The Daily Muck
Not to be outdone by Pennsylvania's other senator, Rick Santorum (a former leader of the K Street Project who's never heard of the K Street Project), Arlen Specter now has his own lobbying controversy.
Yesterday, USA Today reported that Specter's legislative aide is married to a lobbyist, Michael Herson, and that Specter had set aside $48.7M in earmarked appropriations for Herson's clients. The aide, Vicki Siegel, a former lobbyist herself, works on the Appropriations Committee under Specter, so it's not a stretch to think that she might have had something to do with the appropriations.
For his part, Specter said that Herson never lobbied his office, which is not really the point - he wouldn't have to. Specter also said that the earmark requests came to his office "through other channels."
After initially refusing to be interviewed by USA Today, Specter told the AP that he didn't think his aide did anything wrong. Now he's requested that the Senate Ethics Committee investigate the case. If Siegel had anything to do with the earmarks, it would be against ethics rules, since her husband (and thus her as well) would stand to benefit financially from them. Here's CREW's request for an investigation.
The NY Times adds that Specter is having that problem with recognition that tends to seize lawmakers when the person in question is a lobbyist:
Mr. Specter said that "I think I knew" that Ms. Siegel's husband was a lobbyist, but that he had met him only a few times and might not recognize him "in a crowded room."
Another request for a Special Prosecutor - Denied
31 Senate Democrats wrote Attorney General Gonzales yesterday, asking him to appoint a special prosecutor for the Abramoff investigation, noting Abramoff's clear ties to the White House and thus a conflict of interest for the Justice Department. This is the third request.
Bob Ney - Dead Man Running
Likely Abramoff casualty Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), who has said he'll continue to run even if he is indicted, is now facing a primary challenge.
P-rk
The Boston Globe reports that Tom DeLay is officially out of power: his pet pork project has been slashed.
From The Hill to K Street and Back
Time tells the story of Jeffrey Shockey:
Before Jeffrey Shockey worked for one of the most powerful committees in Congress, he was a lobbyist at one of the more successful boutique lobbying firms in Washington. Before that, you guessed it, he worked for one of the most powerful committees in Congress.<snip>
When he left Capitol Hill for the lobbying world in 1999 — after spending more than eight years working for Rep. Jerry Lewis, a Republican from California who had chaired key subcommittees — many of his new clients, including muncipalities, hospitals and lesser-known universities, were from Lewis's district. After years of getting paid to represent them on the Hill, he was now getting paid a lot more to represent them on the Hill.
Shockey even got a contract from the city of Redlands, which is Congressman Lewis' hometown.<snip>
As part of his new career, Shockey and his firm also helped his old boss raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to help the GOP keep its majority, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, which first reported on some of Shockey's history late last year. And so, when House Republicans rewarded Lewis, 71, with the Appropriations chairmanship 13 months ago, Shockey was among the handful of trusted former aides whom the affable, silver-haired congressman pressed back into service.
The $160,000 committee post meant an almost 90% pay cut, but Shockey's lobbying firm helped cushion the blow. Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez — where Lewis’s close friend Bill Lowery, a former California congressman, is a partner — gave Shockey a $600,000 going-away buyout, according to Shockey’s financial disclosure form. He was to receive his buyout in three $200,000 payments scheduled for February, May and August 2005 — even as he was in his committee post. The firm would also keep Shockey in the family by hiring his wife, Alexandra — another former Lewis aide — as a consulting lobbyist.
Medicare Drug Bill and Abramoff
Fired Up! probes the identity of Sixty Plus, an advocacy group the GOP used to help push the Medicare drug bill. They got $25,000 from the Louisiana Coushatta, an Abramoff client.
Abramoff's Time "Out of Politics"
Danny Schechter goes over Abramoff's time in the International Freedom Foundation, when he was working as an operative for the apartheid-era South African government.
Lobbyist Money Tally
The Washington Times trumpets a finding that no one has ever disputed - before 1994, Democrats received more money from lobbyists than Republicans. And if you add up contributions going back to 1990, Democrats received more lobbyist money than Republicans. As of now, Republicans receive approximately 55 percent of lobbyist contributions. Expect to hear more of this talking point, however irrelevant - it's what you do for the money that counts.
In Other Muck
Missouri Dems are going after Jack Oliver, a top fundraiser for Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), because he was involved in a $10K contribution from Abramoff client, the Louisiana Coushatta. Hotline argues that there's nothing to the charge - and makes a broader argument for alleging connections to Abramoff.












Comments (8)
Independent of Specter has done something wrong or not (we don´t know yet):
Has it occured to anyone else that the Specter story pops up just in the moment where Specter is about the only wellknown Republican still opposing the Cheney administration in the NSA domestic spying scandal?
Rove promised carrots and sticks to get the Republicans in line of the issue. Carrots did work with Pat Roberts, but obviously not with Specter.
So maybe someone at the White House talked to USA Today and launched the story just to trip Specter?
This sure looks like the typical modus operandi of the Rove gang.
February 17, 2006 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Washington Times trumpets a finding that no one has ever disputed - before 1994, Democrats received more money from lobbyists than Republicans. And if you add up contributions going back to 1990, Democrats received more lobbyist money than Republicans. As of now, Republicans receive approximately 55 percent of lobbyist contributions. Expect to hear more of this talking point, however irrelevant - it's what you do for the money that counts."
I think the play on this will be what crooks the Democrats are. They take the lobbyists' money, but then don't do anything for it. At least the Republicans are honest enough to do a quid pro quo.
dc
February 17, 2006 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats should perhaps stop calling for a special prosecutor or counsel. If one is appointed it will delay all the investigations. It would be better to demand real oversight on the Justice Department and make sure Gonzales keeps his hands off the official integrity section.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 17, 2006 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Money flows to the party in power. Prior to the '94 elections, the Republicans had wandered in the wilderness of the minority for some 40 years, and therefore the money went to the Democrats and not them. Since the '94 elections, the opposite has benn true with the Republicans raking in the dough. The Washington Times is trying to compare 12 years of Republican majority money with 40+ years of Democratic majority. Can't be done... legitimately anyway.
February 17, 2006 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is another angle to this story that interests me. Specter stands up to the White House on Domestic Spying and suddenly this article appears in USAToday. The article is rather thin. Clearly, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, but there is no evidence of wrong doing. This has the hallmarks of a Rovian payback for Specter standing up to the White House. It will also serve as warning to other GOP Senators not to go off the ranch. We should be careful not to help Rove by jumping on the pile.
February 17, 2006 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rove's hand is in everything and anything that threatens Repub reign - a foregone conclusion. That getting-very-old rationale that because dems did it, or do it, it's okay for repubs to do it is illogical. Specter lost what little respect I had for him, and it was very little, when he refused to have Gonzales sworn in.
February 17, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sixty Plus is unbelevable. As late as September 2004, here's what its president, Jim Martin, wrote in an op-ed:
Clear, indeed. Shocking to learn Mr. Abramoff was helping to fund this lie, too.So, now the interesting question: Who got the President to single out 60 Plus in his Part D signing statement?
February 18, 2006 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, make that unbelievable,
February 18, 2006 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink