A graphic in the business section of today's New York Times runs under the headline "Donations to the Committee." The graphic lists "contributions to Senate Commerce Committee members from 1989." One column is labeled "Enron" and another is labeled "Arthur Anderson." Beneath the column headings are dollar amounts. The Times lists the source of the information in the graphic as the Center for Responsive Politics. Check out the web site of the Center for Responsive Politics, though, and it's clear that the center, unlike the Times, is careful to note that "Totals include contributions from Enron's PAC and its employees."
The Times might consider that a distinction without a difference. But in fact, direct corporate hard-money contributions to individual federal campaigns are banned under federal campaign regulations. So it's a distinction that matters, at least to the Federal Election Commission.
More intriguingly, though, consider what would happen if the Times treated another company they way it treats Enron and Arthur Andersen employees in today's graphic, describing contributions made by individual employees as contributions made by "Enron" or "Arthur Andersen." Imagine if such a standard were applied at, say, The New York Times Company. By that standard, the New York Times contributed $3,950 to the campaign war chest of Hillary Clinton. In fact, these contributions, according to FEC records, were not from the New York Times but from its employees -- including John Rockwell ($2000) and Karen Arenson ($1000). Those names match those of an arts editor at the Times and a reporter who covers philanthropy and higher education, though it's certainly possible that there are other Times employees with those names. An owner of the Times, Marian Sulzberger Heiskell, gave $500 to the campaign of Rep. Jose Serrano, a Democrat who in August issued a press release that said, "Following a series of meetings and rallies with the Rev. Al Sharpton, Congressman Jose E. Serrano today called upon Democrats to take seriously the potential candidacy of the Rev. Sharpton for President of the United States. 'Rev. Sharpton is the political leader in this country who speaks most consistently to the issues poor people care about. He does not fear the political downside of speaking the truth about poverty in America; his concern for the poor and disenfranchised -- African Americans and Hispanics equally -- is genuine. . . . I believe that the moral energy of Rev. Sharpton will help to awaken the conscience of my party which for too long now has been relaxing in the safety of the political center.'" Also receiving contributions from those who identify themselves as Times Company employees are Senator Torricelli and the Democratic National Committee.
Smartertimes.com thinks it would be a mistake to confuse the overwhelmingly liberal campaign contributions of the New York Times Company employees with the political stance of the newspaper's news columns or the company itself, which, of course, is scrupulously nonpartisan. The only question is why the New York Times newspaper, in its business section today, does not pay Enron and Arthur Andersen the courtesy of making the same distinction.