Ah, you’re making the mistake of equating political donations with bribery. Note the small figures in your cite. Those are legal. They’re also his personal donations, which isn’t what this is about-- this is about his lobbying business. And what’s illegal is the quid pro quo aspect, and that’s going to be tough to prove. It looks to me like the folks most in jeopardy are Congressional Staffers, and that for accepting gifts (travel, fancy meals, etc.).
Yes, most of Abramoff’s interactions have been with Republicans, but (as others have pointed out), there are Dems involved, too, including Reid. I think this is being made bigger than it’s going to turn out. Remember a few months ago when so many people were sure that Dick Cheney was going to be indicted over the Valery Plame issue?
Yes, but have the Democrats done anything illegal? Yes, Democrats have accepted lobbying funds from some of Abramoff’s clients. But so far the only names that have been mentioned as being possibly involved in illegal dealings are Republican.
A moot distinction, come November. We are going to fill the airwaves with ads trumpeting the donations Abramoff made to incumbent Republicans, and how they were so ashamed, they gave them back, but only after Abramoff was exposed as a political sleazeball.
Not in the court of public opinion. We are going to beat this like a redheaded stepchild, and Republican incumbents will hurt by it.
Not equal, but measured in $ he’s about 0.7-to-1.0 Dem to Pub. Don’t confuse his personal politics with his desire to make money. The former is insignificant compared to the latter. Democrat’s money is just as green as Republican’s.
And he makes money by getting the donees to do something for his clients. And who can do more - Republicans or Democrats? Don’t get me wrong, Dems who sold out should fall too, but for the most part he’s too smart to give money to get people to do stuff for him who can’t do things for themselves. If he expected the Dems to do anything much, he’d be as dumb as the proverbial starlet who slept with the screenwriter.
My problem with the “Abramoff’s clients gave money to Democrats” excuse is that it’s essentially guilt by association. A group that’s politically neutral/apathetic might think nothing of hiring Jack for their cause, yet turn around and donate money to someone else just because that other person also supports them. It’s as meaningless as saying I support the Heritage Foundation because I gave one of my nephews $50 for Christmas and he turns around and uses it to buy their newsletter.
The Republicans are exaggerating the Abramoff-Democratic links. Some Democrats took money from some of Abramoff’s clients. None took money from Abramoff directly. Since Abramoff’s clients were Native American groups, it seems only logical that western congressmen and senators of both parties would get donations from these clients. This guilt by association ruse isn’t going to work since it’s only smoke and mirrors. The tribal clients that gave money to Democrats before he represented them continued to do so, but in smaller amounts. From Bloomberg we see but one example:
Is there any evidence that Abramoff personally gave money to Democrats? No. Do some of his clients donate to Democrats? Yes, although their donations on the Democratic side drop off considerably once Abramoff enters the picture.
I don’t get this “personally gave” stuff. The money that Abramoff “personally gave” to Republican Congressmen is chickenshit-- a few $1000 here and there, and all legal. Unless I’m misunderstanding this all (which is possible), isn’t it also true that it was Atramoff’s clients that gave $$ to the Republicans?
Anyway, my real point here is that everyone deancing with glee that this is going to bring the Republicans down is looking at what they want to happen rather than what will happen. It’s way to early to know what the deal is. Once again let me remind you all of what some posters were saying in the days leading up to and immediately after Fitzgerald announced his indictment against Libby.
It’s not too early to tell at all. The Abramoff operation was obviously Republican from top to bottom. The best the Pubs can hope for is that they can implicate or smear one or two Dems (however peripherally) and then attempt to disngenuously paint this scandal as “bi-partsan.”
Take a look at which party members are scrambling to unload Abramoff money as we speak. It isn’t Democrats.
Having said that, I don’t expect the fall-out to have any political ramifications. People are too dug in ideologically for scandals to affect elections any more. Right wing voters will still vote for right wing candidates. The kind of person who would vote a Bill Frist or a Tom Delay (or Bush, for that matter) is not going to be swayed by a little corruption. As long as the Pubs keep bashing the homos and screaming the word “terrorist,” they’ll continue to win. That’s what people care about, not ethics.
They’re not returning money from Abramoff, they’re returning money from Indian tribes “linked” to Abramoff. Only the Republicans got money from Abramoff. Stories about Dems who got money from Abramoff clients are basically just red herrings. Chewbacca lives on Endor.
Isn’t that what the Republicans are doing, too? The news reports I’ve read always say “money linked to Abramoff” for both sides. I’ll freely admit that I may have missed some stories about money received directly from Abramoff-- can you link us to an article that explains this?
OK. Of course, Bush isn’t going to be part of this investigation, is he?
And like I said earlier, all of those campaign contributions, returned or not, are perfectly legal. If someone gets nailed in this investigation, it will be because they got money from Indian tribes (or the like), or were the recipients of trips or meals, etc. tied to Abramoff. And even then the prosecutors will have to tie that money or gifts directly to decisions made about legislation, proving that the Congressman (or -men) would not have voted the same way w/o the money.
I wouldn’t blame any Republican for returning campaign money from Abramoff. Sheesh, it’s never more than a few thousand bucks, and who wants to be associated in any way with the guy now? But I will bet anyone here that there will be no convictions of Congressmen based on campaign contributions they received directly from Abramoff.
Abramoff wouldn’t be getting a deal if he didn’t have the goods on some big name Pubs. Any attempt to portay this as a bipartsan scandal is just whistling past the graveyard. Mark my words.
Actually, the red herring is that the campaign contributions (made only to Republicans) is in any way part of this investigation. It’s the money from the interest groups, and the actions of the Congressmen afterwards. Sure, the Republicans are more vulnerable, but why do you think Dorgan (the Democrat) got money from the Indian tribes in the first place? He isn’t just any ol’ Senator-- he’s the vice chairman of the Senate committee on Indian affairs. I’d say he’s as least as vulunerable as any Republican.
[quote]
As President Bush’s re-election campaign races to accumulate the largest treasury in history, a similarly fierce contest has begun among his best-connected supporters. Raising $100,000 for the president is a bit passe in this competition; now loyalists must bring in $200,000 or more to be considered top-tier, and they had better come with sharp elbows and plenty of prosperous friends.
“Everyone in town is trying to be a Pioneer or Ranger,” said Jack Abramoff, a top Republican lobbyist here, using the campaign’s terms for the most elite levels of money collectors. "But the only way to do it is to have contacts outside of D.C., which fortunately I do. So far I’ve raised about $120,000, and I haven’t even really started making calls."
