Norquist, Rove cooperate on selling White House access

June 26, 2006

It’s probably a little too late to go back and review all the interesting tidbits from last week’s Jack [tag]Abramoff[/tag] report from John McCain’s Senate Indian Affairs Committee — suffice it to say, there was plenty of bad news for Bob Ney and Ralph Reed — but there’s one revelation about [tag]Grover Norquist[/tag] and [tag]Karl Rove[/tag] that deserves special attention.

Wanted: Face time with President Bush or top adviser Karl Rove. Suggested donation: $100,000. The middleman: lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Blunt e-mails that connect money and access in Washington show that prominent Republican activist Grover Norquist facilitated some administration contacts for Abramoff’s clients while the lobbyist simultaneously solicited those clients for large donations to Norquist’s tax-exempt group.

Those who were solicited or landed administration introductions included foreign figures and American Indian tribes, according to e-mails gathered by Senate investigators and federal prosecutors or obtained independently by The Associated Press.

“Can the tribes contribute $100,000 for the effort to bring state legislatures and those tribal leaders who have passed Bush resolutions to Washington?” Norquist wrote Abramoff in one such e-mail in July 2002.

“When I have funding, I will ask Karl Rove for a date with the president. Karl has already said ‘yes’ in principle and knows you organized this last time and hope to this year,” Norquist wrote in the e-mail.

Given this, it certainly sounds as if Norquist and Rove cooperated on a scheme to arrange White House meetings for Abramoff clients in exchange for contributions to Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform. The details are a little murky — what did Rove have to gain from such an arrangement? — but the 2002 emails suggest White House access may have been for sale.

At a minimum, it seems like the kind of arrangement that deserves an explanation. I know congressional hearings are out of the question, but maybe some enterprising [tag]White House[/tag] reporter could ask Tony Snow for a “clarification”?

Face time, a photo op, a dinner, a speech…
Isn’t all of Washington run on money for personal contact.
Do Dems operate differently? Can they make an issue of this without looking at their own fundraising practices?
Let’s reform the whole damn system.

  • At a minimum, it seems like the kind of arrangement that deserves an explanation.

    I have a serious question. Let me preface it by saying that I love this blog and think you do a great job. That said, what possible “explanation” do you honestly want from the WH on this matter? It seems as though the facts are pretty much cut and dried. In exchange for access, Norquist, Abramoff and Rove solicited contributions from Indian tribes. It is what it is. Do we really need an explanation?

    A lot of the posts here end on similar flat notes. Some nefarious Republican activity is reported but then you merely conclude that it “doesn’t look good,” or some similar sentiment. I think it is a little late in the day to be giving these people any benefit of the doubt.

  • Sounds a lot like selling weekends in the Lincoln Bedroom. I don’t recall, did Republicans find that activity to be dubious or unseemly? There must be a record of comments onthat somewhere…

    Space,

    I think the posts you refewr to are worded as such for two reasons.

    First, you (CB) need to be careful not to level false accusations. This is what journalists used to do. Now everything is an editorial and we expect conclusions. It is information and is intended to start discussion and further investigation on the subject.

    Second, I believe CB is writing these questions as retorical. As you point out these people are crooked as the day is long. Yes there are serious problems with these practices. It is the silent cry for someone with oversight to do something about it! In a musical context, the notes you don’t play are as important as the notes you play.

  • While Democrats may do similar things they were never quite so direct about it to say the least and the Republicans most definitely did their best to crucify them in the court of public opinion for it.

    • Comments are closed.