Change This

Via Firedoglake, I read about the unfortunate controversy regarding the Jena 6. This time, it's not about the teens themselves, but relates to the fundraising efforts by the online advocacy group, Color of Change, which was initially formed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. See False allegations on the Michael Baisden Show. I wrote about Color of Change when I discussed the rallies in support of the Jena 6, in Jena. Howard Witt of the Chicago Tribune (who has followed the Jena 6 story in the media), in Questions about Jena case funds, describes the accusations:

Just weeks after some 20,000 demonstrators protested what they decried as unequal justice aimed at six black teenagers in the Louisiana town of Jena, controversy is growing over the accounting and disbursing of at least $500,000 donated to pay for the teenagers' legal defense.

Parents of the "Jena 6" teenagers have refused to publicly account for how they are spending a large portion of the cash, estimated at up to $250,000, that resides in a bank account they control.

Michael Baisden, a nationally syndicated black radio host who is leading a major fundraising drive on behalf of the Jena 6, has declined to reveal how much he has collected. Attorneys for the first defendant to go to trial, Mychal Bell, say they have yet to receive any money from him.

Apparently, questions have arisen with respect to how the funds that have been raised by the various organizations are being spent. However, as Witt reports, Color of Change appears to be one entity that can account for all the funds raised and disbursed:

Only one national civil rights group, Color of Change, has fully disclosed how the $212,000 it collected for the Jena 6 via a massive Internet campaign has been distributed. The grassroots group, which has nearly 400,000 members, has posted images of cancelled checks and other signed documents on its website showing that all but $1,230 was paid out in October in roughly equal amounts to attorneys for the Jena youths.

Yet that transparency did not halt acrimony over the fundraising from breaking into public view on Baisden's popular radio show this week, when Baisden invited Bell's father, Marcus Jones, to accuse Color of Change founder James Rucker of misapplying the donated funds.

Jones offered no evidence for his assertion. But Baisden told his listeners that Rucker "sounds shady to me," before promoting his own fundraiser, scheduled for this weekend, which aims to collect at least $1 million for the Jena 6 and other black defendants across the country.

* * * *

Color of Change officials call Baisden's broadcast comments slanderous and say they are contemplating legal action.

"We are trying to clear our good name," said Mervyn Marcano, the group's spokesman. "It's distressing that right now the conversation around the Jena 6 is on a 'Jenagate' that doesn't exist, not the actual issues of how justice is administered in that town."

On Friday, after several prominent African American bloggers criticized Baisden for his comments, the radio host issued a statement apologizing to Color of Change "for not seeking more reliable sources."

I wonder if Baisden is a Republican -- he sure acts like one. Although he has not disclosed any information regarding his own fundraising actvities, he makes all sort of vague accusations about the group on his radio show, without any support or evidence to back it up. Color of Change has all of the supporting documentation on their website, which looks completely in order.

As for Baisden's apology -- you've heard of damming with faint praise? His "response" is the apology equivalent, see Response to Color of Change. See also, Baisden Apologizes, Displaces Blame. Baisden basically says that he "was given inaccurate information" -- so sorry. After ruining someone's reputation, intentionally or not, you would expect a wee bit more regret. But no. Instead, just to maintain a little uncertainty about things, he adds this: " We do, however, respect the right of four of the Jena 6 families who have insisted that ColorofChange discontinue collection of any monies on their behalf. But this should not reflect on the integrity of this organization which has collected and distributed over $200,000 to their legal defense." What does that mean? Now, why would the families do that, when Color of Change distributed 100% of the funds collected, when Baisden won't even disclosed how much he received, never mind how much has been collected.

Several bloggers have suggested that this whole brouhaha by Baisden is solely for ratings purposes. See Michael Baisden's "Jena-Gate" a Sham for Ratings and Michael Baisden Attacks Color of Change. I don't know the man -- I listen to NPR myself, so I can't say.

No matter the reason -- attacking, without good cause, a group of people trying to help others is unconscionable. Even worse, it is things like this that make individuals reluctant to contribute to any entity, because they worry that the funds won't end up being used for the proper purposes. That's the real shame of this. With Bush & the boys, federal funds aren't there to help people in need. Contributions from the public are often the only help there is, so if that is impacted because of negative stories like this, there will be no help for those suffering from various catastrophes.

Tags: Civil Liberties, News, Jena 6, Color of Change