A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives or legislation.^[1] At the federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.^[2] At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.

History of PACs in the United States[link]

In 1947, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, the U.S. Congress prohibited labor unions or corporations from spending money to influence federal elections, and prohibited labor unions from contributing to candidate campaigns (an earlier law, the 1907 Tillman Act, had prohibited corporations from contributing to campaigns). Labor unions moved to work around these limitations by establishing political action committees, to which members could contribute.

In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1974, Amendments to FECA defined how a PAC could operate and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the nation's campaign finance laws. The FECA and the FEC's rules provide for the following:

• Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 per year to Federal PACs;
• Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, but can pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union;
• Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families;
• Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising;
• Union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members;
• Independent PACs may solicit contributions from the general public and must pay their own costs from those funds.

Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows:

• $5,000 to a candidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections);
• $15,000 to a political party per year; and
• $5,000 to another PAC per year.
• PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that laws prohibiting corporate and union political expenditures were unconstitutional. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns; those are still prohibited.^{[3][original research?]} Such organizations seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose. However, they may spend money independently of campaigns without forming a PAC.^{[citation needed]}

See section Super PAC backlash

Categorization of PACs[link]

Federal law allows for two types of PACs, connected and non-connected.

Connected PACs[link]

Most of the 4,600 active, registered PACs are "connected PACs" established by businesses, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class," generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation and members in the case of a union or other interest group. As of January 2009, there were 1,598 registered corporate PACs, 272 related to labor unions and 995 to trade organizations.^[4]

Non-connected PACs[link]

Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress and other political leaders may form "non-connected PACs". These organizations may accept funds from any individual, business PAC or organization. As of January 2009, there were 1,594 non-connected PACs, the fastest-growing category.^[4]

Super PACs[link]

In 2010, a few weeks after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures. The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions was the rise in 2010 of a new type of political action committee, popularly dubbed the "super PAC". Officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," Super PACs may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Also unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from corporations, unions and other groups, and from individuals, without legal limits.^[5]

As noted, Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. First, in January 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditure for political purposes. Two months later, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited in the size and source of contributions to the group.^[6]

According to Federal Election Commission advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiation that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.^[7][8]

Super PACs may support particular candidacies. In the 2012 presidential election, super PACs have played a major role, spending more than the candidates election campaigns in the Republican primaries.^[9] As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney's presidential campaign—has spent $40 million. Winning Our Future (a pro–Newt Gingrich group) spent $16 million.^[5] Super PACs are often run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates^[10].

In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to super PACs has come not from corporations but from wealthy individuals^[9]. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised^[11], while less than 0.5% of the money given to “the most active Super PACs” was donated by publicly traded corporations.^[12] Super PACs have been criticized for relying heavily on negative ads.^[13]

The term "Super PAC," was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney, "the first to imbue [the term] with its current meaning of 'political committees that may raise and spend unlimited money to independently support or oppose candidates.'"^[14] According to Politico, Carney, a staff writer covering lobbying and influence for CQ Roll Call, "made the first identifiable, published reference to 'super PAC' as it’s known today while working at National Journal, writing on June 26, 2010, of a group called Workers’ Voices, that it was a kind of '"super PAC" that could become increasingly popular in the post-Citizens United world.'"^[15]

Leadership PACs[link]

Elected officials and political parties cannot give more than the federal limit directly to candidates. However, they can set up a Leadership PAC that makes independent expenditures. Provided the expenditure is not coordinated with the other candidate, this type of spending is not limited.^[16]

Under the FEC rules, leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, and can accept donations from individuals and other PACs. Since current officeholders have an easier time attracting contributions, Leadership PACs are a way dominant parties can capture seats from other parties. A leadership PAC sponsored by an elected official cannot use funds to support that official's own campaign. However, it may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and other non-campaign expenses.^[17][18][19]

Between 2008 and 2009, leadership PACs raised and spent more than $47 million.^[20]

Controversial use of leadership PACs[link]

• Former Rep. John Doolittle's (R) leadership PAC paid 15% to a firm that only employed his wife. Payouts to his wife's firm were $68,630 in 2003 and 2004, and $224,000 in 2005 and 2006. The Doolittle home was raided on 2007.^[21] After years of investigation, the Justice Department dropped the case with no charges in June 2010.
• One Leadership PAC purchased $2,139 in gifts from Bose Corporation.^[22]
• Former Rep. Richard Pombo (R) used his leadership PAC to pay hotel bills ($22,896) and buy baseball tickets ($320) for donors.^[23]
• Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D) leadership PAC, Team Majority, was fined $21,000 by federal election officials "for improperly accepting donations over federal limits."^[24]

Keeping donor lists hidden from voters[link]

By January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications, regardless of whether the speaker is a corporation.^[25] These disclosures were intended to deter potentially or seemingly corrupting donations,^[26].^[27]

Yet despite disclosure rules, most voters in the United States still go to the polls not knowing who contributed for various independent ads.^[28] Critics of PACs claimed they have exploited a technicality in the filing requirements to postpone disclosure.^[29] In federal elections, PACs have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" filing schedule.^[30][31]This means monies may be collected and spent long before the required filing date of a disclosure. Alternately, donors may list an LLC instead of their personal name.^[32] One super PAC originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that turned out to have been formed by an individual for that sole purpose.^[33]

Many have argued that Super PACs, while meeting the requirements for legal independence, are often not truly independent of the candidates they support.^[34] Super PACs are often managed by close associates, former staff, or a candidate's immediate family.^[35] This in turn has led the press to determine voter intent to support the efforts of a specific candidate according to which PAC a contribution is made.^[36] For example the press referred to a filing by Restore Our Future, Inc, that listed 3 large donations by coworkers of 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as being "Mitt Romney's FEC filing".^[37]

An alternate route to fund a PAC has helped some special interest organizations keep the names of its donors secret years after an election. This route involves donning to a 501(c) non profit, which in turn gives to the Super PAC. The PAC only needs to disclose the name of the nonprofit that made the donation, not donors to that non-profit. ^[38]

One organization, the National Organization for Marriage, operated two non-profit arms that received millions in donations from just a few donors. It in turn funded several different PACs and contested the release of names that gave to the non-profit.^[39] One former 2012 Presidential candidate, Fred Karger, maintained that the National Organization for Marriage was set up by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as a front group to funnel anonymous money to candidates that are against the legalization of same-sex marriage.^[40] In Washington State in February 2012, the organization vowed to follow through on a commitment to spend $250,000 to help defeat the Republican state senators who voted for a bill to give same-sex couples the right to marry should they seek office again.^[41]

The PAC backlash[link]

This section may stray from the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (February 2012)

In the wake of the 2010 landmark case filed by Citizens United that allowed unrestricted financial contributions to Super PACs, Republican Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".^[42] Attorney James Bopp Jr, who first stated “No one that matters cares”,^[43] has subsequently stated members of Congress may realize "they have cut their own throats."^[44]

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (March 2012)

World-wide news organizations began asking in February 2012 if US democracy itself was being bought and sold.^[45]

Voter backlash, legal backlash, and congressional backlash are all occurring.^[46] Contrary to many opinions that voter backlash would occur, research early in the 2012 campaign indicated most voters found negative advertising informative and candidates benefited from negative advertising sponsored by PACs. ^[47]

Federal level backlash[link]

Three Federal rulings defending State election laws were apparent setbacks for PACs trying to keep donor names secret. On December 29th, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Family PAC, an organization that describes itself as "the leading pro-family, anti-tax" PAC.^[48] According to one scholarly article that reviewed the decision, the Court confirmed that PACs must conform with State of Washington election laws and were required to disclose the names and addresses for anyone contributing over $25.^[49][50] Within the ruling, the Court stated:

"The compelling State interest here is providing access to voters to information relevant to voting decision[s]....we do not agree with Family PAC’s contention that disclosure of small contributors does not provide information that enables the electorate to evaluate campaign messages and make informed decisions."^[51]

On January 31, 2012, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals rule against the National Organization for Marriage's attempts to continue to keep their donor list secret. The group had also previously lost a challenge to the state's political action committee laws and laws governing independent expenditures and advertising attribution and disclaimers.^[52][53] This court decision incorporated the "reasonable person in the circumstances," which is generally deemed an objective test. If a reasonable person receiving a solicitation would construe the funds they contributed to be for the purpose of funding a campaign to pass or defeat a ballot measure, then they clearly come within the reporting and disclosure requirements. Thus, the court found that the statute is not sufficiently ambiguous to raise constitutional concerns.^[54]

On May 16, 2011, the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld Minnesota's disclosure laws and ban on corporate contributions.^[55]

Attorney James Bopp Jr. who argued on the behalf of all three groups against the state is attempting appeals in the US Supreme Court.

In a federal court case filed in Guam by Philip Maise. "Maise says super PACs have allowed for millions of dollars in campaign donations to fund an offensive against same-sex marriage legislation"^[56][57]

State level advisory requests pending[link]

Despite losses such as these, PACs in some instances, were contesting previous rulings, and current state election law in the midst of the 2012 election. In Minnesota, Human Rights Campaign pressed for an advisory ruling regarding anonymous PAC spending from the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Commission. The group claimed the National Organization for Marriage was systematically attempting across the country to oppose public disclosure.^[58]

Legal backlash at State level[link]

The second legal front in the challenges to PAC spending was occurring largely at the State level where States like Hawaii were attempting to defend the limitations they had imposed on giving to candidates. In February 2012 a Federal Court took under advisement final motions.^[59]

State spending limits are also under attack in Montana, where James Bopp Jr stepped in January 2012 to press at a Federal level claims for a group fighting Montana's law that lost in Montana's Supreme Court.^[60] North Carolina Right to Life’s independent expenditures committees filed suit against the State of North Carolina in September 2011 claiming their spending limitations were unlawful with representation by James Bopp Jr. An October 2011 lawsuit challenged spending limitations in New Mexico.

Super PAC backlash[link]

It was generally agreed in the 2012 campaign that the formation of a super PAC and the acceptance of large contributions was legal. However, a lingering question was whether super PACs are legal when examined on the basis of how they act. Two agreed-upon illegal actions that a super PAC could not make were to accept foreign funds and to coordinate directly with a candidate. Super PACs were seen in the press as a ready vehicle to allow the easy disguise of illegal foreign donations from both individuals and overseas companies.^[61] The concept of actions being illegal, when coordinated with a candidate, came out, in part, after a super PAC named American Crossroads requested permission to communicate to their favored candidate on an above-board basis. Federal Election Commission Program Director Paul S. Ryan's response was that “the Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of contribution limits to preventing corruption, and that expenditures coordinated with candidates must be treated as contributions in order to prevent easy circumvention of the limits."^[62]

Long term, at least one analyst has interpreted court decisions, and in particular Speechnow.org versus FEC, to mean super PAC spending was legal "as long as they're not in cahoots with campaigns".^[63][64]

Congressional backlash[link]

The third type of backlash is a congressional investigation. On February 2, 2012, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, Chairman of the Rules Committee, promised hearings on this issue and that "overwhelmingly" the bulk of contributions are going to support Republican candidates, owing in part to Democratic positions against continuing tax breaks to the wealthy.^[65]

Defending super PAC contributions[link]

Presidential candidate Romney stated in August 2011 that his ability to benefit from large contributions via PACs from individual donors helps him to equalize the influence of corporations and unions that can pool small contributions from many employees or union members. Romney stated “My own view is I don’t like all the influence of money in politics, but I don’t have a solution that’s a lot better than saying let people contribute what they will, then report it, let people know who gave what to who.”^[66]

Jim Messina, President Obama's campaign manager, stated: "With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm".^[67] According to press reports, in asking his top fundraisers to steer money to the main super PAC backing his reelection, Obama embraced a campaign vehicle he previously denounced.^[68]

James Bopp[link]

Much of the credit for the legal framework for PACs and 527 organizations to accept unlimited amounts of money is given to Republican attorney James Bopp, Jr. He fought 30 years and filed 21 cases to eliminate limits on campaign spending, and to keep donor lists private. According to the Center for Responsive Politics. "It’s safe to say that groups on the left and right have Jim Bopp to thank for their new-found freedom."^[69][70]

International comparison and response[link]

The leading democracies have different systems of campaign finance, and several have no institutions analogous to American PACs, in that there are no private contributions of large sums of money to individual candidates. This is true, for example in Germany, in France, and in Britain. In these countries, concerns about the influence of campaign contributions on political decisions are less prominent in public discussion.^{[citation needed]}

2008 Election[link]

In the 2008 elections, the top nine PACs by money spent by themselves, a total of $25,794,807 via their affiliates and subsidiaries as follows:

1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $3,344,650
2. AT&T Federal PAC $3,108,200
3. American Bankers Association (BANK PAC) $2,918,140
4. National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC $2,869,000
5. Dealers Election Action Committee of the National Automobile Dealers Association $2,860,000
6. International Association of Fire Fighters $2,734,900
7. International Union of Operating Engineers PAC $2,704,067
8. American Association for Justice PAC $2,700,500
9. Laborers' International Union of North America PAC $2,555,350

2012 Election (estimates)[link]

As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008. The leading Super PAC on its own raised more money than the combined total spent by the top 9 PACS in the 2008 cycle.^[71]

The 2012 figures don't include funds raised by State level PACs nor funds raised by national level non-profit groups that pool "soft-funds". Spending by non-profits, also called 527 organizations, exceeded $500 million in the 2010 election cycle with the two largest organizations being the Republican Governors Association $131,873,954 and the Democratic Governors Association $64,708,253 ^[72] Spending by the 527 organizations for the 2012 is expected to be double and much will be derived from donors kept hidden from voters.^[73]

See also[link]

• 527 group
• Issue advocacy ads
• Lobbying in the United States
• Money loop
• Politics of the United States
• Soft money

References[link]

External links[link]

• Federal Election Commission
  • Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations
  • Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees
• Federal Judicial Branch
  • Ruling National Organization for Marriage versus McKee (Maine), United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
  • Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission
• OpenSecrets.org
• PoliticalMoneyLine

Rémi Gaillard
Gaillard in 2011
Born	(1975-02-07) February 7, 1975 (age 37)
Occupation	Pranker, Humorist
Years active	1999–present
Home town	Montpellier, France
Internet information
Web alias(es)	Rémi Gaillard
Web hosting service(s)	YouTube
Website
nimportequi.com.

Rémi Gaillard (born 7 February 1975 in Montpellier, France) is a French humorist who uploads videos on YouTube. After losing his job at a shoe store, Rémi then began to use his free time to have fun and run some pranks on the public. He is the seventeenth most subscribed comedian on YouTube.^[1]

Gaillard gained attention in the French media after performing a well-documented series of pranks, including an appearance disguised as a Lorient soccer player in the 2002 Coupe de France final match, during which he took part in the winners' celebrations and was greeted by the then president of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac. He is also an extremely talented soccer player and has posted videos of his skills.

Gaillard has appeared in several sport events, TV game shows and political rallies.

Concept[link]

Rémi Gaillard became famous for his videos where he displays an "outrageous" style of humour, challenging public norms.^[2] Recurring themes include dressing up as and interpreting the behaviour of various animals in public, racing unsuspecting car-drivers whilst dressed up as Mario, and numerous provocative interactions with parking enforcement officers and the police.

Through his various stunts and pranks Rémi is involved in Culture jamming. In his videos, he is often found mocking the law and induces his viewers to think twice about the norms in today's society.

Gaillard's satirical motto is C'est en faisant n'importe quoi qu'on devient n'importe qui (literally, "It's by doing anything, that one becomes anybody").

Sketches[link]

The majority of Gaillard's sketches are of the hidden camera type, often disguising himself in outlandish costumes for his pranks. In some videos, Gaillard is accompanied by a crowd of friends, giving the action a flashmob-like nature.

Gaillard shot his first sketch in 1999^[2] with a friend in Montpellier, and in 2001, he launched his website nimportequi.com.^[2]

He gained notoriety in 2002 at the finals of the Coupe de France. Disguised as an FC Lorient player, he celebrated the team's victory with the players, shook the hand of the then French President Jacques Chirac and signed autographs, without anyone realizing that he was not a player on the team.

He achieved further YouTube notoriety through his Rocky Balboa parodies, Pac Man costume prank, Mario Kart prank, and his soccer videos. His recent pranks often entail dressing up in large animal costumes; namely, a pig, dog, cat, turtle, snail, bee, shark, kangaroo, spider, beaver, fly, gorilla, chicken, penguin, giraffe, rabbit, butterfly, bat and a sheep.

He occasionally ran into some trouble while shooting his videos but never of the legal kind. He does not have a police record. ^[3]

In 2007, he gained the attention of journalists from Le Monde and made occasional television appearances.^{[citation needed]}. Gaillard also appeared in Orangina, Pepsi, Durex and LG commercials.^{[citation needed]}

On his official site, Gaillard claims over 1.35 billion views on his videos on the web.^[4]. As each of his videos claim at least 1,000,000 views. His most popular video, "Mario Kart", has over 47 million views alone.^[5]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Official website
• Gaillard's channel on YouTube
• Gaillard's Dailymotion channel

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since July 2008. It relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Tagged since February 2010. It is written like a résumé. Tagged since February 2010.

Linda Moulton Howe, born January 20, 1942, is an American investigative journalist and documentary producer-writer-director-editor who is currently based in Albuquerque, New Mexico.^[1]

Early life and education[link]

She was born as Linda Moulton in Boise, Idaho. Howe entered the 1963 Miss Boise pageant for college scholarships and went on to win the 1963 Miss Idaho crown and scholarships, and participated in the Miss America Pageant that year in Atlantic City. Howe received her 1965 B.A. cum laude in English Literature from the University of Colorado, Boulder. In 1966, Howe was awarded the Stanley Baubaire Scholarship for her Master's Degree work at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. She received her Masters Degree in Communication from Stanford University in 1968, where she produced a documentary film for the Stanford Medical Center and her Master's Thesis, "A Picture Calculus," at the Stanford Linear Accelerator.

Career[link]

Howe has devoted her documentary film, television, radio, writing and reporting career to productions concerning science, medicine and the environment. Ms. Howe has received local, national and international awards, including three regional Emmys, a national Emmy nomination and a Station Peabody award for medical programming. While Linda was Director of Special Projects at KMGH-TV, Channel 7, Denver, Colorado from 1978 to 1983, her documentaries included Poison in the Wind and A Sun Kissed Poison which compared smog pollution in Los Angeles and Denver; Fire In The Water about hydrogen as an alternative energy source to fossil fuels; A Radioactive Water about uranium contamination of public drinking water in a Denver suburb; and A Strange Harvest and Strange Harvests 1993, which explored animal mutilation mystery. Another film, A Prairie Dawn, focused on astronaut training in Denver. She has also produced documentaries in Ethiopia and Mexico for UNICEF about child survival efforts and for Turner Broadcasting in Atlanta about environmental challenges in the television series Earthbeat.

Linda Moulton Howe receiving her 1981 Regional Emmy award for A Strange Harvest, a documentary she produced, wrote, directed, edited and reported as Director of Special Projects at KMGH-TV, CBS affiliate in Denver, Colorado.

In addition to television, Linda produces, reports and edits the award-winning science, environment and earth mysteries news website, Earthfiles.com. Linda also reports monthly science, environment and earth mysteries news for Premiere Radio Networks Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and weekly news updates for Dreamland Radio at Unknowncountry.com.

In 2005, she traveled to Amsterdam, Hawaii, and several other U.S. conferences to speak about her investigative journalism. She was interviewed for the Canadian award-winning documentary, Star Dreams, about crop circles.

In 2004, Linda was on-camera television reporter for The History Channel's UFO Files documentary investigation of an August 2004 cow death in Farnam, Nebraska. Linda also traveled to Florence and San Marino, Italy, to speak about her "earth mysteries" investigations. She also produced and reported Earthfiles segments for Comcast Cable broadcasts in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

In 2003, Linda traveled to England to report about the proliferation of crop formations and small, mysterious lights there and in other European countries. She also investigated aerial light phenomena in Brazil. In 2002, Linda traveled to Norway to join astronomers, physicists and engineers in the study of "thermal plasmas of unknown origin" in the Hessdalen valley (see Hessdalen light). In 2001, Linda traveled to Hong Kong and Laos to report for The Discovery Channel television series, Modern Mysteries of Asia.

A few of her other television productions have included The World of Chemistry for PBS; a two-hour special Earth Mysteries: Alien Life Forms in association with WATL-Fox, Atlanta. Linda was Supervising Producer and Original Concept Creator for UFO Report: Sightings financed by Paramount Studios and the Fox network in Los Angeles. Its first broadcast was in October 1991, which became the Sightings series on Fox.

Film and television background[link]

Howe reported news and produced the weekly live news program, Inquiry, at KNBC-TV, Los Angeles, 1968–1974; produced and wrote House Call with Timothy Johnson, M.D., WCVB-TV, Boston, 1974–1978; Director of Special Projects, KMGH-TV, Denver, 1978–1983; Owner Linda Moulton Howe Productions, 1983 to present; produced, wrote, directed and edited three documentaries for UNICEF, including UNICEF's 40th Anniversary in New York City, 1984, and New Hope in Child Survival in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1985; produced, wrote, directed and edited The Mole for World of Chemistry series, PBS, Washington, D.C., 1986; produced, wrote, directed and edited Information's Electronic Future in Denver, Colorado, 1987; Director of International Programming for Earthbeat, WTBS-TV, Atlanta, 1989–1990; produced, wrote, directed and edited Earth Mysteries: Alien Life Forms, and was Producer and Live Studio Host for a Roswell UFO Crash special audience event for WATL-TV, Atlanta, 1990; Supervising Producer and Original Concept Creator, UFO Report: Sightings, Paramount Studios/FOX Network, Los Angeles, 1991; produced, wrote, directed, edited Strange Harvests 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1994; segment productions TN, Discovery Channel, Learning Channel, History Channel, 1995-2007.

Awards[link]

Linda was an honored medical producer in Boston's WCVB Station Excellence Peabody Award. As Director of Special Projects at the KMGH-TV station in Denver, Colorado, she received the Aviation & Space Writers Association Award for Writing Excellence in Television, a Chicago Film Festival Golden Plaque for A Radioactive Water, Colorado's Florence Sabin Award for "outstanding contribution to public health" and several dozen other local and regional awards, including Emmys. She also worked as Director of International Programming for Earthbeat, an environmental series broadcast on Turner's WTBS Superstation, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Travels and books[link]

Linda has traveled in Brazil, England, Norway, France, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Kenya, Egypt, Australia, Japan, Peru, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, the Yucatan, and Puerto Rico for research and productions. Linda has written four books: Mysterious Lights and Crop Circles, 2nd edition, September 2002, about accounts and research regarding biophysical and biochemical changes in affected cereal crops by complex energy systems; An Alien Harvest about animal mutilation; Glimpses of Other Realities, Volumes I and II about U.S. military, intelligence and civilian testimonies concerning "unidentified phenomena interacting with earth life".

Linda is also asked to speak as an investigative reporter at national and international conferences and symposia, including NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and has been interviewed on a Larry King Live special, CNN; The O'Reilly Factor, Fox; Sightings and Strange Universe, Fox; NBC's The Other Side; Britain's Union Pictures, ITN and BBC; The Discovery Channel special Evidence On Earth; and the NBC network special, Mysterious Origins of Man.

Personal life[link]

She has a daughter, Laura Kathleen Howe, from her marriage (1968–1986) to Larry W. Howe. Her father was Chet Moulton, Idaho's Director of Aeronautics from 1946 to 1971 and recipient of many aviation honors. Her mother was Mabel K. Moulton. Her brother is James Moulton, an aviation simulator instructor at Lockheed Martin.

Film/television documentaries[link]

• Guilty Madonnas — Medical
• Borrowed Faces — Environmental
• A Poison in the Wind — Environmental
• Sun Kissed Poison — Environmental
• Fire In The Water — Environmental
• A Strange Harvest — Environmental
• A Radioactive Water — Environmental
• A Prairie Dawn — Science and Technology
• Information's Electronic Future — Science and Technology
• Earth Mysteries: Alien Life Forms — Environmental
• Strange Harvests 1993 — Environmental
• Earth Mysteries: Alien Life Forms — Environmental
• Earthbeat — Environmental
• The Mole: World of Chemistry — Science
• UFO Report: Sightings — Environmental

Film Awards:

• Chicago Film Festival Golden Plaque, Documentary, A Radioactive Water.
• Denver Int'l. Film Festival, First Place, Documentary, Borrowed Faces.
• National Emmy Award Finalist, Community Service, Documentaries Poison in the Wind and A Sun Kissed Poison.
• Regional Emmy, Writing Achievement, Fire in the Water.
• Regional Emmy for Directing Achievement, A Radioactive Water.
• Regional Emmy for Sound Effects and Editing, A Strange Harvest.
• Regional Emmy Finalist, Best Documentary, The Guilty Madonnas.
• George Foster Peabody Award (Howe contributing producer of science and medical programming) for station excellence to WCVB-TV, Boston, Massachusetts.
• Sigma Delta Chi Excellence In Journalism Award, A Radioactive Water.
• Award for Writing Excellence, Aviation & Space Writers Association, A Prairie Dawn.
• Florence Sabin Award for "outstanding contribution to public health in documentary films and programs," presented by Colorado Public Health Association.
• Ohio State Award, Natural and Physical Sciences, Fire in the Water.
• Ohio State Award, Performing Arts, Borrowed Faces.
• Cine Golden Eagle, "for excellence to represent the United States in international motion picture events abroad," Borrowed Faces.
• American Film Festival, Gold Ribbon Award, Borrowed Faces.
• Colorado Broadcasters Award, Best Documentary, Colorado On Trial.
• Colorado Broadcasters Award, Best Documentary, Fire in the Water.
• Outstanding Film Award, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Information's Electronic Future.
• Creative Excellence Award, U.S. Industrial Film Festival, Information's Electronic Future.
• New York Film and TV Festival, Bronze Award, Information's Electronic Future.
• Citizens Participation Award from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for documentary films about air pollution and energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Earthfiles.com — Linda Moulton Howe's news Web site

Edgar Dean Mitchell
NASA Astronaut
Nationality	American
Status	Retired
Born	(1930-09-17) September 17, 1930 (age 81) Hereford, Texas
Other occupation	Test Pilot
Rank	Captain, USN
Time in space	9d 00h 01m
Selection	1966 NASA Group
Missions	Apollo 14
Mission insignia

Edgar Dean Mitchell, Sc.D. (born September 17, 1930) is an American pilot, engineer, and astronaut. As the lunar module pilot of Apollo 14, he spent nine hours working on the lunar surface in the Fra Mauro Highlands region, making him the sixth person to walk on the Moon.

Biography[link]

Mitchell was born in Hereford, Texas.^[1] He was active in the Boy Scouts of America where he achieved its second highest rank, Life Scout. He was also a member of DeMolay International and has been inducted into its Hall of Fame.

Mitchell earned a Bachelor of Science degree in industrial management from Carnegie Institute of Technology in 1952.^[1] The following year he joined the US Navy where he trained as a pilot and flew off the aircraft carriers USS Bon Homme Richard and USS Ticonderoga. He later qualified as a research pilot and taught at the Navy's research pilot school. While on active duty in the Navy, he earned a Master of Science degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and a Doctor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.^[1] He currently resides in suburban West Palm Beach, FL.

Mitchell is a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity, and carried one of the order's badges to the Moon; it is now kept at his home chapter of Kappa Sigma at Carnegie Mellon University.

NASA career[link]

Mitchell studies a map while walking on the Moon, February 6, 1971

Mitchell was selected to be an astronaut in 1966 and was seconded from the Navy to NASA. He was designated as backup lunar module pilot for Apollo 10, and flew as lunar module pilot on Apollo 14, where he spent nine hours working on the lunar surface in the Fra Mauro Highlands region, making him the sixth person to walk on the Moon.

Apollo 14 was Mitchell's only spaceflight. He remained with NASA until 1972, when he retired from the Navy.

After NASA[link]

Ed Mitchell was awarded honorary doctorates from the New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Edgar Mitchell was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1970 by President Richard Nixon.

On June 29, 2011, the United States Government filed a lawsuit against Mitchell in the United States District Court in Miami, Florida after discovering that he possessed a camera used by the Apollo 14 crew on the moon, and had put the camera up for auction at the British auction house Bonhams. The litigation asked that the camera be returned to NASA. Mitchell's position was that NASA had given him the camera as a gift upon the completion of the Apollo 14 mission. Bonhams has withdrawn the camera from auction.^[2] In October, 2011, prosecutors and Mitchell reached a settlement agreement, under which Mitchell gave up any claims to the camera and agreed to return it to NASA, which in turn would donate it for display at the National Air and Space Museum. ^[3]

Other interests[link]

Mitchell's interests include consciousness and paranormal phenomena. On his way back to earth during the Apollo 14 flight he had a powerful Savikalpa samadhi experience^[4], and also claimed to have conducted private ESP experiments with his friends on Earth.^[5] The results of said experiments were published in the Journal of Parapsychology in 1971.^[6] In early 1973, he founded the nonprofit Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) to conduct and sponsor research into areas that mainstream science has found unproductive, including consciousness research and psychic events.

Remote healing[link]

Mitchell says that a teenage remote healer who lives in Vancouver and uses the pseudonym Adam Dreamhealer helped him heal kidney cancer at a distance. Mitchell said that while he never had a biopsy, "I had a sonogram and MRI that was consistent with renal carcinoma." Adam worked (distantly) on Mitchell from December 2003 until June 2004, when the "irregularity was gone and we haven't seen it since".^[7]

Views on UFOs[link]

Mitchell has publicly expressed his opinions that he is "90 percent sure that many of the thousands of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, recorded since the 1940s, belong to visitors from other planets"^[8] and that UFOs have been the "subject of disinformation in order to deflect attention and to create confusion so the truth doesn't come out".^[9] Dateline NBC conducted an interview with Mitchell on April 19, 1996, during which he discussed meeting with officials from three countries who claimed to have had personal encounters with extraterrestrials. He offered his opinion that the evidence for such "alien" contact was "very strong" and "classified" by governments, who were covering up visitations and the existence of alien beings' bodies in places such as Roswell, New Mexico. He further claimed that UFOs had provided "sonic engineering secrets" that were helpful to the U.S. government. Mitchell's book, The Way of the Explorer, discusses his journey into mysticism and space.^[10]

In 2004 he told the St. Petersburg Times that a "cabal of insiders" in the U.S. government were studying recovered alien bodies, and that this group had stopped briefing U.S. presidents after John F. Kennedy.^[11] He said, "We all know that UFOs are real; now the question is where they come from."^[12]

On July 23, 2008 Edgar Mitchell was interviewed on Kerrang Radio by Nick Margerrison. Mitchell claimed the Roswell crash was real and that aliens have contacted humans several times, but that governments have hidden the truth for 60 years stating, "I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet, and the UFO phenomenon is real." In reply, a spokesman for NASA stated, "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe. Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue."^[13][14]

In an interview with Fox News on July 25, 2008, Mitchell clarified that his comments did not involve NASA, but quoted unnamed sources, since deceased, at Roswell who confided to him that the Roswell incident did involve an alien craft. Mitchell also claims to have subsequently received confirmation from an unnamed intelligence officer at the Pentagon.^[15][16]

Edgar Mitchell, February 2009

Other projects[link]

Edgar Mitchell appears in the documentaries In the Shadow of the Moon, The Phoenix Lights...We Are Not Alone, and The Living Matrix.

Mitchell has written several articles and essays,^[17] as well as two books. In The Way of the Explorer, Mitchell proposed a dyadic model of reality.^[18]

He is currently the Advisory Board Chairman of the Institute for Cooperation in Space, co-founded by Dr. Carol Rosin^[19] and is a member of INREES.

Mitchell is one of the initial supporters of the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly – which would be a first step towards a "world parliament".^[20]

Honors and awards[link]

This article incorporates information from the equivalent article on the Polish Wikipedia.

• Presidential Medal of Freedom (1970)
• NASA Distinguished Service Medal
• Navy Astronaut Wings
• Navy Distinguished Service Medal

In media[link]

1998 HBO TV series From the Earth to the Moon – played by Gary Cole

Books[link]

• The Way of the Explorer: An Apollo Astronaut's Journey Through the Material and Mystical Worlds (1996), G. Putnam & Sons, hardcover, ISBN 0-399-14161-8, 2008 paperback edition: ISBN 1-56414-977-3, audio cassette edition: ISBN 1-57270-019-X
• Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science (1974), G. Putnam & Sons, ISBN 0-399-11342-8

References[link]

• New Mexico Museum of Space History

References[link]

External links[link]

Biography portal

• Edgar Mitchell's home page
• Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: Apollo 14
• Edgar Mitchell MP3 audio – from Shift in Action, sponsored by Institute of Noetic Sciences
• Samadhi in Space interview with Dr. Edgar Mitchell in ascent magazine
• "Release all information on UFOs & ETs", an interview with Mitchell in Soul Travel Magazine
• Edgar Mitchell, member of INREES Institute for Research of Extraordinary Experiences

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009)

Graham Hancock
Born	(1950-08-02)August 2, 1950 (age 61) Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Nationality	British
Citizenship	British
Alma mater	Durham University
Occupation	Author
Known for	Author, The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, The Message of the Sphinx

Graham Hancock (born 2 August 1950 in Edinburgh, Scotland) is a British writer and journalist. Hancock specialises in unconventional theories ^[1] involving ancient civilizations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical/astrological data from the past. One of the main themes running through many of his books is the possible global connection with a "mother culture" from which he believes all ancient historical civilizations sprang.^[2]

Biography[link]

Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, Hancock's formative years were spent in India, where his father worked as a surgeon. Having returned to the UK, he graduated from Durham University in 1973, receiving a First Class Honours degree in Sociology.

As a journalist, Hancock worked for many British papers, such as The Times, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. He was co-editor of New Internationalist magazine from 1976–1979 and East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983.

Works[link]

Hancock sees himself as a journalist who asks questions based upon observation and as someone who provides a counterbalance to what he perceives as the "unquestioned" acceptance and support given to orthodox views by the education system, the media, and by society at large.^[3] His books include Lords of Poverty, The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, Keeper of Genesis (released in the US as Message of the Sphinx), The Mars Mystery, Heaven's Mirror (with wife Santha Faiia), Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, and Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith (with co-author Robert Bauval). In 1996 he appeared in The Mysterious Origins of Man.^[4] He also wrote and presented the documentaries Underworld: Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age (2002) and Quest for the Lost Civilisation (1998) ^[5] shown on Channel 4. In Hancocks's book Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith,^[6] co-authored with Robert Bauval, the two put forward "a version of the old Jewish-Masonic plot so beloved by ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorists."^[7] They suggest a connection between the pillars of Solomon's Temple and the Twin Towers, and between the Star of David and The Pentagon.^[8]

Hancock's most recent non-fiction book, Supernatural: Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind, was published in the UK in October 2005 and in the US in 2006. In it, Hancock examines paleolithic cave art in the light of David Lewis-Williams' neuropsychological model, exploring its relation to the development of the fully modern human mind.

His first novel, Entangled: The Eater of Souls, the first in a fantasy series, was published in the UK in April 2010 and in the US in October 2010. The novel makes use of Hancock's prior research interests and as he has noted, "What was there to lose, I asked myself, when my critics already described my factual books as fiction?"

Although his books have sold more than five million copies worldwide and have been translated into twenty-seven languages, his methods and conclusions have found little support among academics, his work being labelled "pseudoarchaeology".^[1][9][10]

Orion Correlation Theory[link]

Representation of the central tenet of the OCT - the outline of the Giza pyramids superimposed over a photograph of the stars in Orion's Belt. To achieve this concordance the pyramids have been rotated and scaled to suit. The validity of this match has been called into question by Hancock's critics, as noted in the text.

One of the many recurring themes in several of Hancock's works has been an exposition on the "Orion Correlation Theory" (or OCT),^[11][12] first put forward by Belgian writer Robert Bauval and then further expounded in collaborative works with Hancock, as well as in their separate publications.

[edit] BBC Horizon controversy

BBC 2's Horizon TV series broadcast a programme, Atlantis Reborn, on 4 November 1999 that challenged the ideas presented by Hancock. It detailed one of Hancock's claims that the arrangement of an ancient temple complex was designed to mirror astronomical features and attempted to demonstrate that the same thing could be done with perhaps equal justification using famous landmarks in New York. It also alleged that Hancock had selectively moved or ignored the locations of some of the temples to fit his own theories (see below).^[13]

Hancock claimed he was misrepresented by the programme, and he and Robert Bauval made complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Commission against the way Horizon had portrayed them and their work. Eight points were raised by Hancock, two by Bauval (one of which duplicated a complaint of Hancock's).^[14] This included the complaint that:

The programme attempted to create the impression that he [Hancock] was an intellectual fraudster who had put forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and that he was incompetent to defend his own arguments.^[15]

The BSC dismissed all but one of the complaints. Overall, the BSC concluded that "the programme makers acted in good faith in their examination of the theories of Mr Hancock and Mr Bauval".^[16] The complaint which was upheld was that

The programme unfairly omitted one of their arguments in rebuttal of a speaker who criticised the theory of a significant correlation between the Giza pyramids and the belt stars of the constellation Orion (the "correlation theory")

which the Commission did find to be unfair. That speaker was the astronomer Edwin Krupp. Krupp accused Bauval of fudging the maps of Orion and the Pyramids by placing them upside down in order to make the theory work.^[17] In interviews filmed in the later and modified Horizon documentary Atlantis Reborn Again shown on 14 December 2000, Hancock and Bauval provided detailed rebuttals to Krupp and argued that the ancient Egyptians had made the Pyramids correlate in the most obvious and intuitive manner with the three stars of Orion's Belt, that Orion could only be seen at the highest point in the sky by the Egyptians looking in a southward direction and a work of symbolic and religious art. A counter argument was provided on Atlantis Reborn Again to Bauval and Hancock's responses to Krupp's statements.

According to Graham Hancock, Krupp's criticism was rejected by two prominent British astronomers, Dr. Percy Seymour of Plymouth University and Dr. Archie Roy, professor Emeritus at Glasgow University.^[18]

Cultural references[link]

In 2009, Roland Emmerich released his blockbuster disaster movie 2012 citing Fingerprints of the Gods in the credits as an inspiration for the film,^[19] stating: "I always wanted to do a biblical flood movie, but I never felt I had the hook. I first read about the Earth's Crust Displacement Theory in Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods." ^[20] Also in 2009, author Geoff Stray released his best-selling book "Beyond 2012: Catastrophe or Awakening?" in which he cites Graham Hancock as one of his inspirations and as a guidepost to point others to do their own investigation into the wonder of ancient societies.^[21]

Books[link]

• Hancock, Graham (1985). Ethiopia: The Challenge of Hunger. London: V. Gollancz. ISBN 0-575-03680-X. 
• Hancock, Graham; Enver Carim (1986). AIDS: The Deadly Epidemic. London: V. Gollancz. ISBN 0-575-03837-3. 
• Hancock, Graham (1989). Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 0-87113-253-2. 
• Hancock, Graham (1992). The Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant. New York: Crown. ISBN 0-517-57813-1. 
• Hancock, Graham (1995). Fingerprints of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth's Lost Civilization. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-517-59348-3. 
• Hancock, Graham; Robert Bauval (1996). The Message of the Sphinx: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-517-70503-6.  Published in the United Kingdom as Hancock, Graham; Robert Bauval (1996). Keeper of Genesis: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind. London: Heinemann. ISBN 0-434-00302-6. 
• Hancock, Graham (1998). The Mars Mystery: A Tale of the End of Two Worlds. London: Michael Joseph. ISBN 0-7181-4314-0. 
• Hancock, Graham; Santha Faiia (1998). Heaven's Mirror: Quest for the Lost Civilization. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-517-70811-6. 
• Hancock, Graham; Santha Faiia (2001). Fingerprints of the Gods: The Quest Continues (New Updated Edition). New York: Crown Century. ISBN 0-7126-7906-5. 
• Hancock, Graham (2002). Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization. New York: Crown. ISBN 1-4000-4612-2. 
• Hancock, Graham; Robert Bauval (2004). Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith. Tisbury: Element Books. ISBN 0-00-719036-0. 
• Hancock, Graham (2005). Supernatural: Meeting with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind. London: Century. ISBN 1-84413-681-7. 
• Hancock, Graham (2010). Entangled: The Eater of Souls. New York: The Disinformation Company. ISBN 978-1-934708-56-9.