You all know how I feel about the Bush administration’s media “pay-to-pander” scandal. (Go here and here and here for a refresher.) In two words: absolutely disgusted. When I first blogged about the Armstrong Williams payoff, I wrote this:

Any other pundits who accepted money from the Bush administration, whether from the Education Department or any other bureaucracy, should come forward now and disclose. And then they should immediately return the money.

Williams refused to return the money he took to promote Bush’s education and now he’s crying “witch hunt.” No other conservative commentators volunteered to come forward and disclose whether they had taken Bush administration money–tax dollars–for similar schemes. So now, Drudge has a preview of Howard Kurtz’s Washington Post article tomorrow exposing a conservative writer I have long admired, Maggie Gallagher.

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. 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…

Can’t tell you how deeply disappointed I am to read this, especially given that Gallagher has been a fearless and independent (or so I had thought) voice in defense of traditional marriage.

Also can’t tell you how galling the stupidity of the Bush administration officials who doled out taxpayer funds to conservatives in the media is. Who else is out there? First, the Department of Education. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services. What other departments put the right’s media figures on the dole? Better step forward and come clean. NOW.

I wrote about the taint that the Williams fiasco left on all minority conservative writers and thinkers in the public square. From what Drudge is previewing, the Gallagher case may do even greater, broader damage to all conservative journalists. As if it weren’t hard enough for them to establish credibility in the MSM.

Thanks again, Bush administration.

Update: Gallagher’s writings on marriage for UExpress, National Review/National Review Online, the Weekly Standard, and other outlets are here.

Update II: Here’s the Kurtz article. Details:

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.

That wasn’t the only money she received from the administration, though. More was funneled through the National Fatherhood Initiative:

Gallagher received an additional $20,000 from the Bush administration in 2002 and 2003 for writing a report, titled “Can Government Strengthen Marriage?”, for a private organization called the National Fatherhood Initiative. That report, published last year, was funded by a Justice Department grant, said NFI spokesman Vincent DiCaro. Gallagher said she was “aware vaguely” that her work was federally funded.

Unlike Williams’ syndicate, Gallagher’s syndicate (Universal Press Syndicate) said it had no plans to drop her column.

Update III: Gallagher comments here, and issues what seems like a rather half-hearted apology:

My first instinct is to say, no, Howard, I had no special obligation to disclose this information.

I’m a marriage expert. I get paid to write, edit, research, and educate on marriage. If a scholar or expert gets paid to do some work for the government, should he or she disclose that if he writes a paper, essay, or op-ed on the same or similar subject? If this is the ethical standard, it is an entirely new standard. I was not paid to promote marriage. I was paid to produce particular research and writing products (articles, brochures, presentations) which I produced. My lifelong experience in marriage research, public education and advocacy is the reason HHS hired me.

But the real truth is that it never occurred to me. On reflection, I think Howard is right. I should have disclosed a government contract, when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers.

Update IV: Kevin Craver at Rathergate agrees with me…

It’s a simple choice, journalists. If you want to be a columnist, be a columnist. If you want to be in public relations, be in public relations. You can’t have both. If you try to have it both ways, you will lose both.

But the blame does not fall squarely on columnists who should know better. The government should know better. Does President Bush have any idea how absolutely lousy it looks to pay off news columnists? It gives the appearance that money is the only way to make new initiatives and policies look good.

And a note to Washington — that’s not your money you’re spending on PR. That’s my money.

LaShawn Barber has more from both sides of the debate.

comments (0)   trackbacks (9)