Media blasted Edwards for speech fee but omitted Giuliani speeches, Edwards' explanation
Several media figures have attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for receiving a $55,000 fee for a January 2006 speech at the University of California-Davis -- as first reported in a May 21 entry to the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog. In several cases, they have not also mentioned reports that Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani charged Oklahoma State University $100,000 for a speech he delivered in 2006 and an additional $47,000 for the use of a private jet, as Media Matters for America has noted. Moreover, several left out the response by the Edwards campaign, which asserted that UC-Davis offset the cost through sponsorship and ticket sales to the event.
As Media Matters noted, on the May 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported that the Edwards campaign claimed "it was a paid speech, but there were tickets for it -- somewhere between $17.50 for students; about $40 for adults. So it paid for itself." According to UC-Davis' Robert & Margrit Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, tickets for the speech ranged from $17.50 to $45. The entry on the Chronicle's Politics Blog noted that he spoke to "a crowd of 1,787," meaning that if everyone paid admission, ticket sales would have brought in somewhere between $31,272 and $80,415.
But reports on Fox News, MSNBC -- along with articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Post, and on foxnews.com -- left out one or both -- Giuliani's higher reported speaking fees and the Edwards campaign's response:
- In his May 23 "Media Notes" column on The Washington Post's website, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, "Now we know how John Edwards pays for those $400 haircuts." Kurtz's claim was followed by an excerpt from the May 21 Chronicle blog post. Kurtz made no mention of Giuliani or of the tickets for the Edwards speech.
- On the May 22 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, guest host Jon Scott, after noting that the Edwards campaign said that the speech "was funded by sponsors and ticket sales," asked the Chronicle's Carla Marinucci, who posted the original blog entry about the Edwards speech, if it isn't "just as wrong for Senator Edwards not to offer himself up to speak for free at a publicly funded university." Marinucci said that "more than polls," campaigns "have to worry about perception." She added that "students were charged upwards of $17 to hear him speak about poverty" and said "the question is, what's with that?" While noting that Edwards is "not the first guy to make big bucks speaking at major events," Marinucci made no mention of Giuliani or his reported $100,000 speaking fee at a publicly funded university.
- On the May 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh discussed the story, called Edwards "a blatant hypocrite." Limbaugh added that the "Chronicle noted that parents might be excused for wondering, given that the University of California system is being hit with a 7-percent tuition increase that'll impact a lot of struggling students" and asked "why didn't Edwards offer to do his speech gratis for a public institution?" He "guarantee[d]" his audience that "outside the San Francisco Chronicle which reported it -- nobody else will do a story on John Edwards taking 55 grand from UC-Davis -- a public institution -- for a speech on poverty." Limbaugh never noted Giuliani's speaking fees. (Limbaugh also did not mention the Edwards campaign's response that UC-Davis offset Edwards' fee, though the Situation Room report noting that response did not air until after Limbaugh's broadcast.)
- A May 22 foxnews.com article claimed that Edwards' speech "at the taxpayer-funded school in January 2006" taught the "students how to avoid poverty -- charge $55,000 for a speech." The article later noted that "Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz told FOX News that the speech at UC Davis, 'was funded by sponsors and ticket sales,' and the school has said ticket prices for the event ranged from $17.50 to $45." The article ended by noting that "[i]ncidentally, students at all of California's public universities will pay a 7 percent increase in tuition next year." The article made no mention of Giuliani.
- On the May 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume brought up Edwards' speech in two separate segments. In the first, Hume noted that Edwards' campaign said that "the speech was part of a series at the school and was funded by sponsors and the sale of tickets, which went for as much as $45," but did not note the reported Giuliani speeches. In the second segment, Hume asked National Public Radio senior national correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams "what we make of" Edwards' "considerable recent embarrassments." Neither Hume nor Williams in that segment noted the Edwards campaign's response or that Giuliani reportedly made $100,000 for his speech at Oklahoma State.
- As part of the "winners and losers" segment on the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, guest host and MSNBC general manager Dan Abrams made no mention of Giuliani or Edwards' response, and simply said: "First loser, Democratic candidate John Edwards, after we learned today he charged $55,000 to speak at a publicly funded California university last year. His topic? Poverty."
From Kurtz's May 23 washingtonpost.com column:
Now we know how John Edwards pays for those $400 haircuts:
"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged 'every financial barrier' be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.
"The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday," says the San Francisco Chronicle.
From the May 22 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
SCOTT: Hello again, I'm Jon Scott in for John Gibson, and it's time for "Big Politics." Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards consistently calls for action against poverty. But he's sure making big bucks talking about it. Senator Edwards charged $55,000 to speak at a publicly funded university in Northern California last year. While it happened before he officially announced his 2008 candidacy, his campaign spokesman now says, quote, "John Edwards' speech at UC-Davis was part of the Mondavis [sic] Center for Performing Arts Distinguished Speakers Series which was funded by sponsors and ticket sales." In the speech entitled, "Poverty: The Great Moral Issue Facing America," Edwards was quoted as saying, "For a country of our wealth and prosperity to have 37 million people wake up in the morning in poverty, is wrong." Well, as a self-proclaimed advocate for the poor, isn't it just as wrong for Senator Edwards not to offer himself up to speak for free at a publicly funded university? With us now, San Francisco Chronicle political writer Carla Marinucci. Carla, you broke this story.
MARINUCCI: John, I did. I tell you I think what this says is that presidential campaigns have to worry about more than polls. They have to worry about perception. John Edwards has been a very big advocate for poverty, but, boy, there has been a pileup of events in recent weeks. The $400 haircut, the hedge fund checks, and now these kinds of fees to universities. You have to wonder how it plays in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where he's really trying to push his sort of humble roots as the son of a mill worker.
SCOTT: Right, and you know, he kind of portrays himself as the guy of the common people, the lawyer who battles for injustice and so forth. But when you're charging $55,000 to a university, this is a guy who doesn't need to work another day in his life.
MARINUCCI: Well, let's be fair to John Edwards too. He's not the first guy to make big bucks --
SCOTT: No.
MARINUCCI: -- speaking at major events. Bill Clinton made $100,000 speaking at the same university, I might add. But the problem for John Edwards is a storyline seems to be developing here of a guy who's not "do as I say but" -- it's a hypocritical storyline. And that's what he has to be worried about. Certainly he's been out there, he's been pushing the poverty theme for a long, long time, and he's very, very eloquent in doing that. But when you have this gathering storm of events, that's where the problem is for John Edwards. For a public university like UC-Davis, this is a taxpayer-funded university. He spoke at the Mondavi Center, but students were charged upwards of $17 to hear him speak about poverty. And the question is, what's with that?
SCOTT: So there is a little bit of a political tin ear going on here.
MARINUCCI: And I think that's where the Edwards campaign has really got to watch this whole theme. They can take a lesson from the kind of things that happened in the last presidential campaign when certain storylines developed on certain candidates, like Al Gore. The perception was that he exaggerated, that he didn't play a straight and narrow with a lot of the facts. That he invented the Internet, even though that's something he never really said. That storyline was a major problem for him. John Kerry, he was accused of being a flip-flopper. It was something he always had to deal with on the campaign trail. And this one hands ammunition to John Edwards' opponents, and he's got to look out for that.
SCOTT: Carla Marinucci, San Francisco Chronicle. Thank you.
From the May 22 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Now this is just coming out -- now, why is this being reported? I mean, the drive-bys didn't go out and sniff this out. This is in his financial reporting information. Why are they reporting it? Normally they sweep this stuff under the rug. He's one of their guys.
John Fund has a piece today, The Wall Street Journal, speculating that it's getting even too much -- getting to be even too much for the drive-bys to ignore and to look the other way. The guy is such a blatant hypocrite. He goes to this hedge fund where he ostensibly is going to learn about -- about poverty! He doesn't do any -- he's an offshore hedge fund -- he's got statements on the record opposing tax shelters that are brought about by having offshore hedge funds. He goes to work for one!
After he comes out of his little consultancy deal there, making whatever -- $400,000 and some odd, I think he made -- he said he learned about poverty. What did he learn about offshore hedge funds and tax shelters and so forth, and he claims to want to put down -- there was the story about, you know, he was out there bashing Wal-Mart all to hell, and one of his staffers was sent to Wal-Mart to get a PlayStation 2 or 3 or something for one of Edwards' kids.
And Fund's theory is that they're beginning to wonder if the guy's not just a total and utter phony. The Chronicle noted that parents might be excused for wondering, given that the University of California system is being hit with a 7 percent tuition increase that'll impact a lot of struggling students, why didn't Edwards offer to do his speech gratis for a public institution? The senator's office wouldn't comment, but journalists covering Mr. Edwards have lately started connecting certain dots. Sooner or later the public's going to have to make a decision about whether Edwards, with his $400 haircuts, his 29,000-square-foot house, his lucrative hedge fund employment, walks the populist walk that he talks.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: I mean, the fact that this stuff is being reported -- and you can say some of it's coming from Clinton Inc., and you can say that some of it -- you know, Hillary's out there, got her pals in the drive-bys and they want to take out as many of Hillary's opponents as quickly as possible. And by the way, remember that press conference when John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced the return of her cancer? And the drive-bys started speculating about how great this was politically, what a wonderfully executed political press conference, and how it was going to buy -- they're all saying this -- how it was going to buy a little cover for Senator Edwards. He's going to be a little bulletproof now, because how do you go out and attack a guy politically whose wife just announced that her cancer's come -- well, it's happening! I guess there was a little grace period there, but now it's happening. And it's the drive-bys that are doing this.
The guy is phony. I mean, he's -- there's no two ways about it. It's just stunning to me that the drive-bys have turned on him. I guess it shouldn't be. I mean, they don't want him. The drive-bys' candidate of choice right now, believe it or not, is Al Gore. I mean, they're literally going bonkers -- well, what do you think [MSNBC host Chris] Matthews is doing that bit that we played for you last night about Hillary and Bill, and how often they, you know, stay under the same roof at night? And Time magazine has been going on and on and on about Al Gore and all that. And Obama has been built up. It strikes me that there's not a whole lot of love and affection for Mrs. Clinton.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: I guarantee you -- [hits desk] outside the San Francisco Chronicle which reported it -- nobody else will do a story on John Edwards taking 55 grand from UC Davis -- a public institution -- for a speech on poverty.
From a May 22 FoxNews.com article:
John Edwards has an example to teach University of California at Davis students how to avoid poverty -- charge $55,000 for a speech.
That's how much the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate negotiated for his fee to speak to 1,787 people at the taxpayer-funded school in January 2006, according to financial disclosures.
According to Joe Martin, the public relations officer for UC Davis' Mondavi Center, the fee for a speech entitled, "Poverty, the Great Moral issue Facing America," was worth it to school officials.
Martin told The San Francisco Chronicle that the center paid Edwards because at the time "he wasn't a (presidential) candidate and from our point of view, he was a speaker of interest that people in the community were clearly interested in ... we feel it's our mission to present those speakers."
The speaking fee, which amounts to about $31 per audience member, was the highest Edwards earned in nine appearances last year at colleges and universities. In all, he earned $285,000 for the nine speeches.
Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz told FOX News that the speech at UC Davis, "was funded by sponsors and ticket sales," and the school has said ticket prices for the event ranged from $17.50 to $45.
Incidentally, students at all of California's public universities will pay a 7 percent increase in tuition next year.
From May 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: And now the most fascinating two minutes in television, the latest from the "Political Grapevine."
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who made his fortune as a trial lawyer before getting into politics, was paid $55,000 to speak to students at the University of California at Davis last year. His topic, "Poverty, the Great Moral Issue Facing America," and that's in quotes.
His campaign tells Fox News the speech was part of a series at the school and was funded by sponsors and the sale of tickets, which went for as much as $45.
Edwards' financial records show he pocketed $285,000 for his speeches to nine colleges and universities last year, in addition to the nearly half million dollars he made in consulting fees from a hedge fund where he worked, he said, to learn more about the financial market's effect on poverty.
[...]
HUME: Let's take a very brief look at how the Democrats stack up in Iowa and a man who's undergone some considerable recent embarrassments, John Edwards, about his hair and his hedge fund money and speaking -- collecting 55 grand for talking about poverty and so on. He's ahead now in Iowa, which is, you know, the first place. That's no small matter, it's a narrow margin, but nonetheless, he's ahead. What do we make of that?
WILLIAMS: It's the unions. That's the key to his support nationally. It's the key to his fortunes, and what he's done there -- I think it's like more than a third of voters in Iowa will be coming from union families, and he has made a tremendous amount of inroads in the union vote out there and spent a lot of time out there.
From the May 22 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
ABRAMS: Just moments ago, the final American Idol competition wrapped up, and we are ready to tell you the ultimate winner and loser in a minute.
But first, the day's other winners and losers. First loser, Democratic candidate John Edwards, after we learned today he charged $55,000 to speak at a publicly funded California university last year. His topic? Poverty.















More hypocrisy from the usual suspects - the propagandists.
These people continually rail against anyone who opposes this government and its murderous wars; calling us communists, "with the terrorists" or america haters.
This attack on Edwards, who's calling for an end to the war is just more of the same....they do everything they can to discredit those who are trying to do anything in opposition to bush.
But, the reality is quite different. It's limbaugh, and bush, and giuliani and the rest who act with utter hatred towards America and what it stands for.....and this article is a great step in calling them out.
Some interesting reading on this issue:
"The America-Haters Strike Again" - click here
you just dont get it do you.
you dont go around selling a speech on poverty to schools, saying, "hey let me talk about poverty to your school so we can finally solve this societal ill!!" then send them a bill for $55,000. If you REALLY wanted to solve poverty, you'd give a speech on it for FREE.
Why giuliani is referenced here is beyond me, this had to do with the facts that Edwards is charging 50k for speeches on POVERTY
If you REALLY wanted to solve poverty, you'd give a speech on it for FREE.
How would that "solve poverty?" Just curious.
thanks for diverting from the maint point, appreciate it
You mean...like YOU just did?
Your post was nothing but pure diversion from the main point, that being the media is wrong to criticize Edwards' speaking fee (before he was a cnadidate) and not mention Giuliani's higher fee (nearly triple, when you include the use of the private jet).
The issue here is not Edwards' fee, but rather the media response to it.
if you were giving a speech on the subject of poverty, to students mind you, would you feel right charging $55k? yay or nay? thanks:)
Free things (other than love and air) have little value perceptually speaking. Ideas have value. It was everybodys option to not pay or not show up. They did, he got paid and free enterprise worked once again. My phylosophy is: It is better to emulate a successful person than it is to envy them. Nobody offered me 55k to go listen to baby bush when he spoke a mile from where I lived so I didn't go listen to him. The system works.
You are the one who doesn't get it. Edwards can speak on anything he wants, and charge whatever he wants, because in America we believe in the free market of ideas. The school was willing to pay, period. Case closed. You hypocrites are so pressed to make edwards into a pariah because the only way you can win an election is by making the opposition look worse than your sorry @ssed white pasty faced racists.
And Giuliani is relevant as long as you continue to make Edwards' speaking fees relevant. Untill you drop this manufactured rage we will continue to point out that your bald headed hypocrite is way more extravegant in the way he milks 9-11 by charging outrageous fees to talk about it.
you miss the point again, the fees are relevant because he was speaking on the issue of poverty. its like a rich man coming to poorsville to uplift the poor about their situation, but he charges them each one pence in order to listen to him speak.
Did JESUS charge $ to the poor he healed? No. Did JESUS charge $ to hear him speak or did he let the taxpayer climb the tree so he could see better?
How much would you charge students to speak on the issue, if they asked you to speak? If they said "we don't have any $", would you turn them away?
No one has to make Edwards out to be a pariah, he is a sleazy trial lawyer who is trying to slick and slide his way to a VP slot.
You have no point. He didn't speak to poor people bilking them of their hard earned dollars, he spoke to students at a university who willingly paid to hear his take on poverty. I know that's too difficult for a reichwinger to understand, but it is what it is.
And thanks for reminding us that your side also hates lawyers until they need one, then they kiss their arses and lick their behinds until they get the multi million dollar payoff. Then it's back to the hatin'. Hypocrites.
maybe but we dont want to take half their salary and redistribute to various corrupt social welfare programs like handing out condoms, hiv needles, sex toys, marijuana, and welfare checks to crackheads.
way to even the playing field there kiddo
Pot, meet kettle. I'm gonna start referring to you as the patron saint of hate causes.
i was going to start out with the pot/kettle thing but i decided it was overused. thank you for restoring my sense of superiority.
When living in intellectual poverty, a sense of superiority is all you've got. Hang on to it with all your might...
Careful Snoop & Neon, or you'll face an all out assault from Colonel Roy's minions back at FOXHOUND. I've heard they're a force to be reckoned with.
You'd think that someone who gets bounced so frequently would tone it down just a bit. But some video game characters never learn. Guess they're not programmed that way.
So, Dailytroll, who would Jesus bomb?
Well, as a self-proclaimed advocate for the poor, isn't it just as wrong for Senator Edwards not to offer himself up to speak for free at a publicly funded university?
I'm not understanding this logic... UC-Davis is a state funded university and not exactly an example of poverty. Did anyone force UC-Davis to pay this fee? Did anyone force those 1800 people who attended to pay admission? It doesn't sound as though Edwards reaped any benefit at the expense of the poor. That would have been hypocricy.
Edwards has established his bona fides. Have his critics? After Katrina, Edwards was down in the Lower 9th Ward and in St. Bernard Parish gutting houses... even mussing up his pretty hair. Where was Rush Limbaugh's fat a$$? Where were the FOX boys? Oh, yea... in the studio criticizing liberals for complaining about Bush's inept response to Katrina and his unkept promises of rebuilding the city of New Orleans.
Did you know that Edwards voted to raise the minimum wage?
Do you believe that the impact of charging $55,000 to a rich university has more weight than raising the minimum wage of poor people?
Dum Dum.
MMFA again takes things out of context and smears media.
Edwards blasted for speech fee because he was giving a speech to COLLEGE STUDENTS ABOUT POVERTY. A speech about poverty should be FREE you know, to be in the spirit of things.
MMFA is a smear merchant.
Sorry, nobody was forced to go, nor was anybody protesting the speech. The market place of ideas and all that......
I think dailykosluvr2k7 is really Bill-O. How's the kool-aid today?
In keeping with the free or no charge poverty speech logic then a speech about backing the war should cost an attendee a couple million per ticket and have half of that "lost" or unaccounted for Ooops. You know in the spirit of things.
When it is proven that any of the money paid to Edwards came out of the public coffers, then everyone bashing him might have a legitimate complaint. However, it does not seem to be the case, tickets sold, speech given. End of story.
Either way Edwards would be bashed whether he was poor or not. If he was poor and running for President, he would be attacked for being unsuccessful.
I just caught the end of Glenn Beck's show today and he had a segment making fun of Edwards. It falsely claimed that Edwards was complaining about a growing gap between the rich and the enormously rich. It showed dumb jokes like the hardship of having to rent a private plane instead of owning one.
It's time to attack Edwards because he would beat Giuliani and McCain in most polls if the elections were held today.
Ironically, that joke would seem to reinforce the idea that the rich think they are "victims".
Give me a break . . . no one is forced to attend ANY Edwards speech - But most are NOT allow to attend a Bush speech (unless you'r a Pioneer or a pre-screened military props) . . . . "$110K Guli" couldn't give a FREE speech to the New York Firefighters Union Meeting - ask'm why!
Iowa: "Haircut Guy" 32% vs "Not Rich Enough Guy"17% - When you are the lead dog, it just gets deeper and it's a constant yapping at your ass . . .
This is hilariously transparent. The Neoclowns have NOTHING to sell except fear...if they try to engage on the issues they lose. What to do? Send out the gremlins and attack each Democratic on some irrelevant issue. Look at how they're attacking them...Gore is a "hyporcrite" because he lives in a big house...Edwards is a "hypocrite" because he charges speaking fees and gets expensive haircuts...Hillary has a screechy voice and is still married to Bill...Obama went to a school which also had Muslims in it (eeeeek!)...Pelosi's husband owns property that MIGHT go up in value because of a Federal improvement project in that district (Oh...my....GOD!)
They got NOTHIN!
Edwards wishes to alleviate poverty; he did not take a vow of poverty. And by the way, students are broke--not poor. Big difference.
The talking heads all have their talking points from Grover Norquist or Karl Rove.
Personal attacks vs. discussions on policies and how they affect us.
I wonder if any of the trolls on this site even know what policies John Edwards is proposing.
Hey guys did I miss the email or snail mail that said you have to be poor to advocate for the poor?
That being said I have found the best thing to do when trolls like dailykos show up is to ignore them. I know it's hard to read such blatant hypocrisy and not respond but you can do it. I also know if you don't respond they will stop posting. I ignore them all the time because they are nothing more than flamers. I responded to the above post about poverty because I'm not sure or not if the poster is a troll.
what media matters doesnt tell you like they have a huge habit of doing is that guliani isnt running on the "two americas" slogan and isnt victimizing the less fortunate to progress his campaign. you may remember him shoveling for a few minutes in new orleans to announce his presidential run forgetting that biloxi is almost back in business because they lack the vicitimization as political pandering. once again, if you want factual information than this site is not for you.
guliani isnt running on the "two americas" slogan - ok
isnt victimizing the less fortunate to progress his campaign - BS or outright lie, you pick
shoveling for a few minutes in new orleans - lame attempt at rhetoric or outright lie, you pick
biloxi is almost back in business because they lack the vicitimization as political pandering - ridiculous to the point of being indecipherable, or outright lie, you pick.
if you want factual information than this site is not for you. - What one wants is not to come to this site if they have a brain the size of a walnut.
The story is not that he charged for a speaking engagement. The story is how much he charged considering the speech was about poverty.
Nobody forced a single, solitary person to pay admission and listen. It's still a free country, unless as an earlier poster pointed out, you were going to a Bush rally. Then it's loyalty oath time. Big money time.
Basically, let the people choose to spend their money as they will. Now that is an argument even the stupidest conservative can get behind.
I have a simple question, if everyone's up tight about Edwards' fee, how's this? Rudy Giuliani made $10 million off 9/11 speeches, ask Rudy would he rather have the Money or have 9/11 never happen, if he says that 9/11 never happen, he should give the money to charity. Why should he make a dime off that tragedy? Hero of 9/11, my ass.