#1: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm I'm sure you're all aware of the first guy, Armstrong Williams, who got nearly a quarter of a million dollars to propagandize for the "No Child Left Behind" policy. He said that there were many others like him, but Conservatives scoffed at the notion, taking the same "it's only the work of a few bad apples," approach that they did with Abu Gharib. For a few weeks, you might have believed them, until... #2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36545-2005Jan25.html The next paid propagandist was Maggie Gallagher, a decidedly cheaper buy-off, who only got about $21 thousand to promote Bush's marriage initiative policy. This story broke (as far as I can tell) on January 25. *Just then!* Good job Mr. President, taking a stand against corruption in your administration, very nice. Even though it took you 1 too many propaganda scandals to come out with this statement, it's still a nice gesture. So things are looking good, until *Two Days Later!* I'm sure when any reasonable person looks at this situation, they'll see there is absolutely no conflict of interests between being paid by an administration and writing political columns about said administration's policies if you don't publicly announce that you were being paid to write those articles. So long as your "official" reason for being paid was [/i]not[/i] to write articles supporting policies and proposals that you are being paid to participate in, then there is clearly no conflict of interests at all.