Wash. Post gave front-page play to Clinton finances, ran brief reports on McCain and Giuliani inside
SUMMARY: The Washington Post ran a report on "interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on its front page. By contrast, the Post published an article about Sen. John McCain's financial disclosure statements on Page A6 and a report on Rudy Giuliani's lucrative speaking fees on Page A8.
In a February 23 front-page Washington Post article, staff writers John Solomon and Matthew Mosk reported on "interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and found that, because of her husband's speaking fees and book deals, "the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts ... are worth an estimated $10 million to $50 million." The 39-paragraph article, which ran above the fold and was illustrated with maps, added that last year, "only about 20 percent" of his speeches "were for personal income." By contrast, recent articles about Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) financial disclosure statements and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) lucrative speaking fees were buried on inside pages of the Post.
A four-paragraph article by Mosk about McCain's latest statement, received by the Federal Election Commission on January 30, ran on Page A6 on February 10. Moreover, while the February 23 article about Clinton revolved around her husband's income, the McCain article devoted just two sentences to his wife's wealth and briefly noted that most of McCain's reported net worth of about $15 million "stems from his wife, the millionaire daughter of an Arizona beer magnate."
A February 15 Post article about the speaking fees charged by Giuliani, also written by Solomon and Mosk, appeared on Page A8. As Media Matters for America has noted, Giuliani has traveled nationwide and around the world to deliver speeches, at least some of which touch on his experiences during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Giuliani reportedly charges $100,000 per speech, despite significant questions about his record on homeland security and public safety, including his performance before, during, and after the 9-11 attacks.

CBSNews.com picked up on the Post's report on Bill Clinton's speaking fees, asserting that Sen. Clinton's financial disclosure statements were filed "recently." The article did not define "recently" and failed to discuss McCain's more recent financial disclosure statements. Neither CBS nor CBSNews.com has noted McCain's financial disclosure. The Post story noted that its report was based on "Hillary Clinton's annual ethics report to Congress, which showed that her husband made more than $30 million from speeches from 2001 to 2005" and "interviews with speech organizers" because Clinton "does not have to disclose 2006 fees until mid-May." The secretary of the Senate received her most recent financial disclosure statement more than nine months ago.
From the February 23 Post article:
Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations -- are worth an estimated $10 million to $50 million, according to Hillary Clinton's most recent disclosure form. That is attributable primarily to the speaking fees and to the seven-figure book deals that both Clintons signed shortly after leaving the White House.
The fortune they have amassed gives the Clintons a nest egg for the first time, and it allows them to tap into that wealth for a campaign if Hillary Clinton, as expected, forgoes public financing in her race for president. It also suggests a sometimes close connection between their personal finances and her political career.
[...]
The nearly $40 million total is based on Hillary Clinton's annual ethics report to Congress, which showed that her husband made more than $30 million from speeches from 2001 to 2005. Under Senate ethics rules, she does not have to disclose 2006 fees until mid-May, and the estimate for that year's totals is based on interviews with speech organizers, who confirmed an additional $9 million to $10 million in fees.
Beyond the millions he has earned personally, the former president has given dozens more speeches that result in payments to the William J. Clinton Foundation, his nonprofit charity in New York. His associates say those have yielded millions to help cover the $60 million annual budget the foundation spends to fund his charitable work on AIDS and world hunger.
The February 10 Post article:
Some land owned by Republican presidential candidate John McCain slipped in value last year, but the senator from Arizona remains a wealthy man, largely because of investments and holdings controlled by his wife, Cindy, his latest financial disclosure report showed.
All presidential candidates must file an up-to-date accounting of their finances with the Federal Election Commission. McCain released his forms late yesterday, and they show that little has changed since his last disclosure, issued in May. The forms allow him to report the value of holdings within broad ranges, making his net worth difficult to calculate with confidence. Previous reports have put it at roughly $15 million.
Most of that money stems from his wife, the millionaire daughter of an Arizona beer magnate. One tract of land McCain owns in Sedona, Ariz., was worth between $500,000 and $1 million in May, but now is listed as being worth between $100,001 and $250,000, the report showed. A McCain spokesman could not be reached last night to explain the disparity.
McCain also listed as income a 2006 deal to write a nonfiction book that is timed for release late this year. The book, whose working title is "Hard Call," is to explore "historically significant decisions" and the qualities that distinguished successful decisions from failures.

















Hillary is front page news.
Republic(an) wannabes are not.
Obviously, the "media" believe that reports of having gobs of money and being millionaires have a negative effect on the electorate, and such obvious talk about having wealth might cost the candidate votes, so of course Hillary gets the full beam of such scrutiny while anyone not Democrat (proper usage) is downplayed as an afterthought. This is the calculus, but what this really shows is what they DO NOT wish to portray.
That Hillary is front page news, and Republic(an) wannabes are not.
Don't worry, Tex.
Hillary's front page status notwithstanding, someone will be along any moment to ask why MMFA is turning into a HRC campaign site. Then the same posters will gently explain it to them again. The patience of saints, some of you.
The press was, at one time, the fourth estate of this nation fulfilling/ enhancing the reason the second ammendment was created, giving us the tools we need to protect us from the foibles of our own government. In my lifetime, I can think of two occasions where this was at risk. the Kent Stete shootings where the national guard went berserk and out of control and when Alexander Haig assumed the presidency right after Reagan was gunned down ( lucky for us George H Bush squashed Haig. ) When the press becomes a political arm of a party by selectively parsing words, it ceases to be intelectual property of this nation.
critically rereading the post after submitting, I meant to say Reagan was shot rather than using the word gunned.
I love it. The Clintons..." who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations..."
Yeah, hmmm...wonder where those legal fees came from? Oh, that's right. The Republicans. More whining about why the Clintons have evaded the witchhunt.
Yeaj, that's a pretty hefty tab for defense against an actual attack.
Wish they kept such tight books on the current gangs "defense" debt, run up against a fabricated threat. I'll wish in one hand and shiite in the other , and see which fills up first.
They also left the White House with a trail of dead Iraqis and Kosovars strung out behind them. Good riddance to war criminal rubbish. Why the American voter has to consistenly vote for killers is beyond me. I can't think of a single president who hasn't killed people. Clinton did, Reagan did, even Carter helped kill people. Why in the world do we have to elect KILLERS?
and didn't the Republicrites have legislation against "frivolous lawsuits" which declared that those who brought suit against someone and lost had to pay the legal fees?
I wonder why you don't hear anything about them being legally bound to pay the Clintons' legal fees according to their own rules ...
Hillary is after the oil companys windfall profits.."I want to take those profits"...but what of her own windfall profits.
- Hillary Clinton's annual ethics report to Congress, which showed that her husband made more than $30 million from speeches from 2001 to 2005. - mmfa
Bill Clinton went from a presidential salary of $200k to an annual income of about $8 million per year...pretty nice windfall. She should have no problem with the government "taking those profits" and redistributing them to others.
Exxon went from about $10b profit in 2002...to about $40b in 2006...a fourfold increase. Bill and Hillary increased their income over the save period by a 40 to 1 ratio.
Vice presiodent Cheney, whose wife was/is on the BoD of lockheed, awarded the sole supplier JSF contract to Lockheed. Hope you apply the same sort of critical analysis to all parties.
Of course I will...the government has no right to "take any profits" beyond the current tax codes.
I don't begrudge the profits made by Bill/Hillary, Exxon, Cheney or anyone else.
I do begrudge the lame socialist whine of Hillary. If she thinks that taking the profits of Exxon is the right thing to do...she should also think that taking her own "windfall profits" is the right thing to do.
And when we subsidize Clintons speaking as much as we do the oil industry that will be a very good point. We dont, so it really isnt
You're blathering and we both know it. Redistribution of income is nothing more than socialism.
If Hillary has beliefs that the government should take Exxon's profits...she should no reservations about her sudden windfall of income...and the subsequent confiscation by the government.
Next up may be the confiscation of the income of unionized train conductors....after all...why should they be entitled to more than the poor bastards earning minimum wage. Many minimum wage earners are qualified to perform the duties of train conductor...those highly subsidized railroads and their employees do not deserve their higher standard of living.
Pretty silly, huh? Just like Hillary's position.
I am going to take you on this EXXON thing. Oil pricing is commodity pricing and oil companies act like monopolies, much different than the prevalent supply and demand marketplace. The oil companies have much greater power than our elected officials, and that power needs to be controlled, lest they exercise dictatorial powers with commodities. And they act as if they are private companies in their dealings with government controls. To compound this problem of a twoheaded snake, throw in the global market for their product. No matter what the final outcome is, we are paying for it at the pump, and they have us by the ba$$s. the only power we, as single consumers, is a choice of where to spend our gas money, until all the oil companies merge and own us all.
- oil companies act like monopolies...and they have us by the ba$$s. - wolf
It's a pretty poor "monopoly" that allows drastic price swings...as in the price of oil was $9 bbl a few short years ago...not much of a grip on our balls then.
However, my point is not a defense of oil companies but Hillary's position of confiscation of others private income...but not her own.
Actually short term drastic price variations are the characteristic of strong monopolies. If that is not the case, I want my Econ 201 grade reviewed and assessed the correct grade.
Redistribution of income is the basis of every government, civilization and family on the planet throughout history. The only difference is the numbers and the basic ideology (capitalism, communism, socialism, etc.)
I realize the 21st Century Red Scare keeps people occupied between scary illegal immigrant and terrorism statistics, but the comparison between paying taxes in the U.S.A. and socialism probably gets a lot more bites on Freerepublic or the corner dive bar.
- the comparison between paying taxes in the U.S.A. and socialism
I have never advocated that we should pay zero taxes or that any redistribution is socialism.
I have pointed out the political pandering of Hillary on taking the windfall profits of the oil industry when she has reaped a higher windfall profit percentage personally.
If you think Hillary is correct...vote for her...and remember that your industry could be next.
If you oppose abortion, remember that your appendectomy could be next.
Redistribution of income is nothing more than socialism.
Actually, here in the real world the progressive tax code has been a bedrock of both republican and democratic administrations for decades.
Also, here in the real world corporations are shirking their civic responsibility to pay their fair share in the war on terror by moving corporate offices off-shore and other shady mean to avoid paying taxes.
Most of the right-wing blogger yammer on about gasoline taxes, but those are not paid by Exxon... those are passed along to consumers.
Yeah. similar to recent events like moving to the Bahamas ( OFF SHORE ) and bartering services, which de facto means you avoid paying taxes, I think that is what Hillary is after and the opponents morph this into socialistic behavior claims. Can't wait to see what happens when Congress finds out the real cost of the Iraq adventure, along with, as reported last night, losing 12 000000000 dollars cash after unloading the C130 that delivered it. I don't like paying taxes either but hell, I live in this country, I support this country and I remember my oath when I received my citizenship. In addition I believe a flat tax, in today's environment, would actually be fair.
You hit the nail on the head, Wolf.
You're right: No one likes paying taxes. But we're (ostensibly) IN A WAR... why do we let Big Business off the hook from shoulder THEIR FAIR SHARE of the cost?
Ever see the film THE CORPORATION? If corporations were actually people, their behavior would make them psychopathic according to the DSM.