Get this — according to the Daily Press, if you’re in a leadership position among House Republicans, you are expected to contribute a little more than the others. Unless you don’t, in which case that’s OK too — you can still get plum committee appointments. Kinda.
…and that’s scandalous. If it were true. Which it’s not… but they ran the story anyway… kinda… almost… derp.
Just in case you’re too busy to read this article from the Daily Press, we have you covered after the jump:
A Daily Press review last week of Howell’s Dominion Leadership Trust donations and his appointments to committees found that since the speaker founded his Dominion Leadership Trust in 2002:
• 71 House members who gave to the PAC in the final months before a General Assembly session won promotions in the next session to new committees or committee chair posts.
• Another 15 were big donors in the preceding 12 months.
• Twelve won promotions without making a donation in those final weeks, but five of them had been big donors earlier.
• Six delegates made donations without ever winning a promotion.
“If there is still anybody out there at this point who thinks there is no cause and effect between the donations and political favor, it is time to get his head out of the sand,” said Olusoji Akomolafe, chairman of the political science department at Norfolk State University.
“It is unthinkable that delegates will willfully make these donations without a quid pro quo.”
Unless, like, as your article states, it happens with six specific House members… and 12 others… and another 15 who gave last year.
Of course, you have to understand what was really going on in the newsroom that day:
NEWSROOM: “We think we have this ‘splosive story on the Speaker with a pay-for-play scandal!
EDITOR: “LET’S RUN IT!”
(three months later)
NEWSROOM: “Um… about that story, turns out it’s like… a mixed bag… and stuff…”
EDITOR: “Nonsense, fellas! First we publish the story anyway!”
NEWSROOM: “…but like, it’s not even ther–”
EDITOR: “Next, we find a political scientist (sorta) to comment on the truthiness of the piece!”
NEWSROOM: “Do wha?”
EDITOR: “…and then we can just throw it out there and see which blog picks it up first!”
NEWSROOM: reaches for fifth of vodka
EDITOR: “No wait — let’s call five or six of those political scientist folks. That’ll lend the allegation — what’s the Latin thingamabob? — gravia-a-a-a-ssss…”
NEWSROOM: “This is absurd.”
EDITOR: “This is America, baby! Now who wants to go to Applebees?”
So yeah… that happened.
Even Mark Rozell is caging his reaction to this (DISCLOSURE: your humble correspondent studied under Rozell at CUA) with typical and astute caution:
“Indeed, maybe it is all coincidence. Hard to prove that contributions are part of a pay-to-play scheme, but the appearance of it all raises the question and that’s the problem,” said Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University.
“People don’t trust their politicians to begin with, so the immediate assumption will almost always be that something shady is going on here,” he added.
Here’s the problem. There is no pattern, there isn’t even an attempt to hide the football if this really were a pay-to-play game.
It’s just absurd. A waste of newsprint, a waste of time, a waste of effort.
…unless casting aspersions and throwing mud at the wall is the new journalism. Great for clickbait, terrible article if one truly has a heart for reform rather than wild haymakers and muckraking.
