Via Carpetbagger (formatting mine):
…Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, and other senior Democrats released a new Government Accountability Office report finding that the Bush Administration spent more than $1.6 billion in public relations and media contracts in a two and a half year span. […]
“The extent of the Bush Administration’s propaganda effort is unprecedented and disturbing,” said Rep. Miller. “The fact is that after all the spin, the American people are stuck with high prescription drug prices, high gas prices, and high college costs. This report raises serious questions about this Administration’s priorities for the country and I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that changes need to be made to reign in the President’s propaganda machine.”
That’s $1.6 billion with a b. Let’s do some basic accounting. Armstrong Williams got $240k out of a $1.3m deal with the PR firm Ketchum. When Williams told David Corn, apparently in his own defense, that “There are others‘ he obviously wasn’t kidding.
As Carpetbagger points out, Michael McManus hit up the feds for $10k while Maggie Gallagher picked up $21k and change. At this rate they’d need 1,000 Ketchums, 7,000 Maggie Gallaghers or 16,000 Michael McManuses to blow through that kind of cash. Where’s the money going?
***Update***
Putting the PR budget in terms McManus units is strictly for comparison’s sake. Obviously I’m not suggesting that every pundit in the western hemisphere takes federal money. What I’d like to know is where does a billion and change go, and whether this is a normal sort of expenditure when the NEA budget, at roughly one one-fifth our PR expenses, drives some conservatives practically to tears.
***Update 2***
John IMs me: “Looking at Bush’s poll numbers, [the administration] should ask for a refund.”
***Update 3***
Via the comments, a relevant paragraph from a recent report comparing Clinton vs. Bush PR expenditures:
The value of federal contracts with public relations agencies has increased significantly over the last four years. In 2000, the last year of the Clinton Administration, the federal government spent $39 million on contracts with major public relations agencies. By 2004, the value of these PR contracts had grown by almost $50 million, an increase of 128%.
All of which raises the simple question: why are Republicans so expensive? We get the same services, more or less, but government costs more when they’re in power. My guess would be their fondness for rewarding friends with larded-up no-bid contracts. We pay once for the lack of competition and then again when the work gets done in a half-assed way (if at all) and has to be re-done later. But of coursse there’s much more than that.
erez
And this shocks you why?
Pooh
Tim, I have Roger Simon on line one…
yet another jeff
Hey, it ain’t cheap to be Bush Administration.
Al Maviva
A number of groups have FOIA’ed for the details of those contracts. You might want to look at some of the disclosures and find out the details of who did what before you start assuming there are 16,000 or even 500 journalists on the WH payroll. Some government organizations are directed by statute to publicize their activities – various outreach and community-oriented organizations and welfare agencies are among the ones with an unambiguous or implied duty to publicize their existence and services. Given the fetish for outsourcing and Congress’ reluctance to add permanent federal positions, I wouldn’t be shocked if a lot of that amount is legitimate stuff. For instance, where I live, there are federally funded ads touting WIC (Women, Infants, Children) federal assistance, a federal anti-AIDS campaign, and military recruiting campaigns. You think those are done in-house? I kinda doubt it, they look awfully slick to be government documents. That isn’t to say that maybe the whole staff of the WaPo and NY Times isn’t on the payroll, maybe they are, I don’t know. But as much as I’d like to take Rep. Waxman at his word, I’d like details first, please.
I know that’s a screamingly irrational and hotheaded partisan response, the proper response would be “this explains why the NY Times has such a strong right wing bias,” but oh well.
DougJ
Clinton spent even more.
DougJ
Would you rather live under Saddam? He didn’t even have to pay the press. They reported whatever he wanted without even being bribed. And yet the Democrats supported him. Talk about a double standard.
Pooh
Al, I have no doubt that a good deal of that sum is “legitimate”, but the sheer size of that number…$1,600,000,000…Oh well, a drop in the bucket when the deficit is $400b +
DougJ
Whoever leaked this information should be prosecuted. Now the terrorists know how Bush White House controls the media. Information is power. What if Al Qaeda decides to start hiring PR firms? What then?
gratefulcub
1.6 billion.
Plame’s group was collecting intel on Iran’s nuclear program until they were outed.
Just more liberal trash.
Nikki
Meanwhile, Cheney’s shooting victim suffered a heart attack.
I know, sooooooo off topic.
SeesThroughIt
Good one!
I was just going to point out that the Bush Administration has always maintained that the War on Reality was going to be a long hard slog, but look on the bright side: with the likes of scrutator, Malkin, blogsforbush, and others, the War on Reality will soon be funded by blogger tip jar donations.
Otto Man
Stunning. But I guess this shouldn’t be a surprise. This administration is all about spinning, not governing.
Ed
Goal: Prove to Daddy that neer’do well son is good.
Method: Do 2 things Daddy couldn’t do:
1. Get re-elected president.
2. Get Saddam.
Budget: (and damage to nation) Unlimited
Clever
Is our children learning? To run the gov’t like Enron?
Rusty Shackleford
Yes, $1.6B is a lot of money to spend on public relations but that’s only because the Bush Haters are the most hater-ous of all the haters. If the looney left wasn’t so unhinged (not to mention in bed with the islamo-homo-narco-aborto-fascists!) BushCo wouldn’t have to spend so much to counterattack their hate and protect Americans from another imminent* attack by Al Qaeda.
(* – if a Democrat is elected)
Digital Amish
Amy Goodman mentioned this story on Democracy Now this morning. What she also included was that the figure included advertising for military recruiting. Given that, and the amount recruitment advertisements on tv the last couple of years, the figure might not be that hard to explain.
Ancient Purple
Oh, please, Tim. This is not news or important.
The $1.6 billion will clearly be covered by pushing through more tax cuts.
Oh, and you’re a traitor for bringing this up and embarassing the administration.
The Other Steve
I’ll have to read it later.
But it’s probably all Army and Marines advertising… I see one of their ads about once every 30 seconds these days.
Vladi G
All joking aside, numbers are kind of meaningless without some sort of comparison. I’m one of the biggest Bush haters on the loony left, and even I’d like to know if and how far this is out of line.
jaime
Are talking American billion or English Billion?
Ted Barlow
American billion.
I flipped through the report, and it’s misleading to say or imply that that this represents $1.6 billion to promote Republican or conservative causes. Most of the money is spent by non-partisan government agencies- the military, the Census, the DEA, the IRS, lots of things. That doesn’t make it right. It’s an enormous patronage machine, and likely a huge waste of tax money. And, we’ve seen that some of it is used inapproriately for partisan campaigning. But we’re not looking at $1.6 billion for Armstrong Williamses.
Check it out- the Bureau of Engraving and Printing spent $55 million to promote the new currency. My real reaction was “This is why good people become libertarians,” frankly.
Jackmormon
the Bureau of Engraving and Printing spent $55 million to promote the new currency.
This reminds me: I got my income tax return recently (don’t ask), and in the envelope were a brochure and an order form for me to buy those a collection of those state-specific quarters. 50 quarters for…wait for it…$15.95. Plus $5.00 for shipping and handling. The brochure suggested that I introduce my children to the fun world of taking currency out of circulation in the hope that it’ll appreciate! I couldn’t help thinking that if I had children old enough to understand division, I’d use their brochure for a rather different purpose. PR money well spent…
dedgeorge
” DougJ Says:
Clinton spent even more.”
Prove it ——–
BTW — how much did Ronnie Rayguns spend??
How much did that that PR campaign called “Greneda” cost?
tb
DougJ is a zen master.
Andrei
According to this report, it would appear Clinton spent half on PR Contracts than the Bush administration. How that factors into the larger PR budget, I’m not sure as I haven’t dug deep enough on it. So make of this what you will.
PR Contracts Report
tb
Lovely. Your tax-and-waste Republican government at its finest. These people would rather flush money down the fucking toilet than do anything worthwhile with it. How much did we spend on arts funding last year again? 100 million?
The Other Steve
That’s not a bad deal if they’re uncirculated. Go over to the Mint website. It’s $15.95 just for the 2006 quarters.
Krista
Well, we kicked out our government for doing that, and voted in a bunch of right-wingers. Wouldn’t it be funny if the U.S. swung left in 2008? It’d be interesting to see how the dynamic would change.
searp
Oops! I wonder if the PR budget is in the Contract with America. Oops again, sorry I mentioned it. I think that contract didn’t novate. A right wing blog mentioned it the other day, talk about foot-in-mouth disease. I think the substance of the post had to do with the Dems not having a good platform. Make of it what you will, I had fun with it.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I just found out that this was funded by tax-payer money!
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
I’m so fucking angry right now. The party of fiscal responsiblity my fucking ass.
God damn bastards.
Mark-NC
I wonder what Bush’s approval ratings would be WITHOUT the massive propaganda push.
20% maybe.
I figure that half of Bush’s 40% support is from people who really like Bush and what he’s doing – the other half of his supporters are just ignorant.
The Other Steve
I think this is part of it. I’m reminded of the S&L Bailout from the George the Elder’s administration.
It’s all about socializing the risk, and privatizing the profits. That is, they think Government isn’t about doing things for the common good, but rather about giving largess to a few special people.
Another aspect. I think Republicans end up having to spend a lot more money and time on PR because nobody trusts them. Look at their approval ratings on things like the economy, healthcare, education, etc. All these important governmental issues. They’re like in the 20’s and 30’s approval. Even to get that high, they have to spend a lot of time walking around saying “The economy is good. Really. Trust us.”
That’s my “Only Nixon could go to China” theory of government.
The Other Steve
I hope it reopens importation of Canadian lumber.
Katrina has really hit the building materials sector hard in terms of demand. As such, the price has gone up at Home Depot and such. We need some increased supply of cheap lumber, and you guys got it! :-)
SeesThroughIt
Damn, that’s a great way of putting it.
Krista
The Other Steve – Yeah, it is cheaper, but it’s gone up substantially for us as well in the last little while. I don’t know enough about the market to know why, but I’m sure there are others here who could enlighten me.
gorillagogo
How much of the PR budget is spent on set design, lighting and other production costs for every location Bush appears at?
Krista
Not to mention the “free speech zones”. Fencing ain’t cheap, you know.
Mark
My guess would be their fondness for rewarding friends with larded-up no-bid contracts.
Did you read the report? only 2% of the contracts (comprising about 3% of the total spending) were labeled as “non-compete.” The vast majority were placed for bid.
JoeTx
That money goes a long way. Lavish billions of dollars to the corporate networks and media, and they in turn don’t allow negative stories to be broadcast about you. Democrats would not do this, and they know it, so they promote Republican. Its the corporate bottom line and many corporate media exec’s have pretty much said this for years….
And other reason why campaign reform will never happen. The media lobby would fight it tooth and nail, damn what is in the best interest of the nation…
DougJ
Thank God. I’d hate to think they’d hired incompetent people to spread their propaganda.
Does that mean that Anderson Williams underbid some other hack they were offering to bribe? I guess David Brooks and Kate O’Bierne wanted at least $300,000 to pimp for NCLB.
Ricorun
I too was disturbed at the lack of anything with which to compare the original article. I mean, 1.6 billion over 2 1/2 years sounds like a really big number, but compared to what? But there is a hint: if you look at the report you will find that the DOD accounted for a lion’s share of it ($1.1 billion). Lots of people are still gung-ho about the war in Iraq, but it’s becoming increasingly obvious that they are so only insofar as they don’t have to fight it. Go figure, huh? Chickenhawks are, and always will be, a dime a dozen. But these days actual cannon fodder needs some serious convincin’. It’s just a fact of human nature to say that things have a tendency to get more real the more they get immediate. And it doesn’t help at all that the cause continues to get more tenuous. It’s time for all you chickenhawks out there to stand up and be counted.
Apart from the original message, though, I thought Andrei’s “PR Report” contribution in the comments section was much more telling. But not necessarily for the reason picked up in the update. The update indicates that the increase in PR contracts have increased 138% between 2000 and 2004. But to my mind, more telling is this factoid from that same report:
“In 2000, the last full year of the Clinton Administration, over 80% of PR contracts were awarded after full and open competition. Only 16% of contracts, worth $6 million, were awarded noncompetitively.
Under the Bush Administration, the number and size of noncompetitive PR contracts has risen dramatically. The percentage of contracts that were awarded noncompetitively rose from 19% in 2001 to 41% in 2004. (Figure 2.)
To my mind, THAT is the real elephant in the room.
John
1.6 billion for “marketing”. The reality is that the less your policies can stand on their own feet, the more yo have to spend to sell them.