It’s a challenge, given the political climate right now, but the Jack [tag]Abramoff[/tag] developments are worth keeping on the front burner. The WaPo had a terrific editorial on the issue yesterday, in which the paper not only accuses the Bush White House of ethically dubious conduct, but also of stonewalling.
Remember when President [tag]Bush[/tag] promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office? He doesn’t either, it would seem. A report by the House Government Reform Committee, based on three years of e-mails and billing records from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s former law firm, detailed how Mr. Abramoff and his team billed clients for hundreds of contacts with White House officials and dispensed coveted tickets to sporting events and concerts to favored officials, including adviser Karl Rove and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken [tag]Mehlman[/tag], then the White House political director.
A particular recipient of Mr. Abramoff’s favors was his former assistant, Susan B. Ralston. She had gone to the White House to work for Mr. [tag]Rove[/tag] but stayed in close touch with her former boss — more than half of Mr. Abramoff’s 66 contacts with the White House were with her. Mr. Abramoff turned to her as a conduit to Mr. Rove and others, seeking her help in placing allies in government or obtaining other favors, not always successfully. Ms. [tag]Ralston[/tag], in turn, used Mr. Abramoff as a personal Ticketmaster service, taking free tickets to Bruce Springsteen and Andrea Bocelli concerts, Capitals, Wizards and Orioles games. When Ms. Ralston was looking for four floor seats for a Wizards game — valued at $1,300 — Mr. Abramoff emailed back, “For you? Anything!”
In response to these revelations, the honor-and-integrity-filled Bush gang hasn’t responded with much in the way of curiosity. Indeed, when Ralston resigned (announced late on Friday afternoon), it wasn’t because of any wrongdoing, but simply because she didn’t want to be a “distraction.” Please.
The Bush White House could investigate officials’ dealings with Abramoff. It hasn’t. The White House could review whether any ethics rules have been violated. It won’t. The White House could respond to the House Government Reform Committee’s report by disclosing what Abramoff asked for from the Bush gang, and what he got. It won’t do that either.
Indeed, the White House’s defense, shallow though it may be, is that Abramoff exaggerated his lobbying successes to impress clients and bolster his influence. Does the defense have merit? It’s hard to say — the White House won’t divulge the disgraced lobbyist’s contacts.
Full disclosure could set the record straight. How about it, Bush gang?
To be clear, I’m not saying the White House defense may be compelling. On the contrary, there’s ample evidence to suggest it is the Bush gang that is exaggerating.
It is plain that Mr. Abramoff had unusual access. As for his effectiveness, Mr. Abramoff rated the results as “mixed.” But he scored some important victories. In 2002, for example, the administration made the unusual decision to release $16.3 million to a Mississippi tribe Mr. Abramoff represented, notwithstanding the Justice Department’s opposition to the project. The role campaign gifts and contacts between Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Mehlman may have played in this action is a matter warranting close scrutiny by prosecutors, and further digging by the committee.
As Tom Davis of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat, take pains to note, their report is based on documents that were provided under subpoena by Mr. Abramoff’s firm and, for the most part, tell just one side of the story. The White House spin is that Mr. Abramoff had a well-known affinity for exaggerating the impact of his lobbying efforts. If so, full disclosure of relevant records by the White House could help support that claim.
Full disclosure is the answer to so many of the questions surrounding the administration, but for these officials, secrecy always rules the day. Typical.
In the meantime, as the NYT noted, “the idea that Mr. Abramoff exerted no influence with the administration seems about as believable as Mark Foley’s early claim that his only interest in 16-year-old pages was ‘mentoring.'”