National Organization of Woman Accused of Quid Pro Quo in Chevron Case

Ed note: This article and its title have been updated since this piece was first published and includes statements from NOW and Chevron.  

So, it seems kind of weird at first glance that the National Organization of Women would come down in support of Chevron. Coincidentally, just months after Chevron donated $50,000 million bucks to the National Organization of Women, the legal arm of NOW, Legal Momentum, filed a legal brief in favor of the oil company in its legal plight in Ecuador.

This isn't as out of left field as it might seem, since NOW has its own reasons for supporting a particular ruling on the RICO injunction. But the substantial donation and its timing  sure raises eyebrows, particularly since the toxic waste at the root of the ruling had a particularly strong impact on Ecuadorian women and their children.

Money really complicates something that should seem simple and raises questions of corruption. NOW may have had good intentions, but that donation sure makes it seem like quid pro quo. Ironically, that sort of corruption is one of NOW's reasons for siding with Chevron, as the organization cites the integrity of RICO injunctions as their reason for getting involved at all -- RICO being the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and "corruption" traditionally defined as "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery."

So, if NOW was motivated to urge the court to uphold the integrity of the RICO Act in part because of a healthy donation, that would be ... kind of funny. And definitely ironic.

This case is complicated. Let's back up a bit with a little history:

Texaco formed a partnership with Petroecuador to drill for oil in Ecuador. Texaco was apparently in charge of the waste pools, and hundreds of them were left to fester and leak toxic deadly crap into the water supply after Texaco left. Then Chevron purchased Texaco, which was facing a lawsuit from people who lived in the polluted areas. In 2011, an Ecuadoran court told Chevron, to paraphrase, "You have to pay $18 billion in fees to clean this crap up." And then in 2014, a U.S. court found that part of the reason the Ecuador side won was because the lawyer, Steven Donziger, cut some corners and manufactured evidence to make his case.  The U.S. Federal court found that the verdict was based on coercion, bribery and money laundering. Enter the RICO injunction to stay the seizing of U.S. assets based on the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

So, how does the National Organization of Women factor into this? After all, you can't just be an amicus curiae without some sort of cause. Amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," is an unsolicited third party who provides additional information in a lawsuit. Unsolicited meaning, you know, to help out because you have cause to do so. Not, for example, because you were paid  to do so.

NOW does have a legitimate interest in RICO injunctions as the organization use them in cases involving sex slave trafficking and activists who seek to block access to women's health care clinics. These injunctions help NOW keep the bad guys -- and their businesses -- from continuing to profit from human rights violations.  As quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek, the brief states "If prosecutors 'can rely on that grant of judicial authority to seek equitable relief—and everyone agrees they can and regularly do—then private actors can, too... The text and structure of the statute are dispositive of the question presented here, on this basis alone.'”

The troubling issue is that  NOW did not disclose Chevron's donation and other conflicts of interest in their brief. As I understand it, NOW is not obligated to do so. But it sure as heck does muddy the waters.

Of course, NOW did not take these accusations of conflict of interest well.

“I find this outrageous,” Elaine Wood, Legal Momentum’s chairwoman and the author of its brief, says, as quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek. “We do not have a position on Chevron and the pollution issues. We are merely expressing our long-established view of RICO.”

When we followed up with Legal Momentum for a comment, Communications Associate Jean Gazis sent over the following list of relevant facts:

1. Calling the contributions from Chevron and Gibson Dunn “major donations” is a mischaracterization. They were just 2 of more than 200 corporations and law firms that supported us in Fiscal Years 2013-2014. The total for both firms for the two years was just $90,000; our annual revenue is around $3 million.


2.  There was no failure to disclose, the financial information is on our website (the 990 forms and annual reports for the past ten years are posted on the site) and we were not asked for this information.


3. The court decision that instigated the brief was not even made until after the donations were received, thus it is impossible for the donations to be connected with it.  The donations were connected with our events honoring leading women in business in law, one of whom at a 2013 event was a Chevron employee.


4. Legal Momentum is not a membership organization


5. Our policies have never ignored women of color; our poverty work, our immigration work, our My Brother’s Keeper initiative, and our clients all largely affect/include women of color.

Chevron was also not amused, stating “This is yet another despicable attempt by Steven Donziger’s team to smear and attack anyone who does not endorse their fraudulent behavior. These allegations are shameless and only serve to reveal their level of desperation.”

Donziger's team, however, holds firm, citing additional evident of conflict of interest. Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for Steven Donziger who represents the Ecuadorians, said:

“NOW’s Legal Momentum should have disclosed Chevron’s and Gibson Dunn’s financial contributions as well as the relationship between Elaine Wood, Chair of Legal Momentum’s Board, and Chevron. Ms. Wood works as a Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal, which lists Chevron as a client. Ms. Wood also wrote the amicus brief for Legal Momentum and is a former employee of Kroll, one of the largest private investigative firm in the world. Kroll also has Chevron as a client. It has been well-documented Kroll’s role in spying for Chevron in Ecuador.

“The Ecuadorians are disappointed in NOW’s decision to support Chevron’s legal position in the case, especially since it has been silent on the legal arguments for two years and, to our knowledge, Chevron has not been an active supporter of a woman’s right to choose. Certainly NOW and Legal Momentum have the right to submit the amicus brief, even though we argue Chevron's lack of concern for the well-being and health of women and children in Ecuador’s rainforest, impacted by Chevron’s contamination, should be of greater importance to the leaders of NOW and Legal Momentum.”

Legal Momentum called Hinton's role into question as well stating via email, "Karen Hinton is just not an “independent blogger” or “spokesperson” but a principal in a PR firm that has been working on the anti-Chevron side. Its website includes the following on its ”client results” page: “Coordinating a major media campaign to draw attention to Chevron’s extensive contamination of the Ecuadorian rainforest, resulting from its oil drilling there for over three decades. This campaign has resulted in widespread news coverage, including substantive articles in all of the national newspapers, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. CBS’ 60 Minutes also aired a piece called Amazon Crude that depicted the rainforest’s destruction and its impact upon the people.” It is not clear who is the client or how long Hinton has been involved in this issue."

If you are still reading, it's clear to us at TriplePundit that this is one long fight with many key players with quite a bit on the line. At the end of the day, $50,000 is a lot, but is it enough to sway NOW's opinion on RICO? Probably not, but it might be enough to make now the right time for an amicus brief they might have written anyway.

Image Credit: Daniel Oines: Source