Washington Babylon — June 17, 2008, 10:17 am

Bob Woodward’s “Charity”: Follow the Money, If You Can Find It

Plus: Post Ombudsman to Weigh In, Expect Heavy Hand on Scale

The Chronicle of Philanthropy has picked up and advanced my story last week about Bob Woodward’s speaking engagements with various corporate groups and the operations of his charitable foundation.

The Woodward Walsh Foundation distributed $17,555 in grants in 2007 — roughly 1.5 percent of its assets at the beginning of its 2007 tax year. Many of its grantees include private schools such as the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington and universities including Princeton University and the University of Virginia, according to its tax form. The Woodward Walsh Foundation contributed more than $135,000 through grants in 2006. Much of that money, roughly $103,000, went to the Sidwell Friends School.

Sidwell is one of the most elite schools in Washington, where Woodward’s children attended. When Woodward played Celebrity Jeopardy a few years ago, he played for Sidwell.

According to the Foundation Center private foundations must make “qualifying distributions” of a minimum of “5 percent of the average market value of their investment assets in any given fiscal year by the end of the following year.” During four of the past eight tax filing periods, Woodward’s foundation did not give out 5 percent of its assets, but met the letter of this rule with grants issued the following year. It’s hard to see how the Foundation could withstand serious ethical scrutiny, not to mention an IRS audit.

“[I]t is the responsibility of the media in a democracy to inform the public about what their elected officials are doing and how they are handling their responsibilities, but it is equally important for non-political figures to be held accountable for what they do,” Woodward writes on his website. But does this rule apply to Woodward, too?

Meanwhile, the Washington Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell, called me and said she would probably write a column about the issue of Woodward’s and David Broder’s speaking engagements. I can’t wait to see what Howell writes, though she said a few things on the phone that I found odd. Her very first question was to ask me if I knew a person who, she told me, had come to her months ago with similar information to what I had published.

I told Ms. Howell that I wouldn’t answer yes or no, for obvious reasons, and that as a journalist I found it unusual that she was essentially asking me to name a source. (And it’s even more unusual that she would disclose to me the name of someone who presumably approached her in confidence). Howell explained that while she had once been a journalist she now played a different role–though I would think that as a Post writer and ombudsman she would still be a “journalist” and adhere to the most elementary rules of journalism–such as “don’t identify confidential sources, or ask other journalists to do the same.”

Howell also expressed surprise when I told her I had sought comment from Broder before publishing my story. Broder had told her I did not, and it seemed that she was prepared to take his word for it. So I forwarded her the emails I had sent Broder forty-eight and twenty-four hours before publication and informed her that I had called and left him a message on his voicemail as well. I also noted that Editor & Publisher had sought comment from Broder about my story and never heard back either.

I told Howell that I had called Woodward with very little notice before publishing my first short item on him, because I had received word that another reporter was working on a similar story and wanted to get my piece out quickly. (If he had called back I would have published his comments–items on the web can be updated immediately as circumstances warrant.) I also emailed Woodward at the Post shortly after that piece ran and a full day before the second, longer story ran. And I called Woodward at home yesterday and left a message with someone who said he was busy and that she would tell him I had called. He never responded to any of those requests for comment.

Howell told me that she wasn’t even sure if the Post had written guidelines on the question of employees taking speaking fees. How’s that for arrogance on the part of the Post? It must be nice to just make up your own rules on the fly. For years the Post savaged members of Congress for taking big outside speaking fees, but it seems the paper doesn’t care to subject its own reporters to the standards to which it demands politicians be held.

The New York Times does have written rules, which can be found online. “Where permitted by local policy, staff members who deliver speeches may accept fees, honorariums, expense reimbursement and free transportation, but only from educational or other nonprofit groups for which lobbying and political activity are not a major focus [emphasis added],” the rules state. Under those rules, Broder and Woodward would not have been allowed to accept many of the speaking engagements they have accepted these past few years. Nor would those speeches have been allowed under the policies implemented during the last “buckraking” scandal (unless they have been loosened) at ABC, Time, or NBC.

Here are some questions (slightly edited) that I emailed to Howell and which I hope she’ll be addressing:

  • Do you see any potential problems with Woodward’s and Broder’s speeches?
  • Will they continue to accept such gigs? Or if they have stopped accepting, what prompted them to do so?
  • Were Woodward and Broder’s speeches approved by Len Downie or anyone at the Post?
  • Do you think perhaps that there should be some sort of public disclosure of speaking gigs and fees?

One last thing: I mentioned before that Woodward has some speaking events set up for later this year. And Broder looks set to appear as the keynote speaker this September for the Massachusetts Bankers Association, at the Equinox Resort and Spa. That event will focus on “on vital issues affecting the financial services industry.”

This story was reported with the help of Sebastian Jones.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2019

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Good Bad Bad Good·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

About fifteen years ago, my roommate and I developed a classification system for TV and movies. Each title was slotted into one of four categories: Good-Good; Bad-Good; Good-Bad; Bad-Bad. The first qualifier was qualitative, while the second represented a high-low binary, the title’s aspiration toward capital-A Art or lack thereof.

Some taxonomies were inarguable. The O.C., a Fox series about California rich kids and their beautiful swimming pools, was delightfully Good-Bad. Paul Haggis’s heavy-handed morality play, Crash, which won the Oscar for Best Picture, was gallingly Bad-Good. The films of Francois Truffaut, Good-Good; the CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men, Bad-Bad.

Article
Constitution in Crisis·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

America’s Constitution was once celebrated as a radical and successful blueprint for democratic governance, a model for fledgling republics across the world. But decades of political gridlock, electoral corruption, and dysfunction in our system of government have forced scholars, activists, and citizens to question the document’s ability to address the thorniest issues of modern ­political life.

Does the path out of our current era of stalemate, minority rule, and executive abuse require amending the Constitution? Do we need a new constitutional convention to rewrite the document and update it for the twenty-­first century? Should we abolish it entirely?

This spring, Harper’s Magazine invited five lawmakers and scholars to New York University’s law school to consider the constitutional crisis of the twenty-­first century. The event was moderated by Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown and the author of How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon.

Article
Life after Life·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

For time ylost, this know ye,
By no way may recovered be.
—Chaucer

I spent thirty-eight years in prison and have been a free man for just under two. After killing a man named Thomas Allen Fellowes in a drunken, drugged-up fistfight in 1980, when I was nineteen years old, I was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Former California governor Jerry Brown commuted my sentence and I was released in 2017, five days before Christmas. The law in California, like in most states, grants the governor the right to alter sentences. After many years of advocating for the reformation of the prison system into one that encourages rehabilitation, I had my life restored to me.

Article
Power of Attorney·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In a Walmart parking lot in Portsmouth, Virginia, in 2015, a white police officer named Stephen Rankin shot and killed an unarmed, eighteen-­year-­old black man named William Chapman. “This is my second one,” he told a bystander seconds after firing the fatal shots, seemingly in reference to an incident four years earlier, when he had shot and killed another unarmed man, an immigrant from Kazakhstan. Rankin, a Navy veteran, had been arresting Chapman for shoplifting when, he claimed, Chapman charged him in a manner so threatening that he feared for his life, leaving him no option but to shoot to kill—­the standard and almost invariably successful defense for officers when called to account for shooting civilians. Rankin had faced no charges for his earlier killing, but this time, something unexpected happened: Rankin was indicted on a charge of first-­degree murder by Portsmouth’s newly elected chief prosecutor, thirty-­one-year-­old Stephanie Morales. Furthermore, she announced that she would try the case herself, the first time she had ever prosecuted a homicide. “No one could remember us having an actual prosecution for the killing of an unarmed person by the police,” Morales told me. “I got a lot of feedback, a lot of people saying, ‘You shouldn’t try this case. If you don’t win, it may affect your reelection. Let someone else do it.’ ”

Article
Secrets and Lies·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1973, when Barry Singer was a fifteen-year-old student at New York’s Yeshiva University High School for Boys, the vice principal, Rabbi George Finkelstein, stopped him in a stairwell. Claiming he wanted to check his tzitzit—the strings attached to Singer’s prayer shawl—Finkelstein, Singer says, pushed the boy over the third-floor banister, in full view of his classmates, and reached down his pants. “If he’s not wearing tzitzit,” Finkelstein told the surrounding children, “he’s going over the stairs!”

“He played it as a joke, but I was completely at his mercy,” Singer recalled. For the rest of his time at Yeshiva, Singer would often wear his tzitzit on the outside of his shirt—though this was regarded as rebellious—for fear that Finkelstein might find an excuse to assault him again.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

A federal judge authored a 69-page ruling preventing New York City from enforcing zoning laws pertaining to adult bookstores and strip clubs.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today