As some of you are no doubt aware,
Sen. Dorgan is returning donations from tribal donations after learning that Abramoff requested the tribes make these donations, despite never having met Abramoff and maintaining that all of his acts in regards to the tribes were well above-board. And no doubt many will clcaim it is a good thing to distance himself from the scandal, possibly even that Harry Reid should follow suite. These voices will have little sympathy to the "but these are legal donations" argument because the amounts seem so egreigiously large, and besides, beyond the letter of the law there is such a thing as the appearance of impropriety, and Democrats of all people should hold themselves to the highest ethical standard- the benefits of money be damned.
Its a formidable argument and God knows I'm the last person to decry the removal of money from politics and high ethical standards in campaigns and elections. But I get tripped up on this story, because of everything Abramoff did, telling his tribes to write that check to Dorgan was probably one of the most useful and fundamentally upright things he did.
A quick summation of what exactly Jack Abramoff did wrong: Abramoff represented two Indian tribes at the same time who had competing interests and played them off each other while accepting money from both. In other words, Tribe #1 owned a casino. Tribe #2 wanted to build a casino that would compete with Tribe #1's casino. Abramoff lobbied legislators to deny Tribe #2 their right to build a casino on behalf of Tribe #1, while telling Tribe #2 he was lobbying for the construction of said casino. The more lobbying he did for Tribe #1, the more Tribe #2 had to pay him to get their message across. Ditto for Tribe #1. He used the tribes to wine and dine various lawmakers, take them on junkets, golf trips, to the Superbowl, etc.
Lobbying for a client is never a single issue event, though. So, when it came to stuff like the allotment of funds to build schools in tribal lands, there wasn't a conflict of interest between Tribe #1 and Tribe #2. In any case, the tribes are the real victims here. They are the ones who were scammed out of $80 million dollars. Keep that in mind before declaring any donation from the tribes to be tainted.
So, where does Dorgan fit in? He was not wined and dined. He was not taken on junkets. He was not given a quid pro quo. He was not lobbied by Jack Abramoff. He received a donation from a tribe represented by Jack Abramoff, a fact he didn't know at the time and even if he had known, it wouldn't have raised a red flag at the time of the donation. This was done within a three month period of Dorgan writing a letter petitioning for the construction of schools for the tribes, a cause he has long been in favor of.
Dorgan is the ranking minority member of the Indian Affairs Committee, and as such is an ear these tribes should both have been desperately courting. He also has a history supporting tribes, which would further increase the tribal interest in keeping him around for another term, much like it is in NOW's interest to keep as many pro-choice Senators in power as possible. Ditto for the Sierra Club. Dorgan was specifically powerful in delegating legislation and bringing other Democrats on board.
Sidenote: Tribal interests, specifically in regard to gambling, make up an odd cross-section of both political parties. Some Republicans favor it as pro-business and a quick way to generate revenue through the private sector. Others think it is legalizing vice. Some Democrats see tribal gambling as a way for tribes to prosper and be autonomous. Others see gambling as essentially a tax on the poor, and that the benefit to the tribes is usually reserved for the select few who own the casinos, not the tribe at large. On non-gambling tribal interests, Democrats have been historically more supportive, in large part because the tribes are some of the poorest demographics out there and Democratic policy is sympathetic to the poor.
So when Abramoff told the tribes to donate to Dorgan, he was saying that Dorgan is a sympathetic ear who can help you advance your cause. This is all true. So why did Dorgan return the donation? Is all tribal money to be suspect now? If so, how is that fair to tribes who have just as much right as any other interest group in supporting candidates sympathetic to their cause? I am all for reforming the lobbying system in this country, but selectively discluding one interest groups donations while allowing all other groups to support candidates in favor of their causes? Is the result of getting scammed out of $80 million dollars that everything that happened that was salvagable and not tainted becomes suspect by association, in which case, they've really been scammed out of more than $80 million.
And what does it look like now that Dorgan's returned the donation? Well, he maintains he did nothing wrong, but conceeded the point that the money somehow looks improper. (The debater in me is exasperated. You can't conceed a point and then still maintain your original counter). And it looks awkward and rushed and done in the face of a re-election bid where it'll still be thrown in his face. (Are we going to excuse a GOP lawmaker from their involvement just because they belatedly returned the money or "remembered" that they had to report the trip?)
What position does it put Harry Reid in, whose also received donations without any of the improper quid pro quo? (So you know, the obvious reason that Reid received donations was because as a senator from Nevada, it was deeply in his state's interest to prevent the construction of casinos and spread of gambling to any other state or region that might lure people away from vacationing in Las Vegas. Combined with his leadership position, he was an obvious target for Tribe #1).
And what is the stance of the party? There needs to be some sort of unified message on where the party stands in regards to these donations, and what our guys do when they've received them. Each time it is inconsistent, it becomes more difficult to attack the other side without them blurring the lines by confusing Dorgan's donation with Ney changing his vote on the issue and accepting bribes from Abramoff.
I suppose my question is, I can't come up with a message until I know where we stand. And until everyone understands exactly what the problem is, we're going to be vulnerable to exploitation.