President Obama Speaks to the People of Northern Ireland (Video/Transcript)

Belfast Waterfront
Belfast, Northern Ireland

MRS. OBAMA:  Good morning.   (Applause.)  Oh, what an honor. Good morning, everyone.  First of all, let me thank Hannah for that very bold and wonderful introduction.  And of course, I want to thank all of you for being here today.

It is such a pleasure to be here in Belfast.  And as you might imagine, whenever we travel to places like this or anywhere else in the world, we’ve got a pretty packed schedule.  We’re meeting with Presidents and Prime Ministers and First Ladies. We’re visiting historical sites and attending state dinners.  And my husband is spending hours trying to make progress on global issues from trade to international security.

But wherever we go, no matter what’s on our plate, we always do our best to meet with young people just like all of you.  In fact, you all might just very well be some of the most important people that we talk to during our visits, because in just a couple of decades, you will be the ones in charge.  Yes, indeed. You’ll be the ones shaping our shared future with your passion and energy and ideas.

So when I look around this room, I don’t just see a bunch of teenagers.  I see the people who will be moving our world forward in the years ahead.  And that’s why we wanted to be here today.

Let me tell you, when I was your age, I never dreamed that I’d be standing here as First Lady of the United States.  And I know that my husband never thought he’d be President, either.  Neither of us grew up with much money.  Neither of my parents went to university.  Barack’s father left his family when Barack was just two years old.  He was raised by a single mom.

And all along the way, there were plenty of people who doubted that kids like us had what it took to succeed -- people who told us not to hope for too much or set our sights too high.
But Barack and I refused to let other people define us.  Instead, we held tight to those values we were raised with -- things like honesty, hard work, a commitment to our education.

We did our best to be open to others; to give everyone we met a fair shake, no matter who they were or where they came from.  And we soon realized that the more we lived by those values, the more we’d see them from other people in return.  We saw that when we reached out and listened to somebody else’s perspective, that person was more likely to listen to us.  If we treated a classmate with respect, they’d treat us well in return.

And that’s sort of how we became who we are today.  That’s how we learned what leadership really means.  It’s about stepping outside of your comfort zone to explore new ideas.  It's about rising above old divisions.  It's about treating people the way you want to be treated in return.

And as young people, you all are in a very powerful position to make some of those same choices yourselves.  You have the freedom of an open mind.  You have a fresh perspective that can help you find solutions to age-old problems.  And with today’s technology, you can connect with other young people from all over Northern Ireland and all around the world.

So right now, you’ve got a choice to make.  You’ve got to decide how you’re going to use those advantages and opportunities to build the lives you dream of.  Because that decision will determine not only the kinds of people you’ll become, but also the kinds of communities you’ll live in, the kind of world we’ll all share together.

And standing here with all of you today, I have never felt more optimistic, let me tell you.  Because time and again, I have seen young people like all of you choosing to work together, choosing to lift each other up, choosing to leave behind the conflicts and prejudices of the past and create a bright future for us all.

That’s what’s so powerful about your generation.  And again, that’s why we’re here today -- because we want you to know that we believe in each and every one of you.  That is exactly why we're here.  We believe that you all have the ability to make a mark on this world that will last for generations to come.  We are so proud of you.  We expect great things.

So with that, I think it would be a good opportunity for me to introduce someone who accompanied me here today.  (Laughter.) I let him travel with me every now and then.  (Laughter.)   But he is someone who is just as excited and delighted to deliver a message of encouragement and support to all of you -- my husband, the President of the United States, Barack Obama.  (Applause.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you!  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Please be seated.

Well, hello, Belfast!  (Applause.)  Hello, Northern Ireland! (Applause.)  You now know why it’s so difficult to speak after Michelle -- she’s better than me.  (Laughter.)  But on behalf of both of us, thank you so much for this extraordinarily warm welcome.

And I want to thank Hannah for introducing my wife.  We had a chance to speak with Hannah backstage and she’s an extraordinary young woman, who I know is going to do even greater things in years to come.

I want to thank two men, who I’ve hosted at the White House on many a St. Patrick’s Day, for their warm welcome -- First Minister Peter Robinson -- (applause) -- and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness.  (Applause.)  I spend the whole year trying to unite Washington around things, and they come to visit on St. Patrick’s Day and they do it in a single afternoon.  (Laughter.)

I want to thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Teresa Villiers.  (Applause.)  To all the Ministers in the audience; to Lord Mayor Máirtín Ó Muilleoir.  (Applause.)  And I want to thank all the citizens of Belfast and Northern Ireland for your hospitality.  (Applause.)

As our daughters pointed out as we were driving in, I cause a big fuss wherever I go.  (Laughter.)  So traffic and barricades and police officers, and it’s all a big production, a lot of people are involved -- and I’m very, very grateful for accommodating us.

The first time Michelle and I visited this island was about two years ago.  We were honored to join tens of thousands on College Green in Dublin.  We traveled to the little village of Moneygall, where, as it turned out, my great-great-great grandfather was born.  And I actually identified this individual in this place only a few years ago.  When I was first running for office in Chicago, I didn’t know this, but I wish I had.  (Laughter.)  When I was in Chicago, as I was campaigning, they’d look at my last name and they’d say, “Oh, there’s an O’Bama from the homeland running on the South Side, so he must be Irish -- (laughter) -- but I've never heard the Gaelic name, Barack”  (Laughter.)  But it pays to be Irish in Chicago.  (Laughter.)

So while we were in Moneygall, I had a chance to meet my eighth cousin, Henry -- who’s also known as Henry the Eighth.  (Laughter.)  We knew he was my cousin because his ears flapped out just like mine.  (Laughter.)  I leafed through the parish logs where the names of my ancestors are recorded.  I even watched Michelle learn how to pull a proper pint of “black.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Whoop!  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Who’s cheering for that?  (Laughter.)

So it was a magical visit.  But the only problem was it was far too short.  A volcano in Iceland forced us to leave before we could even spend the night.  So we’ve been eager for a chance to return to the Emerald Isle ever since -- and this time, we brought our daughters, too.

In particular, we wanted to come here, to Northern Ireland, a place of remarkable beauty and extraordinary history; part of an island with which tens of millions of Americans share an eternal relationship.  America’s story, in part, began right outside the doors of this gleaming hall.  Three hundred and twenty-five years ago, a ship set sail from the River Lagan for the Chesapeake Bay, filled with men and women who dreamed of building a new life in a new land.

They, followed by hundreds of thousands more, helped America write those early chapters.  They helped us win our independence. They helped us draft our Constitution.  Soon after, America returned to Belfast, opening one of our very first consulates here in 1796, when George Washington was still President.

Today, names familiar to many of you are etched on schools and courthouses and solemn memorials of war across the United States -- names like Wilson and Kelly, Campbell and O’Neill.  So many of the qualities that we Americans hold dear we imported from this land -- perseverance, faith, an unbending belief that we make our own destiny, and an unshakable dream that if we work hard and we live responsibly, something better lies just around the bend.

So our histories are bound by blood and belief, by culture and by commerce.  And our futures are equally, inextricably linked.  And that’s why I’ve come to Belfast today -- to talk about the future we can build together.

Your generation, a young generation, has come of age in a world with fewer walls.  You’ve been educated in an era of instant information.  You’ve been tempered by some very difficult times around the globe.  And as I travel, what I’ve seen of young people like you -- around the world, they show me these currents have conspired to make you a generation possessed by both a clear-eyed realism, but also an optimistic idealism; a generation keenly aware of the world as it is, but eager to forge the world as it should be.  And when it comes to the future we share, that fills me with hope.  Young people fill me with hope.

Here, in Northern Ireland, this generation has known even more rapid change than many young people have seen around the world.  And while you have unique challenges of your own, you also have unique reasons to be hopeful.  For you are the first generation in this land to inherit more than just the hardened attitudes and the bitter prejudices of the past.  You’re an inheritor of a just and hard-earned peace.  You now live in a thoroughly modern Northern Ireland.

Of course, the recessions that spread through nearly every country in recent years have inflicted hardship here, too, and there are communities that still endure real pain.  But, day to day, life is changing throughout the North.  There was a time people couldn’t have imagined Northern Ireland hosting a gathering of world leaders, as you are today.  And I want to thank Chief Constable Matt Baggott for working to keep everyone safe this week.  (Applause.)

Northern Ireland is hosting the World Police and Fire Games later this year -- (applause) -- which Dame Mary Peters is helping to organize.  (Applause.)  Golf fans like me had to wait a long six decades for the Irish Open to return to the North last year.  (Applause.)  I am unhappy that I will not get a few rounds in while I'm here.  (Laughter.)  I did meet Rory McIlroy last year -- (applause) -- and Rory offered to get my swing “sorted," -- (laughter) --  which was a polite way of saying, “Mr. President, you need help.” (Laughter.)

None of that would have been imaginable a generation ago.  And Belfast is a different city.  Once-abandoned factories are rebuilt.  Former industrial sites are reborn.  Visitors come from all over to see an exhibit at the MAC, a play at the Lyric, a concert here at Waterfront Hall.  Families crowd into pubs in the Cathedral Quarter to hear “trad.”  Students lounge at cafés, asking each other, “What’s the craic?”  (Laughter and applause.) So to paraphrase Seamus Heaney, it’s the manifestation of sheer, bloody genius.  This island is now chic.

And these daily moments of life in a bustling city and a changing country, it may seem ordinary to many of you -- and that’s what makes it so extraordinary.  That’s what your parents and grandparents dreamt for all of you -- to travel without the burden of checkpoints, or roadblocks, or seeing soldiers on patrol.  To enjoy a sunny day free from the ever-present awareness that violence could blacken it at any moment.  To befriend or fall in love with whomever you want.  They hoped for a day when the world would think something different when they heard the word “Belfast.”  Because of their effort, because of their courage that day has come.  Because of their work, those dreams they had for you became the most incredible thing of all -- they became a reality.

It's been 15 years now since the Good Friday Agreement; since clenched fists gave way to outstretched hands.  The people of this island voted in overwhelming numbers to see beyond the scars of violence and mistrust, and to choose to wage peace.  Over the years, other breakthroughs and agreements have followed. That’s extraordinary, because for years, few conflicts in the world seemed more intractable than the one here in Northern Ireland.  And when peace was achieved here, it gave the entire world hope.

The world rejoiced in your achievement -- especially in America.  Pubs from Chicago to Boston were scenes of revelry, folks celebrating the hard work of Hume and Trimble and Adams and Paisley, and so many others.  In America, you helped us transcend our differences -- because if there’s one thing on which Democrats and Republicans in America wholeheartedly agree, it’s that we strongly support a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland.

But as all of you know all too well, for all the strides that you’ve made, there’s still much work to do.  There are still people who haven’t reaped the rewards of peace.  There are those who aren’t convinced that the effort is worth it.  There are still wounds that haven’t healed, and communities where tensions and mistrust hangs in the air.  There are walls that still stand; there are still many miles to go.

From the start, no one was naïve enough to believe that peace would be anything but a long journey.  Yeats once wrote “Peace comes dropping slow.”  But that doesn’t mean our efforts to forge a real and lasting peace should come dropping slow.  This work is as urgent now as it has ever been, because there’s more to lose now than there has ever been.

In today’s hyper-connected world, what happens here has an impact on lives far from these green shores.  If you continue your courageous path toward a permanent peace, and all the social and economic benefits that have come with it, that won’t just be good for you, it will be good for this entire island.  It will be good for the United Kingdom.  It will be good for Europe.  It will be good for the world.

We need you to get this right.  And what’s more, you set an example for those who seek a peace of their own.  Because beyond these shores, right now, in scattered corners of the world, there are people living in the grip of conflict -- ethnic conflict, religious conflict, tribal conflicts -- and they know something better is out there.  And they’re groping to find a way to discover how to move beyond the heavy hand of history, to put aside the violence.  They’re studying what you’re doing.  And they’re wondering, perhaps if Northern Ireland can achieve peace, we can, too.  You’re their blueprint to follow.  You’re their proof of what is possible -- because hope is contagious.  They’re watching to see what you do next.

Now, some of that is up to your leaders.  As someone who knows firsthand how politics can encourage division and discourage cooperation, I admire the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly all the more for making power-sharing work.  That’s not easy to do.  It requires compromise, and it requires absorbing some pain from your own side.  I applaud them for taking responsibility for law enforcement and for justice, and I commend their effort to “Building a United Community” -- important next steps along your transformational journey.

Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity -- symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others -- these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it.  If towns remain divided -- if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs -- if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division.  It discourages cooperation.

Ultimately, peace is just not about politics.  It’s about attitudes; about a sense of empathy; about breaking down the  divisions that we create for ourselves in our own minds and our own hearts that don’t exist in any objective reality, but that we carry with us generation after generation.

And I know, because America, we, too, have had to work hard over the decades, slowly, gradually, sometimes painfully, in fits and starts, to keep perfecting our union.  A hundred and fifty years ago, we were torn open by a terrible conflict.  Our Civil War was far shorter than The Troubles, but it killed hundreds of thousands of our people.  And, of course, the legacy of slavery endured for generations.

Even a century after we achieved our own peace, we were not fully united.  When I was a boy, many cities still had separate drinking fountains and lunch counters and washrooms for blacks and whites.  My own parents’ marriage would have been illegal in certain states.  And someone who looked like me often had a hard time casting a ballot, much less being on a ballot.

But over time, laws changed, and hearts and minds changed, sometimes driven by courageous lawmakers, but more often driven by committed citizens.  Politicians oftentimes follow rather than lead.  And so, especially young people helped to push and to prod and to protest, and to make common cause with those who did not look like them.  And that transformed America -- so that Malia and Sasha’s generation, they have different attitudes about differences and race than mine and certainly different from the generation before that.  And each successive generation creates a new space for peace and tolerance and justice and fairness.

And while we have work to do in many ways, we have surely become more tolerant and more just, more accepting, more willing to see our diversity in America not as something to fear, but as something to welcome because it's a source of our national strength.

So as your leaders step forward to address your challenges through talks by all parties, they’ll need you young people to keep pushing them, to create a space for them, to change attitudes.  Because ultimately, whether your communities deal with the past and face the future united together isn’t something you have to wait for somebody else to do –- that’s a choice you have to make right now.

It's within your power to bring about change.  Whether you are a good neighbor to someone from the other side of past battles -- that’s up to you.  Whether you treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve -- that’s up to you.  Whether you let your kids play with kids who attend a different church -– that’s your decision.  Whether you take a stand against violence and hatred, and tell extremists on both sides that no matter how many times they attack the peace, they will not succeed –- that is in your hands.  And whether you reach your own outstretched hand across dividing lines, across peace walls, to build trust in a spirit of respect –- that’s up to you.  The terms of peace may be negotiated by political leaders, but the fate of peace is up to each of us.

This peace in Northern Ireland has been tested over the past 15 years.  It's been tested over the past year.  It will be tested again.  But remember something that President Clinton said when he spoke here in Belfast just a few weeks after the horrors of Omagh.  That bomb, he said, “was not the last bomb of The Troubles; it was the opening shot of a vicious attack on the peace.”  And whenever your peace is attacked, you will have to choose whether to respond with the same bravery that you’ve summoned so far, or whether you succumb to the worst instincts.  those impulses that kept this great land divided for too long.  You'll have to choose whether to keep going forward, not backwards.

And you should know that so long as you are moving forward, America will always stand by you as you do.  We will keep working closely with leaders in Stormont, Dublin and Westminster to support your political progress.  We’ll keep working to strengthen our economies, including through efforts like the broad economic initiative announced on Friday to unlock new opportunities for growth and investment between our two countries’ businesses –- because jobs and opportunity are essential to peace.

Our scientists will keep collaborating with yours in fields like nanotechnology and clean energy and health care that make our lives better and fuel economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic –- because progress is essential to peace.  And because knowledge and understanding is essential to peace, we will keep investing in programs that enrich both of us -– programs like the one at Belfast Metropolitan College, which teaches students from West and North Belfast the skills they need for new jobs, and exchange programs that have given thousands in Northern Ireland and the United States the chance to travel to each other’s communities and learn from one another.

Now, one of those young people is here today.  Sylvia Gordon is the director of an organization called Groundwork Northern Ireland, which aims to bring about change from the ground up.  (Applause.)  Where’s Sylvia?  Where’s Sylvia?  Is Sylvia here somewhere?  Where is she?  She’s here somewhere.  You’re here, too, yes.  Some guy just waved, he said, “I’m here.”  (Laughter.) Which is good, I appreciate you being here.  (Laughter.)

As someone who got my start as a community organizer, I was so impressed with what Sylvia has done, because a few years ago, Sylvia visited the United States to learn more about how Americans organize to improve their communities.  So after she came home, Sylvia rolled up her sleeves here in Belfast and decided to do something about Alexandra Park.  Some of you may know this park.  For years, it was thought to be the only park in Europe still divided by a wall.  Think about that.  In all of Europe, that one park has got a wall in the middle of it.
Sylvia and her colleagues knew how hard it would be to do anything about a peace wall, but they reached out to the police, they reached out to the Department of Justice.  They brought together people from across the communities.  They knew it was going to be hard, but they tried anyway.  And together, they all decided to build a gate to open that wall.  And now, people can walk freely through the park and enjoy the sun -- when it comes out –- (laughter) -- just like people do every day in parks all around the world.

A small bit of progress.  But the fact that so far we’ve only got a gate open and the wall is still up means there’s more work to do.  And that’s the work of your generation.  As long as more walls still stand, we will need more people like Sylvia.  We’ll need more of you, young people, who imagine the world as it should be; who knock down walls; who knock down barriers; who imagine something different and have the courage to make it happen.  The courage to bring communities together, to make even the small impossibilities a shining example of what is possible. And that, more than anything, will shape what Northern Ireland looks like 15 years from now and beyond.

All of you -- every single young person here today -- possess something the generation before yours did not, and that is an example to follow.  When those who took a chance on peace got started, they didn’t have a successful model to emulate.  They didn’t know how it would work.  But they took a chance.  And so far, it has succeeded.  And the first steps are the hardest and requires the most courage.  The rest, now, is up to you.

“Peace is indeed harder than war,” the Irish author Colum McCann recently wrote.  “And its constant fragility is part of its beauty.  A bullet need happen only once, but for peace to work we need to be reminded of its existence again and again and again.”

And that’s what we need from you.  That’s what we need from every young person in Northern Ireland, and that’s what we need from every young person around the world.  You must remind us of the existence of peace -- the possibility of peace.  You have to remind us of hope again and again and again.  Despite resistance, despite setbacks, despite hardship, despite tragedy, you have to remind us of the future again and again and again.

I have confidence you will choose that path; you will embrace that task.  And to those who choose the path of peace, I promise you the United States of America will support you every step of the way.  We will always be a wind at your back.  And as I said when I visited two years ago, I am convinced that this little island that inspires the biggest of things -- this little island, its best days are yet ahead.

Good luck.  God bless you.  And God bless all the people of Northern Ireland.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

Majority of Supreme Court members millionaires

Ginsburg, Breyer top list of wealthiest justices

By Reity O'BrienemailChris Youngemail

Source: The Center for Public Integrity

At least five and perhaps as many as eight of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are millionaires according to recently released financial disclosures, and only two hold any consumer debt.

Assets on the forms are reported in a range making it impossible to say precisely how much each justice is worth, but suffice to say, none of them are hurting financially.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg boasts the highest potential net worth at $18.1 million with Stephen Breyer a close second at $17.1 million. Both were appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
However, Ginsburg’s actual net worth may be as low as $4.4 million and Breyer’s as low as $5 million. Federal officials are also exempt from disclosing the value of their homes, making an accurate calculation even more difficult.

After collecting nearly $2 million in book advances, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's assets rose to between $1.7 and $10.3 million, ranking her No. 3 in terms of highest potential net worth. Sotomayor is an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, possesses one of the court’s most complex financial portfolios. His net worth is valued between $2.8 million and $6.6 million, ranking him No. 4.

As for the rest:

• Antonin Scalia, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, reported a net worth between $1.9 and $4.2 million, ranking him No. 5.

• Obama appointee Elena Kagan's assets total between $815,000 and $2.1 million, according to the Center’s analysis, putting her at No. 6.

• Clarence Thomas, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush reported between $1.8 million and $715,000, ranking him seventh.

• Samuel Alito has not yet filed his 2012 report and sought an extension, but in 2011 the George W. Bush appointee reported between $380,000 and $1.1 million in wealth putting him at No. 8 for maximum potential wealth.

• Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, reported assets of between $330,000 and $700,000, placing him at No. 9.

Salaries plus perks

Justices make good money, though with their backgrounds they could easily earn much more in the private sector. Roberts, as chief justice, earns $223,500 per year, while the eight associate justices make $213,900.

But there are perks. Judges rake in tens of thousands of dollars from speaking fees, professorships and book deals.

Most of Ginsburg’s assets are held in mutual funds and retirement accounts. In 2012, Ginsburg earned nearly $26,000 for taking part in two separate university-sponsored events, including a two-week Wake Forest School of Law summer seminar held in Venice, Italy, and in Vienna, Austria.

The bulk of Breyer’s holdings are in mutual funds, retirement accounts and bonds. But one of Breyer’s two largest reported assets is a $1 million to $5 million stake in Pearson, the publishing company that owns the Penguin Group and The Financial Times. The justice collected between $15,000 and $50,000 last year in dividends thanks to his stock holdings in that company.

Breyer enjoyed a windfall last summer when he sold his stock in Amgen, Inc., the pharmaceutical company that was party in a case that came before the Supreme Court in its most recent term. In late September, just a month after he realized between $15,000 and $50,000 in gains by selling his Amgen holdings, the court docket noted that Breyer was no longer recused from proceedings related to the case.

Investing in China

Also notable is Breyer’s holdings in Tai Shan Fund which invests in tech companies in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan and is part of a Boston-based capital management firm led by investor Thomas Clafflin, according to a Bloomberg report.

Roberts has invested heavily in technology and telecommunications companies — some of which have had business before the high court. He also owns a mix of bonds, retirement accounts, mutual funds and shared ownership of a cottage in County Limerick, Ireland.
The top justice owns up to a total of $750,000 in shares of Time Warner, Microsoft and Texas Instruments and up to $200,000 in T-Mobile and Sirius XM Radio stock, according to his report.

Roberts recused himself from a patent dispute involving Microsoft, which the software giant lost in a unanimous 8-0 decision in 2011.

As the Center for Public Integrity reported last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s disclosure is notable for the nearly $2 million she received in book advances and promotion for her memoir, My Beloved World, published by Knopf Doubleday.

One of Sotomayor’s most valuable assets is her former New York City residence, now a rental property valued between $1 million and $5 million, though she carries a mortgage on the property. Unlike most of her colleagues on the bench, Sotomayor reported a handful of liabilities in her disclosure, including between $250,000 and $500,000 for the rental. Her debts for four credit cards were each less than $15,000.

Scalia reported a debt of less than $15,000 for a loan on a life insurance policy.

Scalia also reported receiving between $5,000 and $15,000 in rent for a property he owns in Charlottesville, Va. His report also shows that he has investments in gold-related securities totaling between $80,000 and $215,000.

Scalia reported earning $26,500 in 2012 for teaching at five different universities, including John Marshall Law School and the University of Southern California. Scalia also reported receiving nearly $64,000 in book royalties. Last year, the justice co-authored Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts with legal scholar Bryan Gardner.

Well-traveled justices

Scalia traveled frequently in 2012. In the “Reimbursement” section of his financial disclosure, he reports 28 trips to various schools and organizations to deliver speeches and lectures.
In most cases, the justice was provided or reimbursed for transportation, food and lodging. (Federal officials are not required to report how much they were reimbursed, either in exact amounts or in dollar ranges.) In September and October, Scalia gave speeches and lectures at five events hosted by the Federalist Society, a conservative nonprofit that advocates reform of the legal system.

Scalia reported giving a speech at an Aug. 25 event hosted by “Friends of Abe,” a low-profile conservative group organized by actor Gary Sinise and whose members reportedly include singer Pat Boone and actor Jon Voight.

Scalia also reported receiving one gift in 2012. According to his disclosure report, the justice accepted a $1,000 shotgun from the National Wild Turkey Federation.

The bulk of Kagan’s assets were invested in mutual funds and retirement accounts, including some from the University of Chicago, where she was a law professor in the 1990s.
Thomas reported investments in gold- and silver-related securities valued at somewhere between $60,000 and $200,000, according to his report.

Though Kennedy was the high court’s least wealthy justice for the third consecutive year, his report indicates that 2012 was a year of jet setting for the moderate judge. Between January and November of last year, Kennedy traveled to Las Vegas, Palm Springs, Aspen, Maui, London and Paris for various speaking and teaching arrangements.

Is the US a force for good in the world?

 

Source: Al Jazeera

Mehdi Hasan goes head to head with Thomas Friedman on the morality of America's global role.

The US appears to have taken a back seat role in international relations. Is the US in decline? Or is it just taking stock as it accommodates to the new emerging world order?

On balance, the US is a force for good ... it was the leading engine that protected democracy and advanced democracy in World War I, World War II and the Cold War, created a world, I think, where more people could enjoy freedom .... I think we have provided an order for the expansion of  democracy, freedom and also prosperity.
Thomas Friedman

In this episode of Head to Head at the Oxford Union, Mehdi Hasan challenges one of the world’s most influential columnists and authors, Thomas L Friedman.

Advisor to presidents and kings, Tom Friedman of the New York Times has won the Pulitzer Prize not once or twice, but three times.

He is the best-selling author, among many others, of The World is Flat and he argues in his latest book, That Used to Be US, that the US must rebuild itself to remain a global power.
Critics say American self-interest has trumped democracy and human rights time and again, and that Obama’s America is no different. So is the US foreign policy counter-productive? Or is America a force for good in the world?

The US “is not an NGO”, admits Friedman, explaining that America “is a country like any country with its interests, it pursues them, and sometimes pursues them very narrowly.”
Friedman also talks about the powerful influence of the Israeli lobby and his recent experience in Yemen.

“America is in a slow decline”, he tells Mehdi Hasan and goes on to describe his “unique formula of success” that will place America once again ahead of the Brazils, the Chinas and the Japans.

Joining this discussion are: Seumas Milne, an associate editor and columnist at The Guardian, as well as author of the The Enemy Within, Beyond the Casino Economy, and The Revenge of History; Davis Lewin, the political director at the Henry Jackson Society, and the former Middle East director at the Next Century Foundation; and Dr Miriyam Aouragh, a lecturer of Cyber Politics in the Middle East, an associate member of the Oriental Institute at the University of Oxford who is currently conducting research on the political implications of the Internet for the Arab revolutions. She is also the author of Palestine Online: Transnationalism, the Internet and the Construction of Identity.

 

President Barack Obama Weekly Address June 15, 2013 (Video/Transcript)

 
Remarks of President Barack Obama

The White House June 15, 2013

Hi, everybody. This Sunday is Father’s Day, and so I wanted to take a moment to talk about the most important job many of us will ever have – and that’s being a dad.

Today we’re blessed to live in a world where technology allows us to connect instantly with just about anyone on the planet.  But no matter how advanced we get, there will never be a substitute for the love and support and, most importantly, the presence of a parent in a child’s life.  And in many ways, that’s uniquely true for fathers.

I never really knew my own father.  I was raised by a single mom and two wonderful grandparents who made incredible sacrifices for me.  And there are single parents all across the country who do a heroic job raising terrific kids.  But I still wish I had a dad who was not only around, but involved; another role model to teach me what my mom did her best to instill – values like hard work and integrity; responsibility and delayed gratification – all the things that give a child the foundation to envision a brighter future for themselves.

That’s why I try every day to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me.  And I’ve met plenty of other people – dads and uncles and men without a family connection – who are trying to break the cycle and give more of our young people a strong male role model.

Being a good parent – whether you’re gay or straight; a foster parent or a grandparent – isn’t easy.  It demands your constant attention, frequent sacrifice, and a healthy dose of patience.  And nobody’s perfect.  To this day, I’m still figuring out how to be a better husband to my wife and father to my kids.

And I want to do what I can as President to encourage marriage and strong families.  We should reform our child support laws to get more men working and engaged with their children.  And my Administration will continue to work with the faith and other community organizations, as well as businesses, on a campaign to encourage strong parenting and fatherhood.

Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned along the way, it’s that all our personal successes shine a little less brightly if we fail at family.  That’s what matters most.  When I look back on my life, I won’t be thinking about any particular legislation I passed or policy I promoted.  I’ll be thinking about Michelle, and the journey we’ve been on together.  I’ll be thinking about Sasha’s dance recitals and Malia’s tennis matches – about the conversations we’ve had and the quiet moments we’ve shared.  I’ll be thinking about whether I did right by them, and whether they knew, every day, just how much they were loved.

That’s what I think being a father is all about.  And if we can do our best to be a source of comfort and encouragement to our kids; if we can show them unconditional love and help them grow into the people they were meant to be; then we will have succeeded.

Happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there, and have a great weekend.

NEW TIME POLL: Support for the Leaker—and His Prosecution

By Zeke J Miller
 Source: Time
More than half of Americans approve of a former intelligence contractor’s decision to leak classified details of sprawling government surveillance programs, according to the results of a new TIME poll.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said the leaker, Edward Snowden, 29, did a “good thing” in releasing information about the government programs, which collect phone, email, and Internet search records in an effort, officials say, to prevent terrorist attacks. Just 30 percent disagreed.

But an almost identical number of Americans —  53 percent —  still said he should be prosecuted for the leak, compared to 28% who said he should not. Americans aged 18 to 34 break from older generations in showing far more support for Snowden’s actions. Just 41 percent of that cohort say he should face charges, while 43 percent say he should not. Just 19 percent of that age group say the leak was a “bad thing.”

(VIDEO: Edward Snowden: A Modern-Day Daniel Ellsberg, Except for One Key Difference)

Overall, Americans are sharply divided over the government’s use of surveillance programs to prevent terrorist attacks, according to the results of the poll. Forty-eight percent of Americans approve of the surveillance programs, while 44 percent disapprove, a statistical tie given the poll’s four-point margin of error.

The program’s existence, revealed last week by the Guardian and the Washington Post, provoked a massive uproar in Washington and among privacy and digital advocates. President Barack Obama, who opposed many of the same programs during the Bush administration before extending them as president, said last week that they are overseen by all three branches of the federal government.

“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch, but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here,” Obama said Friday.

A majority of the poll’s respondents say that the surveillance programs have helped protect national security, with 63 percent saying they’ve had “some” or a “great deal” of impact in protecting the country. Just 31 percent says they’ve done “not much” or “nothing at all.”
A narrow plurality of those polled, 48 percent to 43 percent, believe that the federal government is striking the right balance between protecting Americans’ privacy and protecting their physical well-being or that the government should be doing more to prevent terrorism.

(MORE: Hong Kong Will Decide My Fate, Edward Snowden Tells South China Morning Post)

Nearly 60 percent believe the revelations will not force the government to curtail the surveillance program. But 76 percent of Americans believe there will soon be additional disclosures that the spying programs are bigger and more widespread than currently known.
Americans are largely split on partisan grounds as to whether Obama is more careful about respecting privacy than President George W. Bush. Twenty-eight percent said Bush was more careful, one-quarter sided with Obama, and 42 percent say there has been little difference between the two.

The poll coincides with the release of TIME’s latest cover “The Informers,” examining the new generation of leakers. TIME’s Michael Scherer writes:

The U.S. national security infrastructure was built to defend against foreign enemies and the spies they recruit. But now there is a new threat, exemplified by the pasty faces and rimless glasses of the young people many in Congress now call traitors while their online supporters hail them as whistleblowers. They are twenty-something homegrown computer geeks like Snowden, with utopian ideas of how the world should work. Just as anti-war protesters of the Vietnam Era argued that peace, not war, was the natural state of man, this new breed of technophiles believes that transparency and personal privacy are the foundations of a free society. Secrecy and surveillance, therefore, are steps towards tyranny. And in the face of tyranny, rebellion is noble.

The poll, conducted for TIME on June 10 and 11 by the survey research firm Abt SRBI, surveyed 805 people over landlines and cell phones.

   TIME POLL 6-12-13

State legislators' ties to nonprofit groups prove fertile ground for corruption

New York scandals reveal unsavory pattern of 'quid pro quo' links between lawmakers and 'charities' 

By Nicholas Kusnetzemail

 Source : The Center for Public Integrity

When investigators examined the operations of a sprawling New York social service organization, what they uncovered was deeply troubling. Board members of the Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council had almost no experience in nonprofit management. Several couldn’t name any of the group’s programs. Two of them could not identify the executive director, who in turn told investigators she was unaware of a fraudulent scheme carried out under her watch: Employees had squandered or stolen most of an $80,000 city grant.

As a result of that July 2010 report by New York City’s Department of Investigation, both the city and state quickly pulled the plug, suspending the organization’s grants, which provide practically all of its funding. But just as quick, the Brooklyn-based group won back it’s government support on the condition that it enact corrective measures, and today, the council has active grants from the city and the state totaling more than $50 million. Maybe that’s because the organization provides critical services, such as senior care and affordable housing, as a city spokeswoman said when funding was restored. But the council may also be thriving because its founder, Vito Lopez, was for years one of New York’s most powerful politicians — a state legislator who spent much of his career channeling that power through Ridgewood Bushwick.

Lopez personally directed at least $505,000 in state grants to the organization from 2007 through 2010, the only years for which data are available, and has reportedly had a hand in millions more. He helped elevate the group’s employees to political office. Other candidates, elected with Lopez’s help, have directed even more public money to Ridgewood Bushwick in return. The council’s former executive director, forced out in disgrace, was Lopez’s campaign treasurer; she later pleaded guilty to lying about a raise that hiked her salary to $782,000 for the fiscal year ending in June 2010. And Ridgewood Bushwick’s housing director is Lopez’s girlfriend.
This may look bad. It’s not unusual. Vito Lopez is but one example of a surprisingly common phenomenon afflicting state legislatures. Since 2010, at least eight New York lawmakers or their related charities have been investigated, charged or convicted of pillaging public funds. Earlier this year, former state Sen. Shirley Huntley pleaded guilty in two separate cases, one in which she sent state grants to a nonprofit she had founded before pocketing the money, the other in which she helped her niece and a former aide steal funds she directed to another group that, yes, Huntley herself created.

New York’s legislators outshine their peers in this department, but they’re not alone. Two former Florida state senators repeatedly directed state funds to a struggling group on whose board they sat, apparently not a violation of state law. A Pennsylvania charity had its state funding frozen after a state audit found it allegedly gave no-show jobs worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to a pastor and his aide at the direction of a state lawmaker. Illinois, Ohio and South Carolina all have seen similarly close ties between certain legislators and charities they helped fund.

While several examples led to criminal charges of theft and fraud, others appear to be perfectly legal: public officials are simply tipping the scales in favor of groups they are associated with or have a family member working for.

“The issue to me is what’s legal, and the fact that there’s a tremendous amount that’s legal,” said John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, a group advocating government transparency. Kaehny said public officials in New York have used charities to conduct “widespread looting” of taxpayer funds with little repercussion.

As for Lopez, he’s gotten into plenty of trouble in recent weeks — but not for anything related to Ridgewood Bushwick, despite reports of federal investigations back in 2010. Instead, in May, the New York Assembly forced Lopez to resign after the state’s ethics commission released a report exposing lurid details of several sexual harassment complaints against him. On June 11, the Legislative Ethics Commission said that Lopez's conduct had violated state law and fined him $330,000.

Lopez and his attorney did not return calls seeking comment. James Cameron, who became CEO of Ridgewood Bushwick in 2011 after the city ordered the group to overhaul its leadership, said the organization is fully independent of Lopez. Any ties exist simply because it operates in the neighborhoods he has represented for decades.

“He does not control, influence or dictate anything that happens in the organization,” Cameron said. “But it’s a large organization. If he’s talking to staff out there in the field I would have no way of knowing.” The former executive director, interviewed by city investigators three years ago, likewise distanced herself from her subordinates’ actions, saying she had no “crystal ball” to know if employees were dishonest. Ridgewood Bushwick and affiliates employ 2,100 people.
Lopez is now running for a seat on the New York City Council and has received campaign contributions from at least 10 employees of the organization.

Rick Cohen, who has written extensively on the links between politicians and charities for Nonprofit Quarterly, said that in state capitols across the country, lawmakers direct taxpayer money to their pet groups irrespective of whether they need or deserve scarce public dollars. “I’ve seen very little evidence in … states that do this,” he said, “that there’s an accountability regimen or the oversight that’s needed.”

A lack of scrutiny
Over the past few decades, state governments have increasingly outsourced many functions to community-based nonprofits in an attempt to provide more effective, flexible social services. But the result, some say, has been the creation of what is essentially another arm of government.

“The function may be outsourced, but a lot of the funding is coming from government,” said Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, a good government group. Ridgewood Bushwick, for instance, derived $13.4 million of its $15.5 million in outside funding in the fiscal year ending in June 2012 from government grants (affiliated groups pulled in some $42 million more, mostly in government health care contracts). When independent nonprofits spend that cash, rather than a government agency, Lerner said, public money does not receive the same level of oversight. “It has a tendency to fall into nepotism and favoritism and cronyism.”

Separating favoritism from efficient use of funds has proven to be a daunting task for state governments. Some ethics experts say states should draw a clear line: that lawmakers cannot be involved in sending funds to any group with which they have a direct link, even as an unpaid board member.

“Where there’s a real personal connection, financial or otherwise, I think it makes sense for the law to say that you can’t be involved in that,” said Peter Sturges, who served as executive director of the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission from 2000 to 2007. “You can’t be making decisions objectively.”

But few states draw such a line. Most laws consider a situation a conflict only if an official derives a direct financial benefit; sending money to your pet project, regardless of merit, is fine as long as you don’t get a cut. In many states, lawmakers do not have to disclose if they hold an unpaid board position with a nonprofit in their community, or if family members or political staffers do (New York is among the few that do require this disclosure, though it does not extend to staff members of the lawmaker or grown children).

Ethics oversight bodies have weighed in on the topic in several states, and in most cases, they have allowed the lawmakers to help fund nonprofits with which they are associated.
In Texas, one lawmaker who worked for a nonprofit wanted to solicit contributions for the group (Texas, like most states, has a part-time legislature). The Ethics Commission said that solicitations “could be viewed as improper under certain circumstances” and advised the legislator to use “extreme caution,” but in January the body gave its approval.

Two 2006 advisory opinions from Colorado’s Ethics Board allowed lawmakers to vote on or sponsor legislation that benefited nonprofits they were associated with, one as a paid director, the other as an unpaid board member.

The general counsel for Florida’s House of Representatives has issued four relevant opinions since 2007, each time determining that soliciting funds or voting on a bill that could benefit the nonprofit did not raise a conflict of interest. In one case, the lawmaker was a paid employee of a nonprofit,while the other three had volunteered for the group, co-hosted events, or were otherwise associated with an organization or its founders.

In one of these cases, a legislator wanted to solicit funds for a group the lawmaker volunteered for and sometimes partnered with on “joint community projects.” The general counsel said the lawmaker was free to solicit the funds, but highlighted state laws against using an official position for personal gain or to grant special privilege, saying, “it would be prudent to keep these in mind.” The opinion adds that while “the law grants latitude to members,” because they serve part-time, “what may be a legally tolerated conflict of interest may be viewed as inappropriate or corrupt” by the public.

The counsel was sounding a common theme: the gulf between what is legally permissible but seemingly inappropriate.

“I’m certainly aware of a growing trend nationally of public officials having ties with nonprofits and those nonprofits perhaps, not always, benefiting from the public official’s position of power,” said Carol Carson, executive director of Connecticut’s Office of State Ethics. She said state employees, including executive branch officials, often come to her office to ask whether they can be involved in awarding a grant to a group they are associated with. As long as the grant doesn’t directly benefit them financially, she tells them yes. “That might not pass muster with the court of public opinion,” she said, “but under the Code of Ethics, that would be allowable.”

Trouble in Gotham
“It’s become a routine headline in New York: Politician pinched in charity scandal,” said a September 2012 article by Andrew J. Hawkins in Crain’s New York Business. “The story changes little from case to case: An elected official funds a nonprofit and staffs it with cronies. Sometimes the group works on his campaigns — or does no work at all.”

Assemblyman William Boyland  Jr. accounts for several of these tales just by himself. Boyland Jr. comes from a line of Brooklyn legislators: he gained his post through a special election in 2003 after his father resigned; his uncle held the seat previously. The district is covered with the family name — a street, a school, a housing project and more are all named for the elder Boylands.

Boyland Jr.’s activities first came to light in March 2011, when federal prosecutors charged him with taking bribes, in the guise of consulting fees, from the executive of a nonprofit that operates hospitals in exchange for helping the organization, MediSys, secure millions in state funds. Boyland Jr. had worked for MediSys before taking office, and continued earning a salary after his election without reporting it as required, prosecutors said. The MediSys executive was eventually convicted of offering bribes to Boyland Jr. and two other lawmakers, but a jury acquitted Boyland Jr. in November 2011. One juror told The New York Times, “We could not say that because he got the money, he advocated for MediSys. … We couldn’t do that beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Within a month, however, prosecutors charged Boyland Jr. in another, unrelated bribery case. The allegations include the solicitation in an Atlantic City hotel suite of more than $250,000 in bribes from undercover FBI agents posing as real estate investors. According to the indictment, in exchange for the cash, Boyland Jr. was to help with development deals in his district and secure state financing for the purchase and resale of a hospital building. Prosecutors had just filed the first set of charges against him, so Boyland Jr. needed cash to pay his lawyers, he allegedly told one of the agents.

In May, prosecutors updated the new charges to include allegations that Boyland Jr., from 2007 through 2010, sent public funds to a nonprofit group while directing some of the money to be spent on political events and expenses for the lawmaker, including the printing of T-shirts that said “Team Boyland.” (The family reportedly had handed out these shirts for years.) Boyland Jr. is facing 21 criminal counts and has pleaded not guilty. The trial has yet to start.

Boyland Jr. has ties to another, upstate New York charity, the Altamont Program, which also has operations in Brooklyn. The FBI and state authorities raided the upstate offices in December. The Albany Times Union said agents were looking into Boyland Jr.’s direction of $1.2 million in state grants to Altamont and a related group from 2004 to 2009, using a controversial legislative vehicle called “member items” that put state funds at the discretion of individual lawmakers. Boyland Jr.’s father went to work for the organization as a consultant after he resigned as a legislator in 2003. Boyland Jr.’s sister also reportedly worked for the group.

Boyland Sr. says he worked for the group from 2008 to 2010. He was reportedly fired after the organization discovered that he had used a company credit card for personal expenses. In an interview, the elder Boyland did not deny using the card for the purchases, but said that in consulting work, it’s impossible to distinguish between business and personal expenses.
A spokeswoman for Boyland Jr. referred questions to his lawyer, Nancy Ennis. She did not return phone calls and emails requesting comment.

Many a similar scandal in New York, including Huntley’s and Lopez’s, has been fueled by those “member items” — part of a gentlemen’s agreement between legislative leaders and the governor that for years disbursed hundreds of millions of dollars to groups of lawmakers’ choosing with no oversight or trail of who got what. In 2007, Gov. Eliot Spitzer pushed a bill that required the legislature to disclose each member item. The same year, the Attorney General’s office reached an agreement with the legislature that required recipients to certify the funds were being used appropriately. But even with this level of oversight, watchdogs and some legislators ridiculed the practice as corrupt and wasteful.
“It’s a system which invites abuse,” said Lerner, of Common Cause.

In 2010, Gov. David Paterson vetoed thousands of member items in the budget, citing fiscal austerity, and Gov. Cuomo has continued to veto the requests, effectively ending the practice for now. But there are still funds from multi-year grants that have not yet been spent. And political insiders in New York say new tricks have taken the place of the “member item” abuses.

“There are lots of ways to direct money,” said state Sen. Liz Krueger, who has co-sponsored a bill that would ban legislators from giving member items to groups that employ family members or staff and would apportion them equally to each district. Traditionally, the majority party controlled most of the funds and disbursed them as it pleased.

Machine politics in Illinois
Lawmakers in other states have their own ways to send money to charities, particularly in states with hefty budgets. In Illinois, legislators can direct funds without having to disclose they were the source, much as in New York. In 2009, for example, a paragraph tucked into an appropriations bill included a $98 million grant to the United Neighborhood Organization, a Latino community group that builds and operates charter schools in Chicago.

Over the past several years, the group built close ties to the state’s most powerful politicians, pushing the boundaries of appropriate activity by tax-exempt charities, which are barred by federal law from working on political campaigns. After the organization’s CEO, Juan Rangel, co-chaired Rahm Emanuel’s successful campaign for Chicago mayor, Emanuel jokingly referred to the fact that the charity is not supposed to be directly involved in politics. The organization’s staff and lobbyists include former city officials, and some of them have left to enter politics. Rangel regularly endorses candidates. Contractors hired by UNO (often with public money) have contributed to those candidates. Rangel hosted a fundraiser for state House Speaker Michael Madigan in October, with the organization’s contractors giving more than $24,000 to Madigan, according to a Chicago Sun-Times report.

The close relationships paid off with that 2009 grant of $98 million. But in February, a report by the Sun-Times revealed that UNO had spent millions from the grant on insider contracts with relatives of the organization’s staff and political allies. Within days, Rangel said the organization had launched an internal review and had suspended some of the suspect contracts. He also said, however, that all of the contractors were qualified and that the work had been fulfilled. The organization’s vice president, whose brothers had won a contract, resigned. The state determined that the practices constituted apparent violations of the grant, and in March suspended what remained of the grant. In response, the group hired a full time compliance officer and Rangel stepped down from the board of directors (though he stayed on as CEO). In June, the state restored the flow of funding.

Officials at UNO did not respond to requests for comment.

Steve Brown, a spokesman for Madigan, who sponsored the spending bill that included the grant to UNO, said the speaker is a supporter of the organization, but that the grant had nothing to do with the contributions from the Rangel fundraiser, which he described as modest in relation to Madigan’s overall fundraising.

Rey López-Calderón, executive director of Common Cause Illinois, said some nonprofits have become modern-day political machines in Illinois, citing UNO as the prime example. Groups receive state grants with the help of politicians and in return, he said, their members contribute money and even time to the officials’ campaigns. “That kind of activity is rampant in Illinois.”

Other nonprofits or their employees in Illinois have been questioned about the extent of  their ties to legislative patrons. In 2010, for example, a federal grand jury subpoenaed records related to dozens of state grants for nonprofits linked to at least one lawmaker. Thomas Homer, the state’s legislative inspector general, said there are no requirements that lawmakers disclose their ties to nonprofits unless they receive a salary from the group, and that there are no ethics rules that apply to the situation beyond general laws prohibiting bribery and kickbacks. He said his office refers complaints of schemes involving nonprofit groups to the FBI, and that there are several open cases, though their nature and number remain confidential.

Behested payments
In addition to state grants, lawmakers have found another source of funds they can direct to nonprofits: corporate contributions. It’s become common practice in many states and in Congress for corporate donors and lobbyists to contribute money to specific charities at the request of lawmakers, in what’s often called a behested payment. A few states have formal systems to regulate this, but in many cases it’s an uncharted field.

The payments present a “win-win situation all around,” said Nola Werren, a client specialist at State and Federal Communications, which provides corporate clients with information about state lobbying laws. “The lawmaker gets this benevolent image for his constituents and shows that he cares,” while the corporation gets its name on the donation and the nonprofit gets the money. But the arrangement can also serve as a route around restrictions on gifts to lawmakers or campaign contributions, allowing corporations to curry favor with politicians, frequently without disclosure.

California is one of the few states that does require disclosure, but that hasn’t discouraged the practice, said Phillip Ung, a spokesman for California Common Cause. Last year, 57 lawmakers reported such contributions, totaling $2.3 million.

Ung pointed to state Sen. Roderick Wright, who has directed $166,500 in corporate contributions to the National Family Life and Education Center from 2010 through 2012. In the fiscal year ending in June 2011, the last year records for the organization are available, the payments comprised more than half of the group’s outside income. Wright has co-hosted several events where the group handed out prizes, school supplies and provided health screenings to families in his district.

In an email, Ung praised the fact that the funds are helping the community but added, “there is the ethical question of why are these corporate interests giving at the behest of Mr. Wright and what do these behested payments earn them in political influence.”

Among the contributors are AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Edison International and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Wright is the chairman of the Governmental Organization Committee, which oversees gambling by Indian tribes in the state, and sits on the Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.

Cine Ivery, Wright’s chief of staff, said the nonprofit helps mentor youths in the senator’s district, and that it couldn’t do the work without the corporate donations. The companies get nothing in return, she said. The organization did not return phone calls or emails.

The practice is on the rise across the country, Werren said. Her company has gotten so many requests from clients about the rules covering such payments that it decided to canvass state laws. According to State and Federal Communications, only 14 states require lobbyists to disclose such gifts. California is the only state Werren knows of that requires lawmakers to disclose them, and only New York and Maryland prohibit behested payments.

Changes slow to come
Even as experts say the questionable ties between nonprofits and politicians are on the rise, many states have been slow to enact reforms that might prevent them. One step would be to ban, or restrict, discretionary spending directed by a single lawmaker.

But there are many reasons why even advocates for reform say this could be a bad idea. “Legislators, if they’re good, know what their district needs. They know the good organizations,” said Sturges, the former Massachusetts regulator. “Why should they not be able to direct funds to the best organizations in their districts?”

There’s no doubt that many charities provide critical services in poor communities as a result of grants shepherded by their representatives. Sen. Krueger of New York pointed out that some small community groups do not fit the pre-packaged conditions required by many state grant programs, but are worthy recipients nonetheless. And, both Krueger and Sturges said, there’s no indication that leaving such decisions to governors or other executive branch officials produces markedly better results.

In lieu of prohibitions, many good-government groups are pushing for increased disclosure of all budgetary spending. They say that whatever discretionary funds do exist should have strict requirements tied to them that would dictate what types of projects can be funded and prevent staff, relatives or associates of public officials from being associated with any recipients of the funding.

Kaehny, of Reinvent Albany, has called for more disclosure from the nonprofit world as well. In New York, for example, he said that an independent body should regulate charities, rather than the politically charged Attorney General’s office, and that all the data that is already public from tax forms and other documents should be added into a searchable database.
Lawmakers have introduced bills that would require their colleagues to disclose positions with nonprofit organizations in Arizona and Florida, but neither bill has passed. In response to a series of scandals, Pennsylvania’s House and Senate adopted rules in 2007 and 2013 restricting members’ ability to form and fund nonprofits. But two bills that would have gone further, including one that would have ended “legislative initiative grants,” the state’s own version of member items, failed to pass the legislature. The bill that Sen. Krueger cosponsored in New York to reform member items has also failed to pass.As have repeated efforts to require disclosure of Illinois’ own version of the funding, called “member initiatives.”

Cohen, of Nonprofit Quarterly, said that any changes face an uphill battle because most of those with the ability to enact them, from lawmakers to charities, benefit from the status quo. “There are a lot of players that have a stake in this,” he said, “and want to see it continue.”

NSA leaker reveals identity, says surveillance poses ‘existential threat to democracy’

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

by Gabriela Resto-Montero
A 29-year-old man who said he is behind the leaks exposing NSA surveillance on American citizens revealed his identity Sunday in an interview with The Guardian.

Edward Snowden, a former CIA communications expert and current defense contractor living in Hawaii, said that he released the documents to alert the American public about what is being done in their name.

“I’m willing to sacrifice all of that because I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building,” Snowden said to The Guardian.

Roughly two weeks ago Snowden said that he told his superiors at Booz Allen Hamilton, a firm where he earned $200,000 a year working on a contract with the NSA, that he was seeking treatment for his epilepsy and would need some time off. He then left on a plane bound for Hong Kong where he set up a meeting with Guardian reporters. Snowden first sent documents to reporters three weeks ago and said that he acted alone, the paper reported.

In a statement released Sunday afternoon, Booz Allen Hamilton said that Snowden had worked for the firm for less than three months.

“We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter,” the statement read.

James Clapper, Jr., director of National Intelligence had said Saturday that the Justice Department was already investigating who leaked documents detailing the NSA’s collecting of telephone information from Verizon Wireless customers, and the PRISM program, which allows the government to tap into the servers of major internet companies in the U.S. and UK.

Snowden, who served some time in the Army, said that he first thought about exposing government secrets while serving with the CIA in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2007 but hoped that the Obama presidency would rein in the intelligence gathering behavior. Instead, Snowden said he witnessed the president advance the same programs that he objected to, which “hardened” him to reveal the information.

President Obama defended government surveillance Friday, insisting that, “Nobody is looking at your telephone calls.”

“What the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names and they’re not looking at content,” Obama said.

Snowden said in an interview with the Washington Post that a lack of accountability in the Bush Administration led to the current abuses.

“It set an example that when powerful figures are suspected of wrongdoing, releasing them from the accountability of law if ‘for our own good,’” he said to the paper. “That’s corrosive to the basic fairness of society.”

In a note sent along with the first package of documents to Guardian reporters, Snowden wrote that he accepted that his life would change as a result of his decision.

“I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions,” Snowden wrote. “I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant.”

Snowden told The Guardian that he hoped to seek asylum in Iceland—which has strong Internet freedom laws—but that he understood that may never happen.