Grading PolitiFact: McCain opposed helping women earn equal pay for equal work

Just a reminder: Just because I end up reviewing a steady stream of colossal blunders by the staff at PolitiFact, that doesn't mean they don't do a good job from time to time.


This fact-check was simply on the top of the stack, as it were. I visited the PolitiFact Web site in search of something to critique and this one was at the top of the page. Another Robert Farley effort, as it happens.

In a direct appeal to women voters, a recent Obama campaign television ad features a handful of female supporters taking shots at Sen. John McCain. Borrowing from a common theme on the campaign trail, one of the women, Sherri Kimbel, calls out McCain on the issue of equal pay for women.

"In April, Sen. McCain came out against helping women earn equal pay for equal work," Kimbel said.

That is the entirety of the claim from the ad, at least on that subject. The ad offers two references in support of the claim in print of modest size ("Associated Press 4/23/08" "Senate Vote #110 4/23/08"). The fine print occurs under the following in easy-to-read big letters: "Against equal pay for equal work."

So we’re clear, McCain did not make some sort of public pronouncement in April that he is against helping women earn equal pay. To the contrary, McCain has repeatedly stated that he is for equal pay for equal work.

Huh. Really? Because the ad certainly offers the impression that McCain made some sort of public pronouncement in April that he is against helping women earn equal pay. So PolitiFact will rule this claim "False." Right? Well, not so fast ...

Kimbel is referring specifically to McCain’s opposition to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law designed to make it easier for women to sue their employer over unequal pay.

How would anyone know that without checking the pair of modestly-sized references in the ad? And is it fair to stretch opposition to "easier for women to sue their employers over unequal pay" into "Against equal pay for equal work"?

Farley then launches into a brief and one-sided review of the Lilly Ledbetter case. After that he writes about the reaction to the case:

Numerous women’s rights activists decried the ruling, arguing that it was unfair to expect that a woman would know within six months after her hiring or promotion that she was getting unequal pay.

However, in this case Ledbetter knew about the discrimination well before the statute of limitations would have prevented her from suing. That according to her own testimony.

A handful of like-minded officials in Congress quickly drafted legislation so that the 180-day window to file a suit could start with each new discriminatory paycheck, rather than when the person was hired or promoted.

Quick legislation sounds just great, doesn't it? In effect, the law would allow a person to sue for discrimination that occurred forty years ago, and all those involved in the original discrimination could be dead. How is the defendant in a case like that supposed to mount a defense? Via seance? Statutes of limitation exist for good reason, and Farley does note that the Republican objection to the Ledbetter Act was founded on those lines.

Although McCain was campaigning in New Orleans and not present for the vote, he told reporters at the time that he opposed it.

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," McCain said.

"In April, Sen. McCain came out against helping women earn equal pay for equal work."

Do you buy it?

"That law waived the statute of limitations, which you could have gone back 20 or 30 years," McCain said. "It was a trial lawyer’s dream."

That’s not entirely accurate. The law would have started the 180-day clock on filing a discrimination lawsuit from the time "an unlawful employment practice" occurs, and would have included each time compensation is paid. The law stated that a person could seek relief including recovery of back pay for up to two years.

Farley's assessment is "not entirely accurate."

McCain is spot-on that the Act would have allowed a lawsuit to proceed for discrimination that occurred 30 years prior. Farley justifies his claim that McCain isn't telling the whole truth based on the Ledbetter law itself, which would have changed the law to make each supposedly unfair paycheck a renewed act of discrimination. But that argument overlooks the fact that there can be perfectly good reasons for people receiving differing pay for the same work. The practical effect of making each paycheck a potentially new instance of "unlawful employment practice" is to nullify the statue of limitations. Company A now becomes responsible for the acts of Company A thirty years ago with no means of fairly defending itself.

Farley then notes that PolitiFact graded Hillary Clinton "False" for a similar claim. Sexual discrimination in action?

The claim in the recent Obama campaign ad is more carefully worded, however. It includes a small print reference to the Ledbetter bill, and could reasonably be said to be a comment about McCain's position on that one bill. So its truth lies in the extent to which you believe MCain's position was "against helping women earn equal pay for equal work."

Is Farley saying the truth of the claim is subjective, or what? If the truth of claims is subjective then why would we need PolitiFact?

Farley implies that the subjective impression of the National Organization for Women is relevant.

That’s certainly the view of the National Organization for Women, which has endorsed Obama for president.

Equal pay laws have been fairly stable for decades, NOW president Kim Gandy told PolitiFact, and the Ledbetter bill was the most important piece of legislation in years to gauge congressional support for it.

I'm sure that's correct, in that left-leaning NOW can hammer McCain over the bill regardless of its merit or lack thereof. But it doesn't really address whether the Obama campaign's portrayal of McCain is objectively fair. And if there is no objective judgement then the whole "Truth-O-Meter" thing is a sham. The whole point of having a "Truth-O-Meter" is to suggest that there is an objective judgment of truth claims.

"It’s disingenuous to say ‘I support equal pay for equal work’ but then not support any way to enforce it legally," Gandy said.

Gandy is certainly correct, but at the same time it is no less disingenuous to claim that McCain would "not support any way to enforce it legally." In this context, Farley's story suggests exactly that of John McCain. He makes himself Gandy's "Billy Baloney." A puppet.

The wording of the claim in the ad makes our ruling tricky. Interpreted broadly, one might be led to believe that McCain made a decision to oppose any help for women getting unequal pay. And that would be misleading, because we are only talking about McCain's opposition to a single piece of legislation that would have eased the statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit over unequal pay — weighed against McCain's numerous pronouncements of support for equal pay for equal work.

Again, Farley's claim is not exactly accurate. The law would have entirely bowled, not "eased" the statute of limitations for cases where unequal pay was perpetuated over time. Farley mixes apples and oranges by mistaking the limitations on the scope of damages for a mitigation of the damage to the statute of limitations.

On the other hand, one could argue that the woman is simply stating an opinion about McCain's vote on the Ledbetter bill. McCain did oppose it. And one could certainly argue the bill was designed to help women get equal pay for equal work. And so we rule the statement Mostly True.

This is hilarious. Farley writes that there are two ways to look at it. Using one method makes the claim seem misleading (perhaps as bad as "Mostly False"?). The other method makes it "Mostly True." Farley chooses the latter and provides no justification for choosing one over the other.

Unbelievable. PolitiFact has disgraced itself yet again. Grade: F, for the utter failure to reasonably justify the "Truth-O-Meter" ruling.

Scott Montgomery edited Farley on this one, according to the credits, so he gets to share the "F" grade. Montgomery had to have seen that Farley offered no reason for taking one view over the other when making the ruling. Is editing done these days with a blind rubber stamp?

clipped from profile.myspace.com