The Media’s Obsession with Republican Money

The legacy media’s obsession with Republicans and money is well-illustrated by two pieces filed this week in the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Hot Dish Politics blog.  Both were posted by newish political reporter Allison Sherry and each involves a Republican challenger to a vulnerable incumbent Democrat Congressman.

The media’s obsession with Republican money stems from three sources.  First, liberal newspapers still pine for the days of yore when they could control the narrative around political campaigns based on their near monopoly on the mass market for information.

Newspapers still advocate a type of campaign finance “reform” that would drastically curtail spending on campaigns [limited to the money provided by taxpayers through “public funding”], which would serve to re-establish their information monopoly.

Their obsession with the “big money” in politics manifests itself through the frequent reporting on campaign fundraising.  [Commercial TV and radio get too much ad revenue from candidates to want to limit political spending.]

But when newspapers report on political fundraising, they almost always miss the real story:  the total dominance by Democrat/liberal/progressives in the money game.  Newspapers dutifully print lists of the top donors—complete with names and dollar amounts—but will never total up the giving by political party.  If they were to do so, we would see margins of Democrat money over Republican money by factors of 2:1, 5:1, or even 10:1, depending on what sources of cash were being documented.

To do so would contradict the media’s second source of their Republican money obsession:  their investment in the narrative of the GOP as the party of “the rich.”

Take this piece by the Star Tribune’s Sherry as an example.  Headlined “GOP Speaker Boehner, Hubbard Broadcasting owners throw Mills fundraiser,” it reports on an upcoming effort to raise money for Republican congressional candidate Stewart Mills, who is taking on sitting Democrat Congressman Rick Nolan in a swing seat representing the northeastern corner of the state.

 

The real story here should be the Minnesota appearance of John Boehner, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.  Boehner is America’s highest-ranking elected Republican.  As such, his scarce time is among the national party’s most valuable resources.  That Boehner is taking time to travel to outstate Minnesota for a fundraiser in support of Mills should speak volumes about the prospects for a Republican upset this November.

 

Instead, Sherry feeds us the usual Rich Republican narrative:  reprinting the fundraiser invitation, highlighting the price list, naming some of the donors involved, and scoring some partisan political points along the way.

 

In contrast, when President Obama was in town in June for—among other events—a big-dollar fundraiser hosted by former Ambassador Sam Kaplan (and featuring the Democrat House leader), the Star Tribune printed none of those details:  no address for the event, no agenda with exact times, no list of attendees, no complete price list, nothing of the sort.

Read Sherry's coverage of the Obama visit for yourself.  She mentions obtaining a copy of the invite, but does not post it online.  No guest list, no cheap political jabs at the host couple, no address or timetable.  Notice what she does include:  helpful "contextual" quotes from party leaders.  The contrast in tone between coverage of the Boehner visit and the Obama/Pelosi visit could not be more stark.

 

In the media narrative, Republican fundraising is prima facie evidence of corruption, if not general evil.  Democrat fundraising efforts represent something else.  When Democrats succeed in raising large sums of cash through complicated fundraising efforts, it represents evidence of Democrats’ ability to run a large and complicated organization, like, say, the government.

 

When a Democrat incumbent takes in more donations than his or her Republican challenger, it demonstrates the Democrat’s popular appeal.  When a GOP challenger leads in campaign cash, it represents an attempt by nefarious special interests to “buy” the election and thwart the will of the people.

 

On the flip side, when a Democrat challenger leads in money, it represents the weakness of the Republican incumbent, a searing indictment of their job performance and general fitness to hold office.  When a Republican incumbent leads in money, it represents the failure of the entire political system, the corruption of moneyed interests battling to maintain the status quo and repress “reform.”

 

The second Sherry piece illustrates the third source of the media’s obsession with Republican Money:  its perpetual search for Republican hypocrisy.  In the liberal mindset, hypocrisy is the worst crime imaginable.  It’s better to have no standards at all than to have a standard you do not live up to every second of one’s life.

 

As Republicans are the party of low taxes and true fiscal conservatism, any personal failings around money represent the ideological failure of the small government philosophy.  So the print version of headline of the piece reads “GOP hopeful thousands in debt” (Saturday edition, page B5).

 

Republican State Senator Torrey Westrom is challenging long-time Democrat Congressman Collin Peterson for a seat representing the western edge of the state.  It’s normally Republican territory, but Democrat Peterson has the advantage of incumbency and a reputation as a political moderate.

 

So Sherry reports that the GOP challenger Westrom has liabilities (in the thousands!) including credit card, student loans, and a mortgage.  Sherry reports dollar amounts and the web headline reads “GOP challenger Torrey Westrom has hefty credit card, student loan debt.”

 

Now, unless Sherry also moonlights as Westrom’s loan officer, she provides no evidence to support the “heftiness” of her headline.  My guess is that most American households carry some credit card debt and have student loans and mortgages.  The total amount involved ranges from a low of $180,000 to a maximum of $450,000.  Substantial, maybe, but hefty?

 

Sen. Westrom is an attorney, so it should be no surprise that he could still owe some money for law school and/or college.  For their part, Westrom and his wife have explained that the credit card debt is related to their real estate business.

How much does his opponent owe?  You won’t find out from reading the Star Tribune.  It happens that Rep. Peterson owes somewhere between $450,000 and $1 million in mortgages on three properties:  his DC home, his Minnesota home, and his Minnesota farm.

 

Why the wide ranges?  It’s the stupid way Congress structures its financial disclosure form.  For each line item, instead of entering a dollar amount, you must check one of 11 boxes, each box corresponding to a dollar range. 

 

So it is likely that Rep. Peterson actually owes more money than Sen. Westrom:  not so surprising, since a congressman’s salary is more than 5 times that of a state senator.  Somehow, Sen. Westrom’s debts are more newsworthy.  The idea is that Westrom’s arguments about sound fiscal policy for the Federal treasury are undercut by his “hefty” student loan debt.  Or his alleged inability to manage his personal finances means he is not fit to hold public office.

 

But Rep. Peterson’s three mortgages (if they were newsworthy) would be seen as evidence (1) he is in touch with the daily concerns of the common folk, (2) that our hard-working public servants are grossly underpaid, (3) of the power Wall Street financiers wield in our unequal society, or (4) all of the above.

 

If the Star Tribune wants to be seen as Minnesota’s newspaper of record, they need to start setting the record straight.