The U.S. Family Network

To a limited extent, The U.S. Family Network, primarily a project of Tom DeLay, was already somewhat controversial. In April 2004, a Federal Election Commission investigation found that the group had illegally received $500,000 from the National Republican Congressional Committee. (The U.S. Family Network then funneled the money to another group, Americans for Economic Growth, who ran campaign ads against Democrats in advance of the 2000 campaign, accusing Dem candidates of planning to raid the Social Security trust fund.)

At the time, it just seemed like routine campaign shenanigans. The 2004 controversy, however, was but a footnote compared to the revelations from today’s Washington Post.

The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money’s origins.

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman’s former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).

The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay’s vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.

Just when it seemed things couldn’t much worse for DeLay, this blockbuster story is splashed all over the front page.

The poorly named U.S. Family Network was billed as an advocacy group focused on a conservative “moral fitness” agenda. The stated goals were basically a fraud. Indeed, the group hardly existed beyond its fundraising operation, USFN never actually advocated anything, and there was never a staff beyond one person. When DeLay wrote a fundraising letter for the group calling it “a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control” by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support, he was wildly misstating the facts.

The group was created to collect big checks from corporations, many of which were foreign, with lobbying ties to Abramoff. The story ties many of the Abramoff ends together, with this bogus nonprofit group at the middle.

[H]alf a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners — with Abramoff’s help — solicited and received DeLay’s public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.

A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff’s largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.

The records, other documents and interviews call into question the very purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting funds from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay’s activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002, and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September.

As Josh Marshall explained, we’re talking about “a slush fund,” with “lots of secret money, often from overseas, that can get spread around off the books in DC.”

Not incidentally, Abramoff is putting the “finishing touches on a plea deal” with federal prosecutors, the results of which could be announced as early as Tuesday.

As Michael Crowley noted, there will likely be several congressional Republicans drinking champagne tonight “for distinctly non-celebratory reasons.”

Is it treason to take money from foreigners in order to influence US government policy in a direction more favorable to said foreigners?

Remember when the Republicans were screaming about Clinton getting campaign donations from that Indonesian group? Or claiming the Chinese were controlling them?

  • And adding the possible deal next week for Abramoff and what damage he can inflict……. the first week of 2006 is looking “interesting” for the GOP. Fun times.

  • Christine Delay collected a $3,200 a month to provide a list of Delay’s favorite charities? I think I see charges for Christine in our future. Why? First of all, money laundering is a fun and lucrative family activity, and very illegal. Second, Did she report it as taxable income? Why would someone be paid a recurring fee for a list of “Tom’s favorite” charities? Its just payola, pay to play, pure and simple, and its a family affair. Maybe they have family cells at Big Spring?

  • Ow. This looks really, really bad. Nothing like starting off 2006 with an even bigger scandal. At least the truth about these scumbags is finally coming out. Ive said it a few times here before, but I’ll say it again…. Abramoff is going to be the downfall of so many people. Pull back the curtain..here we go…

  • From the WaPo article: Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.

    One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network’s director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay’s vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.

    “Ed told me, ‘This is the way things work in Washington,’ ” Geeslin said. “He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash.” Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group’s fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details. Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment on this article.

    This is the way things work in Washington. Give a little to get a lot. Man, that’s sad. I don’t know if it’s treason but the strength and stature of this country have taken a body blow during the reign of Dear Shrub. The country has been weakened. Diminished. Our gov’t is rotten to the core.

  • Please remember there are many good people working for your government who are sickened by what our leadership is doing. The civil service is out there, well, being civil. Carrying out the day to day duties of government as best they can, waiting, hoping for a new congressional majority to swing things back the way they should in environmental regulation, anti-trust, taxation, the park service, and all the rest.

  • Thanks Peter for your kind words about government workers. I’m a long-standing civil servant with the Federal Government, and the vast majority of us are hard working and dedicated to our jobs. What annoys me is the hacks appointed to the political jobs. More than ever, we’re seeing people placed in sensitive policy positions who have no other qualification than the fact that they’re buddies with someone who is close to the Roves. Too often, now, policy directives don’t make policy, they just direct the carrer people to make bulleted talking points that highlight the successes of the Administration.

    And as a civil servant, I get asked each year to contribute to the Combined Federal Campaign to support worthy charities. If I draw up a list of charities from the CFC manual, can I sell it to a lobbying firm for $3,200/month?

  • Comments are closed.