Taking campaign contributions is not illegal.

[OKNancy]

Here is a link to very good Christian Science Monitor article with a lot of good stuff. I would like to point out this part:

( Mr. Brand is a Democrat - he predicts six member at least will be indicted and some staff)
"It's not enough to take a campaign contribution," says Mr. Brand. "What's criminal is accepting the contribution in return for an express agreement to perform an official act. Beyond campaign contributions, one can't accept bribes or gratuities of any kind in return for official acts." Members of the executive branch may also be implicated in the investigation, he says.

"The line between a bribe and a legal contribution is very thin, but it is that line that keeps you out of jail," says Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The critical element is whether there was an understanding or agreement to take specific action in return for the money."


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0104/p01s03-uspo.htm

The whole article is worth a read


Abramoff deals, Congress quakes


WASHINGTON - Washington's long-awaited "A-bomb" has gone off.

Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea Tuesday to three felony counts sets the stage for the biggest congressional scandal perhaps in decades, certainly since the Republicans took over Congress 10 years ago, pledging clean government.

In exchange for his guilty pleas, in both the Washington case and a separate Florida case in which he was indicted last year, Mr. Abramoff will cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating members of Congress, Capitol Hill aides, and other lobbyists. Political players with ties to Abramoff and his network, who knew the lobbyist was preparing to cut a deal, have been sweating for months. Now they're sweating harder.
"It could end some careers," says Jennifer Duffy, an analyst at the non- partisan Cook Political report.


Edit: to add the part about Brand

[KharmaTrain]

1. People Are Gonna Think Twice About Who They Write Checks To

The one thing many are overlooking here is the large amounts of money Abramoff and the various scam non-profits and other "think tanks" poured in that ended up in Repugnican campaigns. One site (braincells not properly functioning yet) had a list of the various Abramoff and DeLay related PACs and charities that gave money to virtually every Repugnican candidate in the past several election cycles. This money is now dried up and millions that were used to slime and smear Democrats are now out of play. In essence, Abramoff did what McGain-Feingold couldn't...the money is gonna dry up.

[OKNancy]

2. I just don't want posters to think that

Democrats are smeared if they took some of that money. Abramoff is a Republican crook through and through.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Abramoff Didn't Give The Money Directly

Another major point that needs to be remembered. The CQ reporter on Washington Journal just pointed out the money that went to Dorgan, Reid, Baucus and Daschele came from the tribes as opposed to from Abramoff himself. Surely the money was given to influence their votes on key Native American affair issues, but it's far different than the money laundering operation that he ran for DeLay and the Repugnicans.

The key point is that it appears no Abramoff connected money went to a single Democratic Congresscritter (at least that I've seen posted so far) and for every $1 he ever direct (never gave) toward a Democrat, he pushed $1,000 to the Repugnicans.

If it's found that Dorgan did sell his vote (and I really do admire Senator Dorgan) or that he's deeply involved in this mess, then he deserves to face justice. However, I sense this smokescreen is a long-prepared spin campaign that just won't work as primarily Repugnican names get dragged into this mess.

I have a feeling Dennis Hastert isn't feeling too jolly these days. :rofl:

Cheers...

:hi:

[OKNancy]

4. I agree 100%

with your assessment. Indian tribes here in Oklahoma have been giving to candidates forever, long before Abramoff came on the scene. Nothing wrong with giving to those who you think will promote your interests. I do. I give money to candidates who promote my interests.
I just hate to see people get confused about what is legal and what is not.
I bet when this is all seen to the bitter end, it will be 100% Republican mess. Mainly Delay and his staff.

[KharmaTrain]

5. The Fun Is If It Ties Into The Dukestir

Follow the undercurrent here a bit...Abramoff was dead red in several circles that could connect to MZB and the Dukestir scandal and even to the Eberles and to our pal Jeff Gannon/Guckert. If there are Democrats tainted here, I suspect they'll be other lobbyists. One name I heard mentioned was John Breaux, but it'd be sweet to see Billy Tauzin also pulled into this slime as well as Bob Livingston. These are former congresscritters who moved over to K Street without the least bit of hesitation and now lobby the same people they used to work with...how convenient.

One other thought here is how this could mess up DeLay's push to get his own people in control of major lobbying groups and companies. He just landed one of his boys as the chief lobbyist for Time/Warner. I wonder if there's some buyers remorse there.

Yes, I was going to post earlier that it's typical for tribes to attempt to lobby their senators just like teachers and truck drivers and any other interest group does. Hopefully the tribes involved learned an expensive, but not devestating lesson...and that it sent a message to other tribes as to how there are those ready to exploit their latest treasure...especially a Ralph Reed.

The open ended nature of this investigation could get interesting. I'm watching Ronnie Earle real carefully...I'm wondering if Abramoff will eventually be a witness his his case...putting the final nail in the Hammer's political coffin.

[H2O Man]

6. I think that

the line about taking a contribution with the "express agreement" to do a specific act is not fully accurate. There is frequently the implied agreement that the person getting the contribution will make a specific act. I think the public will be capable of determining when there are clear conflicts of interest, be they expressed or implied.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. They're not illegal because the people who get them make the laws.

Politicians have been taking bribes since the first congress and calling them "donations" or "contributions". Of course, the politicians say that the "donations" have no effect on what they vote for or who they lean on. The wonder is that anyone believes them.