... linked to the discussion here, of course.

I note your figures but what about the possibility that these tribes didn't have legislation that they were trying to get passed before they hired Abramoff? It could reasonably be said that the tribes might not have needed to lobby Congress before they went along and hired Abramoff, in which case the lower funds were indicative of their level of interest in Congressional matters. The correlation isn't enough to strictly say, in a widespread fashion, that Abramoff was the determinative source of the higher level of donations. It could merely be a symptom of their interest in federal legislation.

Secondly, what's the larger point here? The debate over campaign contributions is ultimately beside the larger point of corruption, money laundering, and bribery. Surely, corrections are needed when they are due but you've overreached based on what's known so far. I wouldn't nearly be so presumptive as to say that Abramoff never directed a tribe to donate to a member of Congress or that he regularly did. I haven't seen the records. What is known is that there is very little, if any, signs that a single Dem. acted on behalf of Abramoff's interest or the tribes he represented, be it based on legal or illegal means of influence. I feel as though this debate has really lost sight of the larger picture of what Abramoff was all about and how he peddled influence in Congress.