Politico Pro’s Exorbitant Price Tag Shows It’s Not A Subscription, It’s Swamp Patronage
The recent news that Politico received millions (more like tens of millions) of dollars from government sources didn’t necessarily come as a surprise to this observer. Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler was right to call the outlet a “totally corrupt propaganda arm of the swamp.”
But Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson noted an important point: “If Politico subscriptions are $10K that’s not a subscription that’s patronage.” And that patronage extends far beyond government itself, to the K Street swamp creatures that rely on government for various spending programs and special favors.
I have noted Politico’s leftist bias in numerous writings for this outlet over the years. But the source of its funding makes Politico more pernicious than the usual leftist publication. The New York Times and Washington Post have many subscribers from across the country and the world, so at least they can claim a wide audience of people value their content enough to pay for it.
By contrast, Politico stays afloat largely on the backs of the Pro-paying entities that are either 1) part of the federal government or 2) want to get something from the federal government. Regardless of which bucket they fall into, these entities keeping Politico afloat do so on the backs of hard-working taxpayers.
Corruption Racket
In response to the controversy, Politico’s CEO and editor-in-chief issued a note in which they claimed that “most … subscribers” to their Pro service — the one with the five-figure price tag — “are in the private sector. They come from across the ideological spectrum and subscribe for one reason: value.” That’s a true enough statement. But as noted above, the extremely high price point for Politico Pro means the “value” of the subscription comes not from information but from patronage.
Consider, for instance, this item in a September daily newsletter emailed to Pro subscribers: “Is there anything you’re looking to add to an end-of-year package that hasn’t been reported yet, or is not discussed enough? We want to hear from you.”
Translation: Lobbyists, please tell us about all the special programs and taxpayer giveaways you want to cram into this omnibus bill. That way, we can write about them, make you look good to your clients, and justify you paying our exorbitant subscription fees.
That’s essentially how Politico’s racket works. Reporters serve as a publicity rag for K Street and get paid handsomely for doing so. I didn’t get a chance to write it at the time, but perhaps the biggest loser from the death of the 1,547-page spending monstrosity that Congress tried to pass before Christmas was none other than Politico. The organization makes so many references to an “end-of-year spending bill” in its work that you can practically hear the reporters salivating and the cash register till ringing. Because that’s where Politico makes its money — by covering all the special interest provisions lobbyists want to pass in enormous pieces of legislation.
Swamp Epitomized
Of course, Politico tries to disguise these kinds of tactics by creating a veneer of plausible deniability. It will doubtless claim a firewall exists between employees who work on generating and maintaining subscribers and those who engage in reporting and editing stories.
But the fact that Politico staff likely don’t send out emails saying, “Let’s help publicize this project because a subscriber is promoting it,” doesn’t mean these types of swampy tactics go on, albeit in slightly more subtle ways. To borrow the old phrase, reporters may be dumb, but they’re not stupid. They know to write for a K Street crowd, and they’re not about to rock the boat by attacking their subscriber base. (Do you recall Politico ever doing in-depth investigations exposing corruption in, say, the pharmaceutical industry, or among financial sector or energy executives? Me neither.)
More to the point: I have spoken with those who use the Politico Pro service, who believe a subscription gets them better access in placing stories with reporters. To the CEO’s point above, the “value” at least some see in their subscription comes from the ability to influence stories — patronage, not information.
Ending taxpayer-funded subscriptions to publications like Politico represents a good first step in taking on the swamp. But the entire Politico ecosystem is premised upon entities — public and private — who profit by taking money out of the hands of taxpayers. Ending that entire ecosystem, not just the public-sector side of it, is essential to get the government working for the people again and not the other way around.
Jesus Christ is King
