Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Powered by WordPress.
It is not the least bit surprising that the NY Times would do this. Isn’t this approximately a $116,000 in kind contribution to moveon? This is one of the worst aspects of McCain/Feingold, and one of the reasons McCain will never be the Republican nominee. The grey lady read like a Kerry campaign advertisement for the time period leading up to the elections, and they were able to do so while claiming to be unbiased. Fortunately, their exposing classified security information, coupled with the discounts given to moveon, it is evident that unabiased should not be used in the same sentence as the NY Times.
JD (f6a000) — 9/13/2007 @ 5:13 pmI mentioned this in the comments. This didn’t strike me as the kind of think you would fail to catch.
I have no idea whether you read my comment or not and I don’t much care… but am glad I wasn’t crazy to think this was worth mentioning.
I never saw the illegal campaign contribution angle. MoveOn.org associated with that? Never. NYT? Say it ain’t so.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/13/2007 @ 5:38 pmMoveOn.org Political Action, the entity that paid for the ad, is a political action committee. PACs can’t accept contributions exceeding $5,000, and corporate contributions are prohibited.
This isn’t an in-kind contribution. It’s a prohibited contribution.
km (4891b1) — 9/13/2007 @ 5:39 pmAnd Patterico, thanks for the link!
km (4891b1) — 9/13/2007 @ 5:40 pmkm – My bad. That makes it even worse. I saw one site where they were trying to argue that moveon.org is a charity, and that charities are routinely given discounted rates. Since their PAC purchased this, it is even more damning.
JD (f6a000) — 9/13/2007 @ 5:52 pmkm, thanks for the clarification, as I was thinking it was a 527.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. I would have thought these folks had enough staff to pay attention to such things. Did someone get sloppy in the details and use the wrong check book to pay with?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2007 @ 5:54 pmMD in philly – One could call it sloppy in the same way Hsandy Burgler was just being sloppy. Prolly these thoughts never occurred to them, being fellow travelers and all.
JD (f6a000) — 9/13/2007 @ 5:57 pmCould the WSJ sink any lower?
1. The standard rate for a full page ad in the American editions of the New York Times is $33,000. The ad chart they link to is for world-wide ads.
2. Newspapers frequently give discounted rates for ads. The listed rate is just a starting point in the price negotiaton…and the WSJ knows it.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/13/2007 @ 5:59 pmalphie, you’re such a troll.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/13/2007 @ 6:06 pmJD, I think Hsandy put out the story of being sloppy as a poor attempt at a convincing lie.
When I was saying MoveOn was sloppy, I did mean it as careless, not thoughtful.
I could be wrong in both cases, and I don’t consider this a “disagreement”, but just clrifying what I meant, FWIW.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/13/2007 @ 6:11 pmFor alphie the troll:
Hate to burst your little bubble, but having worked for the WSJ for ten years in the ROP advertising department with clients like Boeing, Budweiser, McDonald-Douglas, and a hundred other top companies, NOT ONCE did I ever give a discount to any advertiser. If a discount was given it was to a non-profit organization like Save the Children.
So for you to make a statement such as you did, shows just how little you really know. You should be embarrassed to exhibit such ignorance.
retire05 (b4f2c6) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:02 pmretire, embarrassed by his ignorance? That’s not Moby … err, Alphie.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:06 pmhttp://poynter.org/forum/default.asp?id=letters&DGPCrPg=1
From ERIC ALTERMAN: Subject: MoveOn ad. For the record, four years ago, a foundation purchased a full-page ad in the Times for my book, “What Liberal Media?” Because the foundation worked through a public relations agency that buys many such advertisements with the Times, the price was considerably less expensive than the quoted rate. This is common practice in the advertising business and I would not be surprised if MoveOn.org used the same firm or one with a similar arrangement. It’s open to conservatives as well and easily researched by reporters.
steve (397645) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:09 pmSteve,
It could be argued that Eric Alterman’s assertion proves rather than disproves the point — that the NY Times gives a rate break to favored causes, such as anti-Bush ads and pro-liberal-media books.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:17 pmUncle Jimbo has filed an FEC complaint.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:25 pmIt has been suggested here and there that NYT advertising rates are negotiable.
That would seem to be an extremely dangerous practice if it were so, even if you were not dealing with political organizations. Giving people different rates for the same service could lead to massive tangle of discrimination claims and lawsuits.
Even if it is a standard NYT practice, a 60% reduction would seem to indicate that the stated amounts on the NYT rate card are a joke, and intended for suckers only.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:27 pmIn (God forgive me) Alphie’s defense, if shooting off your mouth without knowing what you’re talking about is a commenting offense then I have been guilty of it a few thousands times or so. He’s staying on topic and although his arguments may be thin they are not just disruptive noise anymore.
I credit DRJ. Although I hope she will not be too calming an influence on ada, for my part I will try to be more restrained. It could be a new era for Patterico’s Pontifications.
nk (474afa) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:31 pmIf NYT rates are negotiable and the NYT opted to give Moveon a discount, their credibility in future claims of being a non-biased paper would be in serious question….
There is simply no way Moveon could be lumped in the same pot of charities like Save the Children. Even the NYT is not that ignorant.
Dana (2e7e01) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:33 pmIt could be argued that Eric Alterman’s assertion proves rather than disproves the point — that the NY Times gives a rate break to favored causes, such as anti-Bush ads and pro-liberal-media books.
And it could also be argued the Times’ ad department personnel did not see the ad before they quoted a rate to “a public relations agency that buys many such advertisements with the Times.”
steve (9ab0ad) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:37 pmUncle Jimbo’s post (linked at 15 above) states the Times can’t discount political ads without offering the same deal to all sides of an issue. I assume that’s why Giuliani wants equal time.
As for you, NK, don’t change a thing.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:40 pmOne would think that the NYT ad department would have better advice regarding their election law obligations.
Well, they can explain to the FEC.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:42 pmUncle Jimbo’s post (linked at 15 above) states the Times can’t discount political ads without offering the same deal to all sides of an issue. I assume that’s why Giuliani wants equal time.
As for you, NK, don’t change a thing.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:44 pm”
So for you to make a statement such as you did, shows just how little you really know. You should be embarrassed to exhibit such ignorance”
retire05, Every website contains an “alfie” to show that there is a balance between ignorance and sanity. Please have some compassion for both.
Wizbang has it’s “Barney” and since banded Murgio, while the Cap’s got his “bayham” and “Tom Shipley”. While they attempt to make their arguments that fail any logic, it makes for true entertainment in their folly and solipsism.
And, in a way they help to show how the misguided can impress their professors.
Rovin (7f64b8) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:49 pmIt could be an interesting challenge to McCain-Feingold and to the FEC. The despicability of the ad aside, neither newspapers nor individuals are adminstrative units of the federal government. And I do not see it as a contribution just as I do not see that the parents for whom I do pro-bono child support collection for need report my unbilled services as income.
nk (474afa) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:51 pmRovin,
There was a time I’d reply to ad hominem attacks like yours in kind, but I’ve mellowed since the last election.
The international rate chart that the WSJ linked to…is more expensive than domestic ads, yes?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:56 pmhttp://ao.nictusa.com/ao/no/890021.html
A reduced price is not considered a contribution, however, if it is offered by the vendor in the ordinary course of business and at the same amount charged to nonpolitical clients.
You’d have to show the ad people gave a super-special discount to clients of the “public relations agency that buys many such advertisements with the Times.”
steve (9ab0ad) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:58 pmNK,
But isn’t MoveOn a PAC? Jimbo says the statement that Petraeus was “cooking the books for White House” makes it a political or advocacy communication subject to FEC regulations. I know nothing – and I mean nothing – about campaign finance law but that sounds plausible to me.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/13/2007 @ 7:59 pmDudes and DRJ, the solution is simple.
NYT simply drops its full page B&W ad rate to $65k for everybody.
Problem’s solved. Everyone’s happy.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:04 pmDRJ #26,
And I know very little about federal administrative law. But … in just about every other aspect of life we are free to set our prices and our customer can take it or leave it. In political speech we are constrained by the government in a way where he who can afford it speaks and he who cannot does not?
nk (474afa) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:12 pmC – Fine with me!
Steve #25 – I actually read the entire 1989 FEC advisory opinion you linked and now I need a nap. Before I do that, however, I want to reprint the rest of the paragraph from which your excerpt was taken (not because you misstated it, but so we can fully discuss it):
Thus, first, we need to know if this aspect of election law has changed since the date of this 1989 opinion. I would have guessed that McCain-Feingold has imposed further restrictions on political ads, but I don’t know if that is true in this situation.
Second, we need to know if charging $65,000 for a full-page ad is a “usual and normal charge offered to non-political clients in the ordinary course of business.” You think it is. If so, the Times should be able to easily show that is the case since there should be many clients with similarly discounted rates.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:19 pmThat was badly phrased. “He who can afford it” in the sense “the government says I must charge you this much”.
nk (474afa) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:19 pmAm I missing something here?
The FEC guide that the WSJ links to and evidently relies on defines a “contribution” as
“anything of value given to influence a federal election.”
FEC
(screen 14)
In fact, they include a quote lifted straight out of the guide: “Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making contributions in connection with federal elections.”
I admit I’m not familiar with the controversy, so can anyone enlighten me?
Itsme (3af88e) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:23 pmI’m lost. All I can offer is:
1. The NY Times is/might be prohibited from making a contribution by discounting its ad rate for political speech.
2. But it’s not a contribution if they charge the same rate for everyone, political and non-political.
3. We have conflicting information about what the NY Times charges. The stated full-page ad rate is apparently $167,000-$181,000 but that doesn’t mean the Times charges that.
After that, I’m lost again.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:30 pmDRJ –
Just wondering, was that last to me?
If so, my question had to do with the fact that this doesn’t appear to be in connection with a federal election.
Willing to be enlightened, though.
Itsme (3af88e) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:32 pmSecond, we need to know if charging $65,000 for a full-page ad is a “usual and normal charge offered to non-political clients in the ordinary course of business.” You think it is.
I think I explained that. We’d need to show the normal charge offered the “public relations agency that buys many such advertisements with the Times” was waived. You think it was.
steve (5df874) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:39 pmItsme – No, my comment wasn’t made in response to you. It just happened to post there, and I don’t know enough about election law to know if/how the election laws might apply to this.
Steve – The point I was trying to make is that we don’t know how this shakes out unless we know what the NY Times charges all its clients. If the advisory opinion you linked applies, the issue is not what the Times charges a specific ad agency. The issue is the “usual and normal charge offered to non-political clients in the ordinary course of business.” It’s not enough to show that one particular ad agency always gets a discount if the usual and normal charge for all customers is more.
DRJ (4725f3) — 9/13/2007 @ 8:52 pmThanks DRJ.
Maybe it’s easier to work backward and see what PACs are allowed to accept:
And, for what it’s worth, a quote from a NYT spokesperson:
Itsme (3af88e) — 9/13/2007 @ 9:00 pmAll sorts of conservative groups buy full page ads in the Times. If you want to prove some sort of liberal bias in advertising rates, it would seem like a pretty simple thing to ask one of those groups to document what they paid. Can anyone give us proof of a conservative group paying more than what MoveOn paid for a comparable ad?
Oddly enough, Ari Fleischer’s new group, Freedom Watch, had an ad in the paper on the very same day as the MoveOn ad, yet they now refuse to tell anyone what they paid. Hmm…
Oregonian (2a7e1a) — 9/13/2007 @ 11:59 pmThey have said they paid more . . .
Patterico (2a8eaa) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:10 amFreedom’s Watch is purchasing the ad space to condemn the MoveOn.org attack ad on General Petraeus…
Dear Lord, is this what we’ve come to, an Onion spoof?
Sic transit gloria mundi
alphie (99bc18) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:40 amStaunch Brayer, your side started it.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:41 pm