Abramoff money vs. client money

[LuckyTheDog]

It seems odd to me that the media and the GOP are treating Abramoff's bribery and campaign donations made by his clients as the same thing.

Say I hire a lawyer to help me with my will. Now suppose that lawyer turns out to have bribed some public officials. And suppose I gave money to the campaigns of OTHER public officials.Are the politicians I gave money to "tainted" by their indirect connection to the guy handing out bribes? Of course not.

Thus, if an officeholder took a campaign donation from a group that also was paying Abramoff, that does not imply any wrongdoing at all -- in and of itself. It's not like Abramoff was paying the tribes. He was working for them, right?

Sure, some Dems took money from tribes that had hired Abramoff to lobby for them. But, in many cases, I THINK those tribes were giving to the same Dems before Abramoff came into their employment. It is legal for them to do so and not improper, so long as no quid pro quo was involved.

Thus, it seems silly to act like those who took money from Abramoff and those who took campaign contributions from HIS CLIENTS are in the same category.

That whole argument is just a way to make it LOOK like lots of Dems were bribed. And that is not the case. Maybe a few were. But overwhelmingly, this is a Republican scandal.

Am I missing something here?

[fasttense]

1. No LuckyTheDog, I think you have all the facts.

It's just that the corporate media can't bare telling the truth. It's beyond their understanding.

[BuyingThyme]

2. Receiving money

from somebody in San Clemente is the same as receiving money from Richard Nixon.

[WCGreen]

3. I think the reason the MSM is focusing on the contributions

given to Dem's is that the two main thrusts of the charges against Abramoff deal with the Indian Tribes and the SunCruz gambling boats....

The Indian Tribes gave a good chunk of money to democrats, but that in and of itself was not unusual. Until Abramoff took over their business, the Tribes always gave more money to the dems...

The SanCruz lobbying efforts included one democratic Congressman from FLA and I believe he was given money simply because the boats were docked in his district.

That is, I believe, why the MSM is including Dems' in the loop....

[CornField]

4. The money, regardless of source, could be tainted

The fact is we just don't know yet. There is also the matters of "in-kind" donations such as use of the skybox on FedEx field -- parties thrown in candidate's behalf -- and so forth.

ALL politicians take money from lobbyists and their clients. That's not the illegal part. It becomes illegal when such donations can be linked to specific action made by the legislator.

I realize this flies in the face of what several of my fellow DUers have been screaming the past few days so let me voice some parting thoughts.

1) Tom Delay had sent out the word about the K Street Project and called for lobbyists, if they wanted to influence policy, to hire GOP people and donate to GOP campaigns.

2) Abramoff has had a longterm distain for anything democratic, including members of the Democratic Party. I believe he has stated we should be bludgeoned, in so many words.

Given those two things, I believe it to be highly unlikely that any Democratic member of Congress will find herself wrapped up in this mess. Giving to Democratic Congressmen would fly in the face of Abramoff's own beliefs and it would hinder his effectibility to the GOP.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. It goes something like this.

Abramoff's clients hired him as a lobbyist. Being a lobbyist is not necessarily limited to lobbying congress on behalf of your clients. Most lobbyists also advise their clients on where to put their money. It's highly unlikely that any Abramoff client would make large donations without his knowledge and approval (and quite possibly at his direction.) Abramoff says "You vote Yes on this thing for me and my client gives you a chunk of money.) Abramoff himself is limited by personal campaign finance laws. The important money wasn't the money directly from Abramoff. Those contributions were small. The important money is the large contributions from Abramoff clients. I honestly don't think highly of this distinction that's being made between personal donations from Abramoff and PAC contributions from his clients. To me, considering the Abramoff money "more evil" seems backwards. As far as I can tell, the only reason it's being done is for a convenient talking point that says "No Democrat ever took money from Abramoff" which, while true, misses the point by a mile.

So yes, an Abramoff client giving money to a politician could indicate that Abramoff had interest in that politician. Or it could mean nothing. It doesn't *prove wrongdoing* by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it prove that the contributions were illegal. However, it does make them suspect and demands close investigation of Abramoff's ties with that particular politician. If the Democratic pols who've Abramoff client money had no close relationship with Abramoff, then I doubt there will be any wrongdoing found. I'm sure that not every person who accepted Abramoff money was a shill. Probably not every Republican recipient was a shill. Were any of the Democrats? It's difficult to say, but even if they are it's at the periphery of the bigger issue, which was the nexus of evil bullshit existing between the lobbyists and the Republican leadership in both the executive and legislative branches. And quite frankly, any Democrat stupid enough to get himself mixed up with Abramoff to the point of commiting a crime deserves whatever he gets. If we learned nothing else from the Republican takeover of Congress in the 90s, we should have at least learned that this tactic is always doomed to failure.

[DistressedAmerican]

6. All Of This Money Is In Questionable. All Of It Should Be Investigated.

Until we know what money bought what influence, speculation on the actual person handing cash over is silly. It is not really an issue.

What matters is what the money bought (still in dispute) not who was buying it.