The Monitor Group, a business consulting firm run by Harvard professors, has admitted that they broke the Foreign Agents Registration Act in their work promoting Moammar Gaddafi's Libya. The Examiner has the story:

Monitor Group, an international consulting firm headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, today admitted violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act regarding its lobbying for Libyan dictator Muammar Khadafy.  The Harvard University-linked company also admitted breaking federal law regarding its 2010 media work for the Kingdom of Jordan but did not provide details. Monitor Group was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for failure to register as a foreign agent after details of multi-million dollar deals with Libya were earlier reported following disclosure of the company’s contracts by a Libyan opposition group. In a written statement Monitor Group said:  “Monitor is committed to ensuring that we consistently live and manifest the values, ethics and standards that have characterized our Firm for more than 25 years.”

Sunlight was the first to question Monitor's adherence to the FARA law in a post back on March 1. The post stated:

“Monitor is not a lobbying group."

That was the assertion in one of a series of memos between The Monitor Group and the Government of Libya that were leaked by the Libyan opposition to Muammar Gaddafi’s now-tenuous rule of Libya. The memos, leaked in 2009, detail an extensive plan to promote the Libyan view to government officials and the American public that may leave many wondering why the firm never registered as a foreign lobbying group under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Beginning in 2006, Monitor began work as a consultant for Libya to “Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi” and to help the country establish an economic strategy. Monitor stated that it charged the Government of Libya $250,000 a month along with an open expense account that would not total more than $2.5 million.

...

The Monitor Group memos outline a strategy that is based on the need to influence both government officials in relation to U.S. policy and public opinion in regards to the Government of Libya and its leaders.

CNN also did a story about Monitor and other lobbying groups working for Gaddafi that you can watch here:

The question of whether a Boston-based consulting group hired by Libya's Moammar Gaddafi should have registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act is gaining more traction.

Last week I examined the internal documents between Monitor and the Libyan government to explain ways in which the firm may have been required to have filed as a foreign agent. On NPR today, Peter Overby reported that Monitor is now look into whether they should have registered:

The Foreign Agent Registration Act, or FARA, says Americans need to know when foreign governments try to influence them.

William Luneburg, who teaches lobbying law at the University of Pittsburgh, said FARA was enacted to fight Nazi propaganda in the 1930s.

"Whether it's burnishing Hitler's reputation or Gadhafi's reputation, so that ultimately the United States foreign policy would be consistent with their interests, that seems to squarely sit within what FARA is about," Luneburg said.

After being shown the provisions of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, a spokesman said Monitor Group is examining that question in more detail.

The Monitor Group/Libya controversy continues today with an article in the Boston Globe. The article quotes Libya scholar Dick Vandewalle explaining the real-world consequences of Monitor's work, "The really nefarious aspect of this is that it reinforced in Khadafy’s mind that he truly was an international intellectual world figure, and that his ideas of democracy were to be taken seriously ... It reinforced his reluctance to come to terms with the reality around him, which was that Libya is in many ways an inconsequential country and his ideas are half-baked."

Monitor was actively engaged in deluding a delusional dictator for profit by promising to influence policy and public opinion, something for which they probably should have registered to do with the Department of Justice. One of those things, pointed out on this blog and covered more closely at Mother Jones, was the invitation of prominent scholars and writers to Libya to give lectures and then write articles for publication putting a positive take on the "new" Libya.

I've collected links to the articles that I was able to find so far. You can see them all below. Let me know if there are more I should add to this list:

Anthony Giddens, "My chat with the colonel," The Guardian, March 9, 2007.

Joseph Nye, "Tripoli Diarist," The New Republic, December 10, 2007.

Benjamin Barber, "Gaddafi's Libya: An Ally for America?," Washington Post, August 15, 2007.

"U.S. Should Enlist Libya's Help," NPR, December 11, 2006. (Interview with Benjamin Barber.)

Andrew Moravcsik, "A Rogue Reforms," Newsweek, July 16, 2007.

Andrew Moravcsik, "Soft Power's Libya Triumph," Financial Times, July 29, 2007.

Stephen Walt, "The shores of Tripoli...," Foreign Policy, January 19, 2010.

Mother Jones' David Corn and Siddhartha Mahanta have an excellent piece about how The Monitor Group flacked for Libya and Moammar Gaddafi. Earlier this week I wrote about Monitor's failure to register as a foreign lobbyist. Reading the Mother Jones piece makes it all the more clear what Monitor was up to:

In February 2007 Harvard professor Joseph Nye Jr., who developed the concept of "soft power", visited Libya and sipped tea for three hours with Muammar Qaddafi. Months later, he penned an elegant description of the chat for The New Republic, reporting that Qaddafi had been interested in discussing "direct democracy." Nye noted that "there is no doubt that" the Libyan autocrat "acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. And the fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas—including soft power—with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy." The article struck a hopeful tone: that there was a new Qaddafi. It also noted that Nye had gone to Libya "at the invitation of the Monitor Group, a consulting company that is helping Libya open itself to the global economy."

Nye did not disclose all. He had actually traveled to Tripoli as a paid consultant of the Monitor Group (a relationship he disclosed in an email to Mother Jones), and the firm was working under a $3 million-per-year contract with Libya. Monitor, a Boston-based consulting firm with ties to the Harvard Business School, had been retained, according to internal documents obtained by a Libyan dissident group, not to promote economic development, but "to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi." So The New Republic published an article sympathetic to Qaddafi that had been written by a prominent American intellectual paid by a firm that was being compensated by Libya to burnish the dictator's image.

...

The key strategy for achieving these aims, the operation summary said, "involves introducing to Libya important international figures that will influence other nations' policies towards the country." Also on the table, according to a Monitor document, was a book that Monitor would produce on "Qadhafi, the Man and His Ideas," based in part on interviews between the Libyan dictator and these visiting international influentials. The book supposedly would "enable the international intellectual and policy-making elite to understand Qadhafi as an individual thinker rather than leader of a state." (Monitor's fee for this particular task: $1.65 million.) This volume never materialized. But one primary outcome of Monitor's pro-Qaddafi endeavors, the operation summary said, was an increase in media coverage "broadly positive and increasingly sensitive to the Libyan point of view."

“Monitor is not a lobbying group."

That was the assertion in one of a series of memos between The Monitor Group and the Government of Libya that were leaked by the Libyan opposition to Muammar Gaddafi’s now-tenuous rule of Libya. The memos, leaked in 2009, detail an extensive plan to promote the Libyan view to government officials and the American public that may leave many wondering why the firm never registered as a foreign lobbying group under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Beginning in 2006, Monitor began work as a consultant for Libya to “Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi” and to help the country establish an economic strategy. Monitor stated that it charged the Government of Libya $250,000 a month along with an open expense account that would not total more than $2.5 million.

In a memo dated July 3, 2006, The Monitor Group spelled out their plan of action for the Gaddafi government. This included mapping “critical figures … among policy makers, government, media, think tanks, academics, journalists, private sector companies and lobby groups,” providing support for “publication of positive articles on Libya,” and coordinating with Libya’s “existing lobbyists to ensure an integrated program.”

The central focus of the program was the invitation of prominent individuals to visit Libya and talk to regime leaders including Gaddafi and his sons. The July 3 memo lists two qualifications for the selection of visitors, “the appeal of their ideas” and “the strength of their influence in guiding US foreign policy.”

According to The Lobbying Manual published by the American Bar Association, there are a few key definitions that an organization has to meet to be required to register as a foreign agent under FARA. In most cases, whether a firm’s action fall under the definition of the term “political activities” determines their registration status.

The precise definition of “political activities” under FARA is

“…any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.”

The Monitor Group memos outline a strategy that is based on the need to influence both government officials in relation to U.S. policy and public opinion in regards to the Government of Libya and its leaders.

In a 2007 memo The Monitor Group states that their strategy is to “introduc[e] to Libya important international figures that will influence other nations’ policies towards the country.” This memo also states, “Many of the visitors brought to Libya have individually briefed all levels of the United States government including specifically the President, Vice President, Heads of National Security and Intelligence as well as the Secretary of State.”

One visitor to Libya was Nicholas Negroponte, the director of the MIT Media Lab and the founder of One Laptop Per Child. Negroponte’s brother is John Negroponte, at the time the Deputy Secretary of State. The memo indicates that Nicholas Negroponte “briefed his brother and other senior officials in the White House upon his return from Libya.”

Many other visitors are touted for their connections to policy makers in the United States. Author Bernard Lewis is said to have briefed then-Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones and “the entire political and economic staff at the U.S. Embassy in Israel on his visit to Libya.” Professor Benjamin Barber is stated to consult “regularly with … Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, former Senator Bill Bradley.” Anne-Marie Slaughter is listed as an advisor to Barack Obama and a “potential cabinet member.”

Monitor does not only explain their strategy to influence U.S. policy through the visitors program. They also explicitly state their own work in lobbying the U.S. government: “At a critical time when the United States was debating its recognition of Libya, Monitor met with senior officials in the United States government to share its perspective on Libya.” While Monitor may claim it was only sharing “its perspective” it was under contract with the Government of Libya to promote the country and improve its image at the time.

The memos also show Monitor’s work to influence opinion through the publication of articles by participants in the visitors program. Registration under FARA is not limited to the direct publication or dissemination of materials to influence public policy or public opinion. Indirect publication or dissemination is also included under registration requirements.

Monitor cites articles that Princeton professor Andrew Moravcsik wrote after his visit to Libya in Newsweek and the Financial Times and an appearance by Barber on NPR as positive examples of the kind of press that their work for Libya has produced.

Monitor also promotes itself as a voice to the media for discussions about Libya, “Monitor continues to speak directly to the media about Libya, and is willing to be quoted in the international press.”

On February 24 Monitor released a statement explaining “we do not discuss specifics of our work with any client … we are deeply distressed and saddened to witness the current tragic events in Libya. … Our work was focused on helping the Libyan people work towards an improved economy and more open governmental institutions. This is within a context of a period that was widely perceived as holding meaningful potential for reform within, and new opportunity for, Libya. We sought, consistently, to enable such progressive developments.”

(More Sunlight coverage of lobbying by governments facing protests and revolts in the Middle East.)

Since the unrest in the Middle East began a month ago the Sunlight Foundation has shone a unique spotlight on the lobbying efforts by the governments now facing massive protests and upheaval. Check out this post for an overview of the lobbying contracts from some of the Arab world and below for in-depth coverage on specific countries:

Algeria

• February 18, 2011: Libya and Algeria rocked by recent protests, have history of US lobbying

Egypt

• February 16, 2011: Egypt's Lobbyists Worked To Block Pro-Human Rights, Democracy Resolution

• February 15, 2011: Egypt's Washington Lobbying Operation Continues
• February 7, 2011: Egypt's Corruption Problem
• January 31, 2011: Lobbying Contacts By Egypt's Washington Lobbyists
• January 28, 2011: Egypt and US Lobbying History
• January 28, 2011: Egypt's Washington lobby helped country's military and U.S. defense firms

Libya

Curious about other countries? The Sunlight Foundation and ProPublica created the Foreign Lobbying Influence Tracker to enable research of the lobbying records by other countries. This searchable database is a collection of filings under the Foreign Agent Registration Act that is maintained by the Justice Department. Since mid-2007, the pdf images of these documents are available online and the Foreign Lobbyist Influence Tracker is the strongest resource available that digitizes these important records.

On October 5, 2008 U.S. and Libyan business leaders met with Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary Israel Hernandez as he opened a new Foreign Commercial Service office in Tripoli. In the same year, more companies and trade associations than ever before disclosed that they were lobbying the U.S. government in Washington to keep the newly opened African nation open for business. Much of that lobbying aided in the growing U.S.-Libyan business connection that led to the opening of the office.

According to lobbying disclosure reports, fifteen companies and two trade associations listed Libyan issues on their lobbying disclosure forms since President George W. Bush lifted economic sanctions on Libya in 2004. Libya’s large oil reserves, the biggest of any African nation, were the main focus of the lobbying efforts in Washington.

These companies include a who’s who of international oil companies including ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Shell, and Hess Corporation. The non-energy firms lobbying on Libya include Boeing, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Fluor Corporation, Halliburton, Motorola, and Raytheon. All of these companies have been engaged in business deals or attempted to enter the Libyan market over the past six years.

The current revolution in Libya has upended the recent engagement between the Government of Libya, the foreign oil companies, and the other corporations that have worked to enter the country’s market.

Lobbying was a regular feature as these companies sought to protect their new investments and get the U.S. government to smooth out business problems with the erratic regime. One issue that combined both of these lobbying topics came about from one amendment proposed to deal with state sponsors of terrorism.

According to diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks, an amendment added to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, known as the Lautenberg amendment, made it easier for plaintiffs in terrorism lawsuits to seize foreign government-owned assets from state sponsors of terrorism. This proved problematic for companies that had already entered into business arrangements with Libya as the government had not finished making payments to plaintiffs in the Lockerbie bombing case.

In 1988, terrorists blew up a passenger airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland at the behest of the government of Libya. In total, 270 people were killed. In 2002, Libya announced that it would pay the victim’s families $2.7 billion and paid it back in part as sanctions were lifted from the country and the country was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

This initial payment led to further discussion to repay victim’s families for other terrorist attacks that Libya undertook in the past. The passage of the Lautenberg amendment occurred in the context of these new negotiations.

The cables show that the Libyan government told the U.S. oil companies that “it is "their problem" to solve, and has begun requiring U.S. and other companies to conduct all operations in non-dollar denominations.” This meant that the companies would have to face the consequences of any future settlements that occurred under the Lautenberg amendment.

For the large part of 2008, the fifteen companies lobbying then focused on the repeal of the Lautenberg amendment. On August 4, 2008, they were successful. The resolution, known as the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, exempted Libya from the Lautenberg amendment barring the country settle for the victims of the other four terrorist attacks. On August 14, 2008, the United States approved a $1.8 billion settlement for the victims and the companies no longer faced the possibility of asset forfeiture.

These companies did not just rely on lobbying to their benefit over the years, but also created a non-lobbying advocacy organization to influence public opinion. The US-Libya Business Association was founded by many of the companies that lobbied Washington on Libyan issues in the 2000s along with White & Case, the law firm retained by the Government of Libya as registered foreign lobbyists

In 2009, the US-Libya Business Association ceded all of its advocacy work to the National Foreign Trade Council, a long-standing free trade group operating in Washington. According to a press release, “The association will remain a separate entity but will be co-located with the NFTC.”

With the present turmoil in Libya, the future prospects of the companies that have lobbied to protect their stake in the country are unclear. Some companies have evacuated employees while others have stated that their operations can still continue. The political response from the United States government may be equally worrying.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry said that the crackdown “beyond despicable” and called for American and international businesses to cease operations immediately and for the Obama Administration to re-impose sanctions lifted by President Bush. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen echoed Kerry’s call for a re-imposition of sanctions.

As the revolution continues unabated, these companies may wind up needing their lobbyists more than ever.