In light of recent discussions I thought it would be nice just to post some information about the CCF. I know a lot of this is public knowledge but I figured I’d post it any way.

The founder of CCF is Rick Berman
Who is Rick Berman? And what does he and his affiliates do?
http://www.bermanco.com/
Welcome to Berman and Company
Berman and Company is a dynamic research and communications firm. We blend aggressive, creative thinking and tactics with functional expertise to achieve extraordinary results for our clients.

Berman and Company has a clear mission: “Change the debate.” Many PR firms promise access to the media. Law firms pledge to defend their clients. Lobbying firms promise access to friendly legislators. At Berman and Company we do all this. But we go further. We change the debate. If necessary, we start the debate.

We see each new issue as a fresh challenge. We never resort to canned, off-the-shelf solutions. We consistently create new approaches to policy debates. Our success is based on three core competencies: credible research as the foundation for effective messages disseminated via aggressive communications.


In a 1999 interview with the Chain Leader, a trade publication for restaurant chains, Berman boasted that he attacks activists more aggressively than other lobbyists. "We always have a knife in our teeth," he said. Since activists "drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine," his strategy is "to shoot the messenger. ... We've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons."
In November 2001, the Guest Choice Network launched a separate web site, ActivistCash.com, which purports to expose the "hidden funding" of various activist groups that support animal rights, food safety and smoking prevention.
In January 2002 the Guest Choice Network renamed itself the Center for Consumer Freedom.
On November 16, 2004, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that CCF has violated its tax exempt status. The complaint alleges that CCF engaged in prohibited electioneering, made substantial payments to the founder of the organization, Richard Berman, and to Berman's wholly owned for profit entity Berman & Co., and engaged in activities with no charitable purpose. The full text of CREW's complaint is available online. [1] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Guest_Choice_Network#Starting_Off_ Smoking


“Berman is a Washington DC tobacco, food and alcohol lobbyist who also runs non-profit organizations with names like "Guest Choice" (started with a $600,000 check from Phillip Morris and recently renamed "The Center for Consumer Freedom"), the "Employment Policies Institute" (EPI - which fights against raising the minimum wage), and the "American Beverage Institute" (ABI - which represents booze sellers and rips at organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

Berman was recently exposed for funneling millions of corporate dollars - donated to non-profit organizations he runs - right into his own bank accounts. Berman pays himself the cash both directly and personally in the form of salary and benefits for his role as "Executive Director," as well as through payments he makes from the non-profits to his own corporation, Berman & Company, Inc., for "consulting."

According to publicly available tax returns, in 1998 alone Berman paid himself $1.011 million in salary and for "consulting services" out of the approximately $1.272 million total of tax-free donations raised for EPI that year. Another way to look at it: Berman paid to himself about 79% of all the charitable donations raised that year by EPI. And that million-plus bucks was from just one of the non-profits Berman operates.”

http://ngin.tripod.com/190502b.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/anti_organic_consumer_group.cfm
http://www.consumerdeception.com/
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003/Soda-Industry-Experts10aug03.htm

Berman says to PM, "...if you want to gain more ground quickly for the smokers' rights issue, the [Guest Choice] program must create a proactive, aggressive mentality by [restaurant] operators regarding government smoking bans..."
http://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247092.html

:book:

perhaps you should read the title of this thread again wolfgar. It is not about peta and please don't bring your peta arguments to this thread.

This is from an old thread started by verbivore that i thought fit nicely.

Bogus 'Consumer' Group Stripped Of Domain Names

Restaurant and Bar Lobby Behind "Orwellian" PR Campaign

A trade association representing chain restaurants and taverns has surrendered the domain names of two sites designed to hijack web traffic away from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the pro-nutrition advocacy group. The trade association, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), had registered cspinot.com, where it attacked CSPI and it's web site, cspinet.org. CCF had also purchased smartmouth.org, a domain name almost identical to that of Smart-Mouth.org, where CSPI provides information for children about nutrition and food marketing.
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200302201.html

Missed the mark buddy. I would watch the other groups you have only seen a glimpse of as of yet.
I don't know what you are talking about...as usual lol. As long as it's about the CCF or more importantly "not peta" than it's all good for this thread.

I don't know what you are talking about...as usual lol.Heh. :)

That isn't Star Trek's Rick Berman right :afraid:

That isn't Star Trek's Rick Berman right :afraid:
Beam me up, Scotty!

That isn't Star Trek's Rick Berman right :afraid:
lol no...not the same guy

It's amazing how the only defense Wolfgar has for these allegations is to attack PETA (again). It sure tells us what his mission really is. :juggle:

My opinion on the CCF is that I don't like them. They're another f**king lobby group, and we can do without them. OK, groups like the CSPI are full of crap, but we don't need to be patronised by an organisation such as the CCF into believing that.

It's amazing how the only defense Wolfgar has for these allegations is to attack PETA (again). It sure tells us what his mission really is. :juggle:
i'm confused about this mission

eta: as well the nerd pick up line lol...i don't understand why i can't see sigs

i'm confused about this mission

eta: as well the nerd pick up line lol...i don't understand why i can't see sigs

I can't help you with the mission part, but I'll type my sig in so you can see it. I'm not sure what's wrong with your settings that isn't allowing you to see them. :wall:

Nerd pickup line:

Excuse me, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?

eta: as well the nerd pick up line lol...i don't understand why i can't see sigs

In your "User CP", go into "Edit Options" and check that the box called "Show Signatures" is ticked.

Nerd pickup line:

Excuse me, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
lol that's funny. maybe i can't see sigs because i'm using mozilla. I've been having problems with IE lately.

In your "User CP", go into "Edit Options" and check that the box called "Show Signatures" is ticked.
Thanks Diana, yea the box is checked...who knows, no big deal.

I don't know what you are talking about...as usual lol. As long as it's about the CCF or more importantly "not peta" than it's all good for this thread.

Look at the thread more closely. He or she is basically saying that groups such as CCF are busy infiltrating animal rights groups. By identifying with said "double agents" as "we", Wolf appears to be admitting that he/she is either an infiltrator or sympathetic to them.
PETA has sent undercover employees to work at places such as slaughterhouses and to gather information on animal abuse going on in various businesses. He/she is pointing out that the business interests (such as CCF) are protecting their industries by sending in undercover workers under false pretenses to hurt the animal rights organizations. Wolf also seems to be saying that recent bad public relations moves by some AR groups are thanks to CCF infiltrators.
It's dancing around the issue in a purposefully coy and vague way, but if you read between the lines, you can get the gist of the post and consider it accordingly. We had several animal-industry PR people in an old forum I used to visit who would pull much of the same; trying to spur infighting between AR people and drive curious or interested "mainstream" people away.

Look at the thread more closely. He or she is basically saying that groups such as CCF are busy infiltrating animal rights groups. By identifying with said "double agents" as "we", Wolf appears to be admitting that he/she is either an infiltrator or sympathetic to them.
PETA has sent undercover employees to work at places such as slaughterhouses and to gather information on animal abuse going on in various businesses. He/she is pointing out that the business interests (such as CCF) are protecting their industries by sending in undercover workers under false pretenses to hurt the animal rights organizations. Wolf also seems to be saying that recent bad public relations moves by some AR groups are thanks to CCF infiltrators.
Or simple, reactionary and opportunistic rainmaking.
It's dancing around the issue in a purposefully coy and vague way, but if you read between the lines, you can get the gist of the post and consider it accordingly. We had several animal-industry PR people in an old forum I used to visit who would pull much of the same; trying to spur infighting between AR people and drive curious or interested "mainstream" people away.
Yup, they're called trolls, operating so far down the COINTEL ladder as to be nothing more than laughable. Just like this one.

I found another article that looks interesting. How great is the source? I don't know yet but I will look into it.
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a lobbyist think-tank for corporate America and FOX News. These conservatives want to increase consumer spending and boost profits for FOX News advertisers. This septic, think-tank airs commercials on Fox News Channel and has three Web sites (the Center, CSPI Scam and Activist Cash.

By distorting the truth, they bash Earth First!, the Center for Science, Greenpeace, Adbusters, PETA, Bill Maher, Center for Food Safety, United Poultry Concerns, Farm Sanctuary, Ben & Jerrys, Martin Sheen, and many more organizations, foundations, and supporters.

The Center for Consumer Freedom even calls some of these groups, such as PETA; 'terrorists'. They manipulate readers and present invalid arguments tying them to the radical group, American Earth Liberation Front.

The Center for Consumer Freedom's Web sites clearly illustrate their ties to FOX, who aim to protect corporations and spending.

They also cover a lot of space on Google, so when activist groups and organizations are entered in a search; these Web sites overwhelmingly pop up first.

CSPIscam.com opposes the Center for Science in the Public Interest. They are also against anti-obesity measures, the mad cow precautions, food-labeling. They also denounce the 'Soda-Banning Hype,' saying that these wacky issues are only meant to scare the American public.

These biased Web sites want its readers to disregard science and health precautions, and to live in fear of the dreaded PETA 'terrorist.'

Distorting the truth isn't justified by an increase in commercialism, advertising, and consumer spending.

Drop them an e-mail or write them a letter telling them how you resist their manipulative and evil propaganda.
http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle1931.html

This is another good article on Berman and his organizations.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/ddam.html

It's from the people who wrote Toxic Sludge is Good for You, which is really good from what I've read so far. Interesting thing from the book was that Edward Bernays, one of the pioneers of the PR industry in America, had written a book titled "Crystallizing Public Opinion and Propaganda." He later learned that Joseph Goebbels, the head of propaganda and public enlightenment under Hitler, had used Bernays's book as a basis for his propaganda campaign.

This is from your link
Although ConsumerFreedom.org isn't saying who funded its attack advertisement against Greenpeace, Philip Morris is a distinct possibility. The tobacco giant is also now the largest food company in the United States. Greenpeace is one of the international leaders in the fight for safety and environmental testing of genetically engineered foods, and recently Greenpeace targeted Philip Morris Kraft for its sales of such products.

Why don't we change this from animal rights group to other things CCF is against . . . like do they really oppose schools NOT selling junk food and soda? Why?

Or how about MADD. The way the CCF portrays them MADD wants to ban alcohol. I personally don't believe anyone should get in a car buzzed or drunk. Some quotes from activistcash.com:

Unfortunately, this new “mission” has nothing to do with drunk driving; it is a manifestation of MADD’s deep-seated belief that any and all drinking before driving should be prohibited -- regardless of whether it’s done responsibly and legally. Instead of focusing on repeat offenders and those who are too drunk to drive, the twenty-first-century MADD endorses higher beverage taxes, needlessly low drunk driving arrest thresholds, and roadblocks designed to frighten people out of social drinking. These tactics have failed to reduce drunk driving deaths, since they target social drinkers, not product abusers.

Once again, MADD is not talking about drunk driving, but drinking and driving -- meaning that if a divorced mother safely drives her children home after having a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant, MADD supports sanctions that include losing custody of her children.

MADD founder Candy Lightner has broken ties with the group. In 2002, she told the Washington Times, “[MADD] has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”

I'm know nothing about MADD. I think their overall goal is a good one - to eliminate drunk driving. But are they as extreme as CCF portrays them? And even if they are, is this something that we as a society should be extreme about?

Yes, I've wondered why CCF are against a group that is against people drunk driving.

Because CCF represents food/beverage industries/lobbies. Anything that could cut into profits is bad.

Because CCF represents food/beverage industries/lobbies. Anything that could cut into profits is bad.


Yes, but is there any truth at all in what they say about MADD?

See this link also to see Berman's attack on health reform...
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q1/berman1.html

The Wheel Behind Drunk Drivers

Some of Berman & Co.'s most visible lobbying has been waged against efforts to lower the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers. It runs the American Beverage Institute, which was organized in 1991 with the stated mission of promoting "responsible alcohol consumption," but actually represents restaurants and retailers that sell alcohol.

In 1998, Berman used his close ties with Republican politicians Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott to help kill federal legislation supported by advocacy groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) that would have lowered legal blood-alcohol levels for drivers from .10% to .08%. In addition to MADD, supporters of the legislation included a who's who of highway safety experts, law enforcement and medical professionals including the American Medical Association, the American College of Emergency Room Physicians, the National Safety Council, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National District Attorneys Association and the Alliance of American Insurers.

Berman says that lowering the legal blood-alcohol concentration for drivers would target social drinkers, people who are "doing something that isn't particularly dangerous behavior." He claims that a person can reach a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent simply by drinking two glasses of wine in two hours.

This claim is contradicted, however, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which cites scientific evidence showing that a 170-pound man would actually have to consume five drinks in two hours to reach the .08 level. According to the NHTSA, virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks such as braking, steering, changing lanes and general judgment.

"The facts show you are very impaired" at .08, says NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez, "and if that's the fact, the question is, should those people be behind the wheel of a car and put on a road where coming in the other direction may be my family? That's why we think .08 should be the law of the land."

Berman's claims are also rejected by experts on drunk driving such as Rhode Island police officer Richard Lombardi. Lombardi replied to Berman's claims by saying, "I don't deal with statistics. I deal with reality." He added that he doesn't want to wake families up at four in the morning any more to tell them a loved one is dead.

Some of the harshest words for Berman came from Millie Webb, a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving who suffered serious burns and lost her four-year-old daughter in an automobile accident caused by a driver whose blood-alcohol level was .08.

"As a victim of an .08 crash," Webb said, "I greatly resent the campaign being conducted by the alcohol industry against this life-saving amendment. Shame is in short supply in our nation's capital. Today, we have a Mr. Richard Berman of the American Beverage Institute, peddling a phony poll, fire-bombing the most credible research and researchers in the field, and using scare tactics in an attempt to kill life-saving .08 laws. . . . In the case of Mr. Berman, decency and the truth are also in short supply."

In fact, the defeated .08 rule is actually more lenient than drunken driving levels in most European countries. Even France and Germany, countries known for their love of alcoholic beverages, both have a legal limit of .05.

Berman's success in killing the measure prompted MADD national president Karolyn V. Nunnallee to complain, "Our nation's drunk driving laws have been written by the alcohol and hospitality industry--a tragic irony that will likely result in many needless deaths and injuries at the hands of impaired drivers."

Calling Mommies Nannies

Berman launched the Guest Choice Network in 1996, proclaiming that its "mission is to expose the anti-choice antics of the 'nannies.' " The website is organized into sections, exposing the "nanny war on fatty foods," the "nanny war on tobacco," "nanny war on genetically engineered foods," "nanny war on coffee, soda," "nanny war on alcohol," and "nanny war on meat, dairy." It attacks a broad range of targets and has even devoted an entire separate website (www.cspinot.org) to attacking the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which it accuses of anti-alcohol zealotry that "combines scare tactics and junk science to scold adult college students about alcohol consumption."

Regarding alcohol consumption alone, the Guest Choice list of "nannies" includes:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which Guest Choice describes as a group of "professional fund-raisers" who try to "scare us away from even responsible drinking."

The Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, which it accuses of "strident opposition to any consumption of adult beverages."

New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, for his proposal to confiscate the vehicles of people convicted for drunk driving. Guest Choice characterizes Guiliani's plan as a "car-theft ring."

The U.S. Department of Transportation, for publishing a study which concludes that "a majority of the driving population is impaired in some important measure" at blood-alcohol levels "as low as .02%."

The Office of Highway Safety in Georgia, for an effort to tighten enforcement of existing drunk-driving laws.