Once again demonstrating that double standards are not beneath his régime, federal auditors announced yesterday that the Bush administration violated the law by procuring — wait, let's use the right word — by buying favorable news reports about the president's policies.  The GAO report identifies clear and inarguable examples of the administration disseminating "covert propaganda" within the US.  This practice violates a federal law that bans the procurement of favorable publicity or propaganda that is marketed as anything but a government-sponsored announcement.  Any such activity is inherently political and not in the public interest, hence the GAO report also notes what is likely a misappropriation of funds to pay for these "planted" news stories.

The root of this issue is not unknown.  The investigation into the administration's practice in this regard began after a few well-placed news reports late in 2004 and early in 2005 questioning the role of conservative commentator Armstrong Williams in promoting Dubya's education policies.  Williams made all the rounds in the media offering sycophantic babble which reeked of obsequiousness.  While such unctuousness is not illegal, even the most cursory of examinations into Williams' role with the administration effortlessly revealed that money was indeed trading hands for all of the positive publicity.  He had, as it was discovered, been paid to proclaim the virtues of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act.

Initial news reports on this sparked widespread criticism of the administration.  In response, Dubya said in January, "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda.  Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."  Sadly, based on the truth, even Bush didn't think that could work, otherwise they would not have been paying Williams and a public relations company to ensure news articles and reports were declaring, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."

Prior to the GAO investigation but after the media demonstrated this relationship, Congress updated the ban on "covert propaganda" in May, a bill Bush signed into law, by clarifying that federal money cannot be used to produce or distribute a news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged.  This is why the ban existed in the first place: to ensure the government could not promote its policies or itself by planting news reports favorable to them, news reports which would look and feel and smell like independent news but which were in fact surreptitiously injected into mainstream media by government officials.  So long as the government admits to generating the content, there is no problem.

Despite the scathing report from the GAO, there is no penalty for this crime.  How convenient.  Why does the government get all the criminal laws that carry no punishment even if you're caught?  I'm sure we the people would like a few of those as well.

Irrespective of there being no castigation, the report does provide yet another example of Bush's White House practicing the "do as I say and not as I do" mentality.  As was just mentioned in the comments here, the Republican-controlled Congress wasted no time impeaching Democrat Bill Clinton for his perjury regarding the Monica Lewinsky fiasco.  Should we expect some action against Bush in what is a blatant attempt to deceive the American people?  Ha!  That idea tickles me so.  We should expect perdition's flames to grow cold first.

[via Jenny]