A quoi ressemble l'écritoire d'un fund raiser ?

Le blog Luggage is My Life de Tom Ahern a une belle photo de plan de travail que je vous invite à découvrir.

A la différence de moi, je constate que Tom Ahern conserve encore l'usage du crayon et du papier.

Succès sans précédent pour l'Institut pour la Justice

Selon mes sources, la campagne de recueil de signatures lancée par l'Institut pour la justice est un succès sans précédent. La rumeur prétend sur leurs serveurs maison ont saturé et qu'ils ont dû faire appel à des prestataires extérieurs.

Selon un communiqué de l'IPJ, le « Pacte 2012 pour la Justice », lancé seulement depuis dix jours sur Internet, a franchi hier le cap symbolique des 750 000 signatures du pacte écologique de Nicolas Hulot. Le 18 novembre, le compteur indiquait 850 000 signatures traduisant ainsi un engouement citoyen inédit motivé par la qualité irréprochable du message envoyé par mail et qui a été diffusé viralement dans le net. A l'heure où j'écris ce blog, le compteur a dépassé 992 000 signatures. Le million n'est pas loin.

Toujours selon le communiqué, le vidéo témoignage d’un père de victime Joël Censier accompagnant les propositions du Pacte 2012 contribue à sensibiliser chaque citoyen à l’état actuel alarmant de la Justice en France. Joël Censier appelle à se mobiliser pour une réforme en profondeur du système judiciaire afin de rééquilibrer la Justice en faveur des victimes en signant le Pacte 2012. Ce Pacte, constitué de cinq propositions d’intérêt général, a été élaboré par des experts (magistrats, avocats, juristes, psychiatres) et a pour objectif de garantir à chacun le droit à une Justice équitable.








L'Institut pour la Justice a ouvert un site dédié qui est un modèle du genre. Simple et efficace. A gauche de l'écran, les échos presse; au centre, les personnalités qui soutiennent le Pacte (dont le très médiatique Gilles-William Goldnadel); à droite, l'actualité et la possibilité de télé charger le dossier complet.

Parmi les échos presse, en voici un sur RTL qui mérite l'oscar de l'attaché de presse.

La mécanique de signature du Pacte est parfaitement étudiée. Le pétitionnaire est encouragé à donner son adresse. Quand on sait le mal que l'on a en France à accéder à des fichiers de personnes motivées, l'IPJ et sa maison mère ont réussi à mettre la main sur un trésor digne des mille et une nuits du marketing direct.

Évidemment, les esprits chagrins ne manquent pas.

La presse d'extrême-gauche s'en donne à coeur joie : Rue89,

Le blog de maître Eolas est sévère avec le Pacte, mais il fait l'effort de l'analyser en détail.

Voici l'introduction de son long post :

Depuis quelques jours, un appel à signer un “Pacte pour la justice” en vue de l’élection présidentielle de 2012 circule sur internet, émanant de l’Institut pour la Justice (IPJ), que mes lecteurs connaissent bien, hélas pour eux.
Dans un premier temps, j’ai consacré à cette initiative le traitement que je réserve à toutes celles de l’IPJ, c’est-à-dire mon plus profond mépris.
Mais je dois reconnaître que l’IPJ est en train de réussir son coup, avec sa méthode habituelle : mettre en avant la douleur d’une victime qui se défend de mettre en avant sa douleur, des affirmations que rien ne vient étayer si ce n’est la parole de la victime, étant entendu que quiconque est contre est un salaud qui méprise la douleur d’un père, un droitdel’hommiste bobo naïf, et bien évidemment l’ami du crime.
J’ai quand même été quelque peu soulagé de constater que sur la centaine de personnes qui m’ont signalé ce lien, la plupart avaient une approche méfiante et voulaient des explications. Car des explications, ce fameux message n’en contient pas le début d’une. Le lire avec un minimum d’esprit critique ne peut que révéler cette évidence, mais vous allez voir qu’il est fait justement pour neutraliser d’entrée votre esprit critique.
Puisque la justice, qu’invoque l’IPJ, mais seulement dans son intitulé, exige un débat ou chaque point de vue peut s’exprimer, je vais donc répondre à ce message, par des faits, des explications, des arguments, bref, par la Raison. Je suis désolé de devoir apporter une réponse critique à Joël Censier, dont je ne puis que comprendre la douleur et la colère, c’est une position que je n’apprécie nullement. Mais c’est lui qui a choisi de porter son histoire dans un débat public et d’en faire un argument politique. Je respecte ce choix, mais il entraîne des conséquences, dont celle de devoir supporter la critique.
Commençons par une analyse du propos de Joël Censier, avant de terminer par une analyse de la démarche de l’IPJ, dont je rappelle qu’il n’est ni un Institut, ni pour la Justice, mais une simple association de 1901 essayant de promouvoir des thèses ultra-répressives sous un vernis pseudo-scientifique, qui revendique sur son site “400 000 sympathisants” mais non adhérents, c’est à dire des gens dont l’implication a été un clic sur internet mais dont aucun n’a souhaité verser la moindre cotisation. Les candidats sollicités feraient bien de s’en souvenir.

Liree la suite sur son blog.

Et l'IPJ lui a répondu point par point.

Maître Eolas n’apprécie pas les propositions du Pacte 2012 pour la Justice. C’est son droit.

Mais plutôt que d’expliquer en détail en quoi ces propositions seraient inappropriées, il se livre à une attaque en règle du témoignage appelant à signer le Pacte – le témoignage de Joël Censier, dont le fils Jeremy a été tué en 2009.

L’intégralité du témoignage de Joël Censier est vrai et authentique. Il est partie civile au procès et a donc accès à l’intégralité du dossier d’instruction. Le billet de Me Eolas, lui, est rempli de contre-vérités parce qu’il est extérieur à l’affaire et n’a pas accès au dossier :

• Son billet est truffé d’erreurs factuelles et de mise en doute éhontée de la véracité du témoignage d’un père de victime

Dès le début du billet, Maître Eolas prétend par exemple que « il est manifestement impossible que l’agresseur de Jeremy ait su que son père était policier puisque les faits ont eu lieu à Nay et que Jérémy habitait dans le Gers à 200 kilomètres de là ».

Pourtant, la réalité est que deux des mis en cause connaissaient Joël Censier et Jeremy (le juge d’instruction a d’ailleurs été extrêmement surpris lorsque Joël Censier les a reconnus sur les photos qui lui ont été présentées).

Autre exemple, Maître Eolas dit « Cette anecdote est curieuse » et dit « prendre ces affirmations avec des pincettes » quant au fait que Joël Censier se soit vu présenter une convocation à la gendarmerie lors de la reconstitution. C’est pourtant la stricte vérité et cette mise en doute n’honore pas Me Eolas.

• Loin de « dramatiser » la situation, Joël Censier a au contraire atténué la dureté des faits, par pudeur

Maître Eolas parle de « dramatisation ». Ainsi, il conteste le terme de « barbarie inimaginable » dans les termes suivants : « En réalité, Jérémy Censier a reçu cinq coups de couteau dont deux mortels et des coups de pied une fois au sol. Voilà pour la « barbarie inimaginable ».

Chacun jugera si ces seuls faits relèvent ou non de la barbarie, mais précisons que Joël Censier, par pudeur, s’est gardé de dire qu’un témoin avait vu l’un des jeunes sauter à pieds joints sur la tête de son enfant.

Autre fait non mentionné dans la vidéo, et qui aurait été utilisé si le but avait été de « dramatiser » : les aveux du principal suspect ont été annulés, pour vice de procédure, et ne pourront plus être utilisés contre lui.

Ce n’est pourtant pas un « petit » dysfonctionnement. C’est un coup de tonnerre, une décision sur laquelle  va s’appuyer l’avocat du présumé tueur pour demander l’acquittement de son client.

• Le seul élément fondé du billet de Me Eolas est de dire que Joël Censier n’utilise pas, à un moment donné, le terme juridique approprié

Joël Censier parle d’une « demande de mise en état du dossier », alors qu’il s’agissait plutôt d’une demande de passer en revue l’instruction.

Voilà pour les faits.

Sur le fond, Me Eolas juge parfaitement normal le fonctionnement d’une Justice qui remet en liberté, sans contrôle judiciaire dans un premier temps, un meurtrier présumé pour la simple raison que des délais de procédure n’ont pas été respectés. C’est son droit, mais c’est le cœur du désaccord avec les soutiens du Pacte 2012.

Pour Joël Censier, pour l’Institut pour la Justice et pour tous les soutiens du Pacte 2012, c’est au contraire le signe d’une Justice qui a perdu de vue sa mission première de protection des citoyens.

Or seule une réforme en profondeur du système judiciaire pourra rééquilibrer la Justice en faveur des victimes : c’est l’objet du Pacte 2012. Et c’est précisément ce qui relie l’affaire Censier à ce Pacte 2012 : la nécessité de reconnecter la Justice aux préoccupations des citoyens.

Pour en savoir plus :

• Ecouter sur Europe 1, la confrontation entre le représentant de l’Institut pour la Justice et Maître Eolas

• Ecouter, sur le déroulement des faits, l’émission de Jacques Pradel sur RTL, l’heure du crime, avec Joël Censier

Réaction de Joël Censier au billet de Me Eolas

" Je voudrai dire à ce Monsieur que durant toute ma carrière de Policier, j’ai été l’objet d’invectives en tout genre, tant sur la voie publique, qu’à l’intérieur-même de nos locaux. Je n’y ai porté aucune importance, car nombre d’entre ces gens se trouvaient en situation d’alcoolisme avancé, voire en position sociale pitoyable ou en situation de flagrance délictuelle, voire criminelle.

Leur brutalité verbale les amenait  à déverser leur venin sur les représentants de l’ordre, une manière, somme toute, exutoire qui faisait retomber la pression qui pesait sur eux avant une éventuelle interpellation en règle.

C’est une première que celle d’entendre et de lire les propos vexatoires d’un individu dont l’intelligence, pour un homme qui se dit, homme de loi, s’est arrêtée au niveau bien en-dessous de ce que j’ai pu rencontrer dans ma carrière professionnelle. Chapeau bas à l’homme de loi dont la notoriété intellectuelle, dans le cas d’exemple, se situe à hauteur du caniveau parisien."

En guise de conclusion

Dans ce blog, modeste, consacré au fund raising, je ne m'attarde pas sur le fond des propositions, mais m'intéresse davantage à la technique mise en oeuvre.

Sur ce plan, le travail de l'Institut pour la justice est remarquable. Les résultats de leurs actions sont là pour en témoigner.

 La mobilisation des pétitionnaires témoigne de la sensibilité de l'opinion sur la question de la sécurité et indique le déphasage des faiseurs d'opinion par rapport aux citoyens.

L'Institut pour la Justice est le révélateur d'un sentiment de manque de justice dont les politiques doivent tenir compte.

Le fund raising contribue au débat démocratique

Dans la majorité des sociétés démocratiques, il existe deux systèmes de financement de la vie politique et des appareils des partis.

Aux Etats-Unis et au Royaume-Uni, les partis sont financés par des donateurs, tant personnes physiques que morales. Ce qui a pour conséquence que les intérêts particuliers et collectifs des donateurs ont une influence considérable sur les choix des partis. A titre d'exemple, le Labour est resté longtemps sous l'influence des syndicats et le Parti conservateur sous l'influence des milieux d'affaires.

Un candidat n'ayant pas l'appui de généreux donateurs peut difficilement concurrencer ceux qui ont les poches pleines et qui peuvent acheter massivement des espaces publicitaires.

Dans les autres pays, l'Etat contribue avec largesse à la vie politique. Mais les partis établis ayant fixé les règles, il est très difficile pour une nouvelle formation ou un parti très minoritaire de satisfaire aux conditions requise par la loi pour avoir accès à la manne officielle.

Dans ces deux situations, le fund raising apporte des solutions à tous ceux qui sont en dehors du système.

Aux Etats-Unis, la campagne de Ron Paul est un exemple de mobilisation des citoyens pour financer l'homme politique qui représente leurs espoirs.  Vois l'article du New York Times en fin de post.

En France, du Front national au MPF en passant par les Identitaires, le fund raising est une source indispensable de financement pour permettre à ces formations de faire entendre leur voix.

D'un côté de l'Atlantique comme de l'autre, c'est la générosité de donateurs individuels quyi rendent l'exercice de la démocratie possible.

Niche Voters Giving Paul Momentum in Iowa Polls

VINTON, Iowa — Steve and Cindy Anders belong to one of Iowa’s most politically savvy movements — Christian home-schoolers, whose organizing on behalf of Mike Huckabee in 2008 was one of the secrets behind his upset victory in the state’s Republican caucuses.
Blogs

Daniel Acker for The New York Times

Two Iowa polls this week showed Ron Paul in a statistical tie for first.
This year, the Anderses are behind Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who supports drastically shrinking the federal government and closing the Education Department.

In a year when the Republican field is unusually fractured, with front-runners coming around as often as carousel ponies, Mr. Paul’s ability to mobilize niche groups like home-schoolers may make a big difference. His campaign, which has won a number of straw polls and is picking up momentum, has demonstrated its ability to organize and mobilize supporters, which is particularly relevant in Iowa, where relatively small numbers can tip the scales in the caucuses.

For his part, Mr. Anders was looking forward to a meeting with a Paul campaign staff member to strategize “how we can go to work for Ron Paul.”

“Home-schoolers are really independently minded,” Mr. Anders said, estimating that most of the 10 other families in his Saturday morning coffee club in Council Bluffs, Iowa, supported Mr. Paul. “He believes the federal government has no role in education, as most home-schoolers will agree.”

Home-school families are among the lesser-known converts to Mr. Paul — along with small-business owners and voters well past college age — who have helped him build support beyond his fierce core of followers, often young people.

His support has usually added up to less than 10 percent in surveys of likely Republican primary voters.

But now, thanks to the best organized grass-roots campaign in Iowa and heavy spending on television advertisements that portray him as consistent while other Republicans have flip-flopped, Mr. Paul is breaking through that ceiling, giving rise to a once far-fetched scenario — that he might win the state’s caucuses on Jan. 3.

“I’m buying Ron Paul today,” said Craig Robinson, a former political director for the Republican Party of Iowa, who on Wednesday sent a Twitter message saying, “Ron Paul’s Iowa Campaign Office was abuzz at 8 p.m. tonight when I drove by on my way to the bank. Impressive.”

Two state polls this week show him in a statistical tie for first. One, released Monday by Bloomberg News, showed Mr. Paul winning 19 percent of likely Republican caucus voters, within the margin of error with Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

The Bloomberg poll showed that about two-thirds of Iowa respondents had been contacted by the Paul campaign by phone, e-mail or a knock on the door, more outreach than any other candidate.

“We’ve been out-hustling the other campaigns,” said Jesse Benton, Mr. Paul’s national campaign manager.

Because of strong fund-raising from small donors on the Internet, the campaign has been able to saturate the Iowa airwaves with ads. It has outspent all others — $2.5 million on TV and radio commercials in Iowa and New Hampshire (where a Bloomberg poll had Mr. Paul in second place this week behind Mr. Romney). It plans to spend $4 million more before the voting in those two states begins in less than two months.

The ads highlight Mr. Paul’s message of deep cuts to government spending and conveniently avoid his isolationist foreign policy, which risks turning off undecided voters.

Chuck Walsh, who works for his family’s G.M.-Toyota dealership in Carroll, Iowa, is a recent convert to Mr. Paul.

“I don’t think I was his core type, the young college type,” said Mr. Walsh, 42, a volunteer firefighter and veteran of the Persian Gulf war. He voted for Mr. Romney in 2008 and was leaning toward him again this year, but he changed his mind because the federal government, he said, needs more drastic cuts than Mr. Romney proposes.

Mr. Walsh felt squeamish coming out as a Paul supporter. “The reaction is, ‘Oh, the guy is fringe, he’s crazy,’ “ he said. “People tell me, ‘You’re throwing away your vote.’ I said to myself: ‘Chuck, you wore the uniform, you fought for the right to vote. If you’re voting with your heart, I don’t think you’re throwing away your vote.’ “

In making his third run for the presidency, Mr. Paul, 76, has benefited from the splitting of the social conservative vote in Iowa among a number of candidates, and from the fact that this year jobs and the economy trump concerns over abortion and same-sex marriage.
Four years ago, Mr. Paul stumped around the state, warning that the country was heading for financial calamity because of Washington’s overspending. This year he appears in the same hotel ballrooms, and many regard his message as having been prescient.

But even as he picks up support, very few independent strategists see a path for him to the Republican nomination.

“I don’t think he’s going to be the nominee,” said Steve Roberts, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. “But he’s certainly in a rarefied atmosphere for him.”

Tim Albrecht, a top aide to Gov. Terry E. Branstad of Iowa, said, “His biggest hurdle is his foreign policy piece.”

“I figured he’d get 16 percent in the caucuses,” Mr. Albrecht added. “Right now he’s polling around 20 percent. That’s enough to be in the hunt this year because it’s so splintered and wide open. But he’s got to continue expanding his message to collect more voters.”

At an event at the Pizza Ranch in Vinton, Iowa, on Friday, the 40 or so voters who came to hear Mr. Paul speak were a cross-section of his core supporters and curious newcomers. The faithful sported their “Ron Paul Revolution” caps and T-shirts.

Lynn Rinderknecht, an organic farmer, said, “I’m kind of leaning toward Ron Paul,” though he noted that the conservative talk radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, where he gets a lot of his news, “don’t like Mr. Paul because of his ideas about the military.”

Mike Dulaney, a retiree, liked Mr. Paul’s book “End the Fed” but questioned his stance on Iran. Mr. Paul had said that Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon, as documented in a recent international report, was overblown.

“I disagree,” Mr. Dulaney said. “I think Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous person who’s going to try to prove something,” he said, referring to Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He favored Mr. Romney, he said.

Lucy Reese, an independent, said she disagreed with many of Mr. Paul’s positions, including his opposition to abortion rights. But she agreed with his focus on the currency system and on auditing the Federal Reserve.

“I am reluctant to commit to anybody, but if I had to pick, I’d pick Ron Paul,” she said.

Vive le courrier poubelle!

Un court éditorial du Telegraph qui prend la défense du « courrier poubelle », souvent le seul courrier que reçoivent des personnes isolées et leur dernier moyen pour être encore utiles à la société en apportant leur soutien à de belles causes.

Blessed junk mail

If junk mail is the worst thing in your life, you must lead a blessed existence.

Heading for the bin: the average British household receives 453 items of junk mail a year.

It takes different people in different ways. For some, the biggest daily dose of annoyance is delivered by the Today programme. For others, it’s the milkman leaving the bottles standing in the sun. How many times does he need telling? But one provocation that irritates a wider sector of the annoyed classes than most others is junk mail. The very term is annoyingly un-English, but as we report today, the average British household receives 453 items a year. What can be done with it? Can it be turned into bird-scarers, mulch, kindling, cat-litter, papier-mâché trays? Some hope. Even if the Royal Mail can be cajoled temporarily into stemming the flow, pizza shops and curry houses are less easily dissuaded. Yet worse things could come through a letter-box, and it is no mean asset to have a front door in the first place. If junk mail is the worst thing in your life, you must lead a blessed existence.

A quoi sert l'argent des lobbies politiques ?

Dans un papier bien informé, le journaliste Jamie Doward prend un malin plaisir dans les colonnes du quotidien de gauche britannique The Guardian à révéler les liens étroits entretenus par l'ex-ministre de la Défense Liam Fox avec un réseau de clubs et de fondations nord-américains.

Le journaliste explique bien les mouvements de fonds entre les associations conservatrices états-uniennes, bien financées par des dons généreux d'entreprises et de millionnaires, vers des organisations britanniques partageant les mêmes objectifs mais manquant de financement.

C'est la grande force des groupes d'influence politiques aux Etats-Unis, un financement généreux de la part de personnalités et d'entreprises à un niveau inconnu en Europe. Voici quelques mois, un responsable d'association américaine cherchant à réformer certains aspects de la vie publique dans son pays m'a raconté qu'il envisageait un procès contre un organisme public. Dès que la nouvelle fut rendue publique auprès de ses soutiens, il reçut le jour même un appel lui proposant un don de 250000 dollars. De quoi faire rêver de ce côté-ci de l'Atlantique les responsables de Contribuables associés ou de l'Institut pour la justice.

Liam Fox and wife Jesme (right) with former prime minister Baroness Thatcher at his 50th birthday party in London.

Liam Fox's Atlantic Bridge linked top Tories and Tea Party activists
Officially it was a charity; in fact, Fox's thinktank was a meeting place for the movers and shakers of the right wing

Twenty US business leaders assembled in Pittsburgh in October 2006 to pay court to the coming man of British politics. They could have been forgiven for thinking Liam Fox, with his neatly parted hair and clipped Scottish accent, resembled the GP he had once been, rather than a potential Tory leader.

But, although few of the business leaders knew much about the shadow defence secretary, they were familiar with his charity, the Atlantic Bridge. This was the organisation whose patron, Lady Thatcher, was lionised in the US for her support of the free market and American military airbases on British soil. It was the organisation whose members in 2004 were ushered into the White House to be briefed by Karl Rove, George W Bush's special counsel. And it was the organisation whose cocktail parties in the Carlton Club in London and Charlie Palmer's steakhouse in Washington were high points of the transatlantic social calendar.

Shortly after addressing the business leaders at Pittsburgh's Duquesne Club – "the finest city club in the country"– Fox explained that the Atlantic Bridge promoted the special relationship between the UK and the US by creating "a network of individual people who can know one another". He declared: "We are trying to bring people together who have common interests and to recognise that in an ever more globalised economy, we will all be called upon to defend those common interests."

Last week those interests came back to haunt not just Fox, whose fall on Friday rocked David Cameron's coalition government, but also many Tory members of the cabinet, whose extensive links to the Atlantic Bridge are now under scrutiny. The irony is that it took a furore around Fox's friendship with a relatively minor player in the saga – a lobbyist, Adam Werritty – to make these links apparent.

Admittedly, senior Tory cabinet ministers had been scrambling to distance themselves from the Atlantic Bridge long before the scandal brought Fox down. The organisation's website – and that of its sister charity across the Atlantic – has been dismantled. But old caches of the site reveal that, while shadow ministers, George Osborne, Michael Gove, Chris Grayling and William Hague were all on its advisory council alongside Fox, its UK chairman. All four stood down as awkward questions over its political activities, which contravened charity laws, resulted in the organisation being wound up.

But the links to the cabinet do not end there. Cara Usher-Smith, the director of business development at Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice, was a former director of the Atlantic Bridge. David Cameron's press secretary, Gabby Bertin, admitted last week that she was paid £25,000 by the US drug giant Pfizer when working as the "sole employee" of the charity. Other senior Tories, notably Michael Ancram and Michael Howard, attended its receptions. Sir John Major gave a keynote speech at one of its US fundraisers. Its formidable connections to leading Tories were eclipsed only by its links to senior members of the US Republican party. The Republican senator for Arizona and Senate minority whip, Jon Kyl, and Jim DeMint, a Republican senator for South Carolina and a leading light in the Tea Party movement, were two powerful American members of its advisory council.

To outsiders, the charity may have appeared to be little more than a social club, keen to throw a party in New York to promote Hague's book on William Wilberforce or hold a dinner for 14 in parliament's Club Room – an apparent breach of parliamentary rules. But the group's members were deeply serious in their beliefs, and Fox was more than happy to promote his neoconservative leanings when abroad.

In a speech to Atlantic Bridge members in New York in November 2002, Fox warned "the natural desire to avoid conflict has been reinforced by an innate pacificism in many sections of western society, especially in continental Europe". He told his audience: "For too many, peace has come to mean simply the absence of war. We cannot allow that corrosive view to go unchallenged."

Fox also used the speech to criticise the NHS, which he said had "responded to a funding increase of almost 11% with only a 2% increase in activity".

He was preaching to the converted. The Atlantic Bridge's addresses and conferences were all about promoting market liberalisation. A typical theme of one conference, held in both Los Angeles and Pittsburgh in July 2006, was entitled "Killing the Golden Goose – How Regulation and Legislation are Damaging Wealth Creation". An earlier address in 2003 asked: "How Much Health Care Can We Afford?"

Members of the Galen Institute, a thinktank which promotes "freemarket ideas in health", attended its conferences while the failed bank Lehman Brothers, sponsored at least one event, as did the powerful neocon thinktank the Heritage Foundation.

But in 2007 the Atlantic Bridge's relationship with big business entered a new realm, one that threatens to pose uncomfortable questions for Cameron and his party. The organisation signed a special partnership with the American Legislative Council (Alec), whose motto is "Limited government, free markets, federalism".

Overseen by Catherine Bray, a former adviser to the climate-change sceptic Roger Helmer, a Tory MEP, the project focused on "providing an arena for young conservative leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to build close personal and professional relationships".

Alec is one of the most powerful lobbying organisations in the US. Funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil, tobacco giant Philip Morris and the National Rifle Association, it holds conventions where legislators mingle with lobbyists. According to the Centre for Media and Democracy, a liberal, non-profit, American-based media research group, it uses these events to wine and dine state legislators and present them with pre-drafted bills drawn up on behalf of its members.

Alec boasts: "Each year, close to 1,000 bills, based at least in part on Alec model legislation, are introduced in the states. Of these, an average of 20% become law." One of its biggest supporters is the Koch Foundation, whose founders, the oil barons Charles G Koch and David H Koch, have funnelled about $55m to climate-denial front groups, according to Greenpeace, and are generous donors to the Tea Party movement.

Alec's involvement with Fox's charity coincided with a large increase in funds to the US arm of his organisation. Accounts show that by 2009 the Atlantic Bridge was bringing in $280,508, more than double the $133,926 it was receiving in 2007.

The huge rise in income, which dwarfed that of its UK sister organisation, coincided with a significant expansion in the charity's advisers and directors. By 2009 Werritty, whom the US accounts list as the (unpaid) UK executive director of the Atlantic Bridge, found himself reporting to a new chief executive officer, Amanda Bowman, the former New York director for the Centre for Security Policy, the neocon think-tank that opposed the planned Park 51 Muslim community centre close to the site of Ground Zero.

Further administrative firepower came with the appointment of an impressive group of well-connected lawyers and lobbyists whose clients operate at the heart of the military-industrial complex. Scott Syfert, a lawyer with Moore & Van Allen, which has represented military, chemical and energy interests, became executive chairman of its executive council. Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association, which represents casino operators, also joined the council, as did Michael Hintze, an Australian billionaire hedge fund manager who has donated more than £1m to the Tories and whose firm, CQS, has invested in firms with defence contracts. John Falk, a US lobbyist whose company, Firecreek, represents the Kestral Group, one of Pakistan's largest defence firms, joined its board of directors. So did Michael Fullerton, a former US department of homeland security adviser now working for Kestral. Randall Popelka, whose Capitol Bridge lobbying firm represents defence interests, joined as its US executive director.

As the Atlantic Bridge boasted on its website: "We have created a network of like-minded people – in politics, business, academia and journalism." It is hard to escape the conclusion that in the space of five years the Atlantic Bridge went from a small, Tory-leaning charity, dispensing freedom medals in the name of Thatcher, to an influential networking club linking most of the cabinet to powerful business interests, neocons and Tea Party enthusiasts. For Cameron, who preaches the gospel of "compassionate Conservatism", the revelation is embarrassing.

Given the elevated circles he was now moving in, it was hardly surprising that Werritty exploited his new contacts. By 2009 a powerful lobby group, Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (Bicom), was covering the cost of Werritty's trip to an important security seminar in Israel. The trip was arranged by Bicom's former deputy chairman, Michael Lewis, who donated to Atlantic Bridge and to Fox's Tory leadership campaign in 2005. Bicom's former communications director, Lee Petar, who runs a lobbying firm, Tetra Strategy, put Werritty in touch with the Dubai businessman, Harvey Boulter, whose meeting with Fox triggered the initial furore that triggered his demise.

Werritty's links to another businessman may also attract interest. It has emerged that an obscure company called Pargav financed his trips. Pargav was partly funded by Tamares Real Estate, an investment company owned by Poju Zabludowicz, chairman of Bicom. It was also funded by the Good Governance Group (G3), a private investigations company staffed by former MI6 officers and founded by Andries Pienaar, a South African who once worked for the security giant Kroll.

The Observer has established that Pienaar has extensive interests in the defence sector. G3 boasts the defence contractor BAE Systems as a client, and its sister company, investment firm C5 Capital, of which Pienaar is a director, focuses on the security sector, seeking investment in "niche sectors that mitigate risk and protect assets and lives – such as cyber security, biometrics, detection and communications". C5 is known to have been interested in buying cyber security firms which had contracts with MI5.

Pienaar played a key role in establishing the Sri Lanka Development Trust, whose address was listed at G3's headquarters, and which paid for several of Fox's trips abroad. "We agreed to help Dr Fox because of our longstanding interest and involvement in conflict resolution and reconstruction," the Good Governance Group said in a statement.

Ultimately, Fox paid the price for blurring the lines between his political and personal life. But the warning signs had been there for some time. Eyebrows were raised two years ago when he appointed a former US army captain, Luke Coffey, as his special adviser. Coffey is a member of the Council for Emerging National Security Affairs, a thinktank that promotes US national security and is staffed largely by ex-CIA agents.

The appointment spoke volumes about Fox's thinking. The Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott observed: "We are allies of America, but we are not the 51st state."

Fox disagreed.

Il faut apprendre à aimer les pétits dons

Cet homme qui mendie dans les rues de New York est en réalité un riche retraité.

Il ne faut pas mépriser les petits dons quand on a la chance de travailler pour une association en mesure de recevoir des dons et legs.

Déjà, en mensualisant les petits donateurs, comme le font très bien les remarquables professionnels de l'association brésilienne Tradition Famille Propriété (TFP), on réussit à transformer un don occasionnel de 20 euros en un don annuel de 120 euros, grâce à des prélèvements indolores de 10 euros par mois.

Mais la vraie richesse des donateurs modestes réside dans leur patrimoine. Une personne « pauvre », par le simple fait de résider dans un logement qui lui appartient, pèse bien plus que tous les dons qu'elle a pu faire tout au long de sa vie.

Il suffit de lire les comptes annuels des grandes associations caritatives pour constater le poids des donations et des legs.

L'évolution de la démographie fait que de plus en plus de personnes arrivent en âge « mature » et sont en de bonnes dispositions pour accepter des propositions d'associations caritatives pour disposer de leurs biens après leur décès.

Enfin, il existe des personnes dont on ne soupçonne pas la richesse comme nous le rappelle cet article du Daily Mail.

Un mendiant qui cache bien son jeu.

The world's richest panhandler: Man who begs for money on New York streets  revealed to be legendary comedian living in $3.5m home (but he gives it all to charity)

By RACHEL QUIGLEY

Comedian: 97-year-old Prof Irwin Corey panhandles along Manhattan's East 35th Street every day
Hobbling along between cars in his walker, asking for change and proffering free newspapers in return, it is hard to believe he was once known as 'The World's Foremost Authority'.

Professor Irwin Corey, comedian, actor and left-wing political activist, strolls along Manhattan's East 35th Street pan-handling every day, seven days a week, for the last 17 years.

Of course professor Corey - who has enjoyed a long and illustrious career spanning Broadway, television, theatre and comedy clubs - does not need the money.
In fact he is not even homeless, despite his scruffy, scrawny appearance, but has an apartment in an affluent area of New York which he believes to be worth $3.5million.
His reasons for posing as a homeless down-and-outer and hassling drivers for change are two-fold: Since his wife of seventy years Fran died in May he said it helps beat the loneliness.
The 97-year-old also donates all the money he raises - sometimes up to $250 a day - to a charity that buys medical supplies for children in Cuba.
Over his eight-decade career, he has worked alongside Jackie Gleason and Woody Allen and appeared on Late Night with David Letterman.
In fact he still performs fairly regularly and told the New York Times that he flew to Chicago a week ago to play two nights at a local club.

Mr Corey has cultivated his 'professor' charade since the 1940s, with his trademark black tails, a string tie, high-top sneakers and scarecrow hairdo.

Though his stage persona is known more of its witty one-liners, put down of hecklers and nonsensical observations, he is mild-mannered to those who give him money on the street, always expressing gratitude and telling them: 'See you later, alligator.'

Mr Corey has travelled to Cuba to donate personally, he said, and has photographs on his wall with Fidel Castro, alongside one of him on the David Letterman show in 1982, and with the likes of the comedian Dick Gregory and the actor Ossie Davis.

Famous friends: The comedian and noted communist anarchist, far left, met Fidel Castro when he was in Cuba donating money to charity

Day's work: Mr Corey returns home every afternoon with bulging pockets to count out his takings before putting them in bundles ready to be donated

WikiLeaks a besoin d'argent, vite.

Cet article de Guy Adams envoyé depuis Los Angeles  pour The Independent, montre à quelles expédients doit se résoudre une organisation qui ne structure pas son fundraising à temps.



Can the cult of Assange save cash-strapped WikiLeaks?



Roll up, roll up! The great WikiLeaks memorabilia auction has just begun. The laptop computer on which "Cablegate" was compiled is on offer for £6,000, while some signed versions of those famous diplomatic cables can be yours for just £2,100. And do I hear £240 for a sachet of prison coffee once purloined by an incarcerated Julian Assange?

With normal sources of revenue stifled by a financial services embargo – and running costs and legal fees mounting – the website's proprietors are doing what comes naturally to cash-strapped citizens of the internet era: selling a selection of prized second-hand possessions on eBay.

The first of four fundraising auctions was announced at the weekend, featuring 10 intriguing lots ranging from a print of the directive in which Hillary Clinton asked US officials to spy on the UN, to a signed photograph of Mr Assange, the WikiLeaks founder.

"In this framed unique photo, Julian Assange leans against a column at the front of Ellingham Hall where he has spent almost 300 days under house arrest," reads the accompanying blurb, which informs bidders that the image was autographed at Mr Assange's 40th birthday party. "It is one of only four photos of Julian in the world that were signed on this occasion," it adds.

That item was going for £640 last night, although bidding will not reach its crucial stages until Thursday. Bigger ticket items include the laptop computer, described as having "led to hundreds of front pages and a causative element in ongoing political turmoil and reforms". It has attracted a bid of £6,000.

Some of the organisation's prominent supporters have also chipped in. Vivienne Westwood is offering two tickets to her Paris fashion show later this month for £8,000. Chef Sarah Saunders will cook dinner at your home for £800. And John Pilger, the filmmaker, has contributed a signed movie poster, currently going for £420.

WikiLeaks, which is funded by donations, said the auction is an effort to replace cash lost during an "unlawful financial embargo" during which the Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and Western Union have refused to process payments to its accounts.

The celebrity sales patter attached to some auction lots may, however, lead critics to complain that the organisation has become unduly interested in promoting its founder. Mr Assange's soaring profile is reported to be a factor in simmering disputes which have recently seen several of his former colleagues resign from WikiLeaks.

Included in the auction, for example, is a coffee sachet purloined by Mr Assange during his stay at Her Majesty's pleasure before Christmas. "This rare item has been signed on one side: 'Julian A, Prison coffee, smuggled out of Wandsworth Prison by me on 17 Dec 2010'," reads the blurb. "On the other side of the sachet Julian has inked a fingerprint. The sachet is unopened."

Mr Assange is currently staying at the 650-acre Ellingham Hall estate, in Norfolk, while he fights extradition to Sweden. He denies charges of sexual misconduct with two women in Stockholm, saying they are part of a wider conspiracy against him.

Whistleblower's wares on offer

Item: CableGate preparation computer

Description 'The database machine allowed the WikiLeaks team to search the full set of cables and extract the cables to be sent encrypted to media organisations throughout the world.'

Item: Julian Assange's prison coffee sachet, signed and fingerprinted

Description 'Scarce item of memorabilia from Julian Assange's time in prison. When he left to go under house arrest in Norfolk, he smuggled out this, one of three sachets of coffee. The sachet is unopened.'

Item: Cable on UN spying, signed and fingerprinted

Description 'The unique cable details Hillary Clinton asking her diplomats to spy on UN officials, requesting them to collect details of UN officers, including Ban Ki-moon's DNA. Julian has also written the WikiLeaks' slogan on the cable: "Courage is Contagious."'

Item: Signed photograph of Julian Assange

Description 'Exclusive photo (13cm x 18cm) of the organisation's founder. It was taken at Ellingham Hall where Julian is under house arrest.'