Abramoff and Illinois Pols
Today's Sun Times on our pols lining up to turn in their Abramoff contributions.
I understand Abramoff swindled his clients and that's what he pleaded guilty to, but isn't contributing to campaigns what lobbyists do?
Someone will comment that I sound like I just fell off the turnip truck for asking that.
But I sorta wonder.
8 comments:
From the Hotline Blog:
===Rep. Roy Blunt today joined Tom DeLay in returning his Abramoff contributions. Sort of. His office says he'll only return the $8.5K donated to his PAC directly from Abramoff and he'll keep the money donated by associates and tribal clients.
Doesn't that undermine the GOP argument, at least a little bit, that the entire Abramoff money network was tainted and that Dems are smeared as much as GOPers?===
Yes, it does.
No one will probably get prosecuted for taking contributions for him, as that is what lobbyists do. However, there are a few Members of Congress and high level staffers that allegedly received personal gifts and free vacations, so they're the ones who are gonna be looking out for the Federales.
Would it be ok if Hastert took $100K contributions from the directors of Planned Parenthood? George Soros or Michael Moore? The KKK? Why not?
This is a country where some folks won't shop at WalMart if it has a banner that says "Happy Holidays."
That's sort of my point Anon. Why not?
I can understand giving it to charities because the money was swindled from someone.
Gingrich is running with it. Curious to see what he does with it.
Another step towards his run for President. Healthcare, Congressional corruption, and a strong Foriegn Policy.
Interesting guy Newt.
I'm a Dem and I'd rather have Newt be Prez than Bush, but I don't think the electoral chances of a twice-divorcee are that great. (Russ Feingold also falls into that category)
In short Bill, yes, Abramoff was a lobbyist and he advised his clients on which Senators and Congressmen to give money to like any other lobbyist. He then took a huge cut from those clients and funneled the money back into solely conservative politicians, PACs and sham charities (and casino boats apparently).
Abramoff himself never gave a single red cent to any Dems. Don't believe me? Read the Federal Election Commission reports...
Did Dems receive money from Abramoff clients? Yes. Big distinction -- the clients were following the advice of the lobbyist they hired. The lobbyist himself gave all his political money to conservatives.
This whole false equivalency in the media is a prop at the prompting of right-wingers who want folks to think all government is corrupt (thus we must eliminate as much gov't as possible). Wrong, corrupt government comes from corrupt politicians -- ie, Rostenkowski, DeLay, etc.
The truth of the matter is not one Dem ever went to the wells of the Congressional chambers to influence public policy (let alone casino boat sales) at the request of Abramoff. It was the GOP that allowed their influence to be bought off.
You can look it up:
- not one dem took $ directly from abramoff per analysis of fec reports-
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-was-that-about-abramoff-giving.html
- politicians and others tied to abramoff-
http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff
- asst atty genl in charge of abramoff prosecution is on par with "brownie"-
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/4/14339/59110
- supposedly 'impartial' journalists chris matthews, tony snow and brit hume planned to help raise $ for abramoff's sham charity-
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/hardballs-chris-matthews-foxs-tony.html
anon,
so 1)Abramoff advised clients to give to Dems,
but 2) skimmed some he only gave to R's,
and 3)kept nothing for himself?
#3 seems the illegal one if he had kept something for himsel, which you make it sound he hadn't.
If you don't lobby and donate to influence policy, what in the world are you lobbying and donating for?
Fund raising one of the least tastful sides of politics. But it's free speech.
Swindling a client is one thing, but I'm at a loss to see the rest of the problem.
Anon 11:53 here.
Bill said: Fund raising one of the least tastful sides of politics. But it's free speech.
Swindling a client is one thing, but I'm at a loss to see the rest of the problem.
You think politicians changing their votes and altering public policy in an apparent quid pro quo after receiving money or favors is not a problem? This case goes so far beyond simple political donations. Donations in and of themselves can be messy and unseemly, but the issue here is influence-peddling more than political donations (heck, that's why Harry Reid's saying he won't return Abramoff-related political donations -- he wasn't influenced by the money.)
Yes, Abramoff swindled clients. The least of the problems there was that he simply made up billable hours on invoices to a staggering degree. This WashPost story reports briefly on that matter.
But yes, through several means (see below) he also bought influence from Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, etc. in the form of political pressure, vote changes, and policy alterations...
The Democrats aren't in power. The GOP is -- and the GOP is the party which received the vast majority of Abramoff's largesse (Abramoff's direct donations went solely to conservative pols and PACs and the large bulk of "Abramoff-related" -- from clients, friends, sham charities, etc -- money or "gifts" like Super Bowl tickets, fantasy golf trips, junkets to tropical islands, jobs for friends and family, and much, much more also went to folks on the right.) Again, see the 12/29/05 WashPost story for a rundown. And here's some info on just one of the sham charities set up by conservatives (I think Abramoff's was called the Capitol Athletic Foundation).
If we want clean government it's going to have to be the GOP to do it and they haven't done it in 10 years after complaining in 94 about Democratic corruption (which there certainly was, though nowhere near as extensive, all-encompassing nor staggering in shear amount of money being passed around). The next best thing would be for the Dems to turn things around next November but then a whole 'nother year under the current broken system will have passed us by.
Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher (a conservative Bush appointee) said, "The corruption scheme with Mr. Abramoff is very extensive." Guess what? The GOP's in the majority and all the "extensive" money trails that lead from Abramoff to influence peddling also pass through Republican, not Democratic, hands....
The Godfather he ain't, but Abramoff most clearly is a part of the conservative half of the species, and in the apparently corrupt part of the conservatives to boot (otherwise, why so many guilty pleas)... (And, before anyone jumps down my virtual throat, I said corrupt "part" -- not all conservatives are corrupt.)
If conservatives keep claiming that government is corrupt they ought to also acknowledge that government is a creation of people (the Founding Fathers certainly acknowledged that when they wrote "we the people, in order to form a more perfect union" and, of course, "a government of, by and for the people"). So if the government is bad it must, by logic, mean the people in charge of that gov't are bad (whether corrupt, inexperienced, unwilling to improve, or simply inept). Again, who's in charge nowadays? Conservatives control all three branches of government.
All. Three. Branches.
Post a Comment