Realtors should know where their NAR dues are going, says NYT reporter 

Earlier this week, The New York Times published a deep dive into the American Property Owners Alliance — an affiliate of the National Association of Realtors that is fully funded by the powerful real estate trade group. The investigative report highlighted issues of transparency surrounding APOA's activities, how the millions of dollars it received over the last four years were being used and the organization's alleged political agenda.

The story angered some industry leaders, who argued that The New York Times has unfairly targeted the residential real estate world, and the National Association of Realtors was quick to refute the claims. But in a conversation with Real Estate News, reporter Debra Kamin stood by her reporting while discussing what she sees as broader issues with NAR membership dues — namely, that most agents are required to join the association in order to conduct business effectively, and those dues-paying members deserve to know where their money is going. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

How did this story come about, and were there any particular motivations behind the timing of its release?

The reporting for this story actually began in January, before the settlement, and it came out of a desire on my part and the New York Times as a whole to understand how NAR was going to react to the lawsuit. At the time, we didn't know if they were going to settle or if they were going to potentially file for bankruptcy, and there wasn't a whole lot of clarity about how much money they really had in terms of their assets on their 990 (the IRS form for tax-exempt organizations).

But NAR is not just this trade organization. They also have a for-profit wing. They also have all their subsidiary organizations. So I had a desire to get a better holistic view of what their finances look like, so we could maybe anticipate how that lawsuit was going to play out — and in doing so, I started mapping out all of the affiliate and subsidiary organizations, and one of them was the American Property Owners Alliance, which I had not heard of.

If I could have gotten the story out sooner I would have. 

You mentioned in the story comments that most of the 30+ Realtors you spoke to were not aware of the APOA. NAR says it's been transparent about the APOA and its funds. What's your take? 

What the article was saying is that people aren't aware of the APOA. So transparency and awareness are not the same thing. There is no doubt that there is a lack of awareness and understanding about what this organization is. There is no doubt that their spending is significantly disproportionately going to groups that support conservative causes and that spending — unlike the PAC — comes from membership dues. 

There is an issue in the real estate industry, more than any other industry, that those dues are not voluntary, because you have to pay dues to be a member of NAR if you want to access the MLS in most markets. So my goal in that story was to help people understand how those dues dollars are getting spent and where they are going. I always encourage people to seek as much information as they can, particularly when it comes to money that they feel they have no choice but to spend.

NAR says the APOA supports pro-housing groups across the political spectrum. Should people even care about the partisan leanings of these groups?

The New York Times cares. And I think that a lot of real estate agents who have to pay dues care, and also I think the American public and consumers care, because the housing market is one of the most important pieces of the American economy. 

NAR is a huge player in that market and exercises a great deal of control over the rules and regulations of that market. The way that NAR uses their dollars and the politics behind it are very important, and it's newsworthy and it's relevant, and we will continue looking into it. 

Some people in real estate believe The New York Times has an axe to grind with the industry. What's your response to that?

I think our reporting is fair, it's balanced, it's honest, it's excellent — I stand behind it. A lot of times, unfortunately, when people don't like what is being reported, their response is that there must be some sort of motive behind the news. That is not the case. 

My goal as a reporter with every single story is to seek the truth and help readers understand what's happening. That's the mission of the New York Times, and I take that very seriously. And in this case, I sought out the truth. I asked every question I possibly could. I pressed NAR, I pressed the American Property Owners Alliance. I corroborated everything I could with documentation. I have sources on the record who were scared to come forward, but chose to because they're concerned about the way this organization is spending money.

The New York Times cannot serve as any sort of activist. They can only serve as a watchdog that alerts people to certain things that may be happening, and that is what we did here, and I'm proud of it. I hope that people will continue to read the story and trust that we are working to be as fair and honest as we possibly can, and also, when they're receiving information from other sources, to question them. That's what I always do as a reporter.