NT Times ombudsman says moveon.org got improper ad rate

It wasn't a "sweetheart deal," as has been demonstrated repeatedly on this thread. And moveon now has paid the full rate. So far, the Giuliani campaign has declined to do so. Please argue from reality. It's fun and easy.
AQB, I don't think you can argue a in-kind violation of what's left of M-F based on the NYT giving an ad rate that's available to absolutely everyone who wants to spend the money to buy space.
As to the GQ story, I can't imagine how pissed Josh Green must be right now.

 

The words "sweetheart deal" are in quotes in your post...but no one on this thread has actually written those words. Weird.

Also, my name is usually abbreviated "M_W" or "MW." Sometimes "Winger." "Wingy" a couple times, as I recall. Never, as far as I know, "AQB." I think you're getting old, buddy.

More to the point, a McCain-Feingold violation all hinges on whether moveon (or as I like to call it, "Censure and Move On") was guaranteed specific-day placement for its ad. Since the ad was time-sensitive in the extreme, one assumes moveon got that guarantee.

As for Giuliani's ad, as I said before, giving two separate groups that rate with specific-day placement doesn't mean the NYT committed zero violations. It means the Times committed two separate violations with two separate in-kin contributions. Said violations aren't erased by accepting more money from moveon, as you know perfectly well.

(Of course, this assumes any violation was committed at all, which is possible, but far from certain. More proof McCain-Feingold is a hideous waste, as it's nearly impossible to prove a violation here without knowing the ad rep's intent.)

And what's with this meme about "what's left of M-F?" Is it dwindling away in some fashion of which I'm not aware?

 

That's what happens when you post prior to the first caffeine of the day.
I applied the quotes because I think the idea that this was a "sweetheart deal" is largely fictional. There are other uses for them, as you know, than quoting people on SportsJournalists.com, although I conced that we are, in fact, the universe.
If you want to make a generalized argument against M-F based on the loopholes that were carved in it to get it passed, you get little argument from me. I'm not satisfied with any campaign-finance reform that doesn't specifically roll back Buckley v. Valeo. But never mind.
In this case, you come around to the truth of it right at the end. No violation because no promise of placement was made; not even the ombud concedes that, although I think there probably was a nudge-nudge, wink-wink somewhere in there. As to the rest, I leave it to you whether or not the current administration has staffed the entire enforcement arm of the FEC well enough to bring a case.

 

Not in the editorial division. If you're talking about the publisher level....certainly those sing for their corporate buddies, and all of them are either hard core GOP or surface Democrats.

 

Fenian:

I haven't posted anything on this thread.

 

If you had, we sure as hell would have disagreed with it.

 

I know. That's why I like it here. It feels like home.

 

I would like it entered in the official record that, when asked if he had ever made an argument that wasn't based on hypothetical situations that happen in his own mind, hondo responded with the above.

He then, it should be pointed out, went on to make another hypothetical argument.

 

Are you saying that hondo actually did fall off the turnip truck yesterday? Wish I coulda been there to see it.

 

If Hondo fell off a turnip truck, would he make a sound?

And hypothetically, what kind of sound would Hondo make if he fell off a turnip truck?

 

SPLAT!

 

Hypothetically, hondo died doing what he loved.