Grey Lady Down!

Call the paramedics!

A venerable, classy old lady has fallen and is twitching spasmodically in the gutter!

John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards defended the center yesterday as a legitimate tool against poverty.

That's the start of an article on the front page of the New York Times. A provocative introduction, to be sure.

Edwards, it implies, created the organization expressly to enable his presidential campaign.

Edwards, it hints, may not be a man honestly concerned with poverty and issues of inequality in our society, but really a scheming politician.

A rich scheming politician, since it takes pains to get mention of his financial assets up front.

Something must be afoot, since we notice that the spokesman "defended" the center, meaning that there must have been something to defend against, some kind of suspicion or allegation, right?

Since this is a front page news story, and not an opinion piece, the reader expects this to be the beginning of a major investigative report to follow.

Perhaps the reporter has investigated this organization and discovered it doesn't actually perform its officially stated purpose. Perhaps the reporter has interviews with close Edwards associates, to whom he disclosed his intention to use this organization for his personal financial ends, as "the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising"? Maybe he told them that his concern for the poor is a sham! Will we, as we read further, discover examples of exploited poor people, duped by Edwards' organization's "stated" (but as implied, not actual) mission?

One would hope so, for such an opening to appear on the front page of one of the nation's most prestigious newspapers.

Scandal! Oh boy! It should be quite a read! Let's go.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, set out to keep his political options open by promoting issues he cared about, like poverty.

Screeching halt! Um, what?

He did care about poverty? Huh?

And so, what, then? Was he supposed to be working on issues he didn't care about? Or was he not supposed to be working on issues at all, like Rudy Giuliani, who was so busy earning money from speeches that he didn't have time for his seat on the Baker-Hamilton Commission?

I'm confused. If someone cares about an issue, and works on that issue, and that also manages to keep him viable as a political candidate, is there something wrong with that? Something so wrong it deserves front page coverage? Is there any evidence that, if he'd been unconcerned about "keeping his political options open" he would have been behaving differently?

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues.

Well, it does seem like an issues advocacy group might do its work using retreats and seminars. That bit about Iraq and national security experts might be suspicious, but is might not. I could easily imagine a seminar on poverty as a geopolitical issue involving experts on Iraq and national security.

What's that bit about "its federal filings"? Did the reporter dig into this, or just read some IRS documents? Does she have a program from the seminars in question? Any material whatsoever? Without more detail, I can't tell why, as she implies, those federal filings show anything happening that was outside the organization's purpose. (And doesn't it seem weird that an organization would file documents that would put its nonprofit status in jeopardy? Shouldn't I presume that the activities are above-board, if they've disclosed them in tax filings?)

I'm sure, since this is a front page story in the New York Times that more actual details will be along shortly. Perhaps we can hear more about this organization?

Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

What? The contributions were not tax-deductible? Ah, so then, it was not a 501(c)3 organization, which is what most people think of when they think of a 'nonprofit organization', but probably a 501(c)4, a type of group allowed to do more lobbying and issue-oriented work. Like The Sierra Club, for example.

I, because I have experience in nonprofit administration, can recognize that nuance. Does the reporter explain it? No. Does she explain that such freedom to be more political comes at the cost of getting tax-deductible contributions?, Is it clear that it is normal that both 501(c)3 and 4 organizations are not expected to disclose donors? No, and no. Instead, it is supposedly "significant" that the organization follows the rules for a 501(c)4 nonprofit 'social welfare' organization, which it is, not those of explicitly partisan political fundraising organizations, which it is not.

(Though it's becoming clear by now that this reporter would like me to think it is, without actually having to provide me any proof. Without, in fact, even making the explicit allegation. Merely implying that there is some kind of scandalous news here.)

I guess we're never going to see details about that seminar. Sigh.

Further along, the reader enounters this stunning passage.

In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, he created a leadership political action committee and a 527 “soft money” organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts.

From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile.

So, then, in addition to the scholarship charity, and the nonprofit advocacy group, the reporter now tells us, Edwards also had a formal political action committee (PAC), and a 527 organization. They, apparently, did follow the rules for political fundraising. Why, then, did the article start by trying to make us think the advocacy group was being somehow nefariously being used for the purpose Edwards has these perfectly viable groups doing?

It seems even curiouser when the reporter acknowledges that those two groups raised $2.7 million which was spent mostly to "maintain his profile." Isn't that what supposedly the nonprofit group was the "solution" for doing? The one that raised less than half as much money?

So, one wonders, why didn't the second paragraph of this article read

"Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a conventional solution, creating a political action committee and a 527 "soft money" organization. The organizations, which share the name the OneAmerica Committee, raised $2.7 million in 2005 and 2006, and — unlike organizations he created to fight poverty — the main beneficiary of the committee’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards' political viability, tax filings show."

Could it be that such a paragraph, while having the advantage of being accurate, wouldn't generate a whiff of scandal, even if printed on the front page of the paper?

There may, in fact, be an interesting story to be written about how, in our modern media age, with the endless campaign season and increasingly complex regulation on political fundraising, we deal with individuals who move across whatever boundaries there are between roles as politician, celebrity, and popular activist. In that article, Mr. Edwards could be featured. But this isn't that. This article betrays a clear agenda, and a lack of basic journalistic legwork. Did the Times even try to talk to anyone served by the nonprofit, to see if it was serving its actual purpose? According to the Edwards campaign, they turned down the chance.

This is a political hack piece.

Bring the stretcher.