Politics & Policy

The Peace Movement’s Mumia Connection

Why do antiwar contributions go to Mumia Abu-Jamal's defenders?

A two-page advertisement against war in Iraq that appeared in Monday’s New York Times directed donors to send money to a foundation that for years has been devoted to the defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

#ad#The ad, which features an antiwar statement signed by more than 100 well-known Americans, including the actors Ed Asner, Martin Sheen, and Susan Sarandon, writers Kurt Vonnegut, Alice Walker, and Barbara Kingsolver, and musicians Graham Nash, Bonnie Raitt, and Pete Seeger, was created by the group Not In Our Name, which has purchased similar ads in other papers around the country. A box at the bottom of the ad asks readers to send donations to an organization called the Bill of Rights Foundation. “We suggest a $200 contribution,” the ad says, “but all contributions large or small help to make the goal possible.”

The Bill of Rights Foundation is a New York-based group that has for years devoted nearly all of its funds to the defense of Abu-Jamal, who shot and killed a Philadelphia police officer in 1981. Abu-Jamal’s guilt has been upheld during decades of appeals, but his case has become a cause célèbre among some on the Left, who maintain that he was unfairly convicted.

Statements filed by the Bill of Rights Foundation with the Internal Revenue Service for the year 2001, the most recent available, show that the foundation spent a total of $102,152 that year, of which $95,737 went for legal fees (the rest went for assorted administrative expenses). The documents show that $66,874 of that amount went to Leonard Weinglass, who was at the time Abu-Jamal’s lead attorney. Abu-Jamal changed lawyers that year, and the documents show the foundation also paid $21,730 to his new lawyer, Marlene Kamish.

Weinglass told National Review Online Monday that the money he received from the foundation was for work on the Abu-Jamal case. Altogether, the foundation paid Weinglass and Kamish $88,604 in 2001.

In the year 2000, the Bill of Rights Foundation listed $75,956 in total expenses, of which $57,722 was for legal fees. The entire amount went to Weinglass for the Abu-Jamal defense.

In 1999, the foundation listed $155,547 in total expenses, of which $139,126 was for legal fees. That amount, too, went to Weinglass for the Abu-Jamal defense.

The Bill of Rights Foundation is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charity, which means that all contributions to the foundation — and therefore contributions to Abu-Jamal’s legal representation — are fully tax-deductible.

It is not immediately clear what the two causes, Abu-Jamal’s legal defense and opposition to a war in Iraq, have to do with each other. In a brief interview, Bill of Rights Foundation president Judith Levin told NRO that “the connection was the violation of civil rights of people in this country.” The message on Not In Our Name’s answering machine in New York seems to support that contention, saying the group’s purpose is “to build resistance to this war, to say no to the detentions and roundups of immigrants, and to stop police-state restrictions.”

The Not In Our Name ads have raised a significant amount of money. An article on the group’s website says, “Our biggest problem in managing the statement has been keeping up with the deluge of e-mail and checks. Well over 4,000 people have contributed for the publication of the statement, with over $300,000 received so far.” A spokesman for Not In Our Name said that money sent to the Bill of Rights Foundation in response to the Times ad will be “used exclusively for the purpose” of publishing the Not In Our Name statement in other publications.

Byron York is is the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

Most Popular


The Democrats’ Disastrous CNN LGBT Town Hall

A few days after Donald Trump committed the worst foreign-policy blunder of his presidency by betraying America’s Kurdish allies in northern Syria, former vice president Joe Biden, the elder statesman and co-frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary, was on a national stage talking to CNN’s primetime ... Read More
Film & TV

Joker: An Honest Treatment of Madness

When I saw that the New York Times and The New Yorker had run columns berating the new Joker movie, criticizing it not simply on cinematic grounds but instead insisting that the film amounted to a clandestine defense of “whiteness” in an attempt to buttress the electoral aim of “Republicans” — this is a ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More
Film & TV

The Breaking Bad Movie

I considered staying up until midnight last night to watch Netflix's two-hour Breaking Bad movie El Camino as soon as it went up, but I'm glad I didn't. It's fine, it's worth watching if you're a fan of the series (otherwise it'll mean nothing to you). But it doesn't answer any particularly compelling questions. ... Read More