The not-so-scandalous story of Dems and Abramoff

The Washington Post ran — on the front page, above the fold — what it believes is a major scoop in the ongoing saga surrounding corrupt GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff: he gave money to Dems.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients’ behalf.

But Abramoff didn’t work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill’s most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study.

The Post’s argument seems to be that Dems are raising a fuss about Abramoff and his legal and ethical problems, but will have a tough time making the case if they received donations from him too.

But is the Post’s scoop really damaging to Dems? Will this somehow stunt the ongoing scandal surrounding Abramoff and Tom DeLay? Not at all.

First, the idea that Abramoff would give to both sides is completely routine. He directed most of his money to the GOP (about two-thirds), but most lobbying efforts direct resources to everyone. When clients have the cash, they do their best to spread it around.

Second, unlike DeLay, the Dems who received financial support from Abramoff’s clients don’t have any relationship with Abramoff directly. For example, they certainly didn’t go golfing with him as some part of a luxurious European excursion, allowing a lobbyist to finance the trips in violation of House rules. In every instance listed in the Post, the relevant Dem lawmaker had never even met Abramoff.

Third, and most importantly, the controversy surrounding Republicans like DeLay is not just the fact that they took Abramoff’s cash — it’s that they did favors for Abramoff’s clients as a result of the contributions. It’s the apparent quid pro quo that makes it a scandal, not just a lobbyist directing some contributions around the Hill. The Post story documents some Dems getting checks, but points to literally no examples of the Dems doing anything for Abramoff as a result.

This isn’t front page news. Hell, it’s hardly news at all.

That damned liberal media, there they go again.

And they used the most devastatingly conclusive methodology to prove the hypothosis that the Dems are every bit as corrupt as the Rethugs — they used the “fact check scam” that says, if one side does something completely illegal and outrageous and the other side does something that is both legal and proper, then the “sins” are equal and you can’t trust what either side says or does!

And of course, this DOES require front page — above the fucking fold, yet — while the Downing Street Memeo gets almost no coverage, let alone scorn and investigation, on the hallowed pages the W. Post or any other major “liberal” newspaper in the country. Damn, what a racket they’ve got going….

Way to go, fools, Beltway Myopia strikes again.

  • Yeah, yeah, I know it is spelled “hypothesis” but I was too busy on my snarky rant to look it up!! 🙂

  • Uhhhh, so a Senator from the State of Nevada received campaign contributions from groups affiliated with gaming interests? Jeepers. What will they say in Vegas?

    Would that be like a Senator from Wisconsin getting money from the dairy industry?

    Shocking.

  • You make good points, but unfortunately most people aren’t going to get to the details and it will be “All politicians are corrupt”, etc. for them.

  • Comments are closed.