Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


INFORMATION OVERLOAD… The New York Times has gotten its ink-stained hands on the seven-page application form for high-level Obama Administration job seekers. (You can download the PDF at the NYT site.) The phrase “application form” is misleading. The document isn’t seven pages of questions and their corresponding answer fields. It’s seven straight pages of highly invasive questions/demands for information about the applicant’s past. No figurative stone is left unturned. Here’s a sample.

obama_admin_application.jpg

I wonder if the Obama folks leaked this intentionally, to demonstrate how committed they are to keeping conflicts of interests out of their White House and how adamant they are about avoiding drama (letting an appointee suck up news-space because of a nanny problem is definitely not the Obama Way). Alternatively, an applicant leaked this because he or she was aghast at how over-the-top it is. If that’s the case, it’s another teachable moment in a lesson Obama is quickly coming to learn: preventing leaks in a campaign is infinitely easier than preventing them in an administration.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest