Wash. Post reporter baselessly suggested Edwards broke campaign finance law
In a January 23 online discussion, Washington Post reporter John Solomon defended his controversial article about Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' recent sale of his house by suggesting -- without offering any evidence -- that the sale violated "federal campaign law" disclosure requirements.
Solomon explicitly stated in his response that the disclosure requirement "is encoded in federal campaign law" but offered no evidence to support that contention. Indeed, that argument is absent entirely from the January 19 article. And Solomon himself seemed to contradict his own allegations with his next answer, in which he said, "A frontpage story doesn't have to always find wrongdoing or lead to prosecutions."
Further, in suggesting that Edwards broke disclosure laws, Solomon apparently misstated that law. Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports -- which must be filed by presidential candidates, and to which Solomon is apparently referring -- do contain a section for "transactions." But that section -- Schedule B, Part 1 -- specifically instructs candidates not to report the sale of a personal residence. The instructions read: "Do not report a transaction involving property used solely as your personal residence." In fact, presidential candidates -- as opposed to current officeholders -- are exempted from filling out Schedule B altogether. The top of Schedule B reads: "Do not complete Schedule B if you are a new entrant, nominee, or Vice Presidential or Presidential candidate." See, for example, Howard Dean's 2003 filing and President Bush's 2006 filing.
From the January 23 online discussion:
Washington: A quick question about the Edwards story -- leaving aside the politics for a moment, wouldn't it have been against D.C. law for Edwards to refuse the sale? I didn't think you were allowed to accept or reject a sale for political reasons, and I was wondering why this wasn't mentioned in the story (if true).
John Solomon: Thanks for this question. Certainly there's been lots of discussion in the blogs about this story and let me try to address the core issue. This wasn't a story about whether John Edwards should or shouldn't have picked the Klaassens as buyers. It was a story about the transparency of the deal. Those who aspire to the highest office in the land are required to disclose their financial dealings to the fullest extent. That isn't a political requirement or some media-driven imposition. It is encoded in the federal campaign law. When Edwards' campaign first disclosed the deal, much detail was lacking about the deal _ most importantly the name of the buyers. Such information is critical to the transparency of a transaction involving $5.2 million that occurred on the night before Edwards launched his candidacy. Our story simply filled in the missing blanks.
South Burlington, Vt.: Any second thoughts on your Edwards' house sale story? Even your own ombudsperson wants to know "where's the beef?"
John Solomon: I have no regrets at all about the story or its play in the Post. I would have written it the same way and reported it the same way _ whether it was a Republican or Democrat or independent. Highlighting who political leaders do business with is an essential role for journalists. A frontpage story doesn't have to always find wrongdoing or lead to prosecutions. It can simply illuminate how a candidate chose to address a basic requirement of his campaign _ achieving transparency on his or her financial dealings. And Edwards has hardly been singled out. Newspapers have given frontpage examination to numerous real estate transactions in the last year from Obama and Cunningham to Reid and Hastert.
It's the Limbaugh rule: If it could have happened, it did happen, whether it really happened or not.
time to tie credibility to ability to keep your job. Both are required together.
Hmmm.....methinks this is going the of '..there must be some wrongdoing here SOMEWHERE- I'm just opening the door a crack to let people know there could be law breaking going...even if i have no proof..'And what, praytell, were the 'missing blanks...'?
John Solomon strikes yet again. Does this guy ever do anything other than write hit pieces on Democrats? This is the pattern that we are going to be seeing for the next two years as Presidential elections approach and Democrats try to do the peoples work in conducting oversight of the Bush regime. Every perceived, or manufactured misstep by any Democrat will be inflated in the Corporate Media. It's all meant to distract, divide and discredit them as the malfeasance of the Bush regime is uncovered and the Iraq war escalates and spins further out of control.
This guy has absolutely no cred left. He was wrong wrong wrong on Reid. He also completely misrepresented something Kerry said in '72 ; Solomon's claims were later roundly debunked.
Why does he even bother anymore?
Oh yeah...because the "liberal" Wash Post keeps paying him.
PS: TOTALLY digging the new comments system. Big ups to MMFA.
One would think that one would be more circumspect in making public statements about a top notch lawyer that would appear to be actionable.
Oh, curse that far-left S-P Washington Post and its liberal bias!
The dude has no regrets, afterall, he doesn't care about his credibility as a "journalist", he just wants the rumor mill to keep on grinding.
Sorry dude, your shinola is a bit too oily to stick.
Do “journalists” research ANYTHING anymore? Why is it passé to do the most basic research before writing an article, that is, if one is a rightwing spinologist? If these people did do actual research on the subject matter of their articles, or books, and found that the core thesis of their idea is one big lie, would they still write it? Do they write these “job honors” in spite of the truth or to spite the truth? And most importantly, how does one develop a mentality in which one’s opinions are superior to objective fact?
So many honest questions, so few honest answers.
"encoded in the federal campaign law..." I'm thinking this is sort of a Da Vinci thing. O, Draconian devil! Oh, lame saint!
Decoding, Val, and as Mr L. pointed out, filling in "missing" blanks.
This is what the cons call the "New Media". Solving secret codes, filling in blanks that aren't there, answering questions that nobody asked.
Sure beats that boring old reporting of facts.Kinda like Rummy having a Q&A with himself. Catapults the propaganda much more quickly.
Let's see:
John Edwards sells his DC home in a broker-to-broker deal to a family at a market value profit. Big friggin' deal.
Didn't know that, beyond good credit, I have to check out how the person who buys my house comes by the money that he or she has to purchase it.
I remember reading this story the day it was printed and thinking exactly what the "Post" ombudsman said... "where's the beef?"
But as we've learned in the media "War Against Gore" (as Somerby puts it) and the Swift Boat liar attacks against Kerry, there needs to be no truth whatsoever behind an allegation in order for it to be launched.
And again, the story would be harmless if it isn't followed up on the blog by Soloman's outright fabrications.
Even if Edwards had been required to disclose the purchase, why is Solomon attacking him before he files the disclosure? He doesn't know what Edwards will or will not put in the disclosure before it's filed. Secondly, what didn't Edwards not disclose that isn't already disclosed in the public record? You can look up who formed any LLC. I had one for my freelance writing. No big deal. Anyone can look it up.
Sorry to move off-topicl, but how would I go about looking up who formed an LLC? There is one offering a house for sale that interests me, but I am not sure in what city or even state the LLC was formed, and no address is given (other than the vacant house itself). Given that I don't know this, I certainly would not expect Edwards or anyone else to research who is an arm's length buyer offering a market bid (or in the Edwards' family's minds, maybe a low-ball bid.)
The story about Edwards is outrageous. The editors of the Post know exactly how much the market has moved in Georgetown since the Edwards family bought and improved the house. Despite a slowing in the last 18 months, there was a huge market gain during the years they owned the house in this neighborhood. The fact that the Post reporter failed to indicate the $ amount of improvements implies that the improvements were very costly and that in fact the family made less than the % gained in the overall market. But then, that would not make a very interesting story, now, would it?
Re. LLC: Here's New Mexico's, as an example:
http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/cii.htm
(The amount of info available may differ among various states.)
Thanks, Skye!
I think Solomon and others have discovered that the level of deceit in their reporting has no bearing on their readership. He can refer to, rather than cite, a non-existent campaign law to justify his previously published innuendo, with complete confidence that the average reader will not read the entire U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations and discover the deceit. At worst, some expert who he can dismiss as partisan, will state that the campaign law doesn't exist, but Solomon's general readership will choose to believe him, and will continue to repeat the lie. This is the written press analog to the Bull O'Really method of journalism.
The PLUS side for Edwards, is that this marks him as a "serious candidate" in the eyes of the Repugnant/Media Oligopoly. He just earned another contribution from this proponent of MORA! And he didn't even have to promise me anything for this one!
A frontpage story doesn't have to always find wrongdoing or lead to prosecutions.sometimes a story just has to make a lot noise, and heat...not sense.
John Solomon is pathetic! The Reid article was a study in how not to write a political hatchet piece if you want to remain under the radar. Now that Solomon has been branded as the guy who specializes in Democratic dirty real estate deals, you would think that he would be careful to do his homework.
As someone else pointed out, many states have laws that prevent home sellers from discriminating against potentional buyers. That means if a pro-union Edwards decided that he did not want to sell his house to a Republican or a union-buster or some other unsavory type, that would be just too bad for Edwards.
Regarding the fact that Edwards sold the home at less than his asking price, Solomon never explained what that was about. Was the presidential hopeful supposed to be doing a favor for the businessman? Was this a bribe so that the businessman would aid Edwards when the businessman achieved some position of power in the future?
Solomon's last grap at the last straw---federal campaign laws require that candidates tell the world who bought their houses---shows that he is not a journalist. He lives in an imaginary world, a cross between Wonderland and Oz.
Maybe he should turn his pen to fiction. Oops. It is already there. Maybe he should turn his pen from fiction to truth by labeling the fantasies which he weaves "fiction".
Kronkite will you please come back to your old News Reporting job?
We need you back, desperately.
Walter Cronkite was widely considered the most trusted man in America during his time at the CBS Anchor Desk.