Comments Elsewhere

Amp,

It’s true that the payoff to Maggie Gallagher are unlikely to be a substantial influence on her stated views. But I don’t think that’s really the issue. The issue is the use of taxpayer funds to subsidize useful journalists and columnists—whether or not the money are going to change their views substantially, they do funnel taxpayer money to people solely on the basis of their agreement with the administration on controversial political topics. (If the Bush administration decided to send $100 from the DoD budget to everyone who publicly supported the Iraq war in print prior in March 2003, this would be deeply objectionable—even though it couldn’t possibly change the views that have already been expressed.)

Yeah, I know that Gallagher was doing a “job” for the federal government in return for the pay. Ho ho ho. In reality it seems pretty transparently a sinecure granted to her in return for her views.