Michelle Ye Hee Lee, one of the Washington Post's "fact checkers," revealed in a Friday item that Marco Rubio's "explanation" on the November 4, 2015 edition of ABC's Good Morning America regarding his "handling of his state Republican Party-issued corporate card" actually checks out. Lee outlined facts related to the issue of the Republican presidential candidate's charges to the card between 2005 and 2009, and concluded that "based on the information released so far, a mountain's been made out of [a] molehill, by the media and Rubio's opponents."
Lee led her article, "Here's why Marco Rubio's corporate card saga isn't really a scandal," with the text of Senator Rubio's statement from the ABC morning show. She disclosed that "we decided to dig into his explanation and the series of events that unfolded since the story broke in February 2010. And we found, for the most part, his story matches up."
The journalist then outlined the facts of the charge card issued by Florida state Republican Party:
...Rubio is correct that the card was a shared liability charge card. In fact, all American Express corporate cards in the U.S. are charge cards, which is a type of credit card that requires the bill to be paid in full every month. Late fees are incurred on the cardholder.
...Rubio had told the [Miami] Herald and [St. Petersburg] Times that the party allowed him to put personal expenses on the card. He and the party reviewed the monthly bills. Rubio would identify personal expenses and pay those charges directly to American Express, he said....
In his 2012 memoir, "An American Son," Rubio wrote that he charged $160,000 in party-authorized charges between January 2005 and October 2008. His 2007 and 2008 records showed he paid $16,052 in personal expenses incurred on the card to American Express, and the party picked up $93,566 in charges related to party business.
The Herald and Times questioned some of his business charges, such as repairs to his family minivan that was damaged by parking attendants at a political function. (The party agreed to cover half of his insurance deductible, according to the Herald and Times report.) The meals he charged to the party card especially came under scrutiny, as Rubio received a $126 per diem given to state legislators to help cover food and lodging.
Other questionable charges ranged from $25.76 at Everglades Lumber for "supplies," and $765 at Apple's online store for "computer supplies." At the time of the report, Rubio's campaign did not provide an explanation for these charges. The next day, however, the campaign explained the charges questioned by the news outlets were incurred for business purposes. For example, the $25.76 charge was for office supplies, and the Apple store charge was for a computer hard drive and software to store political files.
Lee later pointed out that "Rubio says the Republican Party 'never paid a single personal expense of mine — personal expense.' As far as we can tell, there appears to be just one instance from 2007 to 2009 where he repaid directly to the party for a charge he should not have made on the party card. But this was not technically a personal expense." She explained that "Rubio had double-billed the party and state taxpayers $2,417.80 in airline tickets for state business. He paid for the tickets with his party-issued card, and then submitted reimbursement vouchers to the state. Rubio repaid the money to the party by writing a check, records show. The auditors found that this was the only personal expense that Rubio should have repaid the party for between 2007 and 2009."
The Washington Post fact-checker also noted that "a Florida resident filed an ethics complaint against Rubio for his airline charges, among other allegations. The Florida Ethics Commission confirmed it was a billing mistake. The prosecutor for the commission found that the 'level of negligence; exhibited by Rubio in confusing his cards, and then approving the reimbursement requests without recognizing the error, was 'disturbing.' But the prosecutor did not find probable cause for an intentional wrongful act."
Near the end of her article, Lee asserted that "Rubio's carefully worded explanation doesn't quite rise to the level of a Geppetto Checkmark, but it is accurate enough that it does not warrant even a single Pinocchio." She concluded with her "mountain...out of [a] molehill" line.
