Abramoff Directed Tribal Donations to Democrats

by RonK, Seattle

Yesterday's post brought out a lively crowd gunning for the messenger, complaining "numbers don't mean anything". (Numbers meant something a few hours earlier, when it was assumed the numbers were different.) Now it's "prove he directed those (Democratic) contributions".

Another day, I'll lay out the "born yesterday" logic of denial ... and all the auxiliary premises you'd have to accept in order to believe Jack Abramoff did not direct tribal contributions to both Republicans and Democrats.

But my time is scarce and so's yours, so today we'll serve up a sampler of horse's mouth testimony.

First the horse's ass, from WaPo, 2005-06-02:

An Abramoff spokesman said: "Each tribe has its own protocol for approving political contributions made by the tribe. Mr. Abramoff and his team provided recommendations on where a tribe should spend its political dollars, but ultimately the tribal council made the final decision on what political contributions to make."

But that was before his plea bargain, wasn't it?

For the Coushatta of Louisiana, general counsel Jimmy Faircloth, former counsel to the anti-Abramoff dissidents, speaks (due to pending litigation) exclusively on the matter, under the imprimatur of the tribal Council Chair and full Council, and the implicit imprimatur of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and staff investigators, who in effect vouch for his possession of documents and depositions to back up statements like these.

"Jack Abramoff directed many, many tribes to donate many, many dollars to a laundry list (of politicians) on both sides of the aisle," said Jimmy Faircloth, general counsel for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. ... A lot of the contributions accomplished nothing for the tribes, Faircloth said, but they boosted Abramoff's reputation as a lobbyist extraordinaire. "A lot of it was done so it would increase his clout," Fairclothsaid. "He would make these tribes think that these (donations) were important contacts ... when in fact he would use the money to build his prowess in D.C. as a fundraiser."

"But," you object, "Faircloth doesn't know. He wasn't in the room. And besides that, he's a Republican." (And so he is, though not a lobbyst or operative as has been alleged.)

OK. For now, disregard Faircloth. (You'll be sorry.) Forget the Coushatta.

How about the Tigua? Is tribal governor Arturo Senclair (who was in the room, in charge, for the whole Abramoff joyride) lying, or merely misinformed?

Arturo Senclair, governor of the tribe officially known as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, said Friday that the tribe isn't demanding its donations back but that anyone returning money should check with the Tiguas first. ... The tribe contributed between $250,000 and $300,000 to congressional campaigns between 2002 and 2004 based on Abramoff's direction, Senclair said.

He says he has 250 e-mails to back up his story. Making that up too?

What of the Agua Caliente -- taken for a $10M ride? Here's tribal Chairman Richard Milanovich, under oath in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, 2004-09-29.

Senator Inouye. Chairman Milanovich, you indicated that you were provided with a list of candidates to support.
Mr. Milanovich. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. And you supported these candidates with money?
Mr. Milanovich. Some of the candidates were, it was agreed to support, make contributions to the recommendations list,yes, sir.
...
Senator Inouye. Were the candidates Federal candidates?
Mr. Milanovich. There were some Federal candidates, yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Were they from the State of California?
Mr. Milanovich. I do not remember. The list was long, and I questioned and the vice chairman also questioned certain names on the list because we did not know who they were. As [Saginaw Chippewa] SubChief Sprague states, there were PACs, there were charitable organizations, and we did not know who they were. We questioned, but again there was a forward movement of some tribal council members who said just approve it.
...
Senator Inouye. Were any of the contributions made to political party organizations, like the presidential committees?
Mr. Milanovich. I do not recall a presidential committee, but perhaps the two party committees.
Senator Inouye. Democrat and Republican?
Mr. Milanovich. Yes, sir.
...
Senator Inouye. And you have the list and you can provide it to the committee?
Mr. Milanovich. It has been submitted, yes, sir.
...
Senator Inouye. When you made these contributions, were you advised as to what the nature of benefits you might be able to receive from the recipients of your contributions?
Mr. Milanovich. Not directly, no, sir. It was mailed to us. If we had questions, we questioned Mr. Abramoff or one of his staffers with Greenberg Traurig. Why are we doing this? Why this contribution being made to this person or this candidate or this organization? Many times, it was just because it is for the best interests of the tribe.

(You really must read the whole thing.)

Today, the tribe takes a somewhat different posture:

"We are receiving refunds on contributions made directly by us, implying that somehow we were involved in the subterfuge (by Abramoff)," Milanovich said. "I resent that. All of us resent that."

Casino tribes don't like controversy.Not good for business, and they are controversial enough as it is.

From the same hearing, sub-chief Bernie Sprague of the Saginaw Chippewa:

Mr. Sprague. The Saginaw Chippewas were taken by Mr. Petras and Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff over a 2-year period of approximately $1 million in contributions.
Senator McCain. In campaign contributions?
Mr. Sprague. Campaign contributions to people we never heard of, people we knew nothing about, organizations, different things of this nature. And we will get that list to the committee of all those individuals that were donated to.

Last, we come to the Choctaw of Mississippi, taken for about $14M. Chief Phillip Martin denies Abramoff's influence.

"The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has voluntarily contributed to political campaigns and causes along the ideological spectrum for more than a decade,"  Martin said in a Dec. 21 letter to Hayworth. "Our decisions on political contributions were made by us. They were not coerced or controlled by our former lobbyist, Mr. Jack Abramoff, with whom we have severed all our ties." ... On Wednesday, the Choctaws announced they'd reached a settlement with Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's former lobbying firm, over padded bills.

"That settlement fully and fairly resolves all of the tribe's claims for recovery of funds arising from Mr. Abramoff's misconduct through his 'gimme five' scheme with Michael Scanlon or otherwise while Mr. Abramoff was employed at Greenberg Traurig," said the tribe's statement.

Interesting. Plausible? They've been in the game longer than most. (also on the Abramoff longer than most ... as early as 1995.) Chief Martin points to longstanding personal relationships with Sen. Lott and Rep. Kennedy. On the other hand, they invested $8K in Bob Ney ... they did secure a cash settlement ... and as we noted above, casino tribes don't like controversy.

None of this was hidden away anywhere. Some of it has been on the sworn public record for as long as 15 months. But if it's messengers you want, messengers you'll get. Good shooting!

Comments

[Armando]

There is a real fraudster quality to these diaries.

A conclusion desired, non-evidence treated as conclusive, your logic demanding acceptance as gospel.

It also has a Wingnut quality to it, for obvious reasons.

Some have chosen to appllaud you for "intellectual honesty."

I find the idea laughable. This is a hatchet job done with intent.

Frankly, I think you will require fisking to try and put this to bed. But the damage is done.

Congratulations. The RNC thanks you for doing the dirty work.

I guess the end is not nigh now that you have saved us.

[Armando]

Senclair said with the exception of Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-El Paso, no lawmakers had contacted the tribe by Friday afternoon to ask whether they want their contributions returned. Cuellar received $500 from the Tiguas in 2002 and is returning it.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, is keeping $3,000 from the tribe, saying she does not know Abramoff and returning the contributions would be an insult to the tribe.

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Plano, received $1,000 from the tribe and said Thursday he would give it to the USO of Dallas-Fort Worth. His office was unaware of the tribe's preference when contacted.

Spokesmen for the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee, which received $20,000 and $30,000 in 2002 respectively, said the groups are not returning contributions.

The Democratic Senatorial Committee received $3,000 from the tribe. A spokesman there had no comment.

Arizona Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth, co-chairman of the congressional Native American Caucus, has letters from tribes saying they did not want contributions returned. The Tigua did not send such a letter to Hayworth, who has received $2,000 from the tribe.

"If they've changed their minds and let us know they want to have their contribution back, we'd be glad to do that," spokesman Larry VanHoose said.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Montana, recently gave up his Abramoff-connected contributions, which included $21,000 from the tribe. Any money linked to Abramoff through his clients went back to the tribes, spokesman Matt Mackowiak said.

The tribe is not alone in wanting money back.

Ronnie Thomas, chairman of the Alabama-Coushatta of Livingston, said the tribe wants its $50,000 it gave to the Capital Athletic Foundation to help pay for a trip Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio took to Scotland. The foundation was started by Abramoff.

What seems MOST significant to you about this excerpt Ron? I am curious what you make of the amounts donated.

As I understand your certitude, it is that Abramoff chose the recipients and amounts.

Seems to me the amounts and the recipients as identified in THIS story linked by YOU might have a different significance than the title you selected.

But hey, that's just me.

[emptypockets]

I'm hoping this is Pt. 2 in a 3-Part series, with the next installment being: What Do We Do About It.

As I wrote last night (and thanks for all of you who helped me try to learn) I am not the swiftest eagle in understanding the political implications here.

Was there something shady going on with the Democrats that we need to address?

Or is this all to hone our arguments so we can shoot down the "Dems were involved too" line without getting caught in a misstatement or lie that (as with TANG papers) would leave us spiritually righteous but losing the fight?

[DemFromCT]

I'm thinking it's the latter. Donations without a quid pro quo are legitimate free speech. I want to get the facts right. To me, after two diaries, this is a Republican scandal, Abramoff is a crook and spent his own money just on R's, and some of his largesse will result in R indictments (see R. Ney).

However, on the face of the evidence, the clients of Abramoff were directed to spend money on both parties, though much more went to R's. It is therefore incorrect to suggest D's took no money form Abramoff's clients, it is incorrect to suggest Abramoff directed all moneys to R's and it is incorrect to suggest this is not a Republican scandal.

[p.lukasiak]

RonK....

with all due respect, while there is some evidence that money was directed to Democrats, the case you are making seems to be that

1) Indians gave money to some people they'd never heard of at Abramoff's request.

2) Some of these people were probably Democrats

3) Therefore, we can say that Abramoff directed money to Democrats

Its a weak argument -- especially when you are trying to convince skeptics like Armando.

(BTW, do you have the URL for the Coushatta check register? I forgot to save the PDF, and now the Indianz site from which it was linked is down).

Like you (and unlike the skeptics) having gone over some of the actual data, its pretty much inconceivable that Abramoff did not "direct" at least some money to Democrats. But its also obvious that there is no evidence that suggests at this point that any Democrats were aware that Abramoff was responsible for that money.

*************

on another note.... thanks for finding the DASHPAC listing....I spend an hour looking at the raw filings, and hadn't found it. (I gotta say I'm really annoyed that Mark Schmidt thinks it was even possible that FECINFO got its information from the Coushatta check register --- forcing people like us to spend time "proving" to him what anyone familiar FECINFO knows --- that their data is based on FEC data, and not list of checks written on an account whose balance around -$200K.... )

****************

Finally, re: Fairchild. I wouldn't take what he has to say at face value, because he does appear to be spinning for the GOP as hard as possible.

[p.lukasiak]

Or is this all to hone our arguments so we can shoot down the "Dems were involved too" line without getting caught in a misstatement or lie that (as with TANG papers) would leave us spiritually righteous but losing the fight?

as of right now, this is precisely where we should be headed. The problem is that as the "Abramoff" scandal spreads beyond Abramoff, at least one registered Democrat is going to be implicated, and suddenly it will be represented as a "bipartisan" scandal.

(For instance, former GOP staffers are not alone in finding jobs in the lobbying industry --- lots of former members of Democratic politicians staffs are now working as lobbyists. We both know that the odds are pretty good that if you look hard enough, you will find at least one such former staffer who did something "wrong"..... and with the GOP and its corporate media buddies working overtime trying to find a Democrat to point at, it will happen eventually.)

[emptypockets]

Getting a clearer idea of what our argument isn't, I would love a Part III telling me what our argument is.

With new appreciation of the potential for mudpit tit-for-tat between both sides about how widespread this goes, I personally am not chomping at the bit to argue the "Republican-only scandal" point until November.

Actions speak louder, and hope for the future speaks loudest of all. Republicans as corrupt money-grubbers is a pre-cast mold we need not build from scratch -- better simply to act like we're above the fray and push forward (and let indictments speak for themselves) than to keep spinning.

(looking forward to future installments, when I will check my answers against the teacher's key.)

[p.lukasiak]

ew...

at this point Abramoff is a purely Republican scandal. Since Bush has been in office, Abramoff made enormous amounts of money by bilking his clients, and has personally contributed only to Republican candidates and causes. His clients contributed to candidates from both parties, but while lots of Republicans like Tom Delay and Gail Norton and Karl Rove have personal connections to Abramoff, there is no evidence that any Democrat were even aware that Abramoff had anything to do with any contribution coming from his clients, let alone any evidence that Democrats were corrupted by Abramoff.

[DHinMI]

It also appears that the only contributions to Dems from Abramoff clients were of the sort they would have been expected to make, especially in context with overall donation patterns. Indian tribes giving to Dems? File under dog bites man. Indian tribes going out of their way to contribute to Republicans across the country? Man bites dog.

[RonK, Seattle]

Do I need to point out the obvious -- that Democrats have nothing to be defensive about? Receiving a campaign contribution from an Abramoff-influenced tribe wouldn't make anyone guilty. Receiving an Abramoff-directed campaign contribution wouldn't make anyone guilty.

What's all the whining about? Defensiveness evinces consciousness of guilt. Are we assuming guilt?

I should note -- by the standards of proof demanded in the case of this very tangential question of fact, nobody is guilty ... or ever will be.

[emptypockets]

Thanks -- this is what I had been wanting to hear, one way or the other.

at this point Abramoff is a purely Republican scandal.

Good. That's what I thought. How strongly do you feel about that "at this point"?

It also appears that the only contributions to Dems from Abramoff clients were of the sort they would have been expected to make, especially in context with overall donation patterns.

This was essentially Dean's response to Blitzer in one widely-circulated clip. He effectively turned it around -- who are you calling corrupt, Abramoff or Native American tribes?

Do I need to point out the obvious

Yes, always. At the top, in bold, underlined.

[RonK, Seattle]

pockets -- Part 3 is an analysis of why anybody who expected any different is a damned fool. There's no political jeopardy for us here ... unless we unnecessarily march out on a limb that won't bear our weight.

p.l. -- Won't have time to take up your arguments today, but I must say I find them desperate. Coushatta register pdf here

[orionATL]

it's 1015 am. i thought i was fully awake. but then again, maybe not.

i really cannot get very excited about armando's "criticism". it seems really unbalanced, or to put it differently, it seems to be coming from a (temporarily, let's say) unbalanced person, i would guess one who cares too much.

if abrahmoff directed the indians tribes to send money to various politicians, democrat as well as republican, so what?

wouldn't that be expected of an influence peddler and snake oil salesman like abrahmoff.

it really is not necessary to squelch every possibility that democrats received money at abrahmoff's direction to continue with the evident conclusion that abramhoff was the bag man for a republican extortion and money laundering effort whose purpose was 1)collecting money to strengthen the republican party's hold on congress and (2) influencing legislation in congress and the state legislatures.

personally (but you knew that), i worry when i see people who care a lot about the direction this country is going get to tangled-up in criticisms others have made of our "side".

it is important to respond factually to lies and to unfair criticism, but it is not necessary that we stomp every false allegation into dust.

let's focus hard on criticizing abrahmoff, delay, and rove (who is deeply involved in this as sure as god made little green apples).

and speaking of that vicious little krait, one of rove's rope-a-dope tactics is to make (through others of course, like the teeevee blowhards) some unfair, absurd, dishonest claim and then watch as those who should be criticizing his perfomance directly, expend their enegies quarreling over how best to refute his latest outrage.

the important issue is not whether democrats got any abrahmoff money. it just isn't.

the important issue is that abrahmoff was part of a rove/delay effort to gain a republican stranglehold on the u.s. congress.

we have seen what terrible problems that can cause our country -- iraq incompetence, billy tauzin and drug "benefits", de-funding of science and public health, failure to prepare for natural disasters or terrorist actions within the country, failure to have a competnent energy/oil conservation effort, etc etc.

[Alvord]

Just a minor comment. If parts I and II had been published together there would not have been this big uproar. But maybe that was the point of publishing them separately (with some provocative language thrown in to spice it up.)

[p.lukasiak]

Good. That's what I thought. How strongly do you feel about that "at this point"?

The Abramoff scandal is, and always will be, purely Republican.

But as long as there is a single registered Democrat who is corrupt, the GOP and corporate media will do their best to "link" any Democratic corruption to Abramoff.

******************

p.l. -- Won't have time to take up your arguments today, but I must say I find them desperate.

which arguments? The argument that I found your argument unpersuasive as an argument. (i.e. I agree with you, I just don't think you argued your case very well.)

People who know you, and Ron B., and me all know that we consider facts more important than ideological orthodoxy.

If people like Armando can't adjust their talking points in the face of your research, there's nothing you can do about it, other than realize that people like EW, and Jane and Redd, and Duncan, and Marcus, and Digby, and Billmon, and Delong, and every other major progressive blogger out there are intellectually honest, and won't ignore the facts, and that Armando will change his "talking points" once he realizes that everyone he respects has already changed theirs...

:)

[jukeboxgrad]

Ron, I stand by my earlier claim: you're full of shit. After a remarkable display of chest-beating and arm-waving, here's what you've come up with: not much.

For days you've been referring to "first-person accounts of tribal officials" that supposedly indicate that tribes gave to Dems, and it was because Abramoff told them to. I've been repeatedly asking you to cite those "first-person accounts." How did you respond? You've repeatedly cited Faircloth. Here I explained why I don't take Faircloth seriously. It's not just that "he wasn't in the room;" it's that he didn't even start working for the tribe until years later, and he works for the arch-enemies of the guy who signed the checks. To minimize this to "he wasn't in the room" strikes me as an act of propaganda. The idea that you would imply that Faircloth is offering a "first-person" account is enough to tell me that you're a bullshitter. It's for this and other reasons that you're on my "full of shit" list, and not on my "with all due respect" list. (Let's also not forget that Faircloth's strong Republican ties give him a certain motivation to spin things.)

Then you sent me on a complete wild-goose chase involving a 3-hour hearing, which most definitely did not answer my question.

Now, at long last, buried in the middle of a post filled mostly with your typical posturing and irrelevancies, you finally provide something that I consider mildly substantive: "Senator Inouye. Democrat and Republican? Mr. Milanovich. Yes, sir."

I appreciate knowing this, because I consider it relevant. But here's something I'd like to know. Why did you point me toward a 3-hour video that said nothing relevant, instead of pointing me toward this transcript? The only honorable answer, in my opinion, is that you only just located this transcript. Is that what happened?

Of course this transcript also refers to the famous email: "writing to one of his key allies in the effort to shut down the Tigua's casino, Mr. Abramoff's references the tribe's donations to the Democrats, saying, ``I wish those moronic Tiguas were smarter in their political contributions. I'd love to get our mitts on that moolah.'' " (The speaker is Senator Campbell, a Republican.)

In this hearing, there is also this exchange between McCain and a tribal chief: "when Mr. Abramoff [and Scanlon]... made their presentations to you, ... my understanding of your response is that they would give you enormous influence on both sides of the aisle with both parties on both sides of the Capitol. Is that correct? Mr. Sprague. That is correct. Senator McCain. Thank you. It was not just one certain individual or one party. This was going to give you great influence everywhere. Is that correct? Mr. Sprague. That is correct."

It wouldn't make sense for Abramoff to go to tribes and say "I can get you influence with Republicans." What we would expect from Abramoff is that he would go to tribes and say "I can get you influence with both parties." And of course we know he would say that whether it was true or not.

Milanovich said "the list [from Abramoff, of candidates to support] was long." Given a long list, totaling large amounts, it would have been insane for Abramoff to never put Democrats on such a list. Making the list pure Rs would be incongruent with Abramoff's claim that he had bipartisan influence. Making the list pure Rs would have raised eyebrows within the tribes, who were in the habit of supporting Ds (and Abramoff probably assumed/knew that certain people in the tribes never trusted him; he had no interest in unnecessarily antagonizing those dissidents). Abramoff probably figured he couldn't get the tribes to cut off all D money, so he might as well make those D payments fall under his lobbying-fees umbrella (that is, charge the tribes for giving them advice that amounts to telling them to do more-or-less what they were going to do anyway).

I think it's clear enough that on these "long" lists of suggested donations, Abramoff probably did include some token representation of Ds. This is the basis for the Bushist statement that Abramoff "directed" money to Ds. Such a statement, especially without further explanation, is dangerously misleading.

This charge ("directed") would be credible and fair if we had a tribal leader making a statement such as this: "we normally do not give to Ds, we are predisposed against giving to Ds, but Abramoff urged us to give to Ds, so we gave to Ds." That's the common-sense image conveyed by the assertion that Abramoff "directed" money toward Democrats.

Ron, we've been waiting for you to come up with something resembling such a statement. It's clear enough that you're not going to do that.

"What's all the whining about?"

Bushists should not be able to get away with saying "directed to Ds" without being clear about the broader facts, as I've explained. You seem to be in the business of claiming that the facts support a strong interpretation of that word ("directed"). Trouble is, they don't (at least not the facts you've shown so far).

Frankly, I'm suspicious of anyone who uses that vague weasel-word "directed" (in this context) without being clear what the word is supposed to mean.

Paul,

"Fairchild"

No, Faircloth. Very common error.

"ew..."

Speaking of name confusion, I think emptypockets and emptywheel are not the same person.

By the way, I think your brief statement here (9:51) is an outstandingly simple and clear summary of the Abramoff story.

DHinMI, my compliments on this: "File under dog bites man." Also outstandingly clear and simple, and captures the heart of the matter.

Speaking of powerful images, I'm very fond of the blowjob analogy: "Let me try to explain it in a way that the media can easily understand it. Let's pretend that, instead of money, Jack Abramoff was giving out blowjobs. It would be fair to say that Abramoff gave blowjobs to a lot of Republicans. He did not, as far as we know, give blowjobs to any Democrats. As for Abramoff's clients, these are people who were GIVING Abramoff blowjobs, not receiving them from him. While it is true that some of the people who gave Abramoff blowjobs also gave blowjobs to some Democrats, I've seen no evidence that Abramoff was DIRECTING his clients to give blowjobs to Democrats, and it's a hell of a lot different than getting blowjobs from Abramoff himself. Questions?"

I've lost track of where that started ("Frank Probst," maybe), but it's going around, and I think it's brilliant.

To the extent that D names were on a list Abramoff handed to a tribe, this is Abramoff saying "I know it would look funny if I took the position that your habit of blowing Ds ought to stop completely."

orion,

"it is not necessary that we stomp every false allegation into dust"

Certain false allegations (or dangerously misleading and oversimplified allegations, such as "directed to Ds") have a lot of leverage with regard to tricking and confusing a mass audience, and we lose when we overlook that.

[Mimikatz]

Thanks to Ron for all this hard work. this is still a Republican scandal for three reasons.

First, Abramoff PERSONALLY gave money only to Republicans, and he PERSONALLY worked hand in glove only with Republicans, primarily DeLay & Co.

Second, while he definitely appears to have suggested donations to Dem candidates, the donations to charities and other vehicles that were used for money laundering were exclusively controlled either by him or his GOP allies.

Third, the donations he suggested go to Reps were higher than to Dems. (If a tribe gave $180,000 to Dems and $20,000 to Reps before Abramoff and then $225,000 to Dems and $95,000 to Reps after because he both upped the gross amount and adjusted the relative shares, then he "directed" $45,000 to the Dems and $75,000 to Reps, the latter being greater. This is what Ron was explaining. Moreover, if the money to Dems was long-standing, then it is clearly man bites dog, as DH said, while the increase of $75,000 to GOP candidates was dog bites man.

Thefirst two reasons are the most important. There is no evidence as far as I know that Abramoff directed donations to Dem charities or Dem money-laundering vehicles, or that he worked hand in glove with any Dems or Dem organizations. He has been a GOP operative since his college days with the College Republicans (which he headed) and has worked closely with the GOP ever since, particularly with DeLay and his minions. That makes this a Republican scandal, notwithstanding that Abramoff on occasion recommended to his tribal cleints that they give to some Dems.

And we only undercut our case by not frankly acknowledging the latter point even as we emphasize the others.

[Mike S]

I think a review of RonK's innitial reason for posting this is needed. Is he saying that this is a bi-partisan scandal? As near as I can tell he is not. Is he saying that we need to be factually correct, especially when bashing the media? It sure seems that way.

The fact is that we are dealing with a GOP message machine that has made changing the story an art form. The only thing you need look at is CBS and the TANG story. Everyone knew that the story was correct but not only was the message machine able to change the story but they were able to destroy a reporter and keep CBS from running any other stories that might adversely affect Bush during the election. And all of that was done with the full complicity of the rest of the media.

This is a GOP scandal. But giving the GOP message machine an easy avenue to change the story would be a huge tactical mistake.

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

While I don't think that the transcript excerpts provide definitive, smoking-gun evidence of Abramoff directing clients to contribute to Democratic candidates much less effectively doing so (only a mention of donations to both party committees, which is itself not insignificant), RonK's larger point here is quite sound (and Armando needs to either get off his meds or get back on them; I'm not sure which). That point is that it is overwhelmingly likely that Abramoff recommended contributions to a sprinkling of Democrats along with the Republicans (and that at least some of those recommendations were effective). The 'netrots' are accordingly doing themselves a disservice by going overboard in suggesting that there is no evidence that Abramoff ever directed (or ever effectively directed) a single contribution to a single Democrat (there is; The Washinton Post's selective little tear-sheet from an Abramoff list is such evidence, whether we like it or not) and that it is a reckless slander to suggest that such a thing ever happened. That is a ridiculous position to go out on a limb for, not only because it is easily disproved by a single instance but especially because it is an unecessary position that distracts from the real issues -- indeed it plays right into the hands of the "wingnuts' by making the issue about whether or not Abramoff ever directed clients to donate to Democrats not about which politicians (so far, clearly all Republicans) are squarely implicated in voert vote-buying. I cannot stress enough: the question whether Abramoff directed his clients to donate to some Democratic candidates (with the related question whether his clients took his direction) is an irrelevance. The real question is one of influenece peddling and quid pro quo vote buying.

Now, are the Democrat donations by Abramoff clients being blown put of proportion? Of course they are. Did the share of Democratic contributions by Abramoff's tribal clients decrease? Absolutely. Was Abramoff's whole project desinged to consolidate and perpetuate Republica control over the Capitol and over K Street? You betcha. These things need to be pointed out, but they are not what the left should be getting apoplectic about (although getting a bit exercised about that last point is a-ok). What we need to point out is (1) what the real corruption issues are here (i.e., vote-buying, influence peddling, "attaboy" donations to compliant legislators, getting legislators to intervene in shady, mobbed up business deals); and (2) that these are overwhelmingly Republican corruption issues. And we should be quick to point out that if there are any Democrats who engaged in the same kind of chicanery (and I wouldn't be sure there won't be), they should be nailed to the wall as well.

[Armando]

Sebastian writes:

That point is that it is overwhelmingly likely that Abramoff recommended contributions to a sprinkling of Democrats along with the Republicans (and that at least some of those recommendations were effective). The 'netrots' are accordingly doing themselves a disservice by going overboard in suggesting that there is no evidence that Abramoff ever directed (or ever effectively directed) a single contribution to a single Democrat (there is; The Washinton Post's selective little tear-sheet from an Abramoff list is such evidence, whether we like it or not) and that it is a reckless slander to suggest that such a thing ever happened. That is a ridiculous position to go out on a limb for .. .

Indeed, it is so reckless that I can't imagine anyoner arguing that. Who has? Which goes back to the motivation for this series. What is being proven here? Ron says that it proves that Abramoff directed contributions to both parties. And that is that.

Is that right? That is that? Is that the Media construct that Democrats favor here?

Really? I think that maybe I am not the one who needs to check his meds. I find it almost pathetic that anyone thinks the Media will, after swallowing that line, be able to take some type of nuanced fair look at the import of the Abramoff scandal.

Ron's approach is a recipe for "everybody did it" journalism and it is PRECISELY why the Republicans have fed this line to the Media. Ron protests that Mark Schmitt and Brad Delong and others have protested such a focus. And some want to slap Ron on the back for this "service."

Excuse me, a Democrat would have gathered the facts and then put them in a context that tells the true story and in a way that the Media might understand.

That is not what Ron wants to do. He prefers to bash fellow Democrats and call them fools all the while selling the GOP story on this. And many in this thread say "thank you Ron may I have another."

I got news for you, Part 3 of Ron's series, whatever he might say, won't be a blip on the radar.

If Ron successfully gets the story of Parts 1 and 2 out, no one will ever read his PArt 3 in the Media.

Ron has just slapped a "Kick Me" sign on the back of Dems. And I am the one off my meds. Is it any wonder Dems lose every Media battle? Just depressing.

[viget]

I'd like to direct everyone to Mimikatz's excellent point:

Second, while he definitely appears to have suggested donations to Dem candidates, the donations to charities and other vehicles that were used for money laundering were exclusively controlled either by him or his GOP allies.

This is to me, IMHO, the heart of the matter. What got Scanlon and Abrhamoff in legal trouble was not Abrahmoff's _official_ capacity as lobbyist for Greenberg & Trauring, it was Abrahmoff's money laundering schemes that took tribal donations to sham PACs and charities, and laundered that money into paying for political junkets for members of Congress and their contributors (e.g. golf trips, skybox rentals, etc.). Abrhamoff also recruited buddies like Ralph Reed to set up protection rackets whereby tribes were literally contrbuting to astroturf organizations that opposed their gambling interests in order that Abrhamoff could get MORE money out of them.

The essence of my point is then, in order to fool these tribes, Abrhamoff needed a legitimate *cover*. And Greenberg-Trauring provided him one. He'd never get these questionable donations in the first place if he couldn't hide them amongst many legitimate donations to BOTH R's and D's (although it is true that post-Abrahamoff, R's were receiving a greater relative share of contributions from his tribes than pre-Abrahomoff, and THAT should be the meme as DH suggests).

The one problem with this reality is that it provides plausible deniability to most Republicans. They can claim they thought Jack was just super-lobbyist extraordinaire and that everything was above board. Maybe they did, maybe they knew otherwise. Clearly, for at least Ney and DeLay, the answer is, they knew exactly what was going on and were even complicit in it. But for everyone else? Hopefully the DoJ will have answers soon.

So to reiterate, the meme should be, yes Abrahamoff directed donations to D's AS PART OF HIS OFFICIAL JOB. And, he directed a relatively larger share of "new" donations to R's once he took over lobbying.

But, unofficially, he was bilking these tribes to the tune of millions of dollars and then funneling that money back to corrupt Republicans in the House. That's what's illegal. Not that Abrahamoff also had an official cover.

[DHinMI]

viget is correct. It's important to get our facts straight, but the tribal donations always have been a minor point in the entire Abramoff scandal. Let me repost what I wrote when Abramoff made his plea:

LOSERS

Indian Tribes: Because four tribes with Casino interests were dumb enough to allow themselves to be represented by Abramoff, just about every tribe will now have difficulty getting time or the attention of members of Congress of whom they aren't constituents. Some of the tribes with casinos have been rife with nasty inter-tribal bickering and legal finagling over who is and isn't a member of the tribe. And it's clearly possible that Abramoff, Scanlon et al will implicate accomplices with some or all of the tribes they fleeced. But now even tribes that never had anything to do with Abramoff will be shunned by politicians afraid of the taint of tribal money, even though it was the tribes themselves who were the initial victims of Abramoff's malfeasance. It's as if the Enron retirees were being tarred by association with the crooks who gambled away their pension fund.

Now the Republicans are further demonizing the tribes by asserting that any money from tribes represented by Abramoff is tainted. It's a shrewd move by the Republicans, as other than the four tribes that Abramoff defrauded, almost all tribes donate a majority of their contributions to Democrats. Kudos to Harry Reid and Patrick Kennedy for not taking the GOP bait.

And viget is correct to echo mimikatz' point that the official FEC-regulated donations aren't where the problem is, it's the other expenditures of money. For instance, in Michigan in 2004, we had a casino referenda. This was after the Saginaw Chippewa had ditched Abramoff and Scanlon, so I'm pointing this out not to suggest a link with Abramoff, but simply to illustrate the amounts of money flowing on the non-FEC regulated expenditures. How much money did the Saginaw Chippewas spend on that campaign?
$8,457,301.79.

It's the non-FEC regulated transfers where the real illegalities were occuring.

[DHinMI]

Did Armando say something?

[DemFromCT]

"the official FEC-regulated donations aren't where the problem is, it's the other expenditures of money."

The kernel. The nut. The key graf. That really is worth an explanatory post by someone better qualified than me.

Watch the indictments. As I predicted weeks ago, they will be R only.

[Armando]

Nothing at all DH.

Ignore my med crazed rantings.

I am sure you folks have the Media strategy all worked out.

I truly hope you can do it.

Of course my view is that two things can happen here - One, Ron's approach is ignored. My hope.

Or it gets noticed. My dread. Because if that happens the Abramoff scandal officially becomes a "bipartisan scandal."

I understand you think there are other alternatives and cdertainly a difference of opinion is no sin.