View Story | 173 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Anyone who has followed the story already knows that specific Abramoff clients wrote specific checks for specific amounts on specific dates to specific Democrats at the direction of Abramoff (or his subordinates).
It's unclear how much of $1.5M in "Abramoff-related" tribal money received by Democrats was specifically directed by Abramoff.
And there's no indication to date of any corrupt bargain attached to this money where Dem's are concerned (as there is in a couple of GOP cases, with more likely to follow).
Finally, it's unknown where much of the remaining $75M in Abramoff-related tribal lobbying expenditures ended up.
The facts are good for our side. Stick to the facts.
You won't be very effective refuting people like Howell and Kyra Phillips by insisting "don't parrot their side's lies -- parrot my side's lies".
The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:13:54 AM PDT
If there are documents showing that he told the tribes to give to Dems, I haven't seen them. I'd also be wary of anything that appears merely in tabular form. It would be easy to list out contributions by a tribe that happen to include money given to the opposition, but that listing wouldn't be "direction" -- merely a recitation of existing data. I'd also want to look at whether any "direction" amounted to instructions to reduce contributions to Dems.
Again -- I'm not saying with absolute certainty that this didn't happen; it just doesn't fit the MO of Jack Abramoff as we understand it so far. There certainly have been articles in the MSM that suggest otherwise; I'm just not prepared to believe those articles without seeing the evidence for myself.
by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:33:36 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Specific means specific, traceable from tribal check registers to candidate FEC filings, and supported by first-person accounts of tribal officials.
And FYI, the tribes' share of contrib's to D's did decrease under Abramoff/Scanlon/Reed's influence ... but the amount contributed to D's increased radically. (The total to R's just increased more radically.) Pick a tribe and look it up.
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 11:33:27 AM PDT
Okay, I can pick a tribe and look it up.
From the excellent December 21, 2005 analysis by Bloomberg:
Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past. The Saginaw Chippewas gave $500,500 to Republicans between 2001 and 2004 and $277,210 to Democrats, according to a review of data compiled by Dwight L. Morris & Associates, a Bristow, Virginia-based company that tracks campaign-finance reports. Between 1997 and 2000, the tribe gave just $158,000 to Republicans and $279,000 to Democrats.
The Saginaw Chippewas gave $500,500 to Republicans between 2001 and 2004 and $277,210 to Democrats, according to a review of data compiled by Dwight L. Morris & Associates, a Bristow, Virginia-based company that tracks campaign-finance reports. Between 1997 and 2000, the tribe gave just $158,000 to Republicans and $279,000 to Democrats.
As I read that, the Chippewas gave less to the Dems: in raw dollar terms, as well as their total share. The raw dollar decline is fairly small, but it is a decline, and not a "radical increase," as you insist. The decline is, as you pointed out, enormous when compared to the total share of the lobbying budget.
What I get from these figures is that contributions to Dems went down slightly, while contributions to 'Pubs more than tripled.
So ... I remain unconvinced that Abramoff "directed" money to the Dems.
by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 12:01:37 PM PDT
You can do a lot of work trying to convince yourself of something that isn't true to begin with, and you may succeed ... but it won't convince anybody outside your bubble. It will only convince them not to listen to you again.
Now, how do you propose to blind yourself to all the specific-specific-specific cases in which tribal officials testified "Abramoff [or Scanlon, etc] told us to write this check on this date", and the check was written, and was deposited in a Democratic candidate's hard money account, and was reported to the FEC, and was (in some cases, and not in others) refunded by the Democratic candidate?
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 02:38:59 PM PDT
Show me the testimony of a tribal official who said Abramoff told him to write a check to a Democrat (provided, of course, that it doesn't represent a decrement of the amount the tribe had proposed giving or had given before), and I'm willing to look at it.
by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 03:08:43 PM PDT
IIRC, this story preceded Dorgan's decision to return all his "Abramoff-related" money.
Also note that Harry Reid received no Agua Caliente, Louisiana Coushatta, Mississippi Choctaw or Saginaw Chippewa (loosely, "Abramoff tribe") contributions in pre-Abramoff years, but $50K in 2001-04 (loosely, the "Abramoff years").
Note clearly -- none of this makes Dorgan, Reid or anybody else crooked. It just demolishes the conceit that no Democrats received Abramoff-directed funds.
Before you go after the WaPo, CNN, etc. for not having their story straight, you need to get your story straight.
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:03:58 PM PDT
The bigger focus though should be what was gotten for those dollars and a clear distinction should be made between dirty money and clean money (as clean as money can ever be).
The press (and we) are so anxious to break a story and subsequently wrap it up into a neat soundbite that the essential story is lost before the trial even goes down.
by JaneKnowles on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 04:49:59 PM PDT
I say it "may" support it, because as I observed a couple of posts upthread, it makes a difference whether the amount provided was an increment or a decrement to what the tribe had originally intended. If the tribe planned to give $10k to Dorgan, for example, and Abramoff persuaded them to cut that amount in half, I don't think it can be fairly said that they gave him $5000 at Abramoff's direction. It would be more accurate to say Abramoff directed them to cut their contribution.
WRT this statement: Before you go after the WaPo, CNN, etc. for not having their story straight, you need to get your story straight -- Howell's claim that Abramoff gave money to Dems was factually inaccurate. It's fair game to point it out, and to expect a correction.
by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 05:00:50 PM PDT
Noted with interest.
by Califlander on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 05:48:30 PM PDT
by jukeboxgrad on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:40 PM PDT
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 08:36:12 PM PDT
There's no indication Faircloth is a lobbyist ... and much indication to the contrary.
There's no indication Faircloth is a GOP operative. He has several contributions, not unusual for a Louisiana lawyer, but no activist earmarks.
Sworn Senate testimony was given by tribal council chair Kevin Sickey, but Sickey referred al public inquiries to Faircloth.
Sickey led a dissident council faction that contested the election of Abramoff-friendly council members in the critical period.
Faircloth was originally represented the reform faction in their election contest (which Abramoff may have had a role in rigging). He became general counsel to the tribe when Sickey's reform faction gained control, and leads their effort to recover $32 million in Abramoff-related rake-off's.
I don't find the contribution in question in FEC records, but that's probably because I'm looking in the wrong place, or there's a clerical recording error (not uncommon). Reasoning: Dorgan raised a number of objections to the Coushatta story and its implications, but did not contest the assertion that he had received this money (which would have been his most air-tight defense), and did include it in his contributions refunded and/or redirected to charities.
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 08:49:53 PM PDT
The day after Kagro's diary, TNH received correspondence from FECInfo.com indicating the $5K from Coushatta went to a Dorgan-controlled soft money account, and providing a (subscriber only) link. Not sure whether we ever followed up as intended to correct the record.
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:00:45 PM PDT
by jukeboxgrad on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 06:16:16 PM PDT
by jukeboxgrad on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 06:21:20 PM PDT
No one has said Dems did not get money Ron.
What game are you playing?
Everybody dies alone.
by Armando on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:42:21 PM PDT
And why are you playing over here, when the front page is over there?
by RonK Seattle on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 11:20:05 PM PDT
by Califlander on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:29:55 AM PDT
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.
'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'
by jorndorff on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:10:40 AM PDT
A link? something?
by Armando on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:40:01 PM PDT
by Armando on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:38:52 PM PDT
If you say from now on, I'd like you to give Reid $500 instead of $2,000 this year, and instead give $1500 more to Republicans, that's directing money TO Republicans.
Show me a Democrat that Abramoff told his clients to give MORE money to. Give me a Democrat Abramoff directed to get money that didn't get money in previous years. No, Abramoff cut contributions for Dems as close to zero as he could.
by memekiller on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:25:19 PM PDT
Abramoff led to MORE MONEY for the GOP from the tribes.
As for your assertions of $1.5 million and Abramoff's "directing" it, a link or SOME support for your assertions would be helpful.
Snideness without substance is still a big nothing Ron.
Oh, and stick toi the facts will you? Cuz you don't bring any here. You bring your assertions, nothing more.
by Armando on Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:37:54 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 173 comments