Skip to main content

WashPost's Eggen Wrings Hands Over 'Faceless Donors' to Campaign Ads; But He Frequently Uses Anonymous Sources Himself

Ken Shepherd's picture

"Behind the ads, faceless donors," blared a front-page headline in today's Washington Post. "Disclosure rare as groups spend on general election," complained the subheading to Dan Eggen's April 26 story. "Nearly all of the independent advertising being aired for the 2012 general-election campaign has come from interest groups that do not disclose their donors, suggesting that much of the political spending over the next six months will come from sources invisible to the public," Eggen lamented in his lead paragraph.

Anonymous campaign spending and hence anonymous political speech really irks the Citizens United-obsessed liberal media. But the hypocrites in the press use anonymous speech all the time as integral to, well, their political speech, their freedom of the press. In fact, Eggen himself has used anonymous sources -- including Super PAC staffers and campaign donors -- at least six times thus far this year, according to a Nexis search of the Washington Post with the terms "condition of anonymity" and "Dan Eggen."

The most recent use of an anonymous source by Eggen is from April 21, in a page A1 story about the communication strategies for the major political parties for this November (emphasis mine):

...[T]he major conservative groups believe grass-roots organizing is best left to Romney and the Republican National Committee.

"A lot of us don't think it's efficient for outside groups to do ground-game activities," said one super PAC official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. "The campaign finance laws are set up to allow the parties to do that, and we believe they do it quite well. Our added value will be on the airwaves."

On March 1, in a story co-written with Philip Rucker, cited "One top Romney fundraiser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly." That "bundler" told Eggen and Rucker that "the campaign clearly is struggling to cope with a fundraising challenge it didn't expect to have several months ago":

"This slog they're in is costing them tons of money," this bundler said. "They've got a fundraising challenge in the sense that they have to keep raising money to keep up with the spending. They're not in the hole or anything, but it's a struggle."

Eggen's use of anonymous sources is bipartisan. Here he is in February, from a February 18 story co-written with Post staffer T.W. Farnum about Obama's fundraising lagging behind expectations:

President Obama's campaign raised far less money in January than it did during the same month four years ago, suggesting that it may have an increasingly difficult time matching his record-shattering financial numbers from 2008.

[...]

"We're not in the midst of a competitive primary and are putting this general election money away in the bank, while investing some of it an organization on the ground the GOP doesn't dream of matching," said one senior campaign aide, who requested anonymity in order to discuss election strategy. "The Republicans are raising primary money, and they are spending whatever they raise."

"Under tax and election laws, most nonprofits, including many that spend money to run ads during election season, are not required to publicly reveal their donors, unlike more purely political groups," Eggen noted in today's article, adding:

The pattern underscores the growing influence of corporations and wealthy individuals in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that made it easier to spend unlimited money on elections. The numbers also suggest that many well-off donors are increasingly opting for the confidentiality of nonprofits rather than allowing the public scrutiny that comes from giving to super PACs or candidates.

“I think there is a potential to see a tremendous amount of money flowing through these nonprofit groups,” said Bill Allison, editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates greater disclosure for political organizations and candidates. “For an awful lot of donors, it’s a very attractive way to give without leaving any kind of footprint.”

Of course, while television, radio, and print advertising are expensive propositions, politically biased reporters have carte blanche to get their liberal narrative to potentially millions of American news consumers in the guise of objective news reporting, and all that with the benefit of anonymous sources who help drive the narratives preferred by the liberal media.

Comments

#1 Yeah every time the MSM uses

Yeah every time the MSM uses sources they don't identify as left-leaning or stats from foundations funded by Soros, they do the same thing. It's okay when they do it, but they sure don't like it when the tables are turned.

#2 typical liberal dem

So typical of liberals and democrats. Do as I say not as I do. Hypocrites and liars.

#3 You raise an important point, Ken

Every time an MSMer uses the words "Some say . . . " or "Some would say . . . ", they are essentially making a political point with no attribution.

We suspect that this tactic is merely an editorial tool to inject their opinion into a piece as if it is objective news.

But what's the difference between a Super PAC ad that says "Obama is a celebrity to young voters, but his policies have hurt more than helped them" and an MSM reporter writing/saying "Some say that the GOP is waging a war on women." Or "some prominent economists say" or "A recent study reveals" ---- if they don't identify the source, how is that different from anonylous donors paying for a political ad?

#4 Suspect? You're joking,

Suspect? You're joking, right?

Well, of course we have no proof, because they never say these things when someone is around who might ask "Who are you talking about? Who said that?"

So they get away with it.

They also insert opinion by dreaming up polls that no one cares about, or pulling a question right out of....the air....like George Stephanopoulos and his "contraception" stunt, to get conversation going on a subject that they want to talk about (usually favorable to Democrats).

Reminds me of the ad for a new show, with a guy's friends acting like a Neanderthal cheering section off to the side while he's hitting on a girl, and she says "They know I can see them, right?"  And he replies, "Yeah, they don't care."

They don't even care that their bias and tactics are obvious.

#5 Absolute hypocricy: Obama's campaign publicly OUTS GOP donors

Perhaps if the Obama campaign didn't "out" campaign donors for Romney with information that borders on slander or libel, their argument would only be corny. But this OFFICIAL Obama campaign site does it:

http://www.keepinggophonest.com/behind-the-curtain-a-brief-history-of-ro...

(NOTE: Site is credentialized with the following: "PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA")

It is documented by Kimberly Strassel HERE:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230472330457736828060452491...

Frankly, I think this is newsworthy of a Sheppard or Bozell investigative report.

"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

#6 Money, politics, and government

Phase One.

Everybody ("some people say") is very worried about the effect of money in politics. They pass laws that restrict donations to $2,500 per election per person. That way, the rich person cannot buy influence and favoritism in policies.

Except for bundlers, who can collect $2,500 from a lot of people and bring the candidate a check for $250,000. Not his money, but he gets the credit and the name-recognition. So, using Other People's Money is a great way to comply with the law and sort of buy influence. But not for rich people writing the candidate a check for their own money.

Phase Two.

When it's time to pay for the costs of running governmental programs, the same people who were afraid of the influence of rich people's money on the candidate and campaign now call upon those same rich people to pay more—excuse me, their "fair share"—so that the rest of the people, including 47% who pay no taxes at all, don't have to pay more than their "fair share," which they hope to be small or nothing at all.

Screw the liberal policies!

"No representation without taxation!"

#7 That was ---

excellent.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.