The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.
People with brains knew this already, but we have yet another case of facts getting in the way of the Republican belief system.
But I have it on good authority that on many occasions Democratic congressmen have been seen using the same urinal in the men’s room at the Willard that Jack Abramoff once used. So it’s a bipartisan scandal. All politicians are the same. At least the ones who stand up to pee.
Who has been arguing that Republicans weren’t getting the majority of the money?
From my memory, there are Democrats trying to claim “not one dime.” The scandal is about quid pro quo and there should be no dispute that some Democrats received money/favors that were directed by Abramoff. Consider, for example, that the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians increased their contributions to Democrats at 3 times the rate in comparison to their contributions to Republicans. Does that fact undermine the overall claim that Republicans benefitted more? Of course not. But you can’t make the opposite claim that Democrats are definitely not involved based on the directed contributions.
Do we know everyone who was involved in the quid pro quo? It might turn out that no Democrats were bribed. I would certainly hope that it turns out very few politicians, no matter what their party affiliation, were bribed.
In summary:
1) Who has argued that Republicans have not benefitted much more than Democrats?
2) Who has argued that Democrats have not benefitted at all?
3) Do we know yet the names of everyone who acted illegally?
Deflect, wriggle, distract.
JWG;
I think what you are saying is that the entire political process has been
corrupted with so much cheap money available.
“Duke” Cunningham is an example of what happens when cash is
so readily available. It is understandable (not pardonable) that
he fell prey to the notion that he has spent his life in public service
and had stayed clean, but lacking some financial independence. Why
not capitalize? It seems like everyone else is. So he got stupid. It
could happen to anyone.
The point is; We have to get public funding for campaigns. Too much
valuable legislative energy is spent on fund raising. We need them
to focus on fixin’ stuff. When the cheap money flows like a river, well,
we see the result.
Yes, you are doing a good job of doing just that.
The cited article starts out by saying:
So I repeat:
1) Who has argued that Republicans have not benefitted much more than Democrats?
In reality, Democrats are deflecting, wriggling, and distracting from the possible involvement of their own members by claiming “not one dime.” Every right-wing commentator I have read has condemned any Republican involved in the scandal and has repeated the fact that it affects Republicans more than Democrats.
JWG – Your argument begs the question, benefitted from what? Abramaoff’s dealings, which are the basis of the scandal or simply the current system that (legally) allows political contributions? The “not one dime” quote simply reflects the reality that there is no evidence that democrats benefitted Abramoff’s dirty deals and the only “benefit” some democrats may have received have been in the form of legal campaign contributions. It is disingenuous to lump the two (illegal and legal benefit) together and claim they show some sort of culpability on the part of those who may have received legal donations. The latter seems to be the tactic taken by many on the right, including the leadership in the republican party.
Who has argued that Republicans have not benefitted much more than Democrats?
Your liar-in-chief for one:
President Bush recently addressed the question on Fox News, saying: It seems to me that he [Abramoff] was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties.
Some right-wing commentators (hardly “all”) have admitted that the scandal affects Republicans more than Democrats, but usually it’s just a prelude to some desperate attempt to make Dem’s look almost as bad.
Deflect, wriggle, distract … lie.
Abramoff is a Republican, he bribed republicans, it’s a republican scandal. Admit it.
The WaPo writes this:
“Abramoff was one of Washington s most prominent Republican lobbyists and his political pedigree and alliances were overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. No Democrats are among the half-dozen lawmakers who The Post s sources say are under scrutiny by the Justice Department. Abramoff convinced a number of casino-rich Indian tribes that had been historically Democratic donors to expand their political giving and to make most of their contributions to the GOP.”
But then the very next paragraph begins “However …”
The Abramoff story is all about Republicans, and only Republicans, under investigation for criminal activity so why is there a “however” at all?
Republicans, with the President taking the lead, started referring to Abramoff as an EQUAL opportunity giver. He was not. Not by a long shot. The democrats fight back but the story doesn’t become about the Republican exageration and distortion of Abramoff’s record, it becomes about how the Democrats, while technically correct, are trying to deflect attention away from Democrats who by and large ended up with less money from a traditional donation base thanks to Abramaoff and who are, say it with me, not under investigation for anything.
Some one explain to me the logic of all this. Even in an entirely Republican scandal, driven entirely by Republican wrong doing and suspicion of Republican wrong doing, the Democrats are the ones defending themselves from charges of distorting the record.
It must be because the mainstream media has a liberal bias.
jwg
“I think what you are saying is that the entire political process has been
corrupted with so much cheap money available.”
I was wrong. You have stripped your gears and are going nowhere.
Which is why I asked the question: “3) Do we know yet the names of everyone who acted illegally?”
I am responding to the accusations within the cited article which used the tribal donations to demonstrate that most of the directed money went to Republicans. Well, duh.
If you’re going to point to tribal donations as evidence of a scandal without providing additional evidence of criminal activity, then you can’t ignore the evidence that some tribal money was directed by Abramoff to Democrats.
In other words, you can’t just look at increases in donations to Republicans without also looking at the increased contributions to Democrats.
I don’t have a problem with donations. I don’t think they should be limited. There is no way to prevent loopholes and there are always other methods to make your money work for a candidate. I think current campaign finance reforms have decreased accountability by candidates in their campaigns since supporters now make campaign commercials attacking opponents. Unlimited donations with transparency make candidates accountable for how the money is spent.
See the analysis;
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924
This is the cited source I used since my first comment. I downloaded the xls files, analyzed the numbers, and compared the analysis to what was said in the article. Did you?
The article only listed the evidence that demonstrated increases to Republicans and decreases to Democrats. But that’s not the whole story. Additionally, the article uses averages rather than specific donations to specific people directed by Abramoff (not provided in the article’s source data).
I stand by my points.
I especially stand by my point that you can’t use data that helps your argument while dismissing the same evidence when it makes you look bad. If you’re going to use evidence that money was redirected to some Republicans by some tribes, then you have to use the same evidence when money is redirected to Democrats.
I’ll state again for the record:
1) This is a Republican scandal, but I haven’t seen specific accusations against more than 3 Republicans so far. That doesn’t mean that more won’t be implicated.
2) Tribal money was redirected by Abramoff to (mostly) Republicans and (some) Democrats.
3) No one here has provided evidence that anything illegal occurred in regards to the tribal money.
4) If you’re going to point to increases/decreases in tribal donations as a way to point fingers at Republicans, then you can’t ignore inconvenient donations that point to Democrats.
JWG;
I don’t have Excel, but I think you are trying to get traction on ice if you
are battling over “not one red cent” because it is indisputable that
donations to dems by the tribes is significant. I am not sure why you
seem to return to your argument, time and again, but I doubt anyone
is denying dems took contributions. I can give you that. It’s about the
strings tied to the money. Dare I say it again? Quid Pro Quo.
Perhaps the stats lie (as always)as to proportionate amounts
to each party.If that is the intent of the researchers, it is a tactic to
combat,”it’s a bi-partisan scandal”. If that is what your leading up to.
I will not stipulate ‘bipartisan’ because it isn’t.
That’s a mostly level-headed analysis, jwg. All the fuss resides in points 2 and 3:
On point 2, do you have any published information to support that conclusion? The tribes hired Abramoff as a lobbyist. The tribes gave campaign contributions to Democrats. However, I’ve yet to see any published account that puts these two facts together in any definitive way.
At any rate, I think you’re more on point with item 3. This scandal is not about campaign contributions. The tribes that hired Mr. Abramoff donated millions–legally. If we ever get a serious investigation, we’ll learn more about what Mr. Abramoff admits in his plea deal–there was fraud, money-laundering, and bribery.
Mr. Dean claims that no Democrat will be implicated in those crimes. Personally, I hope he’s right.
At this point, some Republican spinners are pointing to the legal and irrelevant campaign contributions as an indication that Mr. Dean is wrong and that Democrats were engaged with Mr. Abramoff in criminality. To date, there’s no indication that’s true.
“I don t have a problem with donations. ”
But you do…………
“There is no way to prevent loopholes”
Public financing? or…….
“Unlimited donations with transparency”
No loopholes here?
JWG –
There’s no question that Abramoff personally gave exactly zero dollars to Democrats. There’s also no question that Republicans ended up getting significantly more money from Indian tribes after Abramoff began representing them than before. I think you will agree with both of these statements.
And yet, as Wilbur pointed out, Bush said this: It seems to me that he [Abramoff] was an equal money dispenser.”
Why did he say it? It’s not true by any measure.
It seems to me that he [Abramoff] was an equal money dispenser,
Quaker, once again, hits the nail on the head. The scandal involves Abramoff’s conspiracy to corrupt public officials, mail fraud and tax evasion and has nothing to do with which tribes gave what to whom.
The Republicans started arguing that Abramoff was an “equal money dispenser” to suggest that this was a bipartisan scandal. Dems hit back with the easily proved point that Ambramoff gave no personal money to any Dems. So the Repubs respond by dragging in the Indian tribes and who they gave to. It’s a total non-sequitor that the media has nevetheless swallowed whole.
If you take tribal donations out of the story it’s an entirely Republican scandal. If you leave the tribal donations in it remains an entirely republican scandal. Indeed, the reference to tribal donations only underscores Abramoff’s connection to the Republican party because he oversee a shift in tribal donations from mostly Dems to overwhelmingly Republican.
JWG, when you write things like this — “The scandal is about quid pro quo and there should be no dispute that some Democrats received money/favors that were directed by Abramoff” — you are attempting to connect what are, in terms of the investigation underway, totally unrelated.
WaPo:
I don’t know if this is in of itself illegal or if it ultimately resulted in illegal activity. I would suppose that would be one of the points in having an expert lobbiest working on your behalf.
I believe I clearly stated the opposite. What I argued with was the use of the tribal donations as a way to demonstrate only Republicans gained from Abramoff’s influence over the tribes.
Agreed. Is there evidence that his personal political donations of $200,000 over 6 years resulted in illegal activity? I’m serious asking — I’m not entirely clear what transactions have been determined to be illegal.
Agreed — when you look at the total donations. But if the donations are legal and didn’t result in illegal activity, why does it matter?
Only when you average the data; not if you look at specific tribes and specific donations. Then some tribes do not follow this pattern.
I also hope he is right. I hope as few politicians as possible were involved in illegal activity.
Whew.
That WaPo article is one of the most cagily worded pieces I’ve seen in a while. The reporter states the nut of the piece twice. JWG quoted one instance above. Farther down, the reporter writes:
OK. So why not cough it up? Let’s see these lists. Let’s compare them to the financial disclosures. But until somebody steps forward and says “Jack Abramoff said we should give money to Dems,” it’s all guesswork.
Agreed.
I remain unsure as to what money was used in the crimes to which he’s already pleaded guilty. Is there an article that has explained it? All I’ve found is the charges against him.
As I understand it the money came from the Indian tribes that Abramoff bilked out of $25 million.
Given the lackluster job most reporters have done in getting simple facts right, you’d be better off reading Abramoff’s plea agreement.
Findlaw posted up a pdf of it right here.
Thanks.
Guys, that was awesome. Logical and reasoned debate. Jeez, we never see that! Congrats to all!