DeLay’s donors see the writing on the wall

April 26, 2005

When Tom DeLay first started coming under fire for multiple legal and ethical lapses several years ago, he did what came naturally to him — he turned the crisis into a fundraising opportunity, creating a “legal defense fund.”

For a long while, this was an exceedingly good idea, offering right-wingers and business interests yet another outlet to show their financial support for the corrupt House Majority Leader. All of a sudden, however, when DeLay needs help the most, the spigot is running dry.

Donations to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s legal defense fell sharply in the last three months, though the embattled Sugar Land lawmaker can still rely on help from Republican friends.

Records for DeLay’s legal expense trust filed Monday on Capitol Hill showed DeLay raised $47,750 for the first three months of 2005, compared with $254,250 for the last quarter of 2004.

That’s a remarkable drop-off, especially given the circumstances. DeLay’s “transgressions” are now front page news and multiple Republican lawmakers and conservative outlets are suggesting it’s time for DeLay to resign his post. If the former exterminator enjoyed broad and consistent support from his legions, his defense fund would be raising more money that last year, not finding an 80% drop-off from one quarter to the next.

DeLay at least has the support of his caucus.

Most of the donations to the fund came from Republican campaign committees rather than individuals. Among the 10 people who contributed, six were high-ranking staff members of House Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, a top DeLay ally in Congress.

But how encouraging is this, exactly, for DeLay? Yes, he needs the support of his fellow House Republicans to keep his post, but isn’t this inflating the defense fund’s fundraising a bit? By that I mean, DeLay’s legal defense is taking in far less money than it was last year and it would be even less were it not for a series of donations from his immediate colleagues. Rank-and-file Republicans aren’t rushing to DeLay’s defense at all.

Asked for comment, a DeLay spokesman “declined to answer questions about the fund-raising efforts.” I can’t imagine why.

One wonders exactly how voluntary were those donations from Blunt staffers. If DeLay immolates Blunt’s toast as well, which would give him a bit of an added incentive, shall we say, to prop up his embattled blood brother. Unless of course someone else compensated the staffers for their hardship, which raises the possibility of yet another delicious scandal.

Is there such a thing as too many DeLay scandals? I for one say no.

  • The most amusing thing about these donations is that they basically constitute “negative fundraising” by DeLay for those campaigns. DeLay’s power supposedly derives from his fundraising and his ruthless enforcer role, and it looks like both of those are running dry or even reversing.

  • There was a discussion of this on the NewsHour tonight. They noted the incident of the junkets paid for directly by Abramoff’s AmEx, along with DeLay’s spin that he thought Abramoff was being reimbursed. They then directly quoted House rules saying lobbyists paying for member’s trips is specifically disallowed, even if the lobbyists are being reimbursed. DeLay is essentially caught dead on this one; there’s no possible defense to offer. And no one even bothered to try; instead the discussion veered off into other areas.

    If the ethics enforcement process were at all functional, DeLay would suffer whatever sanction applies here, period. No amount of defense money ought to be able to help. Small wonder, then, that no one wants to sink good dollars after bad to help this guy.

    • Comments are closed.