Not Independent. Not Neutral. Not Mainstream. A Reporters’ Guide on the Independent Women’s Forum/Voice By Lisa Graves, Kim Haddow, and Calvin Sloan (2016) 2 “Independent.” “Neutral.” “Mainstream.” That’s how the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) and Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) describe themselves. But that branding is calculated and misleading. The chief strategist for IWF/V—the drug heiress Heather Higgins—recently solicited donors for IWV’s 2016 operations, boasting: “Being branded as neutral, but actually having the people who know know that you’re actually conservative, puts us in a unique position…” to aid elections. Why the need to hide in sheep’s clothing? Because IWF/V is not-so independent. It’s anything but non-partisan, neutral, and mainstream. • Partisan. IWV has quietly but aggressively aided anti-woman GOP politicians while IWF has publicly claimed there has been no a Republican “war on women.” • Not Neutral. IWF/V has deep ties to the Koch machine and advances its agenda. • Not Mainstream. IWF/V attacks popular policies with extreme claims and actively pushes hyper-free market “solutions” that hurt working women and families. IWF/V has successfully relied on “aggressively seeking earned media” to peddle its claims, but its real history and true biases are not well known by reporters and producers or by the public. That’s because IWF, a 501(c)(3), claims it is a "nonpartisan, nonprofit organization for mainstream women, men and families." IWV, a 501(c)(4), says it is a “nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that fights for women and families.” Their claims have received very little scrutiny. This Reporters’ Guide from the Center for Media and Democracy exposes and details IWF/V’s history, which is not-so independent, mainstream, nonpartisan, or neutral. 3 A REPORTERS’ GUIDE FROM THE CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY THE NOT SO INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM/VOICE IWF/V EXPOSED BY CMD Content IWV Is Positioning Itself in the 2016 Election Cycle 4 IWV Is Part of the “Republican Conservative Arsenal” 5 IWV Spends Dark Money to Aid Rightwing Candidates 7 IWF/V Turns Its Attention to Trump v. Clinton 9 IWF Is Helping GOP Lawmakers Try to Appeal to Women 11 IWF/V Spending and Revenue plus Dark/Koch Money 13 IWF/V as a Heather Higgins Production 15 Higgins and the Koch Brothers’ Operations 17 IWF/V’s Team and Their Deep Koch Ties 18 IWF/V Positions and Koch DNA 20 Appendix IWV’s Reported Expenditures in Elections 22 Selection of Not Mainstream IWF/V Quotes 48 Independent Women’s Forum and Independent Women’s Voice Not Independent. Not Neutral. Not Mainstream. 4 IWV Is Positioning Itself as “Independent” in the 2016 Election Cycle IWV has positioned itself to influence the election of the president, senators, and more. For example, at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Heather Higgins —the president of IWV and the chair of the IWF board—appeared at an ACU event titled “Will Conservatives Support Trump?” That question was rhetorical. Higgins is supporting Donald Trump despite earlier reservations. What remains to be seen is how she will spend IWV’s funds and on which races in the weeks before the election. At the RNC event, Higgins put a positive spin on Trump’s rhetoric and policies (for example, when he talks about illegal immigration, he just “wants to protect you and your kids.”) She called the “#NeverTrump” group “#EverSnob,” admitting that Trump “can seem very nouveau” riche. But, she said, “don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good…your choice is Hillary Clinton who will be wrong on all issues.… Trump will surround himself with principled, savvy advisors who will lead us to the best possible outcomes on a wide range of [issues] and his judicial picks….” (Higgins’ fellow panelists were Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), infamous for his leniency toward the Ku Klux Klan; Trump election lawyer Doug McGahn, an advisor to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay; and FOX pundit KT McFarland, who almost ran against Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2006. Another IWF board member was at a second ACU/CPAC panel, claiming the GOP is the “party of workers.”) Despite the hard push within the GOP to reach out to women, a related “Women Vote Trump” event at the RNC was so poorly attended that the press shared photos of a sea of empty chairs. Jezebel quoted IWF/V’s Ashley Carter asserting that: “Undecided women voters see [Trump] as having the ability to make real change happen by simply saying what needs to be said.” She emphasized that, "Many will not say they are Trump supporters, a statement which may reflect on their own beliefs and associations, but they say [in IWV polling] they will vote for Trump.” According to Rolling Stone, one of the event organizers responded told the room: “‘We want to thank Ashley for that incredible information… ‘Independent Women's Voice has just proved all the naysayers incorrect, right?’ ‘Right?’” “Incredible” is an apt description. Truly independent polling—not from IWV—has shown that about 70% of American women disfavor Trump, the “largest gender gap” in polling history. In response, Trump hired IWF Board Member Kellyanne Conway, a pollster; and then he made her campaign manager after reshuffling Paul Manafort, amidst controversy over his ties to Russia. As the Washington Post noted, for Conway Trump’s “history of bullying women wasn’t a deal breaker. Trump’s string of biting comments shouldn’t hurt him more than it already has.” “’The more that people keep repeating the same insults, the more it invites him to very legitimately defend himself,’” Conway said. ‘Women look at the full measure of the man, not just one comment.’” Conway’s past clients include “Trump’s pick for vice president, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who lost women by five points in his 2012 race,” the Post noted.5 At the RNC, IWF’s Executive Director Sabrina Schaeffer also tried to minimize the idea that Trump’s record toward women is the biggest problem they are facing. And then, when news broke of Pence’s sharp criticism of working mothers and their “day care kids,” Schaeffer tried to re-shape the conversation. She said, “For whatever reason, Republicans keep ignoring these issues [of “women in the workplace”] …They need to understand, engage and offer better solutions.” Shortly thereafter, she issued a statement: “IWF believes that Trump can capitalize on his platform as the Republican presidential candidate and that speaking to specific economic and labor policies could gain Trump more favor among young women,” referencing IWF’s agenda. Enter IWF/V, with its niche of appearing “independent” while not actually being so. IWV Is Part of the “Republican Conservative Arsenal” IWF advertises itself as “independent” and “non-partisan,” a charity that advocates for ideas and policies that “ensure women can pursue their own vision of happiness and success.” Meanwhile, IWV spends big in election years, and tells visitors to its website that it “fights for women and families” by reaching out to “mainstream women” and Independent voters. But IWF/V is anything but independent. IWV says that it “is motivated not by party but by philosophy.” That claim echoes the positioning of Charles and David Koch, the brothers who run Koch Industries, two of the richest billionaires on the planet. They’ve spent millions trying to move the GOP toward their far right philosophy, and have built an electoral infrastructure that operates like a better-coordinated but shadowy Republican Party. They also launched a network of billionaires to influence elections called “Freedom Partners” in 2012. Over the years, the Kochs have fueled scores of front groups, like IWF, through their cash and operatives. The Kochs’ approach to political organizing and funding looks a lot like a corporation trying to sell products to niche markets, like: Libre, to pitch ideas to Latinos; Concerned Veterans for America, to sell their spiel to vets; and Generation Opportunity, to peddle their playbook to millennials. IWF/V’s rhetoric and agenda are right out of the Koch playbook: “free markets,” “limited government,” and “property rights”—but with a marketing focus on women. Late last year, IWF/V’s strategic leader, Heather Higgins, gave a revealing speech on this gambit in a bid for potential big donors for her 2016 electoral efforts. In that pitch, she noted that about 40% of American voters describe themselves as “independent” (while about 32% identify as Democrats and 23% as Republicans). In those remarks, she argued to political donors that IWV is a really valuable asset “in the Republican conservative arsenal.” She emphasized that this is because their “independent” name helps them “talk” and “package” a conservative message “in a way that will be acceptable” and influential to independent voters in elections. 6 Here is an excerpt of Higgins’ remarks at the David Horowitz Freedom Center (which the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch describes as a “far-right” group): “Women are … 54% of the electorate. Women also vote at a higher rate than men do. So for the men in the audience who think that the last thing they want to do is support a women’s group, understand that if you have any interest in … winning elections you have to think of this as a market segmentation issue and you can’t leave out that part of the market if you want to win.” “For the last five years, I have been working to provide the margin that matters in races that are toss-ups or worse…. And we approach it much the way the NRA [the National Rifle Association] does. When the NRA decides that they want a particular candidate because he’s good on their issue, sometimes they run ads on guns but very often they runs ads on something entirely different and never even mention guns because their goal is to win the race not to make to make themselves feel good about the ads they have run.” “Similarly, we try to think about what is it we need to say to have impact with these people [independent women]. It’s been remarkably successful…. [People who like us include] donors who want a high return on their investment for their political dollars….” So, how is Higgins’ IWV so “persuasive” “with audiences that normally don’t tend to like to hear from Republicans and conservatives?” She said it is because “branding matters… We have worked hard to create a branded organization [IWV] that does not carry partisan baggage. Being branded as neutral, but actually having” key people know you are actually conservative, “puts us in a unique position.” She added: “Our value here and what is needed in the Republican conservative arsenal is a group that can talk to those cohorts [women do not identify as GOP or rightwing] that would not otherwise listen but can do it in a way that is taking a conservative message and packaging it in a way that will be acceptable and will get a hearing….” 7 IWV Spends Dark Money to Aid Rightwing Candidates Here are some of the examples Higgins highlighted of how IWV has used its independent branding (to help the GOP): • • • • In South Carolina, IWV was the only significant independent expenditure in Mark Sanford’s House race. Higgins said, after the NRCC pulled out, IWV got “evangelicals to hold their nose and vote for Mark in order to be able to hold onto that seat and not have the liberal win it.” (He had cheated on his wife.) In Kentucky, when it looked like Matt Bevin was going to lose the governorship, IWV “focused on Democrats, liberals, and independents” and took credit for turning things around because, she said, the Republican Governors Association and “partisan”-named groups could not reach those voters. In Wisconsin, IWV did a pushpoll/survey challenging the idea that Scott Walker was being unfair to union members, by claiming public sector workers were overpaid by 30% compared with the private sector. Higgins asserted IWV moved the dial by 31 points in favor of Gov. Walker in the recall. In 2012, she said IWV moved “women who were soft Obama approvers into being disapproving” by nine points through an ad “they would like, that they would think was speaking to them, from somebody who understood them”--the “boyfriend” ad about a “relationship” that had not worked. Republican candidates imploded with a series of anti-woman claims in 2012. While IWF argued that there was “no Republican War on Women,” IWV was quietly making independent expenditures to aid the GOP candidates fueling the controversy with their anti-choice claims. • For example, Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin claimed rape victims can’t get pregnant because “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” On the eve of the election, IWV spent $67,242.43 to aid Akin with robocalls, but he lost. (Akin was also a client of IWF Board Member, the pollster Kellyanne Conway.) • Indiana’s Richard Mourdock was slated to win a Senate seat until he asserted that when a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she carries a “gift from God,” “something that God intended to happen.” Two weeks later, IWV spent $176,991 on “Romney wants Mourdock” ads and more. • IWV also spent money to try to help Joe Walsh, a GOP congressman from Illinois who claimed abortions performed to save a mother’s life are never necessary: "there is no such exception as 'life of the mother,' and as far as 'health of the mother,' same thing." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists scolded Walsh for his “inaccurate statements.” Two weeks later, IWV spent over $5K on robo-calls to aid him, but he lost to vet Tammy Duckworth. In 2014, IWV also spent money to aid other U.S. Senate candidates, including: • Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose win was made possible by the investment of billionaires in the Koch network (as CMD has documented in a complaint to the IRS about the “Trees of Liberty”); 8 • Koch politicians Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS). (Kansas is the home state of Koch Industries.); • Upstarts Tom Tillis (R-NC), an alum of the controversial pay-toplay ALEC; Cory Gardner (RCO), another ALEC alum; and David Perdue (R-GA); • • • • on expenditures that aided Pete Hoekstra’s failed bid for the U.S. Senate for Michigan. He had called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act a “nuisance” and said equal pay “shouldn’t be the law” (IWF opposes it); • aiding failed Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel, who defended Mourdock’s claims, opposed any abortion exception for rape or incest, and opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA); • aiding Robert Turner, who created Rush Limbaugh’s TV show; • and trying to help Jane Corwin, who supported shackling prisoners while they give birth. An unsuccessful Tea Party challenger to long-time Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS); and Losing GOP candidate Scott Brown, of New Hampshire and late of Massachusetts. In 2010, it also aided him. The majority of those funds for the “Independent Women’s Voice” came from men. IWV also spent money against Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, in a House race in South Carolina. In 2010, as Higgins took over IWV, it had expenditures for successful but controversial congressional candidates, such as: • Andy Harris of Maryland, who equated non-discriminatory funding for contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act to church arson; • David Schweikert of Arizona, who voted against VAWA; • Ben Quayle of Arizona, who used a pseudonym to criticize women’s appearances online; and • self-described “anti-feminist” Renee Elmers on North Carolina, who urged the GOP to bring policy discussions “down to a woman’s level” to win votes, in addition to some failed candidates. And that’s not all. In 2012, IWV spent: • • more than $70K aiding Tommy Thompson against Tammy Baldwin, who became the first openly LGBTQ person and Wisconsin woman elected to the U.S. Senate; IWV backed Thompson. He had briefly defended anti-gay discrimination; nearly $100K that year aiding losing Senate candidate Tom Smith in Pennsylvania who supported a total abortion ban and exceptions for rape or incest; In all, IWV reported spending more than $850K on 2014 Senate races: almost all of it for GOP candidates with 0% NARAL ratings. It spent more than $5 million that year on related advocacy. In 2012, it reported independent expenditures totaling nearly $1 million, out of its more than $5 million in other spending. In 2010, it reported independent expenditures of more than $500K out of its more than $1.5 million spent. [A list of races is in the appendix.] 9 IWV/F Turns Its Attention to Trump v. Clinton What will IWF/V do in the coming months? Looking ahead, it’s clear IWF/V plans to continue to push the Koch policy agenda. IWV has also recently presented polling on how some women may support Trump, while IWF has focused on how he could appeal to women, despite his misogyny. In some ways, this brings the organization that Higgins leads back to its roots. As documented by CMD, IWF got its start defending Clarence Thomas despite Anita Hill’s testimony about his sexual harassment when she worked for him in the government, which he denied. Similarly, IWV has made no apologies for aiding anti-woman candidates in 2014; none are likely now. Meanwhile, IWF/V has positioned itself and its leaders to be media advocates challenging Hillary Clinton--even though Charles Koch and conservatives like Gov. Kasich have not endorsed the GOP nominee. IWF/V’s leader has said Trump will get them big policy wins. At the RNC’s CPAC event, Higgins even played the role of a kind of Trump whisperer, translating his claims into more savvy appeals. Higgins’ tweeting has captured this alignment: “GOP seen as either weak accomadators (sic) or obdurate functional enablers v. @realDonaldTrump: Negotiator=actually accomplish priorities @IWV.” But IWV’s priorities are not the same as most women’s. Using appearances on Fox and opinion pieces in commercial print publications and online media outlets, IWF/V’s team has also generated a drumbeat of attacks on Hillary Clinton. 10 For example, from Inside Sources in February: “Hillary Clinton wants to have it both ways. She wants voters to support her because they’d like a rerun of her husband’s presidency … but she doesn’t want to have to answer for her husband’s personal conduct and character. Yet Bill Clinton’s treatment of women—and the many other scandals and ethical lapses that plagued his presidency and now post-presidency—are a legitimate and important issue for voters to consider. Mrs. Clinton wants to dismiss all such questions as dirty, tabloid politics meant to distract voters from real issues. Yet the Clinton scandals, both his and hers, speak to the candidate’s character and to what voters could expect from a Hillary Clinton presidency.” (Notably, IWF/V’s Higgins has praised Newt Gingrich, despite his affairs and his resigning from Speaker of the House in disgrace, and she used IWV to help Mark Sanford win a congressional seat, although he notoriously cheated on his wife while he was governor.) And then there’s this from earlier this year in the New York Post: “But Mrs. Clinton’s role as the long-suffering first lady to a roguish leading man is just one of her problems; her reputation as a scandal-drenched, corporate-backed and largely failed public servant has always made her an awkward feminist heroine.” That’s an interesting critique coming from a group routinely pushing corporate wish lists. In a June 9, 2016, op-ed in Forbes, IWF’s President, Schaeffer, said Clinton was “synonymous with the corruption of Washington–most notably through the Benghazi tragedy, the Clinton Foundation activities and email scandal that may have put our national security risk.” Similarly, IWF Senior Fellow, Jillian Melchoir, used her appearance on FOX Business to call Clinton, a “fundamentally undesirable candidate.” IWF/V also uses its blogs to flog Clinton and her policies almost daily, for example, writing: “Being a Democratic woman apparently means never having to take the rap when you get caught.” “A recent Pew Research report on public attitudes about female political leaders confirmed that Americans were more likely to see female leaders to be superior on many of these key traits– and women were particularly likely to give other women the edge–including for “being more honest and ethical.” This is certainly one stereotype about women than Mrs. Clinton is doing everything possible to destroy. One wonders if this could be part of Clinton’s legacy. Yes, she is a trailblazer for seeking the highest office of the land, but she’s also showcasing how women can be insiders and abuse the system just as much as any man could.” IWV also launched “Ask Hillary.com,” claiming that the media is not challenging Clinton: “Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for President of the United States, hardly ever answers questions from the media. On the rare occasions she does, it is only to answer selective softball questions including, incredibly, an inquiry as to her favorite flavor of ice cream. That's why Independent Women's Voice launched a new Website–AskHillary.com. As first announced this morning in Politico Playbook, the site uses an online bulletin board system to crowd-source questions, rank them, and encourage Washington reporters to ask Hillary.” 11 IWF Helping GOP Lawmakers Appeal to Women IWF has also taken on another role in this election year: to help Republican legislators appear to be more supportive of working women while opposing popular legal policies. At the July 2016 meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), IWF’s president Schaeffer said her polling showed that a majority of women, liberals and conservatives, support workplace reforms like the Healthy Families Act. IWF concluded from those results that rightwing lawmakers needed alternative proposals that appeared to help working women in order to gain entrance into the political debate and capture the attention of women voters. (More than 99% of ALEC legislative leaders are in the GOP.) According to Schaeffer, that was the genesis of their “Working for Women” report–described as seeking to “help women without growing government.” IWF Rhetoric “We all want women to succeed in living out their dreams—whether those dreams are to become the CEO of a major corporations, the President of the United States, a home-based entrepreneur, or a stay-at-home mother raising strong children and building a healthy community.” “We need policies that help women achieve those dreams by creating the conditions for a growing economy that offers a wide variety of jobs with different benefit packages and work arrangements. We need families to be able to get ahead and craft the lives they want with a system that rewards work… and will give women greater opportunity to flourish by removing government regulations that hold them back and encouraging the creation of a more dynamic, innovative, and flexible work world.” The Reality of the IWF Agenda Basically, the policies the IWF report is promoting are the same market-based, corporate-biased strategies that aren’t working and are perpetuating the inequalities dividing Americans now: * Instead of endorsing affordable access to paid family and medical leave for all, and especially for hardworking women and men in lower wage jobs, IWF suggests creating “Personal Care Accounts” (PCAs) so workers can save and use their own money to pay for medical leave. This ignores the fact that 87% of all workers do not have paid leave through their employers and as many as 40% of U.S. households live paycheck to paycheck and could not afford to fund a PCA. About 40 percent of workers are ineligible for FMLA leave, which would mean that–even if they could afford to self-fund paid leave–they are at risk of losing their job if they take time off. * IWF advocates de-regulating childcare facilities, ending licensing requirements, and reducing the caregiver-to-child ratio to make childcare cost less, despite obvious dangers. * IWF argues that the gender wage gap is not a problem, despite contrary evidence, but rather the consequences of personal choices made by women who “view getting paid a little less for their work outside the home [as] a fine trade-off for the time they get to spend inside their homes.” * Instead of increasing women’s wages, IWF calls for tax credits and “comp” time off instead of overtime, creating a false choice between time and money for workers who need both and giving employers the power to grant requests to use the earned comp time. 12 IWF is asking lawmakers to sign a pledge mirroring Working For Women proposals. According to notes from IWF’s meeting with ALEC lawmakers about the report and pledge, Schaeffer said, "One thing we’re going to do for you is take a lot of the proposals in our report and do … sophisticated testing on how to sell them..." Schaeffer promised them, "We’ll be taking this and packaging it into messaging hits I think will be helpful to you. Videos, commentaries, fact sheets, quizzes, scripts to help you with answers in the press…" according to notes. What Is ALEC? ALEC is a corporate lobbying group that masquerades as a charity. At ALEC task force meetings, behind closed doors, corporate lobbyists and special interest groups vote as equals with legislators on “model” bills to change people’s rights. As a pay-to-play operation, ALEC collects $50 per year for legislators to be members but corporations pay thousands of dollars to be members and to get “a voice and a vote.” ALEC corporations also underwrite trips for lawmakers and lavish parties where they are wined and dined. Though ALEC describes itself as bipartisan, its main leaders are all Republicans, as tallied by CMD. ALEC bills oppose raising the minimum wage and even having a minimum wage. ALEC pushes many controversial bills. IWF/V has not shied away from other controversies in the news this election year. Taking a page from Higgins’ remarks about running ads like NRA, IWF has expanded its embrace of the actual NRA agenda. IWF staffers have spoken out against common sense gun measures in the face of assault rifle massacres of Americans in Orlando and elsewhere. With Clinton, who is the first woman nominated to be president by a major political party, promising to work with responsible gun owners on reforms to U.S. gun laws, IWF is providing a female face who can take a counter-position in the media. In May, for example, IWF’s Julie Gunlock went to a shooting range with NRA allies and gave an interview on NRA radio arguing that gun rights should be “a core feminist issue.” IWF also continues to advance controversial Koch climate change denial maneuvers. The Kochs fund an array of non-profit groups that attack efforts to mitigate climate change. IWF has also joined the Koch-funded ALEC’s rhetoric in opposing President Obama’s new Clean Power Plan, which takes crucial steps to address the climate changes underway. IWF has also referred its readers to other Koch groups as trusted sources. IWF’s president, Schaeffer, has claimed that “the alarmism and hysteria that [the Obama administration] likes to promote, especially related to climate change is unbelievable.” IWV’s role in 2016 appears to be to attack the Democratic candidate for president, and IWF is working to aid GOP lawmakers who need policy cover for opposing policies many women favor. [More excerpts of IWF/V claims are available in the addendum.] 13 IWF/V Spending and Revenue plus Dark/Koch Money Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, which greatly expanded to power of 501(c)(4) groups like IWV to spend money in elections, IWF was the more powerful part of the IWF/V duo, financially and in its footprint on politics. Since that discredited but still applicable judicial ruling, IWV and other (c)(4)s have ballooned in funding in election years, taking in cash that might otherwise have been disclosed as donations to registered PACs or Super PACS, but which do not have to be publicly disclosed when given to groups like IWF/V, unless certain conditions apply to the spending. IWF’s base budget has receded, except for in the most recent post-Citizens United election year. That’s because (c)(4)s that are more politically inclined have more license to spend on “issue” advocacy that does not expressly call for a vote for or against a candidate. In 2012, the combined spending for IWF/V was nearly $9 million, a nearly 400% increase over 2011. How much will IWV spend to influence the 2016 elections? No one outside the inner circle will know the totals until IWF/V files tax forms in 2017, well after the election results are in. Since 2010, when Higgins became IWV’s president and CEO, it has received nearly $16 million in revenue, with millions going to ads, robo-calls, and more to influence elections. In the 2014 mid-term election year, the most recent year with tax forms available, Higgins raised $6.1 million and spent $5.4 million. In addition to some of the disclosed expenditures on ads and calls detailed earlier, Higgins has directed IWV to give money to other dark money operations. For example, it gave $1.3 million to “American Commitment,” run by Phil Kerpen, the former Vice President of David Koch’s American for Prosperity. Notably, Higgins also directed IWV to give $950K to DonorsTrust to pass to other groups. DonorsTrust has been called “the dark money ATM of the conservative movement.” Who funds IWF/V? Many of its big donors are secret, although the ones that are non-profit foundations have to disclose grants. That’s how we know they received at least $250K from the Center to Protect Patient Rights in 2009, even though dark money shell groups can make it hard to follow the money trail. [More information on this group further below.] The National Right to Work Committee, which fights to destroy unions, has also funded IWV. In contrast, even though it is common knowledge that, for example, Koch Industries and David Koch himself have written checks to Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, non-profit tax filings do not publicly reveal checks from individual and corporate treasuries. But, files have surfaced showing that IWF received Exxon Mobil money in years past. And IWF also received at least $273K from Rush Limbaugh, the controversial right-wing radio host. Disclosures show that DonorsTrust and DonorsCapital Fund–which keep donor names secret–have given IWF/V more than $5 million since 2002, though less in recent years. And, between 1998 and 2012, Koch-controlled family foundations gave IWF more than $825,000. That figure doesn’t come close to telling the whole story of Koch influence on IWF 14 or IWV, which was created in 2004 by the then-President of IWF, Nancy Pfotenhauer, who was also then President of David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity. [More on this below.] But, by far, IWF’s largest individually known financial backer has been the Randolph Foundation, led by Higgins, the Chair of IWF’s Board and the President of IWV. Through her family foundation, she has directed at least $3,780,000 to IWF since 1998, in addition giving money to IWV. Higgins also raises funds from other sources for IWF/V. 15 IWF/V as a Heather Higgins Production In some ways, the current version of IWF/V is a creature of Heather Richardson Higgins. Although IWF got its start defending Clarence Thomas, before Higgins was on board, she is its biggest single funder and fundraiser for IWF/V. She’s also its leading strategist. Higgins has been president and CEO of IWV since 2010, and she’s led IWF’s board since 2004. Higgins, who is a pharmaceutical heiress, is a long-time ally of right-winger Newt Gingrich who sought to dismantle the FDA--with help from her family’s SmithRichardson Foundation and the Kochs. At the height of Gingrich’s power, she also co-hosted his weekly TV show and funded his think tank. Her views are similarly extreme. For example, she ended her speech last year about her IWV electoral strategy by making this appeal: “I ask that you join me in taking back our country, winning races that we are not supposed to win, and building a majority that will do the hard work that we need to do in order to stop the metastasizing march of the ideas of the Left.” And, Higgins is getting even richer fighting the Left as part of the right-wing elite. While IWF has run a stream of pieces opposing increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour, she has paid herself very well through IWV and more. In 2014, the most recent year where IWF/IWV tax forms are available, Higgins paid herself a $100,000 bonus. That’s on top of paying herself a base salary as the leader of IWV of $126K that year. Higgins has made herself a “political contractor” to IWV, and received her bonus from IWV via Ashdown Forest Strategies—named for Winnie the Pooh’s home—an LLC registered to her Manhattan home, which is valued at $5M. Who approved the huge bonus? Higgins and the only other IWV board member, an 89-year old named Midge Decter. The rationale? She raised more than she spent. In addition to any trusts she may have inherited, Higgins runs the Randolph Foundation. She told the IRS she spent 40 hours/week on average working for IWV and paid herself $226K including that $100K bonus, and she also reported working 5 hours a week for IWF and 40 hours a week for that family foundation, which she controls. In 2014, Heather Higgins paid herself a $100K bonus from IWV. Meanwhile, under her leadership, IWF has strongly opposed raising the minimum wage for working women and their families. From Randolph, she paid herself $368K in salary plus $97K toward her pension. Thus her total compensation from those two non-profits that year was $691K. Randolph paid James Higgins, her venture capitalist husband, $135K plus $17K for his pension for reportedly working 10 hours a week, too. Another foundation trustee is Polly Jackson Friess, wife of Steve Friess, who is the son of Foster Friess--another billionaire Koch ally, with whom Higgins helped launch James O’Keefe’s attacks on ACORN, which right-wingers claimed illegally helped Obama win the presidency in 2008. 16 Higgins directed foundation grants to IWF, in addition to groups like “True the Vote,” accused of intimidating minority voters under the guise of stopping fraud. Meanwhile, as IWF rails against climate change and pushes the agenda of energy companies, the foundation is paying her in part based on income from Exxon Mobil, funder of climate change denial. While IWF defends arctic drilling, Higgins’ foundation gets revenue from Gazprom, which has pursued arctic drilling and other controversies. Her foundation has also invested in Rio Tinto, Monsanto, and Sheldon Adelson’s Sands casinos in China. (Higgins has been a portfolio manager and on the board of UBS.) Higgins’ father was Randolph (Randy) Richardson, who led the Smith Richardson Foundation and deployed the family fortune to build rightwing institutions. (The Randolph Foundation split off from the SRF several years ago.) Randy Richardson was weaned on rightwing ideology; his dad, H. Smith Richardson, was a McCarthyite, like the John Bircher Fred Koch, who claimed Eisenhower was soft on communists. In the 1970s, as Charles Koch began creating a string of “libertarian” groups, Richardson was already investing in reshaping universities by funding rightwing academics. He underwrote controversial books, like “The Bell Curve,” which has been criticized for its racist claims about black intelligence. Higgins has praised that book and her dad’s other works. Richardson’s foundation launched the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which pushes “free market” policies abroad along with Koch operations. He also promoted Milton Friedman’s relentless efforts to attack public education, an agenda the Kochs also push. Higgins is the next generation of that legacy, expanding on her father’s agenda to move American policies to the right, in ways the Koch brothers also embrace and expand. The Thalidomide Story While IWF rails against the FDA, Higgins’ foundation invests in drugs, such as Abbott Labs, Roche Holdings, and Grifols, S.A. It turns out Heather Higgins is the heir to the Vicks Vaporub/Nyquil/Smith Brothers’ cough drop fortune. It’s little known that her family ran the Richardson-Vicks pharmaceutical company. What’s even more surprising is that under her leadership, IWF has been relentless in attacking FDA regulations of drugs, but her family’s legacy has not been reported, despite IWF’s stances. Her family’s drug company was the sole corporation to distribute Thalidomide in the U.S. In the early 1960s, her family’s corporation distributed 2.5 million tablets of Thalidomide to Americans under an exception to the regulations. The FDA resisted intense pressure by the company to approve the drug for sale. In the period when the FDA was reviewing the drug, more confirmations came that Thalidomide cause severe birth defects causing children to be born without limbs. President Kennedy gave the Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service to the FDA staffer who stood in RichardsonMerrill’s way, Frances Oldham Kelsey. But, at least 17 American children were born with severe birth defects, fueling public outrage. It was literally due to Richardson-Merrill’s activities that the FDA laws were amended to require that a drug be proven to be safe and effective prior to distribution to the public. The Richardson firm was also sued for MER/29 an anti-cholesterol drug that caused blindness. Higgins is too young to have been involved in those decisions but she inherited part of the family fortune, and the press never mentions her family’s history as IWF has repeatedly assailed the FDA. 17 Higgins and the Koch Brothers’ Operations Higgins has had deep ties to the Kochs and rightwing billionaires in their network. For example, in 2009, Higgins joined the small board of directors of Sean Noble’s “Center to Protect Patient Rights” (CPPR). That group‘s mission statement recited the same Koch mantra as IWF and other Koch-fueled groups: “free markets” and “limited government.” Here’s how the rightwing National Review described Higgins’ founding role: “[A]t a lunch during the June 2009 [Koch] donor seminar in Aspen, Colo., [Rep.] Paul Ryan, the Independent Women’s Voice’s Heather Higgins, the former Koch operative Sean Noble, and Arizona-based donor Randy Kendrick [then an IWF board member and wife of the Diamondbacks’ owner] framed the health-care battle in Congress as a matter of urgent importance to the group. Their presentation was met with an outpouring of public pledges from the audience. It raised $13 million on the spot and demonstrated to Charles and David [Koch] how much hunger there was within the organization for them to do more.” After securing funding at the Koch Brothers’ election strategy meeting for fellow billionaires, CPPR funneled millions to other groups, like David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity. Higgins ultimately resigned, by at least October 2010, but not before CPPR gave IWV $250K of the money raised. That was well before CPPR received the largest elections law violation fine in California history for its disclosure-evading shell game shuffling dark money to various groups in the 2012 election. Noble and the Kochs denied any wrongdoing. Since 2009, Noble--who had been called the Kochs’ “dark money man”—has doled out hundreds of millions raised from billionaires in the Koch network of right wingers. For example, CPPR transferred funds to groups like American Commitment, which was initially run by Noble, to fund ads buys and other expenditures. As noted before, Higgins later directed IWV to give $1.3 million to “American Commitment,” which is run by Phil Kerpen, the former Vice President of David Koch’s American for Prosperity. Additionally, between 2009 and 2011, a group called TC4 Trust gave American Commitment $9 million. Later, TC4 Trust turned out to be a funding vehicle within a new Koch creature. In 2013, America learned that the Kochs had created a new non-profit group out of its meetings of billionaires, dubbed the “Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.” Unbeknownst to most American voters, the Kochs’ Freedom Partners had spent nearly a quarter-billion dollars in the 2012 presidential election year, giving money to an array of groups, like Sean Noble’s CPPR, which then gave money to other groups. And some of them gave money to still others, like a big shell game, which the Washington Post called unprecedented in the non-profit world—though well known in the world of offshore banking. Noble--whose star has dimmed in Koch world--re-branded CPPR as “American Encore.” Notably, the 2009 Koch donor soiree is not the only exclusive Koch donor event Higgins is known to have attended. As Lee Fang documented, Higgins and her husband attended the 2010 Koch billionaire retreat in Aspen. The list of attendees for other years since then has not leaked and the Kochs have required press allowed to attend to keep the donors secret. 18 IWF/V’s Team and Their Deep Koch Ties The connections between IWF/V and the Koch network are lengthy and extensive. IWF/V is deeply embedded in the Kochs’ rightwing infrastructure, pushing the Koch agenda on free markets and against government regulation, which limits democratic control of corporations. Did you know IWF was jointly operated with David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity/Citizens for a Sound Economy by a former Koch lobbyist for years and still has Koch ties? As CMD documented, IWF was launched in 1991 to deploy women to defend Clarence Thomas against sexual harassment claims. Due to limited paper archives from that era, it is not clear when money from the Koch family fortune first began funding IWF. What is known is that Koch Industries’ top lobbyist in DC, Nancy Pfotenhauer, took over as the leader of IWF in March 2001. Pfotenhauer had received her Masters degree in economics from George Mason University (which Charles Koch began building up in the late 1970s). From 19951996, she worked as the Executive VP of Policy for David Koch’s Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), with Richard Fink, CSE’s President and a VP at Koch. Pfotenhauer then became the director of the Washington D.C. office of Koch Industries, leading its lobbying. She also managed the Koch PAC activities. Heather Higgins also joined Pfotenhauer at IWF, as Vice Chair of the IWF board. By 2003, IWF and CSE began joint operations. CSE split into Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and FreedomWorks. IWF and AFP shared staff and offices. From 2003-2005, Pfotenhauer led both groups as President of each. She reported to David Koch, North Carolina billionaire Art Pope, and Koch man Wayne Gable among others on AFP’s board, and to Higgins and IWF founder Ricky Silberman and others on IWF’s Board. In 2004, Pfotenhauer launched the (c)(4) group Independent Women’s Voice. She chose Koch Industries employee Arianne Massey to be Treasurer. Massey is now the managing director of Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC, the renamed lobbying arm of Koch Industries. (ALEC lawyer Alan Dye filed incorporation papers for IWV, listing Higgins and others board members, and the IRS’ Lois Lerner approved IWV’s non-profit status.) In 2005, Pfotenhauer was IWF’s president and continued to report to David Koch as Chair of AFP’s board, along with Pope and Fink; and Higgins took over IWF’s board. In 2006, Pfotenhauer stepped down from IWF’s presidency while continuing to lead AFP and be vice chair of IWF’s board. She continued as president of IWV until she left the group to work on Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in the 2008 election. As she left the IWF Board, another Koch lobbyist ascended. Mary Beth Jarvis, who was the Director of Public Affairs for Koch Industries stayed on the board until 2010. 19 Several other Koch-connected board members, staff, or fellows have aided IWF/V. More than half of IWF’s current sevenmember board have Koch ties: * Heather Higgins, IWF Board President, has attended Koch donor events and fundraised from the Koch network. * Kellyanne Conway--the new Trump pollster--has attended Koch retreats and been a consultant to Tim Phillips of Koch’s Americans for Prosperity. * Larry Kudlow, the CNBC/National Review TV personality, has been a go-to media guy for Kochs, including doing an exclusive interview with David Koch; received more than $230K from the Kochs’ Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He is a family friend of Higgins and her late father Randy Richardson. * Giovanna Cugnasca, has worked as a “liaison with policy makers and the media” for the Pacific Research Institute, which has received more than $1.7 million from Koch philanthropies; it is part of the State Policy Network, which Kochs have funded. * Dr. Nan Hayworth’s congressional campaign has received money from the Koch PAC. And, IWV spent more than $22K on independent expenditures to help her in her successful one-term bid election to Congress. She lost her bid for re-election and was criticized for being more antichoice and for staffers who made hostile comments about women, including one about “hurling acid” at female detractors. Many former IWF board members also have Koch ties, such as Pfotenhauer. IWF’s board also includes Kimberly O. Dennis as a Board of Director Emeritus. She’s the chair of the “dark money ATM” of the right, DonorsTrust, and vice chair of DonorsCapital Fund. These entities shield the identities of donors to right-wing groups like IWF/V. She also served on the board of Charles Koch’s Institute for Humane Studies. For IWV, Higgins and Decter are the only board members, as of 2014, when it also reported having no employees Half of IWF’s current staff previously worked for Koch philanthropies or groups funded by the Koch family fortune, including: * Sabrina Schaeffer, IWF’s Executive Director, previously worked at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long been funded by the Kochs (Schaeffer also worked previously as a speechwriter for Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and helped staff GOP campaigns.) In a recent Fox appearance, she was listed as a “Republican Strategist.” * Carrie L. Lukas, IWF’s Managing Director, was a policy analyst at the Kochs’ Cato Institute before joining IWF (Charles Koch co-founded Cato.) (Lukas was also previously a policy analyst for the House Republican Policy Committee.) * Victoria R. Coley, Director of Communications, began her career as a producer at FOX. She was previously Deputy Comms Director at Public Notice in 2011–2012, a Koch astroturf group against government debt, which got $14.5 million from the TC4 Trust and from the Kochs’ Freedom Partners in that period. * Hadley Heath Manning, IWF’s Director of Health Policy, participated in the Koch Associate Program and was recently lauded by the Charles Koch Institute as an alumna who is making “a difference” * Whitney Garrison Athayde, IWF’s Director of Donor Relations & Direct Mail Consultant, was Donor Relations Associate at Atlas Economic Research Foundation (2007-10), which has received at least $300K from Koch philanthropies to peddle the Koch agenda to other countries. She’s also on the board of the America’s Future Foundation, which has received funding from Charles Koch Foundation. She was also a Koch Associate at Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (2007–08). 20 IWF’s “Leadership Circle” also includes Kate Pomeroy, who was Public Notice’s Media Director and was Comms Director at Concerned Veterans for America. Twelve of IWF’s 19 Senior/Visiting Fellows have worked for Koch-funded groups, e.g.: * Patrice Lee Onwuka, IWF Senior Fellow. She is the Director of Outreach at Generation Opportunity, a Koch group focused on millennials. In 2014, it received at least 75% of its funding ($14 million) from the Kochs’ Freedom Partners. * Nicole Kurokawa Neily, IWF’s Senior Fellow. She is the President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which operates the Watchdog “reporting” groups that attack labor and Democrats. It has received small funding from Koch philanthropies and more than $31 million from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital. She led IWF before Schaeffer. * Angela Logomasini, IWF Senior Fellow. She is a Senior Fellow at the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute. Other current or former IWF/V staff have strong partisan credentials. For example, Debbie LeHardy was the RNC’s Deputy Finance Director during the Bush administration and has helped raised money for Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. And, IWF’s Grassroots Director Ashley B. Carter was the Election Day Operations Director in Ken Cuccinelli’s bid for Virginia Governor and did Election Day Operations for Mitt Romney. IWF/V Positions and Koch DNA In March 2011, IWF’s Senior Policy Analyst Julie Gunlock claimed that the widespread influence of the Kochs is one of “the Left's favorite” conspiracy theories. (She previously worked for Senators Coburn (R-OK), DeWine (R-OH), and Voinovich (R-OH)). Gunlock commented, “According to many on the Left, the Koch Brothers control the world from their secretive headquarters in … Wichita, Kansas. Wichita? Yeah, the theory kind of loses steam when you hear Wichita….” But Gunlock has it wrong. The Kochs do exert an extraordinary amount of influence, but their political power is not directed at Wichita. The nexus of Koch influence, the hub that connects the spokes, is found in the capitol—in Washington, DC, and nearby Arlington--in the offices that house myriad groups that toe the Koch line, push its agenda, or throw its voice: groups like IWF/V. Through Koch Industries and their personal accounts, their family foundations, their donor summits, their corporate PAC, and various trusts, the Kochs have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into countless non-profit groups--along with direct funding to campaigns. And they’ve built an astonishingly wide reach. As tallied by Politico’s Ken Vogel, the Kochs’ donor network employs 1,200 staffers in 107 offices nationwide–more than 300% more than the number of staffers of a major political party, the Republican National Committee. The current moment is defined in part by the maturation of the Kochs’ human capital investment into positions of power–politically, in legislatures that advance the Koch agenda; academically, in universities like George Mason and Florida State, where donations secure tenure to teach a Koch curriculum; and intellectually, through groups and staffers pushing the Koch mantra assailing government and manufacturing experts to peddle the same. 21 The Kochs’ influence on our democracy is unprecedented. And it is reflected in IWF/V. On a wide range of issues, IWF/V pushes a policy agenda the Kochs have long prioritized. For example, the organization assumes an adamantly anti-science outlook on climate change and environmental concerns, and adheres to laissez-faire economic doctrines– approaches that, non-coincidentally, benefit the Kochs and amplify their rhetoric and claims. Following IWF’s takeover by the Koch operative Nancy Pfotenhauer, IWF expanded its advocacy for eliminating capital gains taxes, permanently repealing any form of estate tax, privatizing Social Security, and privatizing many if not all forms of public education. By 2011, a decade after the 2001 Koch takeover, IWF was firmly entrenched in the Kochs’ political infrastructure. Under the rubric of “limited government” and for “free markets and liberty,” IWF can be relied upon to propagandize in favor of issues the Kochs prioritize. IWF has also joined in escalating attacks on labor, with pop-up websites like isthatreallyfair.org. Many of IWF’s current claims echo those made when a former Koch lobbyist ran the group. Under Higgins, IWF continues to push Koch-approved policy initiatives, validated by the organization’s Koch-educated experts, into a policy world rife with Koch-backed politicians. That's IWF/V’s history: Not neutral. Not mainstream. And Not-So Independent. So the question is will the public and the press continue to buy IWF/V’s claims it is neutral and mainstream, though the evidence shows that IWF/V is really not-so independent? . 22 Independent Women’s Voice Reported Independent Expenditures 2014 Election Cycle Candidate Party State Office Total Amount (For/Against) Expenditures Near Election Day (Date/Amount) Results Notes • • Cochran, Thad R Busch, Elizabeth Colbert D MS SC 1 2 Senate House $209,326 (Against) $145,237 (Against) 05/02/2013-$10,000.00; 05/02/2013–$1,795.49; 05/02/2013–$2,256.46; 05/03/2013–$1,000.00; 04/29/2013–$4,600.00; 05/02/2013–$12,105.00; Lost 05/02/2012-$54,675.00; 05/03/2013-$3,100.00; 05/03/2013-$7,053.00; 05/04/2013-$16,005.00; 05/05/2013-$32,648.44 Winner • http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/gop-senator-did-indecent-things-with-animals.html# http://www.clarionledger.com/story/politicalledger/2014/10/24/mcdaniel-loses-appeal/17858671/ 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Made a statement that he enjoyed doing "indecent things with animals" as a child1 Faced allegations of vote buying in 2014 Republican Primary but charges were ultimately dismissed in court2 23 • • Gardner, Cory R CO Senate $134,407 (For) 11/3/2014-$122,248.28; 10/30/2014-$1,000.00; 10/30/2014-$11,159.58 Winner • 3 http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2015/08/03/planned-parenthood-group-slams-sen-cory-gardner/122460/ 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Voted to defund Planned Parenthood in 2015 and state “This bill would redirect funding for women’s healthcare away from the scandalplagued Planned Parenthood and towards responsible community health clinics that operate without a political agenda. Funding for women’s healthcare must actually go to fund women’s healthcare, not to line the coffers of an organization under increased scrutiny for reprehensible, inhumane behavior.”3 Supported a 24 • • • • 4 http://www.denverpost.com/2014/03/21/cory-gardner-changes-position-on-personhood-issue/ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/contraception-gop-war-on-women-counteroffensive-gardner-ayotte-119088 6 http://www.coloradoindependent.com/159843/cory-gardner-planned-parenthood-rocky-mountains 7 http://www.coloradoindependent.com/157647/cory-gardner-hillary-prison-joke 5 “personhood” bill before reversing himself.4 Supported a bill to allow contraceptives over the counter which was criticized by Democrats for making the drugs more expensive.5 When meeting the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains CEO said he “appreciates what Planned Parenthood does. Just kidding.”6 Joked about putting Hillary Clinton in a Colorado Supermax prison.7 Supported inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress and the Republican 25 • • Roberts, Pat R KS Senate $96,309 (For) 11/3/2014-$67,301.42; 11/03/2014-$17,143.96; 10/30/2014-$1,000.00; 10/30/2014-$10,865.69 Winner • • Ernst, Joni R IA 8 Senate $92,963 (For) 11/3/2014-$81,618.68; 10/30/2014-$1,000.00; 10/30/2014-$10,345.76 Winner http://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/10/cory-gardner-defends-controversial-letter-to-iranian-leaders/ http://www.wibw.com/content/news/Sen-Roberts-blasts-administration-over-Benghazi-incompetence-384707681.html 10 https://rewire.news/article/2014/10/17/kansas-debate-roberts-says-calling-abortion-rights-settled-law-unconscionable/ 11 http://cjonline.com/news/business/2016-03-16/us-senate-refuses-advance-sen-pat-roberts-bill-gmo-labeling# 9 • • letter challenging Obama’s negotiations with Iran.8 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Continued to criticize the Obama administration over Benghazi after the June 2016 report was released clearing the administration of wrongdoing.9 Said that calling abortion rights “settled law” is “unconscionable.”10 Sponsored failed legislation that would prohibit states from adopting laws that require GMOs to be labeled.11 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Criticized Hillary 26 Brown, Scott R NH 12 Senate $89,156 (For) 11/3/2014-$56,990.50; 10/31/2014-$32,166.80 https://newrepublic.com/article/122001/joni-ernst-wrong-about-issues-most-important-women-voters http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/joni-ernst-sexual-harassment 14 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/16/joni-ernst-on-phony-war-on-women-i-ve-been-to-war/ 13 Lost Clinton’s stance on women’s issues, stating “It’s not enough to be a woman.”12 • A former female staffer filed a lawsuit claiming that Ernst was a witness to sexual harassment in her office and did nothing about it, despite claiming to be a victim of sexual harassment herself while in the military.13 • Stated that there is no “war on women” being waged by the Republican Party.14 • Attacked by Democratic opponent Jean Shaheen for voting to allow employers not to cover contraception if it 27 violated their beliefs.15 McConnell, Mitch R KY Senate Perdue, David R GA Senate $46,334 (For) 11/3/2014-$37,369.20; 10/30/2014-$1,000.00; 10/30/2014-$7,965.45 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% $23,695 (For) 10/31/2014-$23,695.24 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% • • Tillis, Thom R NC Senate $23,238 (For) 10/31/2014-$23,238.45 Winner • • 15 http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Jeanne-Shaheen-Scott-Brown-New-Hampshire-midterms/2014/09/30/id/597654/ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/contraception-gop-war-on-women-counteroffensive-gardner-ayotte-119088 17 http://time.com/3292527/scott-brown-jeanne-shaheen-new-hampshire/ 16 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Supported a bill to allow contraceptives over the counter which was criticized by Democrats for making the drugs more expensive.16 Handed out “Hero Awards” and plaques to female supporters that read “Women for Scott Brown”17 Served as a highly paid advisor for a shadowy company which did not appear to make any 28 products or provide any services.18 Garcia, Marilinda R NH House $16,228 (For) 10/31/2014-$16,228.40 Lost Guinta, Frank R NH House $15,938 (For) 10/31/2014- $15,938.49 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Sanford, Mark R SC House $15,048 (For) 05/05/2013-$7,941.52; $7,107.40 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Cassidy, Bill R LA Senate $10,135 (For) 10/31/2014-$10,135.63 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Benishek, Dan R MI House $3,845 (For) 11/03/2014-$1,485.12; 10/31/2014-$2,360.00 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Terry, Lee R NE House $3,056 (For) 10/31/2014-$3,056.00 Lost King, Steve R IA House $2,888 (For) 10/31/2014-$2,888.00 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Brat, Dave R VA House $2,422 (For) 10/31/2014-$2,422.00 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% 18 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/06/05/scott-browns-tenure-as-adviser-to-mysterious-company-worked-out-poorly-for-everyone/ 29 R MI House $2,396 (For) 11/3/2014-$1,000.00; 11/03/2014-$1,396.82 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Ellmers, Renee R NC House $2,053 (For) 11/03/2014-$2,053.97 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Comstock, Barbara R VA House $1,935 (For) 10/31/2014-$1,935.00 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Hayworth, Nan R NY House $1,712 (For) 10/31/2014-$1,712.00 Lost Zeldin, Lee R NY House $1,642 (For) 10/31/2014-$1,642.00 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Didier, Clint R WA House $1,508 (For) 10/31/2014-$1,508.00 Lost Mooney, Alex R WV House $1,139 (For) 10/31/2014-$1,139.00 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Westerman, Bruce R AR House $1,066 (For) 10/31/2014-$1,066.00 Winner 2015 NARAL Rating on Choice: 0% Upton, Fred TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2014 Election Cycle: $943,676 30 Independent Women’s Voice Reported Independent Expenditures 2012 Election Cycle Candidate Party State Office Total Amount (For/Against) Mourdock, Richard E R $176,991 (For) Obama, Barack D President $154,900 (Against) Mack, Connie R FL Senate $102,093 (For) IN Senate Expenditures Near Results Notes Election Day (Date/Amount) • Was favored to win 11/02/2012-$176,991.00 Lost the Indiana Senate seat before his statement that a pregnancy from rape is a “gift from god” and abortion was not an option.19 10/30/2012-$17,200.00; Winner 10/30/2012-$3,200.00; 10/30/2012$132,000.00; 10/30/2012-$2,500.00 11/01/2012-$102,093.55 Lost • • 19 http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/06/14973899-democrats-make-gains-in-senate-majority; http://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/mourdock-rape-pregnancy-and-gods-plan-082795 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% Mack was in an affair with fellow Congresswoman Mary Bono while he was still 31 Smith, Tom R PA 20 Senate $96,117 (For) 11/01/2012-$96,117.04 Lost • married and campaigning on family values. Mack later married and divorced Bono.20 Mack sometimes appeared to spend more than he earned, had property liens filed against him, overdrew his bank account and didn’t have enough money to pay his federal income taxes after his 2004 congressional election, according to court records from Fort Myers to Jacksonville to Fort Lauderdale.21 Promoted a total ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest.22 http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/01/20/more-gop-sleaze-family-values-proponent-rep-connie-mack-in-adulterous-affair-with-rep-bono/ http://www.senatemajority.com/2012/02/news/blog-posts/connies-reality-star-lifestyle-real-house-member-of-lee-county/ 22 http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-29/news/33451676_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-casey 21 32 Thompson, Tommy G R WI Senate $71,189 (For) 11/01/2012-$71,189.61 Lost Stated during a 2008 Presidential debate that business should have the right to fire gay employees before backtracking days later.23 • Apologized for stating that making money is “part of the Jewish tradition.”24 • While at the Department of Health and Human Services, hid data on cost of Bush administration initiatives.25 Hoekstra, Peter R MI Senate $69,700 (For) 11/1/2012-$69,700.30 Lost • 2323 http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Tommy_Thompson_flipflops_on_allowing_0504.html http://www.webcitation.org/62CbM7olG 25 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/senate-guru/tommy-thompsons-greatest_b_502800.html 24 • Ran an ad during the 2012 Super Bowl about job outsourcing caused by his opponent which 33 featured Asian stereotypes.26 • Made a quickly discredited claim that WMDs were found in Iraq in 2006.27 • Opposes equal pay legislation and called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act a “nuisance” that “shouldn’t be the law.”28 • From 1996-2008, Hoekstra received 100% ratings from National Right to Life.29 Akin, Todd R MO 26 Senate $67,242 (For) 11/1/2012-$67,242.43 Lost • http://web.archive.org/web/20131017195554/http://thegrio.com/2012/02/06/hoekstras-broken-english-ad-draws-more-criticism/ https://web.archive.org/web/20060701140845/http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,200763,00.html 28 http://www.emilyslist.org/news/entry/pete-hoekstra-is-wrong-for-michigan-women-and-families 29 http://www.emilyslist.org/news/entry/pete-hoekstra-is-wrong-for-michigan-women-and-families 27 Highly criticized for his statement that abortions wouldn’t be necessary for rape victims because “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has 34 ways to try to shut the whole thing down.” 30 Allen, George R VA Senate $44,257 (For) 11/01/2012-$44,257.60 Lost • • Provoked criticism for calling a 20 year-old intern for his opponent “macaca” which was viewed as an ethnic slur.31 Criticized by Senate race opponent Tim Kaine for supporting a “personhood” bill.32 Flake, Jeff R AZ Senate $41,850 (For) 11/01/2012-$41,850.82 Winner • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% Mandel, Josh R OH Senate $33,955 (For) 11/01/2012-$33,955.20 Lost • Opposed abortion ban exceptions for rape victims and defended the statements of 30 http://time.com/3001785/todd-akin-legitimate-rape-msnbc-child-of-rape/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400589.html 32 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/10/15/virginia_democrats_push_womens_issues_as_lead_dissipates 31 35 Richard Mourdock.33 • Mandel’s campaign claimed he supported a “clean reauthorization” of the violence against women act, “but failed to provide any details about what additions in the Senate bill he finds objectionable.”34 • Supported a “heartbeat bill” in Ohio which would ban abortions as soon as a heartbeat could be detected.35 Romney, Mitt R President $27,581 (For) 11/01/2012-$23,210.21 Lost Fischer, Deb R NE Senate $17,027 (For) 11/01/2012-$2,333.87; 11/01/2012-$14,694.72 Winner 33 • Advocated defunding Planned http://www.prochoiceohio.org/media/press/20121025.shtml http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/05/national_federation_of_indepen.html 35 http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2011/04/12/heartbeat_bill_picks_up_suppor.html/ 34 36 • Turner, Robert R L NY Senate $14,348 (For) Lost in primary • Was the only one of 20 female senators not cosponsoring the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013.38 • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% Creator of the Jerry Springer Show.39 • • 36 Parenthood because of doctored videos claiming to show PP staff selling fetal tissue.36 Voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act in 2014.37 Promoted the fact that he http://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ID=18178a23-11ec-4710-beef-cf4fc31c029f http://www.takepart.com/feature/2014/09/16/republican-women-equal-pay 38 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/deb-fischer-vawa_n_2617388.html 39 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/nyregion/profile-of-robert-turner-from-springer-show-to-bid-for-weiners-house-seat.html?_r=0 37 37 helped create Rush Limbaugh’s TV show during his Congressional race.40 Corwin, Jane R NY House $14,250 (For) • Voted to uphold the practice of shackling women in prison as they give birth while in the NY State Assembly.41 Summers, Charlie R ME Senate $10,677 (For) 11/01/2012-$10,677.49 Lost • Backed harsh voter fraud laws and sent letters to students in Maine while Secretary of State, warning them that they may be breaking the law by registering to vote without following all of the state’s bureaucratic regulations.42 Expressed seemingly • 40 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/bob-turner-rush-limbaugh-tv-show_n_944949.html http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/13/166031/jane-corwin-shackle-women/ 42 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/03/gop-backed-voter-fraud-laws-aim-to-disenfranchise-students.html 41 38 contradictory positions on abortion rights, stating that he supported government funding restrictions and only supported abortion in the cases of the life of the mother, rape or incest.43 Walsh, Joe R IL House $5,026 (For) 11/01/2012-$5,026.52 Lost • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% Benishek, Dan R MI House $4,858 (For) 11/1/2012-$4,858.90 Winner • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% Heller, Dean R NV Senate $3,948 (For) 11/01/2012-$3,948.99 Winner • Voted to allow employers to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives Koster, John R WA House $3,888 (For) 11/1/2012-$3,888.46 Lost 43 http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/05/politics/charlie-summers-has-pro-choice-reputation-but-has-qualified-abortion-support-during-senate-run/ 39 King, Steven A R IA House $3,715 (For) 11/1/2012-$3,715.75 Winner Muri, Dick R WA House $3,063 (For) 11/1/2012-$3,063.21 Lost Cotton, Tom R AR House $2,554 (For) 11/05/2012-$496.34; 11/05/2012-$2,058.90 Winner Plummer, Jason R IL House $2,422 (For) 11/1/2012-$2,422.56 Lost Rigell, Scott R VA House $2,158 (For) 11/01/2012-$2,158.86 Winner • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% Rouzer, David R NC House $2,114 (For) 11/1/2012-$2,114.33 Lost • Hayworth, Nan R NY House $2,045 (For) 11/1/2012-$2,045.99 Lost • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 50% Wilson, Heather A R NM Senate $2,019 (For) 11/01/2012-$2,019.75 Lost Anderson, Lee Ivey R GA House $1,680 (For) 11/1/2012-$1,335.88 Lost Hudson, Richard R NC House $1,564 (For) 11/01/2012-$1,564.58 Winner • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% 40 Bartlett, Roscoe G R MD House $1,463 (For) 11/1/2012-$1,463.18 Lost • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% Johnson, Bill R OH House $1,368 (For) 11/01/2012-$1,368.86 Winner • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% Parker, Vernon R AZ House $1,335 (For) 11/1/2012-$1,335.88 Lost Paton, Jonathan R AZ House $1,237 (For) 11/01/2012-$1,237.71 Lost Canseco, Francisco R TX House $964 (For) 11/01/2012-$964.17 Lost TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2012 Election Cycle: $989,598 • 2012 NARAL Record on Choice: 0% 41 Independent Women’s Voice Reported Independent Expenditures 2010 Election Cycle Candidate Party State Office Total Amount (For/Against) Expenditures Near Election Day (Date/Amount) Brown, Scott R MA Senate $231,735 (For) 01/15/2010- Won in $107000.00; special 01/15/2010- $35000.00; election 01/15/2010- $2735.00 01/17/2010- $44000.00 01/17/2010- $43000.00 • Binnie, William H R NH Senate $66,095 (For) 09/12/2010- $29,013.12; 09/12/2010-$2,250.00; 09/12/2010-$5,000.00; 09/13/2010-$29,832.48 • Becker, Francis R X Jr 44 45 NY House $39,492 (For) Results Notes Lost in primary 10/27/2010-$37,859.87; Lost 10/31/2010-$1,633.45 http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/media-owners-get-in-on-the-fundraising-circuit-224095 http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-is-getting-a-late-start-to-fundraising-1465341288 • Major contributors to IWV at this time were: Foster Friess $87,000; Randy Kendrick $23,435; Richard Sharp $50,000; Patrick Thomas $25,000; John M. Templeton Jr. $30,000; Thomas D Klingenstein $10,000 Held a fundraiser for Donald Trump’s Presidential Campaign44 Owned a plastics company which outsourced hundreds of jobs to Mexico.45 42 Burns, Timothy R R PA House $22,500 (For) 5/15/2010-$14,000.00; 05/15/2010-$8,500.00 Lost • • • Caligiuri, Sam R CT House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$3,412.08 Lost Harris, Andy R MD House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010 - $2,934.23 Winner • • • 46 Supported by Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich.46 Claimed he would repeal Obamacare if elected.47 Wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade.48 Supported Don’t Ask Don’t Tell49 The Connecticut Family Institute said a victory for Caligiuri would be a breakthrough for the pro-life movement.50 Equated mandated coverage of contraception in federal insurance plans with the burning of churches.51 Tried to stop http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-burns-mark-critz-battle-as-pennsylvania-house-special-election-goes-down-to-the-wire/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-burns-mark-critz-battle-as-pennsylvania-house-special-election-goes-down-to-the-wire/ 48 http://www.weeklystandard.com/mark-critz-and-tim-burns-debate-in-pa-12/article/439207 49 http://www.weeklystandard.com/mark-critz-and-tim-burns-debate-in-pa-12/article/439207 50 http://articles.courant.com/2010-08-22/news/hc-abortion-ct-poiltics-0823-20100822_1_abortion-foe-abortion-policy-martha-dean/2 51 http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/2013/12/26/rep-andy-harris-opinion-the-fight-for-religious-freedom-isnt-over/4209807/ 47 43 • Schweikert, David R AZ House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$2,563.61 Winner • • • 52 funding for the University of Maryland when a student group screened an X-rated film.52 Strongly antiabortion and said it was an honor to serve on the committee investigating Planned Parenthood for selling fetal tissue.53 Voted against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization of 201354 Said that abortion rights supporters are motivated by greed, money and power55 Claimed he https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-congressman-andy-harris-how-he-came-to-challenge-dcs-marijuanalaw/2014/07/13/42e3f6b0-0a42-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html 53 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-harris-named-to-panel-investigating-abortion-controversy-20151023-story.html 54 http://www.williamsonforuscongress.com/?p=541 55 http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rep-david-schweikert-pro-choice-advocates-it-money 44 mistakenly used the Veterans Affairs mismanagement scandal in an email asking for campaign donations56 Quayle, Ben R AZ House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$2,443.07 Winner • Used a pseudonym to write commentary on a website that criticized women’s appearances in Arizona57 Ellmers, Renee R NC House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$2,299.29 Winner • Stated in 2014 that Republicans should bring policy discussions “down to a woman’s level” if they want to gain more female votes.58 Argued against Obamacare covering maternity care and • 56 http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rep-david-schweikert-pro-choice-advocates-it-money http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/08/post-36 58 http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/07/16/renee_ellmers_defends_her_bring_it_down_to_a_woman_s_level_comment.html 57 45 • Marino, Tom R PA House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$2,033.47 Winner • Hayworth, Nan R NY House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$1,923.50 Winner • 59 contraception without co-pays.59 Claimed to be antifeminist.60 Resigned from his position as US Attorney after an investigation into his support for an organized crime member in obtaining a gambling license61 • Boasted about his support for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act62 Criticized by Planned Parenthood for campaigning as a moderate but spending a large amount of her time in Congress http://www.salon.com/2013/11/05/behind_the_right%E2%80%99s_crazy_crusade_to_make_women_pay_more_for_health_insurance/ http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-ten-scariest-republicans-heading-to-congress 61 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/tom-marino-little-ethics-problem 62 http://www.politicspa.com/pa-delegation-mostly-supports-new-limits-on-abortion-funding/24005/ 60 46 • attacking abortion rights.63 Criticized for having multiple staffers who made hostile comments about women, including one statement about “hurling acid” at female detractors.64 Charles Djou R HI House $22,500 (For) Winner Nunnelee, Alan R MS House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$1,730.86 Winner Phillips, George K R NY House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$1,709.79 Lost McClung, Ruth R AZ House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$1,413.76 Lost Sicard, Gary L IA House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$1,083.50 Lost Hurt, Robert R VA House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$1,014.69 Winner 63 https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-hudson-peconic/newsroom/press-releases/letter-editor-nan-hayworth-votes-against-womenjournal-news-october-13-2012 64 http://www.villagevoice.com/news/nan-hayworths-lady-problems-did-her-campaign-manager-tell-women-to-wear-as-little-as-possible-to-party-6728341 47 Rigell, Scott R VA House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$839.48 Winner Raczkowski, Andrew R MI House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$592.69 Lost Canseco, Francisco R TX House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$536.90 Winner Flores, Bill R TX House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$490.77 Winner Benishek, Dan R MI House $22,500 (For) 10/31/2010-$405.55 Winner TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2010 Election Cycle: $533,087 48 Selection of Not Mainstream IWF/V Quotes Women’s Issues - IWF disputes the fact that women are paid less than men doing the same job: Equal Pay Day is “a pseudo-holiday based on the idea that women are systematically underpaid.” …“Americans appropriately recoil from the idea of a sexist economy that shortchanges hard-working women. If it were true, it would be outrageous. Fortunately, however, this commonly repeated claim is false.” - IWF argues that any wage gap “has more to do with the sexes' personal inclinations and choices. Such as the fact that women generally like to have cleaner houses and laundry than men, and that yard work comports better with men's generally superior physical strength. …“Why not recognize that…that a lot of women view getting paid a little less for their work outside the home is a fine trade-off for the time they get to spend inside their homes?” - According to IWF, women don’t benefit from the Lilly Ledbetter Act; Title IX is the product of “an anti-male agenda in enforcement policies”; and that HHS Contraception mandate should be opposed because, among other arguments, it “may encourage more sexual activity” and “encourage a substitution away from condom use, leading to higher STD rates.” - IWF has also argued that the Violence Against Women Act should not be reauthorized because "wives instigate violence, including severe violence, against husbands more often than husbands do against wives" and that, “a large percentage of domestic abuse victims are men and homosexuals.” LGBTQ - IWF has stated that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act “battle is not over gay rights, which are protected by law in the U.S. This fight is over religious liberty, which is increasingly under attack.” - On the current North Carolina transgender bathroom debate, IWF’s Charlotte Hayes wrote this May, “I am willing to bet that this part of ordinance came out of a vacuum: it was intended to create a wedge issue rather than to solve a civil rights wrong. Was there really any transgender citizen in Charlotte cruelly banned from the desired facility? I seriously doubt it.” 49 Guns - IWF argues that “guns make women safer” and lobbies against laws limiting access to semi-automatic handguns and maximum magazine clips, stating, “limit a women's capability to fight back against attackers and protect herself and her family.” - On AR-15s, IWF’s Anna Ritgers has written, “The Second Amendment—which remains a part of the Bill of Rights, not the bill of “needs”—protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. There is no good argument why law abiding citizens should have these tools taken away from them.” Racism - IWV President and IWF Board Chairman Heather Higgins supported New York’s “stop and frisk” policy arguing that blacks who were stopped, frisked, and released for not breaking the law were “merely inconvenienced for a few minutes.” - In a post denigrating the concept of May Day, IWF’s Charlotte Allen wrote, “But here are some things that get my goat: 1. The new politically correct terminology: Once upon a time, it was "illegal aliens" (which quite correctly describes the juridical situation of many of these people). Then it became "undocumented immigrants" (even though many of them have documentation, albeit fake). Now, it's just plain "immigrants," conflating all those who come here legally with those who don't.” Education - IWF has explicitly advocated for for-profit institutions in K-12 education, writing a policy brief on the subject which states, “For-profit entities should be among those providers competing for education dollars.” Unions - IWF argues that unions are harmful because “overly-generous compensation packages make our companies (and our economy) less competitive” and that “unions play an increasingly destructive role in our economy.” - According to IWF, “The NLRB also issued a 194-page rule requiring employers to display posters informing employees about the right to organize… Frighteningly, it’s unelected bureaucrats (not even our elected representatives) who are making these job-destroying decisions! This union cause is being advanced at a great cost to taxpayers and the economy.” Environment - IWF President Sabrina Schaeffer has said that “the alarmism and hysteria that [the Obama administration] likes to promote, especially related to climate change is unbelievable.” 50 - IWF has also attempted to downplay the role of fracking and increased seismic activity, arguing that even when hydraulic injections “induce earthquakes, they’re small ones.” - IWF’s Vicki E. Alger wrote in 2014 that “a majority of scientists believe that global warming is largely nature-made, not man-made,” and praised Wyoming for becoming “the first state to reject Common Core’s ‘Next Generation’ Science Standards because they push man-made global warming as a settled fact.” Nutrition - IWF fiercely attacks regulation, especially by the Food and Drug Administration and government-based educational programs on nutrition policy. IWF Senior Fellow Julie Gunlock called the FDA “food nannies” who are “completely of control. They are going crazy and I think we’re seeing that in last few months of the Obama Administration they’re really working hard to control how Americans eat. We’ve seen bans on trans-fat. We’ve seen some efforts to ban e-cigarettes, which in Europe they consider a smoking cessation strategy. Here in the United States they’re doing everything to make it harder for Americans to actually get access to these products.” - When the FDA recommending cutting the salt content in prepared foods, Gunlock called the agency “Food Marxists,” and wrote “the FDA’s authoritarian behavior isn’t just an assault on freedom of choice; these policies are also medically questionable.” She also said the government has no business regulating what Americans eat and drink and that restricting salt intake was “quite dangerous.” - After Philadelphia adopted a soda tax in June, Gunlock said it was “nonsense” to pick any one thing – including sugar – as a cause of obesity. “If the Mayor of Philadelphia was really concerned with obesity, he should levy a tax on cheesesteaks.” - Since 2014, IWF has advocated to “Bring Back BPA,” in response to findings that BPA-plastic substitutes can also be dangerous to human health. The organization has also labeled public concern over endocrine disruptors as “activist-generated media hype.”