How Some Black Members of Congress Are Selling Out to Telecom Companies

Big phone and cable companies are attacking the free and open Internet – and some Black members of Congress are helping them do it.

Black members of congressTen members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) recently signed a letter to the FCC attacking net neutrality, the principle that prevents Internet service providers from discriminating online. All of these members have taken thousands in campaign contributions from the telecom industry.

We’ve seen this before – but this summer is a crucial time when the FCC will choose to either protect Internet freedom, or allow phone and cable companies to take unprecedented control over what we see, do, and say online.

We need to hold these representatives accountable, and make sure the FCC and other members of Congress know they don’t speak for Black people on this issue.

Join us in calling out the Black members of Congress doing big telecom’s dirty work.

What’s at stake

Net neutrality has made the Internet a level playing field for all voices, allowing Black bloggers, activists, and entrepreneurs to flourish online despite being blocked out of ownership and participation in traditional media. Now, these CBC members are using deceptive arguments to help giant corporations attack net neutrality, and claiming that they speak for Black America.

The FCC is now considering reclassifying Internet service as a public utility, which would give it strong authority to enforce net neutrality for the public good.1 Thankfully, some Black members of Congress are fighting to protect net neutrality — Rep. Keith Ellison co-authored a letter to the FCC supporting reclassification, and it was signed by Reps. Barbara Lee, John Lewis, John Conyers, Donna Edwards, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Charlie Rangel, Bobby Scott, and Andre Carson.2

But the phone and cable companies are fighting this tooth and nail, calling in favors from organizations and members of Congress they’ve supported financially for years. Sadly, some civil rights organizations and Black members of Congress are attacking net neutrality with dishonest and deceptive arguments handed to them by the telecom lobby. Ten members of the CBC recently signed Rep. Gene Green’s letter to the FCC attacking reclassification (Reps. Bobby Rush, G.K. Butterfield, Sanford Bishop, Corrine Brown, Lacy Clay, Alcee Hastings, Gregory Meeks, David Scott, Bennie Thompson, and Marc Veasey).3 The letter claims to support Internet freedom while doing everything it can to undermine it.

Dishonest and deceptive arguments against net neutrality

The telecom lobby, echoed by some Black members of Congress and civil rights organizations, has argued that net neutrality rules could limit minority access to the Internet and widen the digital divide. They say that unless we allow Internet service providers to make bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers online, they won’t expand Internet access in under-served communities. In other words, if Comcast — whose broadband Internet business was recently earning 80 percent profit margins4 — can increase its profits under a system without net neutrality, then it will all of a sudden invest in expanding Internet access in our communities.


This argument has been debunked5, 6 — it doesn’t make any sense from a business or economic perspective, and it doesn’t reflect history. Expanding access to high speed Internet is an extremely important goal, and we are fully in support of it. But allowing the phone and cable companies to make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet has nothing to do with reaching that goal. Businesses invest where they can maximize their profits, period. Internet service providers are already making huge profits,7 and if they believed that investing in low-income communities made good business sense, they would already be doing it. The idea that making even more money is suddenly going to make them care about our communities is ridiculous.

The truth is that reclassifying Internet service as a public utility would actually help the FCC close the digital divide by allowing it to subsidize Internet access for low-income Americans.8

 Buying the support of Black members of Congress

All of the CBC members attacking net neutrality have taken large amounts of campaign money from the telecom industry, with some taking tens of thousands of dollars in just the last two elections.

And it’s not just campaign money — since just 2008 the telecom lobby has spent millions on donations to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute (CBCI), nonprofit organizations associated with the CBC.9,10 These organizations claim that their purpose is to provide scholarships, educate the public, and develop new leaders. But the corporate money also funds lavish galas to honor members of the CBC,11 and top lobbyists from the telecom industry sit on the boards and committees of the CBCF and CBCI.12

This year, the CBCF “honored” Comcast with its “Distinguished Corporation Award”;13 last year, it was Time Warner.14 Comcast touted its award to Congress earlier this year while seeking approval for its merger with Time Warner.15

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen CBC members carry water for big telecom corporations. Many of the CBC members who signed Rep. Green’s recent letter to the FCC have signed similar letters before, and cast votes against net neutrality. And many of these members have been loyal allies to the industry on other issues as well.

    • In October 2009, Congressman Gregory Meeks collected 70 signatures from his colleagues on an industry-backed letter designed to weaken support for Internet freedom.16

    • In 2011, Congressman G.K. Butterfield worked with Congressman Gene Green to organize Democratic support for AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile.17

  • Congressman Bobby Rush has attacked net neutrality many times, since at least 2006.18 And in addition to campaign contributions, Rush has taken more than $1.7 million from the telecom lobby through his charitable organizations.19 $1 million of that money came from AT&T and was supposed to support a technology center in Rush’s district. Rush has recently come under scrutiny because that money is now gone, with no tech center to show for it, and Rush unable to explain where the money went.20

These are just a few of many examples.

We’ve called out these members for their attacks on Internet freedom. In 2010 we ran a similar campaign demanding that CBC members stop attacking net neutrality. And we’ve made progress — fewer Black representatives are now carrying water for the telecoms.

In 2011, thousands of ColorOfChange.org members signed petitions and made phone calls asking House Democratic leadership to prevent Congressman Rush from securing a key committee position that would have allowed him to do even more damage to net neutrality.21 Because of our actions, Rush didn’t get the position.22

Nevertheless, Rush and other Black representatives have continued to use their status as members of the Congressional Black Caucus — which is supposed to advocate for the interests of Black America — to attack net neutrality. It’s unacceptable and dangerous: not only does this kind of influence peddling threaten the Internet as a medium where Black voices and ventures have an equal shot; it also undermines the credibility and power of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has historically been a critically important voice for Black America.

Now is the time to raise our voices again and make it clear that these representatives don’t speak for us on this issue. If enough of us speak out, we can make sure that all Black representatives know there will be a price to pay for betraying Internet freedom — and that if they fight for net neutrality, they’ll have our support. And by speaking out now, we can make sure the FCC knows how important net neutrality is to Black America.

Join us in calling out the CBC members attacking Internet freedom.

Thanks and Peace,

–Rashad, Arisha, Matt, Aimée, Dallas and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
July 1st, 2014

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU—your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way.

References

1. “Net Neutrality and Reclassification: A Fact Sheet,” Voices for Internet Freedom, 2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3594?t=7&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

2. “Ellison, Grijalva Lead Letter to FCC Chairman Demanding Net Neutrality,” Press Release from Office of Rep. Keith Ellison, 5-14-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3595?t=9&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

3. “Green letter warns against destructive consequences of a Title II reclassification,” The Citizen, 5-14-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3596?t=11&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

4. “When Is the Cable ‘Buy’ Set to Come?” Wall Street Journal, 4-3-2008
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3631?t=13&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

5. “Why Consumers Demand Internet Freedom,” Free Press, 5-2006
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/181?akid=1422.539090.Ickxtj&t=33&t=15&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

6. “Finding the Bottom Line: The Truth About Network Neutrality & Investment,” Free Press, 10-2009
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/182?akid=1422.539090.Ickxtj&t=35&t=17&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

7. “AT&T’s Earnings Rise 26%, Driven by Wireless,” New York Times, 1-29-2010
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/183?akid=1422.539090.Ickxtj&t=37&t=19&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

8. “The Truth About the Third Way: Separating Fact from Fiction in the FCC Reclassification Debate,”
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3597?t=21&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

9. “Telecom Giants Paid Millions To ‘Honor’ Minority Lawmakers Before The Merger,” Huffington Post, 2-22-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3598?t=23&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

10. “AT&T enriches lawmakers’ pet charities,” Politico, 6-1-11
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3599?t=25&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

11. “In Black Caucus, a Fund-Raising Powerhouse,” New York Times, 2-13-2010
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3600?t=27&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

12. See reference 10.

13. “CBCF Honors Rep. Eva Clayton, Comcast NBCUniversal and LBJ Library,” Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, 2-26-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3601?t=29&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

14. “Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Honors Time Warner,” Time Warner, 3-1-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3602?t=31&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

15. Comcast and Time Warner Joint Statement to the Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, 5-8-2014
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3603?t=33&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

16. Rep. Gregory Meeks’ 2009 Letter to FCC, 8-15-2009
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3604?t=35&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

17. “Did AT&T Lie to Your Representative?,” Free Press, 8-23-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/950?t=37&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

18. “Buying Bobby Rush,” Republic of T, 9-21-2006
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3605?t=39&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

19. “The Utility Man,” Better Government Association, 12-12-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3606?t=41&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

20. “The Million Dollar Question,” Better Government Association, 12-12-2013
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3607?t=43&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

21. “Net Neutrality Group Slaps Back at AT&T-Funded Lawmaker,” Wired, 11-22-2010
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3608?t=45&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

22. “Accountability: Who Else Will Go the Way of Congressman Bobby Rush?” ColorOfChange.org Founder James Rucker in Huffington Post, 1-26-2011
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3609?t=47&akid=3446.1597183.Ls3jqW

Looking Beyond the Hoodie, even as Bobby Rush is Booted off the House Floor

Today Congressman Bobby Rush from Chicago got kicked off the House Floor for wearing a Hoodie. He like many others had dawned the attire to bring attention to the case surrounding Trayvon Martin. It was a noble gesture. It helps keep the case in the spotlight, but this has got to go beyond Hoodies. Too many of us are focusing on that and not some of the larger issues at hand.

For example, all of us should be asking; ‘whats the story behind Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee?’ Most of us protesting around Trayvon don’t  know his name. All we know is the police chief stepped down and very few of us are bringing him up in conversation and demanding he be brought to task? He’s just as guilty as George Zimmerman.

Sandford Florida Police Chief Bill Lee

Why was Chief Sanders and his department so sloppy with the initial investigation? Why didn’t they follow standard police procedure of collecting evidence like; keeping Zimmerman’s  gun and running ballistic tests or checking to make sure Zimmerman wasn’t high or drunk? We need to know why Standford police didn’t notify Trayvon’s family for after he was killed and his body was in the morgue.. Martin’s father found out after he filed a missing person’s report. We are just finding out that one of the early investigators wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. Why wasn’t that allowed to happen?

We need to know what’s the deal with State Attorney Norman R. Wolfinger, why didn’t he press charges? We need to know if there’s a connection with George Zimmerman’s dad Robert Zimmerman a former magistrate and the lawmakers here in Florida?

All of us should be asking those questions and when we see a Congressman like Bobby Rush wearing a hoodie on the house floor, he is not only asking those questions but ideally if he’s being escorted off  the floor it’s because he’s attempting to hold hearings where many of those questions can get answered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ougHdwR8PhI

We need to see Rush and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus hold more briefings and hearings like they did with yesterday’s  Protecting a “Suspect” Community: Racial Profiling & Hate Crimes. We need to see hearings on police misconduct. We can start with the frequent leaks coming from the police departments designed to smear Trayvon’s name. In many states, including Florida, they have in place a Policeman’s Bill of Rights. In many places those Policeman’s Bill of Rights make it difficult to get a hold of personnel files to review complaints against an officer  (I’m not sure if Florida has the same provisions as California where officers are shielded).

In any case all of us need to continuously connect the dots.. Trayvon’s killing can’t be seen in isolation to last week’s brutal vigilante killing of Shaima Alawadi in Lakeside California or the ‘drive by’ shooting death of Rekia Boyd by an off duty Chicago cop who claims he saw a man standing next to Boyd draw gun. Boyd was an innocent bystander yet her shooting was deemed justified even though the police found no weapons on the scene.

These incidents and scores of others need to be investigated. We need to make sure that these incidents are not connected to a larger more sinister plan of action. Are we experiencing co-ordinated and deleibarte terrorist attacks or are people just angry and acting out? Hopefully Rush and the CBC can lead the charge on Capitol Hill and start to really dig into those questions while we start looking into this amongst ourselves in our communities.

Lastly, lets not get caught up in the hoodie thing as if Black people are only suspicious when wearing them.. Try driving a nice car and your suspicious… Try walking around a nice department store and your suspicious.. Try cashing a large check and your suspicious..

Racist People are suspicious of President Obama, with or without a hoodie

This suspiciousness is rooted in racist people holding on to the notion that Black people not being in ‘their place‘ when they do something that defies stereotypes. This is why we see the racial attacks on President Barack Obama who is constantly under suspicion..We already seen the disrespect directed to him by business mogul Donald Trump, who demanded to see the President’s birth certificate. Even after it was shown, we now have Arizona sheriff Joe Arpiao conducting an investigation to make sure it’s not fake..

Sadly we are suspicious of each other..Long after this Trayvon/ Zimmerman thing dies down, even if he’s arrested and convicted, many of us are still gonna be running around not trusting the Black repairman, the Black lawyer, the Black accountant.. Black men will claim they can’t trust ‘skeezing, gold digging sistas and sistas will say they can’t trust these ‘trifling scheming azz’ men..and nobody trusts the kids..How do we intend to change that?.

Not to digress too much… Again we must be clear and push forward with justice and the dismantling of institutionalized racism and oppression as a goal. Our hoodies have got to be connected larger political agenda or understanding. Are we wearing a hoodie to show solidarity?  If so, who or  what are we in solidarity with? Are we wearing the hoodies as an act of defiance? If so what exactly are we defying?   All of us should learned the lesson of what happened after Obama got elected. His historic victory was quickly erased by this onslaught of racist killings all over the country. From Oscar Grant to Trayvon and beyond. If we’re not mindful of this, we will quickly find ourselves back at square one even if Zimmerman is carted off to jail for life or given a death sentence. Bottom line: What good is a symbol if its not connected to a larger politic and plan of action?

written by Davey D

Should We Feel Bad for Charles Rangel? Immortal Technique, Rosa Clemente & Rep Barbara Lee Weigh In

Charles Rangel

Yesterday many of us saw how long time Congressman Charles Rangel and former chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee stand on the floor of Congress and get censured. This came on the heels of him recently being found in violation of 11 house ethic rules in a 9-1 vote by the House ethics committee members. Being censured was the strongest punishment aside from expulsion that could be applied a man who served Harlem for over 40 years.

In recent years especially after President Obama got elected many have  seen, felt and experienced the effects of what is often described as a highly racially charged climate. Hence  to see a Black man who was arguably one of the most powerful men in the country and definitely congress be reduced in such a public way was more than bothersome. Adding to Rangel’s censuring is the fact that 8 other members of the Congressional Black Caucus including long time congresswoman Maxine Waters are being investigated or also facing a hearings on ethic violations. One can’t help but think that Black elected officials are being targeted and hence the wagons must be circled.

Many of us including myself immediately thought of elected officials who have done far worse and haven’t gotten as much as a slap on the wrist. The violations range from Congressman Joe Wilson shouting at the president during the state of the union to former vice president Dick Cheney shooting his  friend Harry Whittington in the face and then being accused of trying to cover things up.  Years later we come to find out that Cheney didn’t even apologize. We think about those elected officials who were negligence behind the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe or those who deliberately misled  us into to war and one can only ask why aren’t the people behind those transgressions being censured?

Long time Harlem resident Immortal Technique said we should not feel bad for Charles Rangel

I’ll be the first to say a guy like Rangel has been no angel and his tenure as Congressman has drawn mixed response.One thing that can’t be denied is the fact that his 40 years of services means enough people from what was known as the Black Mecca liked him enough to keep sending him back.

However longtime Harlem residents like rapper Immortal Technique have publicly stated that one should not feel bad for Rangel and the punishment he’ll be getting because he sold Harlem out a long time ago. It’s not the first time we’ve heard this critique from residents who feel like as Harlem has been massively gentrified with lots of poor folks having been literally kicked out withRangel leading the charge.

Just as word came down that there would be no leniency as requested shown for Congressman Rangel. I posed the question on my twitter feed and Face book Page as to how Harlem residents felt?  Did they think it was unfair Congressman Rangel was being censured?

I made the comparison between his ethic violations and the transgressions of others.. Very few came to his aid on my often overtly opinionated timeline which includes many people from my former uptown stomping grounds of Harlem.

Rosa Clemente goes in on Charles Rangel

Long time activist, journalist and former Green Party Vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente weighed in and gave us all serious food for thought …It was in response to this statement I made..

Dick Cheney can shoot a man in the face and not apologize and he’s good but Charles Rangel misuses some stationary-gets censored

Rosa responded:

Well Charles Rengal did not just do that..the man has three rent stabilized apartments in Harlem, where half the population is poverty poor. You can’t use Dick Cheney as an excuse. Rengal deserves to be censured, as most of those cats do.. The problem is particularly black men in politics think they can act like white men.. History shows that never works, but being from NYC him and 90% of all Black and Brown politicians need to go. They are rich ass millionaires pimping our communities….You do not get a pass cause your Black.  How many brothers right now living in Rangel’s district are being stopped, frisked and arrested for a nickel bag or for other petty crime. I bet they  wish all they were getting was a tongue lashing

Rosa’s sentiments resonated with a lot of folks who feel that far too many officials are disconnected from the communities they serve and that when they get into office they start catering to big money interests and not the people who voted them in.. After 40 years did Rengal lose his way? Should he have been extra careful in such a hostile climate or was he unfairly being made an example? The fact that all he is getting is censured versus jail time is something we might also keep in mind, but does that reflect badly on Harlem or us as Black folks?

Here’s what Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee who heads up the Congressional Black Caucus had to say on the matter.She issued a statement that read as follows..

“Today’s vote by the House of Representatives to censure Congressman Rangel was an overly harsh sanction, especially considering that after a 2-year investigation the Committee found no evidence of corruption or personal financial gain. Under House precedents, a reprimand would have been a fairer sanction for the lapses that he has long since admitted and corrected.

“The censure sanction is a departure from the customary sanctions in other cases that have been adjudicated over the years. According to the Committee’s counsel, Congressman Rangel’s misconduct resulted from overzealousness and sloppiness, not corruption.

“Today’s action in no way diminishes Congressman Rangel’s distinguished 50-year history of service to his country and constituents who again overwhelmingly returned him to office in November. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are proud to call Congressman Rangel our colleague and friend.”

Something to Ponder

Davey D

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

The AT&Tea Party: We’re in the Business of Silencing People & Net Neutrality

These are indeed strange times we live in where even when we’re repeatedly told we should not be surprised as to what goes down, especially in the world of politics-goes down. It was surprising to learn that AT&T is one of the biggest backers of the Tea Party and together they are working overtime to try to get rid of the Democratizing concept that has made the Internet so powerful called ‘Net Neutrality‘.

I guess one shouldn’t be shocked at the hypocrisy of the Tea Party which claims it takes issue with big corporation but then generously supports their agenda. I’m more upset with Apple which uses AT&T and upset that my hard-earned money which pays for this Iphone is going to uplift a political party that many of feel are racist and in opposition to many of our concerns.

As for Net Neutrality, for those who don’t know about this concept, it essentially says all data is to be treated equal. This means the little blog in the middle of Iowa can be accessed just as easily as the NY Times in NY. All websites are essentially one click away metaphorically speaking.

What telecoms have been doing to the tune of over 100 million dollars in lobbying money in 2009 alone with AT&T leading the way is try to change the basic structure of the internet and re-create the very conditions that drove us away from traditional media to the internet in the first place.  Instead of everyone being ‘one click away’ they want to create a tiered system where websites and companies who pay top dollars are one click away while everyone else could be 2, 3, 4 or not even on the system at all.

This means if I am living in Oakland, California and wish to present additional information to the rest of the country about some important event like the tragic Oscar Grant shooting from 2009 I would no longer be on par with the mainstream outlets.  My information could be slowed down or even blocked.

Hence, someone in NY might click on the Oakland Tribune site and get the information immediately, but it might take a couple of hours or maybe even a day or two to be visible to on my website DaveyD.com or the websites Indy media SF, ColorlinesYouth Radio or the SF Bayview. The sad part is that person in NY might not even know this additional information had been slowed down or suspended by AT&T, Comcast or some other ISP that may have a political agenda that they want to carry out that is in stark contrast with your content.

The person on the receiving end of the information will do as they’ve always done since the internet been around and click on a link expecting to move seamlessly from one site to the next. When one site is slowed down or not accessible they move onto another. So again what AT&T wants to do is make sure the NY Times loads up quickly while the small blogger comes up slowly.

When one considers how so many people have been able to come up, challenge traditional media with other facts and various narratives to a story, net neutrality has leveled the playing field.  Unfortunately the big telecoms do not want this..and apprently neither do the Tea Party and several prominent gatekeeping civil rights orgs and politicians they have spent money on.

AT&T sponsored National Urban League Centennial Celebration. Was that part of their strategy to reach out to Civil Right orgs and get them to echo GOP talking points on Net Neutrality?

Initially the Net Neutrality debate was partisan with mostly conservative folks against it. AT&T decided that one of their strategies would be to use their money and influence to get key civil rights leaders to come on board. This may have included generous sponsorships they’ve given folks over the years with everyone from Jesse Jackson of Rainbow Push to Marc Morial of the National Urban League whose centennial celebration they recently sponsored.  Their defection and non-commital responses to supporting net neutrality was even welcomed and celebrated by top conservative bloggers like Andrew Breibart the man behind the Shirley Sherrod controversy .

Jackson has noted both in his statement to the FCC and publicly that he and Rainbow Push give ‘voice to the voiceless’. How does one have a voice without Net Neutrality protections?

Even more troubling is seeing members of the Congressional Black Caucus standing alongside the AT&T/Tea Party. How does this happen in 2010 where CBC members were just a couple of months ago complaining about racism where they were called ‘Nigger’ and being spat upon by the Tea Party members, are walking now hand in hand? Oh yeah that happens when big time lobbying money enters the picture. I guess folks can afford  to buy a clean handkerchiefs to wipe away the spit and ‘let bygones be bygones’ as far as the racial insults are concerned as they all stand under the money tree-lined umbrella of AT&T. Peep this article called ‘Hey, Capitol Hill: Who’s Your Daddy ? AT&T‘ to get a better understanding the pervasiveness of this telecom giant.

NAACP head Ben Jealous

AT&T and the telecoms even got Ben Jealous and the NAACP which relied heavily on the freedoms of the internet to launch a campaign to try to save Troy Davis from being executed to take a ‘neutral position on Net Neutrality. Remind me to let Ben know they spelled the word ‘endorse’ wrong in their clarification statement.

In recent days an online petition was put together by Color of Change pushing CBC members to step up and get on the right side of this issue. That would be away from the position of the huge telecoms.

It’s our hope that all of us stop and take a long hard look at what’s going on with Net Neutrality and not allow this important issue to get away from us the way it did when it came to media consolidation.  If you recall, back in the days leading up to that landmark telecommunications bill of ’96 we heard similar arguments from the big media corps on how giving them all this power would be a good thing for consumers. We also saw there were handfuls of Black and Brown folks who tried to jump in bed with the Clear Channels of the world. They were told they would have better opportunities. Have things gotten better since  the Consolidation? Turn on your local radio station and the answer is more than obvious-‘Hell Naw’.

The ‘Clear Channeling of media has been horrific. Again, its the main reason so many of us fled to the Internet. We wanted something better. We wanted our individual voices to be heard.  If we allow the telecoms to gut Net Neutrality with the help of the Tea Party and a handful of civil rights leaders leading the charge we will be talking about what a big mistake this was 15 years from now. Don’t let history repeat itself.

written by Davey D

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Corporate Influence:How the Congressional Black Caucus is a Fundraising Powerhouse

Share/Bookmark//

This is a compelling article on a number of levels…First of all it outlines some of the ways money exchanges hands in Washington and for that reason we should always have opportunity to be informed. It outlines all the ways that Washington is wrong and with the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money and resources in election this is likely to get worse…

The fact that the Congressional Black Caucus has always described itself as the conscience of the Congress, makes this story troubling… As you read this story pay close attention to the main people sponsoring them and look at the end result… Whats most glaring to me are the telecoms, AT&T and Verizon who successfully got 3/4th of the CBC to vote against the COPE act which would’ve gotten rid of Net Neutrality which levels the playing field on the Internet. Bobby Rush was at the center of this.. Currently those same telecom firms have pushed even harder and expanding their lobbying efforts to  a handful Civil Rights groups and leaders who have jumped on board to end Net Neutrality.. I urge folks to pay close attention to this alignment because it will have dire effect if left unchallenged and unchecked.

At the same time, one has to question why did the NY Times do a story on the CBC? Was it to expose their influence and the increasing potential for corruption?  Was it to undermine Black lawmakers exercising increasing influence in Washington?   Will CBC become the poster boy for corruption while others skate? Are there other caucuses in congress that play a similar game?  This does not excuse the CBC for any wrong doing, but these are questions we should ask.. In short is this just the tip of the iceberg? Lastly as I mentioned earlier is this a precursor to the way business will be done because of the Supreme Court ruling?

It’s hard not to take into account the current backlash that has been spawned around the country now that Barack Obama is in the White House. Along with the anger and discontent expressed at his policies has come increasing expressions of racial hatred. With an article like this I can easily see racism barring its fangs and folks circling the wagon to the point we overlook any wrong doing by CBC. Protecting one from racial attacks trumps ethics questions especially when we know this country has a sordid history of  lynching burning down cities and making life miserable for Blacks who have accumulated wealth. We saw that during the Obama campaign when we would hear remarks about Obama being ‘uppity’ and needs to be put in his place..

-Davey D-

In Black Caucus, a Fund-Raising Powerhouse

 By ERIC LIPTON and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: February 13, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/politics/14cbc.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

WASHINGTON — When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like Wal-Mart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.Soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing at what amounted to a mortgage-burning party for the $4 million town house. 

Soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing at what amounted to a mortgage-burning party for the $4 million town house.

Most political groups in Washington would have been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations. But by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town.

It has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.)

The caucus says its nonprofit groups are intended to help disadvantaged African-Americans by providing scholarships and internships to students, researching policy and holding seminars on topics like healthy living.

But the bulk of the money has been spent on elaborate conventions that have become a high point of the Washington social season, as well as the headquarters building, golf outings by members of Congress and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort.

In 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation spent more on the caterer for its signature legislative dinner and conference — nearly $700,000 for an event one organizer called “Hollywood on the Potomac” — than it gave out in scholarships, federal tax records show.

At the galas, lobbyists and executives who give to caucus charities get to mingle with lawmakers. They also get seats on committees the caucus has set up to help members of Congress decide what positions to take on the issues of the day. Indeed, the nonprofit groups and the political wing are so deeply connected it is sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Even as it has used its status as a civil rights organization to become a fund-raising power in Washington, the caucus has had to fend off criticism of ties to companies whose business is seen by some as detrimental to its black constituents.

These include cigarette companies, Internet poker operators, beer brewers and the rent-to-own industry, which has become a particular focus of consumer advocates for its practice of charging high monthly fees for appliances, televisions and computers.

Caucus leaders said the giving had not influenced them.

“We’re unbossed and unbought,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the caucus. “Historically, we’ve been known as the conscience of the Congress, and we’re the ones bringing up issues that often go unnoticed or just aren’t on the table.”

But many campaign finance experts question the unusual structure.

“The claim that this is a truly philanthropic motive is bogus — it’s beyond credulity,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, a nonpartisan group that monitors campaign finance and ethics issues. “Members of Congress should not be allowed to have these links. They provide another pocket, and a very deep pocket, for special-interest money that is intended to benefit and influence officeholders.”

Not all caucus members support the donors’ goals, and some issues, like a debate last year over whether to ban menthol cigarettes, have produced divisions.

But caucus members have attracted increasing scrutiny from ethics investigators. All eight open House investigations involve caucus members, and most center on accusations of improper ties to private businesses.

And an examination by The Times shows what can happen when companies offer financial support to caucus members.

For instance, Representative Danny K. Davis, Democrat of Illinois, once backed legislation that would have severely curtailed the rent-to-own industry, criticized in urban districts like his on the West Side of Chicago. But Mr. Davis last year co-sponsored legislation supported by the stores after they led a well-financed campaign to sway the caucus, including a promise to provide computers to a jobs program in Chicago named for him. He denies any connection between the industry’s generosity and his shift.

Growing Influence

The caucus started out 40 years ago as a political club of a handful of black members of Congress. Now it is at the apex of its power: President Obama is a former member, though he was never very active.

Its members, all Democrats, include the third-ranking House member, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina; 4 House committee chairmen; and 18 subcommittee leaders. Among those are Representative Charles E. Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

There are hundreds of caucuses in Congress, representing groups as disparate as Hispanic lawmakers and those with an interest in Scotland. And other members of Congress have nonprofit organizations.

But the Congressional Black Caucus stands alone for its money-raising prowess. As it has gained power, its nonprofit groups — one an outright charity, the other a sort of research group — have seen a surge in contributions, nearly doubling from 2001 to 2008.

Besides the caucus charities, many members — including Mr. Clyburn and Representative William Lacy Clay Jr. of Missouri — also have personal or family charities, which often solicit donations from companies that give to the caucus. And spouses have their own group that sponsors a golf and tennis fund-raiser.

The board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation includes executives and lobbyists from Boeing, Wal-Mart, Dell, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Verizon, Heineken, Anheuser-Busch and the drug makers Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline. All are hefty donors to the caucus.

Some of the biggest donors also have seats on the second caucus nonprofit organization — one that can help their businesses. This group, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, drafts positions on issues before Congress, including health care and climate change.

This means, for example, that the lobbyists and executives from coal, nuclear and power giants like Peabody Energy and Entergy helped draft a report in the caucus’s name that includes their positions on controversial issues. One policy document issued by the Black Caucus Institute last year asserted that the financial impact of climate change legislation should be weighed before it is passed, a major industry stand.

Officials from the Association of American Railroads, another major donor, used their board positions to urge the inclusion of language recommending increased spending on the national freight rail system. A lobbyist for Verizon oversaw a debate on a section that advocated increased federal grants to expand broadband Internet service.

And Larry Duncan, a Lockheed Martin lobbyist, served on a caucus institute panel that recommended that the United States form closer ties with Liberia, even as his company was negotiating a huge airport contract there.

The companies say their service to the caucus is philanthropic.

“Our charitable donations are charitable donations,” said David Sylvia, a spokesman for Altria, which has given caucus charities as much as $1.3 million since 2004, the Times analysis shows, including a donation to a capital fund used to pay off the mortgage of the caucus headquarters.

Elsie L. Scott, chief executive of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, acknowledged that the companies want to influence members. In fact, the fund-raising brochures make clear that the bigger the donation, the greater the access, like a private reception that includes members of Congress for those who give more than $100,000.

“They are trying to get the attention of the C.B.C. members,” Ms. Scott said. “And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. They’re in business, and they want to deal with people who have influence and power.”

She also acknowledged that if her charity did not have “Congressional Black Caucus” in its name, it would gather far less money. “If it were just the Institute for the Advancement of Black People — you already have the N.A.A.C.P.,” she said.

Ms. Scott said she, too, had heard criticism that the caucus foundation takes too much from companies seen as hurting blacks . But she said she was still willing to take their money.

“Black people gamble. Black people smoke. Black people drink,” she said in an interview. “And so if these companies want to take some of the money they’ve earned off of our people and give it to us to support good causes, then we take it.”

Big Parties, Big Money

The biggest caucus event of the year is held each September in Washington.

The 2009 event began with a rooftop party at the new W Hotel, with the names of the biggest sponsors, the pharmaceutical companies Amgen and Eli Lilly, beamed in giant letters onto the walls, next to the logo of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. A separate dinner party and ceremony, sponsored by Disney at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, featured the jazz pianist Marcus Johnson.

The next night, AT&T sponsored a dinner reception at the Willard InterContinental Washington, honoring Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees consumer protection issues.

The Southern Company, the dominant electric utility in four Southeastern states, spent more than $300,000 to host an awards ceremony the next night honoring Ms. Lee, the black caucus chairwoman, with Shaun Robinson, a TV personality from “Access Hollywood,” as a co-host. The bill for limousine services — paid by Southern — exceeded $11,000.

A separate party, sponsored by Macy’s, featured a fashion show and wax models of historic African-American leaders.

All of this was just a buildup for the final night and the biggest event — a black-tie dinner for 4,000, which included President Obama, the actor Danny Glover and the musician Wyclef Jean.

Annual spending on the events, including an annual prayer breakfast that Coca-Cola sponsors and several dozen policy workshops typically sponsored by other corporations, has more than doubled since 2001, costing $3.9 million in 2008. More than $350,000 went to the official decorator and nearly $400,000 to contractors for lighting and show production, according to tax records. (By comparison, the caucus spent $372,000 on internships in 2008, tax records show.)

The sponsorship of these parties by big business is usually counted as a donation in the caucus books. But sometimes the corporations pay vendors directly and simply name the caucus or an individual caucus member as an “honoree” in disclosure records filed with the Senate.

(The New York Times Company is listed as having paid the foundation $5,000 to $15,000 in 2008. It was the cost of renting a booth to sell newspapers at the annual conference.)

Foundation officials say profit from the event is enough to finance programs like seminars on investments, home ownership and healthy living; housing for Washington interns; and about $600,000 in scholarships.

Interns and students interviewed praised the caucus.

“The internship for me came at a very critical moment in my life,” said Ervin Johnson, 24, an intern in 2007, placed by the Justice Department. “Most people don’t have that opportunity.”

Still, Ms. Scott, the foundation’s chief executive, said that members of the caucus’s board had complained about the ballooning bills for the annual conference. And some donors have asked that their money go only toward programs like scholarships. She blamed the high prices charged by vendors mandated by the Washington Convention Center.

Legislative Interests

The companies that host events at the annual conference are engaged in some of the hottest battles in Washington, and they frequently turn to caucus members for help.

Internet poker companies have been big donors, fighting moves to restrict their growth. Caucus members have been among their biggest backers.

Amgen and DaVita, which dominate the kidney treatment and dialysis business nationwide, have donated as much as $1.5 million over the last five years to caucus charities, and the caucus has been one of their strongest allies in a bid to win broader federal reimbursements.

AT&T and Verizon, sponsors of the caucus charities for years, have turned to the caucus in their effort to prevent new federal rules governing how cellphone carriers operate Internet services on their wireless networks.

But few of these alliances have paid off like the caucus’s connection to rent-to-own stores.

Some Democrats in Congress have tried to limit fees charged to consumers who rent televisions or appliances, with critics saying the industry’s advertisements prey on low-income consumers, offering the short-term promise of walking away with a big-screen TV while hiding big long-term fees. Faced with rules that could destroy their business, the industry called on the caucus.

In 2007, it retained Zehra Buck, a former aide to Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and a caucus member, to help expand a lobbying campaign. Its trade association in 2008 became the exclusive sponsor of an annual caucus foundation charity event where its donated televisions, computers and other equipment were auctioned, with the proceeds going to scholarships. It donated to the campaigns of at least 10 caucus members, and to political action committees run by the caucus and its individual members.

It also encouraged member stores to donate to personal charities run by caucus members or to public schools in their districts. Mr. Clay, the Missourian, received $14,000 in industry contributions in 2008 for the annual golf tournament his family runs in St. Louis. The trade association also held a fund-raising event for him in Reno, Nev.

“I’ll always do my best to protect what really matters to you,” Mr. Clay told rent-to-own executives, who agreed to hold their 2008 annual convention in St. Louis, his home district. Mr. Clay declined a request for an interview.

On a visit to Washington, Larry Carrico, then president of the rent-to-own trade association, offered to donate computers and other equipment to a nonprofit job-training group in Chicago named in honor of Mr. Davis, the Illinois congressman who in 2002 voted in favor of tough restrictions on the industry.

Mr. Davis switched sides. Mr. Carrico traveled to Chicago to hand over the donations, including a van with “Congressman Danny K. Davis Job Training Program” painted on its side, all of which helped jump-start a charity run by Lowry Taylor, who also works as a campaign aide to Mr. Davis.

In an interview, Mr. Carrico said support from caucus members came because they understood that his industry had been unfairly criticized and that it provided an important service to consumers in their districts.

While some caucus members still oppose the industry, 13 are co-sponsors of the industry-backed legislation that would ward off tough regulatory restrictions — an alliance that has infuriated consumer advocates.

“It is unfortunate that the members of the black caucus who are supporting this bill did not check with us first,” said Margot Saunders, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. “Because the legislation they are supporting would simply pre-empt state laws that are designed to protect consumers against an industry that rips them off.”

The industry’s own bill, introduced by a caucus member, has not been taken up, but it does not really matter because the move to pass stricter legislation has ground to a halt.

“Without the support of the C.B.C.,” John Cleek, the president of the rent-to-own association, acknowledged in an industry newsletter in 2008, “our mission in Washington would fail.”

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

RapCOINTELPRO IX – The “Biggie’s-Behind-The-Murder-Of-Tupac” Theory

www.blackelectorate.com/a…asp?ID=697

Cedric Muhammad

Cedric Muhammad

Yesterday, while a panelist on Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney’s Hip-Hop Braintrust issue forum, at the Congressional Black Caucus convention, I commented on how many were inappropriately describing last week’s Los Angeles Times’ series on Tupac’s murder – which attempts to position the Notroious B.I.G. as the conspiratorial mastermind – as bad journalism and sensationalism. Considering that we have spent tens of thousands of words, over a two-year time, in an 8-part series, describing the real probablility and evidence that the government is involved in destablizing Hip-Hop culture and the industry that it has spawned, and as a result an entire generation and people(s); it is only natural that we would reject the sensational/bad journalism explanation as too superficial, and even, an unintentional trivialization of the murder of Tupac.

While many leading figures in the Hip-Hop community rapidly responded to the story – denouncing, dismissing and refuting it, there is still missing a serious critique as to what the driving force is behind not only the most recent reporting on Tupac’s murder, but the entire “cottage industry” that has developed around both murders. Is it purely the profit motive and/or bad reporting that is at the root of the documentaries, articles, and books that claim that Suge Knight is behind the murder of Biggie and now, that Biggie was behind the murder of Tupac?

We think not.

In 1994, I received a letter from the late Colonel Fletcher Prouty who served, at one point, as the liasion between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA. Part of what Colonel Prouty wrote in his letter to me, and which he elaborated upon in greater length, in several of our conversations, in his Alexandria, Va. home, last decade, was that the “cover story” of a criminal event is just as important as the crime itself. Colonel Prouty spoke specifically of this concept in terms of the murder of President John F. Kennedy (it was he who wrote the portion of the script for Oliver Stone’s movie that explains who may have been behind the assasination of the President of the United States). In an August 1994 letter, he wrote to me:

“…you will recall that I view the whole assassination process in a much different way than others.

Man-lookingThroughBlinds-Rap-cointelproFrom my experience and point of view the whole thing was an elaborately planned conspiracy to accomplish a Coup d’etat. To do so it was necessary to kill JFK, among other things. This is why there has never been any prosecution or trial for anyone since that crime. A coup d’etat of such dimensions is carefully planned, is the consensus decision of many powerful people, and then the work of pure professionals who are highly skilled.

For such a plan, the most important part is the “Cover Story.” The murder took a bit of deft work and then a terrific load of cover story all the way from Oswald to books and media collaboration and the masterful scenario of the Warren Commission Report. We live with a 30-year old story today.

When I was the Chief of Special Operations in the Pentagon during the years 1955-1964, I worked at three levels, Air Force, Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In all cases wherever my office was there would be a “Cover and Deception” office nearby. I had the operations to run. They had the big job of covering the operation. That’s work, and effective.”

It is a historical fact that the media has been used, willingly and unwillingly, to write cover stories aiding government efforts to disrupt Black organizations. One example, which we have presented and which none of our detractors have been able to overcome is the manner in which the media was used against the Nation Of Islam in 1959. Here is what we wrote in part III of this series on :

In a book entitled This Is The One, written by Nation of Islam Minister Jabril Muhammad (he was known as Minister Bernard Cushmeer when he wrote This Is The One) the question of the coordination of media outlets in a propaganda war against the Nation of Islam was raised. Keep in mind that Minister Muhammad began writing this book in the late 60s when COINTELPRO was not known to be in existence by the general public. This kind of reminds me of the situation that we find ourselves in today, where, for the most part members of the Black and Hip-Hop Community don’t have public knowledge of any intelligence campaign being waged against them by the FBI, CIA or NSA. Here is the actual quote of what Minister Muhammad wrote in his book which he began in 1968:

“Back In 1959, the white press, as if on signal, launched a furious attack on Messenger Muhammad and The Nation Of Islam, following the dishonest portrayal of us entitled: “The Hate That Hate Produced.” Through such publications as Time, U.S. News and World Report, Newsweek, The Reporter, Esquire, Confidential, True, Saga, and a host of other magazines and newspapers; white America spewed forth a flood of articles, both superficial, spurious and poisonous in nature. A few among them did a creditable job, as far as they went. But the bulk of what was written was insidious and rotten to the core. But it did not hurt us.

“There is plenty of evidence to show that much of the material was deliberately misleading. There are instances when reporters found interpolations in the text of their stories that were altered, here and there, by their ‘bosses’ so as to misrepresent their findings of the Messenger and his followers.

“The white people – newscasters, commentators, etc., – have lied in concert. The television newsmen were not, and are not, above editing their films in such manner as to actually tell lies to their viewers. They conspired to deceive the public regarding Messenger Muhammad. This can be proven with ease. Members of a large orchestra do not accidentally play the same tune.”

Was Minister Muhammad right? According to a White Swedish Scholar, Mattias Gardell, he was absolutely correct. In Mr. Gardell’s book, In The Name of Elijah Muhammad: Louis Farrakhan And The Nation Of Islam, published in 1996 (28 years after Minister Muhammad began his book) Gardell verifies the truth of what Minister Muhammad wrote. Gardell writes:

In 1959, the FBI launched a large-scale media campaign. In this first phase, the FBI briefed selected journalists who wittingly channeled the view of the bureau to the American public. The special agent in charge (SAC) in Chicago, wrote: “Originally the program was centered around espousing to the public, both white and black, on a nationwide basis the abhorrent aspects of the organization and its racist, hatetype teachings. This was done in such leading magazines as Time, U.S. News and World Report, Saturday Evening Post etc., as well as through newspapers.” The sudden outburst of media interest is commented on by NOI apologist Jabril Muhammad (then Bernard Cushmeer). His view might have seemed overly paranoid to some readers, but Cushmeer was correct: “Back in 1959, the white press, as if on signal, launched a furious attack on Messenger Muhammad and the Nation of Islam…white America spewed forth a flood of articles, both superficial, spurious and poisonous [sic] in nature…They conspired to deceive the public…Members of a large orchestra do not accidentally play the same tune.”

In the notes in his book, Gardell makes reference to the actual FBI files that he saw, on which he bases his statements.

*************

Some have been offended by our constant admonition, begun in the year 2000 to consider that the very same tactics used against organizations and communities under the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO)run by J. Edgar Hoover, are being used against Hip-Hop. Others, especially Hip-Hop magazine journalists, have argued in public and private that our effort has trivialized COINTELPRO.

By now, since we first presented our thesis, we think that plenty of evidence has surfaced and been reported by the mainstream media, that supports the validity and legitimacy of our arguments. Not the least of these forms of evidence is the fact that the New York City Police Department (NYPD), has publically admitted that it has the city’s Hip-Hop community and industry under surveillance. The arrest of Jay-Z, in 2001, on gun charges, at a New York nightclub was partly the result of this effort, which involves the New York Street Crime Task Force Unit. Anyone who knows the history of COINTELPRO can immediately make the connection betwen local innercity police departments and the FBI.

More evidence was provided in 2000, when we were the only alternative media outlet, that in detail covered the Congressional hearings on the DEA investigation of Rap-A-Lot Records, James Prince and Scarface which involved several informants in Houston’s 5th ward and an admitted attempt to turn Scarface against Rap-A-Lot Records founder, James Prince or James Smith.

A letter was also released during the hearings written by James B. Nims, Group Supervisor in the DEA, to Rep. Dan Burton (R-In), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform which revealed that multi-platinum artist, Scarface, was a significant target of the DEA investigation and that the DEA was working to get Scarface to “turn” against James Smith, whose innocence has been maintained.

In the letter Nims writes to Burton:

“In regards to the US Attorney’s Office, we could not convince them to indict Brad Jordan, AKA “Scarface”, even though I strongly believe we had him tied in solidly on a federal drug conspiracy charge. This was devastating to the case as we felt that Brad Jordan could have provided us with important leads and information regarding Mr. Smith.”

And of course, there is the still unresolved matter of the fact that Biggie and Puffy’s entourage were being trailed by undercover NYPD, and ATF agents at the very time that Biggie was murdered. Members of the entourage were shocked, during questioning by police, when they were shown photograghs of individuals and vehicles said to be taken by law enforcement officers only moments before the murder took place.

Like the assasination of JFK, no one has been arrested or prosecuted in the murders of both Biggie and Tupac. Yet, despite the fact that it is in the public record that both Death Row Records and Bad Boy Records were under FBI, ATF, IRS, NYPD, LAPD, Las Vegas PD investigations at the time of both murders, the books, articles, and documentaries that are in the most plentiful and prominent supply revolve only around the theories that Biggie and Tupac and/or their associates and allies were behind each other’s murders. The furthest anyone seems willing to go (unfortunately, even Biggie’s family) is to say that the LAPD is involved in a cover-up. Why, we consistently wonder, isn’t the suspicion involving both murders taken up to the NYPD, ATF and FBI who had Biggie and Tupac under their watchful eye?

Looks more like a cover story than bad journalism to us.

Congresswoman McKinney, yesterday, in speaking about the matter, made a powerful point about one of the 5 major goals of COINTELPRO, outlined in a March 4, 1968 memo by J. Edgar Hoover. Rep. McKinney said that one of the goals of COINTELPRO was to make sure that Black youth never had a spokesperson. The Congresswoman stated that Hip-Hop was supplying such persons.

The fifth goal of COINTELPRO was :

5. A final goal should be to prevent the long-range GROWTH of militant black organizations, especially among youth. Specific tactics to prevent these groups from converting young people must be developed

We should consider all of this when we are tempted to believe that all of these articles which pit East Coast Rappers against West Coast Rappers; Bloods Vs. Crips; Biggie Vs. Tupac; Suge Knight Vs. Puffy; New York vs. Los Angeles are explained away as mistakes or poor forms of journalism.

In light of the documented history of COINTELPRO which involved the U.S. government’s use of media against organizations that it disliked, we must be wiser, more alert and studious in our view of media reports that aggravate underlying tensions that exist within the Black community – and which pit Brother vs. Brother.

Next Week: What we can do to get to the top and bottom of both Biggie and Tupac’s murders.

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=697

Cedric Muhammad

Friday, September 13, 2002