a.SafaLab
The Neolibertarian NetworkYeah, Right!
MoveOn.org, out of a sense of altruism toward their mouthpiece of record, gave this statement today:
In the Public Editor column of today’s New York Times, the Times’ vice president admits that, without the knowledge or consent of MoveOn.org Political Action, the Times “made a mistake” in charging MoveOn its standby rate of $65,000 for the advertisement run on Monday September 10. According to the Public Editor, the Times’ vice president admitted that the company’s advertising representative “failed to make it clear that for that rate the Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the, understanding that the ad would run then.” According to the Public Editor, “the group should have paid $142,083.”Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the Times tomorrow (Monday, September 24, 2007).
We call on Mayor Giuliani, who received exactly the same ad deal for the same price, to pay the corrected fee also.
Here’s the real deal. The discount that the Times afforded MoveOn is likely a campaign finance law violation by way of an illegal contribution and I bet the suits at the Times begged MoveOn to pay the dough to help them out of the pickle.
If I were Rudy I’d let this one play out a bit.
The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of Dave Budge and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated.
Print This Post
If it were a campaign finance violation, then why wouldn’t it be the same for Rudy?
It’s hard to say. MoveOn is a PAC and all of its activities are deemed political. Rudy, on the other hand, was making a personal statement. It might depend on who paid for it; Rudy or his campaign. If Rudy paid for the ad personally it likely wouldn’t be considered a campaign ad since it didn’t say “vote for me” or “Rudy for President.” (If I recall correctly.)
Dave, it took me all of a minute to find that Rudy’s campaign paid for his Times ad. So if this was a campaign finance issue with MoveOn, it always was with Rudy.
Regardless, the campaign would face as much of a campaign finance issue as the paper, since campaigns can’t accept corporate contributions. Now that the campaign has been notified, they’ll probably also have to pay the full amount.
As for your continued insight into what really goes through the heads of business side of the NYT and the top leadership of MoveOn.org, your telepathic abilities are truly astounding.
This from a guy who continually divines the motives of conservatives and capitalist greed. Pot, kettle and all that rot.
Singer’s probably also figured out what was going through Hillary’s little head when she pocketed all that money from the Chinaman—-nothing!
Max Bucks sounds suspiciously like 192.197.213.101.
Is that the answer Dave? A personal attack, rather than address the fact that you were wrong here from the get go? Seriously, you said if you were Rudy, you would ride this out. Isn’t that really bad advise considering that if it was a political donation to MoveOn, as you asserted here:
then is was also a contribution to Rudy? Think about it.
Shane, do you always make arguments where none exist. All I said is that he should play it out a bit (to make the Times squirm a bit.) I didn’t make any comment on the final determination of how it should be resolved.
But since I think campaign reform is bullshit from the get-go and I never have criticized Move On for running the add (as I think it was their right to do) I think you’ve got your opinion of my opinion ahead of reality.