President Calls For End to Tax-Funded PR for His Policies

LA Times ^ | January 27, 2005 | Maura Reynolds

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

WASHINGTON — As fresh evidence surfaced Wednesday of the Bush administration's use of taxpayer dollars to promote its policies in the news media, the president disavowed such practices and ordered that his Cabinet secretaries remain independent from the press.

Bush spoke as Democrats produced statistics showing that contracts to private public relations firms by the administration have more than doubled since he took office.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

...The government under Democratic and Republican administrations has long contracted with public relations firms to help inform the public and package and promote its programs. However, it is illegal to use taxpayer dollars to fund propaganda without explicit congressional approval and without disclosing the government's role. Democrats complain that under the Bush administration, the size of such contracts has grown excessively and the nature of their work has become more deceptive.

...Last year, the GAO criticized video footage produced under contract with Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy that were designed to be inserted into television newscasts. Similar videos produced by the Education Department are under investigation.

During his news conference, Bush described the Education Department's public relations practices as a mistake.

"All our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," the president said.

---

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services --Video News Releases, B-302710, May 19, 2004:

Conclusion

Although the VNR materials were labeled so that the television news stations could identify CMS as the source of the materials, part of the VNR materials--the story packages and lead-in anchor scripts--were targeted not only to the television news stations but also to the television viewing audience. Neither the story packages nor scripts identified HHS or CMS as the source to the targeted television audience, and the content of the news reports was attributed to individuals purporting to be reporters, but actually (were actors) hired by an HHS subcontractor. For these reasons, the use of appropriated funds for production and distribution of the story packages and suggested scripts violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition of the Consolidated Appropriation Resolution of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003). Moreover, because CMS had no appropriation available to produce and distribute materials in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, CMS violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. CMS must report the Antideficiency Act violation to the Congress and the President. 31 U.S.C. § 1351.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

[COBOL2Java]

I wonder what the statistics are on Congressional PR contracts?

[Voltage]

So he is calling for an end to funding PBS/NPR?

[ptcmama]

I just don't get what the big deal is with this. I'm not surprised that the administrtion has to pay 'journalists' to print good things about their policies - it's the only way to get anything good ever printed, imho. I don't have a problem with this practice at all. It wouldn't be necessary if the media printed both sides of issues. You don't think the left isn't paying some in the media to spout their vile ideology?

[coloradan]

The left doesn't have to pay people in the media, the lefties are already swarming all over those jobs. (Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Couric, etc.) As for the big deal, when the government lobbies for or against anything, it pits itself against those it allegedly represents; you don't have government of the people, by the people, for the people, but rather, of the government, by the government, for the government.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I just don't get what the big deal is with this. I'm not surprised that the administrtion has to pay 'journalists' to print good things about their policies - it's the only way to get anything good ever printed, imho. I don't have a problem with this practice at all. It wouldn't be necessary if the media printed both sides of issues. You don't think the left isn't paying some in the media to spout their vile ideology?

Regardless of what you think, it's illegal for Bush (or any government official) to create and disseminate propaganda designed to dupe the public into supporting a government policy without informing the public as to the source of the propaganda and without first getting Congress' approval.

Bush did neither when he released his Medicare propaganda video news releases (VNR) designed to sway public opinion in favor of his Medicare legislation.

If you (or Bush) don't like the law, then change it, but until it's changed, it is the president's obligation to uphold the law (he is the chief law enforcement officer, isn't he?).

Because Bush has been caught with his hand in this particular cookie jar more than once, it's clear in what regard he holds the Constitution and his oath to uphold it. (Read: toilet paper)

Now you can (and have) say that it's okay for Bush to do this because the left does it, but that's like saying it's okay to rob banks because criminals do it.

You can't claim the high moral ground while at the same time using underhanded tactics. But then who ever said Bush stood on the moral high ground is either a dupe (or a paid commentator, as the case may be).

[Bob J]

"Bush spoke as Democrats produced statistics showing that contracts to private public relations firms by the administration have more than doubled since he took office."

Which of course means the dims started and encouraged the action while Clinton was office, Bush only capitalized on it.

Freakin' dim hypocrites.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Freakin' dim hypocrites.

Does Bush (or any of his cabinet secretaries) have any principles of their own or do they do what they think they can get away with because the democrats did it?

[Bob J]

To me it's good 'ol fashioned marketing. I have no issue with an administration using any tool at it's disposal to get it's own message out. If there is a problem, it's not with Bush's legal use of contract law it's with the "journalists" who unethically take the money and don't make public their association.

I merely point out the inconsistencies of the coverage.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

To me it's good 'ol fashioned marketing. I have no issue with an administration using any tool at it's disposal to get it's own message out. If there is a problem, it's not with Bush's legal use of contract law it's with the "journalists" who unethically take the money and don't make public their association

As I asked before, does Bush and his cabinet sectretaries have any principles of their own or do they base their actions on what the Clintons were able to get away with? It sounds to me like you're saying that they are following the example set by the Clintons.

IOW, does their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution conflict with their actions in the case of the HHS bogus news spots?

Or is this just good ol' fashioned marketing, too?

If Bush's HHS' actions were the legal use of contract law as you assert, then why did Gamboa conclude this to be a violation of federal law?

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services --Video News Releases, B-302710, May 19, 2004:

Conclusion
Although the VNR materials were labeled so that the television news stations could identify CMS as the source of the materials, part of the VNR materials--the story packages and lead-in anchor scripts--were targeted not only to the television news stations but also to the television viewing audience. Neither the story packages nor scripts identified HHS or CMS as the source to the targeted television audience, and the content of the news reports was attributed to individuals purporting to be reporters, but actually (were actors) hired by an HHS subcontractor. For these reasons, the use of appropriated funds for production and distribution of the story packages and suggested scripts violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition of the Consolidated Appropriation Resolution of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003). Moreover, because CMS had no appropriation available to produce and distribute materials in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, CMS violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. CMS must report the Antideficiency Act violation to the Congress and the President. 31 U.S.C. § 1351.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

[Bob J]

So the HHS used reporters, who in actuality were screen guild actors, to get to the public one side of an issue that reporters, who in actuality are actors for the DNC, refused to cover.

There was no duplicity on the part of the HHS. As your quotations show, they were clearly marked as HHS and CMS materials to the media outlets who received them. They were suggested for use as counter point materials during regular news segments, not as commercials during I Love Lucy reruns.

I think it would have been better if the materials were labeled as such in the actual footage, but at the least the media outlets using them could have identified them as such themselves. They didn't, stowing away this little gem of a scandal for when the DNC wanted it.

Methinks you are a tempest in a teapot.

[Bob J]

BTW - Gamboa is no jewel himself. He is a grandstanding little twit who loves to see his face on television.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

There was no duplicity on the part of the HHS. As your quotations show, they were clearly marked as HHS and CMS materials to the media outlets who received them. They were suggested for use as counter point materials during regular news segments, not as commercials during I Love Lucy reruns.

They were pure propaganda because the goverment agency producing the video did not inform the viewer that the opinions expressed in the VNR were biased toward a pro-goverment position. I quote:

Because CMS did not identify itself as the source of the news report, the story packages, including the lead-in script, violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition.[30] In a modest but meaningful way, the publicity or propaganda restriction helps to mark the boundary between an agency making information available to the public and agencies creating news reports unbeknownst to the receiving audience. It is not the only marker Congress has placed in statute between the government and the American press, however. Consistent with the restrictions on publicity or propaganda “within the United States,”[31] Congress has prohibited the U.S. Information Agency and its succeeding agency, Board of Broadcasting Governors, created by Congress for the purpose of producing pro-U.S. government news reports and print materials for international audiences, 22 U.S.C. § 1461, from broadcasting to domestic audiences, 22 U.S.C. §§ 1461(b), 1461‑1a.[32] In limiting domestic dissemination of the U.S. government-produced news reports, Congress was reflecting concern that the availability of government news broadcasts may infringe upon the traditional freedom of the press and attempt to control public opinion.

I think it would have been better if the materials were labeled as such in the actual footage, but at the least the media outlets using them could have identified them as such themselves. They didn't, stowing away this little gem of a scandal for when the DNC wanted it.

It's not a matter of personal opinion. It's a federal law. The so-called 'news' media is under no legal obligation to provide disclaimers for government-produced 'news' releases. The government, by definition of their own laws, is.

If you don't demand that a Republican-controlled government obey it's own laws how do you intend to convince anyone (with any credibility) that a Democrat-controlled one should?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Methinks you are a tempest in a teapot.

Yeah, silly ol' fashioned me.

Unlike those in the Bush Administration, I meant it when I raised my right hand and said:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same... So help me God."

[Bob J]

Could you point to me where in the Constitution lies this prohibition against government advertising?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Could you point to me where in the Constitution lies this prohibition against government advertising?

It's right after the part that allows the President and/or his cabinet secretaries to violate a federal law.

[Bob J]

Okay, give them a couple of stiff swats on the arse and send them off to bed with no supper.

Kerry was defeated, Rather is gone, Iraq is voting...some people just refuse to be happy.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Okay, give them a couple of stiff swats on the arse and send them off to bed with no supper.

Kerry was defeated, Rather is gone, Iraq is voting...some people just refuse to be happy.

So, the penalty for violation of a federal law is now a simple spanking and no dinner?

Unlike you, I have not let down my guard simply because the current occupant of the White House has the letter "R" after his name. Unlike you, I see my duty as a citizen of the USA is to diligently watch all politicians' actions because I've learned that abuses of power occur when a politician thinks no one is looking.

So, unlike you, I will not give Bush and his cabinet secretaries a pass for a violation of their own law just because a democrat was defeated, a newsman retired or a foreign country is voting.

If this means that I am unhappy, then so be it. Unlike you, I will not quietly into the night. The freedoms I enjoy today came about because my forebears watched their government officials and spoke out when they saw wrongdoing. I owe nothing less to my children.

[Bob J]

"So, the penalty for violation of a federal law is now a simple spanking and no dinner?"

Okay, slip in a moving violation.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Okay, slip in a moving violation.

For the difference in meaning between the word, "violation" and "penalty" consult, www.dictionary.com