Continuing its pattern of allowing columnists and op-ed writers to just make things up, the Washington Post gives former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie valuable print real estate, without making any apparent effort to ensure that he does not mislead the paper's readers. Here's Gillespie's fifth sentence:

The liberal groups and Democrats who supported the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which established the legal framework for this new campaign spending, were much faster to adapt to its contours than the Republicans and conservative groups that largely opposed it, and liberal outside groups massively outspent Republicans in the past two election cycles.

Gillespie cites no source for these “facts,” perhaps because his claim that “liberal outside groups massively outspent Republicans” in 2008 is quite false. According to The Campaign Finance Institute, Republican-leaning 501(c) and 527 groups spent $198 million in 2008, Democratic-leaning 501(c) and 527 groups spent $197 million.

What possible benefit is there to readers for the Washington Post to publish a column by a partisan political operative that doesn't make it through two paragraphs before making a false claim? Obviously, there is none. Publishing such a column accomplishes only two things: It helps Ed Gillespie spread false claims, and it reduces the Washington Post's credibility.

It would be helpful if the Post would publicly announce what, if any, standards it has for op-ed writers and columnists. Are there any falsehoods it would refuse to publish? What if Gillespie had said President Obama is Muslim? How about if he wrote that the current annual budget deficit is $14 trillion? What if he claimed that Nancy Pelosi once punched a small child in the face on live television? Would it publish a column by Howard Dean claiming that the GOP is financing attack ads by selling heroin to schoolchildren? How does the Post determine which false claims to inflict upon its readers and which are beyond the pale? Or is everything fair game?