The Daily Muck
A rash of altruism has struck D.C., and papers all over the country have been scrambling to cover it.
As the AP reports, "In just the two days since Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday in Washington to three federal felonies, more than 40 elected federal officials have given up Abramoff donations, joining a dozen who did so last year."
There seems to be a general confusion about how best to calculate the symbolism of the donations. Some members of Congress have refunded just direct contributions from Abramoff and others from his tribal clients. In their rush to integrity, most have managed to designate a charity (the Salvation Army is a favorite), but some have not (most notably, Dennis Hastert). Many TPM readers have written to us urging that we keep an eye on just where these refunds go - wondering whether they'll just end up in another GOP slush fund.
Yesterday, Bush donated "$6,000, which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes the lobbyist represented" to the American Heart Association." But he's keeping more than $94K that Abramoff raised for Bush-Cheney as a "Pioneer."
Ney gave $6,500, money from Abramoff and Scanlon, to the American Indian College Fund. That leaves $24K that Ney received from Abramoff's tribal clients.
Hastert refunded $70K from Abramoff clients, but did not specify to CNN where the money was going. Roll Call said that the charity was "yet to be determined."
Most local coverage (in Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Louisiana, Iowa, Delaware, Missouri, and Alaska) around the country focused on whether local politicians would be refunding the money. With so many refunding their money, it's probably easier to keep track of who has not: Sen. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lott (R-Miss) have refused to refund the money (in Grassley's case it's only $1K from Abramoff). Sen. Carper (D-Del) has also refused.
There was some good reporting in Alabama on Gov. Riley's Abramoff involvement, and pieces in Washington and Michigan more generally focused on who received contributions from Abramoff's tribes. In Doolittle's and Ney's districts, there are local reaction pieces that show the GOP faithful unimpressed with the import of their rep's involvement. One Ohio local has his talking points down: "This is business as usual for a Congress motivated by greed and power.... Sadly, that's what this country has become. They're all guilty, some just to different degrees. It's `you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' government, and it's bipartisan."
The Post only counts 24 refunding the money, but notes: "The half-million dollars in pledged donations and refunds make up a fraction of the $5.3 million that Abramoff, some of his lobbying colleagues and tribal clients showered on 364 federal candidates and campaign committees from 1999 to 2004." And adds delicately: "it is not clear that simply shedding Abramoff's cash will get lawmakers out of the lobbyists' shadow."
To put all this refunding in further perspective, The NYT reported in May that "Abramoff once boasted he had steered more than $10 million in tribal contributions to G.O.P.-aligned groups."
In other Abramoff news, the LA Times and NYT both have pieces on the GOP damage control. According to the NYT, DeLay is done: "senior House Republicans, who would only speak privately about internal party affairs, said they sensed a shift against Mr. DeLay in light of the Abramoff plea and other disclosures."
Comments (22)
I've half seriously thought of setting up a SINGLE "whitewash" foundation that allows blind donations redistributed by WHITEWASH to charities not designated by the Congressmen trying to cleanse their image....
But seriously, giving away the money at this point is meaningless, they already took the bribe.
January 5, 2006 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, we have another example of the White Man screwing the Native American. What else is new?
January 5, 2006 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But seriously, giving away the money at this point is meaningless, they already took the bribe. - Good 4 A Merica
Right on. So if a bank robber tells the judge he's giving the money he stole to charity, does the judge excuse his crime and set him free? I don't think so.
January 5, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seized drug funds and assets go back to the government, why is this any different?
January 5, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So if a bank robber tells the judge he's giving the money he stole to charity, does the judge excuse his crime and set him free?
No, not unless the robber also says he is born again, is sorry he sinned against the Lord, and will pray every day for forgiveness. It should be assumed that when the robber winks at the audience the judge is too blind to notice.
January 5, 2006 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This year we are all going to be watching an ongoing episodes of The Keystone Kops and The Three (many more actually) Stooges. It promises to be very fun.
Did anyone listen to Sen. Santorum on Imus this morning. He returned at least some of his $ too, while assuring Imus that we wouldn't be seeing him in handcuffs.
January 5, 2006 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
So by returning the money their virtue will be restored.
January 5, 2006 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's more on FL and Abramoff from the St. Petersberg Times:
Add in the fact that Feeney got a $1,000 donation from Abramoff himself AND represents the Port Canveral, home of SunCruz Casinos (since 2003) and you would think some intrepid reporters would be asking him some questions.
January 5, 2006 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to my local paper, The Asheville Citizen Times article of November 25, 2005, my Congressman, Charles Taylor received contributions from two of Abamoff's client tribes.
My phone call this morning to ask if he intended to return these contributions was made to his Congressional Office in Asheville, NC, where a man told me that they didn't handle "those types of issues." He forwarded my call to his Washington Office where a man told me that I would have to contact his Congressional Office in Asheville, NC and proceeded to give me the number which I had originally dialed.
Since Congressman Taylor also received $7,130 from Tom Delay's PAC and has steadfastly refused to return a penny of it, I assume he'll keep the Abramoff money as well.
January 5, 2006 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not give it to the US Treasury?
I'm at a loss to understand the process. The analogy I would like to use is the rental of a hotel room. If the police bust a guy for cooking crack in the hotel, does the owner return the money? What matters is if the owner knew what was going on, or if he joined in on the fun. If the guy pays the owner $1000 for a cheap room, shouldn't the owner be a little suspicious?
Anyway, all the talk of Dems being involved just because they received money is pretty lame. But if they can be shown to hob-nob with Abramoff in all the wrong places, this is something you cannot return. You can't return the hours you spent giving access.
January 5, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but the bank robber is not up for reelection. I think the point is to make themselves look as repentant as possible to thier constituencies and the media, thereby minimizing the risk to thier reelection campaigns on the off chance that they're not going to jail.
January 5, 2006 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this post brings up an interesting point, which is that much of the bribery that took place between Abramoff and his buddies took the form of paid trips and the like. What good will it do to give away the few dollars that might have been given legally?
January 5, 2006 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't we start the meme that giving the money back is a donation to an admitted felon? That those that give the money back are supporting those that would break our laws? That they are soft on crime? Where else does an admitted felon suddenly get cash gifts from POTUS, FLOTUS, etc...
January 5, 2006 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I have posted elsewhere on this site, painting all white men as the same as equal to the 2-3% wealthy white men who screw everyone, including other white men, is why the Republicans are winning elections.
January 5, 2006 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
What they can't return are the laws and hours of bullying public agencies for favorable decisions for those who bought their influence.
January 5, 2006 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um....why aren't the donations of stolen money being returned to the Indians who had it stolen by this arrogant twit in the first place?
January 5, 2006 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt some of their money was stolen, if all that is in the news is to be believed.
But, by the same token, if all that is in the news is to be believed, they seem to have been willing participants in influence buying as well.
January 5, 2006 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seized drug funds and assets go back to the government, why is this any different?
This is an important point. Since when does criminal activity magically become thransformed into acts of philanthrophy by the criminal? This is activist judicial precedent that simply defies logic.
Each and every one of these illegal contributions must be applied to paying off the cost of the investigation and the prosecution of the individuals involved.
In CT, we're seeing Rep. Simmons using the illicit contributions as election poll pocket money to charities in locations where his reputation is preceding him. This subverts all campaign finance ethics and certainly makes a mockery of the federal judicial constraints on political graft.
The cutting irony, of course, is that these sleazy politicians build their reputations by being tough on crime. Federal prisoners must give up all proceeds they receive from their works to pay for their incarceration, why would the Congressional criminal element get a free pass?
The sleazy activity only gets sleazier while the taxpayers continue to cough up more and more money. Sad, sad, sad.
January 5, 2006 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um....why aren't the donations of stolen money being returned to the Indians who had it stolen...
Exactly. Moreover, it should be applied to Indian tribes who are not fortunate enough to run wealth generating casinos. There is far too much real Indian poverty and true need in this country than is speakable.
Stealing from the Indians is a high crime in the first place.
Allowing the racketeers to redistribute that wealth to their cronies is despicable.
January 5, 2006 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that there is a difference between Indians and Indian tribal government. In some tribes, a really big difference.
As for willing participants, well I can show you plenty treaties that took Indian land, caused forced relocation to distant reservations, etc. that had "willing" Indian participation. In those cases, as in this case, the question is which Indians participated and how representative are they of the general Indian population.
On a somewhat lighter note, my church, which is an American Indian congregation has been looking for a church treasurer. I emailed some friends today suggesting Abramoff. A friend emailed back saying it was a great idea since he might be able to get us some great vacation trips in exchange for sweetheart deals in the future. Of course, our church doesn't have a lot of money, but maybe some of these politicians might want to donate to a faith-based charity. If so, let me know.
January 5, 2006 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are these tax-deductible contributions? Just wondering.
January 5, 2006 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I emailed my Senator today asking if he was planning to give the money back. I'm sure he'll respond with a 3 page letter in a big envelope as he usually does. His last response included a color chart indicating how rich folks pay 2/3 of the taxes and so therefore deserve 90% of the tax cuts during a time of huge deficits and war (he's the head of the Senate Finance Committee). Ya, he's a piece of work.
And that Sioux City Journal article you're linking above is woefully incomplete. Grassley may have taken "only" $1,000 in campaign contributions, but he's taken a whopping $62,200 in "related donations". He's also a shill for all the Iowa gambling rackets, so there's a deep connection to this muck. Here's a better article, but note how they lead with Democrat Tom Harkin's (war supporter turned apologizer) relatively trifling involvement (still pretty scummy though).
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060104/ NEWS01/601040370/1002January 5, 2006 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink