UPDATED: WaPo Reporter GOP Contribution Story is Inaccurate

UPDATE: The original diary has been updated. I throw my hat in with those who say this was almost certainly an honest mistake all around. Trying to make a big deal out of this is a credibility waste.

Right now the the most recommended diary on this list is Washington Post's Hsu gave to GOP.  Only problem is, it doesn't look like he actually did make a donation.  

Instead, The Washington Post claims that the listing on OpenSecrets.com is simply inaccurate.  According to the Post, the supposed $1,031 contribution was actually remibursement for a hotel room that the state party had fronted Hsu at the 2004 GOP convention.

The WaPo response on poynter.org also includes a full article from the Richmond paper last month, spelling out how reimbursments from their reporters were also inaccurately listed by the FEC as campaign contributions.

I know people here are upset about Hsu's article the other day, but let's not overplay our hand here.

•  asdf

  
  I posted a comment about this on Carnacki's diary, but since that story seems now to be inaccurate, or at least greatly in dispute, I thought it was worthwhile to repost it here.  It's not Carnacki's fault, it's the FEC's.

  by William S Martin on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:47:34 PM PDT

  •  Come to think of it...

    ... $1,031 does seem like an odd amount to donate.

    hink

    by MrHinkyDink on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:58:47 PM PDT

  •  Contribution

    If money is given, then that is a contribution.  I don't see why they are pretending like the fact that the Virginia Republicans paid for his room in advance make his contribution alright.

    by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:59:48 PM PDT

    •  okay that's idiotic

      think about what you just said.  This is standard practice for reporters, they do the same thing with WH trips, etc  . To do  otherwise would be unethical, since the reporter would otherwise be accepting a gratuity from a political party.  I be much more upset at reporters that got free travel and hotel rooms from political parties

      Please do be thinking these things through

      by Magorn on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:25:06 PM PDT

      •  They shouldn't go either

        They shouldn't accept favors from the parties or "reimburse" them for them.  Saying that it is standard procedure doesn't make it OK.

        by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:31:44 PM PDT

        •  Corr: They shoudn't do either

          by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:32:24 PM PDT

        •  Political Parties Reserve Large Blocks Of Rooms

          For poliltical conventions, the common practice if for the party to control blocks of hotel rooms. The Virginia delegation may well have had the only rooms available at that venue, and it's quite possible that the initial allocation of rooms included those intended for the press. Similar things happen at large non-political conventions, too.

          by Realist2004 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:42:26 PM PDT

          •  Well

            In that case, the WP should reserve a room at a hotel across the street.  Or the GOP should tell the hotel that they should bill that particular room to the WP and not have the reporters giving money to political parties.  The transaction should be between the WP and the hotel and money should not pass to or through the Virginia GOP.

            by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:48:15 PM PDT

            •  Why?

              You keep saying it, but you don't give any reasons why a net zero transation is so evil.

              If anything, it's marginally negative for the party, because they had to put the money up early, usually months early, for the room, when they could have collected interest for it.  Then they had the miniscule but still real transaction costs, if nothing else the time spent by their comptroller.

              I think you're focused on a little piece of bark on a single tree, and are missing the forest.

              by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:54:01 PM PDT

              •  See my comment about Fred Smith in this diary (n/t

                by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:57:28 PM PDT

  •  Info as to 'political contributions'

    reported by opensecrets.org is the amount the recipient of the funds is 'required by law' to report. If this was a business expense, then no contribution information would have been required to be submitted.

    Sorry the Fair Political Practices rules are cut and dried about what is reported and what isn't. Opensecrets.org reports what was reported by the candidates / political parties.

    The other diary is accurate

    by SallyCat on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:13:23 PM PDT

•  State party buys

  hotel room and organizes housing for reporter.

  Newspaper reimburses state party.

  Reporter writes articles friendly to that party.

  I don't care how you slice that, it stinks.

  by RedDan on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:50:05 PM PDT

  •  So

    The WP giving money to the Virginia Republicans?  How deaf are these people to potential conflicts of interest?  They should pay for their own hotel rooms from the beginning and not play the payback game.

    In any case, the story is accurate and Open Secrets is accurate here.  Money was given to the Virginia Republicans.  Saying that they are paying back a debt doesn't negate that.

    by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:56:19 PM PDT

    •  Of Course It Does, and Open Secrets IS Wrong

      It wasn't a donation.  In the end, there was no net transfer of funds from Hsu to the state party.  Open Secrets listed it as if it was.  They were clearly wrong.

      by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:46:49 PM PDT

      •  this can be abused

        How do you know that what the GOP charged the reporter is just the amount needed to recover the GOP costs, or was it heavily padded? If the newspaper is letting this practice go on, then it has some poor cost control mechanisms, at the least.

        by drsmith131 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:55:21 PM PDT

        •  He Paid the Same As Everyone Else

          And if the party padded the costs without telling anyone, it was them breaking federal campaign finance laws.  

          by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:01:00 PM PDT

      •  But you could say that about anything

        Suppose the Virginia GOP spends $100 on flyers at a printing company PrintRUs and Fred Smith "reimburses" them for those flyers.  Maybe Fred Smith's employer Spacely Sprockets then "reimburses" Fred.  Now, you could say, as you just have, that there is no net transfer of funds from Fred Smith to the Virginia GOP, since the net transfer is $100 from Spacely Sprockets to PrintRUS $100.  But if that is the criterion, then nothing would ever count as a political contribution.

        by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:56:00 PM PDT

        •  how bout this as a political contribution?

          "Fred Smith" gives the Virginia GOP 500 dollars. And no one reimburses anything.

          by AnnArborBlue on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:00:44 PM PDT

        •  Nope, You're Wrong

          That would be a contribution in kind.  But the hotel room wasn't a form of campaigning, and it didn't advocate the election or defeat of a candidate or a party.  It was just a hotel room.  And his employer couldn't reimburse if it was a corporation unless it was paid from their separate and segregated fund; AKA Political Action Committee (PAC).  

          by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:04:10 PM PDT

          •  But

            The fact that his employer did reimburse him doesn't mean that it wasn't a contribution.  It just means that if it were a contribution and they had paid for the hotel room from hard money, it would be illegal.

            by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:12:41 PM PDT

            •  Your Scenario Would Be a Loan

              The hotel room wasn't a loan, it was a reimbursement.  They had to reserve the room.  In a sense, at that point they purchased it, just like if it were a desk.  And they can sell it just like it's a desk, but only for fair market value.  And in this case, the fair market value was the cost of the room for X nights.  And a thousand bucks in NYC for several nights during the convention sounds about right.

              There is nothing untoward here.  If you think it's unjust, work on changing the law.  But your arguments aren't compeling that there was even anything unjust or wrong.

              by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:19:06 PM PDT

  •  They May Have Rented All the Rooms

    I've been involved in setting up state party events, and what sometimes happens is that the party will rent all the rooms.  It may be that they rented the rooms, he used one that was unoccupied, and then reimbursed them.  

    I haven't read the original diary, so maybe I'm missing some important details, but I could see how a reimbursement, while not particularly common, could still have an innocent explanation.

    Which would just mean that the guy isn't a partisan--and few journalists I've met really are--but instead just isn't very good.  And I know more than a few who just aren't very good.

    by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:04:14 PM PDT

    •  The WP should know better

      If the Virginia GOP rents all the rooms, the WP should stay at another hotel.  A newspaper shouldn't accept favors from political parties and it sure as hell shouldn't make contributions to political parties or expect their employees to do so and then pay them back.  The whole thing is perverse.

      by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:12:55 PM PDT

      •  Look...

        ...here.

        by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:39:28 PM PDT

    •  That may be the case...

      but it still stinks to high heaven and should be ended as practice.

      Reporters should not be getting their itineraries, travel, arrangements, or bookings done through the political, corporate, or any other groups that they are supposed to be covering.

      Period.

      by RedDan on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:13:26 PM PDT

      •  I Don't Know That They Did the Bookings

        Another way to look at it would be if he went to a fundraiser, and he ate a dinner.  If it was a $150 a plate dinner, you wouldn't want him paying the $150, because obviously most of that would be net going to the party.  But you also wouldn't want him to be eating for free.  So I think it would not only be OK, it would be preferred if he paid the party the $25 or so to cover their cost for the dinner.  That's what this sounds like.  And at the national convention, it really would be damn close to impossible to cover a single state's delegation if you didn't stay in the same hotel, because they spread people out over entire metro areas.  You're either in the same hotel, or you barely see people, especially since much of the action for that state delegation takes place in the conference halls of their hotel, and not at the main convention center.

        by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:42:55 PM PDT

        •  I don't understand

          Why would he eat the dinner at the fundraiser?  If I were a reporter, the last thing I would want to do is be one of the participants at the fundraiser.  I would arrange my own food.

          by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:15:04 PM PDT

  •  OK, Just Read the Diary

    This sounds legit to me.  In a sense, he was sorta an "embeded journalist."  

    Also, Open Secrets really sucks.  If you know a lot about campaign finance, you see that they miss most of what matters, and make a big deal about a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't.

    by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:06:06 PM PDT

    •  THIS Site Is Actually Good

      But because to get the full access you have to pay some outrageous ammount, I think a couple thousand a year, I doubt many journalists ever use Political Moneyline.
      

      by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:12:37 PM PDT

      •  So...

        care to venture a guess as to whether Hsu's "repayment" is reported in the moneyline database?

        by RedDan on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:15:02 PM PDT

        •  Probably

          But it would probably be coded as a reimbursement.

          by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:43:50 PM PDT

        •  And If It Wasn't...

          ...it would still be on their FEC reports.  That's where Open Secrets got it from, but they probably screwed up the coding.

          by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:45:22 PM PDT

    •  What is OK about this?

      I don't see what is inaccurate about the Opensecrets report.  Andrew Hsu gave money to the Virginia GOP.  I don't see in what sense that isn't a contribution.

      by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:16:10 PM PDT

      •  Reimbursement

        It would be worse if he didn't.

        They paid for the room.  He used the room.  He reimbursed them for what they paid.  So while it passed through the state party, in the end he really paid the hotel.

        by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:38:22 PM PDT

        •  Rather

          They they gave him a hotel room and he gave them a donation.  He didn't pay for his hotel room.  If he paid for his hotel room, he would have given money to the hotel and not to the Virginia GOP.

          by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:02:12 PM PDT

          •  Look, You're Wrong

            I know the law on this stuff.  You're wrong.  

            by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:04:50 PM PDT

            •  What is the difference?

              Just explain that to me.  Also explain to me why the Virginia GOP reported this to the FEC as a political contribution.  Probably because it is impossible to distinguish cases where the party is paying for something on behalf of someone and they are reimbursed and cases where they are paying for something and someone gives them the funds to pay to it.

              by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:09:11 PM PDT

              •  isnt the entire point of this diary

                that it was misclassified by the FEC? That either opensecrets or the FEC just screwed up?

                by AnnArborBlue on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:18:37 PM PDT

                •  Yes

                  It's the point of the diary, and I've been allowed to be pulled far from the point by someone who wants to be convinced that he did something wrong, but has yet to show any evidence of having questioned whether a similar thing happened with different reporters for the Democratic convention.

                  by DHinMI on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:20:25 PM PDT

                •  FEC Record

                  This is the FEC Record. Tell me who screwed up. I suspect is the Republican Party of Virginia, Inc.

                  By the way I found at least 2 other reporters who paid this reimbursement that appears as a contribution in the FEC database: 1 from the Washington Times, and one from the Roanoke Times.

                  by drsmith131 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 08:18:19 PM PDT

                  •  Thanks for that info

                    The filing information is always the responsibility of the recipient of the funds. Whether the classification is correct or not falls to the recipient not the payer.

                    Thanks for posting the underlying data link.

                    by SallyCat on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 09:15:16 PM PDT

•  It seems weird

  The part that surprises me is that it is the reporters making the reimbursement, instead of their employer. I find that rather odd.

  by silence on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:50:22 PM PDT

  •  Not necessarily

    If I go on a business trip I have to book my own flight/hotel.  I then submit an expense report with receipts to my employer, and they reimburse me directly - not the airline, hotel or restaurants I've patronized.

    by ChiGirl88 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:20:11 PM PDT

    •  Yes but

      The standards are much stricter when we're talking about political parties.  That's why we have FEC reporting requirements.

      by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:34:02 PM PDT

•  em "bedded" journalism

  
  sounds like a real cozy scheme.

  by ctsteve on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:53:48 PM PDT

  •  LOL!

    nt

    by vinluvr on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:55:22 PM PDT

•  What's your point?

  So now the GOP is paying for free hotel rooms for this hack? Unless the Dems did the same and Hsu attended their convention, this news makes Hsu look even worse. Why hasn't he come out and corrected his error (WaPo had to appologize for him).

  by chicagovigilante on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:54:15 PM PDT

  •  I think the point...

    ... is that when you're criticizing someone else for being inaccurate, you better be damned sure that you're accurate with your facts.

    hink

    by MrHinkyDink on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:55:35 PM PDT

    •  Send your complaints to the FEC then

      The problem with Hsu hasn't changed. A supposedly unbiased reporter shouldn't be having to reimburse the GOP for using a hotel room that they paid for.

      by chicagovigilante on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:02:03 PM PDT

      •  I'm not arguing that...

        ... I'm just arguing that we need to make sure whatever charges we level against Hsu are accurate.

        hink

        by MrHinkyDink on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:03:25 PM PDT

        •  Fair enough

          n/t

          by chicagovigilante on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:05:51 PM PDT

  •  No. . .

    So now the GOP is paying for free hotel rooms for this hack?

    The point is that the reporter paid for the room.  It wasn't free.  The state party probably booked out a bunch of rooms, and the reporters had to pay them back.

    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:06:38 PM PDT

    •  exactly

      That's how political conventions work -- state delegations get big hotel blocks, and if you want to cover the delegation, you've got to stay there.

      There is nothing suspicious about this.

      by Adam B on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:35:07 PM PDT

      •  except. . .

        for the laundering issue, which I posted below.  If the rooms were payed for with soft money but the reimbursements wound up in a hard money account (my only evidence for this is that they wound up in the FEC reporting) then the Republicans could use this technique to convert soft to hard money.

        by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:43:15 PM PDT

        •  Here's the test

          Just find other journalists for whom this was done.  Go through the databases, look for odd numbers like these.

          by Adam B on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:50:27 PM PDT

          •  No, no.

            My point isn't that the money should not have been paid back to the party.  My point is that if it's paid back into a hard-money account (as possibly indicated by the fact that it appears on the FEC records), the money may have effectively been laundered.

            If I'm correct (and I'm just speculating -- I really don't know if there is any significance to the money showing up on the FEC report) then probably the party is at fault since I suspect they decided how to "direct" the reimbursement.

            by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:59:47 PM PDT

    •  but how do we know

      Is the reimbursement for the real cost of the room, or for a lot more? Get it?

      The republicans reserve a block of rooms for which they pay the hotel $75 dollar a night. The GOP charges the reporter $100 dollar a night for one room. The reporter pays then and the Republicans made $25 dollars a night. This type of arrangement can be abused. I would like to see the complete FEC record on this. This is probably not a common thing so it makes you wonder.

      by drsmith131 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:52:09 PM PDT

    •  FEC Regs

      You have to identify re-imbursements as such.  Was this identified as a reimbursement?  If so, it isn't as big a  deal.  If not, why not, and what was it then?

      by PAprogressive on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 08:33:19 PM PDT

•  so the WaPo

  doesn't have a travel office that arranges this kind of thing for its employees and relies on a State Republican party to do it.

  Can someone please show me where the check is that he "reimbursed" the Mass. Dem party for his room at the Dem National Convention?

  by ctkeith on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 05:54:31 PM PDT

•  screw the post and the times and the times

  and whomever else. Are you not tired of these folks? "hey they just paid for my fancy hotel room, man." Fuck them. The press is   sick and twisted and just plain part of the system that they are there to question.

  by mkf on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:00:41 PM PDT

•  Same Charges for other journalists?

  by ctsteve on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:01:05 PM PDT

•  Back this pony up a bit ...

  You mean when reporters cover a political event, their expenses are paid by the party and not the newspaper?

  This is FUCKED UP.

  I don't want the Democrats picking up tabs for supposedly neutral reporters. I don't want Republicans picking up tabs for supposedly neutral reporters. In fact, nobody but the newspaper should be picking up the tabs for supposedly neutral reporters.

  In my mind, this is worse than a reporter making an individual political donation.

  by SusanG on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:02:48 PM PDT

  •  This may be a bigger story

    by ctsteve on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:05:15 PM PDT

•  Carnacki

  has updated his diary to reflect these revelations.  probably a good idea to do that here.

  by juls on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:04:22 PM PDT

•  Basically............

  Since the party will reserve a block of rooms, it is standard practice to repay them for use of the room. The Times even pays the Yankees for the food their reporters eat at the Stadium press box.

  It is common practice for all newspapers across the country.

  by stevegilliard on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:04:33 PM PDT

  •  At a special 'pricing package?'

    Per Poynter Online: "A number of members of the press corps requested hotel accommodations to be closer to the delegation, and we made available to the capitol press corps the delegation's pricing packages," said Shawn Smith, executive director for the state GOP.

    And the Times repays, not the individual reporter, no?

    I don't doubt this is common, and I certainly know nothing about the financial life-cycle of the journalist, but isn't this kinda ... stinky?

    by GussieFN on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:13:39 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but ...

    anything I've ever been to, the hosting party holds the reservation with its credit card, but when you go to check out, the actual bill goes to the newspaper (or on a newspaper credit card).

    (There's also the gray area of placement; at the level of a political convention, I'd think who you're rooming near could influence who you'd have access to and what lines you're being fed.)

    by SusanG on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:14:11 PM PDT

•  I was surprised!

  By the fact that the $1031 dollar donation was the only donation listed. If she was go, go, GOP there would have been more donations listed plus the odd amount didn't follow most peoples patterns.

  by Tomtech on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:05:41 PM PDT

•  Is this money laundering?

  If the party used non-campaign funds to pay for the rooms, but received the reimbursments into campaign coffers as hard money, isn't the post guilty of laundering soft money into hard?

  by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:07:42 PM PDT

•  Illegal?

  Isn't is illegal for a company to reimburse an employee for a political contribution that they make?  So, why is the WP reimbursing it's reporters for their contributions?

  And I'm not having anything of the claim that they are "reimbursing" the Virginia GOP.  Andrew Hsu gave the Virginia GOP money.  That's a contribution, no matter what he thinks about whether they had done him some service.

  by ortcutt on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:08:15 PM PDT

•  Maybe

  Maybe he had a lot of "incidental charges" that he had to pay out of his own pocket.

  God knows if I were at a GOP convention, I'd have to rent some porn when I got back to the room.

  by Pompatus on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:16:08 PM PDT

•  OK, some of you are just being ridiculous

  The newspaper paid for the hotel room. Period. The GOP didn't, because they were reimbursed.

  This isn't complicated, but some people here are twisting themselves into knots trying to find a way to make it look bad for Hsu or the Post.

  What happened isn't unusual, especially not for a major event that's going to attract a lot of media. The bottom line is, neither the Post nor Hsu took any special favors. He stayed at a hotel to cover a conference, reimbursed the organization and then (presumably) got reimbursed by the newspaper.

  It's not a contribution. it's not a special favor. There's nothing out of order here.

  by Flash on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:34:44 PM PDT

  •  Think it through

    1. The state Party booked the rooms and paid for them.

    2. The Reporter contacts the state Party and gets one of those booked rooms, organized, reserved, and blocked out for that reporter.

    3. The reporter stays in the room (at reduced "delegate" rates, courtesy of the Party).

    4. The reporter pays the Party.

    5. The Paper pays the Reporter.

    First, that this practise is not unusual speaks volumes about the "independence" of our press, and speaks volumes about the degree of incestuous glad-handing that goes on between Party and Press.

    Second, that the Press organ has no booking agents, has not seen fit to reserve rooms on their own, and is relying on the Party organizing the conference to make arrangements for supposedly independent reporters is really, really lame.

    Third, the fact that this is recorded at the FEC as a contribution (which is where OpenSecrets got the data in the first place) either indicates that all is not as simple as it seems OR that the FEC does not see this as simple and as cut and dried as you want to make it.

    Everything is out of order here, regardless of whether the transaction was perc, repayment, or in-kind reimbursement.

    I care not whether this is a Democratic event, GOP event, or World Workers Party event.

    Parties SHOULD NOT be arranging travel and lodging for reporters.

    Reporters SHOULD NEVER accept ANY favors, percs, or services from the parties they are supposedly covering in any kind of objective fashion.

    The amount of money saved by the Paper in not having to do the arrangements, not having to coordinate housing, and so on and so forth is a not inconsequential "perc" provided by the party.

    If this is common practice, it must stop.

    I have never heard of this practice before, so it is NOT "common knowledge" and the fact that it only comes out now and that it is recorded by the FEC as a contribution makes me very suspicious.

    Regardless (of party, of venue, of circumstances) this STINKS.

    by RedDan on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:46:58 PM PDT

    •  The only ethical problem

      Would be if the reporter took the accommodations and didn't pay for them. That would be a special favor.

      This isn't.

      And this was the RNC, no? Have you taken the time to ask yourself just where this alternate room that the media outlets "booking agents" (HA! As if.) arranged on their on would be? The reporter would be having to commute to and from the convention site and Syracuse.

      I realize that some people just can't accept that not every MSM reporter is in Karl Rove's pocket, but (and this is something that comes up in my own work, so I do have some idea what I'm talking about), the reality is that it is not uncommon for the organization hosting an event (incuding non-political ones) to handle arrangements on the front end and get paid back, especially in a case like this where the reporter wants better access to the pols than he could have gotten on his own.

      Are you suggesting he would have been able to get better and more revealing stories by staying miles away at some hotel not connected to the hotel? Or do better stories come from staying as close as possible to the people you're covering?

      by Flash on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:06:44 PM PDT

      •  Replying to myself to clarify/correct

        As I understand it, the Virginia GOP let Hsu stay in a room they had originally rented, and he/the Post repaid them for the cost. So it wasn't the people who organized the event who provided the room and took the reimbursement, it was some other people attending the event.

        by Flash on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:15:56 PM PDT

        •  So what?

          So Hsu called the VA GOP and called in a favor?

          The VA GOP called Hsu or the WaPo and offered an extra room?

          Give me a break.

          Hsu should never have accepted, asked for, or dealt with ANY organ or branch of the National or State GOP when it came time to deal with the logistics, costs, and arrangements.

          No way, no how.

          Embedding reporters in military ops is a BAD idea and compromises objective reporting.

          Embedding reporters into political Party operations or events and providing services does the same damn thing.

          by RedDan on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:26:26 PM PDT

      •  Some folks may

        be blowing this out of proportion, and may be spinning the facts to fit a predetermined conclusion.

        I am not one of them.

        And you, in turn, are downplaying and pooh-poohing any and all criticism and using the strawman argument to attempt to defend the indefensible.

        Major Daily newspapers have their own travel and accommodations facilitators, yes?

        They send people around the country and around the world to cover stories, yes?

        They have contacts with other newspapers and with various and sundry travel and accommodation networks, yes?

        The FACT is that the entire process of getting the room, assigning the room, placement, and so on and so forth was covered by the party that was the subject of reporting, and that is NOT GOOD.

        If it is common practice, it should stop.

        Everyone knew that the RNC would be in New York City - the papers probably knew first, and the WaPo probably knew before most papers.

        The costs involved in putting together rooms, getting people reservations, and so on and so forth are not inconsequential.

        Those costs were covered by the State GOP and the National GOP.

        Were facilitation costs reimbursed?

        Were the room locations chosen based on the relative importance of particular papers? Did the WaPo and NYT reporters get closer or better rooms than the StPete Times or the Knight Ridder bureau?

        The opportunities to game such a system are immense, and given the nature of ANY political party and the proclivities of most humans (much less reporters)...those opportunities can and will be exploited to advantage.

        Don't talk down to me, don't assume tinfoil hat conspiracies behind any and every criticism, and take the time to actually read the comment I wrote, rather than map your own overblown and condescending sneers onto any and every comment that is not in full-on agreement with the wisdom you deign to hand down.

        Political Parties should not be organizing ANYTHING for the reporters that are supposed to be covering them, and Reporters and Papers should not be accepting ANYTHING from the people and groups that they are supposed to be covering.

        If you can't see why, then perhaps you need to reread some of the 250 year old thinking about the necessity for a free, objective, and unfettered press in the maintenance of a democracy governed by the will of the people and run through informed consent of the electorate.

        by RedDan on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:23:56 PM PDT

  •  Absent Evidence

    It's not hard to imagine a political party making a mistake in processing some of the numerous checks they receive. Maybe some wishful thinker just assumed that eveyone sending them money was a donor. I suspect if we look hard enough some national, state, or local Democratic party organization has made a similar mistake.

    by Realist2004 on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 06:49:28 PM PDT

  •  Reality-based community?

    I'm sorry, but many of these responses here sound like something out of Freeperville.  The Post has a policy on political contributions.  Hsu's not only a Post reporter, he's a political reporter.  Even if he were a political hack, why would he contribute an amount that makes the contribution public, thereby endangering his job?

    Now the Post provides an explanation that makes perfect sense.  There's corroboration from an article from the Richmond Times Dispatch on August of this year which detail Open Secret's mistake.  And having a few close friends who are reporters for national newsmagazines, I can tell you that fronting expenses is standard practice.  The Occam's Razor applies here.    

    Honest mistake by the initial diarist, but a mistake nevertheless.  Admit the mistake, correct it and be done with it.  We deal with facts and reality, remember?  Furiously spinning inconvenient facts by alleging widespread bias or an elaborate conspiracy is not reality-based.  Leave that to the Bushies.  

    by PigsandBattleships on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 07:11:08 PM PDT