Millions Spent on Govt. Websites, GAO Finds

DoD, whose spending totaled $1.1 billion, put $47.5 million into its Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies (JAMRS) program for website design and maintenance, direct mail and media relations. The Air Force spent $418,000 on a site, concept, naming and logo, brochures, photos and a video. That service branch also spent $25,650 for a Web and media branding plan for Armed Forces Entertainment (AFE). DoD’s “America Supports You” campaign site, pitch plans and outreach cost $1.3 million, GAO said. The Army spent $292,637 on Web design for outreach, Operation Tribute to Freedom, and an internal Army command information website.

The Health & Human Services Dept. spent more than $300 million on similar contracts. The Food & Drug Administration paid $20,000 to warn consumers about risks of buying medical products online. Costs included research, creative concepts, designing and drafting copy for public service announcements and arranging video news releases and satellite media tours, GAO said.

The Surgeon General’s Office spent $141,600 on Internet and TV ads promoting careers in the Commissioned Corps. The Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration ran a $1.8 million antistigma campaign and an underage drinking public service campaign aimed at parents.

The Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality spent $4.2 million on Web and print material, PR, exhibits and efforts to disseminate research, GAO said. A $454,438 bone health campaign by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention included site updates, data analysis and summarizing findings. A Health Resources & Services Administration campaign against bullying cost almost $1.5 million and included focus groups and an interactive website.

At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism paid $318,190 to work on a website about underage drinking. NIH’s National Library of Medicine spent $25,000 to produce video segments for its site, $55,000 for Web-based biographical sketches of female physicians and $144,000 for video interviews of female doctors featured online or in exhibits. The NIH Communications Office spent $380,000 on website support, press briefings, satellite media tours and development of communications plans.

The Homeland Security Dept. spent $24 million, including up more than $6.3 million creating and promoting its online, print and over-the-air “Ready Campaign” on preparing for and responding to terror attacks and other emergencies. FEMA’s national flood insurance program, which consisted of launching FloodSmart.gov, a direct mail campaign and the creation and circulation of online, TV and print ads, cost $14.5 million.

The Treasury Dept. spent $152 million, including $5.2 million on Bureau of Public Debt online and offline efforts to educate the public about Treasury securities. An IRS staffing recruitment effort that included research, employment ads, a career website, online marketing and other Internet activities, totaled $1 million. The Veterans Administration spent more than $5.6 million on recruitment marketing and ad services that included websites and database creation.

Commerce Dept. Web-related expenditures were slim. The Patent & Trademark Office spent $2 million educating firms on intellectual property protection, counterfeiting and piracy, using a website, print materials, news releases and seminars. The Bureau of Economic Analysis spent $5,000 on its internal website.

House Democrats demanded the GAO study after evidence emerged last year that the Administration had commissioned “covert propaganda” from public relations firms, House Govt. Reform Committee Ranking Member Waxman (D-Cal.) said. Several federal offices hired firms to develop video news releases presented to TV viewers as independent reporting. The govt.’s propaganda budget of more than $1 billion needs oversight, given the Administration’s record, Waxman said: “The American people know the Bush Administration is on the wrong track and the White House PR machine won’t change that fact.” Rep. Miller (D-Cal.) said the report raises grave questions on the Administration’s priorities: “I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that changes need to be made to reign in the President’s propaganda machine.”

Every administration spends money on PR and “propaganda,” and there are 3 issues at stake -- amount spent, subject matter and methods, Center for Responsive Politics Exec. Dir. Larry Noble told us. The $1.6 billion seems high, but it would be helpful to have a comparison, he said. Regarding subject matter, the distinction must be made between educational material put out by the National Park Service or FDA and PR to sell a program, especially if it’s controversial. Likewise, there’s a difference between the Administration spending money to educate seniors on how to use the new prescription drug plans or to convince the public that the Administration’s plans are the best thing for the country, Noble said.

Free Press Communications Dir. Craig Aaron said the “billion dollar Bush PR machine is out of control.” The study is just the tip of the iceberg since the GAO didn’t look at the contracts from more than half of the cabinet- level agencies, he said. The public still doesn’t know how many of these contracts funded covert propaganda, Free Press said, calling for swift action on Capitol Hill. “It’s time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role as a counterweight to the executive branch and permanently cut off funding for covert propaganda. We must ensure that taxpayer money isn’t being spent by the White House to secretly manipulate the American public,” Aaron said.

Govt. outlays on promotion are themselves troubling, American U. media & politics prof. Lenny Steinhorn told us; the question is how the taxpayer dollars are used. “If it’s to alert people about how government programs work or to warn people about drunk driving and other problems, that’s money well spent,” he said: “If it’s to promote the President’s political or ideological agenda, that’s not appropriate, and he should be reimbursing taxpayers from all the political fundraising dollars he’s raised.”