I went back and forth whether to include Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz or Lauren Boebert in the early November post listing the most unethical candidates on the ballot from each party; I only had room for two more Republicans. Ultimately I went with Greene and Gaetz, and now I’m kicking myself. In addition to being a repeat winner in this damning category and having a terrible Ethics Alarms dossier, Boebert may be the least credentialed member of Congress in a hundred years: a high school drop-out, she was the owner of a bar and restaurant called “Shooter’s Grille”(where she encouraged the restaurant’s staff to carry guns openly) before getting herself elected to Congress by Second Amendment fans. She also could be the lost twin of Lacey Chaubert, the former child actress who played one of the high school idiots plaguing Lindsey Lohan in “Mean Girls” (and now a Hallmark Channel Christmas movie regular), except that Chaubert’s character (“That’s so fetch!”) appeared to be smarter than Boebert.
The woman literally is clueless regarding the proper behavior and comportment owed to her constituents and the nation as a U.S. Representative. Shortly after the election this month (she was elected to a second term) Boebert joined Cameo, a website where celebrities sell personalized videos to fans. Stay classy, Lauren!
“Hey, Cameo, it’s your girl from Colorado, Lauren Boebert!” she said on her introductory video. “I am so excited to be joining another platform where I can connect directly with supporters from all over the world! Whether you or someone you know needs an America First pep talk, if you want to surprise friends or family with a message for a special day, or if you just want to know my thoughts on whatever’s on your mind, Cameo is the place to connect with me. You can book a video now on my Cameo profile, and I will be seeing you and talking with you soon.”
I guess the “girl” was following two Republican role models, the disgraced George Santos, who signed up to sell videos after being kicked out of Congress, and Gaetz, who joined last week after he quit Congress to try to stop the House Ethics Committee report on his sleaziness from being released and his subsequent withdrawal as Trump’s nominee to head the Justice Department. Boebert is the first sitting member of Congress to hawk videos of herself on the site, because doing so is like wearing a neon sign on one’s head that flashes “Low Life!” Even AOC is astute enough to figure out that this is not a good look.
Apparently someone on Boebert’s staff explained to Boebert that using one’s status as a member of Congress to sell personalized videos violates House ethics rules, because Boebert quit Cameo almost as soon as she had joined. A rule in the House code of conduct dictates that House members “may not accept an honorarium for a speech, a writing for publication, or other similar activity,” with a speech being defined as an “address, oration, talk, lecture, or other form of oral presentation, whether delivered in person, transmitted electronically, recorded, or broadcast over the media.”
Ugh. This calls for an encore from Li’l Abner and Marryin’ Sam:
Ethics Alarms 
To say nothing of charging people to ask questions of a member of Congress being problematic.
I missed the part of the Constitution that assesses a fee for petitioning the government.
Every new medium of communication will create opportunities for politicians to talk to voters. Some will create issues.
I really do not understand the ethics violation if the user voluntarily pays for a direct message to them. I could see an ethics violation to pay people to watch her video. Try making an appointment to meet with your Senator or Representative. Send them a letter and you get a pro forma response from an aide.
I question why the swimsuit photo was used here. Was she dressed in that suit for her videos? If not, why use it except to suggest it was and to suggest she is a bimbo.
I do not support candidates outside my district and her constituents have the opportunity to weigh in on this activity. I will however defend anyone without a degree who has elevated themselves financially and professionally and been denigrated for lacking a formal education or degree. I found that comment unnecessary and somewhat elitist. We have a bunch of credentialed members of Congress whose ethical compass has been broken for years. They just know the ways around the rules. I personally know many with degrees who lack the sense they were born with. The fact that it was taken down shows she corrected the issue.
The real question is does she serve the interests of her constituents or merely a self serving power seeker who is using the office to enrich herself?
I don’t understand the impulse to defend Boebert. She is unqualified to be a member of Congress, except for the false logic that dumb, ignorant people need a representative too. (Like Sen. Roman Hruska arguing that Harold Carswell should be confirmed for SCOTUS because mediocrities have a right to have a seat on the Court.) She makes everyone connected to her look bad, especially Republicans. Look at her tag!
The reason for the rule is the same reason judges can’t exploit their office for money. It gives the appearance of impropriety and it undermines trust. Congress members have been elected to serve the public, and their salaries are paid by taxpayers. Peddling their image and celebrity online is clearly unethical, rule or not.
I used that photo very intentionally. Boebert is a bimbo. She presents herself as one, she speaks like, one, and she “thinks” like one. Even a slimeball like Santos had the sense not to try Cameo except after he was an ex-Congressman.
At least its not OnlyFans! Just kidding. This headline from NYT of 2021 is one of the few things the paper and I agree upon:
“A Republican Lawmaker for Whom the Spectacle Is the Point”
I defend people who I believe are unfairly maligned. Politicians accept money all the time. Citizens United makes case for just that. What is the difference between accepting money for a campaign to reach out to voters. Would there be an ethical violation if the platform was used by the campaign and the funds raised use to do more things.
Using the appearance of impropriety which undermines trust would invalidate the reasoning for Citizens United. I personally think Jamie Raskin, and other Maryland representatives are slimeballs and devoid of ethics but I cannot vote them out of office as I am not in their district. But in Maryland someone living outside my district can run and beat a local opponent in my district.
The issue for me is that when I start telling people that their choice of representative in Congress is unqualified then they get to start telling me my choices are unqualified as well. I have no problem with someone calling out what is unethical behavior but it should be done without bordering on misrepresentation through the use of a salacious picture. I am trying to learn best practices here so when I think something is unfair I feel compelled to speak truthfully about it.
I respect your desire to have a noble group of Representatives, Senators and Presidents who have model ethical compasses, but that is an impossibility so long as the people can freely elect the candidate of their choice.
I think you can make your argument about the impropriety of selling facetime on an app or platform without needing to augment your argument with a photo that suggests that attractive women in bathing suits are unintelligent bimbos. Given the context of the initial issue I got the impression she was doing this on an only fans type platform. That I consider unfair unless that is how she presented herself.
“Politicians accept money all the time. Citizens United makes case for just that. What is the difference between accepting money for a campaign to reach out to voters. Would there be an ethical violation if the platform was used by the campaign and the funds raised use to do more things.”
This is completely inapplicable. Politicians accept money for campaigns as donations, not personally, and not quid pro quo—if they do the latter, it’s a violation. Citizens United was about political speech, not elected officials selling their name and products for personal gain. The rule quoted in pretty clear, isn’t it?
Let me add, that the minimum we should be able to expect from a member of Congress is that they at least act like leader and elected official. That shouldn’t be hard. I know the public will elect fools, con artists and dolts, but I have no tolerance for failure to play the part. There is no excuse for it.
The excuse for not acting the part is that the electorate liked the behavior of the candidate and reinforced it. Trump does not behave the way many think he should. His dossier is extensive here. The question becomes which behavior is the correct one. We have had little luck with those unwilling to buck the prevailing methods.
Yes the rule is clear. I do concede that point.
I fully understand the concept of Citizens United. That case made donations a form of political speech. Important elements are that the contribution was deemed political speech that involved supporting a particular candidate using a voluntary process to provide such support. I see little difference other than who was the direct beneficiary of the funds. Those who oppose the Citizens United case cited the exact issues you are citing here such that large donations create the appearance of impropriety or an actual quid pro quo. If Boebert wanted to make money she should simply do what her Democrat counterparts do which is to use a family member to do the campaign ad buys and skim off 10% such as Bernie Sanders wife does or I believe Sheila Jackson Lee did. I have no idea on the amounts charged using Cameo and it really does not matter if it is $1 or 1 million dollars if it is an unethical practice.
Personally, I find the Cameo issue objectionable on the grounds that it requires a payment but I also find the FEC allowed process of sending out surveys that wont get tabulated unless a donation is made to cover the costs objectionable.
My only real issue was using the image to reinforce your argument when that image, in my opinion, was irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have seen pictures of male elected officials at the beach who are hardly any different to the photo above except in terms of visual appeal. For reference: From Biden to Kennedy: The storied tradition of a shirtless POTUS – POLITICO
Are all those Presidents considered bimbos because they are photographed in swimwear?
Boebert may be everything you say she is and then some. However, she is in the House which has been historically the home to the rabble. We have many such members in the House who I believe are too stupid to be there but their constituents believe otherwise. That is their problem. Some are in the House and are so well credentialed that they know exactly how to flout the laws they make for the little people. That becomes my problem. I am not sure which is worse, someone who is slick and unethical because they know how to cheat without drawing attention or the ones who draw attention and are considered simply part of the hoi polloi whose behavior is not up to the standards of their betters. Are we to say that only the credentialed glitterati who know what is best for them to choose their representatives? With all do respect, that is exactly how the post and your responses were interpreted by me. This is not the Supreme Court or even the supposedly deliberative body of the Senate. It just seemed to me that it came across as an ad hominem attack to support your initial premise for which I could agree.
“That I consider unfair unless that is how she presented herself.”
This was my question – My first thought was, “oh, she didn’t do THAT, did she!?”
If she didn’t use that photo on whatever site it was, then using it here to convey your opinions about her is, in my view, unethical.
She certainly tarnished her reputation in other ways, and, sadly, and maybe to your point, it wouldn’t surprise me if she had used that photo. But I drew a conclusion about an incident based upon that representation.
If you’re going to (quite properly) expect our representatives to present themselves accordingly in the public domain, my opinion is you ought to do the same regarding articles about them you post. If they do it to themselves, fair game.
To me, yours is not just an opinion blog, but an ethics opinion blog, and that photo of her created a perception she did something she didn’t.
If she did use that photo for the site and that was in the article and I missed it, please let me know. Otherwise, I think it’s fair to say that bias got to you?
The site is a video selling site, as the link makes clear. Boebert had the photo on the web after she was elected to Congress: “the Naked Teacher Principal” line applies. She has made a spectacle of herself in public at a theater and a restaurant. Her official photos do not convey her lack of seriousness and respect for the office she holds, which requires discretion and dignity all day, every day of the week. In my view, that photo does, tattoo and all. Congress members should not behave like college cheerleaders, or display themselves in public that way. No regrets about using that photo. She put it out there. She owns it.
That doesn’t answer my question directly, but I’ll take it from your response that, no, she didn’t use the photo you posted in connection with the site that is the subject of the article.
If she didn’t, it’s not right for you to use it in reference to THIS. If your article were in regard to her general lack of seriousness, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
But that photo is not regard to this specific instance.
I don’t think she needs any help looking silly as an elected member of an august body, and she’ll probably give you opportunity to use a bikini photo in connection with an official act.
But you shouldn’t create the perception it’s happened before it actually has.
Again, since the site is a video site, I think it was apparent that the photo was not what she put on the site, though I wouldn’t put it past her to do something like that. The post is about an incompetent elected official, and notes that the episode at issue is part of a pattern.Competent elected officials don’t go on platforms where they sell their names, videos and endorsements, and they also do put photos of themselves looking like an over-aged Gidget on the web.
Videos have “thumbnails”, so it’s not clear that wouldn’t be the thumbnail to the video.
I don’t disagree with the substance of what you say about Boebert.
What I disagree with is you creating the perception that a public official has done something they haven’t yet done.
It has less to do with what Boebert does than what I’m used to you presenting.
The graphic associated with this post feels out of sync with what I’m used to getting here. If that makes sense.
You may recall that I declared during 2015-2016 that I would stop posting unflattering photos of Hillary. So I did ponder whether to use that photo of the Rep. longer than I usually think about graphics; as you say, it was a departure from my usual practice. I confess to being really ticked off at the story. See, I care a great deal about our government and how its elected leaders comport themselves, and the deterioration in recent years is horrifying to me. I’ll cop to taking out frustration on Boebert that probably should be spread around.
“See, I care a great deal about our government and how its elected leaders comport themselves, and the deterioration in recent years is horrifying to me. I’ll cop to taking out frustration on Boebert that probably should be spread around.”
I fully understand your frustration and I am in complete agreement with the statement above. My comments were only to show that such frustration can cause us to fall prey to doing exactly what we castigate others for doing. Again I am trying to put into practice what I learn here. Otherwise, I am just spewing my own opinions or validating others.
Elected leaders behavior is driven by what works to get votes. That means that we need to work on getting the electorate to demand that their candidates behave with decorum. Unfortunately, decorum seems to elude definition anymore.