Dec 16, 2005

In the news...

by Liberty and Power

The Senate has voted not to renew a lot of Patriot [sic] Act stuff. That's good, as far as I can tell. Short story on CNN here.

In other news, what's all this about a Cato scandal? All I've seen are oblique references, but nothing specific. Anyone know what this is about? Anyone? Bueller? UPDATE: David helpfully provides a link in the comments, thanks. Seems to me Doug Bandow could have avoided the scandal by simply disclosing.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Marc Joffe - 12/16/2005

I think it's reasonable for Cato to terminate him.

He apparently violated ethical guidelines established by his syndicator and publicized his affiliation with Cato while doing so. Cato has every right to protect its image by disassociating itself from someone who acts like this.

When reading an Op-Ed piece, my assumption is that it is editorial content for which the writer is compensated only by the news gathering organization.

To the extent that the author is also being compensated by an interested third party, one might expect such content to appear as an advertisement. Since the author apparently needed a third party subsidy to produce the pieces, it would appear that the newspaper and the syndicator did not bear the full cost of producing this material.

Aeon J. Skoble - 12/16/2005

Yes, and at the exact same moment, no less!

Max Schwing - 12/16/2005

I see you thought along the same line :)

Aeon J. Skoble - 12/16/2005

It's not clear why he should return the money - he wrote the columns, after all. Unless his contract with Cato specifies that he can't moonlight. But here's the issue: just what _is_ the lapse of judgement? Taking money to write stuff he in fact believes to be true? Or doing so without the disclosure, either to his bosses at Cato or to his readers? In my view it's the latter. I don't see what's intrinsically wrong with the former.

Max Schwing - 12/16/2005

My question would be, why does he have to feel guilty for it or even pay the money back?
He would pay it back, if he had done something that had gone against his values, but he clearly states that his own judgement lay with the indicted person. So, he acted as his conscience dictated, his only fault was to get CATO involved, imo. So, if he still feels that his articles express his opinion, he can take full responsibility and NOT pay back the money (he still has done work, hasn't he?).

Mark Brady - 12/16/2005

"It was a lapse of judgment on my part, and I take full responsibility for it," Bandow said from a California hospital, where he's recovering from recent knee surgery.

Is it not incumbent on Doug Bandow to return the payments to Jack Abramoff? Otherwise how else can he take full responsibility for what he recognizes as a lapse of judgment?

David T. Beito - 12/16/2005

Here are the details:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm