Doug Bandow Scandal

Dan J Mahoney - 12/24/2005

Steven Horowitz writes:

"If Bandow had *said* he was a paid writer for < >, then we can make up our own minds."

This is ridiculous. People can
make up their minds about what Bandow
wrote without knowing that he was
paid to write it or not. It's called
thinking for yourself.

I don't mind seeing a beltway
libertarian go down, but this whole
affair is being blown way out of
proportion, and the self-righteous
indignation in some quarters is
appalling.

No Treason - 12/19/2005

Full TNR article from months ago is available here:

http://tinyurl.com/77zef

Steven Horwitz - 12/19/2005

For me Bill, it's as much about disclosure as anything. If Bandow had *said* he was a paid writer for < >, then we can make up our own minds. And if the NR article is correct, Bandow lied to the writer's face about being paid by Abramoff. Those are the problems here, in my view.

Bill Woolsey - 12/19/2005

I have seen no evidence that Bandow tailored his views to promote the interests of Abramoff's clients.

As far as I can tell, he wrote on subjects suggested by Abramoff who could predict Bandow's libertarian slant.

Kinsella links to typical Rockwellian slander, suggesting that the entire Cato Institute was bought off by drug firm money and had two writers supporting the drug firm position. Then, after Rockwell criticized them, libertarians put pressure on Cato who then assigned two other writers to take the opposite position.

I suppose this is one of many reasons why Bandow showed poor judgement in taking money from Abramoff. It provides "justificiation" for flights of fantasy.

I have written occassional op-eds for our local paper. Some of them involve property rights issues. Wealthy real estate developers involved in our local property rights movement have praised these columns. I have asked some of them for political contributions and received them. Now, suppose some of them had paid me money to write more columns. Before this scandal, I probably would have said yes. I would be writing more of the same stuff I believe--for property rights and against some draconian landuse policy.

Of course, I don't write columns all the time. And I certainly wouldn't mind identifying myself as associated with the SC Landowners association or something. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with writing things I believe in return for money.

I find it hard to separate that it is Abramoff, a man involved in a myriad of scandals.

Sheldon Richman - 12/19/2005

And Paul Krugman in today's New York Times. Economists call these "negative externalities."

Bill Woolsey - 12/19/2005

The "public" portion of this doesn't say anything about Bandow, put presumably, subscribers would read about how Bandow also went on the trip to Russia?

Sheldon Richman - 12/19/2005

Now see this: http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=4481.

Stephan Kinsella - 12/17/2005

Lew Rockwell has some perceptive comments about this:

...The Cato Institute has canned senior fellow Doug Bandow for taking payments from Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

But, but, this is the day-to-day business of DC thinktanks and public intellectuals of all stripes: to take money from special interests to promote their schemes. It is standard operating procedure in our empire's capital.

As a matter of fact, as part of the Cato drug reimportation controversy, Rockwell presciently wrote, way back in 2003, a post entitled Why the Beltway Loves Libertarians. (For more on the Cato drug reimportation controversy, see Protectionist Cato? and Cato Tugs Stray Back Onto the Reservation.)

Casey Khan suggested on the LRC blog that this incident may corroborate "speculation that Bandow was bought off by the pharm lobby for his drug reimportation flap suggested."

The danger of corruption from the government is, I believe, one reason the Mises Institute is located outside the corridors of power. It's one reason I was a bit trepidatious when I read that The Objectivist Center recently decided to relocate to DC. Fingers crossed...

Sheldon Richman - 12/17/2005

Have a look at this: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&;s=foer051605

Steven Horwitz - 12/17/2005

I totally agree Keith. If you are going to get paid by someone with an economic interest at stake, make that relationship public and clear. It may not matter for the substance of the argument (e.g., tobacco company financed work on the effects of second-hand smoke might be scientifically accurate), but one's should have a duty of full disclosure to one's audience so that they can make that assessment themselves.