About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hoft Advances Proposal That Congress Defund American Lung Association

March 24, 2011 4:22 pm ET — 15 Comments

Advancing a proposal that Congress defund the American Lung Association (ALA), Jim Hoft is claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency is paying the ALA to attack Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI). In fact, the money given by the EPA to the ALA cannot legally be used for lobbying purposes, and that money represents a small fraction of the total revenue the organization receives.

Hoft Claims American Lung Association Is Being Paid By EPA To Attack Rep. Upton

 

Hoft: "The EPA Is Now Paying The American Lung Association To Attack Republicans." In a March 23 post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website titled, "EPA Is Now Using Taxpayer Dollars to Pay Lung Association to Attack Republicans," Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft highlighted an American Lung Association lobbying campaign targeted at Upton:

Your tax dollars at work...

The EPA is now paying the American Lung Association to attack Republicans

ala

The ALA put up four billboards like this one near Rep. Fred Upton's office in Michigan. Upton is the House Energy and Commerce Chairman. (PlowShareGroup)

The Environmental Protection Agency is paying the American Lung Association to run attack ads against Republican members of Congress.

JunkScience.com reported:

"The American Lung Association has targeted House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton for his efforts to stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions by placing billboards within sight of his district offices linking climate change with increased childhood asthma," reports E&E News PM.

But as we reported last week in "EPA owns the American Lung Association," the EPA has paid the American Lung Association over $20 million in the last ten years, and has paid the ALA many more millions in a symbiotic relationship going back to at least 1990.

The EPA-ALA relationship works something like this: EPA pays the ALA and, in return, the ALA agitates for more stringent EPA air quality regulation, including by lawsuit. Now it's billboards.

In addition to defunding National Public Radio, the House GOP should look at the EPA's funding of American Lung Association. [Big Government, 3/23/11; emphasis original]

ALA: Rep. Upton's Bill Will "Rollback Clean Air Act" Provisions That "Protect Health And The Environment"

 

ALA: Rep. Upton's Legislation Will "Rollback Clean Air Act" Provisions "Taken To Protect Health And The Environment." In a letter to Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Charles D. Connor and Barry Gottschalk of the American Lung Association wrote:

Specifically we oppose your legislation, H.R. 910 the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which will rollback Clean Air Act protections that are in place to address the health impacts of carbon dioxide pollution and other greenhouse gas pollution, including protections upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill blocks EPA, California, and other states from setting automobile greenhouse gas pollution standards. The bill would repeal at least eleven final actions taken to protect health and the environment under the Clean Air Act.

We are also deeply disappointed by your votes for amendments to H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 that would block implementation of the Clean Air Act and its lifesaving protections. These amendments would prevent EPA from updating and enforcing standards for the cleanup of toxic mercury, soot, carbon dioxide and other air pollutants. These provisions, if enacted into law, would result in millions of Americans -- including children, seniors, and people with chronic disease such as asthma -- being forced to breathe air that is unhealthy. Breathing air pollution can cause asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, cancer and shorten lives. [American Lung Association Letter, 3/15/11]

Nonprofit Recipients Of EPA Grants Are Prohibited From Using Any Portion Of Federal Funds To Lobby

EPA: "Recipients Of Federal Grants" Are Prohibited From Using Federal Funds To Lobby Members Of Congress. From the EPA's website:

Lobbying (Anti-Lobbying) (40 CFR Part 34) Recipients of Federal grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and loans are prohibited by 31 USC 1352, "Limitation on Use of Appropriated Funds to Influence Certain Federal Contracting and Financial Transactions," from using Federal (appropriated) funds to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence any officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress with respect to the award, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any of these instruments. These requirements are implemented for EPA in 40 CFR Part 34, which also describes types of activities, such as legislative liaison activities and professional and technical services, which are not subject to this prohibition.

Applicants for EPA awards with total costs expected to exceed $100,000 are required to certify that (1) they have not made, and will not make, such a prohibited payment, (2) they will be responsible for reporting the use of non-appropriated funds for such purposes, and (3) they will include these requirements in consortium agreements and contracts under grants that will exceed $100,000 and obtain necessary certifications from those consortium participants and contractors. The signature of the authorized organizational official on the application serves as the required certification of compliance for the applicant organization. EPA appropriated funds may not be used to pay the salary or expenses of an employee of a grantee, consortium participant, or contractor or those of an agent related to any activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pending before Congress or any State legislature. [EPA.gov, 1/19/10]

Federal Regulations Prohibit Expending Federal Funds "To Pay Any Person For Influencing Or Attempting To Influence" "A Member Of Congress." According to the text of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 34:

(a) No appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

(b) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a certification, set forth in appendix A, that the person has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section. [40 Code of Federal Regulations § 34.100, via GPO.gov, 7/1/00]

ALA Receives Only A Small Fraction Of Its Total Funding From The EPA

ALA Total Revenue Was More Than $150 Million From 2006-2008. According to annual 990 filings, the American Lung Association received at least $150,383,333 in contributions and grants from 2006 to 2008. If the ALA received roughly $20 million from the EPA over the past ten years, as Hoft alleges, this comes out to about $6 million over three years. Thus, from 2006 to 2008, money given to the ALA by the EPA amounted to approximately only 4 percent of the total money ALA received.

Here is a breakdown of contributions and grants received by the ALA from 2006 to 2008, the last year for which the ALA has made its annual 990 filings available on GuideStar, a database that collects and publishes information regarding nonprofits:

2006:

  • $49,381,460

2007:

  • $53,206,525

2008:

  • $47,795,348

[GuideStar.org, accessed 3/24/11

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by m.welker (March 24, 2011 4:33 pm ET)
      3  
      And of course they ignore the actual merits to the overall argument, that being the actual scientifically-researched effects of global warming.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by m.welker (March 24, 2011 4:33 pm ET)
        1  
        "They" being Hoft et al.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kamrom (March 25, 2011 2:54 am ET)
          1  
          You cant really expect them to provide merits. This is the group that gets its own politically biased garbage thrown all over. There are several rightwing billboards within a mile of me, easily. they are all guilt trips, anti choice, republican whining.

          But no progressive billboards. Sometimes you'll see them for a few days...but in most cases the American Taliban floods them with so many death threats that they take down the posters, usually ones that simply state things like tasteful suggestions of questioning a deity's existence or promoting equal rights for all americans gay or straight.

          And the rightwingers rapidly grab them up, since the advertiser is no longer up to working for anyone but the inquisition; they know that republican terrorists dont mind being suicide attackers, and are willing to drone themselves to jail in support of some insane, made up cause.

          Since we've seen these folks issue death threats if a law or ordinance that doesnt actually exist isnt removed. How on earth do you respond to that? Its insane.

          There are states where you can get anti-choice vanity license plates, but not pro-choice ones. Its funny because they are drawn in crayon of stick figure children, hoping to both guilt people and costing the state about $0.10 to design and selling for hundreds.

          No pro-choice though.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (March 24, 2011 4:44 pm ET)
      3  
      Look for James O'Keefe to go in there with his underage jihadist hookers to really finish them off.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (March 24, 2011 7:09 pm ET)
        1  
        It will probably be difficult for him to conduct another one of his little "projects" because he is now saying he's broke.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by BDA (March 24, 2011 5:28 pm ET)
      6  
      Clean air BBBAAADDD...
      Lung Cancer GGGOOOOOODDDD.

      What are conservatives going to attack next? "kittens and puppies... who are they trying to fool????
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cst (March 25, 2011 10:16 am ET)
           
        I don't think you realise just how dangerous kittens and puppies ARE- they have FANGS and CLAWS!
        And kittens PURR! What IS that? WHAT IS THAT NOISE?!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Maimon (March 24, 2011 5:34 pm ET)
      11  
      Come on...I have science here that says you don't really need air to survive. I called the greatest scientific minds of America ( Rush, Hannity, Coulter and Beck)and they assure me we do not need air, especially clean air.

      So, I am handing out asbestos lined coffee cups, and we will be serving mercury trout from the east coast of Japan.

      Ahhh......The GOP and the war on science.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Aal-Bundee (March 24, 2011 6:20 pm ET)
        3  
        Don't forget a large healthy dose of radiation...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Sarv (March 24, 2011 6:49 pm ET)
        2  
        The irony is, seeing how most if not all Fundamentalist Christians believe all humanity and the earth are cursed by original sin, you would think they would view global climate change, ozone layer depletion, nuclear disasters, etc., as proof of how evil mankind is. But, no, their religio-politicians worship money and obey the corporations that reward them for preaching and fighting against laws and regulations designed to protect the environment and our health. Very sad.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by allan.masri1047 (March 25, 2011 3:16 pm ET)
          1  
          Right-wingers and dead-enders (those who believe the world is about to end) do believe that all these disasters show how evil mankind is. They also believe that it is God's will and therefore sinful to interfere. I know, I know, it makes no sense at all.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (March 24, 2011 7:04 pm ET)
        4  
        I get air from private industry. I buy a fan from some job-creator, and I turn it on and it makes air.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by cugagcmu805031 (March 24, 2011 7:06 pm ET)
      6  
      So, let me get this straight. The right to petition your government via a letter to a member of Congress is now an attack?

      I don't think reading the Constitution at the beginning of the this session of Congress helped at all.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by VictorLaszlo (March 24, 2011 9:28 pm ET)
      3  
      "The American Lung Association is blatantly and unapologetically putting the health of people's lungs above business interests. This will not do."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by plijyger (March 25, 2011 1:36 am ET)
      1  
      defund congress -

      "special interest that is bent on protecting a failed status quo in our country."


      Report Abuse