Maybe The Advocate thought it was offering balance?  Maybe The Advocate's answer to digging itself into a hole by providing front page coverage to baseless ethics violation accusations so close to an election is to keep digging?  Either way, it always seems that the closer to an election we get, the further away we get from the very real issues facing Newark.

Today, Mayor Bain editorializes on his reasons for selling utilities to developer William Kraner.  The editorial makes sense BUT is placed inches away from a poorly reasoned editorial claiming that Bain should give back the $10,000 donation he received from Kraner in order to avoid the appearance of any wrongdoing.  In The Advocate's editorial, they claim that they know Bain wouldn't engage in a quid pro quo and that the deal was good for Newark but then reach the conclusion that the money should be returned.  Where was The Advocate when Kraner gave former Mayor Frank Stare even more money?  Where was The Advocate when Kraner gave Cheri Hottinger $5,000, or Gene Branstool $20,000??

As I previously wrote, the accusations fall apart upon even mild scrutiny.  The utility deal was actually a good deal for Newark.  The Advocate's editorial should have been about The Advocate taking back its coverage of the story not about Bain giving back a donation.  If the standard for front page coverage is a simple accusation, we just took a step backward in reporting.