NYT: Main beneficiary of Edwards' non-profit is Edwards himself

[NYCGirl]

In order to keep his public profile up after the 2004 presidential election, John Edwards, no longer in the senate, started a non-profit organization called the Center for Promise and Opportunity. The organization had the stated goal of "fighting poverty" and since 2005 has raised $1.3 million.

But, "unlike a sister charity created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show," the New York Times is reporting.

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.

MORE AT LINK

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NYT_Main_beneficiary_of_Edwards_nonprofit_0621.html

Edited to add NY Times link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?hp

[PurityOfEssence]

1. Release the hounds

Okay, Edwards haters, have a ball.

[Kagemusha]

3. Uh excuse me, is your position that no fair minded person can dislike this?

And even the slightest cross sentiment must be motivated by hatred of John Edwards?

I was reading the original post and planning to think about the issue fairly and carefully and had a rather negative reaction to your trying to poison the well for everyone else.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. This kind of urinalism is thinly-veiled political assassination

Posting philippics like this is generally done by partisans and brings out the worst in people; I was just having some fun.

Yes, it IS my position that no fair-minded person, weighing the facts objectively, can see that this article is anything but distortion and slander slithering under the guise of civic-minded reportage.

I was also hoping to embarrass some of the usual suspects into not piping up, and I wanted others to chime in in a flippant and silly tone, too. Let's see how this all unfolds for a bit here.

And as Foghorn Leghorn would say: "ah say, ah say that's a joke, son."

[Kagemusha]

8. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

I don't see, from what was quoted above, what the big deal is especially, but frankly, that makes your description of it as distortion and slander all the more galling. If this article doesn't say Edwards did anything wrong per se, how is it distortion and slander? Is there something you know about this that I don't?

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Fine, then I'll explain

Let's start with something small. Sometimes one word makes a world of difference.

Raw Story misquotes the NYT article, saying: But, "unlike a sister charity created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show," the New York Times is reporting.

The actual quote is this: "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."

What's the difference in dropping the word "he"? To the casual reader it seems like there are other noble enterprises out there doing it correctly, which should put him to shame. He gets no credit for having done something positive and nice like this. The word "sister" doesn't imply it had anything to do with him, it just shows that there was a similar group that was altruistic while he was being a skunk.

Intentional? Who knows, but it does make a big difference. Raw Story isn't the source of my annoyance here; the Times piece is simply underhanded and mealy-mouthed.

The real issue can be shown by translating the sweep of the article like this: stealing candy from the mouths of babies and bilking old ladies of their hard-saved pennies, he's used this money that was intended for the unfortunate and struggling sweet, innocent poor of the world to fuel his grandiose bid for even more gluttonous power and riches. To intimate that a very wealthy man is using money he's raised to help the poor to further his ambition is nasty back-alley insinuation of the worst kind. The very idea that he'd abuse the weak, cheating and stealing in such a way is pretty obvious in this passive-aggressive double-talk.

This has been a theme among people out to get Edwards, and I happen to believe the guy truly is authentic.

Perhaps I'm a bit tender on the subject, but I'm just as flabbergasted as you that you can't see this NYT article as a blatant (although subtle and greasy) character slagging. Whether Raw Story was just incompetent as hell in their omission of a crucial word or not is open to conjecture, but they sure as hell don't score any points for accuracy or competence. On the other hand, the intent of the original poster seems fairly clear to me or there would have been some sort of mitigation in the thread-starter.

Is this any clearer now?

[Kagemusha]

14. If all they have on Edwards is this thin, you can afford to chill.

I don't see this as taking money out of anyone's mouth, just using charitable rules to advance a political agenda. That's nothing new and I can't expect unilateral disarmament from everyone.

[karynnj]

29. Good call

I read only what was in the OP. I read sister as Edwards' charity, but that might be because I already knew that.

[karynnj]

28. I don't know if the op is political assasination

It clearly needs a response by the Edwards team.

It is clear that this was set up as a political action account - and that is why the deductions are not tax deductible. This would make it very clear that it never was intended as a charity, but more as a think tank, allied with Edwards. The question is how well spelled out was this?

The questions I would have are:

1) Did everyone who contributed know the real reason for the fund? If they were all big donors backing Edwards and there were no solitations asking for money for poverty relief, then no one was defrauded. It still would have been better to call it "Friends of John Edwards" or something like that.

2) Did Edwards or his campaign push this as an action against poverty? If they did and this article is correct, they need to quickly stop doing that unless the group actually did something substanitive on poverty. They need to explain what the organization actually did.

It may be that these ex-campaign people were put to work on developing his current poverty inititives. They could argue that in 2005, that work was done and would have formed a basis for any Democrat agreeing with it had Edwards ruled out a run. How is this different than any think tank?

[NYCGirl]

6. Raw Story are Edwards haters? NT

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Care to explain that slur?

That's a cute little hit-and-run insult, but just how am I similar to one of the most evil thugs to ever infest the executive? You'll note that even when combative I refrain from character assassination, so by what justification do you claim the moral high ground? You'll also note that I take the time to explain my positions and opinions, rather than just slinging mud.

[sybil]

36. how complicated is it?

Like you, Cheney would stifle dialogue and/or dissent by throwing up barricades.

[stevedeshazer]

2. So?

Conclusion, anyone?

[brentspeak]

4. I'm trying to see what the problem is here.

This particular Edwards non-profit never stated or made the claim that its donations were intended to fund things like scholarships for poor students in the first place. But the article is written to make it appear that something nefarious was going on: "Unlike a sister charity created to raise scholarship money for poor students -- the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Edwards himself, federal tax filings show." Also, the donations were not tax-deductible; wouldn't the problem be if the donations were made tax-deductible?

Hit. Piece.

[1932]

5. and if he uses it for a springboard to a presidency that pursues its policy goals

I'd really have a hard time seeing any problem with this.

[KittyWampus]

10. how is going to retreats and talking about Iraq about pursuing policy goals regarding poverty?

[1932]

12. How is American imperialism related to the widening gap between wealthy and poor in US?

I'm totally willing to vote for Edwards so that we can have a president who explores these issues.

[sybil]

18. gets a pass on exploring those hedge funds too,

does he?

[Inspired]

21. Yes, he does because there is no problem with it.

[sybil]

39. I have a swamp for sale

[NYCGirl]

47. Move over — I've got a bridge in Brooklyn they might want to buy.

:evilgrin:

[1932]

52. I don't even know what that means.

If you're implying something about Fortress, I challenge you to come up with anything more than implications. Make a real argument. Go for it.

[NYCGirl]

53. Something like this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html

Edwards said yesterday that he recalls being told at the time of his hiring that some of Fortress's private equity holdings did lend to start-up businesses, which is why he asked about predatory lending practices. But he could not recall whether the firm's partners told him it had a major stake in Green Tree.

"Those are the things I remember," he said. "They may have told me more." Had he learned that Fortress owned a loan servicer with a history of predatory lending practices, he said, "I would have asked some very specific questions about it."

Fortress's growing role in the subprime lending market provides a second contrast between the firm's business practices and the positions Edwards has taken as the presidential candidate who has made poverty a major campaign theme. The Washington Post reported last month that Fortress's partners and its foreign investors benefited from the kind of offshore tax breaks Edwards has criticized as a candidate.

[1932]

55. That's your quote. Now make your argument.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. If that's true, then that is wrong

That's a disturbing point, and if it's true, it deserves an explanation. If absolutely nothing about poverty was discussed at any of these retreats, then it's wrong.

How many were there? How much of the moneys were used for speaking about poverty and doing legitimate poverty-related work?

Surely you DO see that the gist of the NYT article is that it's all just a sham and he's hiding behind a noble cause to suck money from the unsuspecting to further his own ambition, right?

Few things in life are cut-and-dried, and this may well be one of them. Still, I'd like to hear more about those alleged meetings.

[zulchzulu]

9. Center for Promise and Opportunity is a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization

http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96178,00.html

I'd rather give Edwards a break on this, but the IRS warns against using 501(c)(4) status for political enterprises.

From the IRS site:

"To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare."

"The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6."

[w4rma]

19. c4's are non-profit organizations that are able to lobby. They are more limited in the way that

they can procure funds and they aren't tax-deductible because of their ability to lobby.

[calteacherguy]

15. More evidence of Edwards' lack of integrity.

:-(

Recommended...regretably.

[brentspeak]

25. "Concerned", much?

[calteacherguy]

38. Although there is no chance he will be nominated, it's just sad

when revelations like this come out about any of our candidates.

[brentspeak]

41. What "revelation"?

What's the problem here? And why isn't there a chance Edwards will be nominated?

[calteacherguy]

42. Read the thread. nt

[brentspeak]

51. No, that's not how it works.

This is how it works:

1) Person A (you) makes a bogus claim, and (not surprisingly) provides no explanation.

2) Person B (me) asks Person A to back up their bogus claim (i.e., Person B tells Person A to put up, or shut up).

[IA_Seth]

54. Person B needs to read the thread. n/t

[brentspeak]

57. Are you and Calstateteacherguy one and the same?

[IA_Seth]

58. Uh, no.

Paranoid much? Oh no, look out behind you!

[brentspeak]

59. No, I didn't really think you two were the same

I was being facetious. Though the two of you seem to share the same brain: "Read the thread, because I can't come up with a response myself."

[last_texas_dem]

62. I've read the thread

Where's the "revelation"? I'd think something so jaw-dropping and earth-shattering that it deserves to be called a "revelation" would be rather obvious and jump out at me, but it appears it is only obvious to the small number of posters who can always be counted on to bash Edwards.

[slick8790]

40. Lack of Integrity, eh? Try hit piece.

Quotes from the CNN.com article about this ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/edwards.nonprofit.ap/index.html)

"Bradley Smith, a former FEC chairman appointed in 2000 by President Clinton, said Edwards shouldn't face any trouble from federal regulators unless he was explicitly campaigning for the Democratic nomination."

"Scott Thomas, a former FEC chairman who works as an attorney in Washington, said there's nothing wrong with the approach Edwards took -- so long as he did not conduct any campaign-like activities, such as disproportionate travel to early voting states or using funds to maintain a political staff.

By the logic of that article (that edwards had already made up his mind to run and was campagining on his signature issue), then you could say Al gore is in much bigger trouble than edwards if he tries to run, because he's been doing it for a while now with "an inconvienent truth" lectures.

There's nothing wrong with those lectures, is there? And certainly the environment would be a key issue on Gore's campaign if he runs. So then what is wrong with edwards talking about his signature issue between campaigns?

This is cheap anti-edwards propaganda.

[jcrew2001]

60. Politicians are self-promoters

there's a shock. Politicians also want to help people and look good in the process.

[smalll]

17. In a way, Edwards is Hillary's best friend in this race --

since HE'S the one who comes across as "Clintonesque." I swear, Big House Johnny needs to get a Big Mac habit, or at least show up on a talk show with a sax and shades -- Clinton's roguishness was more acceptable to people in general because he kind of winked at us all about it --- we knew he loved us while we knew he wasn't perfect. John Edwards's self-made image though is absolute perfection -- he never cheated on his wife, he doesn't smoke cigars, he hasn't a hankering for artery-clogging fast food, he doesn't have a maverick mamma with too much eye makeup. It just makes his sociopathic car-salesman-like personality even more unbearable. Cold, fatally cold.

[Inspired]

23. So, he needs some bad habits?

How absurd. If he cheated on his wife, would he appear more human and as a result, more tolerable to the American public? I guess we love our scoundrels. Would this lessen his sociopathic personality in your eyes?

How's this...I know for a fact he loves fast food cheeseburgers. He also was horribly addicted to Diet Coke and peanut M&M's.

Good Lord, I think I'm living in a freakin' Twilight Zone episode.

[karynnj]

30. I love your post - it is extremely strange that some WANT

to see bad habits. Observable bad habits do not eliminate hidden vices. This is as weird as people who were happy that Obama was a smocker, because it made him more human.

[w4rma]

20. Hit piece. The entire article is how Edwards may have used a c4 non-profit to help Democrats. nt

[abburdlen]

26. may have - may not have

but we won't know because it doesn't have to disclosed as I understand it.
Chances are good everything is above board and nothing slimy was going on but it begs the question - why would Edwards set it up this way? At best it seems like another campaign mistake.

[Adelante]

34. Can you please post that part?

I don't see in the Times article where Democrats were being helped. Thanks.

[unblock]

22. so lemme get this straight.

they mention a "sister" organization with more nobler purposes, but this non-profit never pretended to be anything more nobler than sponsoring speeches and so on. so no scandal here, they just threw in the fact that he set up a legitimate charity as, somehow, a negative.

then they mention taxes. as they point out, contributions to the non-profit are non tax deductible. so they are in compliance with tax laws, so no scandal here, either. they're just mentioning taxes to plant a seed of doubt, i guess.

finally they get to the only problem i can see, which is that pacs have to disclose donors whereas this organization does not.


this may be improper, but it's hardly a huge deal. moreover, it's easily solved, politically at least, by just asking edwards to disclose the donor list.


damn, the things the media let republicans slide on, and the things they nail democrats to the wall on....

[More Than A Feeling]

43. self-delete

[jcrew2001]

63. Non-profits don't need to disclose their donors

There are not bound by limited contributions. Someone gave $250,000 to the non-profit (my guess is soros).

The Foundation was entirely for the College Tuition program. The other entity was for speeches and events. Its pretty clear cut.

[GeorgeGist]

24. The Mission statement of CPO ...

Mission Statement

The Center for Promise and Opportunity (CPO) is
dedicated to exploring new ways to expand
opportunity and realize the promise of our country
for all Americans. CPO's mission encompasses
much more than just proposing ideas — it will lead
efforts to build public support for change, and will
serve as an incubator for solutions, conducting
real-world trials.

CPO has three overarching goals. First, CPO is
committed to exploring new ideas to help
Americans build a better life. Second, CPO will be
an advocate for change, leading efforts to build
support for policies and movements that will make
America stronger. Third, CPO will work to prove the
strength of its ideas, through pilot projects and
partnerships.

I don't see anything in the NYT article which flatly contradicts their Mission. I would expect John Edwards to be the leader, since he started it, and change does cost money. Is he expected to pay for all of it out of his own pocket?

[nashville_brook]

27. this article confirms something -- Edwards is a threat to the Repugs

i agree with your observation.

[karynnj]

31. If they worked on projects consistent with the 3 goals

they need to get that out. They are good goals. The problem is if they didn't do them.

[Mass]

33. I doubt that Edwards did anything illegal, but there is a question of perception.

Why it is great that he pushed poverty issues, combined with the fact that he gained half a million dollars at his gig with a hedge fund "learning about poverty" and that I guess he was paid by UNC, and particularly considering that he is already a rich man, it really comes out as somebody using poverty as a stepping stone for his own ambitions.

I am ready to give him some slack on that, but do not expect the RW media to do so. And do not compare with whatever Guliani made. GULIANI DOES NOT RUN ON POVERTY ISSUES, far from it.

If Edwards did not understand what was going to happen when he made these decisions, he is not ready for such a run. He certainly could have stayed a full year just with the Center for Poverty salary, and be basically unattackable on these issues.

Not: Obviously, this is a hit piece. So what! Is it not what politics is about these days?

[martymar64]

50. He's the ONLY one besides DK that even mentions poverty

The others are too busy sucking up to the fat cats at DLC and AIPAC to give a shit about working people or the poor. They don't want to be sullied by helping out the proles.
He has my enthusiastic support.

[lostnfound]

35. What do you bet this will be big on the Sunday talk shows?

The reality or truth of it (or absence thereof) is irrelevant, unfortunately. I'm afraid this will be spun strongly in an attempt by the corporate media to take Edwards down the way for some of the same reasons that they did it to Dean.

[BeyondGeography]

37. For a very rich man, Edwards works every angle he can not to spend his own money

The foundation pays for staff and campaign-related trips, while the hedge fund Fortress paid for his foreign travel. All perfectly legal but reflective of a guy who knows how to milk the American cash cow. Also, in a semi-charming way, a reminder that the son of a mill worker never wants to feel low on money again.

[More Than A Feeling]

45. It's not like he's trying make sure that only he can do these kinds of things.

That would be the Republicans. Edwards wants everyone to have the opportunity to be like him.

[More Than A Feeling]

44. This isn't about his poverty center at the University of North Carolina.

This is about a completely different organization.

[Adelante]

46. It sounds like pretty smart politics to me

One gigantic parking garage for a presidential campaign. Is any of it untrue? If so, the Edwards campaign will be responding. If it's all true, as long as none of it was illegal, what's the problem? Well, the problem is the unending campaign and the sky high cost of it all, but that's the nation's problem, not Edwards'alone. If Edwards found a way through that, since there seems to be no escape for candidates but to tackle it, more power to him. It's just not about poverty; it's about politics. Call it what it is and it's a rather admirable feat.

[Cameron27]

48. It may be a smart political

maneuver, but I agree with karynnj that these questions should be answered:

1) Did everyone who contributed know the real reason for the fund? If they were all big donors backing Edwards and there were no solicitations asking for money for poverty relief, then no one was defrauded. It still would have been better to call it "Friends of John Edwards" or something like that.

2) Did Edwards or his campaign push this as an action against poverty? If they did and this article is correct, they need to quickly stop doing that unless the group actually did something substantive on poverty. They need to explain what the organization actually did.

[Adelante]

49. Yes, me too, I agree with karynnj

But I'm struck by how irrelevant the issue is to the overall scheme. It could be any issue applied, but it's the continually unfolding presidential campaign that is the main occupation.

[jcrew2001]

61. everyone supports Edwards and his charity

thats why they donated because they respected Edwards from the 2004 campaign and as the former VP candidate - and believed in his mission for Change. When you donate to Jesse Jackson, are you just donating to PUSH or do you also want to contribute to the inspirational leader and his goals. When people donate to Pat Robertson, are they just donating because of Christianity, or do they trust Pat's leadership.

Edwards did create a Free college program through his activities - thats a very big deal since there are very few free college programs out there.

[Vickers]

56. Why is the NYT comparing a non-profit with a charity? Hell, the NRA is a non-profit...

:eyes: