Did the Monitor Group Flout Lobbying Disclosure Rules?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last week, we broke the story on the ties between the Qaddafi regime and a small cadre of Western intellectuals. The group included foreign policy luminaries like Harvard’s Joseph Nye, Sir Anthony Giddens, and Demos’ Benjamin Barber, who visited Libya between 2006 and 2007 on a series of trips funded and organized by the Monitor Group, a Boston-based consulting firm founded by a group of Harvard professors. Monitor had been contracted by the Libyan government for a project to “Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi,” and, ostensibly, to help devise economic reforms. (Nye and Barber later wrote about their visits to Libya in the distinguished pages of the The New Republic and Washington Post, respectively, without fully disclosing that they were paid Monitor consultants.) Monitor’s fee: $250,000 a month, plus an open expense account that maxed out at $2.5 million.

Smells like…lobbying. Yet Monitor failed to register with Justice Department as a “foreign agent” (a.k.a. lobbyist) for Libya. The Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) requires registration for US firms performing, among other things, “acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal”—which, according to internal Monitor memos obtained by a Libyan dissident group, is primarily what the Monitor project was about. So why didn’t the company register? As NPR has reported, “after being shown the provisions of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, a spokesman said Monitor Group is examining that question in more detail.”

Was Monitor’s failure to disclose its business arrangement with Libya an honest oversight? Or was the firm deliberately trying to mask its ties (and the hefty amount it was being paid for its image rehabilitation services) to a dictatorial regime. If the latter, it certainly wouldn’t be the first.

Last month, Suzy Khimm reported on a former Bush administration official, Randa Fahmy Hudome, who had also lobbied for Libya. Fahmy Hudome, who is unapologetic about her work for the country, did disclose her agreement with the regime, and told Mother Jones that working for shady government’s like Qaddafi’s is only problematic when US firms attempt to skirt FARA’s disclosure requirements. As Suzy reported, “Unregistered lobbyists risk working against American interests and potentially embarrassing the US government.” And, of course, themselves.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate