John Edwards owes taxpayers but spends freely

John Edwards owes taxpayers $2.1 million, federal auditors say. But a new report shows his long-dead presidential campaign spent more than $836,000 in 2011 on airfare, hotel rooms, salaries and other items.

Michael Biesecker, a reporter for the Associated Press, says a required report filed by Edwards on Jan. 31 "provides little insight into what political purpose some of the campaign's recent expenses might serve." Using campaign funds for personal expenses is illegal.

Edwards' campaign spent more than $15,000 last year on airfare, including $2,268 on Alaska Airlines. It spent nearly $13,000 on hotel rooms. More than $266,000 was for salary and benefits and $315,000 went to the Washington law firm defending Edwards against the Federal Elections Commission. The FEC says Edwards' campaign took $2.1 million in taxpayer matching funds that he was not eligible for.

Biesecker details his exhaustive but unsuccessful efforts to reach Edwards or any official with his campaign. This is just another questionable chapter in the very ugly demise of Edwards' career. The public is owed an explanation.

Here's Biesecker's full story:


By Michael Biesecker
Associated Press
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – Federal election officials say John Edwards owes taxpayers more than $2.1 million in public matching funds improperly received after he dropped his 2008 run for the White House, yet disclosure reports show his failed campaign is still spending freely.
Edwards' hopes for the Democratic presidential nomination imploded in a sex scandal four years ago that left him facing criminal charges. But reports filed last week show his 2008 primary campaign spent $836,712 in 2011 on airfare, hotel rooms, cell phones and other expenses.
The campaign reported $2.1 million in cash remaining as of Dec. 31, a figure close to what the Federal Election Commission says the former North Carolina senator still owes the U.S. Treasury.
Patricia A. Fiori, one of four lawyers working for Edwards in the FEC case, said this week she could not comment, referring questions to the campaign.
Attempts by The Associated Press to find anyone who could comment for the campaign were unsuccessful. A phone number Fiori provided to contact the campaign rang busy for days, even at midnight.
Judith Ingram, the FEC's spokeswoman, said Wednesday she could not comment on whether the agency has a pending enforcement action against Edwards.
In a separate criminal case filed by the U.S. Justice Department last year, Edwards, who made millions as a trial lawyer, is accused of concealing nearly $1 million provided by two wealthy donors to hide his pregnant mistress as he ran for president.
Politicians are barred by law from using campaign funds for personal expenses. The required year-end report filed by Edwards on Jan. 31 provides little insight into what political purpose some of the campaign's recent expenses might serve.
Melanie Sloan, executive director of the campaign-finance watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said it's not unusual for presidential campaigns to remain open years after the election is over, especially if there is an unresolved audit or unpaid debts.
“All they are allowed to do are activities to wind down the campaign,” Sloan said. “If these are legitimate expenses, then the Edwards campaign should be willing to explain them.”
Edwards' campaign reports show more than $15,000 spent in 2011 on airfare, though the destinations or purpose of the travel were not listed. In January, August and December, the campaign spent $2,268 for tickets on Alaska Airlines, a transcontinental carrier that does not offer flights between East Coast cities such as Raleigh or Washington.
Most of the $12,811 in credit card charges for lodging were made to websites such as Hotels.com and Kayak.com, providing no information about where the rooms were booked, when or for what purpose.
More than $266,000 was paid for salary, payroll and health insurance premiums, along with $1,116 for cell phones. Though the campaign appears to have no office, it paid $428 to a bottled water delivery company.
The largest expense, $315,000, was paid to Utrecht & Phillips, the Washington law firm fighting last year's unanimous FEC ruling that Edwards must return its remaining funds to taxpayers.
The Chapel Hill street address listed for the number Fiori provided belongs to the former office of Edwards' defunct anti-poverty foundation, The Center for Promise and Opportunity. A receptionist for the management company that owns the building said Edwards had not been a tenant for more than three years.
Julius L. Chambers, listed as campaign treasurer on last week's 2011 finance report, is a Charlotte lawyer who retired as chancellor of N.C. Central University. He did not return calls to his office. Chambers' assistant said he was no longer associated with the Edwards campaign.
Lora M. Haggard, who co-founded the Georgia-based firm H+P Political Compliance, is listed as receiving an after-tax salary of nearly $70,000 from the campaign in 2011, with paychecks issued every two weeks. Her business partner, Jay Petterson, was paid more than $51,000.
Haggard declined to speak.
“Yes, I'm handling the reports, but as long as the audit process is ongoing I can't comment,” Haggard said. She had no contact information for Edwards or his campaign, she said.
Calls to the home of Susan W. Jackson, a Chapel Hill woman listed as getting more than $34,000 in biweekly payments, were not returned.
Edward L. Niles, a former Edwards campaign staffer who got nearly $31,000 in consulting fees, said the payments had nothing to do with his current job as targeting director at The Atlas Project, a political consulting firm in Washington. He declined to say what work, if any, he performed for Edwards in 2011.
“You'll have to talk to the campaign about that,” Niles said. Asked to provide the name of anyone at the campaign a reporter could try to reach, Niles said he didn't know of anyone.
A male voice who answered the intercom at the locked gate at Edwards' sprawling Chapel Hill estate hung up when a reporter asked to speak to Edwards or anyone affiliated with his presidential campaign.
Edwards received more than $12.9 million in federal matching funds, the money generated from the $3 box that taxpayers can check on their tax returns. Most of the public money came after he dropped out of the race Jan. 30, 2008. For weeks the married candidate had been dogged by tabloid reports of an affair with campaign staffer Rielle Hunter. After withdrawing from the race and months of public denials, Edwards eventually admitted he had fathered Hunter's baby.
In July 2011, Edwards was indicted on six criminal counts related to campaign finance violations over the money used to hide Hunter during the campaign. He has pleaded not guilty. A trial set to begin Jan. 30 was delayed when Edwards' lawyer revealed in court filings that Edwards has a serious heart condition that requires treatment.
In the separate civil action, FEC auditors concluded earlier this year that Edwards' campaign understated the amount of money it had on hand in its accounts on two separate occasions, failed to itemize more than $4.3 million in loan repayments and owed the government nearly $142,000 in checks the campaign issued that were never cashed.
The federal audit also determined Edwards got more than $2.1 million in public matching funds after his campaign was no longer eligible to receive such payments.
The bipartisan Federal Election Commission voted 6-0 on July 21 to order the Edwards campaign to return the money. Records show the campaign repaid the $142,000 in uncashed checks on Sept. 1, but has thus far failed to return the remaining taxpayer money.
Edwards, who served a single term as a U.S. senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2004. The current year-end report for his 2004 primary campaign, Edwards for President, shows that earlier committee still lists nearly $334,000 in unpaid bills.
About $65,000 of that remaining 2004 debt is owed to the Chicago firm of Democratic political strategist David Axelrod, who in 2008 helped then-Sen. Barack Obama trounce Edwards in the Iowa caucuses.
John Kupper, a senior partner at AKPD Message & Media, said the firm has little hope Edwards will ever pay up.
“There have been no negotiations in years,” Kupper said. “We've written it off as uncollectible.”

Fireworks in the halls of justice

Personal vendettas, a resignation, multiple ethical violations and now attempted comebacks.

Races for district court judge don't normally gin up too much excitement, but a soap opera is playing out today in Mecklenburg County.

First, department store heir Bill Belk, who had never practiced law as a career, knocked off Judge Ben Thalheimer in 2008 because he didn't like how Thalheimer ruled in Belk's divorce case. Soon Belk resigned just before the state Judicial Standards Commission found that Belk violated the Judicial Code of Ethics. The Supreme Court banned Belk from ever returning to the bench. Later, Judge John Totten admitted to violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and agreed to be censured.

And today, Thalheimer, a judge for five years before being bounced by Belk, announced his comeback effort, saying he'll run against Totten this year.

"It is time we brought integrity back to the Mecklenburg County District Court," Thalheimer said.

Belk and Totten have brought embarrassment to themselves and to the Mecklenburg bench. They are further examples of why elections are a flawed way of selecting district court judges. But we still hold them, and this year's between Thalheimer and Totten could be a doozy.

-- Taylor Batten

Kids treated as adult felons will act as such

Thursday's Observer editorial:

At a time when Democrats and Republicans agree on almost nothing, many agree on this:

Throwing thousands of kids into the adult justice system, mostly for misdemeanors, leads to one of two outcomes, both bad. They are either put right back on the street on probation or they get incarcerated with adults, scarring their psyche, marring their record and leading them down a road to nowhere.

Yet that’s what North Carolina does with 16- and 17-year-olds. We and New York are the only states that take kids barely old enough to drive and automatically funnel them into the adult system.

Forty-eight other states see a better way, and North Carolina should join them. The General Assembly should pass legislation this year that raises the age of juveniles from 16 to 18. Non-violent 16- and 17-year-old offenders should be dealt with in the juvenile justice system, with approaches that blend punishment and rehabilitation.

Bills to do that are sitting in committee. There are seven primary sponsors in the House and Senate – five Republicans and two Democrats. The bills stalled last year because of concerns about the cost of adding thousands of teens to the juvenile justice system. (Intense treatment, punishment and rehabilitation are more expensive than a revolving door.) But with bipartisan support, legislators should find a responsible way to make that transition.

Rep. Marilyn Avila, R-Wake, told us Wednesday that she and other legislators are laying the groundwork for that now. They would raise the age in 6-month increments, and they want to ensure that the community infrastructure exists to handle the influx of teens. These kids need “intensive interventions, both in their lives and in the lives of their families,” Avila said. That gets at the cause, rather than punishing the symptom. Legislators will consider what types of services currently exist and where the gaps are.

More than just segregating children from adults, which is laudable in itself, this would be a whole new approach to stopping juvenile crime in North Carolina. It recognizes the evidence that having an adult criminal record makes it less likely that teens will finish school, get a job or enter the military. Studies show that teens who go through the adult system are 33 percent more likely to commit another crime than teens who go through the juvenile system. A 16-year-old who has committed a misdemeanor is worth not giving up on just yet.

Biological research shows that the brains of teens that age are not fully developed. They do not control their impulses or fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. The juvenile justice system has significant potential to rehabilitate. The adult system has little.

North Carolina’s current law has been in place since 1919. We have learned a lot since then. If North Carolina’s approach was better, some of those 48 states would have followed our lead. But the movement has been in the opposite direction.

Moving these kids to the juvenile system will cost money in the short term. But given a teen’s probable trajectory after being saddled with an adult record, it’s an investment likely to save in the long term.

Will California's gay marriage ruling impact N.C.?

Gay rights proponents in North Carolina may be heartened by a federal appeals court ruling Tuesday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, but it's likely that the case won't affect our state's upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against California's Proposition 8, which voters approved after the state supreme court had struck down a law that limited marriage to between a man and a women. The appeals court panel ruled that those rights couldn't be rescinded.

That ruling was so specific to California that it doesn't apply to other states, says Holning Lau, an associate professor of law at UNC Chapel Hill. "The appeals court said that Proposition 8 is problematic because it involves taking away marriage rights," says Lau, who specializes in constitutional law, as well as sexual orientation and the law. "That hasn't happened anywhere else in the country."

The best hope for gay rights advocates in North Carolina is that the California case makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Proposition 8 proponents say they are contemplating whether to ask the full 9th Circuit Court to hear the case first. If they choose the Supreme Court instead, the case would likely be heard next year.

That's if it's heard at all. Experts say the narrowness of the 9th Circuit ruling might prompt the Supreme Court to pass on the case. Or justices could take the case and rule as narrowly as the panel did Tuesday.

We hope the U.S. Supreme Court takes advantage of this opportunity to take the wider view and address the constitutionality of denying gays the state-sanctioned right to marry. That will happen eventually, Lau says, but this court has a history of taking a minimalist approach and ruling only on the case at hand.

"I do think that eventually the Supreme Court is going to have to deal with the issue of marriage equality," he says. "The question is when."

Peter St. Onge

UNC-Duke: A 'nice' rivalry

In my previous journalistic life, I was a sports columnist at a small newspaper in Alabama, and there I had an intimate look at the gnarliest, nastiest and, as it turns out, most horticulturally threatening rivalry in sports - Auburn vs. Alabama.

(Any Alabama fan reading this will instantly notice that I typed Auburn first.)

In my first month on the job, I received a call from a troubled Bama fan who had spent the previous month measuring every Auburn and Alabama photo in our newspaper. His research showed a difference of about 3 square inches, tilting toward Auburn. "I knew you favored them!" he said. He would turn out to be only mildly rabid, comparatively.

So moving to North Carolina, I've found that while the Duke-UNC basketball rivalry is one of the best in college sports, it can be a little Grey Poupon-ish. Sure, there's some healthy disdain going on between fans, but that tends to be smoothed out with a little too much mutual respect for a white-hot rivalry.

That's also what our favorite pollster, Tom Jensen of Raleigh's Public Policy Polling, concluded this week in his annual look at UNC and Duke fans in North Carolina. Jensen found, not surprisingly, that most of the state's voters will be pulling for the Tar Heels (41 percent) over the Blue Devils (31 percent). That is, however, the closest spread PPP has found between the two schools in five years of asking the question.

This year, Jensen dug a little deeper into what the fans think of the opposing school. Which fans dislike the other guys the most? That would be UNC's faithful - 36 percent of whom generally root against Duke all the time, with 23 percent rooting for them and 41 percent saying they don't care. Carolina fans who describe themselves as "hardcore" pull for Duke to lose by a 66/12 spread. Duke fans are split, with 35 percent pulling against the Tar Heels and 35 percent rooting for them. "Hardcore" Duke fans pull for UNC to lose by a 53/32 spread.

And that respect thing? 53 percent of UNC fans say they respect Duke to 33 percent who dislike or hate the school. For Duke fans, the spread is 49/33. Just for fun, he asked respondents who they would vote for if the governor's race was between Duke's Mike Krzyzewski and UNC's Roy Williams. Coach K came out on top 34-31, but voters from both schools said they had great respect for the other team's coach.

All of which doesn't sit well with Jensen, who reveals:

All of this talk of mutual respect makes me want to vomit in my mouth. My name is Tom Jensen and I'm a Tar Heel. I hate Duke, I hate Mike Krzyzewski, and I want Duke to lose all games in all sports unless they're playing NC State in football or baseball.

Now that's more like it.

Peter St. Onge

Santorum's big night: The reaction

Good morning and welcome to O-pinion, the Observer's place for perspective and discussion. I'm Peter St. Onge, associate editor of the O's editorial pages, and I'll be your host today.

On to the news of the morning: Rick Santorum's big night Tuesday.

Despite what happened in Minnesota, Missouri and, most importantly, Colorado last night, Mitt Romney is still the front-runner in the Republican race for president. He still has the organization, the money, and the Washington army that will fan out beginning this morning to tell pundits and voters why Rick Santorum should scare them.

Santorum becomes the next - and perhaps final - not-Mitt front-runner. The media, too, will give Santorum a closer look - more than the glance it gave him after his strong showing in Iowa. But if conservative support coalesces around him and abandons Newt Gingrich - the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington this week becomes the next big primary event - Santorum should become a long-term factor.

As for Romney, it's easy to explain away Minnesota and Missouri as Santorum flexing his Midwest muscles, as candidates often do regionally in primaries. Colorado is another thing altogether, and what's most notable is that in the counties where Romney did well in 2008, people didn't turn out to vote this time around.

That's an enthusiasm problem, not just a Santorum problem. Yes, conservatives will come to Romney if he wins the nomination, but their enthusiasm about it should worry all of the GOP heading into November.

The Post's Chris Cillizza says Santorum must prove he can beat a "fully engaged Romney machine." Romney has to address how a presumptive nominee could have such a poor showing in Minnesota. Cillizza, in his winners and losers column, says Ron Paul had a much-needed strong finish in Minnesota after a disappointing showing in Nevada.

Time.com's Mark Halperin says Santorum's victories will give him two weeks in the sun - and two weeks to get attacked by the Romney machine.

Politico's Maggie Haberman says that Tuesday was a strong rebuke to Romney, who no longer can argue that the press is overhyping his problems with conservatives. Also, Haberman notes that Newt Gingrich is out of money and momentum. What happens next?

RedState's Leon Wolf says the race is a long way from over.

The Weekly Standard's William Kristol says Tuesday was probably all about RomneyCare and conservatives' concern with it.

Myrick leaves clear conservative legacy

Tomorrow's editorial today:

In the realm of political surprises, Rep. Sue Myrick’s announcement Tuesday that she was not seeking reelection to a 10th term in Congress is a stunner to some. But it shouldn’t be.

Myrick has been in the House for 18 years and will be 71 later this year. She’s had health issues and is a breast cancer survivor. And though she has been an outspoken scrapper for conservative principles, she no longer fits the profile of power within the Republican Party. Younger tea partiers are wielding a lot of the influence these days.

Myrick didn’t say whether she was leaving politics entirely but that seems probable. If she does, she has certainly left her mark.

She broke barriers in Charlotte when she became the first – and so far only – female mayor in 1987. And she was the first Republican woman to represent North Carolina in Congress when she won the 9th district seat in 1994.

Conservative accolades have streamed in about her, and with good reason. This editorial board hasn’t agreed with her on much but she has been a conservative force during her political life. She grabbed the spotlight as a leader of the brash 1994 Republican freshman class in the House, serving on then House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s transition team. Three years later, she joined a group of junior members disillusioned with Gingrich who tried to force him to step down as speaker. Myrick never regained that kind of influence. But she’s been a reliable conservative, voting consistently along party lines.

This board endorsed Myrick several times because she represented the interests of a majority of her conservative district. But over the years, she has succumbed to extremism that was sometimes wacky and sometimes dangerous. She has been a fear-mongerer about Muslims, suggesting in 2003 that all convenience store owners were terrorists and in 2010 contending that Hezbollah was operating on the U.S.-Mexico border (the Department of Homeland Security dismissed this).

She helped promulgate outrageous contentions at raucous health care town hall meetings in 2009, allowing untruths about death panels and government access to people’s bank accounts to go unchecked. She has also helped fuel anger and resentment against immigrants with her vociferous stands on arrest and deporting of immigrants for minor offenses.

We hope the next representative for the 9th district – and many are now scrambling for the chance – will be more thoughtful and discerning about issues.

Myrick will leave with our appreciation for some things she has done. After her cancer fight, she sponsored a law to provide Medicaid coverage for mammograms and pap smears for low-income women. She also co-sponsored a bill to require the National Institutes of Health to explore the connection between environmental pollutants and cancer. As Charlotte’s mayor, she helped open this community’s eyes to the need to help the homeless, and aggressively got the city involved in setting up shelters. She was also instrumental in tackling traffic problems and transportation issues here.

Myrick should have kept her 1994 election pledge to limit herself to three terms and left office several terms ago. But like so many politicians she found political life – and the issues she worked on – too alluring to give up. With her conservative legacy intact, it’s time to go.

The early list of Myrick replacements

The list of possibilities to replace U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick will surely change by the hour. Within minutes of Myrick's announcement that she won't be seeking another term, Roll Call was up with some obvious names: N.C. House Speaker Thom Tillis of Huntersville, state Rep. Ruth Samuelson of Charlotte and state Sen. Bob Rucho of Matthews.

We'll add former state Sen. Robert Pittenger and former Charlotte mayor Richard Vinroot. And don't discount some local prospects, including Mecklenburg county commissioner Jim Pendergraph (who will announce his intention to run, the Observer's Jim Morrill reports) and former City Councilman Edwin Peacock. Here's another: Mecklenburg county commissioner Bill James, whom we asked a moment ago about the seat. We got a definite maybe in return.

Said James, in an email:

It would be a good fit, politically speaking since I currently represent 160,000 of her 500,000 or so voters (and some would say her most conservative voters)

I haven’t decided. I have been working towards District 6 re-election. I think Sue’s announcement has taken some of us by surprise.

I would have to pray about it with my wife and discuss the impact on my family of such a significant undertaking. Sue has been a good steward of taxpayer resources and stood up for conservative principles.

In the what-might-have-been category falls Pat McCrory. For years, the political scuttlebutt has been that McCrory yearned for Myrick's congressional seat. He's been mentioned as a possible replacement for her for at least four years. In 2008, speculation about Myrick seeking an eighth term fueled speculation about Republicans who might replace her. McCrory was mentioned along with Pittenger.

So, with Myrick's announcement today, you have to wonder what's going through McCrory's mind. He's the front-runner in the N.C. governor's race with Democratic incumbent Bev Perdue deciding not to run again, and thus far no Democrat doing well in polls against him.

But if he had known Myrick wasn't going to run again for Congress before he decided to seek the governor's job, do you think he would have?If he'd sought and won Myrick's congressional seat, he could be set for a long time. Myrick, despite her term-limit pledge, surely was. The governor's job expires after two terms.

Posted by the Observer editorial board

Santorum rises again? Komen's 'diversion'?

Hello there. Welcome to O-Pinion, the editorial board's center for discussion and commentary. I'm associate editor Fannie Flono, your host today.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. More caucuses/primaries to help decide who the Republican nominee will be to face President Barack Obama in the November general election. Up today: Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri.

The news should be all about Mitt Romney, given his showing in Nevada and his widening lead in delegates against the other three remaining Republicans in the race. But it's Rick Santorum getting some big press, with one poll showing him in a neck and neck race with Romney in Minnesota and another showing him as the only Republican in the field beating Obama in a head to head match-up. Jonathan V. Last writes about that in the conservative Weekly Standard. William Kristol writes about "Romney vs. Santorum?" for the Standard. He also looks past the economy - now that it seems to be perking up - at what else Republicans can point to about Obama that shows he's not right for the country. His piece is called, "It's not (only) the economy... and we're not stupid."

Obama's PAC and Catholic problems

Obama's travails were also in the news. Daniel Harper of the Standard writes about his flip-flopping on super PAC's. Harper quotes Glenn Thrush of the liberal Politico: "President Barack Obama — in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder — has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks.

Obama also might be having a Catholic problem, stemming from his administration's decision not to provide an exemption for religiously affiliated groups like hospitals and schools from a rule requiring contraceptive services be a part of medical insurance coverage. The New York Times reports that the administration might be looking to change course. David Axelrod, top advisor to Obama's reelection campaign, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, said the president will “look for a way” to address the vocal opposition from Catholic groups who say the rule forces them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception: “We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions.”

Ah, politics.

G.K. Butterfield and earmarks

Speaking of Washington politics, the Washington Post ran big investigative piece today on 33 congressmen steering earmarks to projects close to their own property. ("Where public projects meet private interests"). Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama seemed to make the most news.

Our local example was Democratic U.S .Rep. G.K. Butterfield of Wilson:
Butterfield has helped obtain $817,500 over the past few years toward revitalizing buildings in Wilson, N.C. The lawmaker owns 19 properties within three-quarters of a mile of the project.

The congressman's spokeswoman said his properties are outside of the revitalization area. "The location of the Downtown Wilson buildings in no way influenced his decision to support the projects," she said. "The City of Wilson developed these projects without his consultation or input, and there is no potential for Butterfield to personally benefit."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/capitol-assets/mapping-the-earmarks/


Komen's 'mammogram diverson'?

So, the Susan G. Komen Foundation/Planned Parenthood flap continues. A reproductive health group on its RH Reality Check blog posits that the Komen Foundation, who met a firestorm of protest when it said Planned Parenthood affiliates would no longer be eligible for breast cancer screening grants but later reversed course, will use "mammogram diversion" to continue to deny the group access.

"Komen's ostensible new strategy, to focus its prevention grants "only on mammograms," would not only exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from eligibility, but would also deny tens of thousands of low-income and uninsured women medically-indicated primary preventive breast health services and, potentially, leave many with undiagnosed breast cancers," the group said.

Komen initially said Planned Parenthood would be excluded from the group's grants because of a new foundation rule that said no group under investigation by a government agency would be eligible.

"(Curiously, the new policy did not, apparently, apply to Penn State University, which is under actual criminal investigation, nor to a long list of universities and corporations in which researchers and others are under investigation and to which Komen money continues to flow.)," the group said.

Komen fine-tuned that language to say criminal investigation after critics charged the new rule was used to target Planned Parenthood, which being probed at the behest of one congressman prodded by an anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood group. The foundation on Friday said Planned Parenthood would still be eligible for grants.

But as the firestorm grew, the foundation noted another change in criteria for grants: It wants to now to focus funding directly on mammograms. Said Komen CEO Nancy Brinker at a subsequent press conference: "We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them [Planned Parenthood] money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms."

Conservative columnists Kathleen Parker and George Will took up that mantle over the weekend.

But at least one member of Komen's scientific advisory, New York City radiologist Dr. Kathy Plesser said she would resign if Komen didn't fund Planned Parenthood: To the New York Times, she reportedly said, “I strongly believe women need access to care, particularly underserved women,” Dr. Plesser said. “My understanding is that by eliminating this funding, it will jeopardize the women served by Planned Parenthood in terms of breast care.”

Speaking of resignation, the high-ranking Komen official that some critics said was behind the move to cut off Komen's funding resigned today. Karen Handel, who ran for Georgia's governor vowing to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood in the state, acknowledged her role in support of cutting off Komen funding for Planned Parenthood. Sources told the Washington Post that Handel was the driving force behind the move, and that the grant criteria was changed with the deliberate intention of targeting Planned Parenthood.

All this seems to contradict Brinker's contention throughout the controversy that politics had no role in the decision-making. The continuing revelations underscore what we said in an editorial Saturday that Komen will have to rebuild "what CEO Nancy Brinker said the group values most: People’s trust. Sadly, a lot of damage has already been done."