The Washington Post failed to mention two things in its front page hit-piece on John Edwards on Friday.
First, had Edwards refused to sell his home based on political calculus, he might have been breaking DC law:
Part C. Housing and Commercial Space.Under both "political affiliation" and "source of income" the buy might have had a cause of action against Edwards. The Post didn't bother mentioning this in their hit piece.
§ 2-1402.21. Prohibitions.
(a) General - It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual:
(1) To interrupt or terminate, or refuse or fail to initiate or conduct any transaction in real property; or to require different terms for such transaction; or to represent falsely that an interest in real property is not available for transaction;
Second, and just as important, I talked to a housing lawyer today and he tells me that Edwards could have found himself in a bit of trouble had he turned down a full price offer for his home simply because he didn't like the buyer. Standard realtor contracts include a provision making the seller liable for the sales commission on the property should the buyer turn down a reasonable offer for frivolous reasons. As the standard commission is 5% to 6%, and Edwards' home sold for $5.2 million, that would be a $260,000 penalty that Edwards could have potentially owed his agent - a penalty he'd have owed each time he turned down a potential buyer based of political calculus. That's a sizable, and certainly reasonable, reason for Edwards to not just turn down any buyer who a Democratic constituent might have a gripe with.
Of course, we have no idea if Edwards did or didn't have this in his contract with his agent, nor do we have any idea if turning down the buyer would have violated DC law, because Washington Post reporter John Solomon and his crack editors didn't bother including any of this in their story attacking John Edwards for doing pretty much nothing.
