Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
You probably all know the story of the Washington Post selling access ($25,000) to the Washington Post executives, Obama officials, and members of Congress in an off the record setting.
WaPo ombud: Top editors knew 'salon' plan for months - Michael Calderone - POLITICO.com
Everytime I read a story on this topic it's about the Washington Post's ethical slip/incredibly bad skeezy judgment to attempt to do this. I find it hard to believe that no one had committed to attend one of these salon dinners at the time the Post's plans were exposed. For example, people who forked over $25,000 for the healthcare salon dinner would want to know whose ear they were getting before they purchased access.
My question is - WHO were they attempting to sell access to? Shouldn't some Congressional Ethics committee be investigating this? Shouldn't the President want to know who on his team is for sale? Why isn't any newspaper/24 hour news network giving up the names? Surely, if the first one was "good to go" the names had already been lined up. Shouldn't Congress be looking into this?
In Congress, I'm willing to bet this isn't partisan (which is why no one is talking about it on either side, some side would be screaming if it was the other guys) but I want to know which elected officials are for sale?
It's up to the President to deal with his appointees.
And the Washington Post, UGH. Let's see some real journalism from other news sources. Just WHO is in bed with the Post and is also for sale? |
This is nothing new, and it's been going on since the beginning of government.
Look at any industry based "
government conferences (http://www.govtech.com/events/texastech2009 - broken link)" or "industry conference". While the government conference might say "Not open to
private-sector registrations", it has plenty of private-sector sponsors, who are presenters and vendors at the event. You want access, you sponsor. You want more access, you go to a 'after' event reception. You want more access, you talk future campaign contributions.
Same with the industry conference, you get interested government officials (or most likely, a staff member) to attend, then have a 'private event after hour reception' which a few can pay more to attend.
Most are not as upfront as the newspapers was trying to be, but they also were not promising much either. access is just that, access. nothing more.
Large contributors to a political party get access too. many get invited to the WH, or access to the leaders during a campaign. When during the campaign, presidential hopeful, John McCain appeared at a local home, and all those who were there paid $25,000 to attend, was that buying access? You betcha.
(what is a private fundraiser other then buying access? thats what you get and thats why many who don't support the candidate buy in)
Save your outrage. It would be meaningless to investigate, as everyone in politics would be guilty.
I know some want everything to be black or white (or would it be red or blue), but it's not and won't be, unless you really want a dictatorship.
Then you will have all or nothing, with most being on the side of nothing.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
