CAPITOL HORROR

By now, folks in the US know about Jack Abramoff.

Abramoff was a high powered lobbyist, largely for various Indian tribes, who thought he was getting around the McCain-Feingold law of special interest contributions by taking advantage of the McCain loophole: American Indian tribes and their interests, donations, etc., are exempt from McCain's law. Senator John McCain, btw, is also the largest recipient of campaign cash from American Indian tribes. Hmm.

But I digress. Jack Abramoff may have tried to play slick with the law but was busted anyway and faced up to 35 years in prison (he should have represented ONLY Indian tribes, but he outsmarted himself). He wasn't just donating money, he was purposefully buying votes. You wanted big money from Abramoff? You vote his way.

Abramoff is now looking at 9 years in a cushy white collar crime federal prison, because he copped a plea. He will tell the court who got his money and what it was used for in exchange for a more relaxed sentence. Abramoff is going to sing, and that's where the Horror comes in for lawmakers in WA. D.C. Don't kid yourself: the politicos are running absolutely scared.

Now Jack's list is undisclosed, so far, but campaign funding records are a matter of public domain. According to the public campaign records (one of the things that snagged Jack Abramoff - criminals are slick but rarely smart), 40 out of the 45 Democratic lawmakers in DC received money from Abramoff. By comparison, the Justice Department found 4 Republicans who were on Abramoff's payroll: Rep. Robert Ney, (R-Ohio), including Senator "No Nukes" Conrad Burns, Senator Ted "I'm giving it all to charity!" Stevens (R-Alaska), and the infamous "Smiling" Tom Delay. One Republican who is not being investigated, but was one of the largest benefactors, is John McCain, who co-wrote the very campaign reform bill that bears his name and exempted his personal benefactors.

5 to 40. Hmm.

Naturally the media is circling the wagons to protect Democrat lawmakers as well as the Republican ones who often vote Democrat (like, for example, Sen. Arlen Spector [R-PA] and John McCain [R-AZ], whose co-sponsored bill fueled the inferno). The media is even trying to protect Democrats who've come forward and admitted that they've taken money - like Sen Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY). Not the Clinton's first problem with Campaign scandals and likely not the last. What else would you make of this article by The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr.? Nowhere is this more hypocritically apparent than in various editorial cartoons. While some are honest about the Abramoff fallout

Daryl Cagle, Mike Keefe, Bill Day, and others -

Many are disingenuous.

Jeff Parker, Steve Sack (and Steve again), Monte Wolverton, David Horsey, Larry Wright, J.D. Crowe, Pat Bagley, Steve Benson, Dan Wasserman, Gary Brookins, Richard Crowson, Gary Markstein, and way more -

That number again: 5 Republicans, to 40 Democrats.

And one of those Republicans is getting covered (i.e., practically hidden) by the media - John McCain, whose McCain-Feingold bill specifically exempted McCain's own largest contributors!

This is how the media looks at those figures. In a recent article, Joel Connolly of the Seattle Post Intelligencer said "Most of those tribal contributions went to Republicans." Then went on to name a number of Northwest Democrat lawmakers who refuse to "give the money back." Or in fact, give it to charity.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA.

But Joel is a columnist, not a reporter, and only outed those two because, as he admits in the column, the AP did it first. Otherwise, according to him, he would NOT have told his readers about any Democrats that are involved in the scandal!

Abramoff also raised $100,000 in campaign money for President Bush. But like the campaign money Gore raised from Buddhists, the Clinton's raised from the Chinese, and other foreign "diplomats" in the 1990s, we know that President-to-be's receive so much money on the campaign trail that it is difficult, in the course of a campaign, to vet every major contributor. Just ask John Kerry, who got about the same amount of money from Abramoff at the same time for the same reason. Jack didn't want to play favorites here. Even so, $100,000 dollars is an awful lot from just one contributor, earning Abramoff Bush's "Pioneer" status. I don't know if that's the highest or the lowest Attaboy title for a Bush campaign contributor.

So I have to wonder what kind of title Abramoff got when he gave Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) the same amount just to win one state? It must also be noted at this moment that Hillary has since promised to return the money to the tribes or to charities (she hasn't decided yet). Well, not all of it: Of the $100,000 plus she got, she is returning $2,000. That's a nice $98,000 that she's keeping. Way to go, Hillary. It must also be noted that Hillary was forced to pay a $35,000 dollar fine for trying to conceal over $721,000 dollars raised during a Hollywood gala fundraiser (so she still made out with $686,000 by breaking the law. That's nearly $800,000 dollars she's keeping of admittedly unethical and illegal contributions! Way to freaking go, Hillary!).

Or Sen. John Kerry (D- MA) over $98,000? Or Byron Dorgan (D-ND) over $79,000 (Byron has since offered to donate the money to charity) just to win North Dakota?

Sen. Harry "I'm keeping the money" Reid (D-NV) over $68,000 just to win Nevada (of course, Senator Harry Reid just might turn out to be the most corrupt politician in the last 100 years)? Sen. Charles "I'm keeping the money too!" Rangel (D-NY) over $47,000? Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) got short changed, by comparison, with her $20,000+, but she too has gone on record for refusing to give the money back to the tribes or charity (if you look at her voting record, Senator Barbara Boxer seems to have a problem with the indigenous native people of this country).

A total of 24 Republicans have gone on record as saying that they found they'd received money directly or indirectly from Abramoff and will be returning the money to Indian tribes or donating it too. The four indicted Republicans - not including John McCain - are part of that 24. Only six of the forty Democrats have promised to return/donate the money. Most of the forty have staunchly admitted to it, but just have staunchly claimed that they will keep the money, so there! In the words of Sen. Reid "It's a Republican problem." Seeing how the media is treating this issue, he may be right.

So let's be fair here and tally things up again.

24 to 40. Hmm.

Everybody has a different idea of what scares them, and this, especially in an election year, is scaring the hell out of congress - which is a very good thing!

P.S. A pro GOP site called GOPSenators.com made hay by revealing the names of all 40 Democrats who took Abramoff money. Although, for most of them, its likely that they never knew Abramoff.

For example Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) got a mere $1,200 and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) got about $2,000. That's the cost of a plate at a fund raising dinner. I know: I went as a guest (my friend paid for me - well actually her parents paid for her and me), to a fundraising dinner once for then Mayor of Tucson, AZ., Lew Murphy (a well-heeled friend), who even shook my hand, and I don't think old Lew knew me from Jack.

Your choice.

Meanwhile Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is distributing talking points to various Democrat friendly websites and they all say the same thing. It's a Republican problem. Why? Because even though the majority of Democrats were in with Abramoff, only Republicans - so far - have been indicted. In other words, "We may have committed the crime, but we control the media and they'll make sure we get away with it!"

The addendum to that would be, "So far." Abramoff is prepared to sing and when he does, Pelosi's tune will also, undoubtedly, change.