Candidate Watch
Fact Checking the Fact Checker
Who is the "purest" of them all?
My posting last Monday asking whether Barack Obama and John Edwards are guilty of hypocrisy in their fund-raising practices--they refuse donations from "federal lobbyists" but accept money from the people who employ the lobbyists--attracted lots of comment. I promised to publish a sampling of the most interesting reactions, so here goes:
Some commenters could not see what all the fuss is about and said the Fact Checker was shilling for Hillary Clinton, who has accused Obama and Edwards of double standards. "Oh come on!," wrote 'Laura.' "Your own article admits that Edwards and Obama are actually refusing money from lobbyists. In other words, they are actually doing what they are saying they are doing."
Edwards and Obama take money from lawyers, you say? News flash! Both of them ARE lawyers. Is it really so weird to take campaign contributions from their professional colleagues? I'd rather see trial lawyers funding a candidate (people who actually work for parties injured by corporate greed) than see the candidate taking money from lobbyists for corporate greed any day.
A trial lawyer, 'DeAnna', objected to being lumped together with other "special interests." She said she had given money to John Edwards, not because she wants him to promote her business interests, but simply because she likes his political positions. Is her money tainted just because her company "employs lobbyists"?
"I have given to John Edwards because his campaign and his focus on impoverished families and health care speak to me. I have donated because I want John Edwards to be our next president. I am not influenced by my employer or any lobbyists in my donations."
'Kevin' condemned the practice of "guilt by association." If you identify yourself as the employee of a pharmaceutical company in your financial disclosure firm, journalists somehow assume that you are supporting pharmaceutical interests, when in fact you might just happen to like Obama or Edwards or whomever.
"By the way, Michael Dobbs works for the Washington Post which is party owned by Berkshire Hathaway which is run by Warren Buffett who is a maximum donor ($2300) to Hillary Clinton (those are all real facts, feel free to look them up.) So under Dobbs' own "guilt by association" rules, that makes him a shill for Hillary. And his "fact" check article is no more than a Hillary Clinton campaign ad by his own definition. See how that works, Mr Dobbs?"
That's taking the argument to a ludicrous extreme, but I agree that there is far too much guilt by association in American journalism and political rhetoric. The lawyers who gave $8 million to Edwards or $9 million to Clinton are not all the same. Some of the bigger donors and bundlers may hope to be buying influence with a future president; others may simply admire the candidates' stand on the issues. It is impossible to tell without investigating every case individually.
My favorite example of "guilt by association" gone wild came from a comment posted to this website soon after we launched. 'Roger' was furious that I had given three Pinocchios to Moveon.org for its over-the-top attack on General Petraeus. He decided to do a little sleuthing around of his own.
"Interesting, this fact checker, Michael Dobbs, is a member of an institute headed, at the moment, by Crocker, the Ambassador to Iraq, the USIP. But why let a little conflict of interest prevent you from defending your buddies? Go to the USIP.org page to find out further information. Wow."
Just for the record, I have never met Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, and was unaware of his connection to United States Institute for Peace. And while I did have a fellowship at USIP for 10 months, to write a book about the Cuban missile crisis, I have no connection with them any more.
Back to the lobbyist controversy. 'Rich' argued that Hillary Clinton has a point when she accuses her Democratic rivals of happily taking money from the people who "employ" the lobbyists. "There is a big difference in taking money from Joe Blow at the bottom of the food chain and pulling money from the CEO. You trying to tell me the CEO is not giving money on the side and not looking for the same results as when he pumps the money in the back door through the lobbyist?"
"Obama and Edwards are being pretty disingenuous," wrote 'PeterDC.'
"It is hard to say you don't take money from a lobbyist and then work hard for union endorsements--who hire the lobbyists you say you won't take money from. Edwards earned money from a hedge fund and they participate in lobbying efforts to protect their outrageous tax benefits. Obama takes money from State lobbyists and has all the time he was in the State legislature. It is really semantics."
The Pinocchio Test
This is a really difficult one. Both sides make good points. Obama and Edwards have promised not to take money from "federal lobbyists" as a first step toward cleaning up campaign finance--and nobody has demonstrated that they have knowingly broken their promise. Their chief rival for the Democrat nomination, Hillary Clinton, has been embroiled in her own fund-raising scandals, with big bundlers like Norman Hsu, so she hardly has much standing to criticize her rivals.
On the other hand, the promises of Obama and Edwards are legalistically worded and filled with loopholes. In their different ways, they have both taken money from "special interests." The truest comment about campaign finance probably came from Obama when he acknowledged that he was swimming in "the same muddy water" as the other candidates.
For stretching the truth on campaign finance reform, we award Obama, Edwards, AND Clinton one Pinocchio apiece.
(About our rating scale.)
Posted on October 29, 2007 at 8:50 AM ET
| Category:
1 Pinocchio, Barack Obama, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards
Share This:
Technorati |
Tag in Del.icio.us |
Digg This |
What Are These Links?
Previous: Barbers for Dodd, Gorbie Endorses Rudy |
Next: Rudy Wrong On Cancer Survival Chances
Posted by: FC is a HACK | October 29, 2007 9:27 AM
Dear FC is a hack: Give up. You will never be happy. The FC could say you were the most brilliant mind on the planet, and you would still find some reason to whine.
Lighten up, dude. DOn't take yourself so seriously.
Posted by: hilda | October 29, 2007 10:04 AM
This is getting ridiculous.
A Fact Checker checks facts --- and there is nothing false about the claims being made by Edwards and Obama.
Neither is there anything false about Clinton's comments re: Edwards and Obama.
So none of the candidates deserve a pinocchio -- you, however, deserve four. One for each erroneous claim of falsehoods by Edwards, Obama, and Clinton, and one for bringing up Norman Hsu, a subject that is completely unrelated to the issue of lobbyist money.
Then give yourself another four pinnocchios for once again accusing Democrats of making non-factual claims...while ignoring most of the flat out lies being told by the GOP.
(Here's an idea. Perhaps get another symbol for when someone says something factual, but the spin is so egregious it needs to be noted. A tornado would do the trick.)
Posted by: paul_lukasiak | October 29, 2007 10:21 AM
It's a sad day when "fact checker" becomes "fact spinner".
Posted by: Jen Q | October 29, 2007 3:25 PM
Dear Hilda,
I will be happy:
when Michaels Dobbs is eviscerated for the partisan hack that he is and no longer shames the journalistic integrity of the Washington Post, or insults the intelligence of its average reader.
Therefore, I reiterate my STRONG recommendation that the "Fact Checker" be banished to the same century as the Spanish Inquisition, whose "objectivity" he so shares.
Posted by: FC is a HACK | October 29, 2007 5:23 PM
How are you employed?
Posted by: Alakoye | October 29, 2007 5:33 PM
This is a really difficult one. Both sides make good points. Obama and Edwards have promised not to take money from "federal lobbyists" as a first step toward cleaning up campaign finance--and nobody has demonstrated that they have knowingly broken their promise
They deserve no pinocchio.
Your loophole comment once again is ridiculous. You either are a federal lobbyist or you are not.
Your column is not worth reading if you can't actually give us the facts and leave it at that and not drag in something else into the conversation to distort the facts.
Posted by: pmorlan | October 29, 2007 9:03 PM
Rudy Giuliani, Silvio Berlusconi, Rene Preval, Mobutu Sese Seko, Ehud Olmert . The faces of prostate cancer are the faces of all of us. Meanwhile, while we lose 500 men a week, efforts at prostate cancer prevention do not work.
Posted by: AK | October 29, 2007 11:24 PM
Oh goodness, give the man a break, he's using a Pinocchio scale for Petes' sake, is this the work of a serious researcher? He informs and amuses and if he is harder on the Dems than the 'Pubs, so be it. It is wise to remember that your heroes have feet of clay, just like those you despise.
Perhaps, since he seems to be concentrating on the candidates for president, he is forced to confine himself to Dems, since the 'pubs spend their time promising to cut taxes, get an extension on the National credit cards and kill lots of brown people (When they debate, they actually appear to be bidding for the nomination in dead Arabs).
I know it's crazy but the Pub base laps it up.
Rudy alone has promised to depopulate a sovereign Islamic nation for their viewing pleasure, though how he's going to fit that into the Winston cup schedule is anybodies guess. In exchange they'll overlook the fact he's a member of the culture of Death and likes to dress up like a drag queen.
The rub, however, as far as the "Fact Checker" is concerned is it doesn't matter that it's crazy, he'll probably do it (possibly in drag). That means zero Pinocchios for Rudy, and is that what you guys really want?
Posted by: Dijetlo | October 29, 2007 11:35 PM
Truth is I think we are all very unsure about who, among all the people wanting to be president of the United States, should be. All (Legal) residents of this country need these kinds of outlets to truly scrutinize our next President because that person who is elected is going to have one heeeell of a mess to clean up after President Bush leaves office.
Posted by: andrew | October 31, 2007 1:17 AM
Please! All the campaign finance laws were created to maintain the status quo. Has no one yet realized that there is no longer *any* substantive difference between the D's and R's? One is for a nanny state and the other a daddy state.
The fundamental problem is the amount of omnipotence we have given to the state, itself. We have abdicated responsibility for our own lives to a bunch of carpetbaggers. We americans have become beggars on the federal dole, looking for handouts and fair play. Our elections have simply become a media contest on who can pander to us the most.
If we ever decide to get back to the US Constitution, we might have a chance. But it seems we are simply too stupid and too complacent to live up to the title we so take for granted.
Welcome to our totalitarian state. Hope you enjoy it.
Posted by: Steve | October 31, 2007 11:55 PM
Three cheers for Steve, 10/31, the only one on this forum who seems to "get it".
Our government is for sale, period. The rich buy the favors and the middle class get to pay for it - as long as the midde class has some money. Once the middle class is broke, who pays then??
Posted by: Chuck | November 6, 2007 8:32 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Contact the Fact Checker
We rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups and the media. If you have facts or documents that shed more light on a subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, let us know.
If you wish to send an attachment, please e-mail factchecker@washpost.com.
Once again, all this attention to the "failings" and "hypocracies" of Democrats, and not ONE mention of all the special interests (gun lobby, Big pHarma, oil companies, military industrial complex) that prop up the Republican party.
You sir, have the objectivity of the Spanish Inquisistion, and must be summarily banished to the appropriate century.