For most of the fall semester I subjected my PO101 students to an endless array of updates on the budding Jack Abramoff scandal. My guess is that by the end of the semester they were sick of reading NYT articles about the man, but as it turns out they're going to serve as a good primer for 2006. Because, in case you missed it (and if you did, can I please borrow the rock under which you've been hiding?), Jack has turned state's evidence in not one but two major investigations.
How big is this? Take a look at the terms of the plea agreement and I think you'll begin to understand. The short version?
| Under terms of his plea agreement, Abramoff can expect to receive a prison sentence of 9 1/2 to 11 years, and he is required to make restitution of $26.7 million to the IRS and to the Indian tribes he defrauded. |
One of the most powerful lobbyists and supporters of the Republican Party is going to the pokey for 10+ years. They not only had him, they had him big. Which means that if your name is on this list, you best run out and get yourself the best lawyer dirty money can buy. Because you're going to need it.
There are so many things to say about here I really don't even know where to start. What is most amazing about this whole thing is its reach. The corruption runs so wide and so deep it simply boggles the mind. Take, for example, this piece from a few days back in the WaPo. Here's the lead:
| 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[...] Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim. In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half 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. |
Got that? A charity founded to "help families" was nothing more than a giant slush fund for corporate cash with direct ties to the Republican Party. Read the entire article if you haven't already. The "charity" was so bogus that real family advocacy groups had never even heard of them. They paid Tom DeLay's wife a small fortune over 3 years to compile a list of names that a half-decent blogger could have put together in a week, maybe two. And then, this:
| Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."
DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse's second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham's newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's leadership committee. |
A fake charity used to funnel corporate cash to aid the Republican party and circumvent campaign finance laws. Go ahead. Spin that away. Just try. Or then again, don't. From the LA Times:
| "This is going to be a huge black eye for our party," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a senior member close to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). "Denny's going to have to be very tough and really speak out against people who are indicted. He's going to have to do it quickly and decisively and frequently."
Hastert moved Tuesday to inoculate himself from the scandal by announcing that he would give to charity about $60,000 he received from Abramoff and his clients. He is the latest of several lawmakers who have returned or redirected money they received from Abramoff-related sources. One Senate Republican aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Republicans soon will unveil ethics reform legislation in an effort to blunt criticism from Democrats that they have fostered a "culture of corruption" in Washington. The controversy may also increase the prospect that Republicans will shake up their leadership after Congress reconvenes at the end of January. House Republican moderates are calling for new leadership elections to permanently replace DeLay, who stepped down temporarily as majority leader after he was indicted in an unrelated case. "Let's get a permanent leadership and begin moving forward and overcome the problems that are on the table right now," said Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, executive director of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a caucus of GOP moderates in Congress. Conservatives are worried about possible political fallout for all Republicans, not just those who might be implicated, once Abramoff starts cooperating with prosecutors. "This is the one thing that could result in a change in who controls the Congress," said Paul Weyrich, a conservative activist. |
Sitting here in my apartment in Boston I can't claim any special insider info into where all this will lead. But I can tell you this: if they think minor reforms are going to put the coming firestorm out they're in for a very, VERY big surprise. After years of railing on about the judiciary, its just a tad bit ironic that its the judicial branch that's going to bring them to their knees, no?
Stay tuned kids.... First it was Fitzmas, then it was Bush and his illegal wiretapping, and now Abramoff... 2006 is looking like one hell of a year....
--------
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: WHEN THE HOUSE IS A ROCKIN....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/665
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment