Enviros Under Attack By Right-Wing Coalition

by Don Hazen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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