You write, "[a]nd even though CCA is a private company, 100 percent of its funding comes from the government."

Isn't CCA publicly traded? Doesn't it receive funding from private investors? You should fact check this.

Let's quibble about semantics, "IheartFOIA"

First let's note that CCA sees FOIA's as fiscal death to their sleazy corporation and its $22.5 million (in 2006) CEO, John Ferguson. They schlepped in ex-Congressman Vic Fazio to stop an FOIA bill in Congress this year and spent $6 million in lobbying in DC in 2006 and 20007.

TIME Magazine, the PBS NOW program, 60 Minutes plus the NY Times and the Washington Post all ran excellent exposes on them about three months ago.

A study by Good Jobs first found that 79% of CCA prisons received subsidies from taxpayers.

100% of CCA's billion and half in annual revenues come from taxpayers.

They borrow to build, if they can't con some rubes and hicks to build for them and let them operate it. Stockholders are blithely ignorant of the corporation's true prospects.

In Florida, CCA and its #2 competitor GEO combined to rip the state off for over $12 million in overbillings. This is common for the corporations, but is rarely discovered by auditors and monitors, some of which come from the industry itself.

CCA management was so dismal that about seven or eight years ago the stock dropped from about $44.50 to $.28. The only way it survived was to do a reverse stock split 10 shares for one, so it wasn't delisted.

It is madly trying to build now in the waning days of the Bush administration and lackadaisical oversight, as the BOP and ICE are issuing 5-year contracts. As immigration policy is sure to change, no matter who is elected in November, they are expected to be saddled with thousands of permanently empty beds and may find themselves in the 2000-2001 jackpot all over again.

My recommendation?

SELL!!!

Broker = Anti private prison activist Frank Smith.

Broker is anti-private prison activist Frank Smith

OK - so even if that's correct, so what?

He doesn't say he ISN'T an anti private prison activist. Are you a PRO private prison activist? Who cares - it's what's said that's important, not who says it.

If you want to see where CCA's funding comes from, check their annual report and SEC filings (which are on their website). I did, and all of their funding except for interest income (on investments) comes from public government sources through contracts. That is, from taxpayer dollar$.

BTW, next time try providing some facts to back up what you post, loveFOIA.

You are so full of crap. Read from the top down. Using the name BROKER (he's not a broker) Frank Smith challenged my comment (and urged people to sell stock [he's not a broker]).

My comment only sought to correct what is clearly (from the evidence in your post) an absolutely incorrect statement (CCA=100% government funded is not true) made by the writer of this blog piece who is a PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST and should give a crap whether his facts are right or not. THEY AREN'T.

I take no position on the ruling of the chancellor in this case. But (as your post acknowledges) Caleb's blog piece is wrong on this fact. The author should correct it because HE IS A JOURNALIST. To say otherwise, FRANKly and TRUTHfully, is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

To recap

1. At the top of a mound of irrelevant assertions made by two people with an ideological axe to grind is a story by a professional writer with a glaring false statement in it.

2. He should correct it, only because it is the right thing to do.

3. You (and Frank) should stop your ideological rants long enough to encourage the writer to do the right thing.

4. Or, this publication should abandon the pretense of accuracy (as you have).

So let me get this straight -- some anonymous person who uses the name "broker" on a blog site isn't a real "broker," (maybe - you offer no proof of your own) and that just infuriates you? Do much anonymous blogging? Is your real name "IheartFOIA"? Is my real name "TruthinAdvertising"?

That's simply an asinine argument.

As for the 100% factoid in the article, that's not factually correct. You're right and you have a point. According to CCA's annual report, in 2007 the company's total gross revenue was $1.475 billion. I'm no accountant, but looking at the consolidated statements, under "cash flows from financing activities" (such as exercising stock options), the company took in $31.65 million according to its own statement.

Or, in other words, about 97.8% of CCA's revenue came from government, taxpayer-funded sources. Ever heard of rounding? Feel free to do your own research, of course, or consult with a CPA.

Otherwise you're the one full of crap, and you should abandon your alleged interest in accuracy.

Thanks for **finally** acknowledging the wrong fact in the article. If you would be so kind as to finish the job, and explain (even though you aren't a CPA) that revenue and funding are not the same thing, then we would be finished and Caleb would be ready to correct his piece. Unfortunately, you still conflate "funding" with "revenue."

When a private company gathers funds to undertake a project, it can rely on money generated from its operations and other revenue generating sources (read: revenue). It can also rely on funds generated from private equity (read: investment). So when you say that CCA's revenue is 97% from government sources, you conveniently (for your argument) sidestep the fact I tried to point out in my first post. CCA (like GM, GE, and any other private entity you can name) can actually undertake projects without the funding of government. When a government undertakes a project, it must fund that project from taxpayer money or from money generated through the sale of government back bonds, etc. This is a distinction that you have to acknowledge as part of your analysis. You may still get to the same place, but you reach it without the aid of the 100% or 97% misstep.

So (and I am no CPA) anyone can see that (1) private companies that contract with the government are not funded entirely by the government and (2) conflating "revenue" with "funding" is deceptive (or reflective of a misunderstanding).

Next, it doesn't infuriate me when someone uses a pseudonym to post. But, if someone does do this, they should use a pseudonym that does not mislead as to their qualifications. Frank Smith's decision to call himself a broker (he's not) misleads. It would be no different if you called yourself "BrentwoodDoctor" and made remarks about medical research. Those of us reading your comments would give them more weight because you represented yourself as a professional. Getting a broker's license (at least in this state--maybe its different in Kansas and Alaska, where Frank Smith is actually based) requires actually qualifying as a broker. There are different kinds of brokers, but if you describe yourself as a broker and tell people to sell stock, people think (reasonably) you might be a stock broker. He isn't. That's deceptive. He should stop.

Finally, my name isn't "I. Heart FOIA," but it is true that I HEART FOIA. It's an important law, and it gives us important access to documents from government operations that help us ensure we are being governed well and governed fairly. So there is nothing deceptive there. I suspect you heart FOIA as well. I am glad we can heart FOIA together.

"Those of us reading your comments would give them more weight because you represented yourself as a professional."

Really? If people take at face value anything that an anonymous poster says on a blog site, then they're idiots, plain and simple. Lord only knows why you or anyone else would give any credence to someone whose user name is "broker" and gives investment advice. Do you get emails from millionaire bankers in Nigeria? I get them all the time; that doesn't mean I believe them. So your indignation is misplaced -- you might as well be upset about the entire nature of anonymous Internet postings (which include yours and mine too, BTW).

Moving on. Nope, I'm not a CPA or accountant. So I can't really comment on revenue vs. funding. What I can say is this. CCA receives income -- e.g., money that it receives through its business operations. You can call it revenue or funding or jelly beans. "X" amount of that money comes from taxpayer-funded gov't sources and "X" doesn't.

Of the money (income) that CCA receives, it appears that 97.8% (not 97% as you incorrectly stated) comes from gov't sources. The rest doesn't. So you're correct, but I'd say quibbling over 2.2% is, well, quibbling. Just like pointing out that 97% is not 97.8% is quibbling. Really - would you care to go through every other article in the Scene, the Tennessean, etc. and point out such minor faults? There are MANY out there. Have at it.

BTW, of the money that CCA obtains from its operations that doesn't come directly from gov't sources, how much came from gov't sources and was placed into investments that later generated investment income, equity, etc.? We don't really know -- so truly, it's hard to tell whether the seminal source of all of CCA's income/revenue/funding had its origins in gov't taxpayer monies or not. So Caleb may be right ... or maybe not. But if you offer no proof of your own, why complain? Just as you offer no proof that "broker" isn't really a broker. You say it's so, but that doesn't make it so. As an anonymous blog poster, you have just as much credibility as "broker" -- or as me.

Yes, I heartFOIA, too. Did you know that a bill is pending in Congress, HR 1889, which would require private prison companies that hold federal contracts (paid with federal taxdollars) to comply with FOIA requests? Did you know that CCA strongly opposes this bill and has been lobbying against it? If you heartFOIA, then you don't heart CCA's opposition to HR 1889, assuming you're consistent in your beliefs.

Greater openness in government is always a good thing, but I looked that bill up on GovTrack to learn more about it. Why does it focus on just private prison and detention facilities instead of including all federal contractors?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1889

I think if I were going to support such a bill, I would ask the sponsor to go back and make it the "Private Contractor Information Act," as the way its written now it looks like it bizarrely singles out a specific industry--like everything you have written in your comments. I know a little bit about FOIA, but I can't think of another law of this type. I agree with you that being consistent in your principles is important, so as it is currently written this bill is hard to support. I would want such an approach across all contractors (including nonprofit grant recipients like major private universities, faith based organizations, and secular charities).

Funny that you mention to the Nigeria scams in defending Frank Smith's deceptive posts since LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE TAKEN IN BY THOSE SCAMS! You can ridicule them by implication, but that doesn't change the fact that it's deceptive and wrong.

By the way, Truth, I Googled some of the phrases in your posts, and I think you are also Frank Smith or you are the one and only Alex Friedmann!

Let's see just how truthful you are, then. Please provide the exact phrases you Googled, the Google results (which I should be able to get from Google just as you did), and why you "think" that means I'm Frank, Friedman, Bozo the Clown or anyone else.

You claim to be concerned about "accuracy," yet you are perfectly willing to claim that "broker" isn't a broker (offering NO proof or explanation); that "broker" is Frank Smith (offering NO proof or explanation); and now that I am Frank or Friedman (offering NO proof or explanation). So how accurate are your own comments? Fess up, please.

Then we can get into HR 1889 -- though the short explanation is, if you want a broader bill, have one introduced. That doesn't mean a more limited bill is wrong. Private prisons take away a person's freedom, and private prison guards can use deadly force, taking away people's lives. Therefore private prisons are being singled out in HR 1889 (I assume, as I'm not the bill's sponsor) because private prisons excercise such extreme power over people's rights (the right to life, liberty, etc.).

You may a broader bill, but that's a bullsh*t excuse for not supporting the one that's actually out there, if you value FOIA as you claim. Other private contractors can always be added under FOIA in a separate bill.

Your remarks about the bill should remove all doubt that you place ideology above principle. That's unfortunate, as you are articulate and clever, and if that were reversed, you would be very effective.

And your remarks show you're smart, too. But your inability to provide any proof whatsoever to back up any of your bare assertions indicates that you're not really interested in accuracy or the truth. You even had to rely on me to look up the info in CCA's annual report, as you weren't willing to do so yourself.

Answer the questions I posed in my previous post and we'll discuss things further. I personally think you're being a bit deceptive yourself (as are most anonymous posters since everyone has an agenda). You're no more forthcoming or accurate than Caleb or Broker if you can't back up the statements you put out as facts. There's a diference between asserting something or thinking something and knowing something.

Since HR 1889 is the ONLY bill out there right now related to this issue, it isn't a matter of ideology. It's reality -- and either you support it or you don't, even if you'd prefer something broader. I support if. If you reall love FOIA, presumably you'd support it too, then work to expand it. So you evidently lack both ideology AND principle.

A Google search reveals that the Private Prison Information Act (HR1889) was written entirely by the Legislative Committee of the RI Brotherhood of Correctional Officers. As you and Frank no doubt know, unions are generally anti privatization. I will quote and source below as I believe this answers the question: why has a single industry been targeted for this bill?

Quotation
=========

"In 2005 Richard Loud, ACO President Vito Dagnello and Richard Feruccio President of the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers went to Washington, DC to secure sponsors for the Private Prison Act. The Private Prison Act was originally drafted by the Legislative Committee of Richard Loud, Brian Dawe, Dean Balmer and Vito Dagnello. Messrs. Loud, Dagnello and Ferruccio were successful and the bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Strickland (D-Ohio), King (R-New York), Holden (D-Pennsylvania), and Kennedy (D-Rhode Island). Last week Representative Holden reintroduced the bill as HR 1889, the Private Prison Information Act of 2007."

Source - http://forums.prisonofficer.org/general-corrections/338-private-prison-information-act-2007-a.html

Sadly, I entered the fray only to correct false information in the original post, but since you and/or Frank "The Broker" Smith chose to engage me on the subject of what looks to be an attack on a lawful industry by a special interest group, there you go.

Again: this is ideology being allowed to trump principle. Perhaps President Obama will put an end to these old style politics next year.

Well, we can only hope that whoever wins the next election will do things differently. If you value civil liberties as much as you do FOIA, then the last administration has been pretty bad. But that's another topic entirely.

As for HR 1889, I previously expressed my thoughts on that as to why it singles out private prison contractors. As you're likely aware, almost every piece of legislation passed by Congress is sponsored or endorsed by some type of special interest -- primarily business or industry interests, but also unions, trial lawyers, medical professionals, etc.

Public guards are against private prisons because they see them as a threat to their jobs -- so their motives aren't altruistic. But private prisons have a vested interest in keeping the public, the media, etc. out of their affairs so they can avoid negative publicity and scrutiny that may endanger their contracts or stock price. So that isn't an altruistic motive, either.

Regardless of who is pushing the bill, it sounds like sensible legislation to me -- after all, all federal public prisons have to comply with FOIA. If the gov't contracts out prison operations to a private company, why shouldn't the private company likewise be subject to FOIA? Otherwise, the feds could simply avoid their FOIA obligations by contracting out their services -- which are still funded with taxpayer dollars.

Since you have ignored my repeated requests for proof of your earlier assertions and claims (which you continue to make), I'll just assume you have no such proof. Not that it matters much; after all, we're likely the only two people who are even reading this thread now. :)

The tobacco industry is a lawful industry too, but that didn't stop most states and the feds from suing them. The alcohol industry is lawful, but subject to all sorts of regulations, as is the firearms industry, etc. So why not single out private prison contractors, since they perform what is arguably the most public of functions: Locking up citizens who have commited crimes?

Like you've done throughout this argument, you are confusing one thing with another in support of your viewpoint.

The Tobacco industry was targeted IN COURT by ATTORNEYS for specific unlawful acts. The Tobacco industry is REGULATED because its product falls under a class of products which can be regulated under existing law.

Here, you are trying to convince me to CREATE NEW LAW to single out a class of contractors. That class of contractors is part of a subset of millions of federal contractors.

Nothing I said above indicates that private prisons shouldn't be REGULATED (they are). And, they are subject to CONTRACTS, which specify what they have to do; what standards they have to follow; and what information they have to provide. If they don't comply, they lose the contracts.

I was able to learn about this through more Googling. For example, I located this piece on HR1889 from Mike Flynn:

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/flynn_20080626.shtml

He raises good points. Here's his closing summary:

---QUOTATION

The current proposal [HR1889] before you fails three critical policy tests:

1. It is unnecessary. Most of the relevant information is already available through the normal FOIA process. Any information that isn't already available could very easily be included in the terms of a contract.

2. It has serious, negative consequences. It exposes a private company's internal trade secrets and operations, not to mention individual salary information, to any curious outsider, imposing costs that will be passed along to the public, potentially reducing the government's contracting pool, and jeopardizing the right to privacy.

3. It locks us into a system that is failing. Contracting correctional management is a tool to improve our prison system. Eliminating competition and strengthening the public monopoly provider will prevent us from focusing on positive outcomes. It is neither in the interests of the general public nor incarcerated individuals.

---END QUOTATION

That's pretty powerful--especially points one and two. I read a little further on point one and he's right. In fact, FOIA actually addresses contractor supplied information in its exceptions. So, clearly, FOIA does sweep in contractor information and make it available to the public.

So, what is this all about?

You kindly acknowledge that not all the motives of the bills drafters are altruistic. That's a huge understatement, but I appreciate it.

Let's make an analogy: if a public food service workers union drafted a bill putting special requirements on food service contractors, would you be uncomfortable with letting that whole bill go through without any modification? I doubt you would. I would think that you would see that as what it was: conviction without trial. Even the tobacco industry got trials.

If you were ok with that bill, I'd have to say that you have a serious problem with fundamental constitutional principles. As much as I Heart FOIA, I Heart Due Process more. And, as you know doubt know, Due Process is a constitutional right--unlike FOIA.

Nothing I or anyone else can say would change your mind, as it's set. Your user name, for accuracy, should be IheartDueProcess instead of IheartFOIA, although due process only applies when taking something away from someone.

Extending FOIA to private prisons contractors takes nothing away; it enhances public oversight and accountability over public services performed by the private sector paid for with taxpayer dollars. BTW, I'm all for extending FOIA to other private contractors, too -- but since HR 1889 doesn't do that, its a moot point until such legislation is introduced.

You shift your arguments and your reasoning to support the conclusion you've already reached; it's not about extending FOIA just to private prison firms, or ensuring accuracy in reporting, or enhancing public oversight. Your comments indicate that you're a private prison advocate, plain and simple, and nothing will change that.

Perhaps you're employed by CCA or the Reason Foundation, or own CCA stock. I don't know, so I can't make baseless claims, as you repeatedly have about other posters (including me). But it would fit well with your remarks.

Oh - and while you found Flynn's comments about HR 1889, apparently you didn't read the opposing comments (you didn't mention or provide any link to them). Why only look at one side of an issue unless that's the only side you want to examine? Here's the link to ALL the testimony at the HR 1889 hearing (links are on the right):

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_062608_2.html

BTW, did you know that Reason Foundation is an ardent supporter of prison privatization and receives funding from private prison companies, including CCA and Wackenhut? That certainly should be factored in, as they are "paid guns" that have a financial interest in supporting the industry that gives them money. Reason Foundation has been very careful in recent years to conceal which business interests give them funding, but some of their previous annual reports that list corporate donors are still available on the 'Net, plus reviews like this one:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation

If you don't think that Reason's funding by the private prison industry matters, then you likewise shouldn't think that HR 1889 being pushed by public prison guards should matter. Everyone has vested interests in some form or fashion, or they wouldn't get involved in an issue.

In any event, I'm done here. You can't reason with someone who has a set agenda -- which includes me as well as you. :)

See you in the next blog comments section ...

What a stunningly large pile of nonsense you've made!

The REASON testimony is just testimony. If REASON drafted a bill, like a union actually drafted HR1889, it SHOULD be viewed skeptically. Laws are not supposed to be biased in favor of an ideological position. They are supposed to treat like persons (and corporations) equally.

There is no comparison between what you are supporting (a bill that may become federal law which a union brags about writing) with statements that were made in sworn testimony.

No doubt: If REASON drafted a bill called the PRIVATIZATION IS AWESOME ACT, I think you and I would agree that vigorous debate should take place before anyone considered voting on something like that. I presume it would be amended, improved, testified about before even being seriously considered. That is not the case with HR1889, as GovTrack reveals that the same bill has been brought up several times over the last few Congresses.

It is troubling that either you can't grasp the importance of making analogies between comparable things or you are deliberately trying to confuse others by using things interchangeably which aren't interchangeable.

It was helpful to have the link to your testimony.

Finally, if you really are finished, then I will turn out the lights before I go. But, before I do, since it is granted by fierce CCA opponents that CCA is not 100% government funded, please CALEB consider correcting your incorrect statement for the record. Else all this will have been in vain.