As a journalist who has remained neutral in my state's Democratic Senate primary contest (yes, I have steadfastly refused to endorse either candidate), I'm confused. I'm confused because I don't know whether to believe the Denver Post's news pages or the Denver Post's editorial page in the U.S. Senate primary here in Colorado (which the Washington Post just called one of the most politically important primary state in the country). Specifically, in the big controversy over Michael Bennet's tenure as a corporate raider working for conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz, I don't know whether to believe the news page's account of the whole affair or the editorial page's account.
Here's the Denver Post's news page report from yesterday about Bennet's record in Anschutz's takeover of a chain of movie theaters:
A Moody's rating analyst in 2004 downgraded Regal's debts because of the huge payouts to shareholders, saying, "It's pretty mind-boggling to me that this company, recently out of bankruptcy, will pay out $1.6 billion."...
Lenders and pension funds bled hundreds of millions of dollars in bankruptcy, Anschutz and his boards paid themselves hundreds of millions in dividends, and Bennet made $11.8 million in two years after steps that critics at the time called "outrageous"...
As Regal and the other chains fell toward bankruptcy, they closed screens and cut jobs to stave off collapse. Between 2000 and 2002, Regal, Edwards and United Artists shed more than 2,400 of about 26,000 jobs, including some theater closings in metro Denver...Anschutz personally got $368 million in the first dividend and $372 million in the second, with his top managers taking in additional millions. Bennet's income-tax statements show he made $6.5 million in 2003, and $5.3 million in 2004.
Now today, the Denver Post editorial page criticizes Democratic candidate Andrew Romanoff for his new television ad about this record (you can see the ad here). The editorial about it says:
Andrew Romanoff's misleading, below-the-belt television attack ad on Sen. Michael Bennet seems to reveal more about Romanoff than it does Bennet...Romanoff's "Greed" ad suggests Bennet and "right-wing billionaire" Anschutz were involved in a sleazy scheme. It claims that Bennet helped Anschutz "loot" $1 billion and pocket millions in profit by firing workers and hurting retirement funds...
Granted, Anschutz handsomely paid himself and other shareholders who risked capital to save the cinemas. Bennet also was rewarded handsomely with $11.8 million over two years. Yet his skill as a student of pre-packaged bankruptcies helped keep the vast majority of endangered cinema workers on the payroll.
Colorado's next senator should have experience and expertise in finances to deal with the nation's fundamentally flawed budget. What we don't need is another politician willing to grossly distort reality.
So I'm genuinely confused: Is the Denver Post's news reporting right, or is its editorial page right? Did "lenders and pension funds bleed hundreds of millions of dollars in bankruptcy" while Anschutz and Bennet "paid themselves hundreds of millions in dividends" and while the company "shed more than 2,400 jobs," as the Denver Post's news pages say and as Romanoff's ad recounts? Or, as the editorial pages say, is Romanoff's ad "misleading," "below-the-belt" and a "gross distortion of reality" for recounting this record in the way it does, even though the editorial page acknowledges "Anschutz handsomely paid himself" and "Bennet was rewarded handsomely with $11.8 million"? And the most important question of all is whether Colorado voters think the ad is fair or unfair?
Vote in the poll below - and before you do, read The Cherry Creek News' original reporting that kicked off this whole controversy and then watch Romanoff's ad.