Each spring, the mainstream media -- fueled by a single advocacy group -- accuse FREE of promoting corporate interests, pursuing anti-environmental policies, and conducting boondoggle seminars for federal judges and law professors. Solid evidence refutes these claims. It would be less disturbing if these printed accounts appeared on opinion pages, but these biases underlie Associated Press articles parading as well-researched and balanced pieces.

Recently, a major newspaper asserted that “FREE has received sponsorship from petroleum corporations such as Exxon and Texaco ... and Koch Industries, as well as Georgia Pacific.... All have fought environmental fines and rules in federal court.” While the details are true, the implications are not; the story is incomplete. Deliberate omission leads readers to conclude that FREE is an anti-environmental corporate pawn. The opposite is true.

For over 20 years, our work has advanced environmental quality. We are environmentalists who use the analytical leverage of economics to pursue environmental goals. This approach is now common among successful environmental groups. Environmental regulation is an important tool for advancing social well-being. However, regulation is often misapplied with perverse results. Effective regulation requires mandating specific outcomes, but not dictating the technical means of achieving these goals.

Only 22 percent of our funding comes from corporations, and no company contributes even 6 percent of FREE’s annual budget; none of this support funds our judicial seminars. FREE’s chairman, John Baden, assures us that no corporate representative has ever suggested that FREE alter the content of its seminars to advance their interests. We can walk away from any donor, at any time, and every donor knows that. Judges and professors of environmental law, not corporate agents, guide the program content.

The mainstream media frequently use the insulting term “corporate-financed” to describe FREE. What is the accepted definition of “corporate-financed”? When and why is the term used? The Urban League, NAACP, the Sierra Club, Earth Justice, and World Wildlife Fund have all received hundreds of thousands of dollars -- in some cases, millions -- from corporations. Interestingly, they are not labeled “corporate-financed.” The term is used to discredit our work as environmentalists.

As for the boondoggle allegations, our seminars are rigorous and demanding. They start promptly at 8:30 AM and run through dinner. In four days of discussion and two days of travel, there are only two afternoon breaks. Participants complete roughly 200 pages of reading before attending. We expect all presenters and participants to attend every session; punctuality is required. There are a dozen 90-minute sessions, with half-hour breaks. Unlike other judicial seminars, our lecturers don’t parachute in and catapult out. Our agenda fosters constructive learning and dialogue among lecturers and participants.

Last year, a nonprofit organization filed a complaint against four of our board members, alleging that their affiliation with FREE amounted to “judicial misconduct.” One of them is Danny Boggs, Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge James Loken, Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit, conducted an extensive investigation into the propriety of Boggs’ affiliation with FREE. Last month, Judge Loken dismissed the claim of judicial misconduct on all counts. Furthermore, he concluded that the allegations against Boggs “typify the character assassination that is all too common in our Nation’s Capital, much of it intended to further the accuser’s legislative agenda. By use of this tactic, it is the complainant who is undermining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, not the judges complained of.”

Judge Loken’s task: to learn as much as he could about the complaints lodged against FREE, from all parties involved. He had the best information available, and made his conclusions only after identifying and understanding all of his sources and their respective points of view. Not surprisingly, the findings of a well-informed, objective critic contrast sharply with those repeated by the mainstream media.

FREE is one example, but it is certainly not the only victim of media bias. It is this bias, and not FREE’s experience with it, that merits attention. If FREE is under attack, any organization out of alignment with the politics of the mainstream media is at risk.