I don't know, Michael Horowitz was allowed to do a lot of work on the global human rights movement when he was s'posed to be working on tort reform.

It seems like thinktanks have been flexible in the past when their employees engage in quality work apart from their supposed focus. As long as it advances the reputation of the thinktank, it should be kosher.

And I don't think a paper-trail needs to be found as these sorts of thinks can easily be handled as quid-pro-quo exchanges of favor over time.

dlw

I don't think the two cases are sufficiently comparable. The NCPA might not be as flexible as the Hudson Institute; global human rights isn't as controversial as attacking a sitting President; such a study might not help the reputation of a think-tank; and Bartlett lost flexibility when he put his obligations in writing (though I don't know if Horowitz put anything in writing).

I think what may be galling is that Bartlett got 6-figures for the book deal while he was still being paid by the NCPA for work he wasn't doing.

I think what’s happening is people are using this “issue” as a proxy for their own disagreements with the administration and Congress’ failure to control spending, enact entitlement reform, or control the borders. It’s not as if the NCPA or its board members have been reluctant to criticize the administration or Congress on policy grounds on issues where they disagree (like the Medicare bill, steel tariffs, and spending in general) but they’ve generally been constructive (while supporting the them on issues like Social Security reform, Health Savings Accounts, etc.) rather than confrontational in their approach rather than throwing around loaded terms like “imposter” and “betrayed.”

I think that the money complaint is a red herring. They do not indicate that it was understood that Bartlett could not receive an advance. The fact that he received a sizable advance is evidence that his publisher thought that the book would sell well, which should have been welcome news to the think tank. Had the book not been so critical of the adminstration, I think that Bartlett would still be employed at NCPA -- irrespective of how far his manuscript otherwise deviated from an analysis of economic policy.