slkshock7 wrote:Capitaleye wrote:In more Abramoff-related news, two Senators have announced that they will return more than $217,000 in contributions linked to the infamous lobbyist, The New York Times reported. The Senators, Conrad Burns, (R-Mont.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) made clear that they are attempting to distance themselves from Abramoff and have called on other members to return the contributions. Political strategists, working on behalf of possible challengers for the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections have made it publicly known that they will publicize Abramoff contributions in races where they are attempted to oust the incumbent. "This is an important step that all public officials should take in order to renew the faith" of voters, Burns told the Times. Of the top 25 Congressional recipients of political money linked to Abramoff, 19 are Republican and six are Democrats. Burns is returning $150,000 in contributions linked to Abramoff, including money he received from American Indian clients. Since 1999, he has received $49,590 from Abramoff's tribal clients. Dorgan, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, is returning $67,000. In October, Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) became one of the first lawmakers to return Abramoff contributions.
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=195
Other news sources have reported other democrats offering their abramhoff-tainted money to charity. So can someone please explain to me why Dorgan and other Dems are suddenly returning and/or donating large chunks of money to charity?
If that is a serious question, the serious answer is that they are seeking to escape the taint of Abramoff's money. True for dems and republicans both.
But I'm guessing you are suggesting that Abramoff is, as President Bush deceitfully claimed, an equal money dispenser and so no particular or unique taint ought rightfully to be placed on the republican party. But Abramoff was not an equal money dispenser. And more to the point, that isn't the key issue in any case, which is why DeLay was pushed out by his own party last week and it's why the Republicans have now moved into damage control mode.
Quote:Dreier's dilemma
GOP LEADERS IN CONGRESS must have had quite a weekend devising a crash program to corral the scandal spreading from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The announcement Sunday that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert would give the job to Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas) had a slapdash feel, with Dreier hastily flying back to Washington from California. He takes charge of a legislative effort low on specifics but intended, in Dreier's words, to "deal with this issue and get it behind us as quickly as possible."
The influence-peddling scandal has been building for months despite efforts to dismiss it as a media-generated spite-fest. Last week, the dam broke. Abramoff struck a plea deal with prosecutors, sending legislators into a frenzy to return or give away contributions from him and his clients. And Abramoff buddy Tom DeLay of Texas said he would not, after all, seek to regain his post as House majority leader once he has dealt with that pesky Texas criminal indictment. DeLay could no longer plausibly dismiss criminal charges as partisan attacks by spiteful prosecutors or credibly deny the taint of Abramoff's luxury golf trips, skybox tickets and lavish contributions.
Dreier is really in a pickle. There is no fast way to get rid of the scandal, and no stomach in the House leadership for legislation that would close the profitable revolving door between legislative offices and the lobbying industry. DeLay's own "K Street Project" (named after the D.C. location favored by lobbyists) demanded that firms purge themselves of Democrats and focus on helping Republicans. Predictably, lobbyists rushed to hire GOP legislative aides and former officeholders. The project is one reason the lobbying scandal isn't very bipartisan.
If Dreier and Hastert were serious, they would take as a starting point a bill by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to open the lobbying industry's doings to public scrutiny and to choke off the flow of favors (which in other cultures would be known as bribes). The bill isn't perfect, but it has teeth and has already been introduced in the Senate. Why start over, except in the name of doing less damage to the lobbying trough?
link
Those of us who have been watching and writing about the K Street project for a couple of years now are pleased as punch (at least, I sure am) that this story has finally blown up in the face of many of those guilty and become a public matter. Any dems that get rounded up for crimes of corruption - great! But there won't be many, if any.
The system (that intersection between very big money, lobbyists, and congress) was and is ripe for corruption. This present republican crowd is guilty of falling to the occasion.
