NY Times again ignored its own reporting on McCain public funds waffling

Written by Matthew Biedlingmaier

Published

The New York Times reported that “the McCain campaign stepped up its criticism” of Sen. Barack Obama over whether Obama will accept public financing for the general election if Sen. John McCain does the same. But the article did not mention the Times' own previous reporting that McCain has waffled about whether he would accept public financing in the general election.

In a February 28 article, The New York Times reported that “the McCain campaign stepped up its criticism” of Sen. Barack Obama over whether Obama will accept public financing for the general election if Sen. John McCain does the same, and quoted McCain stating, “The fact is, Senator Obama signed a piece of paper and pledged to take public financing for his campaign if I did the same. I believe that Senator Obama should keep his commitment also, which means taking public financing. The rest of it is ground noise. The rest of it is irrelevant.” However, the Times ignored its own previous reporting on McCain's waffling about whether he would accept public financing in the general election.

As Media Matters for America documented when a February 20 Times article similarly ignored its own previous reporting on the subject, McCain reportedly said on March 1, 2007, that if he became the Republican nominee, he would accept public funds, provided the Democratic nominee did as well. However, the Times reported on February 13 that “Mr. McCain's advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, would not accept public financing and spending limits for this year's general campaign.” In a February 15 article reporting that the “McCain campaign's latest stand on the issue” is that it will, in fact, accept public funding if McCain's Democratic opponent does the same, the Times said: “On Tuesday, one of Mr. McCain's advisers told The New York Times that the campaign had decided to forgo public financing in the general election, an awkward admission for a senator who has made campaign finance reform a central part of his political persona.”

From the February 28 New York Times article, also featured on MSNBC.com:

Mr. Obama was notably noncommittal about his previous proposal in Tuesday's Democratic debate, indicating that he would add new conditions, especially on spending by independent groups, to his previous pledges to accept the deal. If nominated, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair to both sides,” Mr. Obama said, alluding to the need to close “loopholes.”

Campaign finance experts said the issue was a major test of Mr. Obama's commitment. It is also a first glimpse of what might come in a general election fight between two candidates who have championed public integrity, opening themselves to accusations of hypocrisy.

On Wednesday, the McCain campaign stepped up its criticism of Mr. Obama after his statement at the debate.

“The fact is, Senator Obama signed a piece of paper and pledged to take public financing for his campaign if I did the same,” Mr. McCain said. “I believe that Senator Obama should keep his commitment also, which means taking public financing. The rest of it is ground noise. The rest of it is irrelevant.”

Some Democrats and Obama supporters, meanwhile, have sought to strike back at Mr. McCain by accusing him of exploiting the public financing system. They argue that Mr. McCain may have violated technicalities of the election laws by using his eligibility for public matching funds to help obtain a loan but then opting out of the matching funds at the last minute to avoid the spending restrictions they impose. “People aren't exactly clear whether all the t's were crossed and i's were dotted,” Mr. Obama said in Tuesday's debate. (The McCain campaign said it followed the law.)