Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.

Shaking off its hangover from the nasty partisan scandalmongering of the late 1990s, the House ethics committee has finally begun an investigation into Rep. Nick Smith's allegation that a member of the House leadership tried to bribe him into supporting the Medicare drug bill. According to Roll Call, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating the matter, too. But a Kalamazoo talk-radio host whose scoop made it impossible to sweep Smith's allegations under the rug is out of a job.

Kevin Vandenbroek, formerly of WKZO radio, should have gotten a raise for his contribution to the Smith story, which was picked up by Slate and subsequently by just about every other national publication covering the Medicare bribe. Instead, Vandenbroek was fired last month, apparently for political reasons.

The whole saga, you'll recall, began when Nick Smith, a conservative Michigan Republican who will retire at the end of this year, came out against the Bush administration's Medicare drug bill on the grounds that it was too expensive. (The Bush administration's refusal to share honest budget figures about the measure's cost is the subject of at least one separate investigation.) On the late-November night of the vote and for about a week afterward, Smith told various people that someone in the House leadership, whom he declined to name, had offered to procure $100,000 or more for the congressional campaign of Smith's son Brad, who wants to succeed his father in Congress. All Smith had to do was change his vote to "yes." Smith refused the offer and voted against the bill, which passed by a narrow margin. But Smith was so steamed—there had also been a threat to withhold money from Brad's campaign if Smith didn't play ball—that he spread the word about the House leadership's perfidy. It does not appear to have occurred to Smith that the offer of $100,000 met the statutory definition of a bribe, and that he was therefore calling one of his own party leaders a crook.

Continue Article

Smith tried to clarify his way out of the criminal accusation. "I want to make clear that no member of Congress made an offer of financial assistance for my son's campaign in exchange for my vote on the Medicare bill," Smith said in a Dec. 4 press release. "No specific reference was made to money." That contradicted a Nov. 23 commentary Smith had written, which said "bribes and special deals were offered to convince members to vote yes" and alluded to "offers of extensive financial campaign support and endorsements for my son Brad." Still, these references were a little vague.

The $100,000 wasn't vague at all. Robert Novak had mentioned it in print, and Smith had relayed to Chatterbox, via an aide, that Novak's column was "basically accurate." That was enough to persuade Chatterbox that Smith's new line that "No specific reference was made to money" was a clumsy lie. Still, it was whisper-down-the-lane.

A smoking gun was needed, and Vandenbroek provided it: a taped Dec. 1 interview in which Smith said he'd been offered "$100,000-plus" for Brad's campaign. (To listen to the interview, click here.) Since the WKZO tape surfaced, Smith has revised his story yet again, but he still can't offer a plausible explanation as to why he would have mentioned a $100,000 offer to Vandenbroek if no such offer had been made. (The latest and most ridiculous iteration is that Novak's erroneous reporting of the $100,000 figure popped inexplicably into his head and he blurted it out unthinkingly.) More than anything else, it is this glaring deficiency in Smith's recantation that makes further investigation an obvious necessity.

Vandenbroek did himself no particular good at WKZO by providing evidence that the House GOP leadership may harbor a felon. "While there are some people at the station who seem to be quite proud of my coverage of Nick Smith," Vandenbroek told Chatterbox, "I think there were others that might have been uncomfortable that it was focusing on a member of the Republican Party." There was no blowback on Smith, but soon afterward, a Vandenbroek broadcast pointing out a few dubious claims in President Bush's Feb. 8 Meet the Press interview prompted a complaint to the station from the local Republican Party headquarters. The Bush broadcast "made the owner of the station very uncomfortable," Vandenbroek said. "I got called in and told to stay away from politics." Strike 3 was a mildly intemperate e-mail Vandenbroek sent to the Christian right author Jefferson Scott after Scott declined to appear on Vandenbroek's show to discuss Be Intolerant: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid. Be Intolerant is a manifesto Scott co-authored with Ryan Dobson, son of James Dobson, chairman of the powerful Christian right organization Focus on the Family. "The straw that broke the camel's back was their contention that I violated e-mail policy," Vandenbroek explained.

It should be pointed out that Vandenbroek is nobody's idea of a shock jock. He does not swear on the air or traffic in sophomoric innuendo, and his e-mail to Scott did not contain any obscenities. WKZO's program director, Dave Jaconette, declined to give a reason for Vandenbroek's departure. ("We don't comment on employee matters like that.") Vandenbroek's replacement is Seth Harp, a more or less apolitical former sports announcer.

WKZO's owners are, of course, free to make their product as free of politics as they like (though Chatterbox has yet to encounter a talk-radio host who ever got fired for being too conservative). But Vandenbroek's prominence in reporting a major political story ought to make WKZO proud. Instead, it apparently made the Kalamazoo radio station nervous.

More chatterbox Canary in the Moore Appeal? Does the House candidacy of Roy Moore's lawyer presage a presidential run by the Republican Nader? posted April 2, 2004 Timothy Noah Government by Bones The Yale cabal's windfall from the Bush presidency. posted April 1, 2004 Timothy Noah Khartoum Revisited, Part 2 The only new evidence on Clinton's Sudan bombing weakens the case for it. posted March 31, 2004 Timothy Noah Khartoum Revisited, Part 1 Clinton's bombing of Sudan's Al-Shifa plant doesn't warrant revisionism. posted March 30, 2004 Timothy Noah Wolfowitz's Overconfidence A theory about why he was wrong about Iraq. posted March 29, 2004 Timothy Noah Search for more Chatterbox in our archive.

		What did you think of this article? Join the Fray, our reader discussion forum POST A MESSAGE READ MESSAGES Remarks from the Fray: I've read your story on "Kalamazoo Kapitulation!" and while I'm unable to directly comment on Kevin's termination you were told off-the-record by WKZO Program Director Dave Jaconette yesterday that the Nick Smith story was "absolutely NOT the reason why he was terminated." You now have my permission to quote Dave so you can set the record straight. Kevin, in fact, was given the coveted monthly employee-of-the-month for THAT VERY STORY! It is true Kevin was told to "stay away from politics" but the FULL line was "stay away from politics for one day;" he was talking about politics too often and that's, from a programming point of view, BORING radio for most listeners AND his show was up against Rush. Stations all across the country have repeatedly failed when they try to be a Rush-wanna-be regardless whether they lean conservative or liberal. AM590 WKZO is Kalamazoo's LOCAL NewsTalk radio station and few stations in the country are like it any longer; we talk about a LOT of topics including but certainly NOT limited to politics and we always allow BOTH SIDES of an issue to present their comments on-the-air. I talked with Kevin this afternoon and he agreed to email you that he was categorically NOT terminated because of the Nick Smith story and he also agreed that he was terminated due to an unfortunate judgmental error on hispart. Kevin said he believes you misinterpreted his comments to you and is also hopeful you'll set the record straight. Why was Kevin terminated? Again, while we don't comment directly, Kevin himself put this in play in his conversation with you and apparently answered that for you when he said "the straw that broke the camel's back was their contention that I violated e-mail policy." Kevin would like to move on with his career and we'd like to move on with operating our radio station. We regret we had to terminate Kevin because he was/is a very good news reporter and we truly wish Kevin well, but again, it was NOT for ANYTHING having to do with the Nick Smith story. In fact, we plan to submit that story for an award as it was and remains a brilliant piece of journalism. Cordially. William J Wertz Executive Vice President Fairfield Broadcasting Company Kalamazoo's only locally owned daily media WQLR-FM WKZO-AM WQSN-AM WKLZ-AM (To reply, click here) My recollection was that I was told to, "Stay away from politics." I don't recall that the phrase "only for one day" was ever used. That said, it was a chilling warning that concerned me greatly. I was suspended in late-February from the station for a week. I was told it was for violating the company's email policy. At the time of my suspension, a portion of the memo said, "We will meet one week from today...and you will be given the opportunity to explain why you should be reinstated." When we met a week later, I was greeted with the termination letter. After the Program Director made a few brief remarks, I was offered an opportunity to speak. But by that point, with the termination letter on the table, the pie was already cooling on the windowsill. They had obviously made up their minds...what more was there to say other than, "bye"? In that termination letter, they wrote I was being released after the station "consider(ed) my actions and position." This is why, as the termination letter said, "Fairfield Broadcasting (was) ending my employment." The phrase "actions and position" could mean virtually anything, but I believe using the reason that I violated the company's email policy was simply an opportunity and a good straw one might use to break the camel's back. Today, I received a phone call from one of the owners of the station. During our conversation, he assured me that the Nick Smith affair was not a reason for my dismissal. I have to take him at his word. Nonetheless, as you know, I'm no longer working for the station and trying very hard to find meaningful employment. Kevin Vandenbroek (To reply, click here) Timothy Noah responds: Did Vandenbroek's firing have anything to do with his Nick Smith coverage? Wirtz says not. Vandenbroek struggles to find a logical explanation other than that the station didn't like his liberal politics. In my Chatterbox column, I noted that there was no blowback to Vandenbroek's Smith scoop, but I also quoted Vandenbroek saying that it made some at the station "uncomfortable." We know for a fact that the station regretted Vandenbroek's broadcast about President Bush's "Meet the Press" interview, which came after the Nick Smith coverage. We know that because it prompted Vandenbroek's boss to tell him to lay off politics altogether — not just for a day. We also know the station was displeased by a grumpy email that Vandenbroek sent to a Christian right author. Instead of telling Vandenbroek to cool it, the station fired him, which strikes me as insanely disproportionate for such a minor offense. I think it's fair to conclude that Vandenbroek's Nick Smith coverage — surely Vandenbroek's most noteworthy accomplishment in recent months — was first in a sequence of politically displeasing actions that led to Vandenbroek's firing. I am delighted, though, that WKZO nominated Vandenbroek for an award, and that before it fired Vandenbroek it named him Employee of the Month. (To reply, click here) (3/24)