
Answer: Christine served as coordinator for the high-school volunteers. She was reimbursed for expenses – sign creation, petition photocopying, etc. As the administrator of the Unity Petition at the “headquarters,†she was the only person to receive a small stipend for her work. The hundreds of other volunteers across the country were unpaid. PLEASE NOTE: We do not advocate the public posting of personal data associated with those who work with us, including their names and home addresses. This is a violation of their privacy and we ask that you cease this activity immediately.
18. In its legally-required 4th Quarter IRS Report, Unity08 lists the following mailing addresses:
P O Box 12545
Arlington, VA 22219
The custodian of records, Daniel J. Radek, also has a listed mailing address of
P O Box 12545
Arlington, VA 22219
Peter G. Peterson of The Blackstone Group, Inc. contributed $5,000 and has a listed mailing address of
P O Box 12545
Arlington, VA 22219
Leon M. Wagner of Goldentree Asset Management contributed $5,000 and has a listed mailing address of
P O Box 12545
Arlington, VA 22219
Glenn Dubin of Highbridge Capital contributed $5,000 and has a listed mailing address of
P O Box 12545
Arlington, VA 22219
Alison Mass Bommarito of Goldman Sachs contributed $5,000 and has a listed mailing address of
P O Box 12545
Arlington, VA 22219
Five more contributors have a listed mailing address of
P O Box 12545
Arlington, VA 22219
Also according to the report, Merchant Banking Services, American Express, Beehive Marketing, Verizon, Kinkennon Communications, TigerTel, and Manning also have mailing addresses of
P O Box 12545
Arlington, VA 22219
Exactly how large is this Post Office Box? If these are not the correct addresses, what are the correct addresses? Please post them promptly and publicly.
Also, please explain what specific quality control measures will be in place to prevent either the explosive over-use of a P O Box or the glaring errors that cannot be permitted in the nation’s first online presidential nomination — to take place in one year’s time.
Answer: Listing Unity08’s P.O. Box as a contact address is provided as an option by the IRS on its filing forms. These donors and the keeper of records have chosen to list Unity08’s PO Box as a contact address.
19. Note: See bottom of this question for an apparent answer to this question (the answer not provided by Unity08 itself, of course).
Unity08 writes with pride about its standards regarding donations:
“Unity08 does not accept contributions from special interests or corporations – and contributions from individuals are voluntarily capped at $5,000 (cumulative) per year.â€
It also mentions this specific contribution limit in its lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission.
And yet in its 4th Quarter 2006 IRS Form 8872, Unity08 reports accepting a contribution of $23,545 on December 31, 2006. The mailing address of the contributor as given is identical to the mailing address of Unity08. Who is this contributor? We cannot say. The report informs the IRS that this contributor’s name will be “Withheld.â€
Also “Withheld†in this report is the name of a person who received a $359 payment from Unity08, also on December 31, 2006. The recipient of this payment is also given as identical to the mailing address of Unity08. And what service or good was this payment in exchange for? We cannot tell: the description provided is “miscellaneous.â€
Will Unity08 provide properly thorough and public details of these transactions?
[2/6/07 Update: Unity08 still has not provided documentation of these transactions. However, revised 2nd Quarter and 3rd Quarter Form 8872 reports to the IRS, needed because of extensive errors in Unity08’s first filings, show similar “Withheld†lines for expenditures and for contributions. These are in the same place in each quarter: at the end of Attachments A and B. This format appears to show that these are totals of expenditures below a certain threshhold (I do not know what that threshold is) and donations below a $200 threshhold.
Answer: We have responded to this question in other places, but will clarify any new points here. We are not required to itemize individual donations below $200 and expenses below $500. The instructions provided by the IRS require us to list those aggregate donations and expenses as “Withheld.†Here is the language:
Per the instructions for IRS Form 8872, page 3 under section Schedule A – Itemized Contributions, subsection Non-Disclosed Amounts, “As the last entry on Schedule A, list the aggregate amount of contributions that are required to be reported on this schedule for which the organization does not disclose all of the information required under section 527(j). Enter “Withheld†as the contributor’s name.â€
20. Unity08 makes a great deal (link | link) of its current annual contribution limit of $5,000 for individuals (a limit it paradoxically is suing the FEC to do away with).
On its donations web page as of January 5, 2007, Unity08 claimed that Unity08 Founder and lawsuit plaintiff Angus King had already given $1,000 to Unity08 as of September 30, 2006, and asserted that this website report was thoroughly accurate. 3rd QuarterThis donation is confirmed in Unity08’s latest 3rd Quarter 2006 report to the IRS, which clarifies further that Angus King gave this donation on September 15, 2006. In its report to the IRS regarding the 4th Quarter of 2006, Unity08 reports that Angus King donated $5,000 to Unity08 on October 3, 2006. This would take Angus King’s donations for the year of 2006 to $6,000 — above the contribution limit.
Has Unity08 accepted more than its contribution limit, or is there an error in Unity08’s reporting?
Answer: It has been recognized that Angus King’s cumulative donations in 2006 exceeded our $5,000 limit by $1,000 and we are returning this check.
21. With the new year, Unity08 rolled out a Clean Money Pledge. It challenged members of the public to sign on to a statement in which they committed to the following plan of action: “I will only vote for a presidential candidate who has raised more than half of his/her funds through small contributions of $250 or less.†It further sent out letters to presidential candidates in the Republican and Democratic parties, challenging them to commit to take a majority of their funds from donations of $250 or less.
In an aside, Unity08 noted:
“Like the weather, most politicians pay lip service to the dangers of special interest lobbyist money in Washington, but few do anything about it –except take the money.â€
“Well, if a new President is going to try to talk the talk of cleaning up the lobbyist money culture in Washington that so corrodes the democratic process, he or she had better have walked the walk in their 2008 campaign.â€
Has Unity08 followed the spirit of its own Clean Money Pledge? Has it walked the walk or just talked the talk?
From Unity08’s own 4th Quarter report to the IRS, here are the timings and dollar amounts of donations to Unity08 in the 4th Quarter of 2006, by those who donated at least $200 during the whole year of 2006:
10/6/2006 $5,000
10/6/2006 $5,000
10/23/2006 $5,000
10/25/2006 $5,000
10/25/2006 $5,000
11/1/2006 $5,000
11/7/2006 $5,000
12/7/2006 $5,000
10/3/2006 $5,000
10/3/2006 $5,000
10/3/2006 $5,000
10/3/2006 $5,000
10/3/2006 $5,000
10/3/2006 $5,000
10/6/2006 $5,000
10/6/2006 $5,000
10/16/2006 $5,000
10/16/2006 $5,000
10/16/2006 $5,000
10/16/2006 $5,000
10/20/2006 $5,000
10/23/2006 $1,000
10/23/2006 $200
10/23/2006 $200
10/23/2006 $75
10/24/2006 $200
10/25/2006 $1,000
10/25/2006 $5,000
10/25/2006 $5,000
10/25/2006 $5,000
10/27/2006 $5,000
11/1/2006 $5,000
11/2/2006 $5,000
11/3/2006 $5,000
11/3/2006 $5,000
11/7/2006 $5,000
11/7/2006 $5,000
11/7/2006 $300
11/10/2006 $5,000
11/10/2006 $5,000
11/10/2006 $5,000
11/10/2006 $5,000
11/10/2006 $5,000
11/20/2006 $5,000
11/20/2006 $5,000
11/27/2006 $200
12/1/2006 $5,000
12/4/2006 $5,000
12/4/2006 $5,000
12/5/2006 $5,000
12/5/2006 $5,000
12/5/2006 $100
12/7/2006 $5,000
12/11/2006 $5,000
12/11/2006 $5,000
12/11/2006 $5,000
12/12/2006 $5,000
12/12/2006 $5,000
12/12/2006 $5,000
12/12/2006 $5,000
12/14/2006 $5,000
12/14/2006 $5,000
12/17/2006 $5,000
12/22/2006 $5,000
12/26/2006 $100
12/27/2006 $5,000
Additionally, on 12/31/2006 $23,545 is reported in donations as “Withheld.†This figure represents the total of all donations of less than $200 during the 4th Quarter. With the $1,075 in donations of at least $200 but of no more than $250 added to that, the total dollar amount of donations coming from donations of $250 or less during the 4th quarter appears to come to $24,620.
The total donated to Unity08 in the 4th Quarter of 2006 (remember, by those who donated at least $200 in all of 2006) was a whopping $306,920. Where did most of this surge come from? From $5,000 donations. Only 8.0% of the dollar value of all 4th Quarter Donations come from donations of $250 or less. 92.0% of the dollar value of those donations come from donations of more than $250.
Why is Unity08 asking other political parties to sign on to its Clean Money pledge of no more than half of the dollar value of donations coming from contributions of $250 — when Unity08 garnered a full 92% of the dollar value of its donations from donations of more than $250?
Answer: Unity08 is asking for $5,000 donations right now to provide the financing of the operations of the movement until the point in time when we have enough Delegates to enable small-dollar contributions to sustain and grow the movement. We are doing everything we can to recruit Delegates so that transition happens sooner rather than later, and anyone who has visited www.unity08.com lately will notice the sharpened focus on Delegate recruitment.
Please understand that our $5,000 contributors get nothing in return. There is no ambassadorship. There are no special privileges. These donors believe one thing – they are making an early investment in a platform that is going to give everyday Americans across the country a far greater say in who gets to run for president. We see no irony or conflict and are grateful for their generosity. One other point to note: There are FAR fewer $5,000 donors than donors from individual Americans across the country. It would be great for you to profile the hundreds of those delegate donors who are truly new pioneers as far as we are concerned. Don’t they deserve the same publicity as our $5,000 donors?
Does Unity08 [2/6/07: Updated text to reflect knowledge of the origin of the $23,545 figure.
=====
Some of these questions were posed at the end of January 2007, but I have been asking many of these questions before in one form or another since the summer of 2006 — and Unity08 has refused to answer them. Unity 08 refers to itself as a “grassroots organization†and a “people’s movement.†A grassroots organization responds to the grassroots. A people’s movement responds to the people within it. Let’s see whether Unity08 answers these questions — or continues to ignore them.
________________________________________
February 1, 2007
While we appreciate your questions, right now we’d like to get back to the business of recruiting Delegates for our historic online convention. If you have further questions regarding Unity08’s finances, we’ll direct you to our quarterly IRS filings.
Wow, Jim. So many more questions.
Just what’s up with these “vendor relationships” and “grassroots advocacy partners?”
So much going on behind the scenes…
Why, just take a look at the post Doug Bailey made right around the same time:
Below is a Q&A with Unity08’s Doug Bailey, answering some commonly asked questions by contributors, online community members, the media, and others. We’re going to try periodically to sum up the most current questions and answer them here.
Question: What candidates do you expect to seek the Unity08 nomination?
Answer: We try not to speculate in order to avoid showing or implying any favoritism of any kind. So let me leave it at this: We have sensed significant interest in what we are doing. I believe many are watching our progress in recruiting delegates and will watch progress through the year on ballot access. In other words, when our field of dreams is built, we believe many will come.
Question: Can someone be drafted for the nomination?
Answer: Yes. The Rules Committee is deliberating now on the guidelines of such an effort. It is a question we get asked a lot.
Question: You talk about a Unity Ticket of one Republican and one Democrat in whatever order – but may an independent run for the Unity08 nomination?
Answer: Absolutely. What we say is that, to be on the convention ballot, an independent must present a Unity Team, such as a Republican for Vice President and a Democrat who will be named Secretary of State.
Question: What are the most important steps you see Unity08 taking in 2007?
Answer: Of the first six priorities, the first three are delegate recruitment, delegate recruitment, delegate recruitment. (So sign up now – and tell your family, friends, and neighbors.) Also, the Rules Committee needs to spell out the rules of theUnity08 process so we can post them on the website and get delegate input. The process of ballot access must be begun wherever state laws permit it early. And we need to open Convention Hall to the delegates early this Spring.
Question: Why have you not filed with the FEC?
Answer: We are challenging the FEC decision that we are a political committee supporting a particular candidate. So we have not filed with them but, while pursuing our legal challenge, we are following the guidelines of their opinion – that is, limiting our contributions to $5000/year, and publicly reporting all contributions of $200 or more to the IRS.
Question: Do you report all contributions over $200 on your website?
Answer: Yes – at http://www.Unity08.com/donors. It took us awhile to get organized properly to report them accurately and we apologize for that, but I think the process is now under control.
Question: Is it true that you have accepted a donation of over $20,000 and have not reported the name of the donor?
Answer: No. Some have apparently misconstrued one item in our filing with the IRS, which asks us to lump together all contributions of under $200 without identifying the names of the many contributors.
Question: Early on, you said you wouldn’t take contributions of over $5000 a year. Is that still true?
Answer: Yes. That was the policy before the FEC decision and it is still the policy, even though the Republicans and Democrats may receive contributions of $25,000 a person. Frankly, it makes achieving ballot access in all 50 states much more difficult under that restriction, but we’ll get it done.
Question: Why are you challenging the FEC decision?
Answer: The FEC misunderstood the nature of the organization and concluded that Unity08 was a political committee supporting a candidate. That is simply wrong. We have no candidate and will not have one until the convention in the Spring of 2008 nominates one. Frankly, in order to jump start the ballot access process we would like to be able to take a few loans to be repaid from contributions of no more than $5,000. (That seems only fair since the two parties, who don’t have ballot access expenses, can each take gifts of up to five times that amount.)
Question: Your “Clean Money Pledge†asks candidates for President to raise at least 50% of their funds in contributions of $250 or less. Why doesn’t Unity08 follow that policy itself?
Answer: While we are not a candidate, it absolutely is our intention to meet the 50% standard ourselves. As our delegate base grows steadily we expect our small dollar contributor base to grow steadily as well. The early $5000 donors enable the infrastructure to make it all happen.
Question: You mentioned Convention Hall? What is that?
Answer: This Spring we will give every Delegate a passcode to enter Convention Hall online, where they will participate in delegate polls, set up their own issue or candidate caucuses, and view the materials of candidates or draft movements seeking their support.
Question: Will you have a platform?
Answer: Not in the traditional sense of the party platforms that are ignored by candidates and voters alike. What we are planning is development of a New American Agenda, with the delegates themselves deciding which issues are the ones crucial to the future safety and well-being of the United States, and which questions the candidates should answer on those crucial issues. The Unity08 Agenda will be the questions decided by the Delegates; the candidate’s Agenda will be his/her answers. We think it is the way to get all candidates in all parties to focus on the issues most Americans care about – not just those in the “base†of each party.
Question: Why should we trust a bunch of political “insiders†to set this up?
Answer: Obviously it is hard not be cynical about anything in Washington these days, and we agree that it might be better if this were done out of Boise or any Springfield. We’ve made our share of mistakes – and we’ll make more – but we think the experience of committed volunteers can help. Our goal? Empower the people to take their country back. 2008 is a moment of truth for America. It needs our help – and yours.
If someone is interested in being drafted as, let’s say, “secretary of state, how would that person know they were being considered for the draft?
I don’t know, Diane. But when I read that a Unity08 platform could now include a Republican President and a Democrat Secretary of State, in combination with reporting from multiple sources that Unity08 has been in direct talks with Republicans including Chuck Hagel and Michael Bloomberg, I am even more skeptical about this organization’s intentions.
Intentions cannot be confirmed if Unity08 leadership will not be transparent about its behaviors, and so that leaves me frustrated. But thinking about this in the converse — not why should I disbelieve Unity08?, but instead do I have reason to trust Unity08? — I have to answer at this time that I do not have reason for trust.
No way. If you read what the FEC said, they understand very clearly that Unity08 does not have a candidate yet. Neither do the Republicans or Democrats. The FEC did say that the stated goal of Unity08 is to run candidates for president and vice president, and that the ballot access they want is meant to be a placeholder for their eventual candidates.
The lawsuit is nothing more than a stalling tactic to hide the source of their money. Likewise with the “loan” thing. If someone “loans” them money in amounts larger than $5000 and they can’t pay it back, then what? It’s an uncollectable debt and “someone”–the hidden individual or nation–writes it off on their taxes or pays for it out of their national security agency’s secret slush fund. And Unity08 is technically separate from the entities they share office space with, so the main agency won’t get saddled with Unity08 debt.
ha ha ha ha. Unity08 has the same suite number in the Watergate hotel complex as these other groups and they don’t even know who they share a key with?
Jim, when does one know they have been given one’s trust and what example would one give that that trust has been breached?
As an after thought to my previous post, I must say that I continue to struggle with Unity ’08s campain. I have been diligently trying to figure out and understand what Unity ’08 is really all about. On the surface, it legitimately appears to me to be a grassroots organization focused on electing the next leader of the White House. But for some reason, for which I do not know why, I feel there are “shades of gray” written in these answers to be interpreted another way. Which of course, would be great for someone who is considered color blind. Unfortunately, I am not color blind and need things spelled out in black and white. So, if there is anyone out there willing to explain all of this to me in laymen’s terms, it certainly would be appreciated.
I think, Diane, that Unity08 is the only one who really knows what’s going on and what their motives are and who is the hidden money behind the organization. It doesn’t help that they are very slow to explain and have not kept their promises. My spider sense tells me something is not right, and yours does too.
The pieces of the puzzle that Jim has put together definately do not fit the picture they are trying to paint of themselves. If someone says “trust me”, I have to wonder why. On the other hand Jim says, “you don’t have to trust me, here is the evidence in public documents.” I have followed all of Jim’s links and read all of the documents about Unity08 he refers to. When Jim says something is in a document, it is always there. He has a definate political point of view, yes, but what he writes is always, always very careful and very accurate.
If you really want to get involved in grassroots politics, I would recommend you volunteer to work for a candidate in one of the major parties first. Something in your neighborhood with people you can see and a real rented office space, not an imaginary group with an imaginary candidate working out of a P.O. box. Stuff envelopes or whatever they do these days. Or go to your local university and sign up for a political science class.
Whether one person can actually make a difference in the political process is anybody’s guess, I would say probably not. But you will be a better person and a better citizen for having participated, even if it only means voting on election day.
Thank you very much Anonymous for responding but, before I close tonight, I have to ask you why do you feel “one person” cannot make a difference? I’m no bible thumper but I do believe in Jesus and had it not been for him, “one person” what do you think our world would be like today? Better, worse or indifferent?
I have one more question for you, Anonymous, regarding the reference made to “trust me”. Remember the story about the little boy who cried “wolf” too many times. Well, why is it that those who whole-heartedly mean and back what they say are treated like those who cry “wolf?”
Well, I’m not really an expert on religious movements, but I it’s true that from time to time religious leaders emerge who resonate with the people of the time, and often for many generations afterward. Jesus, Mohammed, Gandhi,…I am Christian myself but I have a great respect for the inspiration people of other faiths take from their own religious leaders,…but I don’t believe in mixing politics with religion, other than to protect the right of people to worship as they please.
There have been many good things and also been many heinous things done in the name of religion. Whether they balance out, who can say. My father used to say “there are good reasons and there are real reasons”. I suspect religion is too often something people trot out as a ‘good reason’ when they have another ‘real reason’ for doing something.
Did your father tell you how long it should take before you could spot the difference between “good” and “real”? All my life I have been punished and taken advantage of for believing and trusting people for both “good” and “real” reasons and I still can’t tell the difference 38 years later.
You sure do have a lot of questions Diane, but I suspect it’s part of the political game to pretend like someone you don’t agree with politically is not wrapped too tight, especially if you don’t have a logical answer to their questions.
Here’s a nice Valentine story. I was sitting in the local coffeeshop tonight just hanging out–I know the guy who works there–and eating chocolate, you’ve got to love any holiday that you can use as an excuse to eat chocolate–and my buddy turned and said to me, “congratulate me, today’s my anniversary.” I thought at first it was his wedding anniversary. Then he said he hadn’t had a drink for 32 years. What an interesting day to pick to quit drinking.
I do have a lot of questions so I’ll save them for some other time. Instead, I’ll thank you for conversing with me tonight. It may not be my anniversary but it sure isn’t anything to celebrate either.
You can never know someone else’s motives–who can read minds? You can only know what they say and what they do. I think what you’re talking about is ‘boundaries’. If you want to get into that idea more, try authors who write about the issues surrounding Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACOA).Google it, it’s too hard to explain. Now I need to set some healthy boundaries and get some rest, my 4 hour nap is about to expire and tomorrow I have promises to keep.
Diane wrote: “when does one know they have been given one’s trust and what example would one give that that trust has been breached?”
This is a good question. The way I think about it, trust is observable in a way that intentions are not. The most trite answer is when someone says, “Trust me.” And the other person says “OK.” But that’s incomplete, because trust comes out of a situation. One person (or organization) asks a second person (or organization) to do something that is dangerous to them, or requires sacrifice, in a situation where the truth or outcome is not clear. Trust is the act of that second person (or organization) going along with the first’s request, even when logic and facts do not support that request.
There can be reasons to trust an organization, and I think those reasons usually boil down to history and the argument of consistency. An organization may have a history of making claims that turn out later to be true, and so you may deem it trustworthy and give it the benefit of your doubt. A person may have similarly proven trustworthy in the past. With people, emotions may fall into this — feelings of affection and affection may lead one to ignore the facts staring one in the face, and give one’s trust (isn’t this the basis of so many soap operas?).
Unity08 is asking for trust. But Unity08 is a new organization with no history before 2006. Some people who are involved in Unity08 have histories of exactly the sort of activity Unity08 abhors. They’re asking for your money, and the stakes (the most powerful political office in the whole world) are really high. For that reason, I don’t think it’s a good idea to trust Unity08. I think Unity08 has to make a very, very good case before we give it the benefit of our doubt.
Just curious, if you are having doubts now about the organization, why do you think the organization can convince you otherwise?
I don’t know if the organization can. It’s looking decreasingly likely, but it’s up to the organization.
http://www.youthvote.org/site1/members/coalition/freedomsanswer.htm
Jim Jones…do they mean Jim Jonas?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126536,00.html
Have you heard of these people?
I don’t know who they mean, but there must be tens of thousands of Jim Joneses in the country at the least. Look at the lower left corner on this page — the advisory council for Freedom’s Answer is made up of some organizations that have reputations for being on the up-and-up as to their activities.
Look at Freedom’s Answer here: http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/civicengagement/xenos_circle-bx-youthsites-appendix.pdf
Jim Jonas was involved with Freedom’s Answer – maybe they really did mean Jim Jonas on YouthVote.
Looks like a lot of the players from Freedom’s Answer are now with Unity08.
Interesting. Tom, are you compiling your knowledge regarding Unity08 anywhere on the web?
No I’m not Jim. I think that all of us concerned about Unity08 should stay here – at IrregularTimes.com. We will be able to achieve more working together.
I’ll be sure to let you know, in one form or another, what I find out about Unity08. You do a better job documenting and presenting all of this information than I could do, and you seem to have a little more time to dedicate to this than I do.
That Fox article had a few quotes from some interesting names – you remember them from Unity08′s IRS statements, don’t you?
Actually, I’d disagree with you strongly on that. I think it’s really, really, really important for as many people as are concerned about Unity08 to begin their own centers with questions they may have. That way, the criticism is distributed, and can’t be undercut because someone in Unity08 digs up that they used to blow up hamsters with bottle rockets. Hypothetically speaking.
Tom, you know what I’d suggest? If you really want to keep things focused on Irregular Times, you might want to consider the Irregular Times diary system. One bonus there is that you’d get to post your own full articles, as long as you like them, with nobody editorially controlling you. It’s part of the Irregular Times webpage, though, so if it’s that important to you that Unity08 materials be at Irregular Times, you can go nuts there without having to have your gems be stuck in a comments section that can be very long.
Are you getting around to the volunteers in Freedom’s Answer from back when? The kids involved became some of the founders and other young people’s faces in the Unity08 organization, because Bailey brought them aboard, because Bailey was centrally involved with Freedom’s Answer? Is that where you’re headed? This is already out there in the sickly sweet Atlantic Monthly article.
Or is there more to the story? Write, Tom, write!
Some observations about Unity08′s answers:
“Grassroots advocacy partners” indeed. Looks like there are some shadow organizations and Unity 08 is just a front. The other organizations pay for stuff. U08 collects mailing lists and asks for donations.
U08 is suddenly very eager to disassociate themselves from Jim Jonas. Isn’t this the same guy in the uTube video, and isn’t this the same Founder guy who was interviewed in the article “concerned” dug up saying he was unhappy with the direction of the Republican Party but would always be a Republican and would always work for the Republican party?
“These services were not and cannot be donated. Steptoe & Johnson has been charging Unity08 at appropriate and standard rates for work performed. At this point, we have not compensated Steptoe for their services, but will be over time.” It doesn’t say that someone else–like a ‘grassroots advocacy partner’–has NOT compensated the law firm.
“Both Anya Harris and Shane Kinkennon are paid monthly by Unity08 for their work on behalf of the movement.” Enter one of the ‘grassroots advocacy partners’? It doesn’t say they are not paid by someone else as well. In fact they may be employees of another organization and only devote a tiny amount of time to the Unity08 Mailing List Project. I think Peak Creative media is a good candidate for a ‘grassroots advocacy partner’, and I think South Korea is another one.
“There are FAR fewer $5,000 donors than donors from individual Americans across the country. It would be great for you to profile the hundreds of those delegate donors who are truly new pioneers as far as we are concerned. Don’t they deserve the same publicity as our $5,000 donors?” The first sentence I can’t really parse. Then they talk about “delegate donors” who have hitherto remained unsung heroes. I think they mean to publish this list of delegates who are also donors in the same way they posted the names of $5000 donors earlier. Either that or the person who wrote it doesn’t read the U08 website.
“As is standard for any operating entity, Unity08 has several vendor relationships, which in turn, compensate their staff for services performed on behalf of Unity08.” Before on the u08 website, Anya T. Harris was using words like ‘gotcha’ along with a breezy slang style. Interesting how she can switch her writing style around and suddenly start writing phrases like “operating entity” and “on behalf of”.
Some observations about the unscheduled Anya T. Harris phone call:
The call was only unscheduled from Jim’s point of view. From the point of view of Anya T. Harris, she knew exactly when she was making the call. I don’t know what state she called from or whether it is legal to tape your own phone calls there, but I give you hundred to one odds she taped that call.
Jim repeatedly told her in advance it would be unacceptible to have a phone conversation that was not recorded by both parties, and now we find he has gone back on his words and done exactly that. How did she con him into that? Some ideas: 1)she is good at conning because she has had practice. 2)she made him an offer he couldn’t refuse (like finding out about that hamster thing he did back in the 8th grade with that Simpson boy). 3)it was Valentine’s Day and he wanted to be gallant (okay, okay, but women did go crazy for Bill Clinton just for his power, and ATH did say she has met personally with all the $5000 donors) 4)He had problems trying to remember the conversation. That often happens to people who are asked to testify against gangsters. Of course if she said something illegal he wouldn’t be able to prove it without a recording, and it would be lawsuit time if he said something he couldn’t prove. From now on perhaps we can expect, well, he has to finish profiling the contributors or it would look fishy, but maybe his tone will become more concilatory and he will suddenly find other topics more worthy of his pen, then some of the U08 info will disappear in a software glitch (unavoidable they can be). I really hope someone has the budget to snap up the unity08watch domain name and at least post a couple links.
When Harris made that unscheduled call, she put Jim in a difficult position–refuse to accept the call because he wasn’t prepared to record it (and look like he was stonewalling), or take the call even though he couldn’t record it (and look like he was sharing information with Unity ’08 without any record of its contents).
Disorganized? Cleverly manipulative? A bit of both?
Jim’s best initial response should probably have been, “Sure, let’s talk. Just a minute, I’ll get my tape recorder.”
Jim, ask them if they taped the call, ask for a copy, and keep a recording device by the phone as long as you’re dealing with these people.
In many states you can’t record someone on the telephone without informing them they are being recorded.(unless you are homeland security) Why did Ms. Harris suddenly decide on a written communication after specifically requesting a telephone interview, then why did she see the need to contact Jim by phone after the written communication was already posted? The really, really interesting question is what Anya T. Harris had to say to Jim that she didn’t want a record of.
Oooh, oooh, and what does her voice sound like? We know Jim sounds like Rocky the Flying Squirrel, but does Anya T. Harris sound like Cruella DeVille? For some reason I always pictured her with really short hair, a gravelly voice, tight-fitting short sleeved polyester outfits, and three lit cigarettes in an ash try.