U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–519 2010

FRAUDULENT LETTERS OPPOSING CLEAN ENERGY 

LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Serial No. 111–12 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 6 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ...................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Candice Miller, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, prepared statement .......................................................................... 14 

WITNESSES

Hon. Tom Perriello, a Representative in Congress From The State of Virginia 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Hilary O. Shelton, Director And Senior Vice President For Advocacy And 

Policy, NAACP Washington Bureau ................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Steve Miller, President and CEO, American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity ..................................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Jack Bonner, Bonner & Associates ........................................................................ 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Lisa M. Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, American 

Association of University Women ....................................................................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin an article from the publication BusinessWeek, entitled 

‘‘The Secret Side of David Axelrod.’’ ................................................................... 8 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(1) 

FRAUDULENT LETTERS OPPOSING CLEAN 

ENERGY LEGISLATION 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:38 a.m., in room 1100, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Sensenbrenner, Miller, Sullivan, and Blackburn. 

Staff present: Michael Goo and Jeffrey Sharp. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Today 

we have a very important hearing, and we very much appreciate 

everyone who is here and their willingness to participate. 

The select committee has held more than 70 hearings over the 

last few years. Most of them have focused on the best of America: 

innovation, new technologies, American entrepreneurs working to 

create new, clean energy jobs. Unfortunately, today we must focus 

on a troubling issue, a fraud which has been committed on Congress. The subject matter of today’s hearing is the fraudulent letters sent to Congress, letters that attempted to influence the vote 

on the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation that passed the 

House in June. 

Our investigation has uncovered four main findings. 

Number one, more than a dozen fraudulent, manufactured letters were sent to Congress questioning the Waxman-Markey legislation, letters that featured text written by lobbyists, doctored on 

fake letterhead, and marked with forged signatures from civil 

rights, senior, women’s, and veterans organizations. 

Two, some here today will claim these letters can be attributed 

to a temporary employee, when, in fact, this fraud chiefly resulted 

from a systematic lack of oversight and quality control mixed with 

a substantial disregard for the facts. 

Three, when the fraud was finally uncovered several days before 

the close affirmative vote for the Waxman-Markey bill, Members of 

Congress who had received these letters were not informed of the 

fraud until after the vote had occurred. 

These events occurred within the context of a multimillion-dollar 

so-called ‘‘shadow lobbying’’ campaign launched by the coal industry to influence clean energy legislation. Our investigation uncovmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

2 

ered millions of unreported dollars spent on shadow lobbying by 

the coal coalition. 

The story begins earlier this year, in June, as the Waxman-Markey bill was headed to the floor. The American Coalition for Clean 

Coal Electricity, a trade association funded by coal giants like the 

Southern Company, Arch Coal, and Peabody Coal, directed its PR 

firm, the Hawthorn Group, to manufacture a grassroots campaign 

questioning the Waxman-Markey legislation. 

This was nothing new. The coal coalition had been paying the 

Hawthorn Group at least $1 million a year for lobbying and consulting activities since 2000. In the first 6 months of 2009, Hawthorn was paid nearly $3 million by the coal companies for their 

work and more than $7 million last year alone. 

With 2 weeks left before the vote, Hawthorn was under the gun 

to produce results. They turned to Bonner & Associates, a firm 

with experience generating letters to support shadow lobbying efforts. Bonner & Associates, a firm that regularly hires temporary 

employees to generate these letters, immediately hired a temporary 

employee who, within his first few hours on the job, manufactured 

five letters from the Charlottesville chapter of the NAACP seeking 

changes to Waxman-Markey. 

How was this employee so successful? Simple: The letters were 

forged. Did Jack Bonner or any other longstanding employee ask, 

how could a brand-new employee get five letters in 1 day? Did they 

ask why these associations, like the NAACP, would suddenly be 

willing to oppose the clean energy legislation? Did they ask that 

question? No. No one seems to have cared. Instead, these letters 

were simply sent to the targeted congressional offices without further review by Bonner & Associates, Hawthorn, or the coal coalition. 

Bonner & Associates has admitted they did not confirm the authenticity of the letters before they were sent to Congress, and neither did Hawthorn, nor did the coal coalition. Indeed, Bonner & Associates does not recall any conversations with Hawthorn or the 

coal coalition about oversight or quality control. 

But, even worse, although the fraud was uncovered days before 

the vote, neither Bonner nor Hawthorn nor the coal coalition took 

any steps to inform the affected Representatives. In fact, they were 

not told until weeks later. The coal coalition was willing to pay millions to peddle a point of view, but they were unwilling to spend 

a few cents to call the U.S. Capitol and clear the air. 

This point of view was based on scare tactics and misleading figures and had zero to do with educating the public on key issues. 

These subterranean lobbying campaigns, where millions of dollars 

are spent in the cynical attempt to buy the support ideas don’t 

earn, have become a substitute for an honest exchange of views 

and distort the playing field away from other Americans longing to 

have their voices heard. 

Today’s hearing examines how a process that takes place in the 

dark leads to fraudulent conduct. I have always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and so we are here to see how this 

shadow campaign worked and why it went so terribly wrong. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

3 

That completes the opening statement of the Chair. I now turn 

to recognize the ranking member of the select committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

4 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 10 here 62519A.001
5 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 11 here 62519A.002
6 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing 

me. 

Let me say at the outset that no one appreciates frauds being 

perpetrated on them, whether it is the Congress and any of its 

Members, regardless of party; whether it is corporations; and 

whether it is the American public. 

In this case, there was a fraud that was perpetrated on Congress. 

And no one can stand up to defend it. However, I think we ought 

to look at this fraud in the context of other frauds that have come 

up. 

With Bonner & Associates, they have recognized that one of their 

temporary employees committed a fraud. This temporary employee 

worked for them for all of 6 days. When they found out that there 

was a fraud that was being perpetrated, they fired the person, 

which was the right thing to do. They were under a contract with 

the ACCCE, and they did not bill ACCCE or they did not receive 

any payment for the services that they rendered. So, when the boss 

found out what was going on, he did the right thing, and he also 

said that, because of this, we don’t want to be paid or we will not 

accept any payment. 

Now, astroturfing, unfortunately, is an art that, apparently, has 

been really perfected, and it has been perfected on both sides of the 

aisle. I have a Business Week article from March 14th, 2008, that 

talks about the secret side of David Axelrod. The Obama campaign’s chief strategist was a master of astroturfing and has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations. 

And I would like to ask unanimous consent that this article be 

included in the record following my opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, after the hearing that was first called 

by the chairman was correctly postponed because the rules were 

not followed—and I appreciate his recognizing that fact and postponing the hearing—there was another hoax that was perpetrated 

by people on the other side of the cap-and-tax issue, a group called 

‘‘Yes Men.’’ And they perpetrated a hoax on the news media. They 

used the name of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to get a room at 

the National Press Club. They got a press release out saying that 

the Chamber was changing its stand on the Waxman-Markey legislation. 

And it was only shortly before the press conference was supposed 

to start that the Chamber found out about it and went and cancelled the press conference. But the damage was already done, and 

there were a number of media outlets, including The Washington 

Post and Reuters, that ended up running the story based upon the 

hoax that was perpetrated on them. 

I hope that this hearing, which talks about a hoax where the perpetrators recognized that they had done something wrong, fired the 

employee, and didn’t receive any payment, would set an example 

up to those like the Yes Men and other people that might be thinking about perpetrating hoaxes on important issues of public policy 

to think twice. And maybe the Yes Men are thinking twice because 

the Chamber has filed a civil action against them in the Federal 

courts here in Washington, D.C. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

7 

So I think what I want to say is that we are all unanimous in 

condemnation of hoaxes. This is one hoax that ended up having the 

people responsible paying the price. The Yes Men hoax did not. 

And I would hope that, when we go forth from this, whether we 

are seated on this side of the dais, the other side of the dais, or 

those who are representing the news media covering this hearing 

would be equally vigilant and equally condemnatory of hoaxes, 

wherever they may come from, on whatever side of the issue they 

are, so that we can legislate based upon genuine public opinion. 

And, again, I ask unanimous consent that the Business Week article about Mr. Axelrod’s money-making activities be included in 

the record at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

8 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 15 here 62519A.003
9 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 16 here 62519A.004
10 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 17 here 62519A.005
11 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a very busy morning. I appreciate our colleague from Virginia joining us. I just would like to get on with the witnesses. 

I would say that I—I do appreciate Congressman Perriello being 

an example of somebody who has the courage of his convictions, 

moving ahead, notwithstanding efforts like this to distort public 

opinion, and took a very courageous stand on a controversial issue 

and continues to be engaged deeply with the public. 

And the best anecdote to cheating, I think, is a congressperson 

who is in touch with his constituents and his conscience. And I 

think our colleague is a great example of that. And I appreciate 

him being here to cast a little light on this unfortunate situation 

that he endured and hopefully assure that it is less likely to occur 

in the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan. 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you calling the hearing this morning. 

And I would want to associate myself with our ranking member’s 

comments and just add this. Certainly, any time we have any fraud 

perpetrated, whether it is Members of Congress or at any level of 

government, it demeans the process, it demeans our democracy, our 

way of governing ourselves here. 

And I would just say, from a personal perspective, I have been 

involved in politics in an elected capacity probably for about 30 

years. One of my jobs was I was a former Secretary of State in the 

State of Michigan for 8 years, and I was our chief elections officer. 

And I always thought then that transparency was best. And when 

I was trying to enforce campaign finance law, there were many 

times that we would find, you know, shadow organizations that 

were trying to drive a particular agenda or a particular issue. 

My favorite was always lots of money going to a group called 

‘‘Good Government,’’ you know, and yet—so you didn’t know where 

the money came from, you couldn’t tell who was all involved in it, 

and yet they were trying to drive the legislature on a particular 

issue. I guess you certainly can’t call that fraud, but yet it is not 

transparent, and it is trying to achieve an end without full transparency. 

And I think it is very important that all of us in government and 

in Congress or State legislatures or city council or county commission or what have you, we all find similar situations. We are always going to have the human element that goes overboard in trying to drive a particular outcome and an agenda and an issue. And 

transparency and letting the sun shine in is always the best antiseptic, I think, for making sure that our democracy continues to be 

strong and vibrant. And certainly calling attention to this issue 

today is just one in many, many things that happen and always 

happen and will continue to happen, but we need to always be 

ever-vigilant, and those of us involved in the process trying to shed 

the light, if you will, and sunshine on people who are trying to 

drive an agenda. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

12 

And what has happened here is unfortunate. This is not the first; 

it won’t be the last. And I think, as Members of Congress—I know 

on this particular issue, the cap-and-trade issue, my office received 

about 10,000 correspondence in various forms, whether that was 

letters or faxes or phone calls or e-mails or what have you. I would 

say about 70 percent of them were opposed to the cap-and-trade 

piece of legislation. But, you know, people have to speak. But a lot 

of times you would get things and you would wonder, you know, 

is this a fraudulent idea, who is this group, et cetera. And you just 

have to try to do your best to weed through these things. 

So, again, I look forward to the testimony by the witness. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you calling the hearing. And thank you 

very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Just a note. If there is ever a fellow who represents the kind of 

‘‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’’ idealism and courage, it is the 

Representative who is before us today. And I really honor your 

work on this and other issues so far. 

I just want to make two comments. 

First, we have seen this movie before, and it was the exercise by 

the tobacco industry to try to hoodwink and cover up the science 

of the devastating toxicity that they were involved in for decades. 

And it actually worked for decades. And we have seen a similar effort to hoodwink and defraud and deceive the American public now 

to cover up the toxicity to the world environment and ultimately 

to our own health of carbon dioxide and other climate change 

gases. And they have used every trick in the book, including the 

ones that we will investigate today. 

But I just want to note that they are now failing. The tobacco 

industry got its comeuppance, if you will, and justice triumphed ultimately. And that is what is going on right now in the climate 

change debate, where you see in the U.S. Senate, Members of the 

U.S. Senate, on a bipartisan basis, finally coming out to move 

based on the science, which is now becoming dominant in the discussion. 

The second thing I want to note is that this is not the only continuing effort to deceive the American public. I want to note a book 

called ‘‘Freakonomics’’ or ‘‘SuperFreakonomics’’ some authors wrote 

that basically asserted, ‘‘We don’t have to control CO2. We will just 

pump sulphur dioxide up into the atmosphere, and that will solve 

the problem.’’ 

They purported to quote a scientist named Ken Caldeira from 

Stanford, who is one of the predominant researchers in ocean acidification to suggest that Dr. Caldeira didn’t think we should control 

CO2, which is an absolute deception. Dr. Caldeira I have spoken to 

personally. He has told me we have to solve ocean acidification; you 

can’t solve ocean acidification without controlling CO2. And yet people are still trying to write books to deceive the 

American public, and we have to blow the whistle on them. We are 

blowing the whistle on one today. We will continue to do it because, 

ultimately, science is going to triumph in this discussion. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

13 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blackburn follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

14 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 23 here 62519A.006
15 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 24 here 62519A.007
16 

All time for opening statements has been completed, so we will 

turn to our first witness, who is Congressman Tom Perriello, representing Charlottesville and other communities in the Fifth District of Virginia. 

He is in his first term here in Congress. He has proven to be an 

outstanding freshman congressman. And in the energy debate, he 

clearly, as Congressman Inslee pointed out, has mastered this issue 

and has a true command of the subject material and an ability to 

explain these issues in a way that had enormous importance to the 

average citizen. 

So we welcome you, Representative Perriello. Whenever you are 

ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM PERRIELLO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Sensenbrenner, and respected members of the committee, for providing this opportunity to speak today about the unfortunate tactics employed by opponents of the energy independence efforts here 

in the Congress. 

I will leave it to you and your committee to figure out where 

there are patterns of behavior, where there was deception of intent 

versus deception of omission. I can tell you simply my story of my 

experience with this and what I have seen, both in our congressional office here and in the district. 

It certainly has pained me to see so many upstanding groups, including senior advocacy groups and American Legion posts, misrepresented and dragged into this debate. 

Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of an elected representative body held responsible by the people and ensured that 

the right of the people to petition the government would be protected by the first amendment. While politics has never been pretty, there are certain lines you just don’t cross, like the forging of 

letters. And this must be taken very seriously. You don’t get into 

politics expecting a game of pinochle, but you do expect a basic 

ability to know the will of the people when they call your office, 

when they write, when they show up at meetings. 

And what I see here is a disservice not just to those who were 

advocating for the energy independence efforts but, also, those who 

are genuinely advocating against. At the point that we have to ask 

deeper and deeper questions about how valid the phone call is, how 

valid the letter is, how valid the meeting with constituents are, we 

are undermining the effort of those on either side of the issue who 

take the time on their own free will out of their busy schedule to 

allow our elected officials to know their feelings. 

So I thank the Chair for holding this hearing today to bring light 

to this important matter and give attention, as it deserves. 

My office, like many others, received a very high volume of constituent calls, letters, e-mails, and faxes in the weeks and days 

leading up to the final vote on the clean energy bill. It is not only 

justified but admirable for citizens of this country to be so actively 

engaged in following such a piece of legislation, one that I believe 

will be one of the more transformative in a generation for rebuilding our competitive advantage and our national security. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

17 

But while I hold strongly to the belief that this is key to the job 

creation and security of the next century, I also recognize that decent Americans can fundamentally disagree. Every Member of Congress, regardless of whether or not they supported the bill, should 

value hearing from those who have deep concerns about the energy 

strategy of this country. This is the solemn and sacred duty we 

have, as elected representatives. 

As my office worked to sort through the piles of correspondence 

after the vote, we were contacted by the Charlottesville-based organization Creciendo Juntos, a nonprofit network that tackles issues 

related to the Hispanic community in my district. 

A letter from Tim Freilich, who sits on the executive committee, 

informed me that a partner with the lobbying firm Bonner & Associates had contacted Creciendo Juntos to inform them that an employee of Bonner & Associates had faked a letter claiming to be 

from them. This fake letter was said to be a mistake, but Freilich, 

exercising his right of the people to petition the government for a 

redress of grievances, contacted my office to pass along the information about the forgery. 

This was the first my office was told of this or any other fake 

letter, despite the fact that it now appears Bonner & Associates 

and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity that had 

hired them knew about the forged letters before the final vote. I 

leave that to your committee to determine. 

After being notified about this letter, my office noticed similarities in the wording of the letter with others they had been sorting. 

Going back through the correspondences, my staffers found five 

more forged letters, these purportedly from the Albemarle-Charlottesville branch of the NAACP. 

I would point out that the national NAACP organization did support the ACCCE’s legislation, stating that climate change disproportionately impacts communities of color and recognizing the 

economic and public health benefits of the legislation. Since the 

forged letters were revealed, the national NAACP has said it is diametrically opposed to the claims made in the forged correspondence. 

Since this time, other forged letters have been discovered claiming to be from other groups, including two wonderful seniors organizations in my district, the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging 

and the Senior Center, Incorporated, as well as a local American 

Legion post. Forged letters sent to other Members of Congress have 

also been uncovered. 

Forgery and identity theft and attempting to influence Members 

of Congress not only does a disservice to those who support the legislation but also to those who oppose it. If Members of Congress 

have to view voices of opposition with suspicion or doubt, it hurts 

the opposition’s cause and our national debate on the whole. 

As for me, I will not change my dedication to listening to my constituents and treating their opinions legitimately. But, clearly, 

there are astroturf and other types of tactics that are expanding, 

in my mind, a corporate capture of government. As the ranking 

member mentioned, this can occur on both sides of the aisle. 

But as we see more and more influence of money and corporate 

influence in this decision-making process, the greatest antidote, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

18 

greatest counterweight is people power. Regardless of where the 

people are in the ideological spectrum, it is ultimately, in a democracy, their accountability that should matter the most. Where that 

is undermined through such deceitful tactics, we all lose, regardless 

of our position on this particular bill. 

Again, I leave it to your committee to know where this was patterns of behavior, where this was one outlier. But the important 

thing is that we get to the bottom of this so that we continue to 

have the most robust and democratic public debate, not only on 

issues of energy independence but all those that face us at this critical time. 

With that, thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Perriello follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

19 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 31 62519A.008
20 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 32 62519A.009
21 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congressman Perriello, very much. 

The Chair will recognize himself and ask you, what was your reaction when you learned that fraudulent letters had been sent to 

your office, seeking to elicit a negative vote from you on the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation as it was about to be voted 

on on the floor of Congress? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. To be honest, at first there was very little shock. 

Nothing shocks me in this business anymore. I think we have all, 

probably on both sides of the aisle, had negative TV ads run about 

us that we think have no bearing in truth and other things, and 

we just learn to be a little bit numb to it. 

But it was actually the visual that shocked me, seeing the actual 

taking of the letterhead, and of such respected organizations, both 

nationally and locally, that really did shock me and say this is a 

conscious level of forgery that is very different from a lot of the manipulations that go on in our politics today. 

So, if someone thought this was okay, either this was a real really bad apple or there are some incentives that are very much in 

the wrong place here that is driving this process. And it seemed 

worthwhile to do our due diligence on the office side to see what 

else we could find. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in the short run, do you think that fraudulent activity as we have seen does help those who want to oppose 

legislation, clean energy legislation, as it moves through Congress? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. I can’t speak for other Members. I know for me, 

you know, when we try to figure out where folks are on the bill, 

there is never consensus in my district. You want to use every avenue you can. You use, obviously, the calls coming into the office. 

You proactively go and try to meet with groups. Many of the 

groups that are here are groups that I call on a regular basis to 

talk to and hear their opinions on things. So, some of it seemed a 

little naive, to think that we wouldn’t actually eventually have 

those conversations. 

So, you know, each Member is going to make their decisions in 

their own way. I think most of us try to consult our constituents 

and consult our conscience, as Mr. Blumenauer said, and try to 

reach the right opinion on that. But it makes it that much more 

difficult to do it when, in addition to the normal due diligence, you 

are also trying to filter through things that are just outright forgeries. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you were not notified before the vote that 

NAACP did not, in fact, oppose the Waxman-Markey clean energy 

bill; is that correct? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, as far as your office was concerned, they were 

in opposition. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. I would say that, if anyone knew that this was 

going on before the vote and didn’t let us know, that is certainly 

an issue of concern and something worth asking some questions 

about. 

But for me, yes, they did not approach our office before the vote 

to correct the record on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

22 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. What have you heard from the perpetrators of 

this fraud? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Several of the people involved in the chain have 

reached out to apologize personally and profusely, and I do appreciate that. And they have certainly let me know that they have conducted investigations internally. And, again, you know, I will leave 

that to your committee to figure out whether those have taken 

place, whether they are sufficient. But I did appreciate them reaching out to apologize. 

I said to them what I will say to you, which is, you know, to me, 

the really big picture here is a little bit of what Mr. Inslee was 

talking about, which is we know we are in a climate crisis. I think 

we have taken a genuine effort to work with all of the interested 

parties in this, to protect stakeholders with a very slow phase-in 

time, with a lot of efforts to invest, for example, in clean coal. 

And, to me, the most important thing is when you try to work 

together with all of the stakeholders to come up with a fair deal, 

it is then, you know, not entirely pleasing when the response to 

that is to be told it is Armageddon by the very groups that you are 

working with. 

But, in terms of the fraud itself, I will commend them for taking 

proactive efforts to track me down personally and apologize. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And when did they track you down and apologize? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. I don’t remember, but it was about the time this 

started to break in the Daily Progress, one of the top local papers 

in my district. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. You had discovered it before they did. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Yes. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And it was in the press before. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. My understanding is they had reached out to 

Creciendo Juntos on their own. That information had come to us. 

The newspaper—I don’t remember the sequence between Creciendo 

Juntos talking to us versus the paper publishing it, but they broke 

that story. And it was subsequent to that that we were contacted 

about setting up a phone call for that. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. So you were that contacted after this other 

stuff bubbled, you found out. And a significant period of time after 

the actual vote occurred? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. That would probably have been, you know, a 

matter of weeks, not days, afterwards. But I can try to track down 

the exact time when those calls occurred. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And did they give any indication why they 

didn’t tell you this before the vote, since they knew? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Well, I think different people knew at different 

times. And, again, I just—I haven’t done the deepest due diligence 

on this. I know that is in your hands. 

But I think that, as these things are set up, often there are six 

or seven layers between the actual actors and the person who is 

forging the letter. So I don’t think it is at all a stretch to say that 

some of the folks in that chain had no idea this was going on and 

didn’t know until it broke in the papers, would be my guess. 

And I think there were probably some very decent and honorable 

people who got caught up in this and really regret it and were very 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

23 

serious about it. I think, you know, my best guess would be that 

there were others further down that chain who knew exactly what 

was going on. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. You have an extensive background in working 

with people, advocacy, some community—I hate to use the term 

‘‘community organization,’’ but you have a background of working 

with groups like this to try and articulate concerns, communicate 

them, solve problems, long before you got involved in elective politics. 

So I would ask just maybe your judgment as a semi-informed 

professional, when you have groups that are tasked to try and create public demonstrations and it is outsourced—and you mentioned 

layers upon layers, and we are seeing this—doesn’t it almost invite 

this sort of—it is just a matter of degree, in terms of—the more 

buffering is in it, the harder to actually give an honest expression 

of what people feel and what they need? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Well, at the risk of resorting to the ‘‘you know 

it when you see it’’ logic, I think that there is a blurring of that 

line. 

And, certainly, August was an example of that. As you know, I 

did over 100 hours of town hall meetings in my district during August. And the vast majority of people, constituents who attended 

that were there absolutely on their own free will. They genuinely 

had strong concerns either for or against the bill, against health 

care reform, about fiscal responsibility. There were other folks who 

were not even from the district or other things, and there was obviously a lot of orchestration on the talking-points level. 

So, how do you distinguish the genuine concern of people from 

some of these tactics? Where do you put, for example, things that 

just make it a lot easier for people to participate, such as calling 

and saying, ‘‘Just press 1, and you will automatically be connected 

to your congressperson’’? Well, in my mind, that is an absolute legitimate and positive thing to be getting people connected. Obviously, if the information before that ‘‘Press number 1’’ is false and 

scare tactics, then it sort of moves down that line. 

So, from an organizing perspective, I think getting—most people 

care deeply what is at stake in these debates, but most people are 

also extremely busy trying to find a way to provide for their families. And where we can do genuine efforts to bring people together, 

whether as an organizer or an official, I think that is a positive 

thing for promoting public debate. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Congressman Perriello. I think that the work that 

you have done in less than a year in office, sort of, is a fascinating 

experience in being connected with constituents, and even this unfortunate episode is useful. And I deeply appreciate your contributions. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Well, thank you. 

And, again, you know, I do think there are folks in the clean coal 

coalition who have been very active and positive and constructive 

in this debate. And I think, as we do look at this, we want to make 

sure we don’t paint everyone with the same brush. I hope you will 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

24 

be able to get to the real core of, you know, what was at the base 

of this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

You know, I really do consider this a serious thing because it affects not just you but all of us in Congress when this happens. It 

diminishes our confidence and our ability to communicate with our 

constituents. So I do consider it a serious thing. 

The research that I am looking at, as far as the staff investigation, suggests that not only, sort of, an underling of this organization sent these fraudulent letters on multiple occasions, not just 

one, but that supervisory personnel learned of this fraudulent activity several days before the vote took place on the Waxman-Markey bill. On June 22nd and 23rd it suggests that the supervisory 

people at Bonner & Associates became aware of this. Then the vote 

took place a few days later on June 26th. But there was not any 

attempt to notify you of the fraud until July 1st. It was not successful, effectively, until July 13th. 

Have the companies given you any explanation why, even when 

supervisory personnel was aware of the fraud before the vote, that 

they waited until after the vote to let you know about the fraud? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. The people who reached out to me were from the 

coal coalition itself. And I think their issue, if I recall—and I am 

sure you can ask them—was that the information had not reached 

them before the vote. But I don’t want to put those words in their 

mouths. I think that is just a question you will have to ask them, 

in terms of when they knew and why they didn’t let us know immediately. I think everyone would agree that that is there. 

And, also, you know, I used to do some war crimes prosecution 

work in West Africa, as you know. And the issue with command 

responsibility was always not just whether you ordered it but did 

you know or should you have known that certain things were going 

on. 

And I think, you know, part of the question here is whether— 

what concerns me is not just what people knew, but were there incentive structures set up in which there was a looking the other 

way to encourage or incent this sort of behavior that, I do agree 

with you, is extremely disruptive to our democratic process. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, the fact of the matter is that people who have 

been try to obfuscate and deceive Americans about the clear consensus on the science of climate change have created a climate 

where you could expect this type of thing to happen, because they 

have on multiple occasions tried to deceive Americans into thinking 

that there is not a consensus about climate change. 

And so, myself, I believe they have created that climate where 

this kind of thing can be tolerated and happen in their organizations. And, frankly, I just think this is just the tip of the iceberg 

on the deception that Americans have been subjected to. 

Let me just ask you this. Why did their efforts fail? Why did you 

move forward on this vote of conviction? 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Well, I do think, for all of the, sort of, corporate 

capture and slick tactics that have taken over our democratic process, the voice of the people tends to emerge. And I think what you 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

25 

see overwhelmingly from the American people is an understanding 

that energy independence is one of the challenges of our generation. 

Our country is being made less safe. People don’t like the idea 

that, every time they go to a gas station, they are essentially sending their hard-earned money straight overseas to countries that 

don’t like us particularly. They understand that the energy is being 

produced elsewhere. The technology, we are being leapfrogged in 

these areas. 

The southern part of my district has very high unemployment, 

old manufacturing areas, textiles hubs, and furniture factories. And 

we are looking for the next thing. And I think that, for too long, 

we have had elites in both parties, quite honestly, pursue an economic strategy based almost entirely on the financial sector and 

banking and not on an industrial policy or an ag policy. 

I think, you know, when I started out in politics and took the 

step into this world, I conducted a couple hundred interviews with 

business leaders and others in these economically depressed areas 

and said, what can bring the jobs back? And people kept coming 

back to the energy economy over and over again—smart grid, decentralized power production, biofuel, biodiesel developments, all of 

these; as well as not only wanting wind and solar but wanting to 

manufacture it there; also an advocate of nuclear power and some 

of those efforts that I think can be part of the solution. So all of 

that is there. 

And, as you know, really good ideas often take 30 minutes to explain and only 30 seconds to destroy. We have seen that in other 

debates, as well. And I think, at the end of the day, the way you 

break through this is to just work that much harder to be able to 

make sure you find the time to have the 30-minute conversation 

and not just the 30-second conversation. 

If you look at—you know, not to be driven by polls, but the polling even in my district where I think folks on the other side assume this is going to be a very detrimental issue, people overwhelmingly support this and support a move in this direction. And 

I think the division people are going to see at the end of the day 

is the folks who had the courage to step up and solve a problem 

versus those who didn’t. 

And I think it is the same courage issue, you know, that you get 

at with whether your company comes right out and says, ‘‘We don’t 

believe this,’’ or does the company create a coalition, the coalition 

hire a lobbying firm, the lobbying firm hire a sub-lobbying group 

that then hires a temp employee to do something. 

I think this is the time where, you know, if you believe something, stand up, put your name on it, and fight for it, wherever you 

come down on that issue. And I think that is the kind of leadership 

that the American people are looking for. They don’t expect to 

agree with you every time, but they expect you to look them in the 

eye and tell you—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, it looks to me like they picked the wrong guy 

to bully. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

26 

And, Representative Perriello, thank you so much. And we appreciate the fact that you are willing to come forward and to make this 

presentation to the committee. I think it is a very important issue 

that we get out to the American people. 

And it is important, as well, as you are pointing out to the committee, that the public has a right to the facts. They have a right 

to know what the real truth is in the clean energy debate but also 

how that debate is being conducted. And your testimony here today 

is very much appreciated, and it reflects the excellent work that 

you have been doing here in Congress for your district and for the 

country. 

We thank you so much. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now we would ask the next panel of witnesses 

to come forward. And we would ask the staff to put the names of 

the witnesses in front of the seats. 

We ask that you rise, please. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Our first witness is Mr. Hilary O. Shelton of the 

NAACP. The NAACP’s name was used on five of the fraudulent letters. Mr. Shelton presently serves as the director to the NAACP’s 

Washington Bureau and senior vice president for advocacy and policy. The NAACP’s Washington Bureau is the Federal legislative 

and public policy division of the NAACP, which is the oldest and 

largest civil rights organization in the United States. He is the recipient of many awards and honors in the civil rights area. 

Mr. Shelton, we are pleased to have you with us here today. 

Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF HILARY O. SHELTON, DIRECTOR AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADVOCACY AND POLICY, NAACP 

WASHINGTON BUREAU; STEVE MILLER, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, AMERICAN COALITION FOR CLEAN COAL ELECTRICITY; JACK BONNER, BONNER & ASSOCIATES; LISA M. 

MAATZ, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNMENT 

RELATIONS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY 

WOMEN 

STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON 

Mr. SHELTON. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and other members 

of the committee, for holding this important hearing and for inviting us here to testify. 

The NAACP sincerely appreciates the efforts of the committee to 

investigate this attack on the very integrity in the democratically 

structured congressional legislative process. The NAACP takes our 

integrity very seriously. As such, we are outraged and appalled 

that anyone would fraudulently misrepresent our position as we 

pursue legislative opportunities to make our Nation greater still. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as we understand it, 

the facts are these: Just prior to debate on the final vote on H.R. 

2454, the ‘‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,’’ Congressman Tom Perriello received a number of letters purportedly 

from representatives of the Charlottesville, Virginia, branch of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

27 

NAACP in opposition to the legislation. These letters, which had 

the official NAACP seal at the top, asked that Congressman 

Perriello support provisions intended to weaken the legislation. 

After the vote on H.R. 2454, the Congressman Perriello office determined that at least five of these letters were forgeries, that they 

did not come from representatives of the NAACP Charlottesville 

branch, nor did they even represent the official policy position of 

the NAACP. Further investigation appears to indicate that the letters were sent out by a consultant group that had been hired to 

represent opponents of the legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, please allow me, for 

the record, to make one issue very clear. The NAACP supports 

many of the very important provisions in the ‘‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,’’ and we oppose amendments that 

would weaken these provisions. 

Secondly, let me say that, for more than 100 years, the NAACP 

has fought for equal access to our political establishment. For too 

long, the NAACP represented people in this country whose voices 

were marginalized, to say the least. That is why it is particularly 

offensive and infuriating to us when our name and all that we have 

worked for is misused and distorted by others in an effort to misrepresent or deceive the United States Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it has been my honor 

and privilege to serve in the capacity as director of the NAACP’s 

Washington Bureau for more than 12 years. During this time, I 

have endeavored to build on the reputation of my predecessors and 

to dutifully and effectively represent the interests of the NAACP 

members from across the Nation. 

As you may all be aware, the NAACP is nonpartisan. We do not 

support, endorse, or oppose individuals or political parties. We do, 

however, fiercely advocate for our public policy agenda and legislative priorities as passed by our members. As such, it has been my 

pleasure to work with Members of the Congress from across the 

ideological spectrum on a myriad of public policy issues. 

For example, in the course of my tenure with the NAACP, I have 

worked with Chairman Markey on issues that include clean-up 

after Hurricane Katrina, making the change to digital television, 

and closing the digital divide. It has also been my pleasure to work 

closely with Ranking Member Sensenbrenner as he played a key 

role in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and his ongoing 

battle for the rights of disabled Americans. 

In all of these legislative battles, as well as in many others that 

we have fought and that we continue to fight, the political strength 

of the NAACP lay not only in our reputation but also in the clarity 

and consistency of our policy agenda. To have somebody blatantly 

misrepresent the policy of the NAACP is, therefore, to threaten not 

only all that we have worked for for these past hundred years, but 

also to challenge our ability to continue to advocate effectively on 

behalf of our constituent members. 

Furthermore, because the NAACP has been working for the 

rights of disenfranchized and underserved communities for so long, 

our counsel is often sought by other organizations that represent 

similar groups of Americans. If our position is misrepresented, then 

it leads to confusion, weakens our position, and prevents our voices 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

28 

from being clearly heard on many crucial issues that affect our 

communities, our Nation, and even our world. 

So the NAACP is looking forward to a thorough investigation by 

this committee into what happened. We will be especially interested in knowing if the practice of sending fraudulent letters in any 

effort to give the appearance of a grassroots movement is a common one. We will also be interested in learning what is being done 

to correct the misinformation and to mitigate any damage a fraudulent campaign like this may very well cause. 

I will say that, from our experience, the first we heard of the 

misuse of our name was on July 31st, 2009, more than a month 

after the vote took place, and only then from a media outlet. I am 

also curious to know if this type of fraud has been perpetrated 

using the name of the NAACP or any other organization or individual in any other instances. 

I understand that it is not the scope of this hearing to make recommendations on how to avoid future problems such as this. And, 

frankly, I am not sure I have any solid response that we can give 

to help address this issue in the future. 

However, I do know that we are very interested in working with 

the committee and the rest of the Congress in finding a way to continue to encourage honest, democratically based political activism 

by constituents and grassroots organizations, as well as other 

stakeholders, including industry and corporations. At the same 

time, we must strive to ensure that dishonest communications 

which misrepresent the positions of one or more of these groups is 

stopped. 

And, indeed, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for 

the opportunity to testify today. 

[The statement of Mr. Shelton follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

29 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 50 here 62519A.010
30 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 51 here 62519A.011
31 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 52 here 62519A.012
32 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shelton, very much for being 

here today. 

Our next witness is Mr. Steve Miller. He is the president and 

CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a trade 

association of companies involved in the production, transportation, 

and use of coal. 

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Miller. Whenever you are 

ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Sensenbrenner, and other distinguished committee members. I am 

Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for 

Clean Coal Electricity, ACCCE. I appreciate the opportunity to further assist the committee with its investigation into this important 

matter. 

For more than 15 years, ACCCE has worked to advance a constructive public policy dialogue on issues related to energy and environmental policy. ACCCE has publicly stated our support for 

Federal carbon management legislation. And we recognize that a 

cap-and-trade program is one option for such legislation, as long as 

the program provides continued access to affordable, reliable, and 

domestically produced energy. 

ACCCE supported changes to the Waxman-Markey bill that 

would guarantee additional protections for consumers and the economy. We encouraged constituents to voice their support for measures that would limit the potential for significant electricity price 

increases. 

As a part of this overall effort, Bonner & Associates was contracted by the Hawthorn Group, our primary grassroots consultant 

for 10 years, to reach out to organizations in seven legislative districts. I am appalled that some of the letters sent to Members of 

Congress by Bonner & Associates were falsified. The sending of 

fraudulent letters to Members of Congress or any other policymaker is simply unacceptable. 

Furthermore, it is inexcusable that Members of Congress and the 

affected organizations were not promptly notified about these letters, and we at ACCCE should have taken more timely action to 

make these notifications. 

That is why we have taken extensive steps to investigate and address the situation. Nearly 3 months ago, we launched a full examination, relying upon the considerable investigative experience of 

Venable LLP, our outside legal counsel. Former U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti oversaw this review as a senior partner of 

the firm, which led to three key findings. 

First, ACCCE did not play any role in the generation of the false 

letters and had absolutely no knowledge that Bonner had produced 

them until we were informed by the Hawthorn Group. 

Second, Venable examined the authenticity of all 58 letters submitted by Bonner. Bonner self-identified 12 as being falsified. Subsequently, our review questioned the authenticity of two additional 

letters. As soon as we identified concerns about these letters, 

Venable alerted select committee staff and ACCCE notified the 

Member’s office. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

33 

Third, Venable examined ACCCE’s response after first being notified about the falsified letters in late June. At that time, ACCCE 

instructed Hawthorn that Bonner & Associates should immediately 

notify the affected Members of Congress and organizations. 

But the investigation also showed that my colleagues and I at 

ACCCE should have acted faster to ensure that those affected had 

been notified before the June 26th vote on H.R. 2454. Our misplaced reliance on Mr. Bonner’s firm to quickly make those contacts resulted in our own failure to act in a timely fashion. We 

have apologized to the affected Members of Congress and the local 

community organizations. 

Following the examination, Mr. Civiletti made recommendations 

to the ACCCE board of directors. Based on those recommendations, 

the board has taken or directed the following actions. 

First, three senior ACCCE executives, including myself, have 

been reprimanded and received substantial financial penalties. 

Second, ACCCE staff have implemented a public policy activity 

code of ethics that our board will review next month. All ACCCE 

employees, contractors, and subcontractors must abide by that policy. 

Third, ACCCE has informed Bonner & Associates that it will not 

be paid for the work performed and it will never work for ACCCE 

again. 

Fourth, ACCCE will recompete its primary contract for grassroots outreach. Any contract or bidding must comply with our new 

standards of conduct. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, your letter from last week raised issues 

about how ACCCE discloses its lobbying activities. We disclose our 

direct Federal lobbying expenses on the quarterly lobbying disclosure act filings, consistent with how many other organizations on 

all sides of these issues report. In addition, we disclose our grassroots Federal lobbying and State lobbying expenditures on our annual tax return. We will continue to accurately and completely disclose these activities, as required by law. 

As we move forward, ACCCE will strengthen our commitment to 

a constructive, transparent, and authentic public policy dialogue 

that supports environmental progress, greater energy independence, and access to affordable, reliable energy to promote economic 

growth and prosperity. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

34 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 57 here 62519A.013
35 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 58 here 62519A.014
36 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 59 here 62519A.015
37 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 60 here 62519A.016
38 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 61 here 62519A.017
39 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 62 here 62519A.018
40 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 63 here 62519A.019
41 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Our next witness is Mr. Jack Bonner, president and founder of 

Bonner & Associates. 

Thank you for coming, Mr. Bonner. Whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JACK BONNER 

Mr. BONNER. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Markey 

and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, for providing me an opportunity to set the record straight on what did and what did not happen during this most unfortunate matter. 

As founder and president of Bonner & Associates, I personally 

take full responsibility for what happened, for the improper actions 

of our temporary employee who fabricated more than a dozen letters to Congress in the names of organizations and individuals. 

While we certainly did not authorize or condone his actions, we 

also did not prevent them. 

I want to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to the three 

Members of Congress who received the fabricated letters and, perhaps most importantly, to those organizations who were fraudulently used by our former employee. 

I also want to apologize to Hawthorn and to ACCCE. What this 

individual did was wrong, and we should have caught him before 

he perpetrated his scheme. 

In hindsight, it is obvious that our firm and others would have 

been better served if we had avoided hiring this individual or prevented his fraudulent acts. But it is also clear that this incident 

was an anomaly, the result of an individual who, from the day he 

showed up, intentionally disregarded our procedures and instructions and was determined to engage in fraudulent activity. Although we still do not know what fully motivated him, due to the 

serious implications of his actions, we referred the matter to the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

But let one thing be very clear: This improper activity was undertaken without the knowledge of anyone at our firm. It was the 

actions of one rogue temporary employee acting on his own against 

our company’s policies and without the knowledge of anyone else 

at Bonner & Associates. 

Once we discovered the fraud, we took prompt action to notify 

our client and to immediately reach out to the organizations whose 

names had been used to apologize and explain what had happened. 

While we did attempt to contact congressional offices to which the 

letters had been delivered, I should have personally taken immediate steps to contact those offices. 

While this was a fraud perpetrated against our firm, the manner 

in which it was done has demonstrated to me the need to develop 

and implement, in every instance, a more robust internal control 

system, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have developed 

and implemented a five-point action plan to earn back our reputation. 

All five corrective actions have already been implemented. And 

they include: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

42 

Action one: 100 percent call-back verification of all groups that 

have signed statements of support to elected officials before any letter is delivered. 

Action two: All temporary employees review and sign an ethics 

policy before their employment begins. 

Action three: All resumes of prospective temporary employees are 

verified by permanent Bonner & Associates staff before temporary 

employment begins. 

Action four: All new employees must complete an ethics training 

course and must pass an examination administered by permanent 

B&A staff to ensure the full understanding of B&A’s ethics policies. 

Action five: B&A has retained an independent ethics adviser who 

is well-regarded as maintaining the highest standards and independence. The ethical standards adviser will review our policies 

and work with us to continue to improve our internal quality control system to the highest standards. I am pleased to inform you, 

sir, that Professor Dr. James Thurber, a leading expert in the field, 

has agreed to serve in this capacity. 

Let me now take an opportunity to explain the events surrounding the fabrication of these letters. 

On approximately June 10th, we were retained under a contract for $43,500 by a public affairs firm, the Hawthorn Group, to identify and attempt to solicit the support of veteran, minority, and 

senior organizations. 

One of the temporary employees we hired for this project was an 

individual responsible for the fabricated letters. His resume had 

appeared impressive and demonstrated bipartisan political experience and extensive grassroots advocacy. 

However, it is now clear that, on his very first day on the job, 

June 12th, this employee used fictitious names of officers and employees to generate five fabricated letters. And, over the next several days, he fabricated additional letters. 

When we discovered what had happened, our immediate reaction 

to this fraud was to advise our client, as well as to reach out immediately and apologize to the organizations whose names were used 

without authorization. 

On July 1st, we contacted offices of two Members of Congress 

who received fabricated letters. After numerous attempts and the 

intervening congressional recess, it was not until July 13th that 

one of our staff finally succeeded in directly speaking with the congressional staff of Representative Perriello and Representative 

Dahlkemper about this matter, although it appears that Representative Carney’s office, which received one letter, was not contacted. 

As I said earlier, we should have immediately contacted all three 

offices and immediately apologized in person. 

Finally, while we take full responsibility for what happened and 

recognize there were quality control and human resources improvements that need to be made, we have learned that it is difficult to 

defend against a person bent on committing fraud. I also know that 

all of us who play a role in facilitating public participation in the 

democratic process bear an important responsibility to ensure that 

process is free from unethical behavior. Because I recognize how 

important it is for people to be encouraged to express their views 

and participate in debate on public issues, I am committed to doing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

43 

everything I can to make sure that something like this does not 

happen again. 

Thank you for this opportunity to answer any questions you may 

have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bonner. 

[The statement of Mr. Bonner follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

44 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 70 here 62519A.020
45 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 71 here 62519A.021
46 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 72 here 62519A.022
47 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 73 here 62519A.023
48 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 74 here 62519A.024
49 

The CHAIRMAN. And our last witness is Ms. Lisa Maatz. She has 

served as the Director of Public Policy and Government Relations 

at the American Association of University Women since 2003. The 

name and the letterhead of the American Association of University 

Women was misappropriated and used on one of the fraudulent letters. 

We welcome you. And whenever you feel comfortable, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF LISA MAATZ 

Ms. MAATZ. Thank you, Chairman Markey and members of the 

committee. I would like to thank you for conducting this investigation into fraudulent letters sent to Members of Congress during debate over the Clean Energy and Security Act. 

I am glad to be here today to address the troubling practice of 

astroturfing. What is astroturfing, you may ask yourself. Simply 

put, it is politically motivated public relations campaigns that try 

to create the impression of spontaneous grassroots engagement. 

Hence, the reference to astroturf. 

The goal of these campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a corporation as an independent public relations action. These wellfunded activities masquerade as people-driven movements when, in 

fact, they are anything but. I know because I work for a genuine 

grassroots organization complete with community-based advocates. 

Founded in 1881, AAUW has approximately 100,000 dues-paying 

members and 1,000 branches nationwide. AAUW has recently been 

affected by the worst form of astroturfing. Bonner & Associates, a 

grassroots lobbying firm hired by ACCCE, has used AAUW’s good 

name in fraudulent letters to Congress. 

Ironically, energy policy is not even an area in which AAUW advocates. A Bonner employee resurrected a now-defunct Charlottesville branch, used the AAUW logo, and faxed and hand-delivered 

at least one letter to Representative Tom Perriello of Virginia, urging a vote against the energy bill. 

According to press accounts, Bonner, Hawthorn, and ACCCE 

knew of the fraudulent letters at least 2 days before the House 

voted on the energy bill, but neglected to inform the affected offices 

about the letters until weeks later, well after a very close vote. 

The scapegoating of one employee is not necessarily going to 

solve this problem. Not only does AAUW join in the call for an investigation by the Department of Justice; we also encourage Congress to reconsider legislation to address this shockingly legal but 

unreported practice of astroturfing. 

In 2007, there were attempts to include grassroots lobbying disclosures in the ethics bill which would have required grassroots 

firms, such as Bonner, to disclose their lobbying expenditures and 

identify their clients. Unfortunately, this section was removed. 

AAUW urges Congress to revisit this issue in the light of these revelations. 

Our members are a conscientious, persistent, and outspoken lot, 

as probably one or more members of this particular committee, can 

attest. Perhaps the most poignant response came from Willa 

Lawall of Virginia. She wrote, ‘‘As a former president of the Charlottesville AAUW branch, I was shocked to learn from Gwen Dent, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

50 

our past president, that the cited letter used her home address 

without her permission and cited the name of our dear, lamented, 

longtime historian, Anne Waldner, who died before the cap-andtrade issue ever came up. So not only were Bonner & Associates 

engaging brazenly in theft of the AAUW logo, their theft of address 

and identity was grossly insulting.’’ 

So they used the address of one AAUW member and the name 

of another AAUW member, who happened to be dead, also from a 

branch of AAUW that was no longer in existence. 

One of the more disturbing elements of this mess was that 

Bonner never contacted AAUW directly. We confirmed with our 

Virginia State affiliate that they had been contacted by ACCCE, 

but since there is no longer a Charlottesville branch, our members 

were confused as to what was actually happening. When it was 

clear that there was no branch and that they were dealing with 

grassroots advocates rather than paid staff, Bonner and ACCCE 

should have immediately called AAUW’s national headquarters. 

Unfortunately, they did not. Instead, like the NAACP, AAUW 

found out about our involvement in this situation in a way no one 

wants to hear such a news, in a newspaper. 

Because of our active membership, AAUW is respected in Congress. Perhaps this is why corporate lobbyists used our good name 

to try to unfairly sway the outcome of the energy bill. AAUW has 

a small team of ethical professional lobbyists that fight for our 

issues on Capitol Hill and in the administration. We approach our 

policy challenges as good, clean fights. 

I would like to note, as well, that objections to the practice of 

astroturfing and the fraudulent letters that resulted is not about 

partisanship. It is about something much more fundamental. It is 

about who gets heard in the halls of power. This is about the fact 

that we, as a real grassroots group, don’t necessarily have the 

astroturfers’ resources and corporate funding. According to media accounts, ACCCE spent over $11 million in 

lobbying in the second quarter of this year alone. That is on pace 

to spend roughly $44 million for the year. AAUW and similarly affected nonprofit groups spend a fraction of this amount. 

But what groups like us have always had is the honest, earnest 

voices of our members. When Congress receives a letter from our 

members, it is critical that they feel confident that they are being 

contacted by real people, committed to the mission of AAUW, not 

a phony who is trying to undermine the principles of our representative democracy. If corporate-driven astroturf campaigns start corrupting the integrity of that commodity, the power of constituent 

voices, what tools are concerned citizens left with to improve our 

communities? 

Quite frankly, it is possible that other unrelated, but just as 

fraudulent letters have been sent to the House and the Senate over 

the years. That is not a partisan issue, it is the reality, and it undermines citizens’ confidence in their elected officials and their government. AAUW believes it is important to call attention to these 

unscrupulous practices in addition to protecting our good name. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a great job at an organization that has a 

worthwhile mission. We have worked for more than a century to 

build our reputation and keep our name untarnished. AAUW memmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

51 

bers have used their collective voices to break through many barriers for women and girls. The notion that someone would come 

along and co-op that name or attempt to harness that collective 

voice under false pretenses is a breathtaking and very personal deceit. 

I am pleased to be here today and to add our voice to the call 

for reform. I welcome your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Maatz, very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Maatz follows:] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

52 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 81 here 62519A.025
53 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 82 here 62519A.026
54 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 83 here 62519A.027
55 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 84 here 62519A.028
56 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

The Chair will recognize himself now for a round of questions. 

Mr. Bonner, you learned of the fraudulent activity on June 22nd 

or 23rd of this year, 4 days before we actually had the vote on the 

floor of the House of Representatives on the Waxman-Markey bill. 

Why didn’t you take action before June 26, before the vote on the 

floor of Congress to let the Members of Congress know that the 

NAACP, that the University Women, were not in opposition to the 

clean energy legislation? 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I am personally very sorry that I 

did not immediately go up to the three Members involved, sit in 

their office until I was able to talk to somebody and tell them directly what had happened. 

We have put in place measures to make sure this never happens 

again. But should it ever happen again, whether I was asked by 

the client or anyone else, I should have been up there. 

We were wrong not to be up there. I should have sat there and 

made sure that the three Members knew. We reached out to the 

organizations where—that were victims of this fraud to make sure 

that they knew about this, and we started that immediately, but 

the Members of Congress should have been contacted. 

I take responsibility, sir, for not doing that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, why was it so hard for anyone who worked 

at Bonner not to meet with the Members personally, but just to 

make a phone call to let them know that you had identified the fact 

that the NAACP, that the University Women were not in opposition? 

Those are not insignificant organizations in our country. That 

really does put a thumb on the scale against clean energy technologies, and word would spread on the House floor as to why particular Members might be considering opposing the legislation. 

Why could a phone call not have been made from Bonner to 

those three Members so that they and their staffs would not be 

representing that these very distinguished organizations were in 

opposition to the legislation? 

Mr. BONNER. Well, Mr. Chairman, we should have done that, and 

we should have gone beyond the call, and I should have personally 

sat there to make sure the message got through. Regardless of how 

little or how much effort that would have taken, it should have 

been done, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did you personally know that the vote was taking place? 

Mr. BONNER. No. I didn’t know when the vote was taking place. 

I do know when we discovered the fraud. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you are saying that you just didn’t have 

processes in place at Bonner to notify people when a fraud was, in 

fact, being perpetrated; and as a result, those extra 3 or 4 days, 

the critical days before the vote, there was no notification of the 

Members of Congress that the NAACP was not in opposition? 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, we are a grassroots firm; we are not 

a lobbying firm. 

But having said that, we should have found a way to make sure 

that the Hill was notified promptly by us immediately. We have 

put in place these five steps to make sure that that can’t happen 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

57 

in the future, because no letter will go up to the Hill until we have 

another person at Bonner & Associates, a permanent staff person, 

has verified that that letter is legitimate at the 100 percent level. 

No letter to any elected official, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you say that you didn’t know when the vote 

was going to occur. But that was about as well advertised a moment in legislative activity as could possibly exist. A deadline had 

been set, we were going to have the vote before we broke for the 

4th of July; and earlier in that week Bonner did receive the information that would have made it possible for those Members of Congress to know that these very distinguished groups had not, in fact, 

issued statements in opposition to the legislation. 

So when you say you didn’t know, what were the processes that 

existed inside of your company to ensure that when fraudulent activity had been identified, it would trigger an immediate rectification because it could have a profound negative impact on historic 

legislation passing through Congress? 

Mr. BONNER. As I said, we are a grassroots firm, not a lobbying 

firm, so we weren’t following precisely when that vote would occur. 

However, regardless of whether the vote was in 24 hours or 3 

weeks away, or whatever point in the future, I feel I personally 

should have gone up to the Hill and made sure that Members knew 

that, whether the vote was the next day or 2 weeks later. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have a letter here, which had been sent 

from your organization, from the NAACP saying to the Member of 

Congress: You are about to vote on important environmental legislation, the Waxman-Markey bill. And it is signed here by Sheila 

Dow, NAACP, Charlottesville. 

Now, you knew by June 22nd or 23rd that this was not accurate, 

and that was internal information inside of Bonner. So what happened? Why didn’t Bonner make this public? Why didn’t they correct this mistake? Why didn’t you let Congressman Perriello know 

that this was not accurate? 

This is no insignificant group in Virginia in terms of its impact 

on the decisions made by a Congressman in terms of how they 

should be voting. 

Mr. BONNER. When we found, through our own quality control 

checks, that the fraud had occurred, we immediately fired the person involved and we immediately informed the client. We should 

have also immediately informed the Member of Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. And why didn’t you? 

Mr. BONNER. The reason we didn’t is, we felt our first responsibility, a responsibility of our firm as a grassroots firm, was to get 

to the organizations involved in a very open way and tell them that 

we, Bonner & Associates, had made this mistake and that we 

apologize to these groups directly, and that we, as soon as we had 

found that this fraud had been committed by this temporary employee, fire that employee. 

And we should have also, as I look back on it, sir, and as I look 

forward to the future, should have immediately informed Congress 

of it at that moment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, again, these letters were targeting some of 

the swing voters on this issue. And all reports for the preceding 2 

weeks were that this was going to come down to a small handful 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

58 

of votes, determining whether or not success was possible in passing the legislation. 

So the information that these Members of Congress had in their 

offices on the day that the vote was cast, June 26, Friday of that 

week, was that the American Association of University Women, the 

NAACP, veterans groups, were opposed to the legislation which, if 

they relied upon that, could have actually resulted in the defeat of 

the legislation. 

So, again, it goes back to the question of why didn’t Bonner notify the Members of Congress that this information was inaccurate, 

that it had been manufactured, and that they should not be casting 

their vote based upon these misrepresentations? 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, we should have done that. 

It wasn’t done for any other reason than we should have done 

it and that our responsibilities were to make sure that the thirdparty groups, the community organizations who had this awful 

fraud perpetrated upon them, were informed immediately by us, 

telling them our responsibility, and Bonner & Associates’ responsibility alone. This was something we were responsible for; and our 

employee did that and he shouldn’t have, and we should have 

caught it. And we fired him. 

But I would say, from this experience, Chairman Markey, we 

would, going forward, immediately inform the Members of Congress. I have no knowledge of whether the Members were swing 

votes or not. We don’t lobby; we just go and get advocacy work 

done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the reality is that they were, and the reality was that this was going to come down to a small handful of 

votes. And so miscommunication of information to these Members 

went right to the heart of our ability to have a debate on the facts 

of whether or not this energy legislation was good for the country 

or not. And so, again, organizations of this nature have a very 

heavy moral and political influence in our country. 

So, Mr. Shelton, Mr. Bonner said that your organization, the 

NAACP, was notified as soon as possible. 

When were you notified? The vote was on June 26th. The fraud 

was identified on June 22nd or 23rd. When was the NAACP notified? 

Mr. SHELTON. My office first heard about this on July 31st, 

which—and I run the Government Affairs office for the NAACP 

that oversees all government interactions between the NAACP and 

the U.S. Congress, and we did not hear from any outside organization. We heard from news outlets asking us what we thought about 

the fraudulent activities that had occurred. 

The CHAIRMAN. So Mr. Bonner, what do you have to say to Mr. 

Shelton about that long delay in notifying them that the good name 

of the NAACP had been used to attempt to defeat this clean energy 

legislation? 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, on June 29th, one of my staff people 

had a very lengthy conversation, of which we have a record that 

the conversation took place, with the vice president of the Charlottesville NAACP, at which time we apologized for what we did. 

We informed the vice president of what went on, that Bonner & Associates was responsible for this, and we told her all about this. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

59 

The CHAIRMAN. On June 29th, 3 days after the vote had occurred. 

Mr. BONNER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what do you have to respond to that, Mr. 

Shelton? 

Mr. SHELTON. It is outrageous that they would wait that long to 

try to correct the record on a process that is so sacred to our very 

democracy, sir. Very well indeed it is outrageous, and they should 

be ashamed of themselves for carrying on this kind of fraudulent 

behavior. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Maatz, when did you find out that the use 

of your organization’s name has been misappropriated and used to 

attempt to defeat the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill? 

Ms. MAATZ. We actually at national AAUW found out even later 

than the NAACP did. It was the first week of August. And we 

found out as a result of a newspaper article from Charlottesville; 

it was literally something that came up on a Google search, believe 

it or not. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, Mr. Bonner, what do you say to Ms. Maatz 

in terms of that long delay all the way from June 22nd to the first 

week of August, and this organization, the American Association of 

University Women, still don’t know that their name has been used 

to defeat clean energy legislation? 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, what I would say to her is, we 

should have found the national organization immediately. The person—this temporary employee that did the fraud had actually 

made up a chapter that was no longer there; and we attempted to 

find that chapter in Virginia, and we didn’t. We should have contacted the national immediately. 

When we talked on the phone—because the AAUW contacted us 

and I personally spoke and apologized for what happened and explained that Bonner & Associates was responsible and that we 

fired the person involved. But we should have gotten ahold of the 

national organization right away, and I apologize for that. 

We wouldn’t do that again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Maatz, what is your response? 

Ms. MAATZ. Well, I found it regrettable that I had to be the one 

to reach out. 

I do appreciate the fact that when I did, there was a conversation 

that was held. But there are a couple of things that I would question. 

Number one, as a grassroots lobbying firm, I find it hard to believe that they were not involved in the targeting of Members, because grassroots folks worth their salt do targeting in terms of figuring out who they need to spend their time on to try to influence 

votes. 

The other thing I would say is that not knowing when the vote 

is seems also a little disingenuous, because how could you know 

when to stop doing your grassroots advocacy work if you didn’t 

know when the vote was? So it seems, again, there is some disingenuousness going on here. 

And for our members, quite frankly, it is outrageous. The fact 

that they used the name of a dead member, the fact that this was 

someone who—that particular branch, when it used to be in existmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

60 

ence, was very highly regarded. You know, our members are incredibly distressed. 

One of the things AAUW relies on is not only our good name, but 

the fact that we have women who come up to the Hill every week 

that Congress is in session to talk to Members of Congress. And 

the fact that they now are worried in some respects that when they 

go into an office that someone won’t believe that this is actually our 

position is incredibly distressing to them. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, all I can say is, Give me a break. That senior 

executives know about this defrauding Congress, but somehow, despite the fact that you are hiring lobbyists by the army-full you 

can’t tell us until after the vote that there has been this defrauding 

going on. Give me a break. 

Mr. Miller, would you agree that your organization, on behalf of 

a part of the coal industry, is partially responsible for defrauding 

Congress in this context? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Inslee, the investigation, the internal review 

done by Venable and overseen by former Attorney General Civiletti 

found without question that we did not have any knowledge and 

did not in any way direct that fraudulent letters be done. 

The investigation further showed, however, that our reliance on 

Mr. Bonner’s firm was misplaced. We relied on him for basically 

three reasons for our failure to act before the vote. 

Number one—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me just for a moment, I am just trying to get 

to kind of ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ and then I will allow an explanation at the 

end. Do you think that your organization was partially responsible 

for defrauding Congress in this context? 

Mr. MILLER. Fraudulent activity? No, sir, I do not believe. 

Mr. INSLEE. Do you think you are partially responsible for misleading Congress in this context? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe that our organization had an obligation. 

And now, based on 3 months of thinking about this issue every 

day, clearly we had a responsibility to draw a line at a certain 

point before the vote. 

Mr. INSLEE. So the answer is ‘‘yes,’’ you were partially responsible for misleading Congress? Say ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. MILLER. We are partially responsible for the failure of affected Members to not be notified. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, let me suggest that this really is, in a bit, the 

tip of the iceberg because I think you are responsible in a lot of 

other ways as well. I am holding the talking points for ACCCE of 

phone calls that I am told were made, and it is about what you advised people to call and tell potential voters. 

Were you familiar with this text to be used in these phone calls? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Inslee, I don’t have a copy of the particular item 

that you have. I would be glad to take a look at it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, it talks about—this is from committee staff. I 

will just read it to you. Because this is a whole ’nother issue of misleading Congress, frankly, that goes beyond even misidentifying 

who was calling, because you paid an outfit to call and say this: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

61 

Have the caller call a citizen and say, ‘‘How much do you pay for 

electricity? What would you cut out of your budget if your utility 

bill went from ‘X’ to,’’ parentheses, ‘‘double,’’ parentheses, ‘‘every 

month? Would you write a letter to help stop that from happening?’’ Close quote. 

You hired an agency that was apparently calling citizens. And I 

will hand this document to you, and I am sorry I don’t have it for 

you right now; I will just give you the whole document in a minute. 

But apparently you hired an agency to call people and effectively 

tell them that something was going on in Congress that has the potential of doubling their electricity, which is just wholly wrong and 

fraudulent. 

And this goes beyond simple misidentification of who is calling; 

it goes to a deeper issue as to what you are telling the citizens. And 

it is consistent with all of your other ads you are running in all 

of these other newspapers, trying to scare the bejesus out of citizens thinking we are going to be doubling electric bills as a result 

of Waxman-Markey. And this is a deeper defrauding of the people 

in Congress beyond the simple misidentification. 

And I would ask you to respond to that. I am going to ask staff 

to give you this and ask you and ask Mr. Bonner to take a look 

at this script. 

And, first, Mr. Bonner, tell me, is this an accurate depiction of 

the script that your callers used as part of this contract? I will 

hand it to you in just a moment here. Is that basically the script, 

Mr. Bonner, that your callers worked off of when you called people? 

Mr. BONNER. No, it is not the script that we used. 

Mr. INSLEE. Are you familiar with that document? 

Mr. BONNER. Yes, it is—I am sorry—it is original talking points 

that we used in our training. When we do calls, Congressman, we 

don’t read a script to anybody. 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me get to the heart of this. This is a training 

document. You told your callers what to tell citizens. And in that 

document and in that training, you told them to tell the citizens 

that there was something going on, or potentially going on, that 

would end up doubling their electrical rates. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. BONNER. I am reading it right now, Congressman. 

Well, it says, What would happen if their utility bill doubled? 

Mr. INSLEE. Right. And it is real clear that what you wanted to 

do and what this industry wanted to do is to scare the dickens out 

of voters, thinking that some bill was percolating back here that 

would double their electrical rates. Am I right? 

Mr. BONNER. What we wanted to do was inform citizens their 

electrical rates could go up. 

Mr. INSLEE. You want them to think they were going to double. 

That is why you put it in your training document, isn’t it? 

Mr. BONNER. We said—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Why did you put ‘‘double’’ in your training document 

if that is not what you wanted your people to say when they called? 

Mr. BONNER. The talking points supplied by ACCCE were what 

we used as the model to talk—or supplied by Hawthorn were used 

as talking points to do that, to communicate what was going on. 

Mr. INSLEE. Right. And what happened here is, Hawthorn, after 

getting their instructions from the coal industry, wanted you to try 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

62 

to convince citizens that there was a potential their electrical rates 

were going to double as a result of some legislation back here. Now, 

isn’t that what happened? 

And I would really like to short-circuit this. Isn’t that what happened? 

Mr. BONNER. The talking points that we train from do have the 

line in it, what would happen if their utility bill doubled. 

Mr. INSLEE. Right. And that didn’t come from a figment of your 

imagination; that came from information from Hawthorn that got 

their information from Mr. Miller’s organization. Isn’t that your understanding? 

Mr. BONNER. Yes. Well, my understanding is, Hawthorn—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. Miller, did your organization suggest to the Hawthorn 

organization that in their calls or in other information given to citizens that it would be discussed, a potential doubling of people’s 

electrical rates? 

Mr. MILLER. Never, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. Okay. So your testimony is that the Hawthorn administration apparently imagined this. Is that what happened? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe so either, sir. 

And I would like to cite you to—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, if you can help us, where did this doubling— 

whose idea was it to try to scare the citizens into believing there 

is doubling using your money? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe that came from Bonner internally. And I 

would cite you, sir, to the filing that the Hawthorn group made 

with the Select Committee on August 27th. One of the attachments 

to it is a full-page document that was under penalty of perjury 

what the Hawthorn group says that they delivered to Bonner & Associates to develop their work. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you believe Bonner & Associates came up with 

this doubling, using your money; but apparently you didn’t have 

enough good quality control in what you were trying to scare the 

citizens about to know that you were spending millions of dollars 

to try to convince the American public that there was a potential 

to double electrical rates. Isn’t that what happened? 

Mr. MILLER. We have never in the debate about the WaxmanMarkey bill ever intimated directly, indirectly, that there would be 

a doubling of rates. 

Mr. INSLEE. You remind me of the guy who hired a hit man and 

said, Just take care of the problem; don’t tell me whether you are 

using the knife or the gun. 

That is wholly irresponsible on your part not to give them and 

confine the information they were giving to the public. Don’t you 

agree? Don’t you believe that was wholly irresponsible by your organization? 

Mr. MILLER. We provided to the Hawthorn Group a very detailed 

list of talking points and suggested activity. 

And, Mr. Inslee, this is critically important. Our organization has 

never opposed the Waxman-Markey bill. And in the directions that 

we gave to Hawthorn to provide to Bonner and for the Hawthorn 

Group to use with phone calls that they also oversaw, that we were 

seeking changes to the bill, particularly a limit on the price of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

63 

emission allowances that they would be sold in order to hold down 

the price of electricity. 

We have never opposed the Waxman-Markey bill. We were seeking changes to it. And the record, I think, very clearly shows that 

in regards to our filings before this committee. 

Mr. BONNER. Congressman, if I could. 

Mr. INSLEE. Excuse me, Mr. Bonner. I want to make sure I understand Mr. Miller’s testimony. 

You are telling us that—is it our understanding that you hired 

the Hawthorn Group? And was there any information you gave to 

the Hawthorn Group that you authorized them to convey to the 

citizens as to the amount of potential increases of their electrical 

rates? 

Mr. MILLER. No. All it said—and I can quote from our filing with 

the committee yesterday to your interrogatories from last week. 

Their script that the Hawthorn Group used for telephone calls, 

for example, stated that ‘‘The U.S. House of Representatives is set 

to vote soon on a climate bill to change—to reduce carbon dioxide 

emissions. Most everyone agrees the bill will increase energy 

prices.’’ 

And I believe, Mr. Inslee, from almost every analysis that has 

been done by the EPA and EIA and other government sources, it 

is clear that effective, strong climate legislation will increase to 

some degree energy prices. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you are telling me you don’t believe, given the 

context of what happened here, that you spent millions of dollars 

both on lobbyists and on a public—I won’t call it information; I 

think it is a disinformation—campaign, that they were telling citizens that it would potentially double their electrical rates. 

You are telling me that you don’t believe that you were at least 

somewhat irresponsible in not confining the information that was 

purveyed to the public in this regard? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe the information that we gave to Hawthorn 

to provide to any subcontractors they used was entirely responsible. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you are telling me you would do it again? 

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I want to make sure I understand this. You 

are telling me that you don’t think your group acted irresponsibly 

when it spent millions of dollars that ended up trying to scare people into believing their electrical rates could double without telling 

them, No, you need to tell the truth? You would do that again 

knowing what happened here and not make sure that the people 

were told to tell the truth, not to try to scare them into this thing 

that their electrical rates were going to double? 

Mr. MILLER. Part of the new code of ethics that we put in place 

codifies the rationale that we used in providing this information to 

Hawthorn. We are going to require now contracts not only between 

ACCCE and Hawthorn, but any contracts we have with subcontractors that require that those subcontractors use only materials that 

have been prior approved by ACCCE. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you are telling me you won’t do it again then? 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

64 

Mr. MILLER. We are taking extra measures to make sure that the 

legitimate public policy items and information and requests to 

make changes to legislation, rather than to vote against it—— 

Mr. INSLEE. So I want to try to understand. You are not going 

to go out and tell citizens or try to make them believe that their 

electrical rates are going to double as a result of this legislation. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. ACCCE has never done that, sir, in regards to this 

legislation. And I cannot imagine that we would do so again unless—unless a truly valid analysis showed that whatever proposal 

was in place would, in fact, do so. But that is not the case here. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we agree that there was some wrongdoing 

here. And the question is, what is penance? 

And I want to make sure I understand it. On June 25th, as we 

were preparing to look for the 218th vote to pass the Waxman-Markey bill, did your organization have lobbyists working Capitol Hill? 

Mr. MILLER. We did have lobbyists working Capitol Hill to seek 

changes to the legislation, particularly for a safety valve to try to 

put an upper limit on the price of emission allowances to hold down 

electricity prices. 

Mr. INSLEE. And pending that change, were you advising Members how you wanted them to vote? 

Mr. MILLER. We were seeking changes—we did not. Let me hit 

that question straight on. 

We did not seek members voting ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ on this bill. It was 

the judgment of our board that we should be continuing to try to 

seek changes not only for a safety valve, but other aspects of the 

bill that we thought needed to be changed. And at no time did our 

contract lobbyists or did we direct anyone on staff or any consultants that work for us to seek votes to oppose the Waxman-Markey 

bill. 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Miller, we do agree, I think, that there was misfeasance or malfeasance here. And, again, I want to just briefly ask 

you what you believe the appropriate penance is when an organization does something wrong. 

And you have agreed they have done something wrong; the question is, how do you make it right? What is the appropriate penance? 

Right now your organization is running millions of dollars of ads 

suggesting that the current Waxman-Markey bill, I think, is not to 

your liking—the best way I can categorize it. You still have lobbyists on the Hill. 

Let me just suggest, don’t you think as a first step that you direct your lobbyists to talk to, for instance, Senator Inhofe and tell 

him, Look, Senator, this is a real problem in America. Climate 

change has real, potential cataclysmic consequences. Our industry 

believes that we have to deal with this. We need to limit carbon 

dioxide gas, and you are simply wrong in saying that this is some 

fiction of rogue scientists. 

Now, don’t you think that is a penance that your organization 

should do? Let’s start with Senator Inhofe. 

Mr. MILLER. Our organization and our board have very clearly 

stated for 2 years that we support a Federal carbon management 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

65 

program as a matter of Federal law and that a cap-and-trade provision could be—is one option for that. 

So we clearly recognize that carbon management legislation and 

Federal legislation in this area is a desirable action by this Congress, so long as it is reasonable. And we take that message, Mr. 

Inslee, to Democrats, Republicans across the board. 

And so, whether it is Mr. Inhofe or whether it is Members of the 

House, we are methodically working through the Members of Congress to say that our organization supports Federal carbon management legislation that could include a mandatory cap-and-trade. 

Mr. INSLEE. So, Mr. Miller, do you think it would be proper partial penance for your organization, when you leave this hearing, to 

call your lobbyists and tell them to go talk to Senator Inhofe and 

tell him that your organization believes that we have to limit CO2

because it has potentially catastrophic impacts on America, number 

one? 

And, number two, maybe run one ad saying that, that we have 

got to have in fact CO2 limitation or we are in deep trouble? 

Now, don’t you think those are two things that you ought to do 

and will do? I will just ask you simply. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. If I may address this—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Is that a ‘‘yes’’ to both? 

Mr. MILLER. We will speak to Mr. Inhofe, as we will all 100 

Members of the United States Senate, that our organization supports Federal carbon management legislation and that a mandatory cap-and-trade can be part of that. We will do that. 

You have that commitment that we will touch base with all 100. 

We are well on the path. 

Mr. INSLEE. That is one. 

Will you run some ads in the Hill rags talking about the fact that 

we need CO2 regulation in this country as a lead title? Will you do 

that? 

Mr. MILLER. Sir, I would be happy to submit to this committee 

copies of advertisements, print advertisements. 

Mr. INSLEE. That’s great. 

I will ask you one more question and then I will let you go. I 

have gone well over time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Will you run an ad as partial penance for this transgression a 

thing that says at the top, We need CO2 regulation in America and 

we need it fast? Will you do that? 

Mr. MILLER. We will continue to run ads. And I would suggest, 

sir, that if you have the full rank of ads that we have run this year, 

we have said that our organization supports Federal carbon management legislation and that we are working to make that legislation be correct legislation. 

Mr. INSLEE. I don’t know if that is a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ It is the best 

I am going to get. I suggest you think about that. I think it would 

be the responsible thing for you to do. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. MAATZ. If I could jump in here real quickly. I think we need 

to be real clear what happened. Basically, it was an argument 

about increasing the rate, doubling the rate, that was targeted in 

the districts of swing members, that was then targeted in terms of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

66 

the organizations that were affected, that were forged, to African 

Americans who are discriminated in all sectors of society, to seniors 

who were fixed incomes, to women who make 77 cents on the male 

dollar, groups who are absolutely going to be scared by an argument that their electric rates are going to be doubled. And then 

those letters from groups that represent those constituencies were 

forged and sent to Members of Congress who were on the fence 

about this particular bill. 

I think that is something that you really need to take into account in the sense that this was calculated and this was deliberate. 

This was a strategy employed to try to influence Members of Congress from the very people who—their particular fraudulent argument was going to be the most persuasive with. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Ms. Maatz, for that. 

To the gentleman from Washington State, there are two roll calls 

on the floor, but I intend on returning after those roll calls to continue this hearing. 

Let me just follow up with what Mr. Inslee just said. 

Mr. Miller, your organization is one that has been advocating for 

funding for technologies that can put the pollution which is created 

from the coal industry—and, by the way, 40 percent of all greenhouse gases, all of this pollution comes from the coal industry. So, 

actually, if we can’t solve the problem of coal and the role that it 

plays in creating this climate change, then we can’t solve the problem. 

And so you and your organization have advocated for funding to 

put this pollution underground, to find ways of keeping it from ever 

going into the atmosphere. And that underground strategy is something that—is something that you have advocated. 

But at the same time, you have lobbying activities which you 

fund, which is similarly kept underground. There are organizations 

that you hire that hire other organizations that then result in Mr. 

Bonner hiring temporary employees who are sending out information that says that there will be a doubling of electricity rates if 

the legislation moves forward, that there will be great harm that 

comes to minority groups, to women, to seniors in our country if 

this legislation goes forward. And that is part of the campaign as 

well. 

Well, there is a big difference between advocating for modest 

changes in legislation and sending out information like that that 

is then repeated by Senators and other Members as though it is 

true, when in fact the information that is developed all emanates 

from the coal coalition that hires the contractor that hires the subcontractor that hires the temporary employee that is then spreading that information to individual members. 

As Mr. Inslee is saying, they don’t get the message that you support clean coal technology, that you want legislation to pass that 

effects that goal. You are sending out just the opposite message. 

You are saying that if this strategy is adopted, it will double the 

rates of electricity users in our country, which is completely false. 

Your advertising doesn’t reflect that. 

The message that you sent either using this methodology, this 

subterranean, this underground methodology that you use to lobby 

Congress doesn’t tell Members that, doesn’t tell the public that. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

67 

And your ads that are in public don’t say that at all, as well. It 

makes it seem as though it is a very scary, expensive, dangerous 

prospect for the American economy and for these consumers. 

And so if you are stepping back, Mr. Miller, and you are looking 

at what happened here, you are saying the average person would 

just say, Well, that is coming from a very reliable source, from the 

coal coalition of our country, the source of electricity in my home, 

they are saying to themselves. And unless that misinterpretation, 

that misrepresentation is corrected, then they are going to assume 

there must be some validity. And the proof in that is that Senators 

and Members of the House of Representatives repeat it as though 

it is true. 

And so that has a profoundly negative impact on the legislative 

process. And ultimately it comes back to you, Mr. Miller, because 

you are the funding source ultimately for this message as it is 

transmitted to the American public and to the Congress. 

So this is your moment. This is your opportunity here to make 

it clear that you are going to ensure that the positive message is 

out there and that you will correct the misinterpretations. 

As Waxman-Markey is evaluated by the Congressional Budget 

Office, by the Environmental Protection Agency, it is clear that it 

costs no more than a postage stamp per day for the public in order 

to implement it. But if people hear it will double their electricity 

rates, if people hear that it will have a profound negative impact 

on the economy, then of course—and using organizations like the 

NAACP, like the American Association of University Women or 

veterans groups and senior groups across our country, well, they 

are going to believe that this is accurate. 

So what do you have to say to us, Mr. Miller? How do we correct 

this? 

Mr. MILLER. We correct this in a number of ways. Number one, 

in exchanges that we are having right now, I am trying to be very 

clear and accurate in regards to what we have said in our advertising and requests that we made for contacts to be made and suggestions for contacts to be made with policymakers that we, our organization, supports Federal carbon management legislation that 

could include a mandatory cap-and-trade; that that legislation 

needs to have key components to it, one of which are very strong 

measures to make sure electricity prices do not surge because of 

this; and that our advertising has said that, the direction that we 

have given to our consultants that Mr. Bonner’s firm apparently, 

from what I am reading here, did not follow. 

Even, Mr. Markey, I would cite that on the day that the Waxman-Markey legislation passed out of the House Energy Committee, we issued a press release in my name, which I approved, 

which said we look forward to working with the Members of the 

House of Representatives, going forward; and at the end, we want 

to commend Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, Chairman 

Dingell, and Chairman Boucher for their leadership in making important changes to the discussion draft of this bill. We have been 

publicly stating that the bill needed changes, and we still believe 

that, as it has been used as a basis for much of the Kerry-Boxer 

bill, that needs changes. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

68 

But our organization supports Federal carbon management legislation, one of the reasons being, as you correctly stated a few minutes ago, we will not solve the challenge of climate change globally 

unless there is an effective carbon capture-and-storage technology 

program that spreads for broad-based commercial use around the 

world. And the sooner we can get to that, the sooner we will be 

dealing with one of the major challenges for climate change. 

So we are speaking for aspects of this very clearly and we will 

continue to do so. 

One change though, one reform in our code of ethics that our 

board will formally act on in about 3 weeks and that we are implementing now as an interim measure: We are going to insist in all 

of the contracts that exist that our consultants, our contractors, 

their subcontractors only use scripts that we have seen and absolutely approve. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, are you ashamed of how the coalition 

has been represented by Hawthorn, by Bonner? 

Mr. MILLER. I used the word ‘‘outraged’’ on Day One. And I am 

outraged here that the clear direction that we provided Hawthorn 

that was then—according to the documents filed to this committee, 

then passed on to Bonner & Associates were not followed. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to take a brief recess right now, and 

we will return, Mr. Miller, so we can continue to have this conversation about the way in which the coal industry represents this 

entire debate to clean up our air. 

The committee will stand in recess for 10 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is once again called to order. We 

apologize to all of you. We had, as Members, to run over to the 

House floor to cast three votes, but I think we can have an uninterrupted period of time now to move forward. 

So, Mr. Miller, let me ask you this, when—again, just to recap— 

the fraudulent letters were sent out early in the month of June, 

2009, and—on June 22 or 23, it was clear that these letters were 

fraudulent. But the vote was on Friday of that week, on June 26, 

so there was a 3- or 4-day period on which the Members of Congress could have been notified that the NAACP, American Association of University Women, veterans and other groups were not, in 

fact, signatories to these letters that were in opposition to the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill. 

When you did you find out, Mr. Miller? When did the coal coalition find out that these letters, these fraudulent letters, had been 

sent out? 

Mr. MILLER. In the evening of Wednesday the 24th, I believe, of 

June, the Hawthorn Group called our senior vice president for national affairs and informed him that Mr. Bonner had contacted 

Hawthorn to say that there were some fraudulent letters. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now is your senior vice president for national affairs, was he the person coordinating the campaign? 

Mr. MILLER. No, he is not. That is our senior vice president for 

communications. 

So the Hawthorn folks—apparently the examination that 

Venable did showed that the Hawthorn Group tried to reach our 

senior vice president of communications first, then called our senior 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

69 

vice president of national affairs, who then called me the morning 

of Thursday, June 25—so the day before the vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. So—the vote occurred on Friday evening, so as 

of Thursday morning now you know personally—— 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. That these letters are fraudulent, 

that they had been sent to Members of Congress who had been 

identified as key swing votes on the bill. 

And what did you do at that time, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. I discussed this with our senior vice president of 

communications because the communication that came to us from 

Hawthorn was that the Bonner firm wanted to know if it was okay 

to contact the Members of Congress and the local organizations. 

And my direction to our senior vice president of communications, 

who then made that very clear to the Hawthorn Group, was, Absolutely, and in fact, that we demanded that they do so immediately. 

That has also been verified by the examination that the Venable 

firm did, that we were very clear in our instructions to Hawthorn; 

and, in fact, based on their discussions with the Hawthorn folks 

that they imparted those directions to Mr. Bonner that this notification of the Members of Congress and the local organizations 

needed to be made immediately. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now let me ask you this, Mr. Miller: On that 

Thursday, the day before we cast the vote, amongst your major 

funders are the Southern Company, Arch Coal, Peabody Coal. Were 

they told by any of your employees at the coal coalition that this 

fraud had been perpetrated? 

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. So on the day before the vote, the Peabody Coal 

Company did not know about this? 

Mr. MILLER. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And did your lobbyists for the coal coalition know 

about this? 

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you did not tell your lobbyists, you did not tell 

your chief funders that this had occurred? 

Mr. MILLER. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And did you do any follow-up to make sure that 

your instructions, that the Members of Congress be told that this 

fraud had been perpetrated, had occurred and that they should 

know that these letters were, in fact, fraudulent? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I was so convinced that because the 

Bonner folks had found the letters and had voluntarily come forward to say, We have found these, we found these letters, that it 

was in their personal interest, their company’s reputational interest, to address this issue; and that they had volunteered to—‘‘We 

will go deal with this immediately’’—I was convinced that their voluntary actions coming to the Hawthorn Group and stating the 

problem and stating their desire to address that problem, that I 

was convinced that they would do so. 

The CHAIRMAN. But can you understand, Mr. Miller, how somebody looking at this might be a little bit incredulous? 

Mr. Bonner has testified that he was paid $43,000. The Hawthorn group, in turn, was paid millions of dollars and had been conmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

70 

tracted by you for the preceding 8 years with millions and millions 

of additional dollars that you had paid them. 

And yet on top of that, the coal coalition was trying to kill the 

Waxman-Markey bill on Friday; and that this multi-multi-million 

dollar effort to kill Waxman-Markey was funded by Peabody Coal, 

by Arch Coal, by the Southern Company, by other entities that 

were your principal funders, and it was all towards the goal of getting these swing votes on Friday to vote ‘‘no’’ on the bill. 

So it seems hard to believe that being notified that this had happened, that this fraud had been perpetrated, was delegated, on the 

day before the vote, to Hawthorn; and then you assumed that Mr. 

Bonner, who had just been hired a couple of weeks before—this 

wasn’t his issue, his passion, he was being, you know, basically, 

hired for $43,000 to do some astroturfing. 

So it comes back to you, Mr. Miller. You are kind of giving us 

the Sergeant Schultz defense here, ‘‘I see nothing, I know nothing. 

I instructed that Hawthorn move on, I assumed,’’ you say, ‘‘that 

Mr. Bonner then acted.’’ 

Well, you know, we are coming down—we are in a situation here 

where that is putting a lot of responsibility on someone that you 

had only hired 2 or 3 weeks beforehand who had, in turn, hired 

temporary employees. 

I think it comes back to you, Mr. Miller. I think it comes back 

to what the objective was on the most historic energy and environment bill ever on the floor of the House of Representatives, that 

your organization had raised millions and millions of dollars to try 

to defeat. 

And I think that your responsibility—I will put it right on your 

shoulders. Your responsibility was to ensure that the Members of 

Congress knew that this information was fraudulent, or other people in—your lobbyists, your communications people, these are the 

high-paid people. $43,000 to a subcontractor, it seems to me, is not 

the place where this responsibility reposes to ensure that—the 

NAACP, the American Association of University Women, veterans 

groups, senior organizations across the country have had their good 

reputations absconded with by your coalition. 

So what responsibility, Mr. Miller, do you think you shoulder 

now in retrospect? Because I am putting it on you, not—and I am 

not going to allow you to say, you assumed that it would be in Mr. 

Bonner’s best interest to clarify this, because he is very far down 

this communications food chain. 

Have you had enough time here to examine whether or not, in 

your own opinion, you did not do the job you should have done to 

make sure that this was corrected in the minds of these key Members of Congress before they cast a vote? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I think there were two aspects of 

your question. One was, what was the motivation here, what was 

the goal? And let me reiterate. 

Our board has directed us to support Federal carbon management legislation and, in particular in regards to the Waxman-Markey bill, to make changes to it, not to defeat it. There is no accurate example anywhere, because it just doesn’t exist, that our organization opposed the Waxman-Markey bill before this vote took 

place either before the committee or on the House floor. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

71 

Now, as to my personal responsibility here, Mr. Chairman, I can 

tell you this literally, and not figuratively, a thousand times over 

the last 3 months I have thought about what I should have done 

differently, not just my colleagues at ACCCE or our consultants. 

And I will tell you that based on what I know now, I would have 

drawn a line on a particular hour if Mr. Bonner had wanted to 

make these contacts. I would have drawn a definite line that said, 

After this hour, if I don’t have conclusive proof that these contacts 

have been made both to the Members of Congress and the local organizations, that I will go to the halls of Congress and I will go 

pass a note to whomever I have to at the staff level to make sure 

that the affected Members know this, that I send a fax or whatever 

I have to do to make sure that that happens. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t accept, Mr. Miller—I don’t accept the fact 

that you are arguing now that you did not oppose this legislation. 

We have an e-mail here from Hawthorn to Bonner. And the email says, ‘‘Okay, I now have the targets, and we’re ready to go in 

the following districts with vets, seniors, minorities’’—any combination you think you can get. ‘‘Just need a few. You define for me, 

but I am thinking, you know, five’’—I guess letters—‘‘per district.’’ 

But then, as you look through the seven target Members, next 

to one of the names, Hawthorn is saying to Bonner here in the email, ‘‘He’s a potential probable ‘no’ vote on here, so we are doing 

a little more intel to determine whether or not to keep him on our 

target list.’’ In other words, if he is already ‘‘no’’ on the bill, then 

why spend money on him? Why spend millions of dollars from the 

coal coalition on him? 

So the very e-mail that is being used to target all these Members, seven Members there 2 weeks before the vote, is to get a ‘‘no’’ 

vote. And so that is what the coal coalition was doing. Peabody 

Coal, Arch Coal they didn’t want a ‘‘yes’’ vote; they wanted a ‘‘no’’ 

vote on this bill. 

They are paying you your salary. They have got a coal coalition 

put together to defeat Waxman-Markey. Their e-mail makes it 

clear they are targeting Members that might potentially vote ‘‘yes,’’ 

but as soon as they go ‘‘no,’’ then take them off of the list. 

So I am having a hard time, Mr. Miller, in kind of parsing your 

sentences and understanding how you can possibly contend that 

this whole operation wasn’t intended to defeat Waxman-Markey. 

Mr. MILLER. Sir, I will be going back to the submission that the 

Hawthorn Group made on August 27 to this committee and the attachment to this, which has an exact copy of the information that 

we agreed to with the Hawthorn Group, that they say they passed 

on to Bonner, regarding our position here. And it states very clearly that we are here to—in this process, to make changes to the bill. 

And now, you specifically—and particularly in regards to a safety 

valve that would put an upper limit on the price of allowances—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Here is the problem we have, Mr. Miller. Hawthorn has been working for you for 8 years. You have given them 

millions and millions of dollars to be your principal wing of communication in order to affect legislation; and you are telling us that 

in the final week before the most important vote on energy legislation that could affect the coal industry that they are wrong in saying that trying to get a ‘‘no’’ vote is the key goal here and that, as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

72 

the list is being sent on to Mr. Bonner, that is not the objective. 

And I just have a hard time believing it, Mr. Miller. 

It seems to me that you were trying to kill the bill, that Peabody 

wanted the bill killed, that Arch wanted the bill killed, and that 

this was the message that got sent out. And that is what translates 

into these letters over here that I have put up on the easel so that 

the people here in the hearing room can see it, that these letters 

reflect a desire to communicate with voters, with Congressmen, 

that their electricity rates will be doubled, that it will have other 

horrific consequences for our country. 

And they are invoking the names of groups that represent the 

poor people in our country, seniors in our country, minorities in our 

country; and it seems to me that the real goal that you had at the 

end of the day was to kill the bill and that what you are sitting 

here trying to argue is that you have plausible deniability because 

you assumed that when you told Hawthorn, that Hawthorn would 

tell Bonner—who only got hired 3 weeks before, and a day later is 

hiring a temporary to start to develop letters—that somehow or another that would get passed through, down through the food chain, 

beginning on Thursday, the day before the vote. 

So none of these people would be in trouble right now if it all 

had been corrected on Thursday. We wouldn’t be here, huh? 

So it comes back to you. And what happened in headquarters as 

you are getting this information, the list is narrowing, it’s getting 

smaller and smaller, the vote is obviously getting closer and closer. 

So these key Members will decide whether or not your agenda to 

defeat the legislation—because this e-mail makes it clear that was 

the goal—is going to be successful. 

And so, it comes back to you again, Mr. Miller, and the people 

who fund your organization. That was what you were trying to do; 

and this fraudulent activity was in your hands 2 days before the 

vote. And you had a chance to clarify it, and you did not. 

Mr. MILLER. Is there a question there, sir? 

The CHAIRMAN. I am giving you a chance to say, You are right. 

Yes, I am giving you a chance to say, You are right, and I am 

ashamed that we did not correct it when it came to headquarters, 

since our whole goal in this effort was to affect swing Members of 

Congress that we knew that we had the responsibility, that we 

couldn’t delegate it and then have it redelegated again and then 

have it redelegated down to a temporary employee; that we, as the 

coal coalition, as the organization representing all of these companies that were giving us millions and millions of dollars, that we 

had the responsibility. 

Yes, there is a question there. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, we definitely had the responsibility as I said 

in my opening statement and I have said a couple of times; and I 

am profoundly disappointed that we did not do that. 

And we have—in your new ethics code we have a requirement 

that any time we have anything that is untoward that we can’t 

verify within 24 hours, we are required to notify the Member. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully say again, these 58 letters that were generated and sent in by Bonner to Hawthorn are 

a very, very small part of the grassroots, legitimate grassroots program we had. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

73 

One of the things we filed with this committee in our submission 

to you yesterday was the telephone scripts that we used, and that 

we generated thousands—made opportunities available for thousands of constituents to touch base with their Members. 

And if I might just take a few seconds to quote, ‘‘America’s power 

army supports the timely adoption of legislation that reduces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, protects consumers from unnecessary increases in energy costs, promotes energy independence and encourages the development and deployment of cleaner technologies’’—underlined in the text. ‘‘This climate 

bill needs changes to make sure all that happens. One of the most 

important changes would be to protect consumers, is to put a limit 

on the price of emission allowances.’’ 

This is what thousands of telephone calls are—we encourage 

folks to say in thousands of telephone calls to targeted Members, 

never to just vote ‘‘no’’ on this bill, but to make changes. 

And Mr. Chairman, you and others, Mr. Waxman and others on 

the committee, were working diligently in the hours right up to the 

vote, seeking changes to the bill to secure votes, because it was not 

clear at all until the day of the vote that there would be enough 

votes to pass. 

And so we were very clear that the policy situation in place here 

made it possible for additional changes to be made in that legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to recognize Mr. Inslee. 

All I can say to you, Mr. Miller, is that it was in the interests 

of the coal coalition for these Members to think that the NAACP, 

veterans, seniors and women’s groups were opposed to the bill with 

48 hours left to go; and that you had a chance to clarify it, but your 

goal was to defeat the legislation. And that is why one of these 

Members was taken off the list, because he was already a ‘‘no’’ vote 

on the bill on Waxman-Markey, and so the targeting would go for 

the other six Members. 

And so all I am saying to you, Mr. Miller, is that when interests 

and opportunity coincide, you wind up in a situation where those 

who had an opportunity to stop and to clarify, create a delegation 

process that may or may not be completed before the vote would 

be taking place; and that you, as the head of this organization, and 

the companies that you are representing, had a responsibility to 

clarify—a far, far greater responsibility than the temporary employee, than Mr. Bonner, than the Hawthorn Group had. 

This was your plan. This was your organization. Everyone else 

was hired. And it is clear that the objective was to kill the bill. And 

that was what was in question at that time. 

So I just have a hard time in accepting your explanation, because 

I think that 24-hour, 48-hour delay was just enough to perhaps 

contribute to your victory in defeating the legislation. And therein 

lies the real problem here where it keeps coming back to you. 

Let me conclude there and turn to the gentleman from Washington State. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, it is clear after the chief executive officer of the 

clean coal coalition learned that the Congress had been defrauded 

that you knew you only needed to keep this silent for about another 48 hours to try to maybe pick up a couple more critical votes, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

74 

because you were looking for votes under your designation to 

change the bill under the fact that it wasn’t going to change to kill 

the bill, and all you had to do was keep this fraud quiet for about 

another 48 hours. 

So I want to ask about your participation. Your entire goal of 

your organization is to influence Congress; is that right? 

Mr. Miller? Your entire goal as an organization is to influence 

Congress; is that right? 

Mr. MILLER. We do work at the State level. We do regulatory 

matters. We do general education to the public. So direct Federal 

lobbying has, in fact, only been part of our portfolio since April 

2008 over the 16-year history of the organization. 

Mr. INSLEE. What I want to get at is, this isn’t some peripheral 

responsibility, this is the big enchilada, the major leagues of climate change legislation. And on June 25, you would describe it— 

your highest priority was to get Congress to do your bidding; 

wouldn’t you say that is correct? 

Mr. MILLER. Our clear direction from our board was to seek the 

adoption of Federal carbon management legislation that could include a mandatory cap-and-trade program so long as it adequately 

met a number of principles that we had publicly been articulating 

for well over a year. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am just trying to get at your individual thinking 

on June 25. The hottest thing on your plate on June 25 was trying 

to influence Congress on the Waxman-Markey bill. It wasn’t worrying about the overhead of your computer system in Dubuque or 

something; isn’t that right? 

This was the hottest thing on your personal agenda. It was your 

whole reason for getting up in the morning that day, wasn’t it? 

Mr. MILLER. The highest priority of that particular day was to 

continue to seek changes to the Waxman-Markey bill with a particular focus on trying to get—— 

Mr. INSLEE. That is where I am getting at. So that day you knew 

that Congress had been defrauded, you had paid lobbyists physically present on the Hill trying to influence this legislation; and 

instead of picking up the phone to call your lobbyist who is under 

your direct control or sending them an e-mail telling them to get 

to Representative Perriello’s office and everybody else that had 

been defrauded as their first order of business that morning, instead of doing that, your testimony is you passed it off to some subcontractor and told him maybe they should talk to the people. 

Is that your testimony? 

Mr. MILLER. No. It is not my testimony. 

We didn’t say ‘‘may’’ do this. We said—— 

Mr. INSLEE. You said ‘‘do this’’? Excuse me. 

Mr. MILLER. We said ‘‘do this now.’’ 

Mr. INSLEE. Did you say tell them to do that by 10 o’clock that 

morning? 

Mr. MILLER. We did not. We said to do it immediately and urgency was there. 

And also, again, Mr. Inslee, I would direct your attention to the 

submission of the Hawthorn Group on August 27 where they say 

and I quote, ‘‘After discussions with ACCCE, Hawthorn directed 

Mr. Bonner on the morning of June 25 to immediately contact 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

75 

Members of Congress and organizations, and Mr. Bonner agreed to 

do that.’’ 

Mr. INSLEE. And according to Ms. Hammelman of the Hawthorn 

company, the conversation with your agency did not include a specific discussion or instruction to make contacts before a day certain 

as the timing of the vote on the Waxman-Markey bill was uncertain. That was her testimony; I will just put that into the record. 

So, let me just ask you, if this were a criminal—if there were a 

criminal statute that says you can’t defraud Congress by conveying 

information under a phony or fictitious name without authorization 

to do so, if that were a criminal statute, do you think that might 

have focused your mind a little more on making sure that you did 

not allow this fraud to continue? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not sure, sir, whether it was a criminal statute 

or anything else. 

Mr. INSLEE. We are trying to figure out how we stop this from 

happening again. 

If there were a criminal statute and you were aware of that, do 

you think you might have been a little more prompt in notifying 

the affected Congressman of this fraud? 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t know. I never, criminally, really considered 

that question since I don’t think there is one. 

But in any regard, as I have said before, we—in retrospect, I 

clearly recognize the responsibility and would absolutely do it differently myself. 

Mr. INSLEE. You still even as of this day haven’t notified the victims of this fraud—of the fraud, have you? 

Mr. MILLER. That is not true, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. Let’s find out about that. 

Mr. Bonner, we have this telephone training memo of how you 

trained your telephone callers. And it basically instructed them to 

call people and tell them that your electrical rates could double because of some pending legislation in Congress. We went through 

that discussion a little bit later. You have that document in front 

of you. 

Have you called the people who were called as a result of that 

fraud and told them that they were the victims of misinformation? 

Mr. BONNER. First of all, Congressman, the document that you 

showed me was an early training document that we had used. It 

was subsequently not used, I believe, in what we actually talked 

to people about. 

The other thing, sir, is that if you look at the letters themselves, 

up on the board there that the chairman referred to, all of those 

letters talk about an increase in costs to consumers. It doesn’t 

quantify it. And I might also add those letters don’t urge opposition 

to the bill either. 

Mr. INSLEE. So you are testifying that this document was never 

used, the one that you are looking at—or, by the way, Exhibit A? 

Mr. BONNER. The talking points was part of our early effort to 

refine what we were doing. 

Mr. INSLEE. Did that document—was that used in training any 

of your callers ever? 

Mr. BONNER. I would have to check and get back to you with a 

precise answer on that. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

76 

Mr. INSLEE. So it may or may not have been; is that what you 

are telling me? 

Mr. BONNER. I am telling you I am not sure. 

Mr. INSLEE. Okay. Well, then, it is clear then that if it was used, 

which you have not investigated, you haven’t gone back to try to 

clarify that with the people that your folks may have called; is that 

correct? 

Mr. BONNER. What I do know is that when our people called and 

they had the discussion with constituents, they—if the constituent 

group was interested, we then sent them the letter that you have 

seen; and the letter itself has the information in it that I just referenced. 

Mr. INSLEE. Okay. We have your answers to interrogatories that 

were posed to your organization; and an answer was prepared on 

Akin Gump stationery, and it said, Answer No. 6: One page of talking points was prepared to guide the temporary employees in their 

calls to third-party organizations. The talking points are attached 

here at Tab A. 

Now let’s get this straight. Is the document before you, Tab A, 

which your interrogatories answered as saying being the talking 

points used to guide, quote, ‘‘the temporary employees in their calls 

to third-party organizations,’’ close quote? Is the document you are 

looking at Tab A? 

Mr. BONNER. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. INSLEE. Is the document that was handed to you Tab A? 

That is what you sent to us. 

Mr. BONNER. Right. That you handed me, right. 

Mr. INSLEE. Right. So I want to make sure you understand, your 

organization, your counsel on your behalf—— 

Mr. BONNER. Right. 

Mr. INSLEE. We, the committee, asked you a question about this. 

And what you told us, you said, quote, ‘‘One page of talking points 

was prepared to guide the temporary employees in their calls to 

third-party organizations.’’ 

The talking points are attached here at Tab A? 

Mr. BONNER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. Now I want to make clear, so that everybody understands, you told the committee staff—and I don’t know if this was 

under oath or not, but you told the committee staff—that you had 

a talking point memo; you used it to train your employees in their 

conversations with third-party organizations. And that document 

makes reference to a doubling of electrical rates. 

Now isn’t that the situation here? 

Mr. BONNER. Yes, sir. The submittal that I believe you are 

quoting from, the August 12th submittal from Akin Gump, our representative law firm, says that the talking points were prepared to 

guide temporary employees. 

And so, sir, what I am saying is, I don’t know and we certainly 

will get back to you whether that was used or not. 

But what I do know as a matter of fact is, that went to all the 

groups, all the 50—all the 43 groups that wrote, that were legitimate, as well as the fraudulent letters, all did not contain—none 

of them contained any reference to a doubling—— 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

77 

Mr. INSLEE. That is great. I am not asking you about the letters. 

I am asking about the phone calls. 

We asked you what you used to train people. You sent us Tab 

A. It said—it made reference to doubling electricity. You haven’t 

sent us any other, Tab B; you haven’t sent us any other training 

document, have you? 

Mr. BONNER. Well—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Just answer it ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ We have limited time 

here. 

Mr. BONNER. I am trying to give you the best answer I can, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me just ask you, did you send us any Tab B, C 

or D of any training documents? 

Mr. Ross. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Inslee wants to ask—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you identify yourself? 

Mr. ROSS. Yes, I am Steven Ross from Akin Gump. If you are 

asking a question about the letter that we wrote, we will be happy 

to respond. I don’t think it is fair to ask Mr. Bonner, who is not 

the author of that letter about that kind of parsing. 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me just ask you, you are Mr. Bonner’s attorney, 

correct? 

Mr. ROSS. Correct. 

Mr. INSLEE. So let me ask you, did you send us any Tab A, B, 

C or D of any other training document, other than what was referenced in your letter of August 12, 2009? 

Mr. ROSS. If you look at our letter, I think we describe it as a 

document we prepared—— 

Mr. INSLEE. You are a lawyer. You should know it helps to answer the question. 

Did you, sir, send us any Tab A, B, C or D of any other training 

document other than Tab A that made reference to doubling electrical rates? That is a simple ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. ROSS. No. There is no other tab. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. That is all we need, sir. I am going to 

ask Mr. Bonner a question. 

Mr. Bonner, your attorney, when we asked you—and it shouldn’t 

take this long to get to the bottom of this; and if you could answer 

the questions, it would hurry it up. 

We asked you what you told people. You told us you had a training document. It made doubling electricity part of the discussion, 

and you did not provide us any other training document other than 

that one; is that correct? 

Mr. BONNER. What is correct is what Akin Gump submitted to 

you, as Steve Ross just told you. We are prepared to give you further information, as you would like. 

Mr. INSLEE. Now, it appears from this, to me, highly likely under 

these circumstances that at least some of your employees called 

people up and tried to scare the dickens out of them, telling them 

that there was a potential that their electrical rates were going to 

double as a result of some legislation. 

Now, have you tried to find out who was called and told that so 

that you can make that right and let them know they were defrauded about that misstatement? 

Mr. BONNER. What I do know they were all told was—because 

it is what was put in front of them in writing so that is how I am 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

78 

sure that it happened—was that their cost of electricity could go 

up; and that they were, as I wrote in the letter, opposed to 

unaffordable increases in electricity. 

We—and that is what is in the letter. 

Mr. INSLEE. So, Mr. Miller, having heard of this, that the people 

that you paid, according to their lawyer, used a training document 

to train their people to tell citizens of this country that their electrical rates were going to double potentially if this legislation 

passed. 

Have you taken any action to fix that misrepresentation that 

took place at least at your initiation? 

Mr. Miller. First of all, we didn’t pay Hawthorn—Bonner, and we 

are not going to. 

But secondly to your question, the first week of August, after this 

story broke and we realized that perhaps not all of the local organizations had been contacted, but whether they had or hadn’t, our 

staff contacted each one of these affected organizations, personally, 

with phone calls. The only one that we were not able to contact directly was the gentleman with the Albemarle Charlottesville chapter of the NAACP so we sent a Federal Express letter to him, a 

letter of apology, for which we have received that it was received. 

So we absolutely expressed our deep apology to them for what 

had happened. We couldn’t apologize for the doubling number here 

because the first time that we knew about that—or we could have 

later on, I suppose, but we didn’t know anything about the fact 

that the Bonner folks may have used this doubling thing until we 

just recently have seen the submissions. 

Mr. INSLEE. So are you going to try to cure that misrepresentation now with the people who were given that misrepresentation? 

Mr. MILLER. I am absolutely happy to. 

Mr. INSLEE. What are you going to do about that? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, a second time, I am happy to communicate 

with them orally and/or in writing to say if they received from representatives of Bonner & Associates a representation that under 

the Waxman-Markey bill, the electricity rates will double, that is 

not our—that has never been—— 

Mr. INSLEE. I am not talking about just these people that wrote 

letters falsifying the NAACP. I am talking about the people, that 

could be thousands of people, that Mr. Bonner’s organization called 

and tried to defraud them into thinking their electrical bills were 

going to double as a result of this legislation. I am talking about 

those people that got the calls. 

What are you going to do to tell those people that they got a load 

of bunk from this organization using your money? What are you 

going to do about that? 

Mr. MILLER. The investigation that Venable did showed that of 

the 58 letters that Mr. Bonner’s firm obtained, that 44 of those 

were legitimate letters that these entities submitted, and—— 

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Miller, I am sorry to interrupt. I don’t like to 

interrupt witnesses. But you are just not answering the question. 

I want you to listen to my question. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. What are you going to do about the people that Mr. 

Bonner’s organization apparently—or probably, I believe—or may 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

79 

have called and told that their electrical rates may double, fraudulently using money that in one way or another came from you? 

What are you going to do about that misinformation? 

Mr. MILLER. I would be happy to send a letter to each organization that Bonner & Associates reached out to as a follow-up to this 

hearing to say to them that if, in fact, someone on behalf of Bonner 

& Associates said that their electricity rates would double here, 

that because of the Waxman-Markey bill, that that is not a position 

that ACCCE has ever taken. 

I am happy—all I know about are the 58 organizations where letters came from. I don’t know how many others were called. 

Mr. INSLEE. Would you favor me with a copy of those letters 

when they go out, please? 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Because I think you need to start sharing that information with Members of the U.S. Senate. And I will 

tell you why. 

Our Nation is involved in a great discussion about how to deal 

with this problem of CO2 in the atmosphere. I think there are some 

ways that the coal industry can play a productive and positive role 

in that discussion, including advocating for research for ways to sequester CO2, research that I have wholeheartedly supported and 

voted to put $1 billion a year in for research in the hope that we 

can find a way to sequester that CO2.

But this participation of your organization while the Senate is 

debating this issue while you have let this stand, you should make 

a full court press to go over and tell every Member of the U.S. Senate, this is not going to double people’s electrical rates, you know 

it is not going to double electrical rates, you are sorry that you attempted to defraud—you didn’t attempt, but somebody using your 

money attempted to defraud people to that effect, and you don’t 

want them making a decision based on that fraud. 

Now, I think you should do that with Members of the U.S. Senate very specifically and personally by you, the guy who is responsible for part of this. Now, will you do that? 

Mr. MILLER. I am not certain that I can personally see all 100 

Members, but I will tell you and the other members of the committee that we will be extremely responsible; and any assertions 

that we make here in regards to costs that we will share with 

Members of the United States Senate and subsequent discussions 

with Members of the House that there is clearly a range of belief 

here on what these price increases may be. 

And, Mr. Inslee, the price increases that are going to take place 

here will widely vary depending on what kind of provisions are in 

the bills. Will there be a safety valve or a price collar? Will there 

be carbon capture and storage, not only funding, but the framework for how pipelines are going to be sited? And there are many, 

many aspects of this that, depending on the final details, the costs 

will vary greatly. 

And so we will, as we have in the past, make sure that people 

understand that under any rigorous climate change regime, energy 

prices will go up. Variance of that will be dependent upon about 

what the provisions of the final bill will look like. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

80 

Mr. INSLEE. I will look forward to evidence that you are broadly 

trying to tell the American public and the U.S. Senate that the 

CBO and EPA did an analysis of the bill and concluded that there 

would not be any significant increase in utility bills; in fact, lowincome families could actually see a benefit because of the provisions we built into the bill to help low-income families; and that a 

cost estimate in total is less than a postage stamp a day for a family of four. 

I will look for public evidence that you are making that clear to 

the public. And, frankly, I think you got that obligation, given what 

went on here. And I hope that you will fulfill it. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Let me say this to you, Mr. Miller. Here is a New York Times 

story in early August. What the New York Times is reporting here 

is that it says Duke Energy also left the American Coalition for 

Clean Coal Electricity, citing climate policy, quote, ‘‘It was clear 

that many influential members could never support climate legislation in 2009 or 2010, no matter how it was written, Tom Williams, 

a Duke Energy spokesman said.’’ 

And so, again, I agree with the Duke Energy conclusion, I think 

it is very consistent with what happened on that Thursday and Friday before we cast the vote, at the coal coalition, that they were 

trying to defeat the legislation. I think the e-mails that we have 

been able to unearth and identify points in that direction as well; 

that once someone was committed to voting ‘‘no’’ on final passage, 

that they could move on, and Mr. Bonner and the Hawthorn Group 

and all of the rest of your lobbyists who had been hired for this effort could continue to focus on obtaining the ‘‘no’’ votes. 

But I do believe that you were given notice. I mean, Mr. Bonner 

fired the temporary employee on the 23rd. The vote is on the 26th. 

You have notice by Wednesday night, 2 days before the vote, that 

this is information in the hands of Congressmen that could mislead 

them about whether or not they should vote for the Waxman-Markey bill. 

So I do believe it comes back to you. And I do believe that Duke 

Energy, in leaving your coalition, one of the largest southern utilities, is accurate in that assessment. And that is why, again, as we 

are looking at this, it comes back to you. 

It comes back to your organization, Mr.Miller; and going forward, 

I think it puts a real burden on you to prove that you do want legislation and that you—that you are not going to allow for this type 

of activity to continue, you are not going to allow for misinformation to be disseminated in your name, and that it will be a debate 

that will be based upon accurate representations of what is occurring. 

Because by far the greatest responsibility is on your shoulders, 

given the fact that you knew 2 days before the vote; because this 

was an agenda that I think—Duke Power and I at least believe— 

was aimed at killing the legislation; and that in 2009 and 2010 

that, if that could be achieved, then that would be the goal. 

So that is my conclusion. I don’t know, Mr. Inslee, if you have 

any concluding statements that you want to talk about at this 

time. 

Mr. INSLEE. I guess my only statement would be this: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

81 

Everyone is capable of making mistakes. There are gradients of 

whether it is negligence, carelessness, recklessness or intentional. 

I am just saying at how people look at organizations is how they 

respond after that happens. And I just have to say to Mr. Miller 

specifically, I have not seen evidence yet that you have tried to repair the disinformation campaign that associated here adequate to 

the nature of this debate. 

And I think you have an opportunity to do so. I just hope you 

take it. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask one final question of you, Mr. 

Bonner. 

Did you discipline, fire or place on administrative leave any permanent Bonner employee as a result of this incident? 

Mr. BONNER. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. You did not? 

Mr. BONNER. No. 

But I will say to you, sir, that for me personally—my name is 

on the door; it was an awful experience, something I am very regretful happened, something I am going to do Herculean efforts, 

that I hopefully demonstrated at the beginning of which to the 

committee to make sure it never happens again. 

The biggest penalty was paid, is being paid by me personally; 25 

years I have had this business, and I can’t tell you how bad I feel 

personally about this. It is a small business, we are not a big corporation; and it is something that I want to be able to turn around, 

something that I want to earn a reputation as the best in the business from corrective action we have taken. And the penalties have 

been paid by me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Bonner and Mr. Miller, I think here is 

what we learned today. 

We learned that the coal coalition learned 2 days in advance of 

the historic vote on the House floor that a fraud had been perpetrated. Mr. Bonner had sent that information to the coal coalition. But although the coal coalition knew of this, it took precious 

little effort to ensure that Members of Congress knew that this 

fraud had been perpetrated. 

My own feeling is that while you might point the finger back at 

a rogue subcontractor and a rogue temporary employee, that since 

you did have notice 2 days in advance that the responsibility rested 

on your shoulder to make sure that your coalition, the coal coalition, notified the NAACP, the American Association of University 

Women, who have built over generations their reputation, that this 

fraud had been perpetrated, that the responsibility was on your 

shoulder. 

They are outraged. So am I. You had a much higher responsibility than it appears you discharged in terms of ensuring that this 

was corrected before that historic vote. 

You know, the ultimate question framed by Senator Baker 35 

years ago is still relevant here: What did you know? When did you 

know it? And what did you do in order to correct what was obviously wrong that was occurring under the guise of your responsibility? 

And so that is what is really, in my opinion, what you have to 

conclude that occurred here. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

82 

The goal from the record was that it was to obtain ‘‘no’’ votes, 

opposition votes to clean energy bill; and that as soon as that ‘‘no’’ 

vote was obtained, the focus went on other Members. It was clear 

that it was going to be a very close vote, and it was clear that it 

was also in the coal coalition’s interest to not immediately correct 

the record. And there is little evidence that the kind of active effort 

that should have been made did occur. 

So we thank all of you, the witnesses, for being here today, and 

we thank especially the University Women and you, Mr. Shelton, 

representing the NAACP, for contributing to this hearing. 

We are going to proceed now for the rest of the year in trying 

to develop legislation that truly goes to the heart of the responsibility that we have in order to protect our planet. It is running a 

fever; 40 percent of that fever has been created by coal that has 

been burnt in our country and around the world. We have a responsibility to put together legislation so that our country will be 

the leader. 

My hope, Mr. Miller, is that your coalition will decide that you 

want to work towards getting ‘‘yes’’ votes and to do so in a way 

that makes our country the leader; and that the impression that 

Duke Energy has—and, I think, many others—that you do not 

want legislation under any circumstances in 2009 and 2010 is 

wrong; and that we not hear again information about the science 

that is being questioned by your organization, the doubling of electricity rate, the outrageous information that is coming forward is 

repeated. 

And so that is the hope that we have that we can work together. 

But this hearing, I think, has helped to illuminate the pathology 

that unfortunately existed in our political system in the first 6 

months of this year in trying to debate this issue. And perhaps, in 

some way, this hearing is going to help going forward, to make 

sure that it does not occur again. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS