You know, I actually think the Governator (California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger) is doing much a better job than he’s often credited for in the media. But he’s stepped in something squishy and foul-smelling, and he’d better get his shoes cleaned up before he tracks it into the house.
Two days before he was sworn into office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger accepted a consulting job paying an estimated $8 million over five years to “further the business objectives” of a national publisher of health and bodybuilding magazines.
The contract pays Schwarzenegger 1% of the magazines’ advertising revenue, much of which comes from makers of nutritional supplements. Last year, the governor vetoed legislation that would have imposed government regulations on the supplement industry.
According to records filed Wednesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Schwarzenegger entered into the agreement with a subsidiary of American Media Inc. on Nov. 15, 2003. The Boca Raton, Fla.-based company publishes Muscle & Fitness and Flex magazines, among others.
Now it gets worse, because the parent of these magazines, American Media, also published the National Enquirer and other tabloids.
I remember reading an oped in the LA Times suggesting that the tabloids had deliberately laid off of Arnie because of a business arrangement between him and their publisher , and dismissing it as implausible.
It’s not so implausible now, and the Gov. had better get his shoes cleaned quickly.
Is it good enough if he gives the money away or should he just give it back and discontinue any association with them? His governorship seems to be falling apart anyway from the looks of this WSJ article. I’m surprised I haven’t heard more commentary among the blogs about how he seems to be floundering.
Marc,
It has the appearance of being some thing fishy, but on my ride home from work I was listening to the John and Ken Show on KFI Talk Radio (LA Media outlet for non CA types). They were actually giving the Guvernator a pass on this!
John and Ken invited their listeners to call in if they were enraged. Rep Jackie Spears, the bill’s sponsor, that the Governator vetoed said the electorate would be enraged. Involved some state control of health suppliment market and training of athletic trainers/coaches. As Ken and John explained this bill was probably overly cumbersome and excessive governmental regulation on some thing that is not a real problem as we know yet. They said it was more in line of regulating what kids eat and drink at school as if this was possible.
Apparently the KFI listeners were not evidently concerned as they had no callers during the prime time drive home. John and Ken’s listeners are usually a pistol packing vocal bunch.
As Ken and John who generally rip at the throats of most politicians on both sides of the asile when they step out of line didn’t seem too concerned about this after they explained all of what was involved.
This agreement actually stems from the Guvernator writing monthly columns in in two fitness/muscle mags that AMI publishes. AMI also publish the market tabloids. This agreement was signed before he became governor. It’s more of a mutual interest deal. They stopped the usual who’s doing whom stories on the Guvernator and he writes columns about some thing he is very interested in since before coming to America.
Ken and John think it’s more of a backlash from the LA Times doing a hit piece because they’re Gumby who incidently attempted to strong arm the teachers lobby for $1M. But the union rep ratted Gumby out. It’s not big secret that the Ca Correctional Officers Assn the most powerful political lobby in the state got a sweetheart deal from Gumby.
Now there is probably a real cozy relationship on this one. And I’m a dues paying member of PORAC the state organization that represents most CA police and sheriffs’ associations having been president of our local union and involved with PORAC. It’s the Correctional Officers’ Assn who should really take the heat for the apparent cost runup of the state’s CalPERS retirement system. This cost increase is really not due to the police/fire unions increase in retirement benefits but this is too complex to discuss in this thread.
I’m guess I’m in the wait and see what additonal information pops up. In any event the guvernator is not taking his governor’s salary. Don’t know if he’s donating it to charity or simply is not budgeted for. Also the $8M is over a five year period. The Guvenator is very wealthy and doesn’t need this pocket money.
KFI streams their audio. Their show just ended at 7:00 PDT. Don’t know if they archive the shows.
I want to see more about this before judging as well. California has got to be the paradigm case of a ‘nanny state’, so I’m not going to at all assume that a bill to restrict sales of whatever-we-can-be-righteous-about-today is a good cause on the face of it. OTOH, the optics of having a ‘consulting gig’ while in office are not good. (If that’s a writing contract, I want his per-word rate!) Dumb move, considering he doesn’t need the money.
And, sure, it’s a hatchet job by the LAT. The CA Dem party is in the pocket of public employees unions, the LAT is in the pocket of the CA Democrats. Dog bites man. Film at 11. From my POV, having Ahnuld succeed at breaking the iron circle of public employees, Sacramento, tax and pension burden may answer the question whether I decide to retire here or skip. The Governator is the best hope – he still has my support. He’ll have to f*** up a lot worse than that for the Dems to look like a superior alternative.
Lindsay,
The polls may have him in the toilet but he’ll probably come back up.
California is unique in that it has a very entrenched full time legislature. It’s been very log jammed for a number of years since we voted in term limits. They are very polarized and relunctant to come to the middle to compromise much on anything of importance re actually saving some money.
The economy tanked and the Dems were spending a lot of money on stuff. The roads and trans infrastructure suck. There are considerable impacts by federal mandates that are underfunded.
Also Callifornia only gets perhaps 75 cents on the dollar back from what goes to the fed gov. Needless to say we have a lot of costs imposed by illegal immigration that don’t seemed to be recovered even though the Ag industry could probably afford to pay a better wage (12% of food costs come from labor). They could pay more and the govt could tax to pay for the additional svs required but this would cut into the Ag industry’s profit margin because they are relunctant to pass these increases onto the consumer.
So California comes up short in both money going to the feds it doesn’t get back, subsidizing the food costs at the expense of the California taxpayer. The Long Beach/LA Ports handle about $30B in goods a month through these ports destined for Cal and the rest of the Country that California doesn’t recover from the other states. Again the CA taxpayer subsidizes our trans infrastructure as these goods pass through the state.
Basically a lot of instutional problems, a logged jam legislature unwilling to deal with these problems, run on the local coffers to balance the state’s budget on education and other items.
What the Guvenator has been able to do is put the California Legislature in a vise between him and the people to sweat out compromises that because of these other problems are not good in the short term until the economy begins to heat up again.
California needs to go on a diet. People need to realize they will have to do some things for themselves and the government can’t be there all the time to buck them up.
Reminds me of the outrage that Hillary Clinton signed a book deal the day before she was sworn in as New York’s Senator so as to avoid the Senate’s ethics rules …
uh, there was outrage when she did that, wasn’t there?
Does this even begin to compare with the actions of former Calif. Governor Gray Davis?
I think that it has been Glenn Reynolds that has been saying for some time that our recent definitions of “conflict of interest” have gotten completely ridiculous. Was anyone surprised that Arnold vetoed this bill? Would anyone expect him to sign it even if had no such consulting agreement?
Is this even as large as a molehill?
Mark: this might smell to someone unfamiliar with the magazines (and their history) in question, and Joe Weider in general. But the reality is that there is nothing new going on here. This relationship goes back to the mid-1970’s. The fact that some form of new financial relationship was drawn up in 2003 really means nothing. And to spin it as some form of influence buying? Ridiculous when one considers Schwarzenegger’s history.
My two responses: “here”:http://newdave.com/index.php?p=303 and “here”:http://newdave.com/index.php?p=295
Note to Marc: sorry about the “Mark” spelling. I saw the error just as I hit “post”.