ABC World News report claimed "[q]uestions ... raised" about Clinton's support for NY project, but ignored relevant answers

During a January 5 ABC World News report, described by anchor Charles Gibson as a "closer look at the intersection of money and politics," correspondent David Wright said, "Questions have ... been raised about Senator Hillary Clinton, who pushed through a $5 million earmark that benefited a New York developer who gave $100,000 to Bill Clinton's foundation. Senator Clinton's office insist there was no connection. But, again, the question is: Did the developer pay to play?" Wright reported that "Senator Clinton's office insist there was no connection," between the 2004 donation by developer Robert J. Congel and the earmark, but did not point out that, according to The New York Times, Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines said that she "did not solicit the donation from Mr. Congel or discuss it with him or anyone on his behalf, and that she was unaware of its timing and size until last month." Wright also did not note that Hillary Clinton reportedly supported tax breaks for Congel's project during her 2000 campaign, four years before Congel's donation to Bill Clinton's foundation. Nor did Wright note that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress from New York supported the project.

In a January 4 article, the Times reported:

Mrs. Clinton, who as a Senate candidate in 2000 supported other tax breaks for a Carousel mall expansion to create jobs, did not work alone in getting the subsidies through Congress. The measures had other supporters in the New York delegation, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, and James T. Walsh, Syracuse's Republican representative at the time.

And the "green bonds" were backed by lawmakers from three other states with projects that would qualify for it.

Similarly, in a July 28, 2000, article (retrieved from the Nexis database), The Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York, reported, "Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton today endorsed the proposed expansion of Carousel Center mall, saying its economic benefits would likely outweigh 30 years of property-tax concessions." Earlier that year, in a March 23, 2000, article, The Post-Standard described Congel as "the man behind the Carousel Center mall." In the July 28, 2000, article, The Post-Standard also reported of the mall project:

"I think, on balance, it does make sense...," said Clinton, whose knowledge of the project comes primarily from news reports. "Obviously, retail alone, the service industry alone, is not what's going to bring new jobs for New York. But that doesn't mean you should be against them as a possible means for increasing economic activity, and there's the multiplier effect of what a large, retail destination like that would mean."

From the January 5 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

GIBSON: Tonight, a closer look at the intersection of money and politics, a gray area where financial favors sometimes cross the line. But exactly where is that line? When does business as usual become improper or illegal?

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is caught in that intersection right now. And today, he spoke out about withdrawing his nomination to be commerce secretary, as a grand jury investigates how a major political donor landed lucrative state contracts. Here's David Wright.

[begin video clip]

WRIGHT: Today, as he explained his decision to withdraw from the Obama cabinet, Governor Bill Richardson sounded almost high-minded.

RICHARDSON: Sometimes your own dreams and plans must take a backseat to what is best for the nation.

WRIGHT: But the New Mexico governor faced the appearance of impropriety -- a multimillion dollar state contract awarded to a firm whose president gave thousands of dollars to Richardson's political action committees. Federal investigators are trying to determine, did the company pay to play?

ALLAN LICHTMAN (American University history professor): Pay to play means that you've got to give something to get something in politics.

WRIGHT: Questions have also been raised about Senator Hillary Clinton, who pushed through a $5 million earmark that benefited a New York developer who gave $100,000 to Bill Clinton's foundation. Senator Clinton's office insist there was no connection.

But, again, the question is: Did the developer pay to play?

BILL BUZENBERG (Center for Public Integrity executive director): Money is exchanged for, you know, being able to be in the mix. Where it goes over the line is when it's actually for a real earmark.

WRIGHT: You might well say, "That's simply how politics works. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Of course, that's not how it's supposed to work. Still, most contributions are perfectly legal. To be illegal, a prosecutor has to be able to prove the quid pro quo. And that's extremely difficult.

LICHTMAN: If we were to prosecute every time someone steered a contract or a favor to a campaign contributor, we'd be prosecuting virtually every politician in this country.

JAMES STEWART (as Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington [1939]): I guess this is just another lost cause.

WRIGHT: As Mr. Smith goes to Washington, Jimmy Stewart played an idealistic young senator appointed by a corrupt party boss. Sound familiar?

BURRIS: That's legal. I am the junior senator from Illinois.

WRIGHT: Roland Burris is a highly regarded public servant, but the governor who appointed him stands accused of earlier trying to sell the seat -- pay to play. So, when Mr. Burris comes to Washington tomorrow, the Senate may refuse to seat him. David Wright, ABC news, Washington.