In a February 8 editorial that addressed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) recent disclosure that she loaned her campaign $5 million in January, the New York Post falsely asserted: “Now, personal loans to campaigns are not illegal. [Former Democratic presidential nominee Sen.] John Kerry [MA] did it -- after borrowing millions from his wife, in fact -- in 2004.” In fact, Kerry did not “borrow[] millions from his wife,” Teresa Heinz Kerry; doing so would have been a violation of federal law.

While candidates for federal elective office have a First Amendment right to spend their personal funds without limit, federal law 000-.html" title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000431000-.html">does limit a candidate's access to spousal wealth and to marital property. When assets are owned jointly, a candidate's “personal funds” include “the value of 1/2 of the property,” unless the candidate and spouse have specified a different share in an “instrument of conveyance or ownership” of the property. Property solely owned by a candidate's spouse is not defined as the candidate's personal funds and cannot be used by the candidate. Indeed, when Kerry mortgaged the Boston townhouse he jointly owned with Heinz Kerry in order to finance part of his campaign, CNN.com reported: “Under federal election law, Kerry can spend his own money on the campaign and tap into a portion of the sizable personal fortune he shares with his wife, heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, but cannot use money held only by her.”

Additionally, the Post editorial asserted: “Just a week ago, The New York Times reported that Bill Clinton attended a 2005 dinner with the president of Kazakhstan and a Canadian mining executive. Clinton praised the thuggish president at the dinner; the mining executive got a lucrative uranium contract -- and the [Clinton] foundation a few weeks later received $31 million from the mining exec, with the promise of more to come.” In fact, the January 31 New York Times article the Post referred to did not report that Clinton's foundation received a $31 million donation from mining executive Frank Giustra “a few weeks” after the September 2005 Kazakhstan trip; the Times reported that "[r]ecords show that Mr. Giustra donated the $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation in the months that followed [the 2005 trip] in 2006, but neither he nor a spokesman for Mr. Clinton would say exactly when." Indeed, even the Post itself had stated in an editorial just four days earlier, on February 4, that the $31 million donation to the Clinton Foundation came “a few months” -- not “a few weeks” -- after the September 2005 Kazakhstan trip.

From the February 8 New York Post editorial, headlined “The Clintons' Cash”:

It remains, of course, that Sen. Clinton and her husband are people of means. Hence the $5 million loan.

The Clintons individually are not without resources. Both got multimillion-dollar book contracts - and the former president has a lucrative speaking career.

Now, personal loans to campaigns are not illegal. John Kerry did it -- after borrowing millions from his wife, in fact -- in 2004.

But legal and proper can be two different things. And with the Clintons, they usually are.

[...]

Just a week ago, The New York Times reported that Bill Clinton attended a 2005 dinner with the president of Kazakhstan and a Canadian mining executive. Clinton praised the thuggish president at the dinner; the mining executive got a lucrative uranium contract -- and the foundation a few weeks later received $31 million from the mining exec, with the promise of more to come.