Tuesday, May 24, 2011
This is a story about the bloomberg story on campaign finance disclosure.
It started, as many topics on this blog do, with an entry at hasen's election law blog:
"'GOP FEC Commissioner To Campaign Reformers: You've Wasted Your Life'
TPM reports."
TPM of course is talking points memo, a popular liberal blog.
GOP FEC commissioner McGhan looked younger and hairier than I expected. I can't place who he reminds me of. Charlie Sheen? The dad from Malcolm in the Middle, Bryan Cranston? Winning!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/gop_fec_commissioner_to_campaign_reformers_youve_wasted_your_life.php
It's a good story,and in the blogosphere we aren't bound by the mainstream media's pretense of objectivity.
The story jumps off with a bang with an accusation of $4 million in illegal campaign spending. That sounds potentially libelous if untrue. The source is a bloomberg article,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
I was really struck by a paragraph a bit further down the article.
Bloomberg's report also found another group called "Water for All" ran ads on Spanish stations showing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with a red circle and a line running through her, but didn't report its campaign expenditures because their lawyer said the ads weren't political in nature.
I thought to myself, would a lawyer really say the ads weren't political?
So I followed the link, and the word "political" is used in that way three times in the Bloomberg article.
Once outside the quote marks, once inside quote marks, and once while describing WRTL.
NFIB spokesman Kipp Maloney acknowledged not reporting $1.53 million to the commission....
FEC rules mandate the reporting of ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election, and that target “the relevant electorate.” The unreported NFIB ads were aimed at “constituents,” who may or may not vote, and not the “relevant electorate” specified in the law, Maloney said. “They were not political ads. They were lobbying efforts.” (see Maloney response below.)
Water for All didn’t report its campaign expenditures to the FEC because the ads weren’t political in nature and “we don’t need to file,” said Brian C. Leighton, the group’s attorney. “The rules do not require us to file.” Mr. Leighton sent me a very interesting email, see below.
Five years later, a group called Wisconsin Right to Life, which had been urging voters to demand that senators oppose the filibustering of judicial nominees, argued that even though their ads named lawmakers running for re-election, they were not political since they didn’t ask voters to vote for or against a particular senator.
But of course, that wasn't WRTL's argument at all. The article seems to be using the term "political" as shorthand for express advocacy. But politics is more than express advocacy. The personal is the political, and vice versa, as Hillary or Simone or somebody once told us. So the hunch I had upon reading the TPM blurb had gotten some confirmation,and next I wrote to one of the quoted sources. Here's his reply.
Hi Robin---I never said anything close to " the ads weren't political in
nature " ; the reporter kept asking why we didn't file and I repeated
several times that we don't need to file , and the rules don't require us
to file . he attempted to get me to say something about the political nature
of the ads , and I told him not to put words in my mouth ; it was his false
assumption that we were absolutely required to file and I said that that
was his own biased interpretation , and simply we were not required to
file. he certainly was not an objective reporter. Thanks for the heads up.
So Bloomberg, in what purports to be an article and not an editorial, seems to be accusing some people with pretty deep pockets of having violated federal law, while misquoting their sources and showing some lack of understanding of the case law.
I'll be interested to see what repercussions this article has, in either direction.
Wednesday update: Kip Maloney writes: Robin
I had the same experience as Brian. He totally turned everything I said to meet what he had already decided was the story.
thursday:
"We have not heard from Leighton, he never told us or complained to us that he was misquoted. In any event, we have checked our reporter's notes and they are accurate, and we stand by the story."
-Ty Trippet
Bloomberg News spokesman
It started, as many topics on this blog do, with an entry at hasen's election law blog:
"'GOP FEC Commissioner To Campaign Reformers: You've Wasted Your Life'
TPM reports."
TPM of course is talking points memo, a popular liberal blog.
GOP FEC commissioner McGhan looked younger and hairier than I expected. I can't place who he reminds me of. Charlie Sheen? The dad from Malcolm in the Middle, Bryan Cranston? Winning!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/gop_fec_commissioner_to_campaign_reformers_youve_wasted_your_life.php
It's a good story,and in the blogosphere we aren't bound by the mainstream media's pretense of objectivity.
The story jumps off with a bang with an accusation of $4 million in illegal campaign spending. That sounds potentially libelous if untrue. The source is a bloomberg article,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
I was really struck by a paragraph a bit further down the article.
Bloomberg's report also found another group called "Water for All" ran ads on Spanish stations showing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with a red circle and a line running through her, but didn't report its campaign expenditures because their lawyer said the ads weren't political in nature.
I thought to myself, would a lawyer really say the ads weren't political?
So I followed the link, and the word "political" is used in that way three times in the Bloomberg article.
Once outside the quote marks, once inside quote marks, and once while describing WRTL.
NFIB spokesman Kipp Maloney acknowledged not reporting $1.53 million to the commission....
FEC rules mandate the reporting of ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election, and that target “the relevant electorate.” The unreported NFIB ads were aimed at “constituents,” who may or may not vote, and not the “relevant electorate” specified in the law, Maloney said. “They were not political ads. They were lobbying efforts.” (see Maloney response below.)
Water for All didn’t report its campaign expenditures to the FEC because the ads weren’t political in nature and “we don’t need to file,” said Brian C. Leighton, the group’s attorney. “The rules do not require us to file.” Mr. Leighton sent me a very interesting email, see below.
Five years later, a group called Wisconsin Right to Life, which had been urging voters to demand that senators oppose the filibustering of judicial nominees, argued that even though their ads named lawmakers running for re-election, they were not political since they didn’t ask voters to vote for or against a particular senator.
But of course, that wasn't WRTL's argument at all. The article seems to be using the term "political" as shorthand for express advocacy. But politics is more than express advocacy. The personal is the political, and vice versa, as Hillary or Simone or somebody once told us. So the hunch I had upon reading the TPM blurb had gotten some confirmation,and next I wrote to one of the quoted sources. Here's his reply.
Hi Robin---I never said anything close to " the ads weren't political in
nature " ; the reporter kept asking why we didn't file and I repeated
several times that we don't need to file , and the rules don't require us
to file . he attempted to get me to say something about the political nature
of the ads , and I told him not to put words in my mouth ; it was his false
assumption that we were absolutely required to file and I said that that
was his own biased interpretation , and simply we were not required to
file. he certainly was not an objective reporter. Thanks for the heads up.
So Bloomberg, in what purports to be an article and not an editorial, seems to be accusing some people with pretty deep pockets of having violated federal law, while misquoting their sources and showing some lack of understanding of the case law.
I'll be interested to see what repercussions this article has, in either direction.
Wednesday update: Kip Maloney writes: Robin
I had the same experience as Brian. He totally turned everything I said to meet what he had already decided was the story.
thursday:
"We have not heard from Leighton, he never told us or complained to us that he was misquoted. In any event, we have checked our reporter's notes and they are accurate, and we stand by the story."
-Ty Trippet
Bloomberg News spokesman
Comments:
Post a Comment
