09/24/2007 05:10 pm ET Updated May 25, 2011

Rules Don't Apply to Rudy. Or Do They?

Rudy Giuliani is a hypocrite who thinks he should live by rules different than others. He attacked and the New York Times for the rate charged for a newspaper ad. Promptly, he ran an ad in response and paid... wait for it... the SAME amount.

Since the NYT says it was a mistake that they were charged the lower amount, MoveOn promptly paid the difference in an 'abundance of caution'. Rudy refuses to.

The wingnuts filed an FEC complaint against MoveOn and the NYT, but didn't include Rudy. That oversight has now been corrected:

September 24, 2007

Lane Hudson
Washington, DC

General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463

Dear Counsel:

This is a formal complaint against the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee, Inc. for the receipt of corporate soft money contribution in excess of the limits established by the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The information in this complaint is derived from publicly available reports on the internet and falls under 2 U.S.C. 441 B and 11 CFR S 114.2.

In response to an advertisement purchased by Political Action on September 19, 2007, the Giuliani Campaign purchased an advertisement to run in the September 14 publication of the New York Times. Both Political Action and the Giuliani Campaign paid $64,575 for their respective ads. This ad quote is known as the 'standby rate' because the day of publication and its placement are not guaranteed.

In a September 23, 2007 newspaper column, Public Editor of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, admitted that the New York Times made a mistake in charging the standby rate:

Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, "We made a mistake." She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, "That was contrary to our policies." responded to the column by saying this on September 23:

Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the Times...

In the same column, Mr. Hoyt has this to say about the advertisement purchased by Mr. Giuliani:

In the fallout from the ad, Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday's Times to answer He got it -- and at the same $64,575 rate that paid.

According to the New York Times' own policy, Mr. Giuliani should have paid the fixed-date rate instead of the standby rate. Therefore, the difference, $77,083 is an in-kind corporate contribution, which far exceeds the limits allowed by law. Now that he has knowledge that his campaign is in receipt of an illegal $77,083 contribution from the New York Times, it is incumbent on Mr. Giuliani to repay the difference. If he does not, that is not just a violation of the law but a betrayal of the public trust at a time when Americans want integrity from our leaders.

When Mr. Giuliani's campaign was called on to pay the difference, therefore avoiding a violation of law, his campaign declined to do so.

Respectfully submitted,

Lane Hudson