RSSUsing PayPal
Doug Bandow's Confession and Call for Debate on Punditry Ethics
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Jan 04 2006, 1:09PM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://twn.riverlab.com/archives/2006/01/doug_bandows_co/&title=Doug Bandow's Confession and Call for Debate on Punditry Ethics&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
Doug Bandow offers a realistic picture of the shoddy state of think tank and public intellectual punditry in Washington in this confessionary op-ed today in the Los Angeles Times.
He writes:
My deal with Abramoff created an appearance of a conflict of interest; it made it seem that I spoke for him (or his clients) rather than for myself when I wrote. That was a mistake, and I'm paying a high price. Fair enough.But this episode ought to do more; it ought to spur a serious discussion about the punditry game. After all, isn't it a little unseemly for Washington to be suddenly shocked, shocked at the fact that those with interests in what government does (such as Abramoff and his clients) seek out like-minded advocates (such as me and hundreds of other commentators and organizations)?
Doug Bandow could write an interesting and revealing book on the ideas industry and who owns it. He admits to being part of the machine, but he is by no means anywhere near the worst violators of public trust.
I have written quite a bit already about the structural corruption that undergirds much of the policy industry and have regularly called for a "best practices" effort that may help restore public confidence and trust in this important sector of civil society. I may write the book myself (but I keep telling myself that I have two others I need to do first).
As one extremely prominent but unnamed former Republican official wrote to me recently:
If Abramoff had had the sense to simply contribute his money to a 501(c)3 that then paid Bandow, there would be no problem.Tax exempts aren't required to divulge their contributors. Doug and Jack would both be off the hook.
Any number of so-called think tanks would be happy to broker the deal for a small commission.
As they say in Washington, it isn't the illegal things people do that is a scandal, it’s all these thing they can do that are perfectly legal.
Read those lines again carefully. They are absolutely true. Most of the systematic corruption that pervades Washington is legal but in my view violates the public trust as well as the spirit, if not the law, of the IRS tax code providing exemptions to "public-minded" institutions.
I have always felt that non-profit think tanks were important, even vital, parts of Washington's public policy industry and of American civil society. However, many of them -- and there are reportedly more than 1,500 think tanks in Washington alone -- have become money launderers for lobbyists and corporate consulting organizations. Most of the worst violations occur in the small boutique shops rather than the larger institutions, but the reality of lack of transparency is becoming a systemic rather than a micro problem.
I am going to be speaking on this subject of money, influence and think tanks in an event next week on Friday, January 13th from 12-2 p.m. The session is sponsored by the Nixon Center and will include Anatol Lieven who is Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, Blair Ruble of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center and myself.
It's my understanding that I am going to be giving a general overview of the issues that matter -- and don't -- in this debate. Anatol Lieven and Blair Ruble are going to discuss the Russian-American dimensions of this topic.
I believe that Doug Bandow's article should help trigger a broader conversation about what is ethical and not in the think tank/punditry sector. James Fallows, John Judis, Steven Clemons (yes, this writer), and others have been savaged when they tried to push forward a constructive discussion about where "the lines should be drawn" and enforced -- to paraphrase Bandow.
An acquaintance of mine who is an extremely successful corporate lobbyist used to (and may still) teach a course on lobbying at Georgetown University. The second item on his "Lobbyist's Tool Kit" which he would distribute to students was "Think Tanks". Another item on the list was "Op-Eds".
If this sector of American civil society is going to remain in a protected part of the American tax code and continue to play a role akin to schools, AIDS hospices and other credible charity and public good organizations, then it must clean up its act.
To his credit, Doug Bandow suggests that we should get to work on that effort, debate where the ethical lines should be drawn, and do them in such a way that those committed to good public policy can still make a living and do what they are good at.
I think that the answer is in more routinized transparency, but there are many other tracks as well.
-- Steve Clemons
Ed Note: Thanks to LF and many others for the notes about this op-ed.
« Previous Article - John Bolton & NSA Intercepts: The Connection That Mattered Was International» Next Article - Ariel Sharon Suffers "Significant Stroke"
A good start on movement towards honest government would be to make any and all crooked dealings by government officials and their lackies felonies with minimum sentences in the tens of years. Then, eliminate the presidents power of pardon in regards to crimes comitted by these people. Also, legislation requiring the sentences of convicted government officials to be served in federal maximum security lockup, would be a good deterent to criminal misconduct.
Politicians are basicly criminals with better jobs. Look at Bush. He made a living from insider trading, investment fraud, and influence peddling before he was born again into Texas Politics. I hope this Abramoff deal will cause more than a storm of hot air. These criminals in our government are a lot more dangerous to us than a bunch of Moslem nutballs working for the oil companies to keep the price of petrolium up.
Mr. Bandow's attitude is "I played the game, I got caught. C'est la vie."
Since you spoke so highly of this gentleman, I'm a bit disappointed.
Bandow writes: "My deal with Abramoff created an appearance of a conflict of interest; it made it seem that I spoke for him (or his clients) rather than for myself when I wrote. That was a mistake, and I'm paying a high price."
Is he saying that he was expressing his own views on the Mariana Islands, and it was just a stroke of luck that Abramoff was willing to pay him for it? Give us a break, Doug!
My favorite part of Bandow's faux-confessional comes when he writes that "[His] deal with Abramoff created an appearance of a conflict of interest" (sic). "Created an appearance"? Please.
My favorite part of Bandow's op-ed is that he tries to defend his unattributed pay-for-punditry, but then notes he's "promarket." Not the first "promarket" pundit who conveniently forgets that transparency is critical to functional markets.
Oh, one more point. Your extremely prominent unnamed former Republican official is right, to a point. Perhaps Abramoff should have spent more money on his punditry nonprofit anad less on his fake Child's athletics nonprofit.
But if Bandow's opinions came with the attribution, "Bandow writes opinions for the Capital Athletic NonProfit," I'm going to smell a rat. I will say, "hmm, a conveniently named nonprofit that I've never heard of. I bet this was really funded by Tom DeLay."
And I'd be absolutely right.
Bless you, emptywheel -
"Doug Bandow, I'll Give You a Finger"
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/01/doug_bandow_ill.html
You need to start writing books.
Janine Wedel wrote a very controversial article for The National Interest back in 2000 that touched on some of these issues with regard to U.S. assistance to Russia in the 1990s, but at the heart of that problem and the one Steve is discussing here is what Wedel termed "transidentity"--the "ability of a transactor to change his identity at will"--meaning institutional affiliation or occupation. Analyst, journalist, consultant, academic, and so on.
Any "best practices" effort has to confront this issue of "transidentity" among not only think tank people but also members of the media.
The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists may be a good place to start. Journalists are called to "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two." Journalists, according to this code, also are enjoined to "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity. Disclose unavoidable conflicts."
This may be his confession. Unfortunately, it reads that his only sorrow is being exposed for what he did. It's amazing how quickly (within a couple of para.) his confession spins around to
** woe is me, i have bills to pay, mortgage to pay; (HEY... at least he's got a mortgage. there's lots of Americans who can't get a mortgage, don't have liveable wages-NOT minimum wage, insufficient or no health care from employers so they have to go on the public dole)
** what is a guy to do to make ends meet?
** why is this system we have so hostile to me who is simply trying to make a living.
NO, i see/read no sorrow. in fact by the end of the confession, he's blaming everything and everyone else for the predicament that he's in. eeerrrr does this sound familiar----- blaming someone else or something else for the wrong u did?
Okay, as near as I can make out from Bandow's position, he is saying he isn't really a whore.
He's just a slut who likes to take money.
And he wants to stand up for the rights of all sluts, particularly the ones that take money. Taking money for providing blow jobs, backdoor jobs, doggy style shouldn't be considered wrongful.
Bandow wants us to appreciate that sluts really love doing all of these things for the right customer... er... man. So if they're doing something they really want to do, what's the harm in taking a bit of money. After all, they're being sincere.
And finally, Bandow resents being called a whore, because if he's a whore, then as far as he's concerned, all his friends and buddies are whores, and he's just the one who got caught.
He's right about that, at least.
Someone call Jeff Gannon.
Do I have this right?
I wish I'd written that!
As a follow on to Steve's comments on the role of think tanks, I see an opportunity to shift policy and legislative "research" from lobbyists and their paid organizations to more balanced entities.
If in fact I am correct, my question is who will provide the information and ideas that lobbyists have funded and then then introduced using their access? Thoughts?
Institutionalized corruption??? What a f-ing revelation!
What next at Washington Note? An angelic Coric clone breathlessly regaling the virgin Hillary with a second holy annunciation that elections may have been rigged by Bush and that Nixon really was a crook?
Does being inside the beltway suddenly give people a bad case of sensory paralysis SC? Not that all the senses are necessary for someone to know when he is drowning in a septic tank.
Want to know... what it IS... bro?
From out here beyond that political cesspool even the Ozzie Osbornes of political fruit bats can tell that the apple is not only rotten to the core the core is solid maggot larvae. Forget the 70's journalistic mantra of "just follow the money." Put your sniffer to the breeze and follow the stench. And listen with acuity through the cacophonous din of media flagellation for the gurgling flush from the vomitoriums for that will serve as an aural beacon through the gates of hell itself and don't ever believe what you see my little Siddhartha believe what you smell. (Period exclamation point.) Then and only then will true enlightenment be the thorazine to the orange sunshine they put in the koolaid... just don't expect any eternal reward to save you now and keep your hands on your crotch at all times lest the NeoCon whores give "little SC" a Bobbit trim or worse promise to have it bronzed and put on display at their next prayer breakfast.
>As they say in Washington, it isn't the illegal >things people do that is a scandal, it’s all >these thing they can do that are perfectly legal.
What a bunch of horse-pucky. Its illegal to use a 501(c)3 as a front for a for-prophet lobbying firm. Period. If someone is making lobbiest wages by trying to launder the money through a 501(c)3 all parties involved can be in a lot of trouble. Let's be clear here--that's a talking point and an attempt to spin something that is clearly illegal and is just a conspiracy to avoid prosecution.
MONEY IS FREE SPEECH !!!
I once heard that the think-tank pundits are regarded as "failed academics". I am interested in hearing more about the role and structure of think tanks because if they are in fact filled with "failed" academics who have profound and disproportionate influence on public policy, shouldn't we the public have more knowledge about "the way it is" and why? I am wondering if the "failure" part (of what was a snide comment by an elite academic) reflects the weak economics of higher education--that by feeding smart people from the humanities into the job market with lofty degrees but few prospects for sustainable employment is one of our society's problems that needs solving. In other words, who are these pundits really? Does it matter that they might have aspired to tenured teaching posts but instead found employment in think tanks?
Reader Comments (16) - post a comment