Centerfield

I did a quick check a few weeks ago when the Williams thing first came to light, and found that the general practice of pimping admin policies through paid propaganda without disclosing the (government) funding source went back to at least World War I, when the Treasury was funding "opinion" pieces supporting the income tax. In World War II, that infamous conservative Donald Duck was a prominent offendor...

I find the practice abhorrent, and potentially unethical depending on the circumstances. But it wasn't ruled even marginally illegal until very recently. And then the illegality is on the government, not the recipient.

That said, I'd like to point out something that others, such as Jonathan Adler and others have noted. Namely, that the practice of not disclosing one's financial contributors, especially government ones, goes a hell of a lot farther than a few right-wingers, and some of the people who have been very vocal about condemning Williams and Gallagher are rather selective in who they criticize.

The Gallagher kerfuffle conceals one of the Beltway's tidy little secrets: Hundreds, if not thousands, of policy experts and advocates receive federal grants and contracts. Federal funding of experts, advocacy groups, and other nonprofits is so widespread that it scarcely ever warrants attention. The real scandal is not that a federal agency paid Maggie Gallagher for her expertise, but that federal agencies dole out millions in taxpayer dollars each and every year to activist organizations that turn around and call for Congress to grant these agencies even greater power. This is the real "political payola" in Washington, and it is about time it received some attention.

Armstrong Williams pimping NCLB draws outrage. But I don't hear the screams of anguish about environmentalist groups that receive millions in government grants and contracts using that money to push their agendas. Like William Riley writing op/eds extolling the efficiencies of the EPA in the Washington Post while his org, the World Wildlife Fund, gets millions in government money, some of it from the EPA.

Would you call that a double standard?

I may not be looking at this issue in the same way but the Gallagher and McManus stories are different from the Williams issue.

Armstrong Williams was paid to endorce NCLB on TV.

According to the Salon article, Gallagher wrote brochures and essays and briefed Government employees. I assume the brochures and essays were for the employees.

McManus provided training at a two-day conference and gave presentations at HHS-sponsored conferences.

Gallagher didn't present her information to the general public and McManus' work was provided to attendees who knew the information was from the Government. Williams presented his paid endorcement over cable to the general public, more as propaganda.

I think this is bad PR, and that is about it. A thourough investigation would cost more money than was distributed to the talk show hosts... Government has been doing this for years, Republican and Democrat. If there is a policy issue here let's talk about it, but investigations? I don't think so.