The Center for Public Integrity

Reading the mountain of news stories about him this year, you’d have every reason to think that Howard Rich’s pockets — at least when it comes to his favorite political causes — are plenty deep.

A Chicago-based tax-exempt organization that has been bankrolling takings initiatives in more than a half-dozen Western states — including all five with measures on the ballot this November 7 — continued to dispense millions of dollars even after its authority to do business had been revoked by Illinois authorities.

Self-described “cowboy singer” Michael Martin Murphey has lent his music and endorsement to Washington’s Property Fairness Coalition and Initiative 933. In a pair of radio spots, the Grammy Award-winning musician sings the praises of I-933 over an instrumental section of his popular song “Wildfire.”

The coalition’s Web site mentions that the ads await “Paid for by” taglines.

“Yes on 933” Radio Ad 5: “Michael Martin Murphey 30-Second Spot”

Hi, this is Michael Martin Murphey. From my first album, Geronimo’s Cadillac, to Wildfire, to my new album,Heartland Cowboy, I’ve been singing about the wide-open spaces of the great American landscape. And I’ve come to realize that ranchers and farmers are wonderful protectors of land and resources. But today, they face the taking of their land by unjust means, as all Americans do. If government damages the use and value of your land, government should be made to pay. It’s an idea that’s spreading like wildfire. Vote “yes” on 933.

“Yes on 933” Radio Ad 6: “Michael Martin Murphey 60-Second Spot”

Hi, this is Michael Martin Murphey. From my first album, Geronimo’s Cadillac, to Wildfire, to my new album Heartland Cowboy, I’ve been singing about the wide-open spaces of the great American landscape. As I’ve traveled all over America the beautiful, I’ve come to realize that farmers and ranchers are wonderful protectors of land and resources. But today, they face the taking of their land by unjust means. When I first got involved in this issue, it was about rural people. But today, all Americans — urban and rural — face the threat of unjust taking of their land. If government damages the use or value of your land, government should be held accountable and made to pay. It’s an idea that’s spreading like wildfire. Vote “yes” on 933, or you may be next.

Neighbors Protecting Idaho, the chief opponent of Proposition 2, has released its first television spot.

The ad features George Iliff, the chairman of the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce, and Bert De Winkle, a dairy farmer in Melba, Idaho.

“No on 2” Television Ad 1

Iliff: While I support property rights, I don’t support Proposition 2. It could cost taxpayers millions in payoffs, lawyers’ fees, and cut vital services; and it’s being funded by a wealthy New Yorker.

De Winkle: Here’s what I know about Proposition 2. It could turn any Idaho property, including farmland, into junkyards, power plants, or high-rises. That’s why every farmer I know is voting “no.”

Iliff: It’s not for us and it’s not for Idaho. Vote “no” on 2.

Days after unveiling its first television spots, the Arizona HomeOwners Protection Effort (HOPE), the chief proponent of Proposition 207, has added three radio ads to the mix.

The ads focus exclusively on the eminent-domain provisions of Proposition 207. All three end with this spoken announcement: “Major funding by Americans for Limited Government, an out-of-state contributor, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce.”

Americans for Limited Government is based in Chicago and has no office in Arizona. It is chaired by Howard Rich, a wealthy political activist who lives in New York City.

According to its most recent filings with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office, Arizona HOPE took in more than $1.15 million — 86 percent of its funds raised through October 18 — from Americans for Limited Government and the Fund for Democracy, which Rich also heads. (In filings in other states, Rich has identified the Fund for Democracy, which shares his address in New York City, as “a revocable trust [that is] dedicated to assisting citizens assert their constitutional rights.”) It got $150,000 from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Proposition 207’s chief proponent, the Arizona HomeOwners Protection Effort (HOPE), has launched a television advertising campaign with two spots that acknowledge that they are bankrolled by out-of-state donors.

Both ads use the tagline “Vote ‘yes’ on 207 … Keep what you own.” And both end with this the small-print disclaimer: “Paid for by the AZ Home Owners Protection Effort (AZ-HOPE). Petitioned to the ballot by 225,000 Arizona citizens. Major funding by the Fund for Democracy and Americans for Limited Government, out of state contributors.”

The Fund for Democracy and Americans for Limited Government are both headed by Howard Rich, a wealthy political activist who lives in New York City. According to filings through October 2, the two entities had given a total of $1,151,500 to Arizona HOPE, accounting for more than 99 percent of its contributions.

In filings in other states, Rich has identified the Fund for Democracy, which shares his New York address, as “a revocable trust [that is] dedicated to assisting citizens assert their constitutional rights.” Americans for Limited Government, which Rich chairs, is in Chicago.

“Yes on 207” Television Ad 1 

A narrator’s voice is heard over music; images of a family of four are shown.

The courts have ruled bureaucrats can condemn your home and give it to a private developer without your permission. Prop 207 changes state law to protect Arizona homeowners. Vote “yes” on 207 . . . Keep what you own.

“Yes on 207” Television Ad 2 

A narrator’s voice is heard over music; images of a woman, an older man, and an African American man are shown.

The chief proponent of California’s Proposition 90, the Protect Our Homes Coalition, has released, via its Web site, the organization’s first made-for-television spot. In the 30-second ad, Verla and Leo Lambert of Garden Grove, California, urge voters to approve the proposed constitutional amendment, which would require the government to pay property owners for regulations that reduce the value of their holdings. The measure also would restrict the government’s use of eminent domain.

The Protect Our Homes Coalition did not respond to the Center for Public Integrity’s inquiries about the spot, which to date does not seem to have aired on TV.

“Yes on 90” Television Ad 1: “Victims”
The ad features Verla and Leo Lambert of Garden Grove, California.

Verla: After 50 years in our home, the government tried to take it away from us.

Leo: They call it eminent domain.

Verla: Imagine, our government taking our home and giving it to a developer.

Leo: To build a theme park.

Verla: We love it here. We didn’t want to move.

Leo: It happened to us. It could happen to anyone.

Verla: We need to protect our home, so please vote “yes” on Proposition 90.

Seattle-based Citizens for Community Protection, which last month produced the year’s first television ad in opposition to a takings initiative, has released a second “No on 933” spot.

Its ad, which focuses on the potential costs of the initiative and cites the opposition of the Washington State Council of Firefighters and League of Women Voters, uses the tagline “933 goes too far and costs too much.”

“No on 933” Television Ad 2

What will Initiative 993 cost taxpayers? Independent studies show 933’s payoffs for special interests, red tape, and lawyers’ fees will cost taxpayers $8 billion – more than $1,300 per Washington resident. And 933’s budget-busting costs could force cuts in vital services. That’s why firefighters and the League of Women Voters are opposed to 933. [Initiative] 933 goes too far and costs too much. Vote “no” on 933. Paid for by Citizens for Community Protection.

Opponents of California’s Proposition 90 have launched two television ads. The “No on 90” group, which also calls itself “Californians Against the Taxpayer Trap,” says that it will run the 15- and 30-second ads against the takings initiative between now and the November 7 election.

“No on 90” Television Ad 1: “Many Groups, Many Reasons”

A voice narrates over text and slide-like images of Californians.

Why do over two hundred leading groups oppose Prop 90? The League of Women Voters . . . because 90 is deceptive. Small business owners . . . because 90 would damage our economy. The National Wildlife Federation . . . because 90 would jeopardize our environment. The League of [California] Homeowners . . . because 90 would take away protections from homeowners. The California Taxpayers’ Association . . . because 90 is too expensive for taxpayers. Many groups, many reasons, same conclusion: Vote NO on 90.

“No on 90” Television Ad 2: “Scale”

A voice narrates over the image of a scale as the names of organizations opposed to Proposition 90 are added one by one to the “no” side, gradually tipping the scale.

Proposition 90. It’s supported by a few developers and land speculators. But it’s opposed by police, firefighters, environmentalists, business, labor, and taxpayers — more than 200 groups throughout California. Join them and vote NO on 90. It’s a taxpayer trap.

A cartoon knockoff of HBO’s hit series “The Sopranos,” which had been used as ammunition in the advertising arsenals of groups pushing property-rights initiatives in four Western states, has been pulled following inquiries by the Center for Public Integrity.

The Web-based political ads — with virtually identical animated sequences and soundtracks but customized for each state — all urged viewers to “vote yes” on ballot measures that would radically reshape zoning, land-use, and environmental practices.

An HBO spokeswoman told the Center on October 4 that the network’s legal team was investigating, but it is unclear whether HBO took any action.

Two lawyers who specialize in intellectual property and entertainment law told the Center that both the creator of the “Sopranos” spots and the organizations that used them might be liable for copyright or trademark infringement.

Each political ad opened, as does the HBO show, with Tony Soprano driving through what appears to be northern New Jersey, passing oil storage tanks and the Statue of Liberty. In the ads, though, it wasn’t Jersey; depending on the Web site, it was Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, or Washington.

The ads, identically titled “Gangster Politicians: The Eminent Domain,” showed Tony and his mafia cohorts — with the help of government officials — taking over an ice cream parlor, a single-family house, and a church, all in the name of “Bada Bing Development.”

The Center asked HBO and several lawyers to examine the ads, which were created by Political Media, Inc., a political consulting firm in Washington, D.C.

“This is a matter for HBO’s legal team,” Tobe Becker of HBO told the Center in an e-mail message. “They are aware of these ads. I’m afraid we have no additional information to share with you at this time, other than to say we are looking into the matter.”