Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Sex, Lies and Regulation?
February 21, 2008 6:27 PM
Let’s leave aside, for a moment, the obvious questions about whether the New York Times committed journalistic malpractice by relying on unnamed sources to imply John McCain was sleeping with a woman 30 years his junior—and then, as a favor to her, tried to twist arms at the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of one of her clients
Let’s also leave aside which of McCain’s unnamed “former campaign associates”—people from his 2000 presidential campaign---would be motivated to leak this stuff to the Times a few months ago, when reporters there first started working on the story.
Let’s focus for now on what we know---and whether, based on the facts we know, John McCain did anything inappropriate when he contacted the FCC about a pending licensing application—an application the woman, by the way, was lobbying to get approved.
This goes back to 1999, when McCain, as the powerful chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, sent “highly unusual” letters to then-FCC Chairman William Kennard demanding to know why the Commission was taking so long to vote on the licensing application. McCain was “expressing concern,” as he wrote at the time, over how long the commission was taking to decide whether to approve a complicated swap of licenses for two television stations in Pittsburgh.
The proposed deal at issue was complex and controversial. It involved a swap of licenses that would benefit Lowell Paxson, whose company, Paxson Communications, didn’t have a station in Pittsburgh and wanted to buy one.
But there’s this: Paxson knew McCain, had contributed thousands to McCain’s campaign, and had hired (here’s where an eight-year-old story about regulation and oversight of the telecommunications industry allegedly gets sexy) Vicki Iseman to lobby for it. She, of course, is the woman the NYT today effectively labeled “McCain’s Mistress,” even though she and McCain flatly deny a relationship.
So back to the question: What did McCain do with the FCC? Of course, it's not unusual for members of Congress or their staffs to contact the various commissioners, seeking status updates or weighing on with their views. In fact, other members of Congress had weighed in on the proposed swap with the FCC.
But some former commissioners said McCain did more than that when he wrote Kennard.
His letters were unusual. Some former commissioners told me today they were “unprecedented” and “extraordinary.” In fact, Kennard and former commissioner Gloria Tristani wrote McCain back immediately at the time, indicating he’d gone too far. But other commissioners said today it wasn’t so unusual.
McCain hadn’t take a position on the swap. He didn’t advocate for either side. He instead was demanding to know what the hold up was. He didn’t write the letter himself—a senior counsel on the committee, who was given marching orders by the Committee’s staff director, wrote it for him. McCain signed it. The point of the letter, sources said, was to get the FCC to focus on the issue and take action.
But what was “highly unusual” about the letter is that it asks Kennard which commissioners had voted and which ones had not—and if not, why not.
"I respectfully request that each member of the commission advise me, in writing no later than close of business on Tuesday, Dec. 14, 1999, whether you have already acted upon these applications in the course of the notation voting process,” McCain said in the letter. “If your answer to the latter question is no, please state further whether you will, or will not, be prepared to act on these applications at the open meeting on Dec. 15. If your answer to both of the proceeding questions is no, please explain why."
That’s a potential problem because the FCC doesn't sit around the table and vote on matters that aren't in a public hearing. They can cast votes by computer--and sometimes do so weeks apart. They closely guard this information, because the pressure on hold out commissioners would be enormous if lobbyists or congressmen knew which ones were still deliberating.
That's why Kennard and Tristani quickly responded at the time with letters to McCain, telling him to back off.
But at the end of the day, as unusual as it was, other commissioners said it wasn’t unprecedented. Senators have made similar inquiries on other issues, one commissioner told me today. The difference is they don’t put it in writing—they pick up the phone and call.
The key here is that McCain did not advocate for anybody. So, after considering the facts of the case at the center of this entire episode--facts that were reported eight years ago--the real question becomes: How is this a story worthy of front-page treatment in the New York Times, after you've put aside the salacious, anonymous and unproven allegations that led the story?
Well?
February 21, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (14)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Well -
I don't really care that much about an extra-marital affair in the past. I do think however that McCain's dealings as one of the Keating Five are totally relevant again now that he is the Republican nominee for the Presidency. And yes, investigation of all this (even the 'romance' part) is necessary in the current situation, if we like it or not. McCain is denying, and maybe rightly so, but if there's ANY TRUTH in all this he could be blackmailed as a (denying) President and that's the simple reason and main argument for further investigation.
Posted by: Chuck | Feb 21, 2008 7:20:05 PM
What strikes me as odd for a so-called journalistic investigation is the statement that these anonymous people 'thought' something. Come again?You will actually go to print with a story about what somebody thought? Not what they saw. Not what they heard. What they thought. Yikes.
Posted by: AnnieB | Feb 21, 2008 8:06:16 PM
Your anti-spam filter is keeping me from posting anything.
Posted by: JQP | Feb 21, 2008 8:30:03 PM
Honestly, that's a long squiggly line between points A & B. Doesn't every campaign have a crowd of interested bystanders, providing support and hoping for future employment? The NYTimes won't name their sources, but they have no problem smearing the reputation of a lady to drop a front page media bomb. And what does this have to do with a Savings and Loan collapse from the '80s? (...other than to paint with a broad brush.) The NYTimes is trying to paint McCain as "ethically challenged." Does that go for John Glenn too? He's another Senator who's reputation was briefly harmed by contributions from Charles Keating.
OK, here's the kicker - "WHO CARES?" Journalists? Tomorrow's lead gets to be "McCain Defends Blah Blah Blah..."
>>
Hey, how about the war? Is it still going on? You'd think we weren't even over there anymore...
Posted by: lp-gas | Feb 21, 2008 9:00:56 PM
How is this a story worthy of front-page treatment in the New York Times, after you've put aside the salacious, anonymous and unproven allegations that led the story?
Well?
Simple. McCain has stopped being the "maverick" thorn in the Republican Party's side, and become their front-runner instead. No other reason.
Posted by: Xrlq | Feb 21, 2008 9:46:26 PM
This is unreal!We don't care about the personal lives of these candidates.We care about what they will be doing for our country. I will be voting for senator McCain because I am not for universal healthcare. I would have moved to Canada if that was what I wanted. And we need to respect our military.He just about gave his life for us.
Posted by: Belinda McLean | Feb 21, 2008 10:04:52 PM
Lets see here would you put your name behind Information made public about a presidental canidate that harms there reputation? The man has millions of dollars backing him and quite a bit of power, not the kind of person you would want to be on the bad side of...
Posted by: Micheal | Feb 21, 2008 10:28:14 PM
I lived in Arizona during the Keating Five incident. McCain has a history of sucking up to "moneyed" folks and now we learn that he's taking free flights on lobbyist planes again. He can't play the paragon of purity routine, point fngers at his opponents and be taken seriously. As the campaign gets underway, we will learn more about his marriages, his wife's drug issues and other relevent history that will allow us to judge his worthiness for high office.
Posted by: Charles Russell | Feb 22, 2008 9:40:10 AM
Ms. Greenburg,
Is that a dare I read between your lines? It is not big news if the Republican candidate for President, who nearly lost his job over being too cozy with lobbyists is still doing it? Where is *your* news judgment?
Check out this story is today's (2/22)Washington Post, indicating that the McCain campaign is riddled with lobbyists. This from "Mr. Clean" Why don't you get YOUR journalistic act together and do some research of your own?
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 22, 2008 9:49:44 AM
The so called news media has gotten so full of false hoods and fallacy's that I refuse to even buy them any more. Our laws are suppose to be based on facts not hear say, so how does these papers get away with this kind of trash?
Posted by: Lawrence S. Adkins | Feb 22, 2008 10:02:45 AM
McCain had extra marital affairs, which is how he met his current wife, while married to his first wife. So, I believe that a man who divorced his first wife in April and re-married in May could have another affair!!!
Posted by: Jane | Feb 22, 2008 12:12:20 PM
The media are owned by the same that each candidate is. JM,HC,BO are all "owned" by the same objective and you'll get your universal health care. Notice it is called universal not national. The agenda, merge w/canada and mexico. No thank you and we all ready covered why our media isn't running that story. The ones on top are held above the law of the land and at whose expense now what can WE do?
Posted by: regionfive | Feb 23, 2008 4:43:41 PM
A person's personal life is of little importance unless it's a question of
criminality. McCain's readiness for
presidency of the United States during these troubling times should not be derailed by the pandering of the New York Times to base instincts of mankind. And I do mean "man" kind. The Times "mankind."
The paper has lost advertising and
circulation. Desperately, it will do
anything to get attention and be
on "everyone's lips." Sorry, the
paper has seen better days and those days are in the past.
The backfiring of the story is one its
editorial staff had not anticipated. Which only proves the "best laid plans of mice and men," eludes even the once venerable New York Times.
Posted by: Phylis Goldberg | Feb 24, 2008 12:35:38 PM
I read the New York Times every day and consider it to be my single most important and trusted source of news and analysis.
Of course, there are occasions when the newspaper runs a story that doesn't meet objective journalistic standards, and this was one of those occasions.
However, the Times also published Clark Hoyt's Public Editor column on Sunday, and Hoyt agreed with the many readers who objected to the sexual innuendo. As Hoyt pointed out, once the Times wrote that advisers were "convinced the relationship had become romantic," all other aspects of the story quickly receded into the background.
Hoyt went on to write that the story "offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance."
Either run the story without the sex hook or provide evidence of an affair.
Posted by: Kirby | Feb 25, 2008 4:04:02 PM
Post a comment
