FanHouse

Most newspapers have a policy that their journalists can't get make donations to political campaigns. That makes sense. If you're assigned to cover Barack Obama and you write his campaign a check, that suggests that you support him and will give him favorable coverage. If you cover Obama and you write Hillary Clinton or John McCain a check, that suggests you oppose Obama and will give him unfavorable coverage. Best to avoid political contributions altogether.

But what about the case of Henry Riemer? He was a sports statistician for the Boston Globe, compiling things, I guess, like how effective the Patriots' running game is on third-and-short (he retired in 2004). He's also an American who takes an interest in American politics, and he donated $1,700 to Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, as well as $1,000 to Democracy for America, an organization Dean founded. Surely, no one would suggest that Riemer's financial support of Dean calls into question his ability to keep track of Corey Dillon's first downs, would they?

Apparently they would.
In response to an inquiry from MSNBC, which compiled a long list of journalists who have contributed to political campaigns, the Boston Globe commented on Riemer's contributions:

"We felt the need in 2004 to clarify a seeming ambiguity among some staffers about whether those who had no involvement in political coverage could make political contributions," said Globe editor Martin Baron. "The discovery (by our own reporters) of Henry Riemer's contribution was one reason we issued a clarifying memo."

I don't really see how anyone could have a problem with someone who compiles sports stats making political contributions. And I think Randy Cohen, who writes The Ethicist column for the New York Times and who acknowledged when MSNBC asked that he violated the Times' policies by giving to MoveOn.org, gives the best reaction:

Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I'd say not. Unless a group's activities impinge on a reporter's beat, the reporter should be free to donate to a wide range of nonprofits.

Show me an editor who's worried about a sports statistician giving to a political campaign and I'll show you an editor who should have bigger things to worry about.