Mark Schmitt
over at TPM Cafe is imploring progressives not to reinforce the right-wing's framing that the Abramoff scandal is a lobbyist scandal.
He says: "This is not a lobbying scandal. It's a betrayal-of-public-trust scandal."
Every time we talk about money and gifts instead of corruption or lobbyists instead of conservatives in power we are shooting ourselves in the foot because money, gifts and lobbyists each work both ways (ie, both conservatives and progressives can easily be connected to each)... but so far as we can see the corruption in the Abramoff case is purely on the conservative side of the aisle. And, funny, conservatives control All. Three. Branches of government so if anyone's going to do any mopping around Washington it's going to have to be them to enfore the ethics rules they tried to toss out a year ago.
...additional thoughts on the flip
More from
Schmitt, since his thoughts deserve as wide an audience among the left as possible (emphasis mine):
Please don't reinforce the frame that this is a "lobbying scandal" and the villain a "lobbyist" named Jack Abramoff.
That's the other side's frame. This is not a lobbying scandal. It's a betrayal-of-public-trust scandal. Lobbyists have no power, no influence, until a public servant gives them power. That's what DeLay and the K Street Project was all about. What they did was to set up a system by which lobbyists who proved their loyalty in various ways, such as taking DeLay and Ney on golf trips to Scotland, could be transformed from supplicants to full partners in government.
Abramoff did lots of terrible things and should go to jail, but never forget that every single criminal and unethical act of his was made possible by a public official. On his own, Abramoff had no power. At another time -- say, 1993 -- he would have been a joke.
But every time we say "lobbying reform," we reinforce the idea that it is only the lobbyist who is the wrongdoer. Sure, many lobbyists are slimy and aggressive. (Others, in my experience, can be helpful and informative, as long as you understand that they represent only one side of an argument.) But no one forces any legislator or staffer to accept lunches, trips, or favors from a lobbyist. And the reason not to do that is that the legislator risks surrendering some of her power, which is a public trust, to these private interests.
Using the "betrayal of public trust" frame fits into the overarching conservative culture of corruption frame that is becoming more and more clear with each and every grand jury indictment, guilty plea, and (soon) conviction.
It is also the perfect answer (in addition to Gov Dean's response) to the "But didn't Democratic Senator X get money too?" question...
First, Abramoff himself gave money to only conservative politicians and causes and that was his right to choose to do so (just as you or I could choose to give money only to liberals or only to challengers or only people with the letter "S" in their name). These donations aren't the issue though they do prove the point that Abramoff was and is a conservative fundraiser, lobbyist and activist.
More to the point though, is whether or not their is some promise associated with a donation or gift ... so whether a given elected official (left or right) did receive money in the form of legitimate, legal donations from Indian tribes or others doesn't matter.
What does matter is whether or not there was a quid pro quo associated with that donation, or that fantasy golf trip to St Andrews, or that junket to a tropical island in the Marianas, or that a job for a spouse at a sham charity, or.... jeebus, the "Abramoff List of Favors for Conservatives"TM is too long!
We buy into the right-wing's frame of "blame the scapegoat" when we let reporters, officemates, or letter to the editor writers promote the "Abramoff is bad" and "Dems got money too" lines. And we buy into that frame at our peril.
As fellow Kossack Dengre pointed out last week, the conservative m.o. is to muddy the waters with Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert proving this weekend that the media's all to willing to comply.
We can have fun with it, like Liz of Rapid Response* with her response to the "But Dems got money too" bit. Or, we can be straightforward and say, like Gov Dean who essentially said, 'You can do the research and look it up. Dems are not a part of the apparent influence-peddling -- they did not receive one dime with any sort of promise attached to it.'
But we must make our audience aware -- from the office water cooler to Meet the Press -- that the heart of this scandal is a betrayal of the American people's trust and the only ones involved in that betrayal are conservatives.
* Liz writes:
Now, if you've been closely following along with our story, boys and girls, you'll know that there has been - oh - a journalist or two who've been known to pick up a catchy tune and sing right along, in stories such as this one: (Emphasis added where I want you to pay real close attention.)
The lobbyist and Indian tribes contributed $2.9 million to Republicans and $1.5 million to Democrats in the past five years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Republican National Committee spokesman Tucker Bounds accused [Senator Harry] Reid of engaging in "doublespeak."
(This might be the correct time to ask if you knew that between Katharine Hepburn and myself we have won four Best Actress Oscars? That's right, this is an absolutely factually correct statement.)
(Bold is my emphasis.)
Heck, between Katherine Hepburn and my male self we have a total of four Best Actress Oscars also! Imagine the co-inky-dink! ;)
.