11.19.10
Posted in Gessing, Paul J. Gessing, Politics, albuquerque, astroturf, astroturfing, economy, new mexico, nmsu, reaganism, rio grande foundation at 3:52 pm by Administrator
Paul J. Gessing (please read the previous 1 and 2 blog posts) refused to answer allegations that he deliberately misleads the public and local media organizations by claiming he has written articles for U.S. News and World Report.
US News and World Report answered queries about Gessing with this one line email response, “We have looked into this and we do not have any record of Paul J. Gessing writing any articles for us”.
Here’s a screen grab of Gessing’s Bio (third paragraph mentions USN&WR):
Gessing's Bio on Rio Grande Foundation website.
At this writing I have not heard from the Wall Street Journal’s or the Washington Post’s archivists regarding Gessing’s claims to have ‘written articles’ for those newspapers. But I have searched the archives and I suspect that, at best, Gessing has written Op-Ed pieces or Letters to the Editor, a far cry from ‘articles’.
Gessing has used these claims coupled with the stentorian sounding ‘Rio Grande Foundation’ name to secure prominent editorial spots on several local media outlets including the local public radio station, KUNM, the Albuquerque Journal and KRQE television news 13.
Dear Media and my fellow New Mexicans, you have been astroturfed!
He has in effect used claims of having been published nationally to gain publishing credits locally; deceptive yet self-fulfilling.
I gave Gessing several opportunities to provide proof of authorship of something, anything, in the national outlets he claims. He replied, “I simply don’t have the time or desire to go into all of my files,” to find clips, or dates of publication or titles of articles or any proof whatever to avoid charges of deceptive practices by the Rio Grande Foundation and Paul J. Gessing.
More information than you want to know:
Gessing’s 990-EZ for the Rio Grande Foundation’s 501(c)(3) non-profit status (broken down in earlier posts) shows that they receive Zero, zip, nada dollars from membership dues. This despite the fact that they have an open call for dues paying members on their website. Here’s the screen grab for The 9 Club, one of the funding regimes for RGF:
,
If you look on the last graph shown you’ll see the key to the prevarication. Gessing is calling for people to become member’s of the9club, which is somehow purported by Gessing to be something other than membership in the Rio Grande Foundation. Yet the9club’s website is just a page on the Rio Grande Foundation’s website.
Here’s the URL:
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/content/the9club
Considering the weight Gessing and his ideas are given on New Mexico media outlets one would expect that the Rio Grande Foundation had a large base of organized, local members. However, after repeatedly begging (in rather unrecoited fashion) for Gessing to publish the number of New Mexico members in the RGF, I am forced to say that only eight New Mexicans can be said to belong to the Rio Grande Foundation.
Eight members. Eight. Not 24 or even 16 members. But eight.
Eight is hardly a quorum or indicative of the broad base of support one would hope media outlets would demand from a commentator to whom they give precious airtime.
In gross terms, Gessing’s organizational membership is .0004 percent of the population of New Mexico. Just think, you and seven pals can start a foundation and get on tv based on 3.98208064 × 10-6 community support.
Of course you’ll need money. So, start spouting bumper sticker right-wing doggerel and watch that corporate lucre roll into your coffers (next week I’ll compare Rio Grande Foundation’s revenues versus, oh, let’s do Save New Mexico Seed’s revenues).
I suspect fighting Monsanto is much less lucrative than fighting FOR Monsanto.
Astroturfing is when huge corporate interests start up local sounding fake ‘grass-roots’ organizations that use the massive amounts of money (Rio Grand Foundation spent almost a half million dollars last year) to sway public opinion in favor of corporate dominance of our public institutions.
As best as I can figure the Rio Grande Foundation derives less than ten percent of it’s income from local sources (basically two donors), with the rest mostly coming from prominent right wing corporate and corporate backed non-profits and foundations like The Donor’s Capital Fund, Wal-Mart, and etc…
Here’s the email exchange, for you inside baseballers:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Chris Dudley wrote:
President Gessing and Rio Grande Federation Board Members,
It appears there are some mistakes on the RGF website or on the websites of
national news organizations. on the RGF website Mr. Gessing is listed as having
published an article in the Wall Street Journal (I can only find a Letter to the
Editor) and articles in U.S. News and World Report and the Washington Post. I
could find none. No articles in major national papers or journals. In fact,
outside of local papers no articles at all. Please correct me if I’m wrong so I
can correct my blog!
What were the dates of service for Mr. Gessing at the National Taxpayer’s Union?
How many of those years was it that he (quote from your website), “headed up the
lobbying efforts of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU)”.
I’m also writing seeking information about your membership rolls at the Rio
Grande Foundation. It appears to be a rather small affair considering the weight
you’re ideas are given in local media. Should I assume that your membership
list, especially of New Mexico residents, has not been updated recently?
How many people are paying members of the Rio Grande Foundation?
How many of the paying members are residents of the state of New Mexico?
Do you derive funding from sources from out of the State of New Mexico? If so,
what is the percentage of your funding that is not provided by New Mexico
residents?
I believe RGF is a 501(c)? As such your records would be open to public
scrutiny? I’m not really familiar with RGF so please correct me if I’m wrong.
As a side note, I really appreciate your attempts at opening the NM government
records (I’m referring to your fight against the cost quoted by the Santa Fe
School District to provide their records to your organization). So that makes me
quite happy that you’ll provide the financial information requested in the
spirit of openness that should be shown by a non-profit.
I have suspicions RGF is an astroturf organization. I’d sure like to be proven
wrong,
Sincerely,
Chris Dudley
From: Paul Gessing
To: Chris Dudley
Sent: Thu, November 18, 2010 8:28:12 AM
Subject: Re: Rio Grand Foundation information
Chris,
It seems you’ve already posted your story. I would have been happy to provide information on our work, but your piece is nothing but an ill-informed attack on me and my organization.
A link to a blog posting about my Wall Street Journal article can be found here: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=6435
As you know, the WSJ charges or has charged for much of its content, so it may not be online.
Also, I have attached our most recent 990 form which is a disclosure form for 501c3 non-profits of which we are one. These are public documents and can be found at the website Guidestar.com
Sincerely,
Paul J. Gessing
–
Paul J. Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation
P.O. Box 40336
Albuquerque, N.M., 87196
www.riograndefoundation.org
505-264-6090
From: Chris Dudley
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:56:54 -0800 (PST)
To: Paul Gessing
Subject: Re: Rio Grand Foundation information
Mr. Gessing,
Am I reading the return incorrectly? Because it looks like your organization did not attract one single dues paying member in 2009 (Part 1, line 3). How many dues paying members do you have? Am I reading the return incorrectly?
Also, the total revenue for 2009 is about 53,300 more than the 205,040 you took in from donors individually giving 5000 or more (Schedule B). Yet no monies from membership dues? It would seem unlikely that a number of residents of the State of New Mexico would contribute, gift or grant your foundation monies without at least one of them also ponying up membership dues. In the spirit of sunshine and public service, where did the 53,300 come from?
How many dues paying New Mexican members does RGF have?
Thank you for providing the link to the blog post that comments on your writings in the WSJ. I’ll contact them, the Washington Post and US News and World Report tomorrow for copies of your work.
Sincerely,
Chris Dudley
From: “pgessing@riograndefoundation.org”
To: Chris Dudley
Sent: Fri, November 19, 2010 6:29:23 AM
Subject: Re: Rio Grand Foundation information
Mr. Dudley,
We are a 501c3, we are not a “membership” organization. We have a board of directors which is listed on our website and financial supporters (this is private and we are not supposed to release it).
Thanks for your interest.
Sent on the Now Network™ from my Sprint® BlackBerry
From: Chris Dudley
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:53:18 -0800 (PST)
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Rio Grand Foundation information
Paul,
Thanks for clearing up the 53,300 number, at least in saying you are prevented from telling me about it. I still wonder how many members your organization has?
And, how does ‘We are a 501c3, we are not a “membership” organization,’ comport with the9club?
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/content/the9club
If my accusation that you’re an East Coast Corporate Money Astroturfer is false I’d like to be corrected. Unfortunately the only thing that will disprove my reasoning is a membership list of New Mexico Citizens with more than nine names on it.
US News and World Report says they’ve never heard of you. Do you have dates of publication and article titles for USN&WR so that I can correct them? WSJ and WP have yet to respond but if you have information on article titles and dates in those publications it would help the archivers and have the bonus of preventing me from making false accusations about your website biography.
Typically journalist have an electronic ‘clips’ file. Perhaps you could forward the salient portions (dates, titles) USN&WR, WSJ and WP portions of your journalism vitae? With those I can purchase the articles from the relevant sources.
I sure appreciate your help in this matter,
Chris Dudley
From: “pgessing@riograndefoundation.org”
To: Chris Dudley
Sent: Fri, November 19, 2010 12:06:20 PM
Subject: Re: Rio Grand Foundation information
The 9 Club is a group of supporters who donate regularly, that’s it. On the press clips issue, I simply don’t have the time or desire to go into all of my files.
Sent on the Now Network™ from my Sprint® BlackBerry
Paul,
Okay, I’ll report that your US News and World Report claims are specious, as per US News and World Report’s statement, “We have looked into this and we do not have any record of Paul J. Gessing writing any articles for us”. I’ll wait for a bit to follow the WSJ and WP question.
Also I’ll report that your call for “membership” in RGF per your page asking people to become members is not actually “membership” but “a group of supporters”, which has the convenient effect, according to you, of RGF not having to report any of the donations despite the spirit of a non-profit organizations being open to public scrutiny; and despite your organization’s repeated calls for more sunshine in public affairs.
Also, apparently you have fewer than ten members from New Mexico and a host of out of state, paid “staff” who weigh in on subjects dear to New Mexicans.
I see no reason to believe any of the above statements is not true and I’ve given you ample time and opportunity to provide evidence otherwise.
Sincerely,
Chris Dudley
Permalink
Posted in Politics, albuquerque, economy, franchise, knme, new mexico, pbs, reaganism, wal mart at 12:45 am by Administrator
In yesterday’s blog I attacked Paul J. Gessing’s Libertarian non-profit Rio Grande foundation for appearing to be an astroturf outfit with statistically zero members and tenuous ties to New Mexico.
I heard from Paul J Gessing via email today. He answered only two of my many questions. That is, he provided a pdf of the foundation’s 2009 990-EZ and he provided a link to a blog post that discusses some of Gessing’s writing that originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
First the tax form:
Form 990-EZ provides for a separate line item for revenue received from membership dues. RGF left this line blank. Unless I’m mistaken, that means they were not able to gain one single dues paying member from anywhere in the world, let alone a genuine New Mexican.
Of the roughly 250,000 RGF took in this year most was from out of state right-wing organizations. Here’s the list:
Donor’s Capital Fund, of Virginia, $122,500
State Policy Network, of Virginia, $30,000
Roe Foundation, of South Carolina, $15,000
Wal-Mart, of Arizona, $10,000
Atlas Foundation, of DC, $10,000
There were also two large New Mexico donors, both from Albuquerque;
Jeff Van Dyke, $12,000
Chris Baum, $5,540
So… if my math’s correct, that’s under nine percent of major donations from the state of New Mexico.
The other, roughly $53,300, monies that RGF took in are not delineated but let’s make a safe bet and guess that not much of that is from NM either (remember, no new membership dues were paid to RGF in 2009).
This is classic corporate astroturfing.
Perhaps I should get a few friends together, call it a foundation and get on local media, too.
After all, what’s Gessing Got that I don’t? Oh, yeah, three years shilling for Corporate power in Washington.
You know the saddest thing about all of this? The left is allowing the Libertarians to gain legitimacy because Democrats are not standing up for the little guy against government power (only one Democratic US Senator voted against the unAmerican PATRIOT ACT) and he was just voted out of office.
Gessing actually makes sense on some serious issues, like drug offenders and sunshine laws. What’s with New Mexico being one of only three states that doesn’t stream floor arguments in the state house?
When you let yourself slip into magical thinking and utopian vision you kinda feel, well, maybe a little ‘Libertarian’.
The “freedom and Prosperity” meme is powerful.
But then you realize the Libertarians are bent on handing all the power (corporations are people, money is speech) that the Federal Government now has to amoral, , oblique multi-national corporations.
As a follow up, the NTU confirms that Gessing headed up their lobbying efforts for a few years. So I guess that would make him an expert, of a sort.
Permalink
11.17.10
Posted in albuquerque, astroturf, astroturfing, economy, lucre, new mexico, nmsu, wal mart at 9:51 pm by Administrator
Tonight KUNM, the Albuquerque public radio station, aired an interview with Paul J. Gessing, the President of the Rio Grande Foundation, a Libertarian policy group based in Santa Fe.
The occasion for the interview was a letter (pdf) sent by the RGF to incoming New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez which detailed possible ways to cut the state’s spending. RGF recommended drastic cuts in education, public transportation and New Mexico’s film industry incentives.
Being both curious of the RGF’s credentials and jealous (one must cop to one’s own fallibility), I did a quick googling.
As far as I can tell, and I’ve not heard back from the officers of the RGF whom I emailed, the RGF is comprised of nine people (plus a couple of lawyers) who live in New Mexico.
Okay, nine people, plus two lawyers. Not quite a jury.
What’s more interesting is the ’staff’ of RGF, a litany of rightwing ‘think tank’ economists from the coasts, a New Mexico Cardiologist, a website designer and.. wait for it…
A New Mexican who, “has 25 years of progressively increasing experience in corporate communications, public affairs, and business development.”
I don’t have any idea what that means either, but, if I get an answer I’ll let you know.
So, That’s 14 people in all (plus two lawyers) with the economic heavy-weights all from out of state. Maybe they’re not listing all of their members? That’s a distinct possibility.
No physical address is given. I wonder if this is a simple remission or if the offices of RGF are comprised of a desk in Gessing’s Algodones home. I’ve run businesses out of my home. There’s nothing wrong with it. I just wonder if I’d sent a letter from that desk to the governor elect’s, would it be news? Would the Gov Elect ever see it?
Which commentators are newsworthy? It’s a difficult question. I’m merely questioning whether RGF is newsworthy by dint of Chicago School of Economics ideas coupled with previous ‘media’ exposure.
Gessing’s credentials seem sound enough. Previously, he apparently “headed the lobbying efforts of the National Taxpayer’s Union.” (quote from his website). But, and it’s a big one, there may be some serious discrepancies in his claims on the RGF website. I’ve written a letter to Gessing asking for qualification of the apparent problems, details follow:
He published a Letter to the Editor in the Wall Street Journal. The Rio Grande Federation website seems to be remiss in that it says Gessing published an ‘article’ in the WSJ. I’m sure RGF will correct that.
Of course the mistake could be on the WSJ end. I once had a letter published in Harpers Magazine. I have the clipping somewhere. But I cannot get the Harper’s website to find the electronic version in their archive. Oh, how I’d like to link that!
Gessing has, according the the RGF website, published articles in U.S. News and World Report and the Washington Post. However, both of those websites return ‘not found’ messages when searched for “Paul J. Gessing”, “Paul Gessing” and “Gessing”. Of course a website search is far from thorough. I suspect the Rio Grande Foundation will provide links once they’ve been apprised of the missing articles.
The Rio Grande Foundation did once host Libertarian icon John Stossel. I’ve seen the Wikipedia entry.
My question is, have we been astroturfed again? Who funds the RGF? Apparently Gessing is able to make a living as the President of the foundation on some fairly shaky credentials (at least internety-wise). Beyond an MBA, a stint at a heavily-funded right-wing lobbying organization and some exposure in the local papers, what makes Gessing any more an expert on economics of public offices than, say, well, anyone with an MBA and a Letter to the Editor in the Wall Street Journal.
Perhaps the RGF has a few in-state wealthy backers? Maybe the RGF has simply not updated their member’s list?
At any rate, I’ve contacted the National Taxpayer’s Union to confirm that Gessing “headed up the lobbying efforts of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU)”. Hopefully the weak nature of the RGF’s website is just indicative of the same thing I suffer: terrible internet blogging skills.
In a side note to Gessing’s appearance on public radio, the NTU has recently called for an end to public funding of public radio. Yep.
Anyhoo, the Rio Grand Foundation is a 501(c) non-profit, so I guess I can find out about funding on my own if I have the gumption tomorrow. Should I bother?
OH!! if you’re still reading, here’s the letter I sent to Gessing and the Board of Directors at RGF:
President Gessing and Rio Grande Federation Board Members,
It appears there are some mistakes on the RGF website or on the websites of national news organizations. on the RGF website Mr. Gessing is listed as having published an article in the Wall Street Journal (I can only find a Letter to the Editor) and articles in U.S. News and World Report and the Washington Post. I could find none. No articles in major national papers or journals. In fact, outside of local papers no articles at all. Please correct me if I’m wrong so I can correct my blog!
What were the dates of service for Mr. Gessing at the National Taxpayer’s Union? How many of those years was it that he (quote from your website), “headed up the lobbying efforts of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU)”.
I’m also writing seeking information about your membership rolls at the Rio Grande Foundation. It appears to be a rather small affair considering the weight you’re ideas are given in local media. Should I assume that your membership list, especially of New Mexico residents, has not been updated recently?
How many people are paying members of the Rio Grande Foundation?
How many of the paying members are residents of the state of New Mexico?
Do you derive funding from sources from out of the State of New Mexico? If so, what is the percentage of your funding that is not provided by New Mexico residents?
I believe RGF is a 501(c)? As such your records would be open to public scrutiny? I’m not really familiar with RGF so please correct me if I’m wrong.
As a side note, I really appreciate your attempts at opening the NM government records (I’m referring to your fight against the cost quoted by the Santa Fe School District to provide their records to your organization). So that makes me quite happy that you’ll provide the financial information requested in the spirit of openness that should be shown by a non-profit.
I have suspicions RGF is an astroturf organization. I’d sure like to be proven wrong,
Sincerely,
Chris Dudley
Permalink
06.05.10
Posted in GMO, Genetic, Monsanto, albuquerque, chile, crop yield, economy, food safety, genetic chile, new mexico, nmsu, syngenta at 9:23 pm by Administrator
A researcher from the Russian Academy of Sciences is set, this month, to publish the results of a two-year, multi-generational food safety study on the effects of genetically modified foods (HERE).
The scientist, Alexey Surov, found that all of his hamsters that were fed high GMO soy diets, save one female, were sterile after three generations. His control groups did not suffer similar levels of sterility, including hamsters fed the same amounts of soy, but a non-GMO variety.
If published in a peer reviewed journal, Surov’s study will be the first GMO food-safety article of its kind. Typically food safety studies are conducted by the corporations that patent the GMO seed and they are done only for three months, and in secret. There has never been a long-term, multi-generational food safety study completed until Surov’s.
Surov is quick to caution that he cannot determine the exact cause of the sterility without further study. He points to many possibilities, including the GMO soy itself, the increased presence of herbicide in the food and other potential effects of the genetic manipulation like the insertion of bacterial agents or disfigured DNA.
What is clear from Surov’s preliminary finding is that hamsters fed genetically modified soy matured more slowly and lost the ability to breed as compared to hamsters fed the same diet, but with non-GMO soy.
Surov also commented about the difficulty of finding non-GMO soy; he had to go to the far reaches of Siberia to find pure crops.
Assuming that Surov’s findings of GMO-implicated sterility do nothing to stop the United State’s Government/corporate GMO juggernaut, it is important to remember the following talking points.
1. GMOs do not increase yield. There is not one single marketed GMO for increased yield, enhanced nutrition, salt resistance or drought tolerance.
2. Until Surov’s study there had never been a long term food safety study on even one GMO seed.
3. Independent food safety studies are forbidden by the corporate owners of the patents.
4. Eighty percent of GMO crops are tolerant of, not resistant to, proprietary herbicide. The plants are filled with the herbicide. They are not excluding it. Nearly all of the rest create their own pesticide; they are filled with it.
5. There just seems to be something questionable about a crop that is defended so viciously (typically scientists who detract are attacked, muffled and or defunded) by a consortium of corporate scientists and government agencies.
Okay, that last point is more mine than anything. But the scale of the attack on detractors, like Britain’s Arpad Pusztai, France’s Gil Seralini and Russia’s Irina Ermakova–all scientists who questioned the safety of GMO foods and were subsequently disproportionately ridiculed or worse–makes me wonder what sweet sugar boat they were tipping, exactly. If these industry scientists were so certain their products were safe, it would seem to me that they would be demanding more long-term, multi-generational food safety studies to defend their thesis.
As to The People’s representatives in Washington, President Obama’s latest Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, famously filed a friendly, and notably noncompulsory, brief supporting Monsanto when the company appealed a lower court ruling banning their Roundup Ready alfalfa. What’s notable is her hope, as a Federal official, that the judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would overturn an earlier court’s decision. That’s the Federal Government stepping in, where it is not a defendant–nearly unprecedented in itself–and asking an appeals court to overturn a lower, state court’s ruling. Yep. That’s our next Supreme Court judge.
It looks like Kagan will be sitting on the Supreme Court when that very same Roundup Ready Alfalfa appeal makes it to SCOTUS this summer. Wonder how she’ll vote? Wonder how Clarence Thomas will vote? He’s a former staff attorney for Monsanto’s herbicide division and he’s foregoing recusal.
What should come as no surprise is that the Obama administration is backing a GMO cheerleader for a seat on the Supreme Court. Obama appointed Tom Vilsack secretary of Agriculture and Michael Taylor as US Food Safety Czar. Vilsack was named the biotech industry’s Governor of the Year, successfully banned GMO free zones in Iowa and famously bandies about in one of Monsanto’s corporate jets.
Micheal Taylor has spent two decades bouncing back and forth between collecting hefty paychecks from Monsanto and securing those paychecks by directing the offices of the government regulatory agencies that oversee Monsanto (presumably, to not oversee Monsanto).
New Mexicans now confront bold-faced GMO/government collusion as its State University in Las Cruces brews up a genetically modified chile pepper plant, funded by the State of New Mexico. You can learn all about that research and a whole lot about Genetically Modified Organisms by seeing my film, Genetic Chile (http://genetic-chile.com) wherein I systematically dismember the glossy-brochure talking points of NMSU’s chief genetic engineer. La Montanita Coop is one of the sponsors of the film.
Permalink
