(MintPress) — The controversy surrounding Republican Congressman Kevin Yoder’s nude swim session in the Sea of Galilee last year sent off a wave of shock and humor, overshadowing a more serious issue relating to the questionable financing of his trip to Israel.
The laws on the books are pretty clear: Congressmen and women cannot accept free trips from lobby organizations, as they’re seen as blatant forms of bribery. So how did Yoder get to Israel for his raucous night of sea bathing? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobby group, paid for it.
While it may seem like Yoder was out-of-bounds legally on this one, he technically wasn’t. That’s because the gift flowed from a nonprofit group, which operates under the wing of AIPAC. So, technically, he’s free to fly.
According to a Roll Call analysis, the price tag for Yoder’s trip was roughly $10,000. It was paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), described on its logo as “the charitable organization affiliated with AIPAC.”
The skinny dip incident in Israel highlights a bigger issue, not only with AIPAC, but with a loophole that allows lobbyists to sit on the boards of nonprofit organizations, which are used to fly Democrat and Republican Congressmen throughout the world, giving lobbyists an opportunity to cozy up and influence decision making.
And in the case of AIPAC, it’s working out pretty smoothly.
What is the American Israel Education Foundation?
There’s no attempt to hide that the AIEF is one in the same with AIPAC. On its website, the AIEF indicates that one of the main purposes of the organization is to fund trips to Israel for Congressional leaders, for the sake of educating them on Israeli policy.
“In addition to making grants for AIPAC programs, the Foundation funds educational seminars to Israel for members of Congress and other political influentials,” it states on the site. “These AIEF-sponsored trips help education political leaders and influentials about the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship through firsthand experiences in Israel, briefings by experts on Middle East affairs and meetings with Israeli political elite.”
And that’s pretty much it. It’s brief website includes one page, including its mission statement, and an email address for more information. An email sent by MintPress to the address — no phone numbers were provided — was not returned.
AIPAC, on the other hand, is a well-known pro-Israel Lobby group, with a known agenda to push for legislation that supports the funding of Israel, which the U.S. currently provides to a tune of $3 billion.
Is it just AIPAC?
While AIPAC and AIEF certainly play a role in the lobby-purchasing-trip loophole, they’re not alone. A report released by the Center for Public Integrity indicated that 123 active lobbyists were also associated with the boards for nonprofit organizations, which were set up to pay for Congressional overseas trips. The report indicated that 850 trips were given to Congressmen and women from 2000 to 2004.
“Lobbying organizations have found ways, sometimes boldly by directly funding trips, other times by channeling or laundering the money through nonprofits to get members of Congress to places they want them to visit. But also so that they can have large amounts of uninterrupted time with those members,” Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said in an American Radio Works interview.
With the case of AIPAC, it seems that, perhaps, their visits are working when it comes to persuading Democrats and Republicans alike to see the world through their pro-Israel eyes. Despite not being able to agree on issues like the Stop Violence Against Women Bill, senators and representatives from across the aisle are able to stand firm on one thing: unwavering support for Israel.
There are clearly other factors that contribute to this, including religion and personal outlook on foreign policy and national security, but the fact that a pro-Israel lobby organization has managed to run a nonprofit with the intent of flying Congressmen to the Holy Land for wining and dining — and sometimes naked swimming — makes the correlations between their actions and the results an issue of concern.
In 2006, the Ripon Society came under attack for doing the same thing. On its website, the organization is described as “a Republican public policy advocacy organization representing all Americans through moderate, progressive policy formation that uphold traditional common sense Republican principles … .” In short, they’re in favor of a more moderate GOP, and focus on a wide variety of topics, including conservation of natural resources, social tolerance, national defense, free enterprise and limited government.
A 2006 Washington Post story details the lobby organization’s practice of providing travel to Congressional leaders, claiming its done so officially through the Ripon Educational Fund, its nonprofit arm.
The argument does exist that, without such nonprofits, Congressmen and women would not have the opportunity to travel overseas to be briefed on foreign relations issues firsthand, as it’s frowned upon to use taxpayer funds for such ventures. But is a member of Congress really getting a clear picture when their trip is funded, really, through lobbyists who are paid to push a certain agenda? Lobbyists have a lot on the line, and their nonprofits are paying a great deal of money in travel expenses.
Apology? For what?
Yoder did issue a statement of apology on his Facebook page, but didn’t address funding of his journey, but rather focussed on the issue of diving into the water “without a swimsuit.”
“A year ago, my wife, Brooke, and I joined colleagues for dinner at the Sea of Galilee in Israel,” he states. “After dinner I followed some Members of Congress in a spontaneous and very brief dive into the sea and regrettably I jumped into the water without a swimsuit. It is my greatest honor to represent the people of Kansas in Congress and for any embarrassment I have caused my colleagues and constituents, I apologize.”
Based on this apology, the biggest issue for his constituents was what “swimsuit,” if any, he was wearing while swimming with his wife and friends on a trip to Israel. The intent of his purpose and the source of his funding were not questioned. The issue of whether he received a fair and balanced look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was also not touched on.
In this case, it seems ‘morals’ only applied to skinny dipping, not one-sided lobbyist-funded trips intended to influence policies that directly impact thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.