Last week, conservative journalist Christopher Rufo published an article accusing Vice President Kamala Harris of plagiarizing her 2009 book Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.

However, as we discussed, the allegations were not particularly strong. They concerned a small portion of the book, and the pattern of copying indicated sloppy writing habits more than a deliberate attempt to plagiarize.

Though the allegations meet the strict definition of plagiarism, when you combine those issues with the age of the allegations and the presence of a co-author, it becomes a minor issue at worst.

However, a new set of allegations has been made, this time from Aaron Sibarium at The Washington Free Beacon. In his article, he examines Harris’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in 2007 in support of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act.

In this case, the copying is extremely clear, involving over a thousand words copied verbatim. There’s no doubt that the copying was intentional. However, there’s a much bigger problem with this allegation.

Namely, this behavior is standard practice.

Understanding the Allegations

In 2007, Kamala Harris was the district attorney for San Francisco. As part of that position, she submitted testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in support of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act.

The act would have created a student loan repayment program for state and local prosecutors. However, despite Harris and other prosecutors’ efforts, it never became law.

At the time, Harris was on the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) board, and she submitted the testimony in that capacity. In total, she submitted roughly 1,500 words supporting the bill, and 1,200 were copied verbatim from testimony submitted to the Senate by Paul Logli, the district attorney of Winnebago County, Illinois.

Logli, for his part, has denied that Harris committed any wrongdoing. He notes that Harris was working with the NDAA and its staff to draft the statement and that the copying was about remaining consistent with their messaging rather than an act of plagiarism.

That is most likely the simple truth. They were both members of the same organization and submitted testimony in that capacity. As such, Harris used the same language, not intending to plagiarize but seeking to have consistent messaging before both houses of Congress.

It’s common practice. While there are ethical arguments about whether it should be normal, there’s not much doubt that it’s simply par for the course.

Analyzing the Allegations

When looking at a plagiarism allegation, there are two factors that you have to examine:

1. Severity of Copying: How serious is copying, and what is its nature?
2. Expectation of Originality: What is the reasonable expectation of originality for the work?

With the first allegations, you had a book. There, the expectation of originality was high, but the severity of copying was not substantial. While it certainly isn’t good to have poorly paraphrased passages in a book, it doesn’t point to a malicious attempt to defraud.

In this case, you have the opposite. The copying is extremely clear and involves over 1,000 words copied verbatim. This represents 80% of the section. However, the expectation of originality is extremely low, if there even is one.

We examined this issue in March 2024. There are environments where the quality of work is valued much higher than originality. The legal field is an example of that. As lawyer Joe Patrice said in a 2023 column for Above the Law, “exercising originality in word choice is often damn near malpractice.”

Though the legal field requires a great deal of creativity, lawyers are encouraged to copy both their previous work and others’ work. This both saves time and ensures that the wording is correct.

Simply put, there is no one standard of plagiarism. It’s all about the expectation of originality and if the author misled the audience. With written testimony, there is almost no expectation of originality.

That’s especially true in this case, as the original author and Harris represented the same organization. While they gave separate testimony, they both represented the NDAA. In essence, the NDAA was reusing its own language to stay on message.

To be clear, this is standard practice. We don’t often hear about it, but politicians copy one another regularly to have a consistent message. It only makes headlines when one of the politicians is upset about it, as with the Rep. Elise Stefanik case in December 2023.

Bottom Line

In the end, this scandal is even weaker than the first one. While the copying is significant, it’s a case of two politicians using similar messages while representing the same organization. It’s common practice.

To make matters worse, the testimony is even older than the book. Furthermore, as Logli noted, NDAA staffers, not Harris, likely prepared the document.

To be clear, there is a legitimate debate about whether this is appropriate. Personally, I would like politicians to acknowledge where their verbiage comes from, whether it’s from a trade organization, another politician or a lobbying firm.

Where words come from matters. We saw this first hand in the EU in 2017 when a report touting the safety of glyphosate was copied heavily from a pro-glyphosate task force. It’s important to know whose words you’re reading.

But that isn’t the way our current system works. Written testimony, public statements and even laws are often heavily copied and pasted from other sources without attribution. There is simply no expectation of originality for many of these works.

With such a low expectation of originality, it is difficult to call this plagiarism. While it meets the strict definition of the word, it’s a type of plagiarism that occurs daily in politics and is rarely controversial.

To lambast Harris’ copying here would condemn nearly every legislator, lobbyist and staffer working in Washington, DC. It’s how the system works, for better or worse.