Punditry for Politics and Profit

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece, Doug Bandow explains (but does not justify) his decision to write columns supporting the interests of Jack Abramoff's clients at the lobbyist's behest. Bottom line: He did it for the money. Struggling to pay his bills with various inadequate sources of income--including his Cato gig, his syndicated column, political consulting, and speechwriting--he found it hard to resist Abramoff's relatively generous offer of $1,000 or so per column, especially since he never had to write anything that was contrary to his own views (a claim I have not seen anyone contradict). To his credit, Bandow says his punishment, which included losing his Cato job and his column, was "well-deserved." But one possible lesson to draw from his account is that Cato ought to pay its fellows better if it expects them to remain unencumbered by embarrassing financial arrangements like this one (although Cato's official objection was not so much that Bandow took Abramoff's money but that he failed to disclose the fact).

I like Doug and have no desire to kick him while he's down, so let me instead take up his suggestion that we use this episode as an opportunity to discuss the ethics of punditry for pay. I agree that it's dishonest for a paid advocate who is willing to say whatever his client requires to present the resulting work for hire as his own independent assessment. I also agree that failing to disclose an advance arrangement for article-specific payments from an interested party, even when the views you express are sincere and consistent with your principles, is certainly unwise and possibly unethical, especially if you conceal the information from the people publishing your work. But as Doug suggests, once you get beyond cases like those, there is a lot of gray, with decisions based on the desire to avoid not actual conflicts of interest so much as the "appearance" of such conflicts--which is to say, anything that might look bad.

As you may have guessed by now, I speak from experience. From time to time I am accused of being a flack for Big Tobacco because more than a decade ago I accepted a reprint fee from R.J. Reynolds for an op-ed piece about secondhand smoke I had written for The Wall Street Journal. The company used the article in an ad campaign and, since I had retained the reprint rights, paid me $5,000 for the privilege (a pretty fat reprint fee, I admit, but not very much compared to what RJR was planning to spend on the ads). Although I recognized that the transaction might be used against me, I did not see anything unethical about it, since RJR did not commission the article. What I did not realize (but should have) was how little such distinctions matter to people who are determined to discredit your views by implying that you arrived at them for financial reasons.

That article reprint was the only time I've ever had financial dealings with a tobacco company (a topic that came up on another Hit & Run thread recently), and since then I've tried to avoid anything that could be construed as an indication of "ties" to the industry. I've turned down junkets in Geneva and Cancun, requests for (unpaid) legislative testimony, and invitations to write op-ed pieces. But I can't help the fact that Philip Morris/Altria has donated money to the Reason Foundation, which publishes Reason (in addition to running a think tank). Last time I checked, the contributions (none of them tobacco-related) amounted to less than 1 percent of the foundation's budget. So although I may not be pure enough to satisy the average anti-smoking activist, I am at least able to alleviate the concerns of radio and TV producers who raise the issue (typically at the prompting of an anti-smoking activist).

The thing is, avoiding the taint of tobacco is purely a practical concern for me. I do not see any ethical problem with, say, writing an essay for an industry-supported Web site (another offer I recently declined). I do not worry that if I went to Cancun on a tobacco company's dime I would suddenly find myself abandoning my principles to support the Master Settlement Agreement or (in Philip Morris' case) FDA regulation of tobacco products. I just know that such interactions with the industry are, in terms of public perception, more trouble than they're worth. Although it's a basic logical error to think you can discredit someone's argument by impugning his motives, I'd rather not have to explain this particular rhetorical fallacy every time I open my mouth.

Still, if the worry is that opinion journalists and think tank wonks shave the truth to fit predetermined conclusions, the focus on money seems misplaced. While it's reasonable to expect disclosure of an ongoing financial arrangement or of payments like those Doug Bandow accepted, ideology and partisan loyalties are far more likely to color a pundit's presentation of the evidence than financial considerations. If a writer is intellectually dishonest, it ultimately does not matter whether his motive is politics or money. A financial disclosure in the author ID may remind people to be skeptical of what they read on op-ed pages, but that's good advice in any case.

Comments

[Mother Jones Editor]

But...but...if we can't simply slander someone's character using guilt by association, what are we going to write about?

[David Roberts]

Jacob, the issue is not so much whether you would sacrifice your principles. The point is that -- yes, I know these arguments are overused, but here it applies -- a slippery slope. Do you really think if small exceptions were made here and there (say, a junket, or more reprint fees, whatnot), that the end result would not be rampant abuse?

I'm pretty sure there already is rampant abuse, even with the semi-absolute prohibitions in place.

It's like torture: Maybe there are cases where it would make sense for a particular person with particularly scrupulous morals to do it in a particular case. But that's not a good reason to change the rules.

[David Roberts]

Another good punditry practice: previewing comments for gross spelling and grammatical errors.

[JAT]

Thanks for teasing this out more, Jacob. Gray is indeed the color of the hour here.

I'm struck that the actual cashing of checks occasions the outrage. Yes, it is an abuse of one's readers not to disclose such dealings as Bandow had with JA. But what if JA had supplied info -- perhaps a very valuable consultant's report to Bandow worth many thousands of dollars that Doug then used to churn out a column? Or, the more purely DC move, gave Doug access to powerful lawmakers, the kind of access that routinely costs non-pundits tens of thousands of dollars to get? That sails by in the night.

Then, as you note, is the matter of distance from the money. One or two steps removed seems to be OK. But direct payments -- nope.

Here's a half-baked thought: What if think-tanks, like political parties before them, are yesterday's mode of engaging the body politic?

Whatever. I'm just goddamn glad I never went to Saipan despite the offer from JA's crew.

Jeff A. Taylor

[Well I'll Be]

I can see how he could be hurting enough that a couple of thousand could make a difference, but was he counting on this never becoming public?

Did he never suspect that Jack Abramoff, one of the highest-profile influence peddlers of all time, would eventually get caught, thus ruining Doug's career for a lousy couple grand?

[BLG]

Am I the only person here that is really surprised that Cato types don't make some really good scratch?

[Dave W.]

he never had to write anything that was contrary to his own views (a claim I have not seen anyone contradict)

People's views change over time. Just look at ppl's opinions about the Iraq War. We will never know how Bandow's views might have evolved absent the payola. Neither does he. There's the contradiction, Sullum.

[Dave W.]

Am I the only person here that is really surprised that Cato types don't make some really good scratch?

Who says they don't other than Mr. SelfServingStatement?

[theOneState]

Is this the labor market TCS tapped into? How much do they pay, anyway? (Just curious....)

Seriously, though, do you really think money, especially in a long-term relationship, wouldn't influence nearly *anyone's* scholarship, no matter how intellectually honest they claim to be?

I don't buy it, Jacob. I think money is an issue here, and Doug is intellectually dishonest for secretly taking it whether he thinks it shaded his opinion or not. I mean, how would he possibly know?

[what a joke]

"Am I the only person here that is really surprised that Cato types don't make some really good scratch?"

"Who says they don't other than Mr. SelfServingStatement?"

Right, Dave. Everyone's a millionaires over at Cato. You should see it: all 100 of them in that big, glass building, doing nothing all day but smoking cigars lit by $100 bills, laughing at the poor folks walking by. What else would you expect from a non-profit?

[Ron Bailey]

Jacob: I agree with Jeff--thanks for teasing this situation out. However, unlike Jeff, I did go to Saipan on a junket that I knew was being paid for by the government of the Northern Marianas Islands. That government was anxious to head off the vigorous efforts of U.S. labor unions to get legislation passed by Congress to block their textile exports.

I later wrote an article for The American Enterprise Magazine about what I learned on my trip and INSISTED, over the objections of the editor, that a disclosure tagline be included at the end of the article.

The disclosure tagline reads: "Ronald Bailey is a Washington writer and tv producer. This article grows out of research done during his first-ever junket paid for by the government of a tropical paradise."

A couple of years after this article appeared, Franklin Foer from The New Republic approached me to ask about the trip with an "I got ya" attitude. He was surprised when I didn't act all squirrely or try to deny anything, but instead just directed him to actually read the article and look at the disclosure line. You could hear him deflating over the phone.

I certainly enjoyed the trip, but I also learned a lot about how our trade laws work. In any case, I still stand by the reporting the article, and if anyone cares to read it, I think that they'll find that it's not a completely glowing picture of a free market paradise.

In the meantime, I, like Jacob, have been asked to write for corporate publications and I have always refused. For example, ExxonMobile once wanted me to write up something on global warming for $5000 and I turned it down cold. I do not write speeches for anyone either.

However, if someone wants to republish something I've already written, that's OK. For example, Human Events, an anti-abortion publication with which I have almost nothing in common, is republishing a recent Wall Street Journal column on private and state financing of stem cell research. BTW, I don't think I get paid for that, but maybe the Journal will split the $25 it gets with me.

Until now I have generally thought that disclosure should be enough--readers can draw their own conclusions about whether they think someone's opinions and analysis have been bought. However, Jacob makes a good point about how tiresome it is to have to explain the logical fallacy of discrediting someone by impugning their motives.

[BLG]

Well, hear me out on this one. It seems to me that if you're a well-respected fellow in a well-respected think-tank-type operation, you may not be driving an Aston-Martin, but I doubt you're driving a Ford Festiva. And don't give me "... non-profit ...". This is DC we're talking about. At any rate, I don't see how articles priced at $1000 per pop could really be enticing (given the other conflict of interest problems) unless you're writing one a week. Was that the sort of frequency we're talking about?

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

Mr. Sullum,

Hear, hear! What's wrong with writing something for money if it's something you already believe? People like theCoach get up in arms around here whenever someone mentions Tech Central Station because it's owned by the perfidious DCI Group, that wellspring of Republican malevolence. But so what? It's an opinion site, not a news site. Same thing with Bandow. He wrote opinion pieces, not reportage. What's the big effing deal? The alternative, of course, is that the only pure opinion is the one for which the writer received no money whatsoever, such as a blog. So I guess all professional writers are unethical goat-pigs.

But was Bandow sincere when he wrote what he did? That's what makes people mad: the thought that somehow he was being insincere when he wrote. It's all about the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown. But they never bother to prove that the opinions he wrote for his Dark Master were contrary to others he wrote for Cato, etc.

To those who think Bandow, TCS, and the like should burn in Hell: What do you think of travel writing? Did you know that a majority of travel pieces published in glossies and city newspapers are subsidized in some fashion, either above the table or without the editors' knowledge? Is travel writing therefore just shilling or is it caveat lector?

[Dave W.]

Generally a good post Sullum and I agree with much of what you say, but you missed something about the way that readers (readers who are not authors) judge credibility. I speak from experience because I am a non-author who reads and tries to judge relative credibility of various authors. Disclosure is more than just a way to shut off those gnarly 1%-ers you mention. Disclosure is a pro-active way to positively bolster your credibility with unbiased readers. And the more disclosure the better. Clear disclosure, detailed disclosure, complete disclosure. That stuff only helps and never hurts.

[Corrections Dep't]

"gnarly 1%-ers" should be --ossified opponents--

also, ps:

You are correct that partisan and ideological loyalties are evidence of bias (part of the reason I don't have any, personally). However, this other problem doesn't minimize the financial one. Partisan loyalties can change over time -- but not when an income stream is attached thereto. That is the lost margin of integrity you seem to deny, but shouldn't.

[zeiner]

I think receiving money for an author to write an op-ed piece with a positive spin is unethical, receiving money for a reprint is ok in my view as long the author is honest about his/her opinion. There is no real way to tell if an author is being honest about the view he/she is writing. I?m usually always skeptical about op-ed pieces because I don?t know always know the motives.

[Ruthless]

Dave W.,
I think you're onto something.
Everyone should have a disclosure statement similar to the fine print describing any commercial drug. They should carry this statement in their wallet like teenage boys carry the condom.
Commercial drugs are fresh on my mind as I just came from having by prostate mined for signs of prostate cancer. A not very nosy look around medical areas shows evidence of lots of money sloshing, most originating from drug companies.
And, if the check-ups that come with old age weren't bad enough, I've been doing penance for about ten years for having been a stockbroker. Dilbert is often my only solace in the low-pay world most schlemiels have always and always will be trapped in.

[Shem]

If I were running a think tank, the last thing I'd want is for my employees to be taking a check from any partisan group, especially if I were running a place like Cato, with an excellent reputation for balance. When one expert is found to have taken money, it creates that small doubt in the mind of the readers, that is; "I wonder if someone was paid to write this too?" That seed of doubt can never be completely exorcised once it's planted.

[Dave W.]

Right, Dave. Everyone's a millionaires over at Cato. You should see it: all 100 of them in that big, glass building, doing nothing all day but smoking cigars lit by $100 bills, laughing at the poor folks walking by. What else would you expect from a non-profit?

See, now this is the kind of crap *I* have to put up with as someone who has come to be skeptical of businesses, governments and jouranalists. *I* never said that Cato did pay a lot. I don't know if they pay a lot or not. You are correct that the fact that they are a non-profit makes it less likely that they pay a lot. I am not sure what glass windows or cigars have to do with it. Probably the best way to know if they pay a lot is for them to start publishing their pay rates. They certainly have that right.

But my point had nothing to do with whether Cato, in fact, pays a lot or not. My point is that you don't draw any conclusions about their pay rate from the statements of somebody who is raising this fact in mitigation of misconduct. That is a situation where you have to have some independent verification before you make up your mind even tentatively because the fact that the person is raising the fact in mitigation makes it somewhat likely that the statement is untrue.

[zeiner]

"When one expert is found to have taken money, it creates that small doubt in the mind of the readers, that is; 'I wonder if someone was paid to write this too?' That seed of doubt can never be completely exorcised once it's planted."

I agree Shem. For a think tank like Cato, it is important to keep up their reputation. I hope that others at Cato are more careful about receiving money from people like Abramoff (or other people in the same type of business.

[thoreau]

But so what? It's an opinion site, not a news site. Same thing with Bandow. He wrote opinion pieces, not reportage. What's the big effing deal?

Cato claims to be a think tank, engaging in scholarship. They claim to be working to develop and explore ideas and test those ideas against evidence. That is the essence of scholarship.

Scholars can have final interests, but they need to be up front about those interests. There's nothing worse than a financial interest discovered after the fact. I published a scholarly article on some work funded by a chemical company. My co-author from the chemical company was listed with his company affiliation, so everybody knew who had a hand in the work. It's not that we discovered anything huge that will change the world and get us lots of money, or persuade people to give us lots of money. But there was an interest, and it was reported.

[mediageek]

"Probably the best way to know if they pay a lot is for them to start publishing their pay rates. They certainly have that right."

Personally, I think we ought to sue the everliving shit out of CATO and that way we can discover what those shadowy "think-tankers" get paid in the discovery phase.

[thoreau]

For the record, my work involved modifying the appearance of plastics by incorporating small particles into the material. I didn't advocate making the particles from any specific chemical, I just talked about the appropriate size and refractive index of the particle. The blend of chemicals that you make the particle from would also depend on other issues in the work: The mechanical properties of the rubber particle, how compatible the surface of the particle is with the surrounding material, etc.

[crimethink]

Dave W is right to note that the "Cato doesn't pay enough" excuse is pathetic, and reminds me of the "we should pay politicians more, so they don't turn corrupt" line. This guy knew what he was getting into when he accepted a position at Cato; if they didn't pay enough he should have looked elsewhere for employment, end of story.

That said,

If a writer is intellectually dishonest, it ultimately does not matter whether his motive is politics or money. A financial disclosure in the author ID may remind people to be skeptical of what they read on op-ed pages, but that's good advice in any case.

Well put, Mr Sullum. Those who are skeptical of what they read are not likely to be swayed by insincere, purchased shilling.

[Col DuBois]

Full disclosure: Before writing this post, I had sex with a twenty-year-old woman who works in the adult entertainment industry.

Just wanted to let you all know, to protect my credibility and all.

[Dave W.]

Did you have stock in your co-worker's employer, T.?

[thoreau]

No.

[SixSigma]

DaveW

And the more disclosure the better. Clear disclosure, detailed disclosure, complete disclosure. That stuff only helps and never hurts.

In Jacobs example though - would he have to retoratively add disclaimers to ensure full disclosure?

That is article written in 1994, but subsequent publications say "In 1995 I was paid $XXX by so and-so to republish this. The article did not change."

[jonc]

...no the heart of the matter is deception. The purpose of paying the columnist to write something is to deceive the reader into thinking the column is and honest, unbiased opinion/conclusion/fact. but it isn't. as groucho said, "oh, we know what you are, now we are just haggling about the price".

[Matt Welch]

Nice discussion.

I have generally come from the position of "when in doubt, disclose, even if it looks ridiculous, because when it looks ridiculous, maybe that's telling you something." And by "disclose" I mean friendships as much as anything else. Yet being someone who writes about media, while *participating* in media, does indeed occasionally push Gold Standard disclosure past the line of ridiculousness.

Example -- I wrote a media column last year about blog business models, using The Huffington Post as the hook, but also mentioning Pajamas Media, Nick Denton's Gawker Media, Jason Calacanis' company, Henry Copeland's BlogAds, and god knows who else. PJ, HP & Calacanis had all asked me previously (with varying levels of seriousness) whether I wanted to be involved early on in their projects; and I said no. HP at the time employed Drudge's Andrew Breitbart, who is a friend. Roger Simon has been kind enough to make me delicious cocktails on several occasions at his house, despite our disagreements about the world. Denton has been a good friend for 10 year. And Copeland A) has been a friend for 15 y ears, B) used to be my boss, and C) runs a company that I make money off of (something like $1,000 a year, plus or minus $500).

I think, but honestly don't remember, that I included at least *some* of that information in the first draft (especially vis-a-vis Copeland), but I don't think much survived the final cut, nor did I weep about it. As the length of the previous graf indicates, that kind of disclosure-on-steroids can easily make the column about *me*, which it wasn't. One mitigating action I sometimes take is to make those relationships clear when I post the story over at my personal website.

As for Bandow & Cato & punditry & junkets & reprints, a couple of quick points:

1) It would have been nice for Bandow to mention how much or little he got paid by the syndicated column & Cato. Most people don't realize that a syndicated column isn't necessarily a license to print money; at the same time it would have been nice to have evidence beyond his pleading that he really did need the money.

2) I am not philisophically opposed to receiving fat money from corporations for reprints, mostly because I have such a hard time ever imagining it happening. I think what you'd do from a disclosure standpoint is mention it in all subsequent articles & columns about said company, which might make things awkward. I totally understand Jacob not even wanting to deal with the hassle ever again, what with working in such a heated political space near the smoking industry.

3) In my one experience, TCS pays like $75-100 a column, though presumably they bump it up when it's from an actually coveted writer.

[Dave W.]

Matt Welch,

One more rule to consider. If you write about a company specific issue (or sometimes even an industry specific issue), you should also disclose stock ownership in the relevant companies. This doesn't seem to be current journalistic custom. But it is a good one for you to start because: (1) its an integrity issue; and (2) you seem smart enuf to understand that the existing practices may be improved upon.

In other words, if you are shilling for the Iraq War in early 2003: tell us about your Halliburton and KB&R stocks. If you are praising Microsoft for its latest antitrust victory, fine, but let us know about your MS stock. And if you do X to the n power number of posts about how greeat gene research is . . . well, I'm sure *you* get it, Matt.

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

Cato claims to be a think tank, engaging in scholarship.

Ah. And think tanks never have a political agenda that might skew such scholarship. Universities neither.

All writing is opinion. Some of it may be truthful -- such as scholarship about plastic molecules -- insofar as it accurately relates observations about the working of the universe that also can be or have been observed by others; but it is still a subjective communication. For example, the authors of a study may neglect to mention, through their own honest ignorance, X principle or Y law which may or may not even be known or understood at this time. Because no one is omniscient, it is only in the compounding of many of these opinions that scholarship is advanced. The only fraud is when authors knowingly deny or ignore observations that have been well established (the definition of what "well established" actually means I leave to another day; see any recent discussion about teaching creationism).

Every argument has to be weighed on its own merits. SO: Was anything Bandow wrote fraudulent in that he denied or ignored pertinent facts? No one that I have read disputes the rightness or wrongness of the articles he wrote while on Abramoff's payroll -- there is only this irrational revulsion because suddenly the man has cooties.

For the record, I think disclosure is a good thing and, yes, Bandow should have done it; I just don't think he should be as vilified as he is. But as Col Dubois and Mr. Welch point out, "full disclosure" can get ridiculous real quick.

[Ed]

If the ideas are sound, I couldn't care less who paid for them.

[O,RLY?]

I speak from experience because I am a non-author who reads and tries to judge relative credibility of various authors.

O, RLY?

[joe]

But Matt, wouldn't steroids make disclosures better? 😉

I've never read a Jacob Sullum piece and thought "what a shill," even when I disagree with him. At the same time, I'm irritated by the obvious shilling of Michael Young, even when I agree with him. In theory, the idea that the validity of an argument is completely independent from the motives of its author is logical, but in practice, you can see it all over the page.

I'm defining shilling here as "writing dishonetly for the purpose of advancing a predetermined position," and I consider shilling "for love" to be just as bad as shilling "for money."

And Ron Bailey? He may be shill, but to his credit, he's a transparent shill. Anyone who reads his work without a skeptical eye has no one to blame but himself if he's mislead.

[Barry]

Amanada:

"Hear, hear! What's wrong with writing something for money if it's something you already believe? People like theCoach get up in arms around here whenever someone mentions Tech Central Station because it's owned by the perfidious DCI Group, that wellspring of Republican malevolence. But so what? It's an opinion site, not a news site."

I've seen TCS cited numerous times in the blogosphere. I don't recall it ever being cited as an opinion site, for the obvious reason, that that would wreck the credibility. In the section 'About TCS', there is the phrase: "The dynamic nature of modern society presents mankind with enormous opportunities and challenges. TCSDaily.com is the online journal that will explore our exciting and unsettling times with news, commentary and analysis that will help you make sense of it all." There's a crucial distinction there, which TCS doesn't make clear.

Please note that this is well after TCS's non-pulblicized parent organization became clear. Until then, the only way that one might know not to trust TCS is if somebody noticed that James 'Dow 36,000' Glassman seemed to be a big honcho there.

[thoreau]

joe-

There are two components to your definition of shilling. The dishonest part, yeah, an astute reader can usually (hopefully?) pick it out. But would you care to expand on your "predetermined position" part? By that part, it would seem that any opinion writer, especially an opinion writer for a publication like Reason with a clear agenda/perspective/bias/viewpoint/outlook/insert-preferred-term-here is already 50% into shill territory.

[Barry]

As usual, the Poor Man says it best (http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/01/05/unclear-on-the-concept/):

"The problem here - and it?s not excusively a problem for Libertarian hacks or Republican Congresscritters, by any means, although they are both particularly shameless offenders - is that you can?t serve the public interest and serve your own at the same time. You can?t claim to be a public intellectual (or ?pundit?, or whatever the fuck we?re calling it now) and write ad copy at the same time, any more than you can be a politician and a lobbyist, or an umpire and a bookie. If you choose to dabble in both, that is your perogative, and you be completely earnest in your efforts to not let the one contaminate the other, but you forfeit the right to be offended when people don?t think that?s good enough. Of course there is a lot of gray here - you made it that way.

[Dave W.]

And Ron Bailey? . . . transpatrent . . . no one to blame but himself if he's mislead.

Joe, you just said the magic word to get me off Bailey's case. (the magic word for me is always either "transparency" or "antitrust.") I see your point. No more Bailey-is-biased posts from me.

Also want to thank the Reason HnR board for allowing my criticism and suspicions to exist on its server. Not every publication would have the huevos, but Reason is a superior publication. If you don't subscribe yet, do. For my part, I got my family member's address and will be ordering the Choice book today. Kind of sorry that I mentioned that I have a fam'ly yesterday, now that I apparently have a stalker or 2 on my tail here. O well, u know how that goes, Joe.

[joe]

throeau,

I have no objection to arguing for a point. I object to doing so dishonestly.

And if you're receiving money, access, or anything else of value for your "persuasive writing," you'd bette keep your nose clean, because your craft depends on people trusting you.

[joe]

There you have it, folks. The magic word is "transpatrent."

🙂

My work here is done...

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

Barry,

"...with news, commentary and analysis that will help you make sense of it all." There's a crucial distinction there, which TCS doesn't make clear.

I don't think I've ever read anything on TCS that wasn't an editorial of some sort. And what is an editorial but a presentation of facts which is then commented upon and analyzed by the author? You're still free to dispute any such commentary and analysis. I see nothing evil there.

Lest I be accused of shilling for TCS, I think everyone should read the site with a grain of salt -- just as they should when reading anything else. But to get back to one of my original points, I'm not sure why TCS raises the hackles of certain parties when they are the essentially the same as, say, Reason: a group which pays people to write opinion pieces (which the authors, I feel, sincerely believe in) that are in alignment with a particular worldview. Marketplace of ideas and all that. Those who believe there's something sinister about such practices I've found also think the only truly neutral party is the government, which is why everything should be controlled by bureaucrats.

[MP]

There you have it, folks. The magic word is "transpatrent."

Looks like a Freudian slip from our favorite patent lawyer/conspiracy theorist.

[Dave W.]

MP: that is what I was thinking. I don't know how that T. got in there, but I probably have Thoreau on the brain bcs he has been coming alive with some cogent analyses of late.

[Phil]

Thoreau didn't say it. Joe did.

"cogent analyses" = "stuff I agree with"

[Dave W.]

btw, the promised patent blog is still coming and will have my name on it, and will be linked from my posts, so all u clever stalkers are wasting your time with this identity search thing.

I am working on the blog a bit everyday -- trying to make it breezy yet substantial. At first it was looking way too much like West Keynotes, uuugggghhh. Now I am just taking on one issue per case and taking the analysis more sideways -- trying to focus on "how could the patent application been written to prevent the contested issue we see in this patent case." The Fed. Cir. doesn't focus on that, but since so many issues are caused by lawyer stuff (eg, special definitions of words), rather than by what the inventors did or thought, I pretty much have the central theme of the blog down.

I am open to suggestions as far as what kinds of financial disclosures I need to make, since I am thinking about that part of the site now.

[Dave W.]

no:

"cogent analyses" = "increasing margin of common ground that T. and I find as we continue to converse and really lissen to what the other guy has to say"

Look at them yoyos . . . that's the way ya do it!

[joe]

Dave W.,

I was once insulted on a thread (no, really!)

The charge was that I changed by argument in response to what other people wrote.

It was the kindest insult I've ever received.

[Warren]

I think supply and demand is at the root of this issue. The problem stems from the fact that there is an oversupply of writers. For every writing job someone is willing to pay for there are a bazillion applicants beating each other over the head with IBM Selectrics to get it. And now with the internet, well there's another gazillion would-be Menkens just giving it away.

So why should anyone stick a crowbar in their wallet and cough up a couple Lincolns for your prose in particular? You say you are a really good writer? Well you're gonna have to do better than that. A person can't walk two blocks down Madison Ave without tripping over a score of Masters of Rhetoric. Oh but you also claim scholarship, you say you can bring academic integrity to the party. Well now your talking, if you can help us earn some respect in this town, we could see our way to treating you to a Grand Slam at Denny's. Of course you must be pure as the driven snow or you're no good to us. We can't afford to be associated with someone with, you know a past, or a life or anything like that.

It sucks for you of course, but the decision to be a writer means accepting hunger as a way of life. There's always the chance you can earn yourself a reputation and cash in on the big bucks, but quite frankly the odds are slim. Or you can be a literary whore. If your careful and discrete, I think there's a fair chance you could get away with it for years.

[Phil]

I am open to suggestions as far as what kinds of financial disclosures I need to make

All of them. Every penny of income accounted for, as well as non-financial compensation.

[paul]

follow the advice you gave Bailey yesterday DaveW and disclose everything including billing hours; you wouldn't want to be accused of writing on a client's time or if so, being their shill.

[theOneState]

Ron, why would AEI resist adding that disclaimer?

To further the discussion, I'm not sure steriods-enhanced disclosures would ever be necessary. Keep it simple and it won't be absurd or feel strained.

It's an interesting point about disclosures being edited out of an article. I'd whack 'em too if I was an editor if the rest of the article was tight. Writers shouldn't have to worry about such things. Editors and publishers should be concerned enough to care, though. But as the AEI example shows, I guess not.

But it isn't really gray-area stuff with Bandow, is it? He misrepresented his affiliation.

None of the writers here have admitted the point from several of us that a financial relationship over time is likely to influence a writer in ways even the writer may not understand. Such relationships should be disclosed, if only to remind the freaking *writers* that it's unseemly.

[feek]

Dave W:
I would hate to live in your nasty, suspicious and paranoid head. No one here is after your family, and it its loathesome of you to suggest such a thing.

[Pro Libertate]

Shouldn't we all take a break now and enjoy a refreshing Coca-Cola?? Hmmmmm, Coke. It's the Real Thing?.

This comment was paid for by the Coca-Cola Company.

[Russ 2000]

In other words, if you are shilling for the Iraq War in early 2003: tell us about your Halliburton and KB&R stocks.

For me this is the central point. We're getting all pissy about some nobody at a think tank possibly doing some shilling... shouldn't there be a porportionate outcry for our goddamned politicans doing the same fucking thing? Seems like a lot of misplaced outrage to me.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

For example, ExxonMobile once wanted me to write up something on global warming for $5000 and I turned it down cold.

I'll do it for $4,000!

Or, taking into account that I don't actually know anything and am a pretty shitty writer, I'll do it for $1,000. This week only.

Hmmmm.

$100?

$10 to go away?

[bubba]

How is donating to a like-minded columnist different from donating to a like-minded politician?

Does payola have more impact on an opinion-writer than a desire to cultivate an audience? I can't imagine that dramatically changing your editorial stance would be good for your syndication. You alienate your readership without necessarily gaining the people you ticked off in the past.

Disclosures are always good. Inherent self-interest is why arguments from authority are so worthless. It doesn't matter why a writer states a particular opinion. All that matters is whether or not he supports it well. The motivation matters only when we give weight to Authority. He's a respected columnist, therefore his opinion matters more, unless he was paid for it. Scratch the first part, and the last part doesn't matter.

[Dave W.]

How is donating to a like-minded columnist different from donating to a like-minded politician?

Easy. I sometimes let authors persuade me (over time if not always instantaneously). I never trust pols like that. Good rule o thumb.

[anonymous]

Yup bubba, when you think about it there's no reason for names to even be associated with articles. Who cares who wrote it? Everything about the process should be anonymous.

[Johnny]

I'm looking for the link, but I can't find it right now...however...the damning piece of the puzzle for me was that he was asked by another reporter prior to this coming out...if he had taken money.

He firmly denied it.

I think Mr. Baily hits it on the head. Don't hide, it's like a classic leave it to beaver episode. Once you start lying in public, then you have to remember which lies you told, and to whom.

If it's OK to take the money. It's ok to admit you took the money, probably imperative to admit it.

If you want anyone to trust you that is.

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

To paraphrase Johnny: It's OK to take the money as long as you admit you took the money. That's the most concise synopsis of the situation I've read.

It's kind of like Bush these days, who's like a high-school bully: "Yeah, I took your lunch money. Now what the fuck you gonna do about it?" Nobody has a good response to that.

[Ben]

Jacob, thanks for answering my question. The problem with having taken the $5000 from Big Tobacco, even if it's a reprint fee, is that they're sending you a message: we like what you have to say, here's a check, and we'll keep our eye on you. Can you honestly say that you didn't appreciate that money, and didn't, in the back of your mind, think (even still today) that if you continue to write things that agree with the thinking of Big Tobacco, you *might* get another fat reprint fee from them? That's why I think even having accepted a reprint fee is a taint that contaminates your opinion. Permanently.

[anonymous shill]

So Ben, what do you do for a living and why should your customers trust you?

[paul]

blg:
[...] I don't see how articles priced at $1000 per pop could really be enticing (given the other conflict of interest problems) unless you're writing one a week. Was that the sort of frequency we're talking about?

I dunno. If these guys make what the rest of us working office stiffs make, even one article for a grand at say, around christmas time would be a big boost.

Unfortunately, I speak from the low-paid world of information technology, now if I were a public school teacher in the state of Washington-- then no, an extra grand would mean little.

Paul

[Paul]

I speak from experience because I am a non-author who reads and tries to judge relative credibility of various authors. Disclosure is more than just a way to shut off those gnarly 1%-ers you mention. Disclosure is a pro-active way to positively bolster your credibility with unbiased readers. And the more disclosure the better.

I agree with Dave W. on this. As a member of "John Q. Public", we might have some insight as to how "John Q. Public" percieves these matters.

[Barbar]

Anon Shill,

Clever, but I bet Ben's customers trust him because his compensation depends on their satisfaction.

Hmm, let's see, when RJR pays a writer to put out a piece, who is the writer's customer...

I don't think this analogy goes where you think it goes.

[Dave W.]

Paul,
But like the other guy said, I am a published author. I honestly forgot, which forgetfulness might hopefully be construed as harmless error, since my disclosure line said that I worked for a large insurance defense firm in the jurisdiction where my writing was originally published. Sorry to mislead. I honestly forgot about the gig (more a factual column than an opinion column, really). I wish some of my clients mighta read my column for the year or 2 it was published. Then I might not a-gotten laid off!

[Robert]

I figured we'd eventually read from Jacob Sullum on this one. However, my take on the Bandow thing was that it was good news that pro-freedom ideas were valuable enough to get payola, and that it was a good opprotunity for pro-liberty writers. I say the lesson for Jacob is that he should've kept his financial arrangements SECRET. If Bandow had disclosed payments sooner, that would only have made his writings less persuasive to some.

As you can see, I think truth is too valuable to give away for nothing. It should be used tactically and/or for money. Disclose, or don't disclose (even lie and deny), depending on which you judge will be more persuasive. The WHOLE truth isn't always the most persuasive.