Was Giuliani's MoveOn Deal Unfair?
Rudy Giuliani's shot at MoveOn.org may end up costing his campaign more than he bargained for.
In response to the organization's now-famous New York Times ad about "General Betray Us," Giuliani's campaign took out its own ad and demanded the same, $64,575 rate that the Times gave to MoveOn.
Now, however, the Times has admitted that it should have charged MoveOn its standard rate of $142,083, prompting the group to write another $77,000 check to the Times.
But what about Giuliani's ad?
A new complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission Monday alleges that Giuliani's campaign must also pay the full amount or be in violation of taking what amounts to an illegal corporate contribution from the Times.
"The difference, $77,083 is an in-kind corporate contribution, which far exceeds the limits allowed by law," alleges the complaint, written by Lane Hudson, a blogger who recently filed a complaint with the FEC about the campaign of Fred Thompson. "If he does not [pay the full amount], that is not just a violation of the law but a betrayal of the public trust at a time when Americans want integrity from our leaders."
A spokeswoman for the Giuliani campaign said the campaign was charged the proper rate since they were not guaranteed a specific day the ad would run. And she defended Giuliani's decision to attack the group in print.
"Nothing can make up for the fact that the MoveOn.org ad was so egregious even the The New York Times admits it did not meet its own standards for placement," spokeswoman Maria Comella said. "Our ad not only met the acceptability standards of The New York Times, but it was placed at the standby rate with no commitment it would run on a specific date."
--Michael D. Shear
Posted at 10:40 AM ET on Sep 25, 2007
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: B2O2 | October 1, 2007 3:02 PM
THIS STORY IS MOOT. The media already knows of thousands of instances of Giuliani lying, lying, flip-flopping, and so on.
The entire media KNOWS that Rudy has been convicted by hundreds of judges and juries of violating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; state law; and NYC law.
The question isn't will this hurt Rudy. (It won't. See: Reagan. Bill Clinton. Bush.)
THE QUESTION IS WHEN IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL of the US or of NYState going to cuff Rudy like all his other cronies (Harding, Roberts, Compaccia, Serra, Kerik, Velella, and so on) and CHARGE HIM WITH DELIBERATE CRIMES AGAINST THE USA.
Rudy's guilty of thousands of easily-provable crimes and has already been found guilty in most courts (including the Supreme Court)...so... WHY ISN'T HE IN PRISON?
Worst. Mayor. Ever.
Now, are WE going to take back our nation or let the govern-media keep raping us?
GiulianiSCANDALS dot blogspot dot com
Posted by: christopher1 | September 26, 2007 2:29 PM
RagingGurrl
Don't think so.
Moveon didn't want a standby arrangement. They wanted a day specific run of their ad...they wanted the ad to run Friday morning, before the General's appearance before the Senate.
Rudy publicly announced that he didn't know when his ad would run...because it was "standby".
Better luck next time with your typical leftie bending of the truth.
Posted by: seaisland | September 26, 2007 1:42 PM
"El Dulce" squeals!
"He dropped his glass slipper on the stairs, and the Prince Charming scooped it up as he disappeared into the midnight......"
"I've always depended on the kindness of 'strangers'"
Rudy - go home. Polish your slippers and let Kerick back in your bedroom.
Posted by: mommadona00 | September 26, 2007 12:03 PM
Posted by: webfool | September 25, 2007 05:07 PM
So are you adding to this discussion, or just trying to squelch it? If MoveOn and Rudy stopped arguing, would there be a love-fest and the clearly-stated desires of 70% of the American population would be fulfilled, and the troops would come home, and all would be well, and all would be well, and all manner of things would be well?
Or, rather, would Rudy, having succeeded at being a bully, just continue his hypocritical behavior and continue to lie and bully and cheat his way to the Presidency?
It's an important question.
Posted by: Kalukan | September 25, 2007 7:44 PM
Perhaps NYT will be so gracious as to charge Rudy installments of $9.11
Posted by: none987 | September 25, 2007 6:14 PM
seaisland-
MoveOn received the discounted rate for a stand by ad - the non date specific ad, as did Giuliani. Now, Giuliani is complaining about the rate the NY Times gave MoveOn, but not about his rate, which was exactly the same.
Giuliani is nothing but a typical Republican hypocrite and we're fed up with his two-faced behavior.
Posted by: RagingGurrl | September 25, 2007 5:55 PM
This seems like a question of fact. One which could be resolved by a diligent, professional journalist. Now, where could we find one of those?
Posted by: zukermand | September 25, 2007 5:34 PM
Get over yourselves! We are all Americans here, let's stop working on divisions and start working on commonality.
Last time people in this country were diametrically opposed over an idea, over 1 million people died - more than all of our wars combined.
You want to hate something, hate the desire to divide our nation. Stop hating other Americans.
Posted by: webfool | September 25, 2007 5:07 PM
I understand this matter correctly, Moveon got a discounted rate for a day specific ad run. Rudy got the correct rate for running an ad on a date selected by the Times (not a day specific rate).
If that is indeed the case, Rudy should not pay the times an addition amount.
Posted by: seaisland | September 25, 2007 5:03 PM
So Rudi wants his cake (Ad) and get to eat it too? Get the reduced rate and attack the group that gets the reduced rate?
Time to put up or shutup, Rudi. If you think it was unfair for MoveOn then it's unfair for you too.
Ante up if you want to keep talking about this.
Posted by: wirro | September 25, 2007 2:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
What I want to know is when Rudy will be shelling out for a fullpage ad condemining Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comments. If he doesn't, he is saying that it's not okay to question a general who is demonstrably cooking the books for his boss, but perfectly fine to impugn the integrity of the lower-level men and women WHO ARE ACTUALLY DOING THE FIGHTING IN IRAQ.
Do you honor the reputation of the troops Rudy? Yes or no?