Helping Others By Helping Himself?
It looks like John Edwards believes that charity begins at home after all, even when home is a 28,000-square-foot mansion. Edwards' Two Americas rhetoric has given him a reputation as a voice for the poor, but the New York Times reports that his non-profit for fighting poverty mostly benefitted the vote-poor John Edwards:
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.
The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.
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. 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.
First, it seems significant that the New York Times broke this story. Given their proximity to Hillary Clinton, one cannot help but wonder about the provenance for this article.
Regardless, it's a good piece of reporting by Leslie Wayne. Edwards used the poor as a Trojan horse to rake in an untold amount of money away from the prying eyes of the FEC. Instead of spening it on those he champions from the stump, he spent it on foreign-policy retreats. That has the obvious intention of bolstering his gravitas for another presidential run -- and doing so in a sneaky, underhanded manner.
Not only did he do that, but he also used the organization to keep his political team together between elections. The Center for Promise and Opportunity apparently employed a number of Edwards' campaign staffers in the time since his last run for the presidency. That allows him to make sure they remain available for this campaign, using his front organization to pay their salaries while not having to report the expenses as part of his campaign.
Too bad the BCRA didn't address this kind of abuse of electoral processes.
UPDATE: Some readers didn't pick up the irony of that last sentence, thinking somehow that I had forgotten when Edwards' tactic got used in the past. I have not forgotten that John McCain did much the same thing in sheltering his campaigners at the Reform Institute. I wrote about that in March 2005, noting the hypocrisy inherent in using a campaign-finance organization to keep campaign staffers on the payroll. The Reform Institute played a major part in getting the BCRA passed.
This seems a little more egregious, though. Edwards formed the non-profit ostensibly to help the poverty-stricken Americans on whose backs he campaigns for President. Instead of assisting them, he's exploiting them as a campaign funds dodge.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 22, 2007 8:49 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (3)
Comments (21)
Posted by James D. Huggins | June 22, 2007 9:30 AM
The Center for (broken) Promises and Opportunities (to get past the FEC and deceive donors, while helping a poor multi-millionaire get his political act together,) How typical of the LibElite....
"...listen to what I'm saying, don't look at what I'm doing...I know best."
Disgusting slimeball....your perfect hair does not conceal the stench of corruption.
Posted by Tom Shipley | June 22, 2007 9:31 AM
So Ed, let me get this straight, you think the NYTimes purposely ran a negative story about Edwards to help Hillary Clinton. Do you have any proof to back this up, or are you just "saying"?
Posted by Shoprat | June 22, 2007 9:38 AM
The only reason the Times reported this is to weaken Edwards and help Hillary. If Edwards had the nomination or was her running mate they would have covered this story up instead of covered it.
Prove it? No I can't but I still believe it's the truth.
Posted by Tom Shipley | June 22, 2007 9:40 AM
Prove it? No I can't but I still believe it's the truth.
You know, I've been hearing this more and more from people on the right. And I'm not asking for proof, just evidence. Show me why you think this.
Posted by DaveD | June 22, 2007 9:58 AM
It's a good story. I could not care less whether it was done intentionally or unintentionally to help Hillary. They should be eating their own anyway for awhile.
Posted by Critical Reactor | June 22, 2007 10:06 AM
What do you mean "too bad BCRA"? Don't you recall that McCain did the same thing? he created a "grass roots" organization to promote BCRA that employed all his political staff between presidential campaigns. It's part and parcel of how the political class operates.
Posted by jfm | June 22, 2007 10:08 AM
Once a shyster lawyer, always a shyster lawyer.
Posted by molonlabe28 | June 22, 2007 10:14 AM
Edwards needs to go ahead and make his exit.
Posted by quickjustice | June 22, 2007 10:27 AM
I'm no fan of Edwards, but my Hillary troll-detector is screaming "red alert"!
As Peggy Noonan reported today, Hillary's War Room (yes, she invented it, not Bill) is back, and her trolls are fully deployed, both at CQ and elsewhere. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010239
Hillary's first objective: take out Obama and Edwards.
Second: Shove Bloomberg around to make sure he stays out of the race.
After that, destroying any of the Republican candidates should be a piece of cake. Look at what she did to Rudy Giuliani in her first U.S. Senate race in New York.
Posted by courtneyme109 | June 22, 2007 10:34 AM
John Edwards has done himself in. His revised '2 America's' line is such a cruel joke - there are 2 America's all right - one who wants to pretend it's September 10th and one that wants to win and survive.
Posted by MarkW | June 22, 2007 10:39 AM
Tom Shipley,
Your letting your liberalism rule your brain again.
The captain merely stated that given how deeply in bed the NYT is with Hillary, that it's suspicious how frequently they manage to come up with dirt on anyone who threatens Hillary.
Posted by Tom Shipley | June 22, 2007 10:44 AM
Your letting your liberalism rule your brain again.
If liberalism is asking for some sort of evidence to back-up allegations, then, well, you get the point...
You've done the same thing ED has. When has the NYTimes dug up dirt on a person because they "threatened" Hillary Clinton. Please provide evidence of this.
And, am I to understand the NYTimes isn't pro-democrat, but pro-clinton? Is it a situation where first and foremost we protect the Clintons, then after that democrats? Is that how it works in the NYTimes newsroom?
Posted by Lightwave | June 22, 2007 10:55 AM
So Captain Haircut isn't a serious candidate for the poor and never has been, instead choosing to use them as a front to get around campaign fund raising limits.
Not exactly a shocker for a Democrat. Considering Edwards is a non-entity in the race, running a distant third behind Hilary and Obama, I'm wondering again, where this story came from and why now.
The Right knows the Edwards campaign was DOA since the whole Amanda Marcotte blogger blow up. His wife's battle with cancer gave him the polite out, he instead used it to put him back into the race.
For some reason the Left seems to think he'd have a chance in the general election, where his socialist policies would get destroyed on a daily basis through the campaign. Independents and moderates would write him off in droves, he's arguably the only candidate the Democrats have that less electable than Hillary.
So again, why is the NY Times attacking him? Hillary's scared. She knows Obama's inexperience will break him eventually, but the base loves Captain Haircut.
If a Dem attacks a Dem in a liberal rag like the Grey Lady, does anyone still give a damn?
Posted by quickjustice | June 22, 2007 11:49 AM
If you do not believe that the N.Y. Times is pro-Clinton, check out the latest puff piece as of today:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html
In addition, if you don't believe that the N.Y. Times acted in concert with Hillary Clinton's 2000 U.S. Senate campaign, as well as with the Clinton Administration, to promote Hillary's candidacy and to destroy Giuliani, check out http://www.raginglady.com/carrying_the_water_for_mrs_clinton.htm
'Nuff said.
Posted by Tom Shipley | June 22, 2007 12:08 PM
OMG! quickjustice you're right! Not only that, they're also writing puff pieces on Romney:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/mitt_romney/index.html?8qa
McCain:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?8qa
Even Fred Thompson!
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/fred_thompson/index.html?8qa
And that link you provide... it paints a nice picture, but there's little there that really shows any bias. It's pretty much all opinion of the writer.
Posted by jpe | June 22, 2007 12:13 PM
That's simply incorrect. Even a cursory glance at the org's 990 shows that its purpose is drawn broadly, and easily encompasses its activities. In other words, it isn't limited to poverty.
Posted by CheckSum | June 22, 2007 12:16 PM
So Ed, let me get this straight, you think the NYTimes purposely ran a negative story about Edwards to help Hillary Clinton. Do you have any proof to back this up, or are you just "saying"?
Posted by: Tom Shipley at June 22, 2007 9:31 AM
You know, I've been hearing this more and more from people on the right. And I'm not asking for proof, just evidence.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at June 22, 2007 9:40 AM
(emphasis mine)
Too easy.
Posted by MarkW | June 22, 2007 12:20 PM
Tom S,
No liberalism is having an emotional over reaction anytime you hear something that you don't want to hear.
The captain gave the evidence for believing what he does. The fact that you don't want to believe the evidence is irrelevant.
Posted by Bill M | June 22, 2007 2:19 PM
I'm shocked...shocked I tell you...to find that "Silk Pony" is a phoney!
Posted by patrick neid | June 22, 2007 4:21 PM
john edwards has never had a chance at being president. ever. all this edwards, obama buzz etc is strictly news filler for cnn. it has been hillary's nomination for the last two years.
the new york times is her hometown paper. they will help her the way most hometown papers help their favorite sons. for tom or anyone else to suggest otherwise is just so much useless tripe.......admittedly hillary doesn't need any help in dealing with edwards although some might want him out of the campaign so he doesn't get to ask embarrassing questions of hillary.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | June 22, 2007 5:14 PM
Joe Wilson said:
"So Ed, let me get this straight, you think the NYTimes purposely ran a negative story about Edwards to help Hillary Clinton. Do you have any proof to back this up, or are you just "saying"?"
LOL. Actually, you're right Joe. The NYT ran this story to HELP Edwards. Just like they ran the Hillary-approved hit piece on Obama (remember the memos?) recently-to HELP him in his battle to beat the World's Smartest Woman (TM)
You can find plenty of evidence about the NY Times and their cozy relationship with the Clintons at Newsbusters.org. Unlike their "competitors" Media Matters, they don't have to issue corrections all the time either.