Dissecting an Error-Laden Post: Brayton v. Brayton
Max Blumenthal printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:16:34 AM EST
Ed Brayton has asserted on Talk2Action that my report on Tony Perkins' political relationship with David Duke is "inaccurate on the minor points." Actually, my reporting was based on solid facts clearly established by the Federal Elections Commission and the Louisiana press, which confirmed Perkins' payments to Duke well before I did.

Brayton was right the first time when, in a recent post on Perkins, he wrote that Perkins paid $82,500 to Duke during a 1996 political campaign. He went wrong, however, when he trusted the word of Family Research Council propagandist Joe Carter (whom he described as "honorable and honest") and corrected himself. Now Brayton must issue corrections -- again.

Here are the "minor points" Brayton says I got wrong:
It does not appear that any mailing list was bought at all; rather, a contract was given to Duke's company to make phone calls on their behalf. And the $82,500 figure that Blumenthal uses was not any fee paid to Duke but was the figure that the FEC said would be the usual fine for the violation of FEC regulations in the case (though they settled for only $3000).

Brayton is confused on the first point. Perkins cut checks to Duke's Impact Mail for his phone banking list, not as a fee for them to "make phone calls." Perkins bought the list so the senatorial campaign of Woody Jenkins, which he was managing at the time, could make "robo-calls" to reliably conservative voters urging them to get to the polls. Impact Mail sold its list to other campaigns (causing great scandals in the process), but it never made phone calls on any campaign's behalf.

Brayton's second point, that "the $82,500 figure that Blumenthal uses was not any fee paid to Duke but was the figure that the FEC said would be the usual fine for the violation of FEC regulations," is completely wrong. Brayton appears to have misread the FEC filing against Jenkins and Perkins that he cites in his own post. Contrary to Brayton's assertion, Perkins indeed paid $82,500 to Duke's Impact mail (through a third-party surrogate to cover his tracks). He did so in a series of three checks. The proof is in section 6 of the 1999 conciliation agreement between the Jenkins campaign and the Federal Election Commission, which was signed by Woody Jenkins:

After the 1996 primary election in Louisiana, David Duke contacted Woody Jenkins and recommended that he use the services of a computerized phone bank system run by Impact Mail. Jenkins purchased several rounds of calls from Impact Mail. After the first round of calls, Jenkins began hearing complaints that Duke's name would appear on the caller ID when a phone bank message would arrive. At that point, Jenkins tried to cancel the transaction but was unable to because Tony Perkins, his campaign manager, had signed a contract with Impact Mail. Subsequently, Jenkins instructed Perkins to put a stop payment on the check issued to Impact Mail and directed that Impact Mail be paid through Courtney Communications, the campaign's media finn. The Jenkins Committee issued three 27,500 checks to Courtney. Courtney, in turn, made out three checks in the same amount to Impact Mail.

Brayton goes on to write that "Perkins' response is inaccurate on the big things," essentially agreeing with the main thrust of my argument -- that Perkins knew all along that he was dealing with Duke.

Perkins has denied knowingly paying Duke before. When Perkins pleaded ignorance about his KKK connection during his hapless attempt to unseat Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2002, he was promptly slapped down by the Baton Rouge Advocate. In a scathing July 29, 2002 editorial, the Advocate wrote:

No one emerges with credit from association with David Duke. Astonishingly, some of Louisiana's leading politicians were in bed with the former Imperial Wizard.

Duke's political heyday in the state had seemed to be over after he was crunchingly defeated in the 1991 gubernatorial runoff by another self-proclaimed "wizard under the sheets," Edwin W. Edwards. But a raft of politicos were more than happy to pay Duke for his supposed influence with voters on the lunatic fringe.

Six years after the fact, the Federal Elections Commission fined former U.S. Senate candidate Woody Jenkins $3,000 for illegally concealing his 1996 campaign purchase of a phone bank linked to former Ku Klux Klan leader Duke.

The commission also fined the Republican Party of Louisiana $10,000 for improperly disclosing printing costs it paid for the Jenkins campaign and leaving the party's name off pro-Jenkins direct mail that it financed.

Jenkins lost the Senate race by 5,788 votes in a runoff with Democrat Mary Landrieu, who is up for re-election this fall. Jenkins' Senate campaign manager, state Rep. Tony Perkins of Pride, who signed the $82,500 contract for the Duke phone bank, is among three Republicans challenging Landrieu.

Jenkins' use of the Duke phone bank, operated by a company called Impact Mail Ltd., came to light in 1999, when a federal grand jury began investigating Duke's finances. That's when voters learned that Gov. Mike Foster, running his first statewide campaign in 1995, also bought Duke's mailing list for $152,000.

The governor's campaign was eventually fined $20,000 by the state Board of Ethics for concealing the purchase. Arguably, a fairer fine would have been $152,000.

At the FEC, commissioners apparently wanted to fine Jenkins the full amount of the Duke contract, but Jenkins said he could not pay that much. It is a measure of the slow and ineffectual processes of the FEC that it took years to grind out these decisions.

The association with Duke cannot help Perkins in this year's campaign.

Perkins told The Times-Picayune Tuesday that he didn't find out "the complete Duke connection" until after the 1996 Senate campaign. He said Jenkins "handled most of those details" involved in the transaction.

The checks, though, were cut on Perkins' watch. It was a violation of federal election law to route them through the campaign's media firm - Courtney Communications, headed by former newscaster Bob Courtney of Baton Rouge - so that the Duke connection would be concealed from voters.

It is a taint.

Yet such is the shamelessness of Louisiana politicians - and the lack of outrage among Louisiana voters - that politicians have so often risen above ties to an utterly shameless bigot like David Duke.


Brayton goes on to say that "none of [Perkins' connections to Duke] proves that Perkins is a racist, of course." Of course?

Even after the humiliation that Perkins earned from his association with the KKK's most famous former member, Perkins headlined a fundraiser for the Lousiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens. The CofCC is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "a hate group that routinely denigrated blacks as 'genetically inferior,' complained about 'Jewish power brokers,' called homosexuals 'perverted sodomites,' accused immigrants of turning America into a 'slimy brown mass of glop,' and named Lester Maddox, the baseball bat-wielding, arch-segregationist former governor of Georgia, 'Patriot of the Century.' I noted Perkins' appearance at the Louisiana CofCC fundraiser and am puzzled at Brayton's omission of this important detail.

Is Perkins a racist? The burden of proof should be on him, not on the bloggers of Talk2Action.




Display:
Thanks for the details, Max. I am persuaded. But manners, please.

:-)

_ _ _

Chip Berlet: Research for Progress - Building Human Rights
by Chip Berlet on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:52:36 AM EST

Ed Brayton should issue corrections and retract his statement asserting I was "inaccurate on the minor points."

by Max Blumenthal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:13:38 AM EST

Max wrote:

Brayton is confused on the first point. Perkins cut checks to Duke's Impact Mail for his phone banking list, not as a fee for them to "make phone calls." Perkins bought the list so the senatorial campaign of Woody Jenkins, which he was managing at the time, could make "robo-calls" to reliably conservative voters urging them to get to the polls. Impact Mail sold its list to other campaigns (causing great scandals in the process), but it never made phone calls on any campaign's behalf.

I don't see any evidence anywhere that any mailing list was actually bought. There is a distinction between hiring a company to use their own mailing list to make calls on one's behalf and buying a mailing list that you can use on your own behalf. I've contracted for and paid for telemarketing and direct mail campaigns myself for business purposes and there is a big difference between paying a company to do a campaign using their in-house mailing lists and paying them to get their mailing list (the latter is considerably more expensive because you can use that list over and over again). The FEC report indicates that they contracted them to make the calls, not that they bought the list themselves:

After the 1996 primary election in Louisiana, David Duke contacted Woody Jenkins and recommended that he use the services of a computerized phone bank system run by Impact Mail. Jenkins purchased several rounds of calls from Impact Mail.

Again, there is a distinction between purchasing rounds of calls and purchasing the list from which those calls would be made. It's possible that they also bought the actual list, but I don't see any evidence for that in the FEC documents. You assert that it was not a fee for them to make phone calls, but the FEC document suggests otherwise. In the absence of evidence for that, I think it would be more accurate to say that they contracted with Duke's company to make calls rather than that they bought a mailing list. A minor point, of course, but that is exactly what I labeled it.

Second point:

Brayton's second point, that "the $82,500 figure that Blumenthal uses was not any fee paid to Duke but was the figure that the FEC said would be the usual fine for the violation of FEC regulations," is completely wrong. Brayton appears to have misread the FEC filing against Jenkins and Perkins that he cites in his own post. Contrary to Brayton's assertion, Perkins indeed paid $82,500 to Duke's Impact mail (through a third-party surrogate to cover his tracks). He did so in a series of three checks.

Ah, my mistake. I did indeed misread the FEC document on this. When it said $27,500, I missed the fact that there were three checks for that amount, which of course total $82,500. When I saw the $82,500 figure at the end, I thought perhaps that was where the figure came from since there was no other document with that figure on it. On this one, I was obviously wrong and you were right.

Brayton goes on to write that "Perkins' response is inaccurate on the big things," essentially agreeing with the main thrust of my argument -- that Perkins knew all along that he was dealing with Duke.

No, that isn't what I said. I said that it's perfectly plausible that Perkins did not know about the connection to Duke at the time the contract was signed. I don't know for sure whether he did or didn't, nor do you, but I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that he didn't know those connections at the time (which of course is not the same thing as claiming that he did not know, only that we don't have enough evidence to be certain that he did).

However, I did say, and still maintain, that at the very least, Perkins must have known about those connections when the calls started coming in complaining about Duke's name being on the caller ID and when Jenkins instructed him to stop payment on the check to Impact Mail and to launder those payments through another company. At that point, I find it extremely implausible that he did not A) know about the caller IDs showing Duke's name and B) didn't ask Jenkins why they were sending the money for Impact Mail through another company - and especially why it was important enough to stop payment on a check, which is not exactly routine procedure. So I do believe the evidence clearly suggests that Perkins must have known about Duke's involvement at the time the cover up began, and he was then a part of the cover up (he wrote the checks, after all). That, I think, is the most damaging part of the story and the part of the story clearly supported by the evidence at hand.

I also agree about his appearance before the CCC. I find it highly implausible that he did not know that the CCC was a racist organization and I said so in a posting on my own blog and in a response to a comment by Joe Carter. Before Perkins spoke to a CCC gathering there were relatively major scandals involving several other prominent conservatives speaking to them, including Bob Barr, Jesse Helms and Trent Lott. David Keene, the head of CPAC, had famously refused to allow the CCC in to a major conservative gathering because of their racist views and the head of the Republican National Committee had publicly declared them to be a racist group. Is it possible that Perkins didn't know? I suppose so. But I find it highly unlikely.

I only had two quibbles with Max's reporting, the claim that Perkins had actually bought a mailing list and the claim that he paid $82,500. Clearly, he was right about the last part - mea culpa on that one. But I still think the first claim is inaccurate. A big deal? Not really. It's a minor point and that is exactly what I called it. Perkins still comes out of all this looking pretty bad, as he should, but not so much because the evidence says that he deliberately sought out Duke to get his mailing list (the evidence doesn't confirm that), but because once he found out they'd contracted with a company that was connected to Duke, he helped cover that up and broke the law in the process. If he was really as opposed to Duke as he claims and really as ethical as he would have us believe, he would have resigned, refused to take part in laundering those payments to Duke's company, and blew the whistle on the whole thing.

by Ed Brayton on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:19:43 PM EST


Regarding Brayton's first point,
here is what I originally wrote:

"In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke."

Nowhere did I say that Perkins "bought" the mailing list of David Duke. Brayton accuses me of writing that, however, and quibbles with the point. Yet it is a point I never made. I only stated that Perkins paid Duke. That much is established and Brayton should issue a correction to reflect that.

by Max Blumenthal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 02:00:10 PM EST

Now we're getting into real hair-splitting. I think "paid him for his mailing list" would be thought by most people to mean "bought his mailing list." There are more accurate ways to put this. Rather than saying that Perkins paid Duke for his mailing list, it's more accurate to say that they paid a Duke-owned company to make phone calls on their behalf. It's also more accurate to say that we know that Jenkins directed Perkins to contract with that company, but we don't know that Perkins knew that the company was affiliated with Duke at that time. We can say with some certainty, as I argued previously, that he must have known about Duke's involvement by the time the cover up started and chose to go along with it anyway. And that's quite bad enough. My point is that the statement about the situation could have been made more accurately without diluting the ultimate reality, which we mostly agree on. And it's important to get those details right in order to avoid having that conclusion impeached by carelessness (and I say that as someone who just rightly got criticized for carelessly missing the payment amount in the FEC filing; it is as important for me as it is for anyone else).

by Ed Brayton on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:37:55 PM EST
Parent



WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (4 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (2 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (0 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (4 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (5 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (0 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (2 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (4 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (3 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (2 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (1 comment)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (6 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (6 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (7 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (21 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (4 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (6 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (6 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (8 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (5 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (3 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (4 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (3 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (2 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (13 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (5 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (7 comments)
Central Florida Sheriff Preached Sermon in Uniform
If anyone has been following the craziness in Polk County Florida, they know that some really strange and troubling things have happened here.  We've had multiple separation of church and state lawsuits going at......
ArchaeoBob (2 comments)
Demon Mammon?
An anthropologist from outer space might be forgiven for concluding that the god of this world is Mammon. (Or, rather, The Market, as depicted by John McMurtry in his book The Cancer Stage of......
daerie (2 comments)
Anti-Sharia Fever in Texas: This is How It Starts
The mayor of a mid-size Texan city has emerged in recent months as the newest face of Islamophobia. Aligning herself with extremists hostile to Islam, Mayor Beth Van Duyne of Irving, Texas has helped......
JSanford (2 comments)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.