|
 |
 |
|
When phony ‘watchdogs’ attack
Melanie Sloan recently took to The Hill to deliver a fact-free denunciation of my organization, the American Beverage Institute (ABI), and its stance on in-car interlock ignition devices, which detect alcohol consumption and prevent drivers from starting their vehicles.
Contrary to Ms. Sloan's drive-by assertions, the facts do support the claim that interlocks would inhibit the personal freedom of anyone who drinks responsibly and takes the wheel. Susan Ferguson, head of the federal program developing the technology, admits that the devices would be set below .08—making it nearly impossible for many people to have a drink or two before driving. And for proof that the government wants to see this technology as standard equipment in all cars, one need look no further than a Department of Transportation (DOT) Fact Sheet—since stripped from DOT’s website—asserting that “The goal over time is to equip all passenger vehicles in the United States with the technology.”
It’s Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s support for initiatives like this one, and other efforts that veer far from the group’s original mission, that have earned it criticism from its own founder and a “D” rating from the respected CharityWatch (formerly the American Institute of Philanthropy). MADD’s founder, meanwhile, has complimented ABI's work in helping in the ongoing fight against drunk driving.
Unfortunately, Ms. Sloan's bad faith in presenting the issues surrounding interlocks is exceeded by the sweep of her attacks. She accuses the communications firm Berman and Company of running “phony” non-profits. In fact, Berman and Company manages three non-profits and one trade association (ABI), not 23, as Ms. Sloan alleges, all of which comply with strict federal regulations, aiming specifically to provide issue education to the public.
Hoping to discredit opposition to interlocks by attempting to discredit our organizations is a poor way to persuade -- especially while CREW itself has so misleadingly and shamelessly promoted itself as an impartial arbiter of ethics far above the political fray. On the contrary, funded by wealthy Democrats and run by career liberal activists, CREW could hardly be more partisan. Ms. Sloan should acknowledge the glass house from which she casts her stones.
The fact is, her organization has zero interest in alcohol policy. She merely used her piece as an opportunity to take a series of cheap shots at one of her funders’ opponents. It's an approach that's disappointingly consistent with CREW's organizational history. The Center for Consumer Freedom -- one of the four groups managed by Berman and Company -- analyzed CREW's habits in filing complaints, and found that between March 2004 and September 2010 nearly 8 out of every 10 of its filings to various government oversight agencies targeted right-of-center or Republican institutions or individuals. Meanwhile, no more than 15 percent of its complaints went after left-of-center or Democratic targets.
If CREW owned up to its bias, hit pieces like Ms. Sloan's wouldn’t be as shocking, though they would remain just as irresponsible. Even agenda-driven activists are obliged to respect the facts, and that's something Ms. Sloan declines to do. She’d rather use CREW’s tax-exempt status, and the government’s resources, to inaccurately vilify organizations like ABI.
Sarah Longwell is vice president of Berman and Company and managing director of American Beverage Institute.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
