Green Group Comes Under Right-Wing Attack

Don Hazen, AlterNet <www.alternet.org>
June 26, 2001
Inspired by a friendly Bush administration, a trio of anti-environmental
groups and companies is launching a multi-tiered attack on the Rainforest
Action Network (RAN). Best known for its headline-grabbing campaigns to
protect forests, RAN has a proven track record of altering corporate
behavior through a range of pressure tactics.

A conservative group called the Frontier Freedom Foundation (FFF) -- heavily
supported by tobacco, oil and timber money -- is lobbying the IRS to revoke
RAN's non-profit status. At the same time, logging company Boise Cascade has
aggressively targeted RAN's funders with threatening letters, trying to
undermine the organization by drying up its cash flow. Both are working with
the anti-green Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise to cripple RAN's
effectiveness.

RAN executes highly visible, aggressive campaigns primarily against
corporations destroying old growth forests in North America and around the
world. Its tactics include consumer boycotts and symbolic efforts designed
to capture media attention, including rappelling down corporate buildings
and unleashing giant banners. Along with Boise Cascade, RAN has also
targeted Mitsubishi and Occidental Petroleum, among other corporate giants.

The first attack came from the FFF (founded by former Wyoming Senator
Malcolm Wallup, a close associate of Vice President Dick Cheney), which
charged in a letter to the IRS that RAN routinely engages in non-educational
activity, violating the legal requirement that it be "operated exclusively
for educational purposes." The FFF's executive director, George Landrith,
called RAN "fundamentally radical, anti-capitalist and lawless."

In response, RAN says that the FFF is using the tax codes to attack its
First Amendment rights. As many have pointed out, civil rights groups like
the NAACP wouldn't have been able to organize sit-ins to fight segregation
if such a standard was in place.

"We believe when laws are unjust, they can be broken in a symbolic way," RAN
Executive Director Christopher Hatch told the Wall Street Journal.

Nevertheless, some other groups are expressing anxiety about the IRS case.
They fear a chilling effect on anti-corporate protests if the FFF is
successful. Indeed, the FFF's Landrith sees the RAN effort as a test case
with many more to follow if successful. Thus far, the Bush administration
hasn't been shy about employing hardball tactics with its enemies, and the
prospect of politicizing the IRS is not out of the question. Also, experts
note that the IRS language in this arena is vague and the rulings on the
books are close to 20 years old. New language could be more narrow and
restrictive.

If the FFF is successful, RAN would not be out of business, but would have
to raise what's known as "hard money" from its donors and members. Put
simply, donors wouldn't be able to claim a tax deduction for supporting
specific RAN activities, which could discourage them from giving. Michael
Klein, a business entrepreneur and one of RAN's key funders said, "I don't
think there is any merit in this case and feel confident that the IRS will
rule in RAN's favor. But I stand behind the RAN's work in this area, and
would be willing to more than make up whatever shortfall might result."

Michael Shellenberger, a RAN spokesman, calls the whole effort with the IRS
a canard. "The only activities that would result in revoking non-profit tax
status are felonious activities, like embezzlement," said Shellenberger.
"The FFF is trying to scare our supporters, but they won't be scared."

"Let there be no doubt," Christopher Hatch adds, "the work to protect our
forests will not only continue, but escalate."

Exploiting IRS codes is only part of the attack on RAN. Boise Cascade
Corporation (BCC) is trying to cut off RAN's financial support in a
different way. BCC is currently RAN's public enemy number one for its role
as a "global forest destroyer." According to RAN, "data shows that BCC
engages in global rainforest timber trade and contracts with companies that
cut down old growth forests in the U.S., Chile, Indonesia, Canada, Brazil
and Russia." Furthermore, BCC was the lead plaintiff in the effort to
reverse the Clinton Administration's Roadless Initiative for National
Forests, strongly supported by the American public in polls.

The RAN-generated negative public attention and pressure on Boise Cascade
has produced a chain reaction within the company, resulting in threatening
letters written to many of RAN's funders. Vincent Hannity, a BCC vice
president, wrote to RAN funders, "We are frankly struggling to understand
how and why RAN receives the support of reputable, responsible,
well-intentioned organizations such as (foundation name blacked out). If
RAN's lawless, radical agenda and methodology are consistent with your
organization's guidelines, objectives and ethics we ask that you share those
criteria with us." Insiders say that BCC has even contacted principals of
schools where students have written to the company urging the protection of
old growth forests.

Students aren't the only ones worried about forest conservation. A Los
Angeles Times poll showed that nine out of ten people believe protecting
wilderness is important, and six out of ten say we shouldn't build more
roads in national forests.

According to Hatch, rather than admiting that the strong public sentiment
against irresponsible forestry might be cutting into its bottom line, BCC is
trying to blame RAN for its economic problems. (BCC lost $35.5 million in
the first quarter of 2001.) Clearly, RAN's success in reducing demand for
products made from old-growth wood -- including its groundbreaking agreement
with Home Depot and a deal in Canada to preserve large portions of the Great
Bear rainforest -- has motivated BCC. But instead of working with RAN to
clean up their act (which numerous companies have done), BCC has chosen a
more hostile route.

BCC's aggressive strategy and denial of public opinion places it among a
group of conservative corporations that are highly resistant to change, like
oil giant ExxonMobil, which still refuses to acknowledge global warming.
Also like ExxonMobil, BCC enjoys long-standing and close relationships with
key members of the Bush administration.

A second right-wing group, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise,
headed by notorious "wise use" advocate Ron Arnold, is working with the FFF
and Boise Cascade to undermine RAN's standing. A press release from the FFF
said that "Arnold would present RAN as an attack group and not an
environmental group. He will present RAN's anti-capitalist and
anti-corporate agenda of force, intimidation and unlawful actions. Arnold
will also show suspicious links between RAN's rhetoric and Earth Liberation
Front acts."

RAN denies such charges of unlawfulness, and a connection to more militant
groups. "RAN is strictly a non-violent organization strongly opposed to
property destruction of any kind," said RAN Communications Director Shannon
Wright. Coincidentally, the FFF's outrageous guilt by association rhetoric
received a major blow when police in Arizona arrested a suspect for a series
of fires that destroyed more than a dozen homes adjacent to the desert. The
suspect had apparently written letters on behalf of a fake militant
ecological group in order to deflect attention away from himself.

It seems clear that RAN's efforts to protect old growth forests are not
going to be seriously inhibited by attacks from right-wing groups and angry
corporations. On the other hand, major companies with billion-dollar
investments in their brands are increasingly vulnerable to the effective
tactics -- advertising, public education, and direct action protest --
employed by RAN and pioneered decades ago by groups like INFACT and the
United Farm Workers.

As more corporate money flows into the coffers of elected officials,
government often produces policies that protect corporate interests at the
public's expense. The only realistic shot at reform becomes public campaigns
aimed at the reputation and the bottom line of the corporate behemoths.
Ironically, as BCC's example may soon show, exercising overwhelming
influence in politics may lead to more financial loses in the long run, if a
company becomes a target for activist campaigns. If only they understood the
need to balance their interests with the public and become better corporate
citizens.

For more information, or to help defend the Rainforest Action Network, visit
RAN.org.
© 2001 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.