Following The Abramoff Money -- And It Didn't Go To Democrats
-
Bob GeigerWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
When the media was actually able to tear themselves away from the West Virginia mining accident long enough to cover anything else for a moment or two yesterday, they would invariable turn to the Jack Abramoff guilty plea and, in many cases, imply or say directly that Abramoff was a bipartisan crook who gave to both major political parties.
To check out this assertion, I spent hours pouring over Federal Election Commission filings via Political Money Line and Newsmeat and have found that the mainstream media is amazingly incorrect.
An analysis of all donations under Jack Abramoff's name or by his wife, Pamela – who donates under "Pam," "Pamela" and "Mrs. Jack Abramoff" – since 1977 and through January 2, 2006, shows that they made a total of $338,418 in political contributions. Of that, $204,000 went to individual political candidates, while $134,000 went to Political Action Committees (PACs).
Of the $204,000 that went to people running for the House and Senate, not one dime went to a Democrat. Yes, that's correct – 100 percent of Abramoff's personal donations went to Republican candidates or, in an extremely isolated case, he gave $750 to Howard Phillips of Virginia to run for something or other on the Constitution Party platform in the mid 1990s.
Other than that, it was all GOP money. Who were the biggest piglets at that trough? Little Tom DeLay picked up a cool $15,000, or over seven percent of the total all by himself. Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA), who Tom DeLay made one of his lieutenants a couple of years ago, snagged $13,000 and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) took almost $10,000 over the last 10 years.
No wonder when Rohrabacher, who has been frequently linked to Abramoff, was asked about being used as a financial reference in Abramoff's purchase of the Suncruz casino cruise line, he said " "I don't remember it, but I would certainly have been happy to give him a good recommendation. He's a very honest man."
Well, I guess that's true by Republican standards.
Abramoff also gives generously to PACs, which our analysis shows may have cheated the admitted crook, as a couple of them actually slipped up and gave a tiny bit of money to Democrats. In an examination of all PACs receiving money from Abramoff since 1980 and looking at how each of those groups allocates their total funds, I found that, of millions and millions of dollars, almost all of it goes to GOP candidates.
And you really have to hunt for the exceptions. For example, the relatively small Arena PAC gave $1,000 to Representative Joe Baca (D-CA) and, in the 1990s, gave a total of about $1,500 to Congressman Ralph Hall (D-TX). Don't know how that happened but, even so, it only amounted to two percent of all the money given by that PAC – the rest went to Republicans.
Likewise, Newstar PAC and the Preston Gates Ellis PAC – both of which have gotten generous donations from Abramoff -- have given about 15 percent and 40 percent of their money, respectively, to Democrats.
So whether it's direct donations -- of which Democrats have received nothing -- or indirect PAC money, which has only been given to a few Democrats in miniscule amounts, there's not much of a personal connection between Abramoff and the Democratic party.
Sorry, mainstream media.
If you would like to look at how the personal Abramoff money has been allocated over the years, I've set up a little web page here with all the details. It's interesting reading -- he even donated to Oliver North's Senate campaign. Remember him?
Now, that's no guarantee that a couple of Democrats won't also be swept up as partners in crime when people starting looking under the hood of the Abramoff money machine and examining where the millions he's bilked from others have gone – but I seriously doubt it.
This guy's never given money directly to a Democrat in his life and, for a crook like him, why hang with Democrats when there are so many of his own kind to buddy up to on the Republican side of the aisle?
And, by the way, Sourcewatch says that Abramoff raised over $100,000 for President Bush's re-election campaign and even became a coveted " Bush Pioneer" in the process.
I'm sure, given yesterday's developments, that Bush will be giving that money back any day now. Won't he?
- Bob Geiger's blog
- |
- Login or register to post comments
- |
-
- |
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000
-
42,758 of 60,000
-
94,685 of 100,000
Comments
Excellent!
The web page you've set up as a resource for where Abramoff money went is wonderful. Thanks. :-D
Ever Heard the Phrase "Tip of the Iceberg?"
This refers to the fact 90% of an iceberg is submerged. Well, guess what? That makes Jack Abramoff a double iceberg, because the money from he and his wife constituted only 4.6% of the total from the Abramoff keiretsu, the corrupt network whose contributions he directed.
Now, you can say what you will about me, but don't you dare call me anything but a Democrat because where I'm from, "Republican" is fightin' words. But the sad fact is that Democratic candidates and organizations got one-third of the bribes -- which is what I call every lobbyist dollar, regardless of what the law says -- from Abramoff's corrupt network.
Do I like it? Hell no, I $%@&$%# hate it like the plague! But it's true. So don't sit there and b.s. anyone about who's on the take. I've had it with my Democratic Party playing this corrupt game. We've been doing it for far, far too long and it is eating out our substance. It is time for the Democratic Party to make a clean break -- unilaterally if need be -- from the Corrupt K Street Government in Washington, D.C.
I am done, done, DONE making or accepting excuses from Democrats about how "everybody's doin' it." I wouldn't accept it from a child, so why should I accept it from adults? Every election year they say it. "That's the game. It's how we have to do it." And guess what? Every election year, another 2% of the public stops voting. How many of those people do you think are natural Republicans, versus how many are natural Democrats working two jobs at a time and wondering when the hell anyone's going to get their filthy hand out of the cookie jar and start talking about what matters?
Time to take a new path. Meantime, Abramoff is a bipartisan scandal. And you know what? I choke on the words, too. But that's not my fault and it's not even Abramoff's fault. It's the Democratic Party's fault for crawling down into the slime pit with the rest of them. The best thing the leadership of the Democratic Party could possibly do is humbly apologize to the public for playing the corporate bribery game, and promise on a stack of Bibles to get back to doing what it used to do: Looking out for the working American.
When you challenge a
When you challenge a respected blogger's facts, you need to present your own factual evidence. All I've heard from you so far is rant and innuendo. If you can dispute Bob Geiger's facts, then put up, or shut up. As Bob points out, just because a few PACs gave money to Democrats, does not make them Abramoff cronies.
We have a saying on Democrats.com: you are entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own facts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you mixing many peoples apples for oranges even if you view them all as fruit?
In particular what is a “bribe” to you?
It is not illegal to receive contributions
I know this is going to harm your sensibilities and such, but it's a fact that it's not illegal for politicians to receive contributions.
The crime occurs when favors are given in exchange for those contributions.
Tell me please, which democrat even has enough power in DC to give anything in exchange for the contributions, and be sure to link favorable legislation crafted and approved by that democratic body.
Necco, I am now betting that
Necco, I am now betting that all this does have to do with sensibilities and not illegal activity. It did give me a start however. I find it very strange that one would vehemently muddy the waters on this node, when discontent with some Democratic Leaders can easily be vented on so many other nodes. Jim
His referenced "source" lists
His referenced "source" lists mainly the Indian Tribal PACs. Have I missed something? Have our noble NA brothers attempted to take over the government through graft and corruption? Or, were they just swindled by Abramoff?
Necco is correct. I haven't seen any Democratic-introduced legislation that could be seen as payback to Abramoff, or his NA clients. On the other hand, the neocon side of the aisle has a lot of splainin' to do.
I love Necco’s take that
I love Necco’s take that it is presently impossible to buy anything from Democrats. Man there is a skit in that but it will not come to me….
I don't know if you remember
I don't know if you remember Buddy Hackett's Chinese Waiter routine (you can haba one from corumn A, two from corumn B,...) where the obnoxious white patron keeps trying to order split pea soup.
After telling the man several times that, "we no haba sprit pea soup," he finally loses it and shouts: "Even if we haba sprit pea soup, we no haba!"
There ya go. Man I could
There ya go. Man I could hear their voices with your spelling!
I'm inclined to agree
There will be an effort afoot by the GOP to slime democrats with the Abramoff scandal and they'll be sending out their little foot soldiers.
That's why we must be diligent to make it clear that the discussion is bribery/quid pro quo and not political contributions.
Republicans will be the first to tell you that money is freedom of speech. You won't find many of legislators, however, who would publicly agree that quid pro quo is a good thing, and you'll find fewer voters who think it's real nifty.
You'll find even fewer democrats who are in a position for quid pro quo. Hell, last I heard, Hastert made it virtually impossible for democrats to even introduce legislation.
It's gonna be hard to convince America that every rotten little thing is the fault of democrats, when it's republicans controlling everything in government. It might be entertaining to watch, though.
Well I’ll tell ya, I think
Well I’ll tell ya, I think general arguments about campaign contributions have no place on a node about imprisoning Republicans.
If the argument stems from sensibilities that the downtrodden must be protected and therefore the word must ring forth from this node that Democrats also take lobbyist dollars, then all I can say is:
Take it to another node because it rings too close to GOP slime which DOES cause the greatest misery to the masses!
I linked to the evidence
You must have missed it. Here is a cleeat link:
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff.asp
Again, contributions are legal
L E G A L.
What's your implication? There's not a democrat in Washington with enough power to grant quid pro quo.
Well...okay...maybe 'democrats' like Lieberman do, but it's only because they're not real democrats, anyway and they vote with the guys with power to quid pro quo, who are the _______....c'mon...you know the answer. I know you do!
Spill it - and, btw...links, please.
I totally disagree
I think the Democratic Party's participation in the legalized bribery system that runs Washington has hollowed out the party. It cuts the legs out from under the Democratic Party's efforts to reform anything, and it forces the Democrats to cater to corporate interests.
And, by the way, I think the idea that only Republicans exchange favors for campaign contributions would be a knee-slapper if it wasn't also outrageous and sad to hear coming from my party. As far as I'm concerned, corruption is worse when my side does it because it betrays what I stand for.
Link to it, pal
we're into reality here. You're entitled to your opinion. That's great. Just don't pee down my leg and tell me it's raining, mmmmkay?
I keep giving the link
Here it is once again.
Empty legalisms
The fact that something is legal only means that you can't be jailed for it. That doesn't mean it's right. In my opinion, Washington, D.C. is more corrupt than at any time since the late 1800s, and it's largely because of the influence of "legal" bribery.
Both parties are wallowing in it. I do not accept the argument from Democrats that "everybody's doin' it." I wouldn't put up with that from a child, so why should I accept it from adults? By taking lobbyist money, the Democratic Party betrays what ought to be Job #1 for us: Standing up for working Americans.
I realize my view is often very unpopular among Democrats who think we can take the money and remain principled. Look around. Half the public doesn't vote. They "get it." They see that the two parties are bought and paid for. So ... we sell our soul for the cash we need to run TV ads aimed at 10% of the public -- the 20% of the 50% who are "swing voters. And we are really fighting over a small percentage of them when it comes right down to it.
Meantime, participation has gone from roughly three-quarters to roughly half over the past 45 years. A quarter of the voting-age population, roughly 75 million people have opted out of the system because they don't see any reason to care about people who don't care about them and what they're going through.
Now, of that 75 million people, how many do you think are natural Republicans with lots of money and big economic interests versus natural Democrats on the economic margins who feel ignored and betrayed? Forgetting the morality of the whole situation for the moment and just looking at the numbers, for the life of me I don't understand why so many Democrats chase after an incredibly small pool of swing voters at the cost of bribe-taking, while ignoring the elephant standing out in the backyard.
What the hell is a
What the hell is a theoretical discussion of lobbying doing on a node about imprisoning Republicans?
As I said before, if this is just about what future laws we should pass, placing this mud here does harm NOW.
You're right, Jim
He's mucking up a Bob's blog.
Hey, fella - if you can't stay on topic go to another node you can stay on topic in.
I was directed to this thread ...
... by Bill Harding. Here is the link in which he did so. Why am I being ambushed for "off-topic" posting when I was directed here by a site administrator? Have my posting privileges been revoked? When I log in, I see: You are not allowed to post a new forum topic. If disagreement is censored here, just let me know and I'll move along.
Let me make it simple for you
GOP = quid pro quo = illegal
Democrats = no power = can't quid pro quo = ineffective, but quite legal.
Perhaps you should go preach at the other church?
Wait A Sec
The original post is titled, Following The Abramoff Money -- And It Didn't Go To Democrats. In a different thread in which I intro'd myself as an Unorthodox Democrat Bill Harding specifically directed me to this one for a discussion on the Ambramoff issues. Near as I can tell, that's what the thread's about. Forgive me for feeling a bit ambushed here.
Maybe that's because you
are making assertions you cannot back up.
Like I say, I keep giving you the link
You disagree with my viewpoint, which frankly is a good thing. I welcome the debate. But it's just wrong to say I haven't given evidence that Democratic candidates and organizations took one-third of the money from the Abramoff keiretsu.
On a separate note, I could be misinterpreting what I see on my screen, but have you guys withdrawn my posting privileges? Just let me know, and I'll leave this echo chamber.
Let ME Make It Simple
A single standard should govern both parties.
EXACTLY, and a single
EXACTLY, and a single standard presently does:
Democrats held to it, and Republicans are going to prison for not.
We have a single standard...
The Constitution. A nation of laws that pertain to all.
I keep giving you the link ...
... and I've provided my reasoning. I understand that you disagree and I respect the disagreement -- while arguing hard for my viewpoint -- but the idea that I've given "no evidence" is just wrong. Once again, here's the link.
A Hell of a Standard!
We're the Democratic Party. We didn't go to jail, so you can trust us. Sorry, but half the country doesn't vote. They demand more than just "staying out of jail."
When you lie down with dogs ...
... you catch fleas. I guess my expression will be unpopular, but maybe people here will object a little less to the same expression from the Democrat who runs the Capitol Hill Blue newspaper. Check his latest catch column on the subject.
I'm sorry
but my play period is over. Perhaps someone else will take over for me.
You're a busy little person, anyway. Toddle on back over to that other site and post for a while. I understand they aren't too enamoured with you there, either.
Lack of popularity doesn't worry me
I mean, come on, I voted for Carter the second time. I voted for Mondale. Remember 1984? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he even lost Minnesota that year. I voted for Dukakis. I gave $10,000 to Kerry, including a bunch of money after his feckless response to the Swifties. I couldn't care less about being unpopular.
What I DO care about, on the other hand, is posting privileges. Mine appear to have been revoked here. Let me know if this is indeed the case or whether I am mistaken.
You need to state clearly
You need to state clearly that you have:
-NO evidence of bribes.
-NO evidence of law breaking.
On the Democratic side.
No laws broken that we can prove (yet) ...
... but I consider every single dollar of lobbyist money to be a legal bribe.
Thankyou.You believe the
Thankyou.
You believe the law should be changed and Democrats will be held to that new law should it pass. Maybe we would all vote for that new law.
You say you have a non popular belief here. Well I have one too, perhaps: I do not believe corruption is anything as big a deal as getting through thick skulls on a multitude of issues.
My question is, who cares what you or I think on these topics in a node on Republicans serving PRISON time for taking bribes and breaking the law? Mud here, hurts the innocent. Elsewhere it is a valid discussion about what our laws should be.
Is this how we should deal with all prisoners? Refer back to how everyone is really guilty?
A couple things
First off, Jim, please look back at my thread in which I introduced myself as an Unorthodox Democrat. In that thread -- you participated, so you should remember it -- I was referred to this thread for a discussion on the Abramoff bribery scandal. So your continual accusation that I'm somehow off-topic is really irritating me, okay? Disagree, fine. But don't do that squirrelly crap, huh?
It also appears that my posting privileges have been revoked. But maybe I'm wrong about that. Software has never been my strong suit, especially in the beginning of posting on a website. Either way, someone should tell me why I'm seeing You are not allowed to post a new forum topic when I log in. If disagreement is censored here just let me know and I'll split.
Secondly, we obviously see it differently as it concerns corruption. You're arguing that the only question to ask is whether it's legal. I'm saying that's one of a bunch of questions to ask. Frankly, I don't really care whether the system is legal or not. It stinks to high heaven, and the 25% of Americans who have turned off, tuned out and dropped out of the political system in the last 45 years see it that way, too.
I believe that in the last presidential election there were about 125 million votes cast. Imagine, say, 175 milion votes. If the Democrats had something real to offer people on the margins of the economy, do you think that that maybe we'd get, oh, say 70% of those 50 million new votes? I do.
But unless our party says No to legalized bribery and comes up with some new policies for working Americans, it ain't a-gonna happen for we Democrats. This chasing of crumbs from the corporate table has got to stop.
There isn’t anything
There isn’t anything squirrelly about flirting with libel and GOP talking points.
You ARE off topic. In another venue you would not be. You are doing damage to the working class right now by slinging mud, then backtracking. Get it? Your opening post makes it seem as if Dems and Reps are all going to prison hand in hand. You then open up that yours is a political stance.
NO, I am not arguing that the only question to ask is whether it’s legal.
Catch 22! Pon my soul, never thought I'd see the...
day when dems are supposed to straighten out this mess we are in...when our folks can't even be in the same room with the ruling party when they discuss their next smarmy idea.
Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.
This Was An Ambush
It all reminds me of a country song:
A friend came around
Tried to clean up this town
His ideas made some people mad
He trusted his crowd
Then he spoke right out loud
And they lost the best friend they had
Sheesh. Have your echo chamber, then. It's sad to see so many Democrats -- and yes, I am a Democrat -- hooked on bribery. For what? To get money to reach a small pool of persuadable swing voters, while a far larger pool of non-voters lies waiting to be tapped.
It's not even smart tactics. And then, on a small scale, one Demcratic blog after another drives away those who don't toe the orthodox line. Okey-dokey!
So even when everyone agrees
So even when everyone agrees with you, you pout?
You might try humbling yourself a bit and researching the blog first.
Your privilege to post new
Your privilege to post new nodes was removed because you are on a single-issue rant. If you don't get over yourself and start participating in other nodes and other topics, you will be booted for disrupting the blog.
You have made your point, and most of us disagree with your trashing of the entire Democratic Party over donations from PACs. Abramoff did NOT donate money to the Democratcs directly. What his clients did is an entirely different topic.
Now read the Rules of Democrats.com here: http://www.democrats.com/rules and try to be a little less "holier than thou."
At least be honest about it
You, Bill, specifically sent me to this thread to discuss the Abramoff issue. When I discussed it here, I was told my postings were "off-topic." I wasn't intending to post another Abramoff thread. That's why I came to this thread at your invitation.
I mentioned the posting privilege thing because I happened to notice it. And I wouldn't have even done that in this thread if your website hadn't blocked me from sending a private message about it to the administrators. My comments here were the only means I had to raise the issue.
So, no, it wasn't about a single-issue rant. This is a single-issue thread. I'm talking about the single issue and have a point of view you and others here don't like. As I said, the disagreement is fine. Far as I'm concerned, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if people want to take issue with my opinions they damned well should do so.
But you went much further. You lured me into a thread to post my opinions about the Abramoff issue -- which from the get-go I made clear were controversial. Then you called my postings "off-topic" and canceled my ability to post on any other issues. That's censorship. It's your absolute right to do it, by the way, but it's squirrelly as hell. Frankly, it's straight out of the rightwingnut playbook.
'Tis a shame.
I "lured" you to this blog
I "lured" you to this blog post to try and get you to see another point-of-view. You then took the opportunity to continue your one-sided rant.
One last time, either participate in other nodes and contribute to other topics, or you will be escorted to the door. Btw, you have not been "censored" -- you have been moderated. Big difference, as this blog is NOT all about you and your pet peeves, it is about a concensus of like-minded Liberal Democrats who are trying to rebuild this Party.
Your condescending attitude gets in the way of your obvious intelligence.
I think you are
I think you are misinterpreting quite a bit.
You were not “lured” to this node. Nobody expected the GOP illogic you offered to marry a node on crime with whether lobbying should be allowed.
You then did do the right thing to try and post about lobbying laws elsewhere. What happened then was a completely unrelated matter: You simply used up your rope.
That's not true
I didn't "try" to post anything anywhere else. What happened was, when I logged in, I saw that notice and thought, "Hmm? What's up?" Next, I tried sending a private message to the administrators. The response was that I couldn't do it 'cause I wasn't authorized. That's what happened on the no-new-threads issue.
As for commenting in this thread, like I've said, I was directed here. Now, Bill says he directed me here only to read it but that somehow I wasn't supposed to do anything so bold as to offer my point of view on the subject! Wow, just like China!
Man oh man, between you guys, Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, you're well along the way to Freeper-land and the rightwingnut milblogs. Which brings up a broader point: Internet political sites are almost exclusively partisan echo chambers. And not just partisan, mind you, but a subset of partisan. If that's what people want 'em to be, well I can't change it. But I'm telling you right now: You're only talking to yourselves when you do this.
If all you want to hear is your own opinions echoed back to you, the Internet's software allows you to set it up that way. You know, sort of like an airplane in a cloud bank when the instruments are busted. You can't tell that you're upside down until it's
Apparently you can’t learn
Apparently you can’t learn anything from me……….or Daily Kos, or Democratic Underground, or Democrats.com, or …..
If you decide to show a little humility I’m happy to converse. You might try tracking posts for a time to get to know us.
Okay, so now the line is that ...
... you and others can toss repeated false accusations my way about "no evidence" and "no reasoning," etc etc etc., but because I don't agree with your point of view you want me to be "humble." Like I say, just like China! Or rightwingnut blogland. Or both. Brothers under the skin, I'll tell ya.
-YOU admitted you had no
-YOU admitted you had no evidence.
-Your logic of marrying crime with changing the law IS false.
-You are not presenting an opinion you are offering false logic in a venue that causes harm to others.
And since you bothered to heap insult upon insult on fellow Democrats even AFTER you first posted I will return the favor:
I do not think it is we (Daily Kos, Democrats.com, Democratic Underground, the DNC, etc.) that are acting like the GOP. I think it is you, in your narrow minded egocentric pouting.
And note that I did not stoop to calling you a rightwinger as you've called us.
Jim, you should really tell the truth
1. I never "admitted I had no evidence." You have made that declaration, and I rejected it at every stage.
2. I presented no "logic of marrying crime with changing the law," you did.
3. "Causes harm to others?" God, that's even worse than the Chinese. That one's right out of Stalin's playbook. Wow.
Note: My failure to hit the "Reply" button in this thread has been an honest oversight.