Reply
Sat 3 Dec, 2005 11:55 am
Posted on Thu, Dec. 01, 2005
Scandals unveil the seamier side of Washington politics
By James Kuhnhenn
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON
Big money is buying influence in Washington these days on a scale seen rarely, if ever, before.
Consider this: After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, big-ticket defense contracts doubled, federal spending on those contracts jumped by $100 billion - and the number of lobbyists signed up to represent defense-industry clients spiked from 900 to more than 1,650.
In what would be an audacious abuse of that nexus of money, power and influence, two defense contractors now stand accused of bribing Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. - a power on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee - in exchange for top feed at the Pentagon trough. Cunningham resigned from Congress this week after pleading guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes, including a Rolls-Royce and a $7,200 antique Louis-Philippe commode.
That case and other high-profile corruption investigations under way have enormous implications for next year's congressional elections. At stake may be whether Republicans retain control of Congress.
While Cunningham clearly crossed a legal line by trading legislative favors for personal gain, his case spotlights the intersection of money and politics in Washington, where most lawmakers dance along a vaguer line that divides political donations from less-explicit paybacks.
The investigations into questionable links among lawmakers, contractors and lobbyists threaten to ensnare more members of Congress. Already, widely reported instances of lobbyist-financed resort visits, golf outings, fine dining and million-dollar payoffs have hung a cloud of scandal over Washington.
"The closest analogy I can come up with is the Gilded Age," congressional scholar Norman Ornstein said, referring to the late 1800s, when tycoons such as John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie created giant "trusts" built on emerging industries in oil, steel and railroads - and bent Washington to their will.
Lawmakers and lobbyists need each other for government to function. Lobbyists provide expertise and often raise issues that require attention. But the past five years have seen a sharp rise in lobbying that's in direct proportion to Congress's spending ever more of taxpayers' money.
Lawmakers increasingly load up spending bills with special projects for the folks back home. This year's highway bill alone had 6,371 special-project "earmarks" totaling more than $24 billion.
At the same time, more and more lobbyists work this trend. From 2000 to 2004, the number of firms registered to lobby "appropriators" who control spending in Congress almost doubled, from 1,865 to 3,523.
Similarly, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted dramatic spending increases on defense and homeland security - and lobbyists flocked after it.
"People were chasing what was perceived to be an almost unlimited amount of money," said Anthony Townes, a political scientist at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and the author of "Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want (and How They Try to Get It)."
Lobbyists know how to cultivate lawmakers. They shower them with campaign contributions. They buy expensive tables at political fundraisers. Spotting a lawmaker the occasional five-star dinner is all in a day's work. All are typical - and widely acceptable - methods of currying favor in Washington.
Cunningham's case exposed these relations at a seamier level. Other lawmakers who got contributions from the two contractors who are accused of bribing Cunningham - Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes - are under investigation.
Today's ethical scrutiny doesn't stop there.
- The Justice Department is investigating former uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose partner pleaded guilty last month to charges that he conspired to bribe an unidentified congressman. That probe could splatter other lawmakers, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., and Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. All four deny any wrongdoing.
- DeLay is under indictment in Texas on charges of conspiracy to evade campaign-finance laws. He's fighting the charge, saying it's politically motivated.
- The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department are investigating Senate Republican leader Bill Frist's sale of stock in HCA Inc., a hospital chain that his family founded, shortly before its stock price plunged. Frist, of Tennessee, says he did nothing improper and is cooperating.
The Abramoff case has the most potential to capsize the Republican Party because of his extensive ties to lawmakers, especially DeLay. It also illustrates the sheer magnitude of money involved in Washington lobbying.
Abramoff's work on behalf of Indian tribes seeking federal favors for casino gambling licenses alone brought him some $80 million. He and a former partner have been indicted on fraud charges in connection with their purchase of a Florida-based line of casino cruise ships.
Separately, Michael Scanlon, another Abramoff partner and a former spokesman for DeLay, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the Indian tribes, and his promise to testify for the prosecution sent a rumble through Congress.
That investigation also ensnared David Safavian, a former Bush White House procurement director, who was arrested in September on charges of lying to investigators about his links to Abramoff.
Democrats hope to exploit these cases in next year's congressional elections. When Cunningham pleaded guilty, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California promptly issued a statement tarring the entire Republican Party:
"This offense is just the latest example of the culture of corruption that pervades the Republican-controlled Congress, which ignores the needs of the American people to serve wealthy special interests and their cronies," she charged.
The Montana Democratic Party began airing ads last week citing Burns' acceptance of donations from Abramoff.
The public is growing increasingly suspicious. A Harris Poll released Thursday found that 90 percent of Americans think that big companies have too much power and influence in Washington, and 74 percent think the same of lobbyists.
The out-of-power party blasting incumbents as corrupt isn't a new tactic. Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., played a similar card in 1992, citing widespread House Bank overdrafts by Democratic lawmakers as evidence that they were arrogant and out of touch. His party gained 10 seats in the House of Representatives even as Democrat Bill Clinton won the presidency.
But whether Democrats can play off today's ethical mess as successfully is uncertain. Many more lawmakers were involved then, and the Abramoff case isn't as clear-cut as a congressman kiting a check.
"The difference between today and then is today's scandals right now don't come down to the individual district level," said David Redlawsk, a political scientist at the University of Iowa who's studied the effect of political corruption on voters' decisions. "While Democrats can say `look at these corrupt Republicans,' individuals still give their own representatives a lot of support until they see a reason not to."
Records Show Senator Burns' Abramoff Meetings
Records Show Burns' Abramoff Meetings
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press Writer
12/7/05
WASHINGTON
Sen. Conrad Burns and his staff met Jack Abramoff's lobbying team on at least eight occasions and collected $12,000 in donations around the time that the lawmaker took legislative action favorable to Abramoff's clients in the Northern Mariana Islands, records show.
The 2001 donations to Burns, a Montana Republican, included money directly from Abramoff and a key garment company executive in the Pacific islands who was part of the coalition paying Abramoff's firm to fend off stronger U.S. regulations on the islands.
In addition, two Burns staffers had accepted a trip arranged by Abramoff to attend the Super Bowl in Florida earlier that year.
At the time, Burns served on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that was considering legislation the Marianas opposed. He also ran a Senate appropriations subcommittee that controlled spending for the Interior Department, which regulates U.S. territories including the islands.
On May 23, 2001, Burns voted against a bill in the Senate Energy Committee that would have phased out a nonresident contract worker program benefiting the Marianas' garment industry. The committee approved the bill, but it never saw action on the Senate floor. In 1999, it had moved through the same committee by unanimous consent without objections from Burns or any other member.
Burns' office told The Associated Press this week that he could not recall why he didn't object to the bill in 1999 but that his opposition in 2001 was prompted by a report indicating changes to immigration laws could hurt the islands' economy. He said it wasn't influenced by Abramoff or any donations.
Abramoff's billing records, which AP obtained from the U.S. territorial islands under an open records request, show that in the three months before the vote, the lobbyist's team met twice with Burns and several more times with his Senate aides to discuss Marianas issues.
One of those meetings, between Burns' staff and Abramoff associate Todd A. Boulanger, occurred just six days before the vote.
Abramoff donated $5,000 to Burns' political action committee in February, just before the meetings started. His firm, Greenberg Traurig, donated $2,000 to Burns in March and Eloy Inos of Saipan donated $5,000 in April.
The Inos donation was first reported by The Billings Gazette on Dec. 3. Inos listed his employer as Tan Holdings, a member of the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association, another Abramoff client.
The Justice Department is investigating whether Abramoff, already charged with fraud in a Florida case, won any undue influence through donations and favors.
Burns defended the meetings, saying they are part of the democratic process.
"Advocates, paid and unpaid, exercising their right to petition their government provide information on many issues but you always know that they are representing a particular position based upon their client or issue preference," he said Dec. 5.
In all, AP stories over the last few months have documented how more than four dozen lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, took actions favorable to Abramoff clients around the time that they received large donations from the lobbyist and his clients.
Burns, who is up for re-election to a fourth term in 2006, received about $150,000 in donations from Abramoff, his firm and his clients between 2001 and 2004.
In addition to the Marianas, Burns wrote a letter backing an Indian school building program sought by Abramoff's tribal clients and helped arrange for Congress to provide money for it.
Burns said he hasn't been contacted by federal investigators in the Abramoff probe nor received any subpoenas. On Nov. 28, Burns wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, urging that his conduct be reviewed so he could be cleared of wrongdoing.
"I welcome your thorough and expeditious review of this matter so that it may be disposed of officially once and for all and these outrageous and wrongful allegations may be put to rest before we get into the 2006 re-election cycle," Burns wrote.
The billing records detail several meetings regarding the Marianas.
For instance, Abramoff associates met at least five times with Burns' staff as well as members of the Interior appropriations subcommittee staff he oversaw in spring 2001. At least some of the meetings, the billing records say, involved a federal matching funds program that helped the island with local construction projects.
The Marianas wanted relief from a requirement that the islands match some of the federal money it received.
In June, Burns' Senate subcommittee approved a committee version of the legislation including a provision that urged the Interior Department to re-evaluate the requirement, citing hard economic times in the islands.
Burns spokesman James Pendleton said he doesn't know whether Burns inserted the provision, but he did support it.
Lobbyist Is Said to Discuss Plea and Testimony
December 21, 2005
Lobbyist Is Said to Discuss Plea and Testimony
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
New York Times
Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.
Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a "unique resource."
Other people involved in the case or who have been officially briefed on it said the talks had reached a tense phase, with each side mindful of the date Jan. 9, when Mr. Abramoff is scheduled to stand trial in Miami in a separate prosecution.
What began as a limited inquiry into $82 million of Indian casino lobbying by Mr. Abramoff and his closest partner, Michael Scanlon, has broadened into a far-reaching corruption investigation of mainly Republican lawmakers and aides suspected of accepting favors in exchange for legislative work.
Prominent party officials, including the former House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, are under scrutiny involving trips and other gifts from Mr. Abramoff and his clients. The case has shaken the Republican establishment, with the threat of testimony from Mr. Abramoff, once a ubiquitous and well-connected Republican star, sowing anxiety throughout the party ranks.
At issue is the complicated structure of the case against Mr. Abramoff. In August, he was indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami on charges of fraud stemming from his purchase of a fleet of casino boats in 2000. He pleaded not guilty in that case, and his lawyers say they are preparing him to stand trial. Mr. Abramoff has also been under investigation here in connection with his lobbying. No charges have been brought against him in that inquiry. The existence of what amounts to two separate but overlapping investigations partly explains why the plea negotiations for Mr. Abramoff have been so protracted and tough, said people with inside knowledge of the case.
With the trial in Miami fast approaching, and coming on the heels of plea agreements from Mr. Scanlon and another close associate of Mr. Abramoff, pressure has mounted to reach his own agreement. Mr. Abramoff has also told associates that he is broke, making the prospect of an extended jury trial even less appealing.
Mr. Abramoff's lead defense lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, said he would not comment.
Several people involved in various aspects of the case agreed to be interviewed as long as their names and affiliations were not made public. Justice Department officials are prohibited from discussing continuing cases as a matter of course. A spokesman for the department, Bryan Sierra, declined to comment.
Although the Miami case is ostensibly separate from the Washington inquiry, the overlapping elements include occasions when Mr. Abramoff flexed his political muscle to enhance his business deal in Florida.
While he and a partner, Adam Kidan, were angling to buy the SunCruz boat fleet in 2000, Mr. Abramoff had Mr. Scanlon persuade Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, to insert negative comments about a business rival of Mr. Abramoff into The Congressional Record, under a scheme outlined in documents filed in Mr. Scanlon's criminal case.
The rival, Konstantinos Boulis, was murdered a short time later in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a twist that heightened the profile of the Miami case.
Florida prosecutors are also investigating corruption in that case, focusing on Mr. Ney and his chief of staff at the time, Neil Volz, according to people involved in the case. Mr. Volz reportedly agreed to put negative remarks about Mr. Boulis in The Congressional Record, even though Mr. Ney had no obvious reason to comment on Mr. Boulis.
Mr. Volz went on to work for Mr. Abramoff as a lobbyist.
Mr. Ney has said he was tricked by Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff into participating, and no charges have been brought against him.
In his financial paperwork in the Miami deal, Mr. Abramoff listed Tony C. Rudy, a deputy chief of staff to Mr. DeLay at the time, as a reference.
He also listed Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who has since defended the decision to support the lobbyist.
Lawyers for Mr. Volz, Mr. Ney and Mr. Rudy did not return calls for comment. A lawyer for Mr. DeLay declined to comment, but spokesmen for Mr. DeLay have repeatedly said he had done nothing improper.
Such ties are only at the periphery of the investigations, according to people briefed on the case. Mr. Scanlon, who worked on public affairs for the SunCruz casinos and is familiar with the inner workings of many of Mr. Abramoff's deals, is cooperating in the Miami case as well as in Washington, his lawyer has said.
Prosecutors are also looking at how some former Congressional staff members landed their lucrative lobbying positions and at the role the wives of several lobbyists and lawmakers may have had in any influence scheme, a piece of the puzzle that investigators have begun referring to privately as the "wives' club."
Bought Off?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 26, 2005; C01
Bought Off?
The admission by two columnists that they accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff may be the tip of a large and rather dirty iceberg.
Copley News Service last week dropped Doug Bandow -- who also resigned as a Cato Institute scholar -- after he acknowledged taking as much as $2,000 a pop from Abramoff for up to two dozen columns favorable to the lobbyist's clients. "I am fully responsible and I won't play victim," Bandow said in a statement after Business Week broke the story. "Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . . For that I deeply apologize."
Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation has acknowledged taking payments years ago from a half-dozen lobbyists, including Abramoff. Two of his papers, the Washington Times and Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, have now dropped him. But Ferrara is unapologetic, saying: "There is nothing unethical about taking money from someone and writing an article."
Readers might disagree on grounds that they have no way of knowing about such undisclosed payments, which seem to be an increasingly common tactic for companies trying to influence public debate through ostensibly neutral third parties. When he was a Washington lawyer several years ago, says law professor Glenn Reynolds, a telecommunications carrier offered him a fat paycheck -- up to $20,000, he believes -- to write an opinion piece favorable to its position. He declined.
In the case of Bandow's columns, says Reynolds, who now writes the InstaPundit blog, "one argument is, it's probably something he thought anyway, but it doesn't pass the smell test to me. I wouldn't necessarily call it criminal, but it seems wrong. People want to craft a rule, but what you really need is a sense of shame."
Jonathan Adler, an associate law professor and National Review contributor, wrote that when he worked at a think tank, "I was offered cash payments to write op-eds on particular topics by PR firms, lobbyists or corporations several times. They offered $1,000 or more for an op-ed," offers that Adler rejected. Blogger Rand Simberg writes that "I've also declined offers of money to write specific pieces, even though I agreed with the sentiment."
Two years ago, former Michigan senator Don Riegle wrote an op-ed attacking Visa and MasterCard without disclosing that his PR firm was representing Wal-Mart -- which was suing the two credit card companies.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace