Voting in the US

[Dr Mordrid]

Abramoff was an equal opportunity offender.

Most of the Democratic House leadership, including the current minority leader and two past Dem. majority leaders, are also in Abramoffs "sphere". So is Joe Kennedy, Bobby's son, and many many others.

Dr. Mordrid

[Umfriend]

Abramoff was an equal opportunity offender.

So should we expect him to name as many dems as he will reps? In any case, his was a big name in the reps corner, no? Only lobbying causes which suited his conservative politics? Must hurt the reps to have a *star* like that in their midst and not in the dems (so far).

[Dr Mordrid]

Dems have already been named, and they are major;

Current Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D), Nevada (just announed he's keeping Abramoff's donations)

Former Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D), South Dakota

Senator Patty Murray (D), Washington (head of Dem. Senate Campaign Committee)

Senator Byron L. Dorgan (D) North Dakota (influential in Native American Affairs, the root of many of Abramoff's donations)

Former House Majority Leader Dick A. Gephardt (D), Missouri (ran for President in Dem. Primaries)

House Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (D), Rhode Island (YES, "those" Kennedy's...Bobby's son)

and many others both at the Federal and State levels. In fact many, if not most, of the operatives at Abramoff's law firm were former Democratic party operatives or officeholders.

Abramoff's high donations to Republicans were because they are in the majority in both houses. If the Dems were the majority in both houses they would still be getting more, just as they did when Daschle and Gephardt were the majority leaders in both houses.

Bottom line: both parties have members that had deep involvement with Abramoff.

The real problem is that the recent attempts at "campaign finance reform" have not made it harder for politicians to get money, just more expensive in terms of how creative they have to be in stretching the rules.

This makes it nearly impossible to run for office without being in constant campaign mode. Enter the lobbyists and the corruption they bring. It also makes it prohibitively expensive for minor candidates to run for office without a major campaign machine being already up and running.

My opinion is that it should the limits should come off for individual donations, but with full realtime disclosure on the web as soon as the donation is logged in. Limits on corporate and union donations should stay in place.

Dr. Mordrid

[Umfriend]

So do you expect a lot of these people to step down (in shame)?

[Dr Mordrid]

That ain't gonna happen. Politicians have no shame

As noted Reid has announced he's keeping Abramoff's donations and isn't repentant about it one bit.

Daschle was defeated in the last Senate election after almost losing the time before that. Basically he didn't learn that acting like a Liberal in DC while pretending to be a moderate when running for re-election from a Conservative State doesn't wash. He may run for Governor or try for the Senate again, depending on what happens with this business.

Gephardt resigned to run for the Dem. Presidential nomination. He lost, but is still an influential Democrat.

Tons of other politicians that have even peripheral relationships with Abramoff are returning their donations or donating them to charities etc.

Everyone else seems to be standing pat.

The problem is that the prosecutors may be stretching a bit if they try to charge most officeholders with Abramoff connections.

Many of the things Abramoff and his people did were illegal; fraudulently taking donations from the Native American tribes etc. and not representing them as advertised. Fraud is fraud.

That said the elected officials may not have violated the law by taking donations given with the presumption that the donators would have influence. Politicians everywhere do that all the time and as long as there isn't a quid pro quo there is no crime, and proving a quid pro quo is not easy.

Just ask Jacques Chirac

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

It’s the Republicans, stupid.

Here from the "liberal" National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0601100816.asp

The Abramoff Scandal (R., Beltway)
It’s the Republicans, stupid.

Republicans are looking for "their" John McCain. The popular Arizona maverick is already a Republican, of course. But the GOP needs a McCain in the "Keating Five" sense. Back in 1990, Senate Democrats roped McCain into the scandal over savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating on tenuous grounds, just so not all the senators involved would be Democrats.

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

...

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.