25 replies to this topic

[Rhea]

http://story.news.ya...hwarzenegger_dc

Gee, and here I was under the impression that Governor of California was a full-time job.  

[DWF]

Since he's not getting paid, I guess he needs some spending money.

[Rov Judicata]

My guess is that he won't be spending that much time editing; an obvious deal would be that the maganize gets the fame attached to Arnold's name, and Arnold gets an easy paycheck. It's win/win.

[Bad Wolf]

It's not win/win it's irresponsible/irresponsible.  If  non star governor did this everyone would be all up in arms about it but since it's Arnie the assumption is that it's okay because he's a big Hollywood star type person.  *blech phtooey*  Thus continues the caricaturization of California politics.

[HubcapDave]

Is this any worse than Gov. Ventura doing color commentary on XFL games?

Also, is there a law against elected officials "moonlighting"?

Quote

Lil If non star governor did this everyone would be all up in arms about it but since it's Arnie the assumption is that it's okay because he's a big Hollywood star type person.

Where your point fails Lil is that I don't think there ARE any other Governors buffed enough to ever be considered to edit a body-building magazine!

[Bad Wolf]

HubcapDave, on Mar 6 2004, 01:03 PM, said:

Is this any worse than Gov. Ventura doing color commentary on XFL games?

ooooooooooooooh Jesse the Body, now THERE'S a model governer to use as a model.  Gimme a break Dave!!    

[Rov Judicata]

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 6 2004, 01:47 PM, said:

It's not win/win it's irresponsible/irresponsible.

How?

If I'm right, the magazine benefits by increased sales. Arnold benefits by a bit more cigar money. The only potential loser is the consumer who may be 'suckered' into buying a magazine he wouldn't otherwise want, but that's the whole point of advertising. It *would* be irresponsibile if Arnold was taking large amount of time away from his duties, but it doesn't look like that's the case. If it is, then yeah, it's problematic. But if it's just a no show job, where's the harm?

[ultraviolet]

Arnold doesn't need extra money.  he is very rich from all his movies, profit participation deals from said movies, and he happened to take business classes years ago that has led him to make good decisions about investing his money.

If Arnold wants to edit a muscle magazine on his spare time while being governor, that's his business.

Be seeing You,
David Blackwell

Edited by ultraviolet, 06 March 2004 - 05:56 PM.

[HubcapDave]

Lil, it was the most extreme example I know of of what you were complaining about, hence I used it.

[Rhea]

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 6 2004, 01:47 PM, said:

It's not win/win it's irresponsible/irresponsible.  If  non star governor did this everyone would be all up in arms about it but since it's Arnie the assumption is that it's okay because he's a big Hollywood star type person.  *blech phtooey*  Thus continues the caricaturization of California politics.

No kidding. Usually being involved with anything private while you're a governor would be considered unethical.

Note to self: must ask Rovvie to fix thread title to "Mag" not "Mage." (I must have had LotR on the brain while typing ).

[Rommie's Ronin]

I'm no Arnold fan, but some people just can't be in the limelight enough.

Personally, I can't see a real problem with this though.  As long as it doesn't interfere with his effectiveness <chortle> as Governor of California, then let him do it.

Edited by Lexa's Ronin, 08 March 2004 - 12:23 AM.

[Kevin Street]

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 6 2004, 02:16 PM, said:

...But if it's just a no show job, where's the harm?

Well, it may not actually be harmful in this case, but it sure doesn't look good. If this sort of "moonlighting" were to be considered acceptable, then it would blur the boundaries of conflict of interest and hurt the overall effectiveness of the Governor. A bodybuilding magazine might be acceptable because there's no obvious conflict, but what if Arnold became the editor of a trade magazine in the real estate industry? (Just to pick real estate at random.) If his administration then went on to make decisions that benefited big land owners, the editorial job might look like he was getting a kickback from the people his government was helping, even if he wasn't. All in all, it would be better if he stayed neutral and refrained from doing any "extra" jobs while he's Governor.

[Kimmer]

Okay, tv reporter was wrong. Arnold gets undisclosed salary.

http://www.usatoday....he-editor_x.htm

Quote

Muscle & Fitness and Flex will donate $250,000 annually for at least the next five years to California's Governor's Council on Physical Fitness.

Since he is not taking any pay as Governor, I don't see it as that big of a deal. I do wonder how this is different from any other politician in office who goes out to schools, businesses, etc and makes speeches and gets paid for doing so?

Edited by kimmer, 08 March 2004 - 12:00 PM.

[Kevin Street]

Do politicians actually do that? (Take money for speeches made while in office.) If they do, they should stop. Heck, it shouldn't even be legal. If you're elected to office, you'e serving the people who elected you for the length of your term, not multitasking.

This sort of thing is one reason why people become cynical about politics and politicans.

[HubcapDave]

Kevin Street, on Mar 8 2004, 11:26 AM, said:

Do politicians actually do that? (Take money for speeches made while in office.) If they do, they should stop. Heck, it shouldn't even be legal. If you're elected to office, you'e serving the people who elected you for the length of your term, not multitasking.

This sort of thing is one reason why people become cynical about politics and politicans.

Just curious, do you consider an elected officials' job then to be a 24/7 job?

[Kevin Street]

I'm not sure what you mean, HubcapDave. If by 24/7 you mean that being an elected official is a job you do exclusive of anything else for the term of your stay in office, then yes. I do believe that. Doesn't everybody? I don't think anyone elects a politician on the promise that they'll do the best job they can, if they get around to it and have enough time.

Heck, being Governor should be more than enough to keep anyone busy. Otherwise, why would they need all those assistants?

[HubcapDave]

Kevin, I think your standard is far too strict.

Besides, being a person who does not think that we even need a full time legislature, I don't think the job would require all of your time. Where I come close to agreeing with you is that an elected official should act in a manner befitting a public official at all times.

In Ahnuld's case, he's doing something rather innocuous that I couldn't image would take much of his time, and all proceeds from this venture are being donated to his Council on Physical Fitness (I'm guessing it's a non-profit venture). To me it's no big deal.

Were he to still makes movies, THEN I'd have a problem!

[Rhea]

Kevin Street, on Mar 8 2004, 11:26 AM, said:

Do politicians actually do that? (Take money for speeches made while in office.) If they do, they should stop. Heck, it shouldn't even be legal. If you're elected to office, you'e serving the people who elected you for the length of your term, not multitasking.

This sort of thing is one reason why people become cynical about politics and politicans.

No, that's usually reserved for AFTER they leave office.  

And LOL @ Kevin's earlier post. Yes, I believe that when you're elected to office, that's your only job. If you didn't want it that way, you shouldn't have run.

The main reason that politicians usually give up outside interests is to squelch any potential conflict of interest (but I still say I'd like to think running California is a full-time job).

Edited by Rhea, 08 March 2004 - 07:26 PM.

[HubcapDave]

Rhea, on Mar 8 2004, 05:22 PM, said:

The main reason that politicians usually give up outside interests is to squelch any potential conflict of interest (but I still say I'd like to think running California is a full-time job).

It is, but only because we have made it that way!

[Kevin Street]

Seriously though, how do you avoid conflict of interest (or at least the appearance of conflict of interest), if you do other jobs while in office? The vast majority of government corruption starts out that way, or in similar ways, imo. A friend asks an official to help out his company by making a few phone calls, say, and the friends pays the official back by giving him (or his family) shares in the company, or he donates a few extra bucks to the official's "deferred compensation" from when he worked with the company, or he gives him the use of the corporate jet, a good deal on a house, a spiffy position on the board of executives for when he retires from public life - or he gives the official a nice easy "extra" job to do while still in office. There are so many ways that politicians can be corrupt, it only makes sense, imo, to limit the possibilities of what they can get away with while they're in office. They'll probably do all the same stuff and wait until they retire to get the rewards, but at least we can keep the sleaze to a minimum while they work for us.

Edited by Kevin Street, 08 March 2004 - 07:35 PM.