MSNBC UPDATE:
By on Mar 17th, 2006 at 9:52 am
MSNBC UPDATE:
On Wednesday, ThinkProgress reported that three interest groups confirmed they paid speaking fees to Chris Matthews. Yesterday, we were contacted by MSNBC President Rick Kaplan who elaborated the blanket denial (“Totally untrue…totallyâ€) he provided to ThinkProgress pre-publication. According to Kaplan, while these groups may have paid fees for Matthews to speak, the fees did not go to Matthews directly, but to a charity of Matthews’s choosing. Kaplan added that NBC policy prohibited anchors from personally accepting speaking fees and anyone who did so “would risk being fired.â€
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What’s the issue? That he didn’t accept fees directly, or that he prefers to speak to conservative groups only?
March 17th, 2006 at 9:56 amIf it’s true, that is good.
Doesn’t change the fact the Mathews is a bushco apologist and ass kisser though. he might as well as be on Phaux Pnews.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:56 amUm, so what was that charity again? The Chris Mathews Bank Account Fund perhaps?
March 17th, 2006 at 9:57 amAh, so now there’s a “clarification” — that the fees were paid to charity. Two things… first, got the receipts? Second… wouldn’t that still be a bit “iffy”, ethically speaking?
March 17th, 2006 at 9:57 amI wonder what that ‘charity’ was? hmmmmmmmmmmmm
March 17th, 2006 at 9:58 amRegardless, this certainly invalidates the ‘blanket denial’ of “anything of the sort”.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:59 amDoes he receive a tax write-off?
March 17th, 2006 at 10:02 amI’d like to know the charity’s name, when the monies were paid to Matthews (err, MSNBC), when the monies were donated to the charity, and whether it ever went through Matthews’ own bank account.
And yes, I’m wondering if he got a tax write-off for this.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:07 amDump the bird!
If anything, this should prove some of his more bizarre comments in favor of Bush, such as “only whackos” don’t like him. That was just flat false and I believe comments like that are more than just “miscues” in judgment.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:09 amYes, and Matthews gets a tax deduction?
March 17th, 2006 at 10:12 amOkay…so he was solicited to speak at a CONSERVATIVE function and got caught, and suddenly the money has gone to his charities…
Can you say JACK ABRAMOFF!!!
I’d trust receipts and bank statements, rather than his word on the matter!
March 17th, 2006 at 10:12 amFirst of all, the guy isses a flat-out denial of any payment at all. NOw suddenly he admits there was payment but not to Mathews? If that is the case then why lie in the first place?
Second, If these institutions gave the money to charity then why would they have records of giving the money to Mathews? Thinkprogress easily found out the info they did because the companies paid MATHEWS the money, not the charity on Mathews behalf. So clearly, the money was handed to Mathews to do what he wanted.
Third, IF Mathews gave the money to charity then surely he has receipts for the donation. There is no way someone would give that much money to charity and not receive a receipt. And all tac info should be kept for roughl 7 years in case of a future audit. I’m sure someone like Mathews has an accountant who can verify this. So Mathews should produce the receipts and PROVE that every single penny he received for speaking went to charity.
Frankly, the fact that the guy said Mathew received no money and later had to “clarify” but not so much that we could look into it is suspicious enough. This is BS and Mathews should be fired.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:14 amI wonder what that ‘charity’ was? hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Comment by wisedup — March 17, 2006 @ 9:58 am
The Chris Matthews Mortgage and Vacation House in the Bahamas Fund?
March 17th, 2006 at 10:15 amExactly. It doesn’t really matter if the money went directly to Chris or if it went to a charity of his choice. He spoke conservative talking points because he was given a gift by the conservatives and that is the bottom line.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:15 amCharity info can be found at:
Fill_My_Back_Pocket.org
jk
March 17th, 2006 at 10:17 amThanks ‘unbelievable’, that clears that up, at first I thought it ‘might’ have been for personal gain.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:21 amMethinks Kaplan lies.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:26 amOh that liberal media.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:32 amNBC’s policy of firing anyone who accepts money for speaking seems to be a lot like Bush’s policy of firing anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:41 amThanks ‘unbelievable’, that clears that up, at first I thought it ‘might’ have been for personal gain.
Comment by wisedup — March 17, 2006 @ 10:21 am
No problem ;)
Though I imagine that he will have to give additional contributions to other such charities as his fee accumulates.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:53 amWhat about The Chris Matthews Loves George Bush’s Codpiece Early Retirement and Starbucks Fund?
March 17th, 2006 at 11:03 amWhat about The Chris Matthews Loves George Bush’s Codpiece Early Retirement and Starbucks Fund?
Comment by Flamethrower — March 17, 2006 @ 11:03 am
I think they just got their non-profit status and will be accepting contributions first thing Monday morning…
March 17th, 2006 at 11:07 am“We’re all neo-cons now.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
“We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple. We’re not like the Brits.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)
“Why don’t the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)
“What’s he (Howard Dean) going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it’s over? I mean, don’t these things sort of lose their–Isn’t there a fresh date on some of these debate points?”
March 17th, 2006 at 11:09 am(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean–4/9/03)
bobcat_grad, #23.
Those Tweety quotes are making me retch.
I need peppermint tea.
What an imbecile.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:21 amWho took the tax deduction for the donation?
March 17th, 2006 at 11:24 amDid Kaplan see the canceled checks? Someone ought to ask him. Kaplan’s denial on behalf of Matthews might just be a laundered lie to cover the tracks of laundered speaking fees. Until someone in the press gets hard facts, I don’t think Kaplan is to be believed.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:24 amTweety needs to cough up some documentation.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:30 amTweety needs to cough up some documentation.
Yeah, he prolly gagged on his Wheaties when Kaplan called him on this too.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:39 amWho knew Bushies could be so charitable. Matthews is following the footsteps of Abramoff
March 17th, 2006 at 11:39 amHe probably gave the money to Bush’s relection campaing. You know a little thing like thing constitution won’t stop Bush from running again.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:50 amGod, I hope I’m joking.
*relection campaign…uhn and the constitution. In fact, ignore that whole post!
March 17th, 2006 at 11:52 amEveryone on this blog is right Chris gets a tax right off. Now that lowers his tax rate thereby giving him more money. I guess Kaplan doesn’t realize its tax time and every American is looking at how much they can right off. NBC has lost the trust of most Americans and if they want to restore that its time to clean house. Chris must go and now with Kaplan covering up for him Kaplan has to go. NBC must bring back honest people no matter what party their for.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:54 amI will NOT accept responsibility for my typos! As of several days ago, the font changed in my comment box. I can barely read it to proof read now. So clearly, it’s the site administrator’s fault.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:55 amSeriously though, did this happen to everyone?
God, I hope I’m joking.
Comment by Lily — March 17, 2006 @ 11:50 am
Someone said that they think Cheney will retire after the election this year. I think that’s highly likely so Georgie can pick a new V.P. who will run in 2008 and have 2 years to become corrupt enough. So, in essence, you might be right… unfortunately.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:56 amSeriously though, did this happen to everyone?
Comment by Lily — March 17, 2006 @ 11:55 am
Yes… And my typos have been even worse than normal too.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pmAs usual, we notice the BushCo apologists bouncing like a pinball from one implausible alternative explanation of what happened to another.
First, “Totally untrue…totallyâ€
Now, “The money went to charity…otherwise he would risk being fired”
I predict the following:
March 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pm“He TOLD us it went to charity and we believed him at the time”
followed by SILENCE when Kaplan is asked whether he will ACTUALLY fire Tweety for keeping the money.
Who taught Tweety that move? His buddy JackOFF?
March 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pmOf course, it could turn out to be a charity run by either Ralph Reed, Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, or Grover Norquist. That would surprise exactly NO ONE.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:05 pmSeems to me the pertinent question now is, who is supplementing Rick Kaplan’s already prodigious and inflated income.
As for Tweety’s “charity,” I hope he’s set up a fund to benefit serial liars cope with social ostracization. He can be their poster child.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#33, quit your beef, just plaster your nose to the frakkin’ screen like everyone else.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmWhat was the charity? The Heritage Foundation? The Unification Church? The Bush Library?
And how much did he save through the tax deductions?
March 17th, 2006 at 12:12 pmTweety absolutely disgusts me every time he’s on the TV. Having said that, I’ve got some grudging respect for him if he took the time to speak to groups rather than to go out to a movie or something if he didn’t receive a tax break. The damage he does has nothing to do with getting paid to speak to business, but getting paid to speak for business.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:13 pmAll these guys have their “favorite charity”. Norver and Abranoff used theirs to launder money. Tweety knows these guys. Is his the same type of “charity”?
Let’s see the cancelled checks shall we. Or, maybe the IRS should look into it.
It would be swell if Tweety lost his job because he is a proven liar. I know he is just plain nuts but I would like to see him unemployed. Oh ya, he will just write a book. But no one will buy it.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:14 pmIs the charity one of Jack Abramoff’s?
March 17th, 2006 at 12:25 pmUmmm…did Tweety negotiate at Signatures to have his $ go directly to Abramoff’s charities or to DeLay’s? Or was it a 50/50 split between them? Just askin’
March 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pmOf course he wrote it off. These short curt denials with little info are released in the hopes we just go away.
Matthews in the 35% tax bracket. These speaking fees are literally “money in the bank” to this joker.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pmEven if Matthews takes no tax deduction for donating the speaking fees to charity, and even if the charities are legitimate and not money laundering operations like some of the Santorum, Delay, and Abramoff charities apparently are, the speaking is inappropriate on three counts. 1)He is speaking to groups that have specific political agendas and accepting financial renumeration from them. Were he speaking to nonpolitical organizations (501c3 status) the situation would be different. But he is cultivating a client base of conservative organizations. His performance on his show will affect their decisions to hire him to speak before their organizations. 2)That he is donating the speaking fees to charity may be noble but its a personal decision and allows him to use more of his other income for other purposes. He could donate equal amounts to charity from his MSNBC salary and use the speaking fees on booze and hookers. The charity would get the same amount of money, Matthews would accrue all the prestige of making large donations to charity, and his lifestyle would remain the same. 3)The final reason is the reason that Kaplan is so touchy about this issue. Matthews is able to use these speaking engagments to court potential sponsors for his and other MSNBC shows. A purported news organization should not be whoring their on-air talent and editorial slant out to potential and exisiting sponsors. Kaplan won’t stop this practice for the simple reason that he can’t afford to do so.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:49 pmI’m betting the donations happened within the last two weeks. That would account for the shifting stories. In my book, Tweety’s still not off the hook until he gives a full account.
I’m sure he’s probably thinking, “Hey, I’m not a politician! I don’t have to play by those rules!” but he has the public trust, and yes, he is held to a higher standard.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#33 – No-line bifocals are FABULOUS!! Give in, it’s worth it!
March 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pmrk: of course, you’re right. Against the backdrop of what Hardball is (not news), this issue seems to me like nothing at all. MSNBC knows damn well what Matthews is, and if that doesn’t bother them, then why should a little networking? It’s innappropriate, but so is Hardball. Anyway, thanks for not being lazy about enumerating all the reasons why. I wholeheartedly agree.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pm#33 – No-line bifocals are FABULOUS!! Give in, it’s worth it!
Comment by Zookeeper — March 17, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
What about for those of us who are far-sighted and under 50? :)
March 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pmJudd,
Did he receive fees of *any kind* at *any* of these engagements?
This would include indirect fees, i.e., if he had a position at one of those charities and was reimbursed for travel, etc. That would appear to violate their policy if he was propping ‘his’ charity up.
If he did have the fees donated, I don’t really see an issue other than that he is still a partisan hack. He would not have violated their internal policy (even if he had ‘bended it’ or broken it a few time MSNBC would just let it slide sadly anyway) and would only have been showing his ‘true colors’.
I support people, including prominent media personalities, attending partisan events and even speaking at them. I do not, however, believe that total nondisclosure is appropriate as it allows Matthews and others to take a position in public that they do not take in private (or to a limited audience) or to bend the private opinion into a sort of respectable nonpartisan dialogue.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pmMatthews Chris just stepped in his
own Reich Wing Doo Doo, eh?
Feingold / Dorgan ‘08!
March 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmWhat about for those of us who are far-sighted and under 50? :)
Comment by unbelievable — March 17, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
OOps… meant near-sighted…
March 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI hope ThinkProgress will follow up with the groups that made the payments. Did they make checks out to Matthews or to the charities? (It’s a little odd that the groups would say they paid Matthews, rather than saying they gave to charities in Matthews’ name.)
And as others have noted, it would be important to know whether Matthews took tax deductions for any fees given to the charities.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pmIt’s not like anyone has ever used a charity to launder money.
Tom DeLay
March 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pmJack – Off
Rick Santorum
No…he probably didn’t get paid. But he probably submitted expenses to the organizations, i.e., airfare, cabs, hotel, meals……and they probably added up to about ohhhhhh…….50,000 per engagement. Tax free….. not a fee.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:17 pmPHUX NUTWORK
Starring Filth O’lielly
Flush Dimbulb
Vannity and CULLmes
Manne Colter
Terd Blossom
Silly Krystol
WolfoPutz
and the Rest of the Gang
WITH A special appearance by
Grease Matthews
“I did not have relations with those Greenbacks” –Grease Matthews
March 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pm#58 ROFL. Thanks.
Matthews must luuuuuv getting paid to kiss the RupubliKKKans asses. With all the money on his bed, he’ll be rolling around in it as well as rubbing himself whether or not he hears the seductive voice of the Chimp.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pmBTW, how the hell did Kaplan get in contact with this site?
I guess he must have accidentally skipped over the Mary Carey porn site.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:25 pmEven if mattews donated his speaking fees to charity he still benefited in several ways. First, he certainly would have taken a deuction for the donation which would have amounted to a substantial amount as Matthews is almost certainly in the highest marginal income tax bracket. Second, mattews would have recieved the reputational benefit derived from being a large charitable giver.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:00 pmWhat I have to say to Mr. Kaplan is the same as Mr. McCormick of NBC said to me last week in an Email — prove it. Show me the charities who received the money, dates and amounts. Who paid for the transportation and lodging.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:56 pmThen show me how Matthews is not a Bush ass-kisser, while playing the role of an objective journalist.
#33 Lily
March 17th, 2006 at 6:03 pmAfter I was unable to comment at Think Progress for a couple of days because of new anti-spam software that they installed, I too have found that as I type my comments, the font is about a 6 point instead of the former 10 or 12 point. It is a little more difficult to catch errors, but this site is too much fun and too informative to prevent me from posting – and I am afraid if I try to have it changed, I may end up in the technological circle I was entrapped in last week.
#51 – What about for those of us who are far-sighted and under 50? :)
I am both! The cruelest thing you could do to me is move my glasses from their designated spot. My son thought that would be funny – once.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:15 pmWhy is everyone so down on Chris Mathews? Hes one of the only voices in the main stream media hitting bush with his full arsonal.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:51 amSince Kaplan knows the details, couldn’t he propose to Matthews to provide the dates of the speaches, the amount the talks provided, the dates the checks were written, the dates cashed, the name on the checks, if made out to Matthews when he wrote the checks to the charities and when they cashed them and what were his expenses. If things are on the up and up no problem. If they aren’t, Kaplan is full of crap and a liar and Matthews is what most of us think he is, a Republican shill.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:48 pm