Last Thursday I travelled to San Diego for DemocracyFest. I was thrilled to see that there would be two sessions this year on election integrity: my own panel convened on Friday, and a second was scheduled for Saturday. The Friday panel consisted of DFA grassrooters, and the Saturday held national leaders such as California Secretary of State candidate Debra Bowen, Brad Friedman of Bradblog, Alan Dechert of Open Voting Consortium, and Warren Stewart of VoteTrustUSA, a national election reform organization frequently cited as a source for the "election activist" voice in recent mainstream media coverage of the electronic voting problem.

I've been concerned about VoteTrustUSA being the activist voice of election integrity because some of their strategies -- such as their unquestioning support of the proposed Holt Bill -- are out of sync with the strategies of many other national election integrity activists. Now that the mainstream press has finally decided to cover the issue, the "fair and balanced" reporting of "two sides to every issue" has resulted in VoteTrustUSA seeming to represent the "activist" side in all news coverage. This, in my opinion, is Not a Good Thing for such a complex and multifaceted issue, especially when there is not a unified approach or consensus on solutions from within the election integrity movement.

But I knew that the DemocracyFest panel was well rounded and that divergent opinions would be well represented, and I readied myself for a vigorous debate on controversial issues such as the Holt Bill..

But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.

Thursday's edition of the Atlanta Progressive News featured the following headline: Choicepoint President Funds Secretary of State Candidate Scott Holcomb in Georgia. For those of you unfamiliar with Choicepoint, this is the data management company that assumed responsibility for the infamous Florida 2000 voter roll purges, which resulted in tens of thousands of American citizens being denied their legal right to vote. Choicepoint went on to become involved in numerous questionable activities, all of which have been dutifully investigated and reported on by BBC journalist Greg Palast.

The APN article, which included interviews with Palast and Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting, contained truly troubling information about the relationship between Choicepoint and VoteTrustUSA:

Donna Curling, the wife of the President of Choicepoint, it seems, is also the Co-founder of a group which has endorsed Holcomb, Georgians for Verified Voting, and has funded a national voter integrity organization, VoteTrustUSA....

Atlanta Progressive News has contacted a number of local and national voting rights and voting integrity activists, and was surprised to see how many were actually engaging in the practice of defending Choicepoint. Several respondents were granted off-the-record interviews.

John Gideon of VoteTrustUSA said he had “no comment,” when asked about the Curlings’ support of the organization or others, or of Scott Holcomb’s campaign....

...Mrs. Curling had been participating on the VoteTrustUSA listserv under a false name, (Bev) Harris said. “So people didn’t know they were discussing their plans with the wife of Choicepoint’s President.”

Indeed, as the APN article notes, election integrity activists have been rigorously defending the VoteTrustUSA - Choicepoint alliance. As a relative outsider to the national election reform movement--while maintaining loose alliances with some national voting integrity activists, I have tended to stay more focused on New Hampshire and only recently signed on with the newly formed Election Defense Alliance--I have to say that I am stymied by any defense of the VotetrustUSA - Choicepoint partnership.

There are obvious conflicting goals, where you have on the one hand election reformers wanting to take back our elections from private interests, and on the other private interests wanting to further expand their reach into our election systems.

At DemocracyFest I met people actively engaged in election reform at high levels on the national scene, who told me that they thought the VoteTrustUSA - Choicepoint alliance was "a nonissue." In fact, "nonissue" became sort of a talking point, of the kind you tend to hear in political propoganda when the intention of the repeated mantra is to create its own little reality.

But how could it be a nonissue that the wife of Choicepoint's President has been a silent partner, financial contributer, and undercover listserve member of VoteTrustUSA?

There are good people involved and working with VoteTrustUSA. They have long-standing relationships and trust in one another. But the revelations from the APN article are not insignificant. VoteTrustUSA members and contributors should feel outraged and betrayed by this news. Policies and positions taken by the organization should be fully examined under this new light. A hearty debate should ensue and full disclosure should be issued.

Defending, rationalizing, and obfuscating this unholy alliance is not an acceptable response from the organization claiming to be the voice of American election integrity activism.

In the Democratic Underground blog, this incredible debate rages, with a seeming minority demanding accountability from VoteTrustUSA, and others rushing to defend both Choicepoint and VoteTrustUSA. It is an interesting and enlightening study in the infiltration of national grassroots movements. Author Greg Palast, who has in part made his career out of following the questionable practices of Choicepoint, sums it up in the following authorized release of his thoughts on the DU blog:

Thank you for a cogent response to ChoicePoint's latest smear tactics. When ChoicePoint pays Republicans, progressives are up in arms over the conflicts. But when, through cut-outs, they pay a so-called voter protection group, Rove's excuses come out of activists' lips. Shame. Shame. Shame.

And the effect followed the cash: After taking loot from the wife of the CEO of ChoicePoint, VoteTrustUSA's executive immediately ran to the defense of ChoicePoint's ill-making role in wrongly purging African-Americans from Florida Voter rolls. The company testified their executives KNEW the list used by the state included, in their own words, "those who are not felons" ... that is, they watched thousands lose their civil rights, an election stolen, and pocketed the millions.

Arguably, ChoicePoint, because of its culpable knowledge, had more to do with the attack on civil rights and the theft of the 2000 election than Jeb Bush.

I don't mind debating with ChoicePoint (which they refuse to do); but I'll be damned if I will tolerate smears from one of their paid hand puppets smearing my investigative reports while wearing the purloined mantle of voter protection. VoteTrustUSA has violated the public's trust.

This is not the first time ChoicePoint has purchased protection from pretend voter activists. In 2000, their cover was a group called Voter Integrity Project. What we have here is a case of old tricks with new dogs.

I would welcome a public discussion with ChoicePoint executives, especially about my new findings released in my latest book, Armed Madhouse. But they refuse to speak with me on the record. In one of their weirder faints, the company demanded the right to defend themselves on the Randi Rhodes show on condition I not be in the studio. Randi agred -- and placed me in a glass booth just OUTSIDE the studio.

Mrs. Curling's money may not influence VoteTrustUSA. Likewise, Lockheed's payments to Mrs. Cheney may not have influenced our Vice-President. Nevertheless, these marital joint political accounts are the essence of conflict of interest. But the fact that policies and positions quickly align with the cash leaves the uncomfortable impression that Trust can be bought.

Last Friday, in San Diego, I logged on to see what was happening in the world, and learned about the APN article. I wondered what this would mean to DemocracyFest, where VoteTrustUSA would be represented on Saturday's election integrity panel. I was concerned that this would distract us from the important work that needs to be done; I worried that the election integrity message would be tainted by the controversy and conflicts of interest revealed in the APN article.

The issue was resolved, however, when VoteTrustUSA's representative just didn't show up for the panel. DFA-ers were able to attend and learn and ask their questions without being distracted by divisive controversies.

I breathed a huge sigh of relief.

The tactics of infiltration, divide and conquer, and obfuscation have worked all too well in movement after movement. As we work together at safeguarding our elections, we must keep our eyes open and our thoughts clear. If our friends find themselves embroiled with the enemy--wittingly or unwittingly--they must be called into an accounting of their actions, and they must come clean.