Fishy Susan Collins scandal doesn't cut bait
Patten argues that the allegations against Collins are not new and may have little effect on her reelection bid.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe Portland Press Herald is an established regional newspaper with editorial accountability. This is an openly labeled opinion piece, and its author discloses personal ties to Collins’ campaigns and his own legal history, though those disclosures do not substitute for independent reporting.
- Source type — Established regional newspaper; the source type supports a relatively strong institutional rating.
- Editorial standards — The publication presents the piece as opinion rather than straight news.
- Transparency — The author discloses his past work for Collins and his own criminal case.
- Author attribution — The piece names its author.
The author offers personal experience and identifies the ProPublica report and prior investigations, but most of the argument rests on his interpretation rather than independently presented evidence. The piece gives little space to responses from ProPublica, Jackson or other critics of Collins.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The piece acknowledges the allegations and some facts about the investigation, but is principally an argument against treating the report as a reason to reject Collins. It offers little direct account of the report's evidence or response from its critics.
- Counterarguments presented — The allegations are mentioned, but the article does not develop the case made by the report or its critics.
- Loaded language — The author uses dismissive and evaluative language about the scandal and those promoting it.
- Opinion vs reporting — This is an opinion piece that advances a clear argument about how voters should assess Collins.
- Source diversity — The piece is driven by the author's account and does not include responses from the main critics.
The piece favors Collins by casting doubt on the corruption allegations and on the political value of the reporting, while framing the scandal as a campaign tool. Its language and source selection align with a right-leaning defense of the Republican incumbent.
- Framing — The argument emphasizes why the allegations may not be credible or electorally consequential.
- Language tone — The author uses skeptical and dismissive language about the scandal and its promoters.
- Source selection — The piece relies heavily on the author's personal perspective and Collins staff's account, with little opposing response.
- Headline — The headline dismisses the scandal's potential impact.
Sam Patten argues that a newly amplified report about alleged corruption involving Sen. Susan Collins is unlikely to change Maine’s Senate race, saying the underlying story is not new and the Justice Department declined to indict her. He questions whether voters should treat the allegations as disqualifying.
Patten, who says he worked on Collins’ early campaigns, argues that the allegations described in a recent ProPublica story are not new and that the Justice Department’s decision not to indict Collins matters. He compares the case with prosecutions of former Sen. Robert Menendez and former Sen. Ted Stevens, and says the allegations against Collins differ from those cases. Patten also notes that Collins’ staff has said the Biden Justice Department could not make a case against her.
Patten says Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson and others hope the story will strengthen arguments against another Collins term, but he doubts it will have much effect on the election. He asks whether voters should reject Collins over the allegations and suggests that voters may weigh her record on jobs in Maine.
Community verdict
VOTING CLOSED
No good or bad look here
This story reports what happened without casting Collins in a good or bad light, so readers don’t rate it and it doesn’t count toward Collins’s record.
People in this story
SWIPE →Maine senator discussed in connection with corruption allegations and their potential effect on her reelection campaign
President whose later firing of prosecutors is mentioned in the discussion of Collins’ case
Former president mentioned in connection with the Justice Department investigation of Collins
Former New Jersey senator cited as a comparison in the discussion of federal corruption prosecutions
Democratic Senate candidate described as promoting the Collins allegations
Part of a bigger story
24 OUTLETSProPublica reported allegations linking Collins, a defense contractor, federal contracts and campaign contributions, and described an FBI inquiry; Collins denied wrongdoing. Left-leaning outlets emphasize the alleged contract-and-donation links and the reported end of the FBI inquiry. Center outlets generally pair the allegations with Collins’s denials, while also tracking campaign effects and scrutinizing claims. Right-leaning outlets focus on Collins’s rebuttal and challenge the report’s timing, sourcing or credibility.
- ARTICLES
- 28
- OUTLETS
- 24
- AVG CRED
- 68
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…