MyDD :: Another Bush payola scandal emerging

Another Bush payola scandal emerging

by Jonathan Singer, Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 12:42:33 AM EST

From the diaries--this saves me the blog post--Chris

This is perhaps the most corrupt administration since Warren Harding, maybe since Ulysses S. Grant. President Bush has proved that graft isn't dead. Tonight's news, however unsurprising, shows once again that there are no limits this administration's malfeasance.

Word leaked out this month that the administration bribed conservative commentator Armsrong Williams to promote its No Child Left Behind law. When pressed by a reporter, then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige admitted that this practice was standard. Howard Kurtz breaks a story in Wednesday's Washington Post which indicates that Bush's payola -- secretly paying members of the media for coverage -- is more widespread than previously believed. In "Columnist Backing Bush Plan Had Federal Contract", Kurtz leads:

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. Her work under the contract, which ran from January through October 2002, included drafting a magazine article for the HHS official overseeing the initiative, writing brochures for the program and conducting a briefing for department officials.

This activity by the Bush administration is worse than unconscionable; it's illegal. Kudos to Kurtz for outing this portion of the scandal, but more must be done. The American people must know exactly how many people were paid for favorable coverage. My guess is that when they do find out the staggering amount of bribery that has taken place, a mere apology -- which we have yet to receive -- will not be sufficient.

from my blog, Basie!

Update (Chris): This is priceless:

In her column, Gallgher agrees with the criticism: "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it."

I'd call her an elitist, but I am sure that regular people forget $21,500 contracts all the time.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 18 Comments :: Post a Comment

as bad as this is (none / 0)

it falls short of showing that she wrote her column supporting the program directly for payment. That they paid her handsomely for other work, and she did not disclose this, is of course a serious ethical lapse. But the really damning situation would be a direct pay for play. Because the onus would then be on the Bush administration, whereas from the way this story is worded, it appears to be her responsibility to disclose that contract if she wrote about the same subject.

But it sounds like she ghostwrote the article, there's no mention that her name was signed to the brochure, and the circumstances of the briefing aren't given. Again, it's a serious lapse, and the Bushies likely knew what they were buying, but there are probably stronger cases to be made out there.

by dash on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:35:42 AM EST

Re: as bad as this is (none / 0)

I suppose my reply would be that this is an ongoing problem for the Bush administration, not an isolated event. In light of recent occurances -- namely Armstrong Williams, but also Karen Ryan (the fake medicare reporter) and other such minor "scandals" -- I think the onus is on the Bushies to prove that they have done no wrong.

My Direct Democracy

by Jonathan Singer on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 03:02:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not surprising. (none / 0)

I expect no less from the Bush administration. What's beyond the pale is the complete deterioration of the media's ethical standards and disregard for their profession's responsibility to the public. The US media is appalling and its getting worse. The average American will never be able to see beyond the manipulation as long as the media doesn't do its job to provide a check on government.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 09:01:27 AM EST

Re: Not surprising. (none / 0)

The problem is these hacks don't come up through J school & newspapers. They go to Scaife funded training camps & seminars about how to advocate rightwing positions. Then they get offered jobs at winger Scaife funded organizations with names that include variants of Family/Values/Democracy.
From these perches, the spend their days appearing on cable shows like Crossfire & writing op eds for any print operation that will print them.

Finally, the get a syndication deal to publish a regular column or a deal or as a commentator on radio/TV. Suddenly they are "journalists!" Then they continue to appear on Crossfire but also appear on MTP but are identified as syndicated columnists & radio hosts, even as journalists.

They have no background in investigation or fact checking and are not constrained by any ethic from writing their opinions as fact, but are considered the equivalent of the Post/Times/ Newsweek scribes who willingly sit next to them discussing issues with Fat Tim or Tweety in their roundtables as if they are respected and trusted colleagues. I think the working journos cheapen their profession by blurring the line between them & these advocates like Williams & Gallagher, but aside from grousing about it amongst themselves, they don't seem to do much about it.

It's no surprise that it would never have occurred to this woman to tell anyone that she was paid to shill. That is all she has ever done, been paid to shill. I'm sure she's never been trained or paid to independently report anything.

by Hoosiercat on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 11:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We need our own Ken Starr to get Bush (none / 0)

and the GOP. Paybacks are a bitch.

by LionelEHutz on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 09:09:24 AM EST

Re: We need our own Ken Starr to get Bush (none / 0)

We would need a lawyer....

An out of work lawyer....

With an international reputation....

And a grudge....

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you Bill Clinton special investigator.....

by donkeykong on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We need our own Ken Starr to get Bush (1.00 / 1)

Isn't he still suspended from the Bar. He got a 5 year suspension in Arkansas right when he left office and most states usually uphold that from what I understand. He would have another year to go.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 04:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We need our own Ken Starr to get Bush (none / 0)

So the out of court investigation will take 12 months....LOL

by donkeykong on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 06:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We need our own Ken Starr to get Bush (none / 0)

Bill Clinton as special investigator, that would be great. It would drive the GOP nuts and the press wild. Too bad it won't happen.

by LionelEHutz on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 09:56:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where's mine? (none / 0)

Whole thing makes me feel sorry for all those conservative "journalists" out there who carried the administration's water for nothing. I would expect some of them to start complaining that they're upset they didn't get a piece of the action.

by jameswithrow on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 09:11:15 AM EST

Assuming there are any (none / 0)

Heh

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls

by Bruce Webb on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 09:32:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ladies and Gentlemen... (none / 0)

...Nixon: Reloaded. I don't find it very surprising - the only ones who support these plans are the mentally disabled and those paid off.

The New Democrat

by demburns on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 09:43:52 AM EST

Armsrong Williams (none / 0)

I like that - let's complete it: Armswrong Williams.

by zappatero on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 10:26:51 AM EST

Blaming everything but declining wages for (none / 0)

Blaming everything but our declining wages and disappearing jobs for
the breakup of traditional nuclear families is a diversionary tactic..

One thing that is obvious from where I stand..

You cant have healthy famililies or healthy marriages without economic stability. It just doesnt happen

And people who can barely keep themselves above water are nuts to have children...

It may happen, but I don't know how they do it..

What little we have now is DESPITE the GOPs war on families, NOT because of it...

Another problem is the longstanding efforts by the state to marginalize and punish the children of parents it deems 'sinful'.

The GOPs 'family cap' does this.

Marital status discrimination is a huge problem. Millions of children are killed each year because they lack legal status and a father. (for example, China claims it has 'no' unwed mothers!!!)

Almost all US states make it well-night impossible for a child born to an unmarried mother and married father to inherit through intestancy.

Eight out of ten black children and more than half of the firstborn children of all American women are nonmarital.

Blaming - and punishing - the weakest and littlest victims of an economic disaster for its effects DOES NOT MAKE SENSE...

But its typical from the pathologically mean-spirited politics of the GOP.

by ultraworld on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 11:07:26 AM EST

Maggie Gallagher (none / 0)

She's also one of the leading opponents of same-sex marriage.

Nice to know that Bush isn't simply friendly with our modern day KKK, but he's paying them for their support, too.

Support Regina Thomas, GA-12

by Drew on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 11:28:21 AM EST

Today's Press Briefing (none / 0)

Which "reporter" asked this question at the press conference today and is this "reporter on the White House payroll?

Q Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse.Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock-solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

by molly bloom on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST

high pay scale! (none / 0)

I'd be willing to bed has the put the job of producing 1) a magazine article 2) drafting a brochure and 2) conducting a briefing up for bid, they could have gotten the whole package for under a third the price -- and that's hiring a bona fide professional writer at industry rates ($50-$100/hr) for a couple weeks).

by quoi on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:06:53 PM EST

Frame it. (none / 0)

Bush gave money to reporters to support his ideas.

Enron gave money to Bush support their ideas.

Clear proof one way is a good time to remind people of the proof the other way.

by donkeykong on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 02:17:39 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.