Abramoff Clients Increased Donations to Democrats

by RonK, Seattle

In the howl over a flat-out false assertion (that Jack Abramoff donated to both parties), WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell amended her position, granting that Abramoff was a GOP player, that his scandal is a GOP scandal, and that he contributed exclusively to Republicans.

She then asserts that donations were "were directed to lawmakers of both parties". The left blogosphere went beserk -- insisting that Abramoff directed his clients to reduce their established levels of donation to Democrats.

In this instance, Howell is correct. Her critics are flat-out wrong, and calling for Howell's head on this account may reflect badly on the blogs. (The MSM has both "ink by the barrel" and "the facts".)

It's true (in aggregate, and just barely [1]) that tribes under Abramoff's influence allocated a larger percentage of their dollars to Republicans. It's NOT TRUE that they reduced their donations to Democrats. Total dollars to Democrats from "Abramoff tribes" INVARIABLY INCREASED in the "Abramoff years".

How can this be? Dollars to D's increased. Dollars to R's increased even more, swinging the contribution ratio in the R's favor -- at least in some cases. Details (below) vary from tribe to tribe.

[This summary draws on subscriber-only detail data from FECinfo. Source data is public, but compilation of raw FEC is challenging -- especially where tribal donations are concerned. See this explainer.

Discussion below covers federally regulated contributions only. Some tribes also conducted extensive campaigns in state-level influence markets.]

Consider first the Coushatta of Louisiana -- who made NO contributions in the immediate pre-Abramoff (1999-2000) election cycle.

In the 2001-2002 cycle, they gave $10K to the New Democrat Network, $10K to DSCC (and related accounts), 2.5 to DCCC accounts, 4 to Mary Landrieu, 3 to Tim Johnson (and 3 to the SD Democratic Party), 1 to Harkin, 2 to Breaux, 5 to Harry Reid's Searchlight fund, 5 to Daschle's DashPAC, 5 to Dorgan's Great Plains Leadership fund, and 5 to the Blue Dog PAC .. all net increases in dollars to Democrats.

The famous Tiguas (Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas) recorded a total of $2,500 in the 2000 cycle: $1K to Jeff Bingaman (D), and $1.5K to Henry Bonilla and Dave Camp (R's).

In 2002, the Tigua show 72 federally-reported political donations, for a total of $217K. They leaned heavily to the Republican side, but gave Patrick Kenned $2K, Blue Dogs 5, Mikulski 2, DashPAC 5, and DSCC 3.

The Agua Caliente gave $18.5K in the 2000 cycle (17.5 to Dem's).

2002 shows 224 donations, for $585K. $30K to DSCC accounts, 22 to DCCC accounts, 15 to DNC, 1 or 2 to Democarts Rangel, Stark, Gephardt, Kleczka and Jim Maloney. [Here I found my first decrease: Maloney got only $500 in 2002, vs $1,000 in 2000.]

2004? DNC 25, DSCC 49, DCCC 25.

The Choctaw of Mississippi made 14 contributions totalling $168K in the 2002 cycle -- only $20K to Dem's (RIPAC).

In 2002 we have 164 contributions for $658K. RIPAC got $80K, DCCC accounts 100, DSCC 35, DGA 40, DashPAC 5, Great Plains 4, Searchlight 2 and so on ... both a net increase and a percentage increase.

The Saginaw Chippewa totalled $39K -- both parties -- for the 2000 cycle.

2002 cycle contributions included $22K to DSCC accounts, DCCC 10, NDN 5, SD Dem's 5, Great Plains 5, DashPAC 5, Searchlight 5, Harkin 10, and lesser amounts to Baucus, Lieberman, Lowey, Carl Levin, John Dingell, Patty Murray, Patrick Kennedy, Pat Leahy.

The Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana gave DSCC $25K in the 2000 cycle (plus $720 to Bob Borski) out of a $37K total.

In 2002, DCCC accounts got $30K, GUMBO PAC 5, Landrieu 4 and Tim Johnson 1 -- out of a $150K contribution program. Our percentage fell off a cliff, but our net dollars increased.

The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma were small players. No dollars in 2000 or 2002, but $50K in 2004 (heavily D, made lopsided by enrolled tribal member Brad Carson's Senate candidacy.)

The Pueblo of Sandia? Pikers. $4K to Dem's in 2000, $9K in 2002, $10K in 2004.

The Pueblo of Santa Clara had no activity in 2000, $2K to Dem's (out of 4.5) in 2002, and 2.5 (out of 3.5) in 2004.

Those are the Nine Lost Tribes of Abramoff. Every tribe INCREASED donations to Democrats in the cycles when Jack Abramoff was engaged on their behalf. [There are many details to sort out, and historical patterns to compare across unlike regulatory regimes, and Abramoff's engagements did not begin and end on election cycle boundaries, and casino tribes may change giving patterns abruptly depending on legal and political circumstances, and so on and so forth.]

Does all this mean Abramoff "directed" them to give more dollars to Democrats? In a word, "yes" -- but that's a more complex discussion for a later post.

[1] Per Center for Responsive Politics summaries, "Abramoff tribes" already gave over 61.4% of their contributions to Republicans in the pre-Abramoff 2000 election cycle, versus 64.4% in the 2002 and 2004 cycles combined. Prior period comparisons are distorted by the effect of a large delta in the numerator (Saginaw's $220K to DCCC accounts in the 1998 cycle) on a narrow pre-Abramoff denominator.

Comments

[emptypockets]

There seems to be a mudpit here about whether Abramoff, Abramoff's clients, Abramoff's seocnd cousin's college roommate, gave money to Democrats and whether it was comparable to what was given to Republicans.

Isn't the issue here illegal contributions?

Abramoff's dollars, if I'm not mistaken, are the same color as mine. I don't understand campaign finance law, but it seems like whether donations were made is not the question.

(Your excellent post is well-taken, I am making a side-point.)

[RonK, Seattle]

emptypockets -- No, to my knowledge there are no significant allegations of illegal political contributions. There are allegations of outright personal bribery, fraud, diversion of funds, charity (tax and other) fraud, etc., but that's pertains almost exclusively to nearly $100M in non-campaign money, not the 3 or 4 million directed to campaign committees.

[Semblance]

Does all this mean Abramoff "directed" them to give more dollars to Democrats? In a word, "yes" -- but that's a more complex discussion for a later post.

What the hell? That's one of the central points under debate here. You should have included that information here before criticizing the blogs.

And THE central point is that Howell took GOP lies and presented them as truth. Your little entry here is tangential.

[John Casper]

RonK, your post has gathered significant attention over at FDL. Jane Hamsher is going to blog at 1:00EST Wednesday in a WaPo moderated chat with Debbie Howell?, Jim Brady?, and others? about Debbie's "ombdusmanning" Abramoff. I would certainly invite you over to FDL, if you are so inclined, to help Jane understand your data and also to predict how Debbie and others may use it. I very much doubt that Debbie had any clue about your data, but if your rendering of the data is accurate, and I have no reason to think it isn't, it's imo very serious.

[John]

Why don't you join Wizbang. What part of illegal money don't you understand?

[John Casper]

John, the same part the Justice Department doesn't understand. If you have evidence that these tribes conspired with Abramoff to bribe Democrats, please, post it.

[RonK, Seattle]

JC -- I expect Howell will have much better data than mine. They have time, money, interns, data sources (probably their own copies of FEC archives), etc. ... and other MSM would undoubtedly have similar compilations in the works.

I'm disheartened that folks on our side didn't exercise more critical thinking, and that math-smart cookies like Brad DeLong didn't look closer at amounts vs percents.

[greyhair]

If I'm reading this correctly, it's nonsense.

Aside from the already made points about illegality, the only thing identified here is that the tribes "increased their donations". Overall.

So? This could actually be said to be a further indictment of the GOP because tribes figured that in a Republican dominated Congress, money talks louder than in a Democratically controlled Congress.

Or it could simply be inflation adjusted? Or it could be because of increased profits in gaming allowing for more contributions? Or...or...or.

[siun]

Ron - please explain precisely how Indian donations to democrats were "directed" by Abramoff - we have always noted that the tribes may have given money to the democrats separately from their activities with Abramoff - that is not the issue.

If you have evidence of this direction, I think you need to lay it out before making snide comments about "howling" "beserk" etc.

[John Casper]

RonK, thanks for your response. I assume emptywheel is or will very soon become aware of your work. It is pretty evident to me that you have scooped everybody. As I posted above, my greatest concern is that Jane and emptywheel know about your data as far in advance of the Wednesday chat as possible.

[greyhair]

I re-read and see where RonK said about the liberal blogosphere:

"insisting that Abramoff directed his clients to reduce their established levels of donation to Democrats."

In addition to my above comment, I'll say that of the 30 or so blogs I read, I didn't see this point given much emphasis at all (links?). Looks like that's a cherry-picked point made by "some on the left" and disputed.

[RonK, Seattle]

JC -- I've been hollering about this "scoop" for about 60 hours now, online and off, to people who should have immediately known better. Best to avoid getting blindsided, I figure. I can little afford the time I've put into it. Hope the FDL'ers will go transcend their prejudices and sort out signal from noise.

[Dave Latchaw]

Ron - thanks for doing the grunt work on this. But, although the statistical evidence is suggestive, in the absence of electronic or written correspondence that indicates Abramoff was in substantial control of these payments, I think it's a stretch to say he "directed" them.

I'm sure your going to catch some flak for this. (Oh look. You already did.) But this is good stuff; hope you'll continue with this.

[emptypockets]

I'm the class dunce & I still need the bottom line spelled out for me. The conclusion is -- to lay off Howell? to withdraw the "this is a Republican scandal" line? to ask Democrats to return contributions?

And while I'm asking stupid questions, John Casper, what's FDL?

[p.lukasiak]

Ron...

good job. Facts, regardless of how uncomfortable, are much better than spin.

[nobody]

Okay, look. Exactly what would "directed payments" mean? To me it should mean that Abramoff explicitly said "I want you to send so-and-so $X" where $X is more than they would have otherwise given.

Is there evidence of that or not?

Anyway, this whole debate is over a red herring. It's about the GOP machine, stupid.

[p.lukasiak]

I'm the class dunce & I still need the bottom line spelled out for me. The conclusion is -- to lay off Howell? to withdraw the "this is a Republican scandal" line? to ask Democrats to return contributions?

1) buy Howell off... she has a contract

2) no, its still a Republican scandal

3) A number of tribal councils owed their election to the fact that Scanlon and Abramoff provided huge amounts of money to install their candidates -- who won, and then sent big bucks contracts to Scanlon/Abramoff. Democrats need to determine which tribes elections were corrupted, and return any money donated from those tribes IF those tribes are no longer being controlled by the "Abramoff councils". If they are, the money should be placed in escrow, or to a charity that specifically benefits the tribe in question -- but that is not controlled by the Abramoff corrupted officials

next question?

[Alvord]

"Does all this mean Abramoff "directed" them to give more dollars to Democrats? In a word, "yes" -- but that's a more complex discussion for a later post."

Who was directing the Tribes to give their money to Democrats before Abramoff? Has it crossed your mind that they might be making decisions independent of Abramoff? If you have statements from Tribes saying they gave money to Democrats because Abramoff told them to, produce them. If you know of a quid pro quo between Democrats and Tribes that were arranged by Abramoff, what is it?

First you say unequivocally that Abramoff "directed" them to give more money to Democrats but then add that it is a more complex discussion for a later post. Since you characterize it as a "more complex discussion" makes me wonder how convincing that later post will be.

[Siun]

emptypockets - FDL = Firedoglake - http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

Ron - please explain how these numbers prove Abramoff's "direction" - so far it's not clear.

There have always been mentions of tribal donations to democrats but they were not Abramoff related so this is the critical question.

[p.lukasiak]

re: previous comment...

Scanlon & Abramoff did not provide "cash" so much as "in kind services" to elected corrupt Native Americans to tribal councils....

[John Casper]

RonK, thanks a lot for all your work. I am very relieved to see plukasiak involved. I know he has contact with Jane and I think everyone at FDL has tremendous respect for his comments, I know I do. I will do what I can over at FDL to stop commenters from taking pot shots "at the messenger." I look forward to your next post at nexthurrah.

[RonK, Seattle]

p.l. -- thx for your good work on this

pockets -- Take Howell to task where she's wrong, not where we're wrong. It's still a very Republican scandal (and receipt of campaign donation does NOT establish corrupt influence - for R's or D's). Anybody can return contributions, or keep 'em -- good arguments for both -- and some tribes have refused to accept refunds.

D.L., others -- As I said, I'll deal with "directed" in next post, which flakcatching only delays. But note that Howell only said "were directed" in the anonymous passive voice, not "Abramoff directed". (But he did, beyond reasonable doubt.)

several, re "illegal" -- No suggestion has been made that any campaign contributions were illegal (over limit, or by nonqualified contributors, etc). And as far as I know, campaign contributions played no part in bribery, fraud or other wrongdoing. Why are you reading this if you haven't followed the scandal story at all?

greyhair -- Inflation? Priceless.

[p.lukasiak]

Since you characterize it as a "more complex discussion" makes me wonder how convincing that later post will be.

The numbers don't lie.... donations to democrats generally increased while Abramoff was running things.

The "complex" part comes from the fact that most tribes recognize that the Democrats have traditionally represented their interests far better than Republicans. One result of this is that there likely would have been a "push back" within the tribes once they realized that tribal funds were being spent on supporting GOP candidates....

(the DATES of the Coushatta contributions are critical... and it appears that money first went exclusively to GOP candidates...)

[Fr33d0m]

No time to read all the comments but from what I did read it seems some are not understanding the issues here.

It doesn't really matter if Abramoff directed money or not; if Dems got money or not. That isn't the real issue here, nor it seems is if Repugnicons got some money from him. You have to know the money you took is tainted before there is an issue here.

At the root of this is the attempt to make this look like it blemishes both sides and to that extent this is bad news. Dean's assertion that Abranoff didn't give money may come back to bite us. If we were Repugnicons we would just repeat what he said until nobody could think otherwise though.

The Abramoff gang may have gotten a little sloppy here but they were bright enough to try to hide their tracks by spreading the donations around a little. That complicates our attempts to use this to highlight Repugnicon corruption, but it only kills that attempt if we don't see the light and adjust to meet the new facts.

Perhaps a rehash of what this scandle entails would help us all.

[p.lukasiak]

One more point....

In 2002 the Democrats controlled the Senate .... Abramoff (not to mention his bosses at Greenberg Taurig) would have been insane to be completely partisan in recommending where campaign contributions should go under those circumstances. Abramoff was throwing enormous and unprecedented sums at the GOP for the 2002 elections -- Abramoff was "generous" enough with the Dems to keep them from wondering what the hell was going on....