Thirty-plus years ago I chose Montana rather than accept offers elsewhere. My Ph.D. committee was appalled. They claimed I would disappear into an academic wilderness. I would forgo opportunities to work with prominent scholars; I couldn’t inform national decision makers and opinion leaders; I’d be stranded outside the national environmental policy debate.

My professors didn’t perceive Montana’s open niche for intellectual entrepreneurs. I did. Three lecturers at my programs have since won Nobel Prizes. Our joint MSU/FREE series for federal judges and law professors has earned a sterling reputation. Top people (e.g., Phil Heymann, Thomas Schelling, Richard Stewart, and James Q. Wilson) from the best places (e.g., Berkeley, Chicago, Duke, Harvard, NYU, Stanford, and Yale) regularly accept our invitations to address federal judges. The judges rank MSU’s top scholars with the nation’s best.

Bozeman incubated the “new environmentalism.” This movement shows how economic analysis promotes environmental quality. Our ideas, radical decades ago, are now conventional. One of our regular lecturers, Peter Menell, head of UC Berkeley’s Center for Law & Technology, noted in his 2002 text Environmental Law: “Since the dawn of the modern environmental age, economists and a growing chorus of environmental law scholars have advocated the use of market-based regulatory instruments.”

Sometimes those who are losing in the war of ideas resort to lies and deception. The DC-based Community Rights Counsel regularly orchestrate national media attacks on FREE’s seminars for federal judges. They falsely accuse us of being environmental enemies. The CRC deliberately ignore the content of our programs and quality of our speakers. They dismiss some of America’s top scholars as evil conspirators. Their attacks consist of distortions, half-truths, insinuations, and outright lies.

The Associated Press recently reported a particularly ludicrous claim by CRC’s head, Doug Kendall: “There is pretty unmistakable evidence that the organization [i.e., FREE] that hosts environmental junkets for judges where they talk about how and why federal judges should strike down environmental regulations appears to be manipulating their board structure and (conference) schedule to influence the outcome of important environmental cases.” He insinuates we offer $10,000 “junkets for judges” to entice them to brainwashing sessions.

This is absurd. First, our lecturers do not “talk about how and why federal judges should strike down environmental regulations.” Rather, we show how economics and risk analysis can promote environmental quality via science, innovation, and entrepreneurship. We provide content and context for well-reasoned decisions, e.g., on climate change, biotechnology, and other global environmental issues. Our published record and conference agendas, with lecturers, are all on our web site. For those not blinded by ideology, it’s compellingly clear we are pro-environment.

Second, the idea that we would, or even could, manipulate our board membership and conference schedule “to influence the outcome of important environmental cases” is silly. We are now organizing our 2006-07 programs. We aren’t psychics, nor do we hire them when choosing seminar topics. Rather, the judges select future topics. We survey them at the end of every conference and plan future seminars accordingly.

Finally, we pay the judges nothing. The material we supplied for judges’ financial disclosure reports indicates that in 2003 our average expenditure on travel, lodging, and meals was $1,298 per judge, paid entirely by foundations. All are independent of corporations. The judges pay for all recreation, e.g., golf, horseback riding, river rafting, etc. Our web site notes this.

It’s true we influence environmental policy -- in highly constructive ways. We were first out of the blocks on several issues. We challenged government-subsidized destruction of natural resources, e.g., Forest Service below-cost timber sales, Bureau of Reclamation dams on our wild rivers, BLM chaining of piñon-juniper ecosystems, and government-subsidized predator control. We were among the first supporters of the return of wolves into Yellowstone -- and predicted some would need to be killed. We apply the same analysis to current issues like climate change and biotechnology.

Along the way, we’ve consistently provided intellectual ammunition for positive environmental change. Hank Fischer, of Defenders of Wildlife, has lectured at our programs. He writes: “It’s my strong belief that a better understanding of markets and incentives would make most environmental organizations much more effective.”

The CRC attacks the integrity of our participants, lecturers, and funders because our content is beyond reproach. However, truth is a very stubborn thing.