In a June 15 article headlined "Lawmakers Cashing In on Real Estate, Financial Reports Reveal," The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “requested $25 million in earmarked funds” for a San Francisco waterfront redevelopment project “near” property owned by Pelosi and her husband. The Post added that “Pelosi's office has denied any conflict in the earmark request, saying it was submitted to her by the Port of San Francisco” and quoted a Pelosi spokesman as saying that the “Pelosis' property is 'a mile away' from the pier” and that "[t]here's tons of other buildings in between." But the article, written by Washington Post campaign finance reporter Matthew Mosk, suggested that it is only Pelosi's office claiming that the Port of San Francisco submitted the request when, in fact, port officials have reportedly confirmed that they made the request of Pelosi. The article gave no indication that the Post attempted to contact officials from the Port of San Francisco. As Media Matters for America has noted, blogger and media critic Greg Sargent reported on May 8 that Port of San Francisco officials confirmed during a phone interview that they requested the waterfront improvement spending.

In his article, Mosk quoted Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly as saying that the “Pelosis' property is 'a mile away' from the pier”; but it is not just Pelosi's office that has pointed this out -- Daly's description of the property's location matches that of the Republican Study Committee, which, in a May 7 post on its weblog, first highlighted the Pelosi earmark. That post noted that four properties owned by Pelosi “and/or her husband” are “all located within 5,400 feet and 9,000 feet” of the waterfront improvement project.

Further, Sargent's post on the San Francisco waterfront project was highlighted on the Post's own website. In a May 10 washingtonpost.com column, Post media critic Howard Kurtz linked to Sargent's weblog and noted that Sargent found the allegations against Pelosi to be “hogwash.”

From Sargent's May 8 post on The Horse's Mouth:

But I've just gotten off the phone with the Port of San Francisco. Guess what? Its representatives told me in no uncertain terms that it requested the improvements, and that Pelosi only included the improvements at their request. Here's what Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said to me:

“The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false.”

As Media Matters also documented, Washington Post staff writers John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum similarly characterized the earmark as a he said-she said matter in a May 24 article, without giving any indication that they had contacted San Francisco officials.

From the June 15 Washington Post article:

[Former House Speaker J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] and [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-NV] are not the only congressional leaders to face such scrutiny. The disclosure filing for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) showed that she and her husband increased their stake in a property near a San Francisco waterfront redevelopment project for which Pelosi requested $25 million in earmarked funds. In July, the Pelosis spent up to $1 million to buy out partners in 945 Battery, a building worth up to $5 million that generates as much as $1 million a year in rental income, the forms show.

Pelosi's office has denied any conflict in the earmark request, saying it was submitted to her by the Port of San Francisco. The Pelosis' property is “a mile away” from the pier, spokesman Brendan Daly said yesterday. “There's tons of other buildings in between.”