"EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH"...says sleazy NewsCorp mouthpiece NY Post

[jefferson_dem]

...

By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief
August 3, 2007 -- WASHINGTON -

John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul's companies.

The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

The campaign didn't respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.

In addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.

Edwards claimed $333,334 in royalties from last year's release of the book, according to media accounts. The campaign said last night that those funds were part of the advance.

<SNIP>

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm

[iconocrastic]

1. Did he take the money?

[Inspired]

2. Weren't these donated to charities?

I thought I heard that all proceeds from this book went to charities.

[iconocrastic]

3. Did he write it off his taxes?

[Inspired]

7. Beats me.

But I remember hearing that the proceeds went to charities. Why would I care if he wrote it off or not? What does it have to do with campaign contributions?

Look....did we not think this shit would happen?

You don't take on people like Murdoch without a fight on your hands. The question is if we stand together for what is right or fall in line with the 'hypocrite' meme. I refuse to fall in line.

Murdoch owns Fox. Murdoch helps organize fundraisers for our candidates and we don't blink an eye? Instead we choose to tear apart, or believe, the worst about the messenger? In doing so, aren't we just accepting the message?

[gratuitous]

4. So Edwards wrote a book and was paid for it . . .

And that makes him a hypocrite . . . how, exactly? Or don't the bureau chiefs for the New York Post think that writers should be paid for writing?

[JANdad]

5. Isn't the post owned by Murdoch?

Consider the source...nothing to see here...move along...

[disndat]

8. owned by R. Murdoch

and in partnership with H. Clinton. A potential lethal combination. Obama said H. C. is "Bush/Cheney Lite." Truer words were never spoken.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

13. WTF ?

H Clinton is a partner in NY Post. WTF ??

[iconocrastic]

6. "Blood money" (figuratively) from Murdoch after all he has done to us

Republican right-wing spreading cash among Democratic candidates.

Wake up, folks.

[Inspired]

10. Soon Murdoch will own everything.

We are so screwed.

At least Edwards said something about it....and now this 'news story' that a subsidiary published a book he wrote? A book that he donated proceeds of the sale to charities?

[gratuitous]

11. I think there's a difference

There's a difference between collecting a campaign contribution and being paid by one tentacle of the octopus for doing work. Certainly there's a case to be made that all the fruit comes from the same poisoned tree, but I think that a person who takes a contribution is in a more beholden position than someone being paid for doing something. That whole active/passive divide.

Besides, with the concentration of media ownership into fewer and fewer hands over the last quarter century, it's practically impossible to be paid for doing something media related that doesn't come out of a pocket full of blood. Nascent efforts to change that (Air America Radio, for one example) are nowhere near on a par with the empires being run by the likes of Murdoch, or Disney, or General Electric. If your message is going to get anywhere beyond the cozy coterie of the likes of us, you're going to have to cross over at one time or another into corporate fascist territory.

The question is, and remains, how does that affect a candidate? Will Hillary Clinton look more favorably on petitions from Rupert Murdoch than Jonathan Edwards will? Or can either one of them follow Willie Brown's dictum that a good politician must be able to take someone's money one day and screw them the next?

[iconocrastic]

16. Ok, what's the difference between Candidate A taking money and

then demanding candidate B send hers back?

Talk about tentacles of the octopus - what a web they weave.

[Inspired]

23. Gee, I dunno...

Murdoch hosts a fundraiser for Clinton's campaign war chest.

Edwards writes a book, published by a subsidiary of a company Murdoch owns, donates the proceeds of sales of the book to charity. Not to his campaign, but to charity.

You tell me what the difference is.

Good grief.

[gratuitous]

34. As I say, it's the difference between "taking" and "earning"

Now, we can argue the merits of whether Edwards may have been paid an inflated amount for his book, but from what I gather, the Post bureau chief is mostly objecting to writers getting paid to write.

Which, I suppose, would be real good for his position in the company if they didn't have to pay the content providers. It would leave more money to pay his salary.

[JDPriestly]

9. So let's do the math.

Presumably, Murdoch's company bought the rights to the book in order to make a profit on the book. Therefore the $300,000 for Edwards' expenses presumably was a reimbursement Edwards' for out-of-pocket costs. That is not income. That was not a gift or donation. That was likely getting a mileage allowance or having your employer pay your hotel costs when you travel for business.

So we come down to a $500,000 advance of which $333,334 was actually royalties meaning pay for the labor of writing the book. That leaves $166,666 in the advance yet to be paid out in royalties. Considering that the book made enough money thus far to pay $333,334 in royalties, it is not unlikely that it will make $166,666 more in royalties as people become more interested in Edwards and his campaign and buy his books to find out more about him. It is also quite likely that the portion of the profits that Harper's pays to Edwards in royalties is smaller than the portion it keeps for itself. Therefore, it is quite likely that Harper's has made more than $333,334 on the book thus far. Just how much, we cannot determine based on the facts here.

This was a business deal. There have been cases where a politician wrote a book, the publisher paid royalties and then the publisher just gave the books away. The question is whether this was that sort of deal. Based on the facts that Harper's paid royalties to Edwards, it looks like it was a legitimate book deal.

Anyway, the $800,000 is a huge overstatement unless Harper's falsified the book sale data and was trying to buy Edwards. If Harper's was trying to buy Edwards, it is obvious from his positions on the issues that they failed miserably and Edwards outsmarted them. I'm all for authors being paid for their work just like anyone else.

The difference between the donations to Hillary and the book deal with Edwards is that Hillary didn't work for the donations -- or at least we hope she didn't work for the donations.

[ChiciB1]

12. I AM Beginning To Think The No Matter What Edwards Does, It Is

going to be attacked! It only makes me want to defend him more and more!

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between his book and DONATIONS! If one wants to believe otherwise it is their choice, however as time goes by this Republic called America feels less and less like a Democracy!

I see ANARCHY on the horizon! I'm so SICK of the back-biting and hateful comments from Democrats about Democratic nominees. For crying out loud, we have far too many vengeful Repukes to contend with and yet we continue this harangue day after day after day!!

What a shame!

[iconocrastic]

17. Edwards was the one who went on attack against other candidates

but he's bought and paid for. $800,000? C'mon.

[jsamuel]

20. Edwards got ZERO DOLLARS FOR THIS BOOK

[jsamuel]

19. Edwards got ZERO DOLLARS FOR THIS BOOK

All the money went to charity.

[jsamuel]

14. All proceeds were donated to charity. Edwards gets attacked for donating to charity again...

He better stop doing things for charity, because every time he does, he gets attacked for it.

:sarcasm:

[GreenTea]

15. Is this Obama or Murdoch's NY Post again trashing Edwards? I expect royalties if I write a book!

What would you expect for your long hard work? Jello?

[MannyGoldstein]

18. This Is S-o-o-o John Edwards

Down to his declining to provide proof that the money went to charity.

This guy is a lot of fun.

[Inspired]

21. Actually, this is s-o-o-o Murdoch.

If you weren't so biased against Edwards, you could see what is really going on here.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. I'll Bite: What Is Really Going On Here? n/t

[Adelante]

22. Most amusing

But maybe he didn't know Murdoch owned the publishing company or he could have gone with a different publisher.

[NYCGirl]

28. Harper Collins is very well known in the publishing business. Don't you think

his agent would know that?

[Adelante]

29. Duh, NYCGirl

:D

[NYCGirl]

31. Well then it is "most amusing." Or most puzzling. NT

[Adelante]

33. Nah, just typical

Hands it over on a silver platter - again and again and again.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Edwards Also Didn't Know His Hedge Fund Employer Specialized In Predatory Lending Ventures

I guess he forgot to ask.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Damn, Edwards must suck on hedge funds. What does that say about these candidates?

You appear to be convinced HRC and JE are corporate tools. Yet you seem to have a blind spot for a certain candidate (who has as much, if not more corporate support than Hillary and far more corporate backing than Edwards) simply because he has no real record (a fact that is certainly not lost on corporate America...). Gotta have faith?

Money from hedge funds

1) Romney $797,325
2) Dodd $726,950
3) Clinton $703,600
4) Obama $652,105
5) Giuliani $644,750
6) McCain $255,950
7) Edwards $218,290
8) Richardson $85,900

Bankruptcy bill time, right? Let's see who the banking industry is voting for.

Money from commercial banks

1) Obama $607,259
2) Clinton $492,725
3) McCain $479,085
4) Romney $451,771
5) Giuliani $416,901
6) Dodd $352,500
7) Edwards $131,876
8) Biden $102,250
9) Richardson $83,000

Totals from these two industries of interest to Manny

1) Obama $1.26 million
2) Romney $1.25 million
3) Clinton $1.19 million
4) Dodd $1.08 million
5) Giuliani $1.06 million
6) McCain $0.74 million
7) Edwards $0.35 million
8) Richardson $0.17 million

Edwards is not perfect but in your search for a white knight you may be setting yourself up for a rude awakening...

[gasperc]

24. Money donated to charity, Post hit piece

thier reporting is so bad it's criminal

[be inspired]

25. Why repeat Fox News garbage?

I hate it when Democrats repeat Fox News garbage to smear other Democrats.

Edwards gave ALL of the proceeds from that book to Habitat for Humanity and International Rescue Committee and the College for Everyone program.

[Inspired]

26. Thanks for stating which charities the money went to.

I remembered Habitat for Humanity but not the others.

These are good causes.

[jefferson_dem]

30. Why pretend like the charge (bogus or not) hasn't been levied?

Fact is, this has become a common meme within certain circles. Here's a place to thoroughly debunk it.

See...like clarifying for us all...and the dolts who parrot the FauxNews talking points...that the money was donated to a more-than-worthy cause.

[lynne]

35. Edwards may have given his compensation to charity -

- but what about Murdoch? He certainly pocketed some substantial change from the publication of Edwards book. And Murdoch then donates some of that change to Hillary.

Seems to me that Edwards may have unintentionally helped finance his own opponent! Oh, the irony!!!!