Comments on: Cash for comment

By: Kriston

Kriston — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:44:50 +0000

To split hairs unnecessarily, you’d ruffle a lot of feathers in certain circles by equating Reason with Cato. The latter have that gorgeous glass building downtown (in DC), from which they look down on the sex-n-drugs libertines at the magazine.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:16:05 +0000

This v interesting guide to PR consultants says: "It’s not unheard of, for example, for a PR consultant to ask for a monthly fee of $25,000 or so, exclusive of expenses or special projects", and makes it clear that you may get very little for your money.

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:56:13 +0000

#10.

John, if you’d like to point to a few of those opportunities?

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:27:46 +0000

Tom G, I read both statements before posting. They are entirely consistent with what I’ve written above. Ferrara openly admits that he took Abramoff’s cash, and he is sticking to his job.

The fact that Ferrara did the pay-for-play stuff first and was hired by IPI later doesn’t seem to me to be material, certainly not enough to justify a special mention in the context of a two-sentence aside. The various other quibbles offered in the statements are similarly nugatory.

As regards IPI in general, I refer readers to Tim Lambert’s link at #6.

By: Buce

Buce — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:02:43 +0000

I think one thing all us nancies ought to do is to begin every conversation with these guys by asking—were you paid to make this utterance? How much, and by whom? Not likely to yield much positive information, but it will prick a little pomposity (don’t go there, Buce), and it will keep things in perspective.

By: Tom Giovanetti

Tom Giovanetti — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:17:35 +0000

The article in BusinessWeek that started this whole thing, upon which all subsequent articles and Paul Krugman’s commentary are based, omitted important statements and resulted in a complete misrepresentation. All subsequent who have written on this topic are guilty of passing on misrepresentation without bothering to fact-check. You can view IPI’s and Ferrara’s statements at http://www.ipi.org

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:11:48 +0000

Thanks, John- I’ll check out the places you like to. I’m interested to read more on it, especially since, as I’d mentioned, the local coverage of it was not so good.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:41:47 +0000

Tim W., I was probably guilty of rhetorical overstretch there, but I’ve seen quite a few consultancies billed at $20K or more, which had less substantive content than a couple of dozen Op-Ed pieces, and served mainly as decorative props for the client’s lobbying efforts.

Matt, I wrote a little about the riots on my own blog, some time after the event, but I didn’t feel I had anything very useful to say, that hadn’t already been said by other Australian bloggers.

By: New Yorker

New Yorker — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:13:39 +0000

You folks are a bunch of nancies complaining about a straight shooter like Milloy. I rarely see anyone here take issue with the “Bush = Hitler” crowd that so permeates western academia, though their comments are certainly more egregious than anything emanating from Milloy.

CT simply has no credibility as a site where dialogue can be conducted, given the constant, overt bias.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:42:08 +0000

Sebastian, IIRC, Milloy was involved in trying to get some junk science inserted into epidemiology, at the behest of the Tobacco Institute. That should be enough to get him off of the payroll of any honest ‘think tank’. As for the rest of his shenanigans, try Tim Lambert’s blog:

http://timlambert.org/index.php?s=milloy

http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:33:28 +0000

I think the issue with Milloy is that his conduct was that of an enormous jerk with no common sense who spouted his mouth off, but did not act to represent a conflict of interest.

By: Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:41:54 +0000

No surprise that the Institute for Policy Innovation isn’t bothered by cash for comment. Here is their president on why he keeps IPI’s funding sources secret.

By: Richard Bellamy

Richard Bellamy — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:32:07 +0000

And the amount of money involved was piddling – $2000 a pop or about $24K all up.

Spoken like a true non-Philadelphian. Over here in the “K-Mart of Corruption”, you can apparently get a vote in your favor for under $500.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:21:33 +0000

Somewhat off topic (well, maybe a lot off, but since you did mention it…) Did any major blog (by which I mean, of course, the ones on the blog roll here) have anything to say about the Australian race riots? I was quite surprised to see nothing said, as, apparently, thousands of drunk Aussies went around to hunt down the darkies in their midst. The NY times coverage was not so good- repeating nonsense about Australia’s “long history of immigration” without once mentioning that much of that history was part of the “white australia” program, the recent controversies about keeping all the darkie refugees in concentration camps in the desert, essentionally withdrawing from large parts of the convention on refugees, the fact that illegal immigration rules are (according to an Australian immigration judge friend of mine) enforced only against the darkies, etc. You’d think this sort of stuff my have been relevent for discussing the riots, and that it’s the sort of thing that some bloggers might have mentioned. I kept expecting the Aussies here to talk about it, at least. (Not that you have a duty to- I just expected it.) I don’t mean to hijack the thread, so let me say, the cash for comment stuff is bad, and the “I liked all those causes anyway” defense given by Bandow was pretty lame. Sorry to rant off topic.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:38:57 +0000

John, Milloy is still employed because, in the end, CATO is a brothel. Producing analyses with a predetermined outcome is what they are in existance for. We see the difference between them and AEI because AEI has very recently engaged in what would, in the literal brothel world, be a public orgy with bestiality. If Bush’s Social Security destruction plans had succeeded, we’d see CATO cheer the destruction of Social Security, even as they stepped over the bodies in the street.