# Clarence Thomas $1.5 million book deal: Anything wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665 "2003-01-15T02:44:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/1 "2003-01-15T02:44:28Z")
Justice Thomas received a $1.5 million advance to write an autobiography. Does this constitute any sort of ethical problem? Supreme Court reporter [Dahlia Lithwick thinks it does](http://slate.msn.com/id/2076680/). > [@](#): > > …when HarperCollins offered $4.5 million for Newt Gingrich’s memoirs in 1994, an ethics inquiry found that the massive sum created “the impression of exploiting one’s office for personal gain.” > > …The defenders of Thomas’ humongo advance contend that he can avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict by simply recusing himself from any case in which Murdoch, Fox, the First Amendment, copyright law, libel, or any communications or media issues pertaining to them are ever implicated. Meaning that the chances of future 4-4 decisions by the court (the legal equivalent of a rainout) are greatly increased. All so Thomas can write his book… > > … Clarence Thomas’ sweetheart deal is that it allows him to continue to do precisely what he’s been doing as a justice for a decade: hide from any meaningful public debate or assessment. …And Thomas has always been the staunchest adherent to that credo, giving speeches only to groups comprised of fans or boosters. > > Thomas …has chosen to put himself in the public eye but to immunize himself from any kind of publicity that might upset or embarrass him. > > Although Thomas is severely limiting his public exposure by declining virtually any unfavorable publicity, he has compensated HarperCollins by promising, according to the Times, “strong support” for his book from conservative commentators, especially from his buddy Rush Limbaugh… > > At one level, Thomas’ book is radical in that he is not planning to hide his personal views and beliefs behind scholarly history books (à la Rehnquist) or behind nostalgic childhood reminiscences (O’Connor). It’s a long-esptablished principle that judges may ethically write books. IMHO, that’s the end of the matter. As I see it, Dahlia Lithwick is wrong on virtually every point. The $1.5 million advance is a reasable amount, given how many copies this controversial judge’s book can be expected to sell. He would not have to recuse himself as broadly as she claims, any more than any other judge/author would. He has given many public speeches – by no means all to conservative groups. In particular I recall seeing on TV a most dramatic speech he gave to a black lawyers group, almost all of whom were Democrats. She also contradicts herself. In the 2nd paragraph, she said “he refuses to participate in any way in the public life of the court.” But, later on she says, “Thomas’ book is radical in that he is not planning to hide his personal views and beliefs.” She’s also wrong that Thomas’s decision not to appear with certain unfriendly interviewers amounts to “declining virtually any unfavorable publicity.” He is bound to get unfavorable publicity from the many Thomas-haters, whether he appears with them or not. In fact, the cited article is the first such salvo. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/2 "2003-01-15T03:45:48Z")
I can only express my personal opinion that justices of the SCOTUS shoud be prudent enough to not sign book deals until they retire. I have no idea whether other justices have done this. I have no dog in the hunt as to whether it is done by Liberals or Conservatives, Dem appointees or Rep. appoointees. They oughta haffta sign a pledge not to do it til they retire. And, I have no doubt that LIberal justices have done the same as Thomas. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/3 "2003-01-15T03:49:45Z")
I don’t have a problem with it. I’m sure that, as with most of his output, he’ll have Scalia vet it, first. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/4 "2003-01-15T03:55:50Z")
The laughable bias here is simply evident by the fact that she can recall Gingrich, but not mention that Hillary got a huge advance, too. Sauce for the goose … FWIW and IANAL, I see no problem with him outlining his principles or legal theories. If he started getting into things that essentially commit him to rule a certain way on cases, that would be bad (“In order for me to vote to overturn Roe v Wade …” ) I think that’s always been the rule among judges and it seems sound. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/5 "2003-01-15T05:33:16Z")
samclem, What if they don’t plan to retire? From what I hear, getting a memoir which you have witten from beyond the grave published is more difficult and time consuming than when alive. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/6 "2003-01-15T15:58:35Z")
It all depends on what the book says/what Thomas agreed to write about in the book in order to get the deal. If the autobiography were to end with his confirmation in 1991, go for it. If it covers periods after that, it depends on how much he reveals about the inner workings of the Court and/or about pending cases. The money, _per se_ is not a problem, IMO. **furt,** it may be “laughable bias,” or it may be that the reporter has more knowledge of the law than you. Hillary was not accused of creating “the impression of exploiting one’s office for personal gain,” because when she signed the deal she did not hold office and never had. Ergo, she broke no ethics rules or laws, unlike Newt. You may have problems with Hillary’s book deal, as I do, but the only possible problem is on grounds of generalized ethical principles, not on legal grounds. That is a vital difference between the two cases. Sua ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/7 "2003-01-15T18:32:47Z")
> [@](#): > > The laughable bias here is simply evident by the fact that she can recall Gingrich, but not mention that Hillary got a huge advance, too. I agree that that demonstrates a bias by the author of the linked article. It should, however, be remembered that Gingerich’s $4,500,000 dollar deal had followed by a very short period his attack on Speaker Wright for a $12,000 deal. And, while Gingerich was a power on the Hill with seniority and ranking positions on other committees, Clinton had not even been sworn into office and had no power, yet, to wield. One aspect of the situation that may have prompted Lithwick to ignore Clinton: Gingerich was a sitting Representative in a House that has an express rule regarding accepting remuneration for publications that exceeds “usual and customary.” Clinton was not yet a Senator (by a few weeks) and I do not know whether the Senate has any similar rule. (Nevertheless, Clinton did come under attack (from both the Right and the Left) for her sweetheart package–a point demonstrating that Ms. Lithwick’s article showed rather selective precedents in its presentation.) (Has anyone ever published how much Murdoch’s company made on Gingerich’s book and figured out how much Gingerich would have made had he been a “normal” author? It certainly would have been more than the $1 he eventually accepted, but did it approach the original $4.5 M?) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/8 "2003-01-15T18:41:23Z")
It is the first time I see “Gingerich”. Am I missing some inside joke or something? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/9 "2003-01-15T18:53:34Z")
You gotta keep in mind how this whole book publishing Bushwa came about. It used to be a fairly common practice for a politician to “produce” a book. (I actually perused Newt Gangrene’s _1945_, and I find it compares favorably with _Battlefield Earth_ and other examples of L. Ron Hubbards literature.) Say Senator Throckmorton (“The Happy Gladhander”) produces _My Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Gooditude_ for Remainder Press, an unholy-owned subsidiary of GreedCo. Released to a clamoring public, one hundred thousand copies are quickly snapped up by AirKill Industries and distributed to its wildly indifferent employees. AirKill Industries writes off its expenditure (at full retail, mind you) as part of a program for the uplift of its employees. If pressed, AirKill Ind. will point to the undoubted moral excellence and civic virtue of the Hon. Mr. Throckmorton’s tome, and express surprise that Mr. Throckmorton is Chair of the Envronmental Pillage Committee, and assert unequivocally that this had no bearing on thier admiration for this excellent work. Mr. Throckmorton maintains that he has no knowledge of who purchases his book, and no proof otherwise can be offered. And, of course, he laments the current atmosphere of suspicion, the media, etc. Of course, due to the unquestioned excellence of the work, a very generous ratio of author’s fees relative to costs is accorded him, beyond what might be offered to an author whose appeal is more uncertain, more risky, like a Stephen King or a Danielle Steele. Its a bribe. A subtle bribe, but a bribe. On the other hand, I am eager to see Mr. Thomas’ book, especially if I can get it second hand, with all the dirty parts underlined. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/10 "2003-01-15T20:41:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > If the autobiography were to end with his confirmation in 1991, go for it. From another source, I have read that it does indeed end there. > [@](#): > > Hillary was not accused of creating “the impression of exploiting one’s office for personal gain,” because when she signed the deal she did not hold office and never had. Ergo, she broke no ethics rules or laws, It is true that she broke no laws or rules. However, she had already been elected, so the publisher knew she would have the power to repay him if she were so inclined. This rule ought to have included Senators who were elected but not yet sworn in; the need is the same. > [@](#): > > …unlike Newt You seem to be saying that Gingrich’s book did violate ethics rules or laws. Which ones? I don’t think the Senate imposed any sort of punishment. **tomndebb** , you ask > [@](#): > > Has anyone ever published how much Murdoch’s company made on Gingerich’s book and figured out how much Gingerich would have made had he been a “normal” author? It certainly would have been more than the $1 he eventually accepted, but did it approach the original $4.5 M? My sister is a long-time publishing executive and author (and a good Democrat, who has no love for Newt.) She told me at the time that his $4.5 million advance was reasonable, because conservative books were selling very well. (However, IIRC the book did not sell as well as expected.) Furthermore, the amount of the advance was arrived at through a competition. Had Murdoch not offered $4.5 million, Newt could have gotten almost as much from another publisher. OTOH Wright’s deal, though much smaller, looked like an effort to evade the contribution limits, since one union bought most of the copies. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/11 "2003-01-15T20:57:39Z")
> [@](#): > > It is the first time I see “Gingerich”. Am I missing some inside joke or something? Nah. I used to live near a Gingerich Road (and still travel it to get to Middlefield) and I sometimes accidentally type Newt’s name that way. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/12 "2003-01-15T20:59:39Z")
> [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## …unlike Newt > > You seem to be saying that Gingrich’s book did violate ethics rules or laws. Which ones? I don’t think the Senate imposed any sort of punishment 😕 Of course the Senate didn’t punish Gingrich; he was a member of the House. The House of Representatives _did_ punish Newt. [House Approves Reprimand, $300,000 Fine for Gingrich - The Tech](http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N68/house.68w.html) Newt also admitted that he had violated House ethics rules. > [@](#): > > Gingrich admitted that he had brought discredit to the House and broken its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information. Sua ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/13 "2003-01-15T21:02:06Z")
Something tells me you will find a very strong correlation between those who don’t like the man and those who argue against the book deal. (Said before reading thread)… ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/14 "2003-01-15T21:07:43Z")
“(Has anyone ever published how much Murdoch’s company made on Gingerich’s book and figured out how much Gingerich would have made had he been a “normal” author? It certainly would have been more than the $1 he eventually accepted, but did it approach the original $4.5 M?)” Everything I read\* said that “1945” bombed and that the other book did poorly. \*Uncited and unsubstantiated. Sorry 'bout that. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/15 "2003-01-15T21:16:27Z")
**Sua** , thanks for the correction on the House. Gingrich’s settlement is as you say. Here’s [another description](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/17/dole.gingrich/): > [@](#): > > Gingrich admitted that he should have sought legal advice on the propriety of using tax-deductible donations to fund two college courses that he taught. He also admitted to providing inaccurate information to the ethics committee in two instances. > > But Gingrich also put the blame on a law firm that he said had provided inaccurate information to the committee. As it turned out, the IRS ultimately did not disallow the tax-deductibility of these donations. In fact, his “ethics violation” was “failing to seek legal advice,” not “violating tax law.” (Wouldn’t it be great for lawyers if everyone could be fined $300,000 for failing to seek legal advice? 😉 ) But, set that aside. The point I wanted to make was that Gingrich was not punished _for the $4.5 million book advance_. AFAIK this book deal did not violate House rules, and it certainly was not illegal. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/16 "2003-01-15T21:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Something tells me you will find a very strong correlation between those who don’t like the man and those who argue against the book deal. I consider Thomas to be an underqualified mediocrity who is a clear argument against quotas in Affirmative Action (of which he is certainly a beneficiary) and against lowering standards to find minority applicants (Hruska’s defense of Carswell, notwithstanding). I have no problem with his book deal. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/17 "2003-01-15T21:41:50Z")
So, how do we feel abou this now that the court (with Justice Thomas’s vote, not recusal) has approved the extension of the copyright, which will benefit his publisher directly. Anyone feel his vote was bought? ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/18 "2003-01-15T21:44:09Z")
I think it’s the _timing_ that’s interesting. If he signed up for and got the advance before it was known the copyright extension was coming before the court (or better yet, before it was proposed as a bill) there’d be no issue at all, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/19 "2003-01-15T22:14:11Z")
Unless Thomas’s book becomes a landmark book that stays in print for decades (_extremely_ unlikely), he has probably already seen the last dollar that he is going to make off this book. By the time he gets his last $.23 royalty check, he will still have another 20 years or more to “own” his book for which he would receive no more compensation than if the law was still limited to 28 years. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665/20 "2003-01-15T23:04:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > But, set that aside. The point I wanted to make was that Gingrich was not punished _for the $4.5 million book advance_. AFAIK this book deal did not violate House rules, and it certainly was not illegal. You are right, **december,** and it looks like I conflated the two. Sua [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-1-5-million-book-deal-anything-wrong/148665.md?page=2)