Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

The following exchange allegedly took place between Peter Bronson and someone named “Chris Maze.” I have placed the exchange in chronological order.  Quotes from The Enquirer are in italics.

Chris Maze wrote: Forwarding this email exchange I just had with a guy who works for one of your local papers. I had to get this out because it is classic.

From: chris maze
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:52 PM
To: Bronson, Peter
Subject: Obama’s giving doesn’t match talking

John McCain’s wife, Cindy, owns businesses worth more than $100 million, but they file separate tax returns and hers have not been released, so it is impossible to make a direct comparison to Obama and Clinton. On his income of $405,409, he donated $105,467 in 2007.

That’s 25 percent of his income. The year before, he gave 26 percent.

So , even thought hey are married, let’s just forget that she is worth $100 million. He didn’t give 25% of their combined income. They may of just gave a total of %1 of their combined income to charity. We will never know. You just can’t compare McCain with Clinton and Obama. You can, but you look like a hack.

From 2001 to 2006, they donated $950,000 to the McCain Family Foundation, and it gave away $1.6 million. Private schools got $500,000.Harper’s sniped, “McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.” But many parents spend on private schools while also paying taxes for public schools.

But it did go to private schools where his children went. You can’t just disregard that. Again, you can, but you look like a partisan hack.

This is my favorite:

Last year, the McCain Family Foundation’s biggest donations went to Operation Smile (facial surgery for poor children) and for removal of land mines.

And

Ten percent to charity is generous. But nearly all of it went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which has been accused of hiding shady donations to the Clinton Library, paying salaries to Clinton friends and making gifts to buy endorsements for Hillary. The Washington Post reported: “The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing only $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.”

The McCain Family Foundation went to help children. Mostly his children. Clinton’s helped themselves. And AIDS, Africa, ect. To ignore the good both these foundations do is ridiculous. To ignore the hypocrisy in both is equally ridiculous.

In short, what a transparently biased article. I am neither a supporter of Clinton or Obama, and I would have also emailed if you were “siding” with a Democrat. I just want to point out that this is terrible, terrible journalism. And you need to be much more subtle if you want to hide your biases. If not, people will stop reading you

Probably not. You are pandering to an audience. I feel bad you need to do that. Must suck laying down your journalist ethics to sell papers. Must suck even worse to be in Cincinnati.
Get out, your mind will heal up and you’ll feel better

Peace

==
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Bronson, Peter wrote:

Thanks for the note, but you’re wrong about the McCains and my column. Here’s why:

From CBS:

Because Arizona is a community property state, McCain and his wife each must report one-half of their shared income and expenses. So, though McCain reported $258,800 in taxable income on his 2007 return, the couple’s joint income was twice that amount. According to their tax returns, Cindy McCain’s income from the beer distributorship, Hensley & Company, was $432,991 in 2007. – CBS News

From the New York Times:

The returns show that over the last two years, Mr. and Mrs. McCain donated $340,323 to charitable causes, with most of his donations going to the John and Cindy McCain Family Foundation, his campaign said.

So, if we add her income and his, we get $691,000. Their joint giving (below) would still equal about 25 percent of their joint income.

As for the rest of your comments and insults, the fact remains – McCains, 25 percent; Clintons, 10 percent (being generous); Obamas 6 percent to less than 1 percent.

Best wishes,

Peter Bronson

==
From: chris maze
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:44 PM
To: Bronson, Peter
Subject: Re: Obama’s giving doesn’t match talking

Are you really not familiar with community property state laws regarding this? I am not giving you a hard time, but you are wrong. In a community property state, property owned before the marriage isn’t required to be listed. Nor is property obtained from wealth that was owned before the marriage. Also, if you inherited or were given property separately while married, you don’t have to report it. Kind of is relevant to the McCains, no? there are various smaller loopholes, but these are the big ones. Would you like me to link you to community property laws, or will you just continue to write as if I never informed you? So, again, you have no idea how much wealth they have. Your response to email was false.

As for the rest of your comments and insults, the fact remains – McCains, 25 percent; Clintons, 10 percent (being generous); Obamas 6 percent to less than 1 percent.

You are just pulling numbers you like on McCain. I just showed you why.

Would you like websites or other places where you can research this for yourself so you needn’t take my word for it?

Christopher Maze
==

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Bronson, Peter wrote:

You’re just making it more complicated to serve your point. In each case, I dealt with reported income for a given year. I did not get into the wealth of the Clintons and Obamas. Clearly, the McCain’s reported income for those years – hers and his combined – still showed contributions in the 25 percent range.

Peter Bronson
==

From: chris maze
Date: Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: Obama’s giving doesn’t match talking
To: “Bronson, Peter”

Dude, you got to be kidding me? You brought up the community property laws and were totally wrong about them! “You’re just making it more complicated” Are you kidding? I am sorry if the law is a little hard, but I offered you resources so you don’t make a fool out of yourself debating somebody on this. I’ll get a letter to the editor of your paper in response to your article explaining it so your readers can decide.

The true sign of a fool is the inability to learn things he doesn’t agree with.  Be careful bro. Don’t want to end up a fool.

Christopher Maze

Thank you for reading (and printing from) The Cincinnati Beacon.