May 12, 2010 05:30 PM UTC

When a Mistake Becomes an Intentional Smear

• 0 Comments
• by: Middle of the Road

Recently, The Colorado Statesman took an in depth look at a shot Romanoff fired over the bow during his debate with Senator Bennet on April 23.

During the final exchange of the night, Romanoff questioned whether a campaign contribution from a private, for-profit college had influenced Bennet’s actions on a Senate committee last month when, Romanoff charged, Bennet “did nothing” to protect students from being harmed by “predatory loans.”

Romanoff specifically charges that Westwood College has been gouging students with predatory loans. He further alleges that Senator Bennet’s Banking Committee did nothing to protect students from this abuse. Taking that allegation one step further, Romanoff and his Communications Director Roy Teicher accuse Bennet of failing “to protect students from Westwood’s predatory lending practices.”

And to tie the allegation neatly together, Romanoff claims that Senator Bennet was bought off by a $2400 contribution from Westwood College three days before the bill came before the Banking Committee. Sounds quite damning, no?

Let’s take a closer look.

Romanoff’s shot raised eyebrows at the debate – it’s his most specific charge yet that Bennet’s campaign contributions are weighing him down – but under closer scrutiny, it appears Bennet did the opposite of what Romanoff charged. [Bold emphasis mine]

Perhaps some of the confusion surrounding this invented fabrication has to do with an amendment to the House financial reform bill last October that focused on establishing a separate agency to regulate “gap loans.” (A gap loan is a loan offered by private, for profit institutions to cover any additional expenses that occur and are not covered by student loans.)

California Rep. Maxine Waters proposed an amendment that would have brought schools such as Westwood under the wing of a newly created agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Important to note, the Waters amendment would not have forced colleges like Westwood to adhere to the same disclosure rules that are required for federally guaranteed student loans. Another major problem with the House bill is that it simultaneously allowed major loopholes, which is why Waters attempted to amend it.

Waters amendment failed in committee on a 33-35 vote.

Fast forward to March 2010 and the Senate financial reform bill (the same Senate bill that was filibustered by Republicans for 3 days straight until they discovered that filibustering reform was becoming a losing issue for their Party.) The Senate’s version goes much further than Maxine Waters proposed amendment by establishing broad powers for its Consumer Financial Protection Board, including bringing most consumer loans including gap loans under the umbrella.

Long story short? Bennet voted precisely for legislation that Romanoff continues to claim Bennet never introduced.

According to congressional records, rather than “[do] nothing,” Bennet voted to bring “gap loans” – and most other consumer loans, for that matter – under the authority of a newly created Consumer Financial Protection Board, charged with regulating any loan “offered or provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” In other words, Bennet voted for the legislation Romanoff said he failed to introduce.

That $2400 donation doesn’t seem to have produced the desired effect that Romanoff’s camp alleges, either. According to Westwood spokeswoman Kristina Yarrington,

“Neither Westwood nor its PAC has spoken to Bennet about the bill mentioned in the Romanoff release,” Yarrington continued, “and if we had, we would have supported the bill being killed.”

As if Bennet’s vote isn’t proof enough to counter the bribery allegation, there’s the little matter of a timeline. Let’s follow the check. The check is dated March 19th. Bennet staffers say they received it one week later, which would be four days after Bennet’s committee vote. FEC records show that the check was processed on March 29, a full seven days after the Banking Committee approved the bill.

The legislative record shows that Bennet voted for legislation that is in direct opposition to Westwood’s best interests.

Every campaign makes mistakes and from the looks of it, Romanoff just got a few facts confused and then drew some inappropriate conclusions which have now been thoroughly refuted by the Statesman article. So why are we still talking about this? Because in a May 7 editorial, Communications Director Number Four, better known as Roy Teicher, decided to publicly denounce the article and the Statesman as tools of the Bennet campaign.

The story in last week’s Statesman (“Romanoff fires ‘Westwood bullet’ at Bennet, but record suggests it’s a dud”) is a mosaic of near-facts, smoothly and cynically crafted by the Bennet campaign, as well as by the senator himself…We trust the issue will be revisited.

Just like the photo shop foolishness, a simple error is now being turned into a three week issue. A poorly researched and unfounded allegation has now become an intentional smear. Frankly, I expect this level of mud slinging from Republican candidates. How disappointing to see it coming from one of our own.

The Statesman editor appears to be more than happy to indulge Andrew Romanoff’s campaign with another look.

Editor’s Note: We stand by our story. We believe last week’s article, “Romanoff campaign fires ‘Westwood bullet’ at Bennet, but record suggests it’s a dud,” fairly and accurately portrayed arguments made by the Romanoff campaign, as well as the positions of the Bennet campaign and Westwood College, and what the documentary record shows.

Contrary to Teicher’s assertion, our story was based on multiple sources and was in no way “crafted by the Bennet campaign.” The Colorado Statesman’s reporting on aspects of the federal Truth in Lending Act wasn’t due to “the Bennet camp trot[ing] out” anything. Reporting on other Bennet campaign contributions resulted from an examination of freely available public records, not, as Teicher supposes, anything “point[ed] to” by the “Bennet campaign.”

However, we agree with Teicher’s suggestion that this story deserves another look. We’ll have an updated report in next week’s Statesman.