LV Review Journal: "Tribes gave to Reid after hiring Abramoff"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Feb-03-Fri-2006/news/5696811.html

Tribes gave to Reid after hiring Abramoff

By TONY BATT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada began receiving campaign contributions from at least four American Indian tribes only after they hired Jack Abramoff, Republicans charged this week in an effort to tie the Senate Democratic leader to the disgraced lobbyist. On Thursday, Reid shrugged off questions about money he received from tribal clients of Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last month to three felonies after being accused of exchanging meals, travel and gifts for political favors.


"I've said that I received money from Indians in the past and will continue to do so," Reid said.
Asked what he would say about tribes who did not give him money until after hiring Abramoff, Reid said, "What I've said all along." The National Republican Senatorial Committee this week revived a charge that Reid received more than $50,000 from four tribes with gaming interests between 2001 and 2004 after they hired Abramoff. The Nevadan had received no money from those tribes before then, Republicans said.

The donations included:

• $19,500 from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of California.

• $5,000 from the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.

• $7,000 from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

• $19,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

"Harry Reid's ties to Jack Abramoff are too substantial for him to dismiss with Washington, D.C., denial and hypocritical accusations," Republican spokesman Tucker Bounds said. Reid has acknowledged receiving $61,000 from tribal clients and lobbying colleagues of Abramoff. He has said the money was legally raised, that he has done nothing improper and does not plan to refund the donations.

An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign watchdog group, shows that Indian gaming tribes as a general proposition increased their political donations substantially since the late 1990s, spreading money wider and deeper among members of Congress. In the 1998 election cycle, tribes donated $1.5 million. In the 2004 cycle donations had increased to $7.2 million, the center found. Gaming tribes "didn't break $2 million until 2000, and then it started going up," said center spokesman Massie Ritsch. "How much was due to Abramoff's influence, I don't know, He did not represent all the tribes." The American Prospect, a self-described liberal publication, commissioned a study of donations by Indian tribes that Abramoff represented compared to tribes who were not clients. The study, performed by campaign finance specialists Dwight L. Morris and Associates, suggests "it's likely that Abramoff had little impact on giving to Democrats," the publication said in a Jan. 27 report.

[jasmeel]

1. At least Reid's standing up to them. Don't give in Sentaor!!

[dogday]

2. Either Prove That Abramhoff Authorized These Payments

or shut the fuck up Republicans......

[wryter2000]

4. Yup

And further...if there's no quid pro quo, there's no crime. That goes for Repugs, too, and there may be many of them who have no serious problem with Abramoff client money.

The Repugs keep trying, don't they?

[FreedomAngel82]

19. Yes

They should have to prove it! And that still doesn't mean anything. The Indians gave to Reid. Not Abramoff.

[wryter2000]

3. Cute

They leave out the part of the study that shows that Abramoff client tribes decreased the amount they gave to dems after they became his clients.

[depakid]

5. Lie- repeat-lie again- repeat

That was some of the most blatant and unapologetic propaganda I've seen yet. Didn't even try to make an effort to hide its dishonesty, contempt and loaded language.

Guess that's what the Dems get for simpering and cowering all week. More abuse.

That's what happens when the far right smells blood in the water.

[KittyWampus]

6. So? And their point is?

[SoCalDem]

7. I think senators should only receive money from their own constituents

That would solve a lot of this nonsense.. Unless the Indians were donationg on behalf of ALL tribes, it seems odd that Mississippi, California,Michigan and Lousisan tribes would be donating to a Nevada seantor.. I don;t like it.no matter what party they are

[Mr_Spock]

11. It's a matter of free-will versus coercion

...but apparently their tactics are sowing doubt in people like you - I guess the Repukes are pretty smart huh?

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

12. I have always thought that

:)

If a senator is to represent his/her state, why should ANY money come from other states? The national party? OK..but not direct contributions..

if the indaians wanted to donate that to the national party, and they gave some to Reid, fine.. but for them to donate directly to him just smells...(to me)

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Oh maybe because

that Senator helps them while their own could ignore them perhaps?

[cali]

15. This sort of response really steams me

So there's no possibility that the person you're addressing came honestly and independently to his own conclusions? That makes about as much sense as my suggesting that you've been seduced by the tactics of left wing apologists. It's a real cheap shot, and shouldn't be used as part of an argument. Nothing the poster said indicates that he's simply regurgitating the repub party line.

[Mr_Spock]

23. So is it worse to get money due to coercion or legally?

Quid pro quo or money legally contributed?

Do you have anything of substance to say?

I do. I say at least he was getting the money legally - that's a HUGE difference in my mind.

I don't like the cross-state contributions either, but that's NOT the point!

They BROKE THE LAW!!!

Do you want to accuse Democrats of breaking the law just for fun?

Do you feel bad for the Repukes?

[cali]

24. WTF are you ranting about?

I made no remarks about Reid. I actually do tend to think the repub casting of aspersions is an attempt to obfuscate. There I'm "pure". You happy? That wasn't my point. Care to address the points in my earlier post? Or is that just too difficult for you?

[Mr_Spock]

25. Sorry, I'm pure too. Only Republicans received money from Abramoff

So there. Rant Rave :P

It's all I care about. I'm going to be single minded about things until these lying criminals are out of power, then I'll worry about the Democrats and/or campaign finance reform :D

[cali]

27. You still don't get it.

And really that's just sad. Essentially, I was stating in my first post that you were using McCarthyesque tactics when you accused the other poster of repeating repub talking points.

[Mr_Spock]

30. LOL - yeah, I don't get it

...because I refuse to be taken down the ridiculous path of using terms like "McCarthyescue" etc in your characterization. Just another stubborn DU'er looking to cast someone into a bad light for pointing out that he thinks a particular poster is missing the point and succumbing to propaganda. Then you accuse me of being McCarthy and other horrible people for simply pointing this out - which, of course, was just my humble OPINION!!

Very silly indeed - it's difficult to take you seriously at this point.

[Rigby Reardon]

16. No. They should n't be getting money from ANYBODY!

A BRIBE IS A BRIBE IS A BRIBE.

how could any of that come to any good?

[SoCalDem]

18. I am talking campaign contributions.. but from constituents only

a senator should not be allowed to even "campaign for cash" until late in year 4 of his/her term. They get elected for 6 years, and they should "dance with the ones that brung 'em" for that term. Accepting money during those 4 years could only be interpreted as a bribe and should nopt be allowed..

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Wrong wrong wrong

You have no proof do you it was a "bribe." How do you know they weren't donating to their political campaign because he helps the gaming industry?

[Rigby Reardon]

28. You give money to a senator....

or congressman.

You expect something in return. In order to keeep the money flowing the senator will comply.


You just bought that senator. Is that how you want government to work?

[oneighty]

17. Yes

Constituents only is the way to go. Then money will not be going from rich states to poor states TO BUY VOTES. Let the local politicians rise and fall on their own merits. Nothing wrong with that.

180

[madmom]

8. also Reid said awhile back that his votes have been the same

all along and they're a matter of public record.

[Vickers]

9. So how much did Abramoff give to Reid?

:shrug:

[Mr_Spock]

10. Ah, the smell of desperation in the morning....

These morons are going down hard. It'll take time, but the ball is rolling...

[datadiva]

13. The difference no one is talking about

is that Harry Reid actually worked to help Indian tribes whereas the Repukes were just taking their money.

[LiviaOlivia]

21. Well said

eom

[jsamuel]

14. not news, we knew this like 4 or 5 months ago, hense all the "dems did it

too" stuff

[Marr]

26. It's strange how the standards of proof lower when they're searching for

corrupt Dems. When it's a Democrat, supposition is just fine.

When it's a Republican, you can't 'go around assuming guilt'. If you don't actually have a photo of them committing the crime at hand, you have to just accept that it's unprovable.

[CornField]

29. Wow -- the GOP is really grasping at straws, aren't they?

Deep shit, boys. That stuff that keeps rising around you is deep shit. Now, quit flailing around or you're only gonna sink faster.