Reid and Abramoff
Via R. Neal, comes this piece that ties Reid to Abramoff. Sorry, but it’s bullshit. After several twists and turns that say Reid and Abramoff have ties (just like Abramoff has ties with just about everyone on Capitol Hill), I can’t find exactly what Reid supposedly did that was illegal. I see no indication that Reid was complicit in any of Abramoff’s confessed crimes. Reid took money from a tribe represented by Abramoff as did 160+ other congressmonkeys. Unless the transfer of funds was of questionable legality, I say no harm no foul. Even if the funds transfers were questionable, I’m less inclined to care. Campaign finance laws (like tax, gun and some environmental laws) are so arbitrary that their violation doesn’t have much of an impact on the appearance of impropriety anymore.
Somebody help me out. What did Reid do that no other politician who took money from Abramoff did? He took meetings. So. He took money. So. Anyone?
February 10th, 2006 at 10:56 am
I was a little fuzzy on that as well.. The 6-degrees game being played with political scandals these days is a little silly, or at least I am too dumb to follow the connections of illegal behaviour
February 10th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Well, since you raise the point. . . .what exactly did Ambramoff do with anyone that was illegal??????
Sure, the fraud with his clients is a problem – and he ought to be disbarred for that and thrown in jail (if it is in fact a crime) and his clients have a huge lawsuit to bring against him and the two law firms were he works (Preston Gates – as in the father of Microsoft’s Bill Gates – and Greenburg Traurig) but his donations to politicians aren’t illegal.
But short of that, no one really did anything wrong
February 10th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Oh, I dunno. The whole writing letters on behalf of someone who drove a dumptruck full of money up to Reid’s campaign sure APPEARS to be fishy.
And isn’t that what it’s all about today? The APPEARANCE of impropriety? You know, like an AR-15 APPEARS to be an evil assault rifle but a Ruger Mini-14 is perfectly fine?
February 10th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I don’t think this would be an issue if Reid hadn’t so strenously and piously denied any contact with Abramhoff. He said something that was obviously false in order to make the GOP look like the only villains; it’s now beginning to backfire.
Mark my words: The Democrats will rue the day they ever brought the subject up.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
JAy – that is actually what this is about.
Abramhoff was a shitty corrupt lawyer who screwed his clients.
Campaign finance laws simply required politicians to use different angles to get money. So, they wrote a letter. Thats not a big deal. It smells, but really nothing is going on here that doesn’t go on millions of times a day in DC. It all amounts to the bipartisan support of protecting incumbency generally.
Democrat’s tried to make this a Republican issue, but the problem is they participate in the system (indeed were instrumental in setting the system up)
Most politicians have already made a lot of money before getting in. The money they are paid itself – about $140k a year I believe – isn’t all that much, considering. But the percs and power are tempting. Its a real nice lifestyle and for an ego centric class, they aren’t going to willingly part with it.
Two simple ways to solve the problem. End the fraud that is campaign finance reform. Just eliminate it entirely. Make bribery illegal, but allow people to throw as much money as they want at politics. Its a form of expression that should be protected by the 1st amendment. It, and all other restrictions on speach need to be lifted in order to open up the playing field.
I might be amendable to capping the total money a politican can spend – or requiring media companies (broadcast who own government broadcast spectrum licenses) to dedicate a certain portion of space to carrying candidate messages – but to limit how much one individual or organization can donate is ridiculous. We’ll never vote them all out unless we do.
After doing that, we need to throw the bums out (by way of election, I haven’t been sold on term limits yet . . .)
February 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
What Abramoff plead guilty to was tax evasion, mail fraud, and conspiracy, charges only somewhat related to lobbying. He was a crook even notwithstanding his influence-peddling activities.
And Uncle, Reid was very much tied into the Abramoff money machine. Good on R. Neal for recognizing that and suggesting that Reid should step down as Minority Leader if the charges are true.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Thanks Les. I knew he pled guilty to something, but wasn’t really sure what it was (but was certain it wasn’t related to lobbying). As you point out though, that’s all pretty much related to his defrauding of clients though the guy in the office next to me – who used to work at GT with him – is telling me that the conspiracy includes charges of plotting to corrupt and bribe government officials even though they couldn’t tag him with that. Conspiracy is generally a throw away all encompassing charge to get things that a prosecutor would like to have but can’t.
Anyway, everyone on the hill was touched by him. Heck, I’ve got a friend who was a senior staffer for one of the more powerful and senior Demcorats – and now appears to have been a conduit for a lot of the Mississippi/Louisiana Indian money – who left that position to work at GT with Ambramhoff and is now working full time to protect their ass as well as the ass of lots of Democrats they were in bed with.
Most ins’t illegal, but its all done with a wink and a nod and doesn’t make for good press.
Good for R. Neil to call out Reid. Lots more that need to hang their head in shame.
February 10th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
countertop:
I’m not so sure I’m ready to just fully implement the golden rule in politics (i.e., he who has the gold makes the rules). No doubt, it’s already implemented at least in part, but I don’t think surrendering to it completely is apt to make things any better.
Here’s my suggested campaign finance reform, which would be irrelevant in presidential races but relevant in every other race: require contributions to a campaign to come from constituents only. If you’re running for the 3rd Wisconsin congressional district, then all of your funding has to come from within that district. And if you’re running for U.S. Senate in Tennessee, then all of your contributions have to come from Tennessee. None of this BS that I see both parties doing, pouring money from all over the country into this close race or that. You could still have the national party helping the local candidate out, but the amount they give that candidate cannot exceed what the candidate raises from within his own district.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Man people really are being taken in by the RNC spin machine. Reid took money from Abramhoff’s [b]clients[/b]. Abramhoff’s personal contributions went ENTIRELY to Republicans. Big difference.
There’s nothing wrong with lobbying per se; in fact I don’t think our system of governance would work without it. But let’s be honest about what clients of Abramhoff were ‘buying’. Reid didn’t support their position. The attempt to paint him as yet another Abramhoff dupe is weak sauce.
The RNC is trying to spin this into a bipartisan scandal, but it won’t fly. Abramhoff was interested in brokering power, and the RNC is the party in power. I’m not saying Dems are immune to such scandals, but this particular scandal is clearly about the brokering of RNC influence.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
tgirsch,
haven’t thought about your spin on the situation before, but it sounds like a great start to me. Let me dwell on it some more and try to run the traps and see how we can improve it. The one caveat I would make though is that if your a property owner in a district or state, then perhaps you should be able to contribute. I know, thats a huge loophole that blows things open to allow rich people and corporations to contribute but let me offer you an example.
I’m a Virginia resident. Over the years, either my wife or I have inhereted property in a few different states. In at least two of them, we have run into emminent domain issues. Both are reasonable – non kelo – issues involving the construction and location of roads. In both cases, there were candidates running in local and national elections who took a position on the roads that would have caused us to lose less property through eminent domain (one opposed the road entriely, the other wanted the re-routed and expanded road to take a up undeveloped parkland the state already owned as opposed to taking a chunk of our land and causing a dozen people to lose their homes – these were generally poor people and the money given for their home is hardly enough to cover the cost of a new one).
We weren’t able to vote, but in both cases we were able to speak out on behalf of our interests through campaign donations and in helping support local citizen groups opposed to the projects who ran ads, etc.
Under your plan, would we be eliminated from contributing to a campaign since we weren’t “voting” consitutents?
Sebastian
Abramhoff’s personal donations aren’t the problem. LIke everyone else, he can’t donate more than a couple of thousand dollars to a cnadidate. Its the amount of money he was controlling – through his clients PACs and other means – that allowed him to manipulate so much. Yes, he was an R – and one of the architects of the Republican rise – but he needed Democrat support to make things work. As much as you might think they are powerless, they still command an awful lot of weight – especially if there are shady goings on that they can expose. He kept them from doing that by buying their cooperation.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Actually, the only ‘congressional scandal’ involves attempting to bribe Ney. The other stuff is not a scandal but one dude who broke the law.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Uh, don’t forget Duke Cunningham.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Countertop–to the extent that Abramhoff client dollars purchased untoward influence from Democrats I’m sure some heads will roll, but the Reid voting record makes clear that that’s not what was at work in his case. The idea that this is not a Republican scandal is laughable.
Abramhoff’s total contributions to Republicans were in the six digits, so let’s also not try to diminish what that means either.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
‘The idea that this is not a Republican scandal is laughable.’
Actually, I think it’s just a scandal with a Republican involved (Abramoff) and maybe Ney. Abramoff’s influence transcends party lines but his crimes are his own (except the bribery, of course). And if he bribed Ney, it’s likely he’s bribed others including those with Ds after their names.
February 10th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
BTW, I think the motivation even in the MSM to portray this as a bipartisan scandal comes from really, really not wanting to sound like they’re saying “see look, those Repubs are crooked!” In their effort to avoid cries of liberal bias, they’re engaging in some rather sloppy reporting out there.
Remember the point isn’t that Repubs necessarily are more scandal-prone. The fact of the matter is that in this case, Abramhoff was indeed trying to buy RNC influence. If the balance of power was different, perhaps the scandal would be different. But snowing what Abramhoff was about is just silly.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
“Abramhoff’s total contributions to Republicans were in the six digits, so let’s also not try to diminish what that means either.”
Nope. Abramoff’s personal contributions to Republicans were low five digits. If you’re talking about lobbying contributions, then he and his clients gave six digits to both parties. Too many Democrats are brainwashing themselves into thinking that Democratic politicians were clean in this scandal when they clearly weren’t.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Both parties are in it up to their necks. Yes the Rs got more than the Ds but both sides got millions… What level of corruption are we willing to accept?
Countertop.
the salary is 162 to 208K depending on status, additionally a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. (like that will happen….)
February 10th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Les,
Sorry pal, your figures are just wrong.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010506Z.shtml
Go here and do a search for Abramoff in the 2004 cycle. You’ll see that he gave at least 45 donations between 1500 and 2500 dollars…you’re off by a factor of ten, just for the last election cycle. http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/x_allindiv.exe
February 10th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
And it’s not that Dems are clean–all pols take lobbying money, so to a certain extent they all broker their own power. But Abramoff gave six digits total to Republicans only; he’s clearly interested in extending and applying their influence. Now, his clients gave money to both parties (though mostly Republican, but about 2/3 ratio), but Abramoff was straight RNC.
February 11th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Sebastian, the truthout link says their figures are since 2000, not from the 2004 election cycle. I can’t use the tray.com link because they ask for a password and I don’t have one.
Truthout also seems to keep mixing up Abramoff’s personal contributions and money from PACs and lobbying groups. When they say “As for Mr. Bush, he has given the Abramoff money he received to charity, according to the White House. DNC Chairman Howard Dean pegged the total amount Bush received from Abramoff at $100,000.” please tell me how I, Les Jones, or Jack Abramoff for that matter can personally give $100,000 to a candidate when the limit is $2000. (I forget if that’s per year or per election cycle, though it doesn’t matter in this case.)
“Now, his clients gave money to both parties (though mostly Republican, but about 2/3 ratio)”
I think “Democrats – we’re only 50% as corrupt as Republicans when we’re out of power” would be a great motto for the Democratic party.
February 11th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Hehe…that’s a good one, I’ll have to remember that. I prefer to think of them as “Democrats–When the Lobbyists Come Running, We’re Happy to Be the B-Team”. They might not be the first pick, but they’ll take the money just the same.
As for Abramoff’s personal contributions, you can only give certain amounts to candidates, but you can give to as many candidates as you like. He gave about 45 contributions to candidates in 2004. Sorry about the link, I’m a jackass like that. Go here: http://www.tray.com/
And on the left, in small print, click on “donor lookup”. Plug in his name, you’ll see the complete list of who he gave to in 2004 (or any other year). Trust me, it’s a lot more than you might think. No doubt he was a big player in the RNC’s racket.
Like I said, Dems are just the flip side of the corruption coin–don’t think any of this is me trying to say that’s not the case. I’m just pointing out that in this particular scandal, the better part of the stink just happens to be coming from one side of the aisle. Frankly it’s not such a hot thing to argue about for either side–the old “hey the other guys did it too” argument isn’t particularly compelling.
February 11th, 2006 at 1:00 am
I think tgirsh is on to a good idea (and boy does it feel weird to say that!) as long as by “constituent” he means “human beings only.” Since no PAC, union, corporation or advocacy group can vote, they shouldn’t be allowed to make donations in their own names or with their own money. Donations from individuals can be bundled to show the power of a particular group, but they must consist of individual donations, not an undifferentiated pool of money.
I would also remove limits on donations to free up politicians to get to the real business of persuading voters. Require candidates to keep donation lists online, and for donations to be recorded and posted within three working days.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Clarity and transparency make for the strongest sunlight.
February 13th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
mike:
Hey, now wait a minute! 🙂
countertop:
I need to digest that a little bit. My initial response is “yes.” I can see the argument that business interests in a district ought to have a say, but they’ve already got quite a bit of pull without donating to campaigns; they can vote with their proverbial feet, after all. In the interests of simplicity, I’d restrict it just to residents of the district.