From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Crossposting (was Re: Schmidling is simply wrong... and a liar.)
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:41:57 GMT
Organization: HP Western Response Center

In alt.conspiracy, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

> "Bilked" suggests a criminal act - please prove that statement, perhaps by
> demonstrating that the American taxpayers have paid this amount because the
> expendature was misrepresented. Or quit using emotive bullshit terms like
> "bilked" which have no basis in fact.

I have researched this. The pro-Israel lobby in America is coordinated by 
AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It was founded in 1951 
by I. L. Kenen, a registered foreign agent of Israel. AIPAC has over 50,000 
members, and is largely responsible for the billions of dollars in foreign 
aid sent to Israel every year. I'm aware of three formal complaints 
against AIPAC.



                                Complaint #1


When filed:
        October 17, 1988(8)

Who filed:(8)
	Victor Marchetti, Editor of New American View
	Mark Lane, Author of "Plausible Denial"

Where filed:(8)
	U.S. Department of Justice
	Criminal Division--Registration Unit

What the complaint asserts:(8)
	AIPAC is a foreign agent of the state of Israel and has violated 
	the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 as amended by refusing 
	to register as a foreign agent.

The law in question:(6)
	Section 1, subsection (c) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 
	1938:

	(1) Any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee or 
	servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, 
	request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or 
	of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly 
	supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or 
	in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through 
	any other person-	

		(i) Engages within the U.S. in political activities for the
		interest if such foreign principal;

		(ii) Acts within the U.S. as a public relations counsel,
		publicity agent, information-service employee or political
		consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;

		(iii) Within the U.S. solicits, collects, disburses, or
		dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of
		value for or in the interests of such foreign principal; or

		(iv) Within the U.S. represents the interests of such foreign 
		principal before any agency or official of the government 
		of the U.S. 

Key evidence:(8)
	AIPAC was founded by I.L. Kenen who was himself a registered foreign
	agent for Israel before he formed AIPAC. AIPAC's president in 1988
	maintains a permanent address in Jerusalem, and has been regularly 
	briefed by Israel's leaders as to the positions they favored(8). 
	AIPAC's pro-Israel policies are well known (1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11,12)

Disposition of the complaint:
	Stalled. New American View needs funds to pursue the complaint. They 
	feel they have a good case.



				Complaint #2

When filed: 
	January 1988(9)	or
	January 12th, 1989(1)

Who filed:(1)
	George Ball, former undersecretary of state
	James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia
	Paul Findley, former Illinois Rep. 
	Robert Hanks, former commander of U.S. Navy's Middle East Task Force
	Orin Parker, former president of Amideast
	Richard Curtiss, former U.S. Information Agency Chief Inspector
	Andrew Kilgore, U.S. Citizen over 18 years of age
	Orin Parker, U.S. Citizen over 18 years of age

Where filed:(1)
	With the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

What the complaint was:
	The FEC has treated this complaint as two separate parts. The manager
	of their Public Records department told me this was very unusual.

	Part I.	
	AIPAC and 27 pro-Israel PACs were accused of violating election law by 
	coordinating contributions(10).

	Part II.
	A gag order has been placed on the plaintiffs, so not much info is 
	available. The New York Times described this complaint as "The Public 
	Affairs Committee (AIPAC) should have registered as a political action 
	committee... the group has made targets of political candidates, 
	either backing them or opposing them in accordance with their 
	positions toward Israel, through such means as a "black book" 
	containing vital information on every Senate and House race."(3)
	The Washington news said AIPAC "was  accused ... of violating 
	election law by making and coordinating ... contributions to 
	pro-Israel candidates"(10).

The laws in question:
	Part I.
	Title II of the U.S. Code, Section 441a, (a)2, legislated by the 
	Federal Election Campaign Act, says(7)

        "No multicandidate political committee shall make contributions to any
        candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to any
        election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000(1);"

	Title II of the U.S. Code, Section 441a, (a)5 says 

        "For purposes of the limitations provided by paragraph (1) and
        paragraph (2), all contributions made by political committees
        established or financed or maintained or controlled by any
        corporation, labor organization, or any other person, including
        any parent, subsidiary, branch, division, department, or
        local unit of such corporation, labor organization, or any other
        person, or by any group of such persons, shall be considered to
        have been made by a single political committee...."

	Part II.
	Same as part I above and, Title II of the U.S. Code, Section 431 
	Subchapter 1 (4)(A) Defines a "political committee" as: any committee, 
	club, association, or other group of persons which receives 
	contributions aggregating in excess of $1000 during a calendar year 
	or which makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1000 during a 
	calendar year;"


Key evidence:
	Part I.
	A "smoking gun" memo by Elizabeth Schrayer, then AIPAC's deputy 
	political director, urged several pro-Israel PACs to channel cash 
	contributions to a group of favored senatorial candidates.(11) 
	Another document, written by Brenda Pearson, suggested financial help 
	for Rhode Island Lt. Gov. Richard Licht.(12)

	Part II.
	I don't know which evidence the FEC is using because of the gag order.
	They may be using the same evidence as part I of the complaint did.

Disposition of the complaint:
	Part I.(1)
	On 12/21/90 the FEC said: "We concluded that while there may be some
	evidence of coordination or consultation, such evidence does not
	necessarily establish affiliation, which requires some measure of
	authority or control." The FEC has notified the PACs that they are no 
	longer under investigation. 

	Part II.(9)
	Pending or active, the FEC won't say. It seems that the FEC has 
	narrowed the scope of the investigation to just AIPAC and stalled. 
	The plaintiffs have again retained an attorney, and have filed another 
	complaint seeking from the FEC information on the disposition of the 
	original complaint. A gag order has been placed on the plaintiffs. 


                                Complaint #3

When filed:
        Gag order in effect. Might have been filed in 1991 or 1992.(9) The
	original complaint was filed in 1988 or 1989.

Who filed:
	Same as complaint #2 above.

Where filed:
        With the Federal Election Commission (FEC).(9)

What the complaint was:
        The plaintiffs wanted the FEC to take action on part II of their 
	original 1989 complaint, which was described by the New York Times
	as "The Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) should have registered as a 
	political action committee... the group has made targets of political 
	candidates, either backing them or opposing them in accordance with 
	their positions toward Israel, through such means as a "black book" 
	containing vital information on every Senate and House race."(3) The 
	Washington news said AIPAC "was  accused ... of violating election 
	law by making and coordinating ... contributions to pro-Israel 
	candidates".(10)

Disposition of the complaint:
	Gag order in effect. From reference (9):

	"An average complaint with the FEC can last two to three years, if the
	FEC assigns a staff attorney to prepare a "reason to believe" report.
	Such a report in this case would document charges that the respondents
	had engaged in "a consistent, longstanding pattern of violating 
	numerous provisions" of the law governing elections. If such a report 
	is prepared, would be an FEC report to respondents that the General
	Counsel's office is prepared to recommend, if that is the case, that
	there is "probable cause to believe" that the respondents have violated
	the law." 

	Interrogations and depositions (sworn testimony) may follow. 
	Respondents would have an opportunity to reply. At some point a judge 
	may be assigned.




				References

1.) FEC document MUR 2804, (800) 424-9530, Public Records department

2.) FEC Dismisses Complaint Against Pro-Israel Lobby, Associated Press 12/21/90

3.) Israel Lobbying Group Found to Comply with Law, New York Times, 12/22/90

4.) Pro-Israel PACs cleared by FEC, Washington Times, 12/24/90

5.) FEC Rules Pro-Israel Lobby, PACs Are not 'Affiliated'

6.) Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938

7.) "Federal Election Campaign Laws", October 1990, The Federal Election
Commission, Washington D.C.

8.) On the Complaint of NEW AMERICAN VIEW -against- American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, New American View, Washington D.C.

9.) Stealth PACs, Richard H. Curtiss, American Educational Trust, Washington
D.C.

10.) Washington news, January 12, 1989, Jim Anderson

11.) Papers Link Pro-Israel Lobby To Political Funding Efforts, The 
Washington Post, November 14, 1988, Charles R. Babcock, A SECTION, p. a01

12.) Pro-Israel Unit Disavows Political Links; Memo Urged Focus On Jackson's 
Sex Life, The Washington Post, October 07, 1988, Charles R. Babcock, A SECTION,
p. a11
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy