NRA infiltrating gun control groups

[Ender]

link

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A gun-control activist who championed the cause for more than a decade and served on the boards of two anti-violence groups is suspected of working as a paid spy for the National Rifle Association, and now those organizations are expelling her and sweeping their offices for bugs.

The suggestion that Mary Lou McFate was a double agent is contained in a deposition filed as part of a contract dispute involving a security firm. The muckraking magazine Mother Jones, in a story last week, was the first to report on McFate's alleged dual identity.

The NRA refused to comment to the magazine and did not respond to calls Tuesday from The Associated Press. Nor did McFate.

The 62-year-old former flight attendant and sex counselor from Sarasota, Fla., is not new to the world of informants.

She infiltrated an animal-rights group in the late 1980s at the request of U.S. Surgical, and befriended an activist who was later convicted in a pipe bomb attack against the medical-supply business, U.S. Surgical acknowledged in news reports at the time. U.S. Surgical had come under fire for using dogs for research and training.

McFate resurfaced in Pennsylvania and has since spent years as an unpaid board member of CeaseFirePA and an organization called States United to Prevent Gun Violence. She also twice pushed unsuccessfully to join the board of the nation's largest gun-control group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"It raises some real concerns with the tactics of the NRA. If they've got one person, maybe they have more. If they've done this dirty trick, what else have they done?" said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, which planned to search its offices for listening devices and computer spyware.

The Brady Campaign and other groups said they are also researching whether McFate's alleged spying constituted a crime.

"Under some circumstances, it could be trespass," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former prosecutor. But "if they're open meetings, it may be underhanded and sneaky; it may not be illegal."

At States United, McFate served as federal legislation director, meeting with members of Congress on Capitol Hill and writing letters. Over the years, she also stuffed envelopes, attended rallies and took part in conference calls and strategy sessions.

In retrospect, Helmke said, he now realizes McFate stopped by the Washington office for meetings and conference calls that could have been handled by phone, and perhaps pushed too hard to join the board or lobby Congress.

But as for any secrets she might have been privy to, the gun-control groups said they have little to hide, since they put their message and information about their budgets on the Web.

The allegations against McFate stem from a lawsuit brought against officials with Beckett Brown International, a now-defunct security firm based in Maryland. A former beer distributor who bankrolled the firm accused them of defrauding him.

Boxes of documents filed in the dispute reveal that McFate worked as a subcontractor for Beckett Brown and that the firm's clients included the NRA. And they show that McFate billed the firm for unspecified intelligence-gathering services, submitting among other things a request for a $4,500-a-month retainer in 1999.

The documents also reveal that McFate - that is her maiden name; her married name is Mary Lou Sapone - tried to get daughter-in-law Montgomery Sapone hired by Beckett Brown. Montgomery Sapone worked as an intern at Brady Campaign headquarters in 2003, the gun-control group said.

John Dodd III, the Maryland beer distributor who bankrolled Beckett Brown, told the AP that he did not condone the infiltration of activist groups.

Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, said he feels betrayed by McFate. Miller's brother, an FBI agent, was shot to death in 1994.

"To have somebody that I consider a friend, have been with dozens of times, shared meals with, treated as a friend, to have her be an employee, a subcontracted spy for the NRA, is just mind-boggling. It's so venal," Miller said. "In the battle of ideas with the gun lobby, we're at a constant disadvantage because we're honest."

Timothy Ward, a former Beckett Brown principal who said in a sworn statement that McFate worked for the firm, declined comment Tuesday through a person who answered the phone at his new company, Chesapeake Strategies Group. The NRA now uses that firm for intelligence-gathering, another Chesapeake official said in a deposition.

The CeaseFirePA leadership plans a vote Friday on whether to expel McFate, a board member for seven years.

"I feel flattered that the NRA would feel that they would have to infiltrate Ceasefire of PA. Obviously, they're hearing our footsteps," said Phil Goldsmith, the group's president. "Frankly, I think it's a waste of their money. We don't deal in state secrets."

Wow. This is the same kind of stunt as Nixon and Rove will pull in politics and the steeplejackers do in religion. The fringe is getting stronger.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

While it is devious I won't deny I'm moderately intrigued. I never thought that mercenaries would come back en vogue but they did. Reading this makes me think of private corps establishing private intelligence agencies similar in structure to the CIA but serving no one but the company and who runs it (ie clients). It makes the whole idea of something like SD6 a little more plausible, though not necessarily on the same scale.

[gtg947h]

Well, to be completely fair... I'm sure it's happening just as much the other way, too. Witness the (Brady?) guy holding a business (01) FFL in DC, in his house, and yet not actually conducting business--the very thing the ATF was cracking down on.

Heck, it's probably happening everywhere. It just doesn't make news.

[Coyote]

Of course these groups are infiltrating one another-- that's part of the give-and-take. For some it'll be easier (in this case, a gun owner simply saying "no, I don't have guns" and pretending to be a gun control advocate to get their information at meetings (like when a rally is scheduled so a counter-rally can be whipped up in protest).

It'd be harder, in some cases, to go the other way-- getting away from the gun control/NRA example (so it doesn't devolve into a gun rights thread; this is about the infiltration) --it would be hard for, say, a dedicated vegan PETA member to infiltrate, say, the American Cattlemen's Association and hang out with the "good ol' boys" and chow down on steaks and burgers with them when lunch is served...

[Solauren]

I honestly don't see the problem.

Why can't you be NRA and be in favor of some form of Gun Regulation?

i.e "People should have the right to guns, but some people need to be monitored. Like driving a car'.

[SirNitram]

While it is devious I won't deny I'm moderately intrigued. I never thought that mercenaries would come back en vogue but they did. Reading this makes me think of private corps establishing private intelligence agencies similar in structure to the CIA but serving no one but the company and who runs it (ie clients). It makes the whole idea of something like SD6 a little more plausible, though not necessarily on the same scale.

Total Intelligence Solutions, a private firm that exists to outsource this.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Her name is Mary Lou McFate? How do you get a name like that and not have some sort of superpower?!

[General Zod]

I honestly don't see the problem.

Why can't you be NRA and be in favor of some form of Gun Regulation?

It's called a conflict of interest. If someone is working inside an organization that opposes the NRA, and they're a member of the NRA as well, they're treading very thin ice if they wind up doing things to unfairly help the NRA by providing them with information they wouldn't be able to get legitimately otherwise. At best it's an underhanded tactic, at worst it's corporate espionage.

[Death from the Sea]

I honestly don't see the problem.

Why can't you be NRA and be in favor of some form of Gun Regulation?

It's called a conflict of interest. If someone is working inside an organization that opposes the NRA, and they're a member of the NRA as well, they're treading very thin ice if they wind up doing things to unfairly help the NRA by providing them with information they wouldn't be able to get legitimately otherwise. At best it's an underhanded tactic, at worst it's corporate espionage.

so could lobby groups be considered corporations? I know that corporation can lobby, so the opposite is true.

[General Zod]

so could lobby groups be considered corporations? I know that corporation can lobby, so the opposite is true.

I have no idea, but the act is effectively the same. Abusing a position of trust to distribute confidential information to competing organizations.

[Death from the Sea]

so could lobby groups be considered corporations? I know that corporation can lobby, so the opposite is true.

I have no idea, but the act is effectively the same. Abusing a position of trust to distribute confidential information to competing organizations.

true. I just wonder what kind of "secrets" a pro-gun control lobby could have...

[General Zod]

so could lobby groups be considered corporations? I know that corporation can lobby, so the opposite is true.

I have no idea, but the act is effectively the same. Abusing a position of trust to distribute confidential information to competing organizations.

true. I just wonder what kind of "secrets" a pro-gun control lobby could have...

The only thing I could think of is learning their itinerary for meetings not available to the public so they can stage protests and the like. Otherwise, eh. Fuck the NRA in this.

[Coyote]

I honestly don't see the problem.

Why can't you be NRA and be in favor of some form of Gun Regulation?

i.e "People should have the right to guns, but some people need to be monitored. Like driving a car'.

I think it would be one thing if that were their true intent, but in this case the intent is infiltration for the purpise of, essentially, spying-- not due to motivated self-interest.

In some cases there might be pro-gun folks who feel that some control is a good idea; in that case each time a planning session for a protest came up (one way or another) the person would have to decide if they are for or against and then politely excuse themselves from those particular activities... but then this means that everyone is basically honest.

But again, I don't think this is so much a "pro/anti NRA" issue, so much as it is an issue on th eethics of joining organizations for the purpose of spying on them. The only way around this would be some sort of Machiavellian maneuver where everyone who wanted to join a club or organization would go through a vetting process-- answering questionnaires, signing a pledge, and being charged with breach-of-contract type accusations if it turns out they were less than honest. Net result would be, membership in clubs and PACs and other organizations would plummet due to both hassle and privacy concerns.

[General Zod]

I think it would be one thing if that were their true intent, but in this case the intent is infiltration for the purpise of, essentially, spying-- not due to motivated self-interest.

I don't really think intent matters in this case, since the conflict of interest is rather high.

But again, I don't think this is so much a "pro/anti NRA" issue, so much as it is an issue on th eethics of joining organizations for the purpose of spying on them. The only way around this would be some sort of Machiavellian maneuver where everyone who wanted to join a club or organization would go through a vetting process-- answering questionnaires, signing a pledge, and being charged with breach-of-contract type accusations if it turns out they were less than honest. Net result would be, membership in clubs and PACs and other organizations would plummet due to both hassle and privacy concerns.

I'm not sure how it's machiavellian to ensure there's no ethical conflicts of interest for employees/members in potentially sensitive positions. All they'd really need is a clause in their contract about not being a member to groups whose interests run counter to their own.

[Coyote]

I'm not sure how it's machiavellian to ensure there's no ethical conflicts of interest for employees/members in potentially sensitive positions. All they'd really need is a clause in their contract about not being a member to groups whose interests run counter to their own.

For people trying to get into the leadership positions of these organizations, I don't think it would be out of line to ask about othe rmemberships, or at least request that they cancel memberships in competing organizations. But for the ordinary rank-and-file, it would be difficult. Your organization would be telling people who thay could and could not associate with freely, and of course there's certain to be some folks who will take issue with that.

And, of course, there'd be no way to truly verify without going Machiavellian on folks-- background checks, for example, hiring private detectives or interviews, polygraphs for the really paranoid.

And some people honestly don't see any reason for certain groups to be mutually exclusive. There are folks out there who are members of both NRA and the ACLU, for example, and there's the example of a person who owns guns but believes a certain measure of control is a good idea. And some people switch sides-- former meat-eaters who worked at meat-packing plants who decide to go vegan would be denied membership in PETA because of their past association with Oscar Mayer, for example.

In other words, it becomes a real mess, and the more complex it gets the fewer people will actually bother to join groups. And that means the groups will be cutting off their number of donors-- so there won't be too much move to restrict memberships in general... although more scrutiny will be given, as you mentioned, to folks seeking to join the upper echelons of a movement.

[General Zod]

For people trying to get into the leadership positions of these organizations, I don't think it would be out of line to ask about othe rmemberships, or at least request that they cancel memberships in competing organizations. But for the ordinary rank-and-file, it would be difficult. Your organization would be telling people who thay could and could not associate with freely, and of course there's certain to be some folks who will take issue with that.

Who the fuck is advocating background checks for the rank and file? Oh wait, nobody.

And, of course, there'd be no way to truly verify without going Machiavellian on folks-- background checks, for example, hiring private detectives or interviews, polygraphs for the really paranoid.

So what? If it turns out down the road that they're lying you simply enforce very stiff penalties for doing so.

And some people honestly don't see any reason for certain groups to be mutually exclusive. There are folks out there who are members of both NRA and the ACLU, for example, and there's the example of a person who owns guns but believes a certain measure of control is a good idea. And some people switch sides-- former meat-eaters who worked at meat-packing plants who decide to go vegan would be denied membership in PETA because of their past association with Oscar Mayer, for example.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the point that people working in sensitive positions should avoid conflicts of interests.

In other words, it becomes a real mess, and the more complex it gets the fewer people will actually bother to join groups. And that means the groups will be cutting off their number of donors-- so there won't be too much move to restrict memberships in general... although more scrutiny will be given, as you mentioned, to folks seeking to join the upper echelons of a movement.

Since I never mentioned anything about the rank and file members, which generally aren't in positions to attain sensitive information anyway, why bring it up at all when it had nothing to do with my point?

[Coyote]

I mentioned the rank-and-file as different from the upper echelons because you asked about who would be subject to possibly "Machiavellian" background checks. Since I was agreeing with you that such would probably be done for the leadership, I was using the fact that the regular members would not be faced with that as a juxtaposition. Sorry if it wasn't clear... so it's okay, calm down...

[Kanastrous]

I honestly don't see the problem.

Why can't you be NRA and be in favor of some form of Gun Regulation?

i.e "People should have the right to guns, but some people need to be monitored. Like driving a car'.

I left the NRA because I think they're too resistant to certain reasonable forms of gun control.

[General Zod]

I mentioned the rank-and-file as different from the upper echelons because you asked about who would be subject to possibly "Machiavellian" background checks.

I recall saying no such thing. Clearly you aren't reading.

I'm not sure how it's machiavellian to ensure there's no ethical conflicts of interest for employees/members in potentially sensitive positions.

In which case, I'm not asking who would be subjected to them. I'm explicitly saying only members in sensitive positions should be subjected to them, because I'm not seeing how just subjecting people in sensitive positions to checks is machiavellian.

[Coyote]

In which case, I'm not asking who would be subjected to them. I'm explicitly saying only members in sensitive positions should be subjected to them, because I'm not seeing how just subjecting people in sensitive positions to checks is machiavellian.

My pov would be that the checks themselves would be Machiavellian in nature, not that doing some checks at all would be. Bear in mind, this is entirely subjective observation on my part; a check I may think is "Machiavellian" may seem perfectly reasonable to someone else.

My basis for comparison is the type of stuff done for US military Top Secret type clearances for people going into sensitive positions. In the case of my cousin Julia, who went into the US Army's defense language institute and learned Mandarin, she was subjected to a battery of tests and interviews, and even had friends and associates as far back as her High School teachers interviewed about her extracurricular activities and attitudes at school.

For something like the US intelligence services, it satisifed the questions for sure, but from my POV it's pretty Machiavellian, even if justified.

For a private club/organization/PAC to do stuff like that, or polygraphs, etc, would seem excessive. Now, I'm not saying you advocated this at any time, I'm purposefully going to the extreme since, if the goal is to ensure loyalty to a particular cause, extremes will have to be gone to for "maximum assurance". Doubtful anyone would truly go that far, but that would be (in my opinion) the starting point from which a group would have to back down from until they reached their happy place where they are reasonably satisfied with loyalty while still keeping things inviting enough that people aren't scare away from running for leadership positions in their organization.

[General Zod]

My pov would be that the checks themselves would be Machiavellian in nature, not that doing some checks at all would be. Bear in mind, this is entirely subjective observation on my part; a check I may think is "Machiavellian" may seem perfectly reasonable to someone else.

Bullshit. Thousands of companies require background checks in order to get hired. Are they all machiavellian too? If not then why does including the qualifier of belonging to conflicting organizations make it so?

My basis for comparison is the type of stuff done for US military Top Secret type clearances for people going into sensitive positions. In the case of my cousin Julia, who went into the US Army's defense language institute and learned Mandarin, she was subjected to a battery of tests and interviews, and even had friends and associates as far back as her High School teachers interviewed about her extracurricular activities and attitudes at school.

You don't honestly think all background checks are anywhere near this thorough do you?

For a private club/organization/PAC to do stuff like that, or polygraphs, etc, would seem excessive. Now, I'm not saying you advocated this at any time, I'm purposefully going to the extreme since, if the goal is to ensure loyalty to a particular cause, extremes will have to be gone to for "maximum assurance". Doubtful anyone would truly go that far, but that would be (in my opinion) the starting point from which a group would have to back down from until they reached their happy place where they are reasonably satisfied with loyalty while still keeping things inviting enough that people aren't scare away from running for leadership positions in their organization.

Who the fuck said anything about loyalty? We're talking about mitigating conflicts of interest here. "Loyalty" has nothing to do with that.

[Coyote]

My pov would be that the checks themselves would be Machiavellian in nature, not that doing some checks at all would be. Bear in mind, this is entirely subjective observation on my part; a check I may think is "Machiavellian" may seem perfectly reasonable to someone else.

Bullshit. Thousands of companies require background checks in order to get hired. Are they all machiavellian too? If not then why does including the qualifier of belonging to conflicting organizations make it so?

There is a difference. The company is going to pay you to do a job on their behalf; they probably also have propietary information that you may be handling that they don't want given out. If you're going to accept their pay, you have to concede to their rules. A voluntary organization, where if anything you are giving them money and time, is in less of a position to demand this.

You don't honestly think all background checks are anywhere near this thorough do you?

Of course not. That's why I said I went to the extreme-- the goal is to make sure the people joining the club and becoming leaders are in fact loyal to the cause of the organization (ie, not subverting the organization's goals/mission). The goal is adherence/loyalty. Jump to something that will (as best as society can) ensure loyalty. Then, back down from there until you reach a point where you're club is happy with the results of the background check while not stifling membership.

Who the fuck said anything about loyalty? We're talking about mitigating conflicts of interest here. "Loyalty" has nothing to do with that.

Which would imply a 'loyalty' to a particular cause or goal of a PAC. "Adherence to the stated goals of the organization/movement" is a more accurate term, but a bull to write out over and over.

[General Zod]

There is a difference. The company is going to pay you to do a job on their behalf; they probably also have propietary information that you may be handling that they don't want given out. If you're going to accept their pay, you have to concede to their rules. A voluntary organization, where if anything you are giving them money and time, is in less of a position to demand this.

Not if you're trying to gain access to a position which involves handling sensitive information.

Which would imply a 'loyalty' to a particular cause or goal of a PAC. "Adherence to the stated goals of the organization/movement" is a more accurate term, but a bull to write out over and over.

If that's the definition you're using then why is there any fuss over COI at all? That certainly doesn't seem to be what you were implying.