The Abramoff scandal investigation

The $4 Billion Industry That Is America's Guilty Secret
The $4 Billion Industry That Is America's Guilty Secret
By Rupert Cornwell
The Independent UK
Wednesday 04 January 2006

Lobbying is Washington's grubby secret. Some say lobbying is part of the democratic process. Others claim it is legalised bribery, even corruption. But love it or loathe it, it is the way Washington works.

Usually you hear little about the quiet meetings, the lavish lunches and junkets that lubricate American politics. But every once in a while something comes along to open the system to what it hates most: daylight. The case of Jack Abramoff, influence-peddler extraordinaire, is one of those somethings.

Once Mr Abramoff claimed to have done nothing illegal, that his only sin was to have been too good at his job. But now his career is in ruins, a jail term of nine years or more beckons - an incarceration that would be even longer but for the plea bargain he reached yesterday with federal prosecutors.

For Mr Abramoff only contrition is left: "Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for my actions and mistakes," he said in court yesterday. As for the two dozen members of Congress and their aides reputedly under investigation, they can only tremble.

If Mr Abramoff spills the beans, they may soon be contemplating a similar fate. This is potentially the biggest Congressional scandal of the modern era. It is largely (though not exclusively) Republican, and may mark the beginning of the end of the party's 11-year dominance of Capitol Hill.

Lobbying per se is nothing new. The right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" is enshrined in the first amendment of the Constitution. Back in 1913, Woodrow Wilson said Washington was "swarming with lobbyists ... you can't throw a brick in any direction without hitting one".

But the 28th president cannot have imagined how access-peddling would blossom into a $4bn industry. There are 14,000 registered lobbyists, and as many again who are not registered. Between 1998 and 2004, foreign companies spent $620m (£350m) bending ears in Washington.

Lobbying thrives in the US for two reasons. In the US the executive and legislative branches are separate. The former is headed by the President, the latter consists of Congress, which writes laws and appropriates money for government spending. Although George Bush's Republicans have majorities in both House and Senate, he has no direct control of the bills they consider. That power rests with dozens of powerful committee chairmen and ranking members, all with their fiefdoms, whose yea or nay is decisive.

The other key ingredient is money, the colossal sums needed to fight election campaigns. In Britain, the curbs on such spending are strict. In America, by contrast, the sky's the limit. Total spending for the 2004 elections, presidential and congressional, reached $4bn.

The summit of extravagance was the 2004 Senate race in South Dakota, one of the least populous and less affluent US states. The two candidates spent a combined $40m. In an average state, the cost of defending a Senate seat is $20m. This means an incumbent has to raise $9,000 every day of his six-year term. At which point, enter the lobbyists.

The trade-off is simple. Corporate and other donors provide cash in a bid to secure the legislation they want. The intermediaries between the two sides are lobbyists. And the more people a lobbyist knows on Capitol Hill, the more effective he or she is.

Unsurprisingly, ever increasing numbers of them are former legislators. The Washington-based pressure group Centre for Public Integrity, says almost 250 former Congressmen and senior government officials are now active lobbyists.

Jack Abramoff and his ilk are key figures in Washington's power networks. And no network was mightier than the one embracing Mr Abramoff, the former House majority leader Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist, president of the arch-conservative Americans for Tax Reform, one of the most powerful special interests groups in Washington.

0 Replies

Case Bringing New Scrutiny to a System and a Profession
Case Bringing New Scrutiny to a System and a Profession
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Dan Balz
The Washington Post
Wednesday 04 January 2006

The biggest public corruption scandal in a generation took down one of the best-connected lobbyists in Washington yesterday. The question echoing around the capital was what other careers - and what other familiar ways of doing business - are endangered.

Jack Abramoff represented the most flamboyant and extreme example of a brand of influence trading that flourished after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives 11 years ago. Now, some GOP strategists fear that the fallout from his case could affect the party's efforts to keep control in the November midterm elections.

Abramoff was among the lobbyists most closely associated with the K Street Project, which was initiated by his friend Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), now the former House majority leader, once the GOP vaulted to power. It was an aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists in what at times became an almost seamless relationship between Capitol Hill lawmakers and some firms that sought to influence them.

Now Abramoff has become a symbol of a system out of control. His agreement to plead guilty to three criminal counts and cooperate with prosecutors threatens to ensnare other lawmakers or their aides - Republicans and possibly some Democrats. At a minimum, yesterday's developments put both sides of the lawmaker-lobbyist relationship on notice that some of the wilder customs of recent years - lubricated with money, entertainment and access - carry higher risks. In the post-Abramoff era, what once was accepted as business as usual may be seen as questionable or worse.

"In the short run, members of Congress will get allergic to lobbyists," said former representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.), now a lobbyist for Clark & Weinstock. "They'll be nervous about taking calls and holding meetings, to say nothing of lavish trips to Scotland. Those will be out. For a period of time now, members of Congress will be concerned about even legitimate contact with the lobbying world."

The initial impact of a scandal that earlier produced a guilty plea from Abramoff associate Michael Scanlon could be changes in the way lawmakers and lobbyists interact. In the longer term, said many lobbyists and others, Congress will be pressured to revisit and toughen rules on gifts and travel that lawmakers and members of their staffs may accept. Some former lawmakers said even bigger changes may be needed to restore public confidence in how Washington works.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who with Weber's help effectively used issues of corruption to wrest control of the House from the Democrats in 1994, said the Abramoff scandal should trigger a broader review in Congress of the way politicians finance campaigns and deal with lobbyists.

"I'm going to talk at length about the need for us to rethink not just lobbying but the whole process of elections, incumbency protection and the way in which the system has evolved," he said. "Which is very different from the way the American system is supposed to be like. I think Abramoff is just part of a large pattern that has got to be rethought."

Emotions ran high on K Street yesterday when news of Abramoff's plea deal began to break. "The Abramoff scandal is causing a reexamination of what lobbyists do in town," said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "I wouldn't be surprised to see lawmakers become cautious in meetings with lobbyists."

With an eye on November's elections, Republicans have sought to limit the damage to themselves by portraying the scandal as bipartisan, describing Abramoff as an equal-opportunity dispenser of campaign cash and largess.

So far, the public has not identified corruption as solely a Republican problem. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in November asked Americans whether they thought Democrats or Republicans were better on ethical matters; 16 percent said Democrats, 12 percent said Republicans, and 71 percent said there was not much difference between the parties.

But Republicans worry about two possibilities. The first is that Abramoff, known for his close ties to DeLay, mostly implicates Republicans as a result of his plea agreement. That could shift public attitudes sharply against the GOP. "People are uneasy about what else is out there," said one GOP strategist who requested anonymity to speak more candidly about the possible political fallout.

Beyond that is a fear that the scandal and attention it could draw in the months before the election might further sour the public on Washington and Congress. As the party in power, Republicans know they stand to lose more if voters take retribution in November.

Regardless of the electoral implications, the Abramoff scandal may force changes on Capitol Hill in the form of tough new lobbying disclosure laws that even some lobbying advocates say it is time to consider. "There will be a push for increased oversight and disclosure of lobbying," said Douglas G. Pinkham, president of the Public Affairs Council, a lobbyist education group. "There needs to be greater transparency and better enforcement."

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who co-wrote campaign finance changes a few years ago, have introduced separate proposals that would crack down hard on lobbying as now practiced. Their ideas will serve as the starting point for what is expected to be a vigorous debate.

Some lobbyists reacted defensively yesterday, at pains to say that Abramoff was an exception to the way they do business. "The Abramoff style is so far afield from the normal course of business as to be irrelevant to me and probably most people in my line of work," said Joel Johnson, a Clinton White House official and now a lobbyist for the Glover Park Group.

"The whole Abramoff matter is atypical," agreed Ed Rogers of Barbour Griffith & Rogers. "It is not a lesson of how business is done in Washington."

John Jonas, a lobbyist at Patton Boggs, said he expects "less partying, less gifting, more awareness about compliance" with rules that have been "observed in the breach."

As for the perception of lobbying as a profession, "it's confirmed everybody's worst fears about lobbyists - that they double-deal, that they're not aboveboard," Jonas said. "That hurts the legitimate practice of the profession."

Gingrich said Republican leaders in Congress should take the initiative to reform lobbying and campaign finance, rather than hoping to slip quietly past the current scandal. "Things have to be done to really rethink where the center of the political process is," he said. "Right now, the center is a lobbying and PAC [political action committee] system center, which is not healthy."

0 Replies

Incoming
Incoming
By William Rivers Pitt
Thursday 05 January 2006

"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."

- Jack A. Abramoff
All of official Washington is at this moment waiting with bated breath for the avalanche. Jack Abramoff, the disgraced super-lobbyist, has made a plea agreement in the massive prosecution against him and his cronies. Every talking head who has spoken on the subject has stated bluntly that the fallout from this plea deal will almost certainly result in the largest scandal to hit the capital in decades.

The questions, of course, are straightforward: Who is involved? Who took money from this guy? Who is on his pad? Most significantly, who did Abramoff name when he decided to sing to the prosecutors?

Republicans, nervous about the bad noise to come, have attempted to paint this as an equal-opportunity crime. To wit, the Democrats are into Abramoff as deeply as the GOP. The facts, however, do not bear this out. According to campaign donation information gathered by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, the following officeholders and candidates have received political donations from Abramoff since 2000:

Tom DeLay (R-Texas). John Ashcroft (R-Mo.). Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). John Ensign (R-Nev.). Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Chris Cannon (R-Utah). Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Mark Foley (R-Fla.). Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.). Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). Doug Ose (R-Calif.). Ernest J. Istook (R-Okla.). George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.). Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Dan Burton (R-Ind.). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Suzanne Terrell (R-La.). Rob Simmons (R-Conn.). Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.). Connie Morella (R-Md.). Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.). James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). James M. Talent (R-Mo.). John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.). John Thune (R-SD). Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Bob Ney (R-Ohio). CL. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho). Carolyn W. Grant (R-NC). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Heather Wilson (R-NM). J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.). Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). James V. Hansen (R-Utah). John Cornyn (R-Texas). Kimo Kaloi (R-Hawaii). Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). Mike Ferguson (R-NJ). Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). Ralph Regula (R-Ohio). Ric Keller (R-Fla.). Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). Dave Camp (R-Mich.). Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.). Tom Young (R-Ala.). Bill Janklow (R-SD). Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.). Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.). William L. Gormley (R-NJ). Bill McCollum (R-Fla.). Bill Redmond (R-NM). Bob Riley (R-Ala.). Claude B. Hutchison Jr. (R-Calif.). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Francis E. Flotron (R-Mo.). George Allen (R-Va.). Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC). Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Joe Pitts (R-PA). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Bob Ehrlich (R-Md.). Charles R. Gerow (R-Pa.). Ed Royce (R-Calif.). Elia Vincent Pirozzi (R-Calif.). Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). Mark Emerson (R-Utah). Tom Davis (R-Va.). Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.).

Also:

Americans for a Republican Majority, Leadership PAC of Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Republican Majority Fund, Leadership PAC of Don Nickles (R-Okla.). Keep Our Majority PAC, Leadership PAC of Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Leadership PAC, Leadership PAC of Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio). Rely on Your Beliefs, Leadership PAC of Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Friends of the Big Sky, Leadership PAC of Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). Senate Victory Fund, Leadership PAC of Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). American Liberty PAC, Leadership PAC of Bob Ney (R-Ohio). Battle Born PAC, Leadership PAC of John Ensign (R-Nev.). Fund for a Free Market America, Leadership PAC of Phil Crane (R-Ill.). Team PAC, Leadership PAC of J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.). The Republican Party of New Jersey.

Also:

George W. Bush (R).

Notice anything similar? Each and every name listed, each and every PAC, has an (R) after it. The Center for Responsive Politics does not have one Democrat - not one - listed as having received a donation from Jack Abramoff. The amounts given to the Republicans listed above amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In extremis, Republicans have taken to bandying about the name of Byron Dorgan, Democratic Senator from North Dakota, as evidence that this Abramoff thing is a two-party scandal. Dorgan received $67,000 from Native American tribes represented by Abramoff - not from Abramoff himself - and has since returned the money. Furthermore, he got the money before the tribes had any dealings with Abramoff. In short, Dorgan's so-called involvement in the matter is a red herring.

As for Mr. Bush, he has given the Abramoff money he received to charity, according to the White House. DNC Chairman Howard Dean pegged the total amount Bush received from Abramoff at $100,000. Abramoff attended three Hannukah receptions at the Bush White House - Hannukah? What happened to fighting the War on Christmas? - but Bush denies knowing him. "The president does not know him and does not recall meeting him," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "It is possible that he could have met him at a holiday reception or some other widely attended event."

Heh. Sounds like what we heard from Bush about Kenny "Boy" Lay.

It is going to be an interesting year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.

0 Replies

That is an outright lie.
I went to the website for the center,and this is what I found...

First,lets look at the contribution summary...

Cycle Total Dems Repubs Abramoff Only Indian Tribes Only SunCruz Casinos Only
2000 $628,983 $216,470 $409,513 $56,513 $562,470 $10,000
2002 $2,024,470 $552,230 $1,472,240 $81,740 $1,918,230 $24,500
2004 $1,445,338 $620,503 $824,835 $67,000 $1,378,338 $0
2006 $331,970 $152,470 $179,500 -$1,000 $332,970 $0

Grand Total $4,430,761 $1,541,673 $2,886,088 $204,253 $4,192,008 $34,500

we see that the dems recieved over $1.5 million from Abramoff and his interests.

Now,lets look at the list of who got what...

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R

Because its such a long list,I just posted the link.

My first set of numbers came from here...
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff.asp

As is apparent from the center for responsive politics own website,BOTH parties are guilty of accepting "donations" from Abramoff,not just the repubs.

0 Replies

Quote:

Notice anything similar? Each and every name listed, each and every PAC, has an (R) after it. The Center for Responsive Politics does not have one Democrat - not one - listed as having received a donation from Jack Abramoff.

Mysteryman is right...This quote simply calls into question the non-partisanshipness of either the Center for Responsive Politics or the author of this article. Washington Post did a Study
back in Jun 05 that implicated a number of Democrats as receiving Abramoff money. Reid just spins it as "Abramoff gave me no money. His firm gave me no money. He may have worked a firm where people have given me money." Bloomberg reports "Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said the senator is still considering whether to return the $60,000 in donations he received from Abramoff associates and clients. The money includes contributions that came from Abramoff's former employer, Greenberg Traurig LLP, a lobbying and law firm with multiple issues in Congress."

Frankly, I'm amused about the gleefulness I read in this posting and predict this scandal will result in, at most, the conviction of Abramoff and maybe, at worst, censure of Ney. More likely, Ney will be defeated in his next campaign. Financial scandals in Congress have been around forever and typically fade away after some inital glee from untainted politicians and hand-wringing from those more closely linked. How many people remember scandals like Koreagate, ABSCAM, Keating Five, Milk Money, etc.? Of those listed ABSCAM resulted in seven convictions of the 30-plus congressmen targeted and this one actually had video of congressmen stuffing their pockets with money. Koreagate targeted 115 congressmen and resulted in one censure.

No, hate to burst your bubble, but like the rest, this scandal will not be big.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

we see that the dems recieved over $1.5 million from Abramoff and his interests.

Exactly $1,541,673.

Versus $2,912,088 for the Republicans.

0 Replies

Quote:

"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."
- Jack A. Abramoff

Now here's a guy who would want to contribute to Dems in equal portion to that which he funded to Republicans. Clearly a fair sounding man.

Everyone in Washington understands this is a scandal that overwhelmingly involves the Republican party. That you two fellows might not understand the the significant differences in corruption of US politics isn't either surprising or important.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."
- Jack A. Abramoff

Now here's a guy who would want to contribute to Dems in equal portion to that which he funded to Republicans. Clearly a fair sounding man.

Everyone in Washington understands this is a scandal that overwhelmingly involves the Republican party. That you two fellows might not understand the the significant differences in corruption of US politics isn't either surprising or important.

Wrong....Everyone in Washington understands that this is a scandal that implicates one fundraiser and one republican representative at this point. A whole lot of democrats hope that more republicans can be implicated, but that hope is a far cry from stating the scandal "overwhelmingly involves the Republican party". I would hope even you canucks knew that there is no such thing as "guilt by association".

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
we see that the dems recieved over $1.5 million from Abramoff and his interests.

Exactly $1,541,673.

Versus $2,912,088 for the Republicans.

Walter...so what does the distribution of dollars have to do with anything? If you intend to crucify the guy simply because he gave more money to one party then another, you better order a whole lot of crosses. And put George Soros at the top of the list for the first one...I think his ratio is about 99% to democrats, 1% other, and 0% republican.

The key is whether any of Abramoffs donations constituted bribes and the Democrats are equally vulnerable whether they took $1.5M, 2.9M or just a sawbuck.

0 Replies

Well, the larger amount was distributed to more members of one party than to the other one. Full stop.

0 Replies

This kind of stuff has been going on a long time, but now all of a sudden its the most horrendous crime ever. Curious isn't it. Not surprising either that the majority party receives the most, because if you want to be viewed in a favorable light, do you give it the guy that has the most clout? Obviously yes. Try going back to when Democrats were in majority. I haven't done the research, but I have some suspicions. All of this is so hypocritical. Hey, I'm in favor of throwing them out if they committed crimes. I simply want fairness. If the Dems did the same, lets throw all of them out too.

0 Replies

Hmmmm...

http://www.cagle.com/working/060104/keefe.gif

0 Replies

The problem is not, of course, merely cases of accepting money from a donor but rather where such donations are or appear to be related to subsequent legistlative favors delivered in exchange for those donations.

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- This week's guilty plea by lobbyist Jack Abramoff could renew scrutiny of a letter by House Speaker Dennis Hastert urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to block an Indian casino opposed by rival tribes represented by Abramoff.

Hastert's letter was sent just one week after Abramoff hosted a fundraiser for the Illinois Republican's political action committee...

Indian tribes represented by Abramoff donated more than $20,000 to Hastert around the time of the fundraiser, which was held at Signatures, a Washington restaurant owned by Abramoff. Hastert's campaign committee did not pay the tab for the June 3, 2003, luncheon fundraiser until last year, following media inquiries.

Hastert, the top-ranking Republican in the House, was joined in his letter to Norton by three powerful House Republicans: Tom DeLay, who was then majority leader; Roy Blunt, who was majority whip; and Eric Cantor, chief deputy House whip. All three also got campaign funds from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff...

In January 2002, then-Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster, a Republican, agreed to allow a plan for a casino sought by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, an impoverished group of about 200 people spread through rural north-central Louisiana. Foster argued it was a good deal for the state, which would receive 15.5 percent of the profits.

Two Abramoff clients--the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana and the Mississippi Band of Choctaws--opposed the casino, fearing it would hurt their casinos.

Abramoff recruited prominent Christian conservatives James Dobson and Ralph Reed to campaign against the Jena Band's casino on the grounds it would expand gambling, even though Abramoff's clients were casinos. Dobson and Reed have said they were duped.

In the June 10, 2003, letter to Norton, Hastert and the other GOP leaders urged her to interpret a 1988 law in a way unfavorable to the Jena Band. .

link

The claim that this scandal involves both parties equally is false which you guys would appreciate if you actually studied the matter rather than merely sought to be apologists for the administration.

The claim it involves just one person (abramoff) is pretty silly if only from the perspective that three have now pleaded guilty with (so far) another indicted. All are Republicans (including a high level Bush administrator) and three have previously worked with or for Tom DeLay. More will be coming.

The claim that there's nothing unusual in such corruption is not matched by McCain's perspective nor that of the other members of his committee.

0 Replies

BBB
One thing I don't understand is why the Lobbying Industry doesn't clean up it's own house. They could help cause change by setting and enforcing stringent rules of ethics. Many professions do this: American Medical Association, American Bar Association, Contractors Licensing Boards, etc.

BBB

0 Replies

That's a good point.

I'm actually apalled at the "it's been going on for a long time so why make a stink now" argument. Bribing congressmen subverts democracy, plain and simple. If it has been going on for a long time then we should have put a stop to it sooner.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Bribing congressmen subverts democracy, plain and simple. If it has been going on for a long time then we should have put a stop to it sooner.

Agreed. I thought McCain was putting a stop to all of this with his great legislation.

0 Replies

I sincerely doubt that any legislation that really put a stop to it would ever pass.

0 Replies

Quote:

Lawmakers Giving Up Abramoff-Linked Funds

Friday January 6, 2006 6:02 PM

By ELIZABETH WHITE

Associated Press Writer

President Bush and many lawmakers have announced they are refunding or giving to charity some or all of the donations they or their political action committees received from once-powerful lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his associates or clients.

Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to three federal charges as part of an agreement with prosecutors requiring him to cooperate in a broad corruption investigation into members of Congress.

This week:

-President Bush, $6,000 from Abramoff, his wife and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan for the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign is being donated to the American Heart Association. Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for the campaign.

-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. A spokesman would not say how much money Hastert received or planned to donate.

-House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., $8,500 to charity.

-Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, $15,000 to local charities in suburban Houston.

-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., $2,000 to be returned to the Michigan Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

-Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., $11,000 to the American Indian Center of Chicago and the American Indian Health Service of Chicago.

-Republican Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., $16,000.

Other Senate Republicans:

-Christopher Bond, R-Mo., $12,500 to the Salvation Army.

-Jim Bunning, R-Ky., $1,000 to the St. Elizabeth Medical Center inpatient hospice program.

-Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., $1,000 to the Georgia National Guard Family Support Foundation.

-Thad Cochran, R-Miss., $8,000 to the Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund.

-Norm Coleman, R-Minn., $3,000 to be refunded or for charity.

-Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., $1,000 to charity.

-Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., $1,000 to charity.

-Judd Gregg, R-N.H., $12,000 to Marguerites Place.

-Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., $5,000 refunded. Isakson also donated $4,000 to the Salvation Army in December.

-Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., $2,000 to be donated to medical research

-Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., refunding $4,000 to three Indian tribes.

-Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., $18,500 to the Wayside Christian Mission.

-Rick Santorum, R-Pa., $11,000 to multiple charities.

-Gordon Smith, R-Ore., $8,500 to be refunded or for charity.

-Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, $16,500 to charity. Stevens also donated $1,000 to the Alaska chapter of the Red Cross in December.

-John Sununu, R-N.H., $3,000 to charity.

-Jim Talent, R-Mo., $2,000 to be refunded. Talent also refunded $3,000 in August 2005.

-Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., $8,000 to victims of the 2005 tornado in Wright, Wyo.

-John Thune, R-S.D., $2,000 to White Buffalo Calf Woman Society.

-John W. Warner, R-Va., $1,000 to charity.

Senate Democrats:

-Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., $2,000 to charity.

-Tim Johnson, D-S.D., $8,250 to Billy Mills Running Strong for American Indian Youth.

-Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., $5,000 to the American Indian College Fund.

House Republicans:

-Rodney Alexander, R-La., $2,000 to charity.

-Dan Burton, R-Ind., $19,000 to charity.

-Dave Camp, R-Mich., $500 to charity.

-Chris Cannon, R-Utah, $2,000.

-Eric Cantor, R-Va., about $10,000 to the William Byrd Community House.

-Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., $250 to charity.

-Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va., amount uncertain.

-Kay Granger, R-Texas, $2,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Greater Fort Worth.

-J. Randy Forbes, R-Va., $1,000 to charity.

-Melissa Hart, R-Pa., $2,000 to two women's shelters.

-J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., $2,250 to the Salvation Army Katrina Disaster Fund.

-Sam Johnson, R-Texas, $2,000 to the Dallas-Fort Worth USO.

-Walter Jones, R-N.C., $1,000 to the Salvation Army.

-Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., $2,000 to be returned to the Mississippi band of the Choctaw Indian Tribe.

-Jim McCrery, R-La., $35,000 to the Salvation Army.

-Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., $1,000 to Crossroads Safehouse.

-Bob Ney, R-Ohio, $9,000 to charity.

-Tom Petri, R-Wis., $11,000 to charity.

-Chip Pickering, R-Miss., at least $2,500 to the Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund.

-Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, $8,000 to charity.

-Hal Rogers, R-Ky., $32,000 to the UNITE Foundation.

-Paul Ryan, R-Wis., $949 to USO Operation Phone Home.

-Jim Saxton, R-N.J., $7,000 total refunded in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

-Bill Shuster, R-Pa., $1,000 to charity.

-John Sweeney, R-N.Y., $2,000 to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.

-Curt Weldon, R-Pa., $2,000 to charity.

-Jerry Weller, R-Ill., at least $500 to charity.

-Roger Wicker, R-Miss., $250 to Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund.

-Heather Wilson, R-N.M., $1,000 to the Great Southwest Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

House Democrats:

-Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, $500 to be returned to the Tigua Tribe of El Paso.

-Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., $1,500 total to be returned to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in California and the Michigan Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

-Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., $1,000 to be returned to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

-Lane Evans, D-Ill., $2,000 to Community Caring Conference.

-Tim Holden, D-Pa., $1,000 to an animal shelter.

-Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., $2,000 to be refunded.

-Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., $6,950 to be refunded.

-Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., $2,000 to charity.

---

December 2005:

-Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., $18,892 to seven tribal colleges.

-Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., $42,000 to charity.

-Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., about $150,000 donated to Native American charities and refunded.

-Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., $3,750 to North Dakota's tribal colleges.

-Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., $67,000 refunded.

-Rep. Mike Ferguson, R-N.J., $1,000 to the Center for Hope Hospice. Ferguson also donated $1,000 to the Children's Specialized Hospital Foundation in August 2005.

-Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., $6,000 to the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation.

-Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., $19,900 refunded and given to charity.

---

August-November 2005

-Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., returned $1,000.

-Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, $1,000 to the American Indian College Fund.

-Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., $1,250 to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund.

---

February 2002

-Sen. David Vitter, R-La., $6,000 refunded.

Source

0 Replies

Ya gotta love these...

Quote:

"What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs," his friend Grover Norquist told National Journal in 1995. "Then this becomes a different town."

Quote:

After the 2000 election, Abramoff was named to the Bush transition team for the Interior Department, which regulates the Indian casinos that paid Abramoff his inflated fees.

"The feeding frenzy which started even before Clinton was inaugurated, and continued to the final pardon, was perhaps best exemplified by the reckless and unprofessional handling of his responsibility to appoint honorable public servants." - Jack Abramoff

Quote:

"I know Jack Abramoff," Gillespie replied. He mentioned the other lobbyist and insisted: "They are Republicans; they were Republicans before they were lobbyists. . . . I think they want to see a Republican reelected in the White House in 2004 more than anything." - quoting Ed Gillespie, then chairman of the RNC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501903.html

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Try going back to when Democrats were in majority. I haven't done the research, but I have some suspicions. All of this is so hypocritical. Hey, I'm in favor of throwing them out if they committed crimes. I simply want fairness. If the Dems did the same, lets throw all of them out too.

Okie,
You're right and the research isn't difficult to do...its all on the Center for Responsive Politics website. This webpage has a good chart which shows Dems getting the most money until 1994 when they lost control of both houses of Congress. Then the money flips with Repubs getting most. Been that way ever since and, heaven forbid :wink: , the dems ever regain control, then I would be willing to bet the party preference would flip again.

0 Replies

The Abramoff scandal investigation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know