Wait. Before you flame me to death, read this.
The actual, literal truth is that Abramoff didn't give any of his personal money to Democrats. This is undisputed fact, however who Abramoff donated his money to isn't part of the controversy surrounding him. Who Abramoff directed his clients to give money to isn't the issue either. What is part of the controversy surrounding him, is that Abramoff directed his clients to give money to candidates and their campaigns, PACs and other non-profits in exchange for legislative favors.
Abramoff himself didn't donate anything to Democrats or their causes, but that doesn't mean anything by itself. Abramoff's suggestions to his clients that they donate to a lawmaker's campaign fund, PAC or other non-profit by themselves
do not mean there was anything illegal going on.
Absolutely nothing can be gained by showing where Abramoff donated his personal money and where he directed his clients to donate their money. Financial transactions such as those, by themselves, are completely legal. What would make them illegal, is if there was a deal or understanding of any kind between Abramoff, his clients, and the lawmakers benefiting from said cash contributions. That is what we're talking about here, that's the connection between Abramoff and Ney, DeLay, and Bush, and others that the prosecutors are going after. It is simply impossible to establish whether or not such relationships existed by simply looking at the publicly known money trail. Money laundering and wire fraud are another matter, however, and no I don't believe any Democrats were involved with that.
Seriously folks, this is a complete misunderstanding at best, horrible distortion at worst.
Now, again, before you flame me for being a troll, know that I am not accusing the Democrats or suggesting that they took bribes. In fact, I'm happy that this is happening, because it's going to be a huge boom for Democrats, and I really do think that Rethuglicans are going to take major losses at the polls for this one.
It's just that at this early stage in the game, it's far too early for Democrats to be casting themselves as shiny pillars of morality because nobody but Abramoff, his clients, and the prosecutors know where those illegal deals existed, except for the minimal and incomplete information we have been given by the press.
And if you agree with what I have to say but still think Democrats should be out there painting the walls with "Abramoff only gave money to Republicans," because it'll give us gains at the polls: think again. What if, after months of being out there gleefully exclaiming "we're not connected to Abramoff!" the prosecutor turns around and indicts a Democrat? It won't matter much in the public eye if it's only one, or a handful of Democrats compared to dozens of Republicans, because those Republicans who were left untouched by this scandal will twist it as much as possible to show that the Democrats are just as corrupt, making Democrats look like liars too. =If that happens, it'll be nobody's fault but the Democrats who insisted that all Democrats were clean.
Another thing: as the readership of blogs increases dramatically, we all have to become a lot more responsible. Everywhere more and more people are turning to blogs for their news sources, so as we become more and more popular, we have to be more responsible as well. We like to complain about the TM (my own term: Traditional Media) and GOP talking points as spreading misinformation, but if we keep spreading distortions like these, we are no better than they are.