The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

Ralph Reed's Gamble
by JACK NEWFIELD

[from the July 12, 2004 issue]

When Ralph Reed was the boyish director of the Christian Coalition, he made opposition to gambling a major plank in his "family values" agenda, calling gambling "a cancer on the American body politic" that was "stealing food from the mouths of children." But now, a broad federal investigation into lobbying abuses connected to gambling on Indian reservations has unearthed evidence that Reed has been surreptitiously working for an Indian tribe with a large casino it sought to protect--and that Reed was paid with funds laundered through two firms to try to keep his lucrative involvement secret. Reed has always operated behind the scenes, and apparently he didn't want to risk becoming a humbled hypocrite like his right-wing cohorts William Bennett and Rush Limbaugh.

News accounts of the emerging scandal have focused on the two main figures under investigation: lawyer/lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon, House GOP majority leader Tom DeLay's former spokesman and head of two campaign and public relations companies. But Reed has managed to slither below the media's radar--until now.

Neither he, Abramoff or Scanlon returned phone calls.

In early 2002 the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana was desperately trying to kill a planned competing casino that the rival Jena Band wanted to build in southwestern Louisiana. This new casino would have broken the Coushattas' geographical monopoly and cost the tribe--whose casino was grossing $300 million a year-- an estimated $1 billion in gambling revenue over five years. The Jena Band had hired former GOP national chairman Haley Barbour to make sure its casino compact was approved by the heavily politicized Bureau of Indian Affairs. So the Coushatta tribe, which already was in the process of paying Abramoff and Scanlon some $32 million over three years, also hired Reed, according to three witnesses and documents obtained by The Nation. This was not a crime, just furtive hypocrisy.

Two casino industry lobbyists--Philip Thompson and Bill Grimes--say they were in a meeting in Baton Rouge early in 2002 and heard William Worfel, vice chair of the Coushatta tribe, say he was hiring Reed to lobby for the tribe with the BIA to neutralize the influence Barbour had with the Bush Administration. According to Thompson, Worfel, who also did not return phone calls, "said he was putting Reed on his payroll. He said, 'If they have Barbour, we need Reed.'" A third casino lobbyist at the meeting, who requested anonymity, says Reed helped "mobilize Christian radio and ministers against the casino." But, he says, "He wanted to be able to deny it. Or if it came out, he wanted to be able to claim he was against the Jena casino, without anybody knowing he was getting paid by a bigger tribe with a bigger gambling operation."

The documents obtained by The Nation show that Reed sent bills to Abramoff and Scanlon and that one of his consulting companies, Century Strategies of Duluth, Georgia, received $250,000 from one of Scanlon's companies, Capitol Campaign Strategies. An invoice to Abramoff from another Reed company, Capitol Media, for $100,000, states only that the payment is for "Louisiana Project Mgmt. Fee." (The main thrust of the Justice Department investigation involves money laundering among Scanlon, Abramoff and Republican campaigns. Abramoff was fired by his firm for not disclosing $10 million in payments from Scanlon.)

Reed's involvement with the casino effort followed his departure from the Christian Coalition in 1997 and his reinvention of himself as a corporate lobbyist and campaign hatchet man. One of his first clients was the Enron Corporation--a deal arranged by Karl Rove when George W. Bush was starting to think about running for President in 2000. Rove wasn't ready to put Reed directly on a campaign payroll but presumably wanted to cultivate good will from Reed toward the coming Bush candidacy. Enron paid Reed's Century Strategies more than $300,000 to generate support for energy deregulation. In the 2000 GOP presidential primary, Reed justified his big Enron fee by helping to smear John McCain during the South Carolina primary. Now McCain's Indian Affairs subcommittee is investigating Indian gambling in the context of lobbying abuses, kickbacks and money laundering, with public hearings scheduled for early September.

Reed is in charge of Bush's 2004 election campaign in the Southeast, including Florida. In 2000, he was paid almost $3.7 million for helping Bush. In 1995, when he was still exploiting intolerance and fear, Time did a story on him that included the cover line "The right hand of God." Today God's right hand seems to be holding dice and a bloody political hatchet.

Masters of Sleaze
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: March 22, 2005

Down in the depths of the netherworld, where Tammany Hall grafters and Chicago ward heelers gather amid spittoons and brass railings, a reverential silence now spreads across the communion. The sleazemasters of old look back into the land of the mortals and they see greatness in the form of Jack Abramoff.

Only a genius like Abramoff could make money lobbying against an Indian tribe's casino and then turn around and make money defending that tribe against himself. Only a giant like Abramoff would have the guts to use one tribe's casino money to finance a Focus on the Family crusade against gambling in order to shut down a rival tribe's casino.

Only an artist like Abramoff could suggest to a tribe that it pay him by taking out life insurance policies on its eldest members. Then when the elders dropped off they could funnel the insurance money through a private school and into his pockets.

This is sleaze of a high order. And yet according to reports in The Washington Post and elsewhere, Abramoff accomplished it all.

Yet it's important to remember this: A genius like Abramoff doesn't spring fully formed on his own. Just as Michelangelo emerged in the ferment of Renaissance Italy, so did Abramoff emerge from his own circle of creativity and encouragement.

Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!

Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?

Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's little cannibalism problem as to think this was not a daring contribution to the cause of Reaganism.

Soon the creative revolutionaries were blending the high-toned forms of the think tank with the low-toned scams of the buckraker. Ed Buckham, Tom DeLay's former chief of staff, helped run the U.S. Family Network, which supported the American family by accepting large donations and leasing skyboxes at the MCI Center, according to Roll Call. Michael Scanlon, DeLay's former spokesman, organized a think tank called the American International Center, located in a house in Rehoboth Beach, Del., which was occupied, according to Andrew Ferguson's devastating compendium in The Weekly Standard, by a former "lifeguard of the year" and a former yoga instructor.

Ralph Reed, meanwhile, smashed the tired old categories that used to separate social conservatives from corporate consultants. Reed signed on with Channel One, Verizon, Enron and Microsoft to shore up the moral foundations of our great nation. Reed so strongly opposes gambling as a matter of principle that he bravely accepted $4 million through Abramoff from casino-rich Indian tribes to gin up a grass-roots campaign.

As time went by, the spectacular devolution of morals accelerated. Many of the young innovators were behaving like people who, having read Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative," embraced the conservative part while discarding the conscience part.

Abramoff's and Scanlon's Indian-gaming scandal will go down as the movement's crowning achievement, more shameless than anything the others would do, but still the culmination of the trends building since 1995. It perfectly embodied their creed and philosophy: "I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!" as Abramoff wrote to Reed.

They made at least $66 million.

This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own.

It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over them.

December 12, 2002

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Lovelin Poncho, Chairman
William Worfel, Vice-Chairman
P. O. Box 99
Elton, LA 70532

Re: Ethics Board Docket No. 2002-202

Dear Mr. Poncho and Mr. Worfel:

The Louisiana Board of Ethics, acting as the Supervisory Committee on Campaign Finance Disclosure, after a confidential investigation believes the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana violated Section 1505.1B of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (the "Act"). LSA-R.S. 18:1505.1B.

The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (the "Tribe") used the slogan "Concerned Citizens Against Gaming Expansion" in its to opposition to a proposition election on April 6, 2002 to allow a riverboat casino to operate in Calcasieu Parish. (The tribe's competition)

The Tribe spent $156,642.72 for advertisements, mailers, and telephone solicitations to oppose the proposition, all of which said paid for by "Concerned Citizens Against Gaming Expansion." The newspaper, radio and television advertisements ran between March 29, 2002 and April 6, 2002. The telephone solicitations occurred on April 1, 2002.

The Tribe did not timely file reports in connection with the April 6, 2002 proposition election.

Section 1486 of the Act requires any person who spends more than $200 in support or opposition to a proposition election to file campaign finance reports. In accordance with that section, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana was required to file a Special Report by April 3, 2002, and a 40th day after the election by May 16, 2002. The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana did not file the required reports until October 23, 2002.

Section 1505.4A(2)(a)(iv) of the Act provides that a per day penalty of $40 per day, up to a maximum of $1,000, be assessed against a person who supports or opposes a proposition and fails to timely file campaign finance disclosure reports. Section 1505.4A(4) of the Act BD 2002-202
Page of

provides that a person may be assessed an additional civil penalty of up to $10,000 for the failure to timely file the reports.

Considering the above facts, the Board concludes that the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana violated the provisions of Section 1505.1B of the Act and that late fees of $240 and $1,000 should be assessed for the Tribe's failure to timely file the Special and the 40th day after the election campaign finance disclosure reports, respectively, as well as an additional civil penalty of $5,000 per each report for violating Section 1505.1B of the Act.

By Order of the Board this 12th day of December, 2002.



s/Robert L. Roland s/T. O. Perry, Jr.
Robert L. Roland, Chairman T. O. Perry, Jr., Vice-Chairman

s/Janice Martin Foster s/John W. Greene
Janice Martin Foster Judge John W. Greene


Absent and did not participate. s/R. L. Hargrove, Jr.
Judge E. L. Guidry, Jr. R. L. Hargrove, Jr.


s/Michael J. Kantrow, Sr. s/Joseph Maselli
Michael J. Kantrow, Sr. Joseph Maselli


s/Hank Perret s/Ascension D. Smith
Henry C. Perret, Jr. Ascension Delgado Smith


s/Edwin O. Ware
Edwin O. Ware


CONSENT

The undersigned (a) stipulates to the facts found by the Board; (b) waives the procedural requirements contained in Section 1141 of the Code; (c) admits that its conduct, as described above, violated Section 1505.1B of the Act; (d) consents to the publication of this opinion; (e) agrees to comply with the conditions and orders set forth in this opinion; and, (f) agrees not to seek judicial review of the findings and actions taken in this opinion.

s/William S. Worfel 10/17/02
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Date
Through its representative

This Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a vote on U.S. Circuit Court nominee Thomas Griffith. Mr. Griffith is a highly qualified attorney who Senate Democrats plan to block by using their unprecedented judicial filibustering tactic. Liberal groups such as the ACLU and People for the American Way are gleefully pulling the strings of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), among others, in their ongoing efforts to block potential judges who would follow the law instead of creating it. This puppet-show coalition looks to men in black robes to pass their liberal agendas while end- running elected officials and the legislative process.

Last Friday, Supreme Court Justice (and former ACLU lawyer) Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke on how important it is for American courts to look to foreign precedent and opinion. Her comments highlight why judges who look to U.S. laws, and not foreign jurisprudence, are sorely needed. Noticing the recent trend to look to other countries for rationalizing judicial activism within our court system, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced Senate Resolution 92. The resolution states that courts should not look to "foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements" when interpreting the United States Constitution. The United States was founded by patriots looking to escape foreign rule.

Timber -- I think Lola is arguing that the Supreme Court ought to seek more guidance from the stricter international laws on abortion and euthanasia, and that the FRC is attacking America's culture of life by endorsing the United States' own, more liberal jurisprudence. But Lola doesn't actually say what her argument is, presumably believing that the excerpt speaks for itself; so I could be wrong.

On a more serious note, I had to think of this thread just a few days ago when I was visiting the website of the Missouri synod of the Lutheran Church, which some friends of mine are seriously engaged in. In their FAQ, one of the questions is, "does the Lutheran Church consider itself part of the Protestant Church?" And the first protestant church there ever was answers, "depends on what you mean by 'Protestant'". Something appears to be very wrong with America's protestants when the Lutheran Church distances itself from them in that way -- which, I have to admit, supports Lola's position and contradicts mine.

I think most conservatives and Republicans strongly oppose any reference to the laws of foreign countries in making judicial findings, on any matter - particularly in appellate actions. Our Constitution empowers judges to act in accordance with our laws and our constitution - and no other law or source of authority. The recent references in Supreme Court decisions to the prevailing international norms in their prohibition of the death penalty, in the case of convicted criminals whose crimes were committed when they were minors, is - in my view - an obvious case of illegal overreach on the part of the Supreme Court. It is legislating from the bench, and overturning state laws on matters clearly within the purview of the states, based on factors not found in our constitution - except by a rather tortured interpretation. The appropriate remedy for this - in my view - is the impeachment of the justices involved, prominently including Justices Kennedy and Ginsberg..

Let's post and discuss any instance that comes to our attention involving the religious right.

A Grand Time and a Grand Bargain
Published on April 12, 2005

A GRAND TIME TO BE RICH AND POWERFUL IN AMERICA

According to this in the L.A. Times, worker pay for the last 14 months has trailed inflation. In real dollars, workers have taken a tiny pay cut.

But not to worry: In the same time frame, corporate profits hit record highs . . . and the tax rate on dividends paid out of those profits has been slashed by 62% since President Bush took office. (I know some of you think relatively little cash is involved, but $441 billion was paid out in personal dividends in 2004, most of it to those already best off.)

The most outspokenly religious president in our history, Bush's unique interpretation of Christ's philosophy is to cut programs for the poor while slashing taxes for the rich.

Which brings to mind a quote one of you kindly sent in:


"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side." - Aristotle

Which brings to mind another quote one of you kindly sent me:

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." - Lt. Gen. William Boykin; New York Times, 17 October 2003

Not to say I believe President Bush is a tyrant (or sent by God). But he and the Republican leadership have unquestionably tilted the playing field even more heavily in favor of the best off.

A GRAND BARGAIN

And if you think religion and economic policy are unrelated in America, consider this (thanks, Gary). It holds that the religious right has agreed to support the President's Social Security "reform" in exchange for his pushing harder for the Federal Anti-Gay-Marriage Amendment.

In part (from Americans United for Separation of Church and State)(link):

. . . the Religious Right leaders of the Arlington Group are playing hardball politics and have cast aside concerns about the economic well-being of citizens reliant on Social Security in order to score a big political victory - passage of a constitutional amendment to prevent legal recognition of gay marriage.

If it seems callous to jeopardize the social safety net (and borrow trillions of dollars from the next generation) simply to be certain Charles and I can't have the same rights other couples do - hang on. At least some men of the cloth have come up with the rationale:

Douglas Barker, a Baptist pastor in Alexandria, Va., writing the series for BP News, argued that Social Security had weakened or undermined churches' roles in helping the poor and elderly. Barker insisted that it is "disturbing" that so many Christian leaders, citing scripture, supported the formation of Social Security when it began in the '30s.

"Yes, government has a role in protecting its citizens, but it should never come at the expense of the church abdicating its biblically mandated role," Barker wrote Feb. 9.

© 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 Andrew Tobias

I agree nimh and I'm looking for every opportunity to make this happen. There is disagreement among the fundies. [..] as the pre-mil or the post mil (that's millenium) before of after the 1,000 years of the tribulation. There are many fundies who are upset about the Republicans "using the faithful." My sister is all worked up about it. And she's as fundamentalist as they come.

That's why exposure of the New Right campaign will only help.

McG wrote:

Quote:

What has he done to make you believe this? Which Christian moral of his has been forced upon anyone?

Try this for starters:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0446/lerner.php

Quote:

Meanwhile, the most aggressive opponents of abortion began pushing a no-holds-barred approach to clear every possible obstacle from their path, including changing 200-year-old Senate rules that allow senators to block approval of nominees by filibustering. Some even suggested blocking Specter's chairmanship by rewriting regulations so the current anti-abortion committee head wouldn't have to step down.