Edwards' Foundation

I see where John Edwards' defenders against yesterday's New York Times story on his anti-poverty foundation -- see Ezra Klein and Steven White are coming from -- there's nothing very scandalous here. In particular, there's nothing at all here that's scandalous if you're an even mildly cynical political sophisticate, since it was always clear if you were paying attention that Edwards' outfit existed, in part, to test the viability of a 2008 presidential bid.

The story does, however, highlight that the flipside of the Edwards campaign's heavy focus on policy has been that it's been unusually light on narrative. Edwards standard pitch doesn't much of a story about his personal and political evolution over the past three or four years which is a situation that sets himself up for various charges of being a phony. Most people I know -- myself included -- don't really care about "authenticity" in this sense and are much more interested in the policy agenda Edwards has adopted than the precise question of why he's adopted it. But, of course, politics doesn't work that way and lots of people do want at least a veneer of authenticity. This strikes me as a problem that's pretty easy to address, but it'll have to be addressed.

Comments

"at least a veneer of authenticity."

Well done, Matt.

Posted by jhupp | June 23, 2007 12:13 PM

But, of course, politics doesn't work that way and lots of people do want at least a veneer of authenticity.

That's not the least bit clear. We are often confounded by the claims that supporters make on behalf of their candidates: Bush is brave, Giuliani is...well, you had a whole thing on that, HRC is human, Romney is a conservative. It looks like people are willing to ascribe authenticity to candidates that they like.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 23, 2007 12:15 PM

Most people I know -- myself included -- don't really care about "authenticity" in this sense and are much more interested in the policy agenda Edwards has adopted than the precise question of why he's adopted it.

Really. So if hypothetically he was, say, anti-national health care and was taking millions in donations from the insurance industry you wouldn't consider that to be worthy of notice?

Posted by DW | June 23, 2007 12:26 PM

Edwards's story--trite but true-is that he got bold once he left DC. That's right: he's running against the beltway. Of course Mitt Romney and everyone else is too, to a degree, but Edwards's literal and figurative break with DC--the consultants, the lobbyists, the Senate--seems to have been the tipping point for his evolution, beginning with saying "I was wrong" about Iraq, which you're not supposed to do on national security.

Now I agree he hasn't yet fully formed a narrative. He cites his travel overseas as formative and general "seasoning" but if I were Edwards I'd talk more about his liberation from DC consulants like Bob Shrum and the conventional wisdom they spout. Most people already hate him there anyway. And that way there will be a link between the personal narrative and policy, and that way his recent One America Speech will be about both Edwards the man and his policies:

"One America – middle-class America – long forgotten by Washington; and another America – narrow-interest America – whose every wish is Washington's command. It's no coincidence that our economy is only working for a few when Washington is only working for a few. Since 1996, the number of Washington lobbyists has tripled to 36,000. That's 20 times more people than live in my hometown of Robbins, North Carolina. It's 60 lobbyists for every member of Congress. Sixty. And I can tell you from experience, a lot of them are more powerful than the members...There are a lot of people, especially people in Washington, who don't want me to talk about the Two Americas. And if you think they don't want me to talk about middle class Americans, you can bet they don't want me to talk about the 37 million Americans who are living in poverty here in the wealthiest nation on earth."

Posted by david mizner | June 23, 2007 1:17 PM

I am not an Edwards supporter but, I was angry at the treatment he keeps getting in regards to his wealth and his desire to help those in poverty.
I honestly do not see the problem.
but, the press keeps trying to make him sound slimy and up to something.
If they want to look into questionable dealings and such, maybe they should stop goo gooing over Hillary and start looking into her activities.
Edwards is trying to help people. no big deal.
I wish they would lay off the man. and I wish they would treat the candidates the same. Hold Hillary to the same standard they do to Edwards.

Posted by vwcat | June 23, 2007 1:37 PM

If you can't trust that the candidate actually believes in and will carry out his proposed agenda, how does it matter how good that agenda is.
To me, authenticity is the most important thing to look at. I don't care what the candidate is proposing if I don't think they're authentic. I'm guessing most voters would agree with me on that.

Also, I don't think this problem is one that can be easily addressed. It's something that already should have been addressed. It's too late now; the narrative of Edwards being a phony is already out there. Any attempt to address it will be seen as defensive and confirming the narrative.

Posted by Tom | June 23, 2007 1:40 PM

To me, authenticity is the most important thing to look at.

'Authenticity' is a vague euphemism for character. 'Authenticity' is, as MY suggests, not very important. Character, OTOH, is indeed the 'most important thing to look at'. Making poverty and middle class economic issues the core of your campaign shows a lot of character, IMO. 'Authenticity' has come to mean its precise opposite. The fact that 'authenticiity' is standing in for 'character' says a lot about our political culture - you don't need to talk about authenticity all the time unless it's largely absent.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 23, 2007 1:59 PM

The misuse of a supposedly charitable foundation is a terrible thing, and the misuse of a charity by a presidential candidate means I can no longer support the candidate.

Here is a person who supposedly cares for others, showing no care at all other than to be president. This is a problem that canot be "addressed," the possibility of John Edwards being president or vice president has sadly ended.

Posted by Jennifer | June 23, 2007 2:17 PM

How can misuse of funds raised for an anti-poverty foundation ever be addressed by a candidate who is forever telling us of concern for poverty? I was heartsick at this story, but am simply mad now.

Posted by Jennifer | June 23, 2007 2:20 PM

"I am not an Edwards supporter but, I was angry at the treatment he keeps getting in regards to his wealth and his desire to help those in poverty."

So was I angry until this New York Times story. This is a story of an Edwards of no principles, and edwards who has betrayed his stated principles.

Posted by Jennifer | June 23, 2007 2:24 PM

jonnybutter,
Authenticity is not a vague euphemism for character. I have clearly defined what it means.
It has to do with the sense that politician truly believes in what he's proposing rather than just proposing it for political gain.

Whenever a candidate makes a shift in a direction that benefits them politically (as Romney has done towards the right, and Edwards towards the left), their authenticity is called into question.

When they pledge to strongly believe in a cause, but then don't display that belief in their personal life, their authenticity is called into question.

Edwards has a major authenticity problem and the inability of many of his supporters to even see that it exists is quite disturbing.

Posted by Tom | June 23, 2007 2:30 PM

And then you have candidates like McCain, who is about as authentic as the Cracker Barrrel. Yet, the reputation endures.

Posted by Jalmari | June 23, 2007 2:31 PM

the reason autheticity is important is because if a person does not really believe what he argues for-though edwards certainly does believe in poverty issues-that politican will not follow through on his or her promises when the political winds are not on his or her side.

Thus, for example, the problem is that a politican who talks about restoring labor rights to workers will not fight for those rights if politically the country does not support the fight even if it is the right thing to do. That's why authenticity is important it tells you whether a politican will stand with you when the fight gets tough or the political winds are against you.

Posted by dpg | June 23, 2007 2:32 PM

Jalmari,
I don't think McCain's reputation endures. Just look at where he is in the polls now. Sure, some of it has to do with conservative opposition to his position on immigration, but I also think it has to do with people realizing he isn't the straight-talker he says is. The Falwell incident and his ridiculous position on Iraq have lost him the support of independents who once trusted him, but now realize he's another phony politician.

What's interesting is that most Edwards supporters have no problem picking out the authenticity problems of Republicans like McCain, but are oblivious to the problems of their own candidate.

Posted by Tom | June 23, 2007 2:39 PM

It is entirely possible that a politician can implement a policy not because he "sincerely" believes in it, but because he seeks political gain.

But the motives behind the policy are really not that important -- what's more important is the quality of the policy.

Even looking into the future, sincerity is important only to the extent that it serves as a predictor of whether or not particular policies will be implemented. Contrary to what many commenters are suggesting above, there is no reason to think that policies are more a function of deeply held beliefs than they are of political calculations.

For example, many Republican contenders for the Presidential nomination are likely not to really believe the nonsense they are spouting about abortion, gay rights, evolution, etc. So what? Political calculations do not end on election day.

Posted by Barbar | June 23, 2007 3:00 PM

An election promise is a promise made to the public by a politician who is trying to win an election. They have long been a central element of elections and remain so today. Election promises are also notable for often being broken once a politician is in office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_promise

That's the authenticity that I care about. Edwards may still persuade me, but he hasn't so far.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 23, 2007 3:04 PM

I don't think I am being to conspiratorial in saying that this is probably one of the other camps pushing a story through a NYT connection, and given the last six years I trust the press far less than I trust the candidates.

The paneer of authenticity on all of these candidates is throwaway. Hell, Bush is renowned for delivering on the authenticity, but the man is the worst President ever.

Either way, Edwards has my vote because he is at least trying to be brave on the policy front.

Posted by Thunderlips | June 23, 2007 3:40 PM

How can misuse of funds raised for an anti-poverty foundation ever be addressed by a candidate who is forever telling us of concern for poverty?

Please, do tell how funds were misused. I'm dying to know. (please take into consideration that, contra the Times article, the purpose of the charity wasn't to fight poverty, but to come up with solutions to America's problems here and abroad [that's straight off their federal filing]).

I'm sure you'll have a well-thought out answer that doesn't rely solely on the Times piece.

Posted by jpe | June 23, 2007 4:52 PM

As Ezra and Steven White point out there wasn't anything untoward about John Edwards setting up an anti-poverty think tanks and advocacy group, but Matt is right that Edwards needs to work on connecting his policies to his own narrative. It's been coming out slowly as the insider turned outsider, who has rejected much of the pundits, consultants, political advice. I think, with the Bai piece and the quote David Mizner provides that it's starting to come out more.

That said, what is Hillary's narrative and, come to think of it, what exactly is Obama's?

Posted by AJ | June 23, 2007 5:11 PM

What's interesting is that most Edwards supporters have no problem picking out the authenticity problems of Republicans like McCain, but are oblivious to the problems of their own candidate.

I'm not oblivious to Edwards' authenticity problems because i don't see a problem there. I don't thiink he's pretending to be something he's not.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 23, 2007 5:50 PM

DW.

It would be worthy of notice, but in the end I don't really care. I'd oppose him because he was against national health care, the reason why isn't that important. Lots of republican's oppose it because they honestly believe that the free market is better, so what I'm not going to support them because of their "authenticity" They have "authentically" come to a bad policy.

Posted by Eric | June 23, 2007 10:57 PM

This is the story that made me very skeptical of Edwards

Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else — that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

http://medianation.blogspot.com/2007/05/will-kerry-save-edwards.html

Posted by Dave | June 23, 2007 11:23 PM

Posted by Jennifer | June 23, 2007 2:17 PM

How can misuse of funds raised for an anti-poverty foundation ever be addressed by a candidate who is forever telling us of concern for poverty? I was heartsick at this story, but am simply mad now.

Either the reporter is confused, or is trying to confuse you, Jennifer. The story does not focus on the charity CPO Foundation, which raised the money to run College for Everyone in a county in North Carolina, and to bring college student volunteers for spring break working in New Orleans.

It focuses on the Center for Progress and Opportunity itself, and contributions to the CPO were not tax exempt because it was not a charity. The CPO is a "social welfare" organization, which is free to engage in lobbying and public education, but can only promote a political candidate to its members. Many organizations are set up like that ... AARP is an example.

Both of the corporations were not for profit corporations, so there is no profit income available to be distributed to shareholders, so no corporate profit tax.

The article stressed the tax-exempt status of a not-for-profit corporation ... if it had stressed contributions were taxable, that would make it clearer that it was not talking about the charity.

Of course, a sitting Senator or Congressman does not have to work on policies to keep a staff together while considering a run for the White House ... they can just roll over their re-election campaign funds and re-election campaign staff into a Presidential election bid ... and oddly enough, when they voted that into law, they did not even make the same allowance for a sitting Governor.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 24, 2007 5:43 AM

"But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Mr. Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status."

This has an unpleasant smell to it; I wonder if all those anonymous donors to Mr. Edwards's organization understood what the organization was really about.

Mr. Yglesias's post is a prime example of what I don't like about the partisan blogosphere. At the end of the day, you defend the candidates and politicians you like despite the bad things they have done, despite the kind of people they really are.

I look forward with great relish to the Democratic blogs finally getting over their qualms about Mrs. Clinton and "bucking up" like good chaps once she is the nominee. The fact that this woman - as part of the Rose Law Firm - represented a power company (ultimately successfully) in their bid to squash a ballot initiative that would have lowered rates for the poor will mean nothing to Democrats once she gets the nod.

Posted by Linus | June 24, 2007 6:08 PM

Congrats all (especially Jennifer), you've made today's Daily Howler

:)

Posted by eric | June 25, 2007 2:25 PM