POL - ...and this seems shady as well

[Flasch186]

Now I understand that some members of politics that run for office may not know exactly where every single dime comes from BUT this screams of sliminess and this should be investigated as well. If anyone of these people, including the Dems is found to be even close to have committing an ethics violation they should be called to the carpet and resoundly fired.


Abramoff Tied to Dorgan Donation, Tribe Says

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - New evidence is emerging that the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Jack Abramoff got political money arranged by the lobbyist back in 2002 shortly after the lawmaker took action favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients.
ADVERTISEMENT

A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians told The Associated Press that Abramoff instructed the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record)'s political group just three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a tribal school program Abramoff's clients wanted to use.

The check was one of about five dozen the Coushattas listed in a tribal ledger as being issued on March 6, 2002, to various lawmakers' campaigns and political causes at the instruction of Abramoff, tribal attorney Jimmy Fairchild said Monday.

Many of the recipients were lawmakers who had just written letters to the Bush administration or Congress supportive of Abramoff's tribal causes, documents show.

"I am confident of that fact," Faircloth said when asked whether Abramoff had requested the donations listed in a tribal ledger obtained by the AP.

The revelation came as Dorgan took to the offensive Monday, saying there was no connection between the $20,000 in donations he got from Abramoff's firm and tribal clients in spring 2002 and a February 2002 letter he wrote urging the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund the tribal school building program.

Dorgan's letter noted that the Mississippi Choctaw, one of Abramoff's clients, had successfully used the program and requested lawmakers consider long-term funding for it. It made no mention of Abramoff or any of his other tribes that were interested in the program.

Dorgan sharply criticized an AP story last week that divulged he and about a dozen other lawmakers had gotten Abramoff-related donations around the time they sent letters supporting the school building program.

Dorgan told a news conference in North Dakota he had never met Abramoff, did not know about the donations from the lobbyist's clients around the time of his letter and saw no reason to step aside from the Senate Indian Affairs committee investigation of Abramoff.

"I don't have any idea what was contributed to me, or by whom. No contribution has been made to me that was ever represented as a contribution coming from Mr. Abramoff, or any relationship to things that he was involved in," Dorgan said when quizzed about the $20,000 in donations.

Dorgan said he wrote the letter because he supported the tribal school construction program and believed tribes in his state might benefit. "The Bush administration wanted to shut the program down. I disagreed. The program saves the federal government money and gets results. That makes sense to me," he said.

Dorgan's staff said Dorgan believes the letter was drafted by Sen. Conrad Burns (news, bio, voting record), R-Mont., who also signed it and got similar donations from Abramoff's clients in the same time frame.

For instance, the Coushattas' check ledger shows the tribe on March 6, 2002, wrote checks for $5,000 to Dorgan's political group, called the Great Plains Leadership Fund, and $25,000 to Burns. That money ultimately landed in Burns' Friends of the Big Sky political group, records show.

Other checks listed as being issued that day were made out to groups or campaigns associated with Sens. Trent Lott, Mary Landrieu, Harry Reid and John Breaux and Reps.
Tom DeLay, Charles Taylor and Pete Session, all of whom wrote letters favorable to Abramoff tribal client causes, the ledger shows.

Those lawmakers, like Dorgan, have denied any connection between the letters and the donations.

"The suggestion in the story that I may have supported that school construction program because of Jack Abramoff or because of campaign contributions from Indian tribes is clearly and despicably wrong," Dorgan said.

Dorgan's spokesman, Barry E. Piatt, said he believed his boss had pursued the congressional investigation of Abramoff aggressively.

Asked why that investigation hasn't focused more on donations to lawmakers who wrote letters favorable to Abramoff's clients, Piatt said, "They're investigating what appears to be massive fraud, and there's lots of ground to cover and it is still early."

Dorgan's office also corrected one piece of information it provided last week. In an interview last Wednesday, Dorgan chief of staff Bernie Toon told the AP that congressional aide Peter Kiefhaber worked for Dorgan's subcommittee in late January 2003.

Kiefhaber did work for the Democratic staff of the Senate Interior Appropriations subcommittee at the time and Dorgan was a member, but Dorgan didn't formally take over as the top Democrat on the panel until March 4, 2003, his office said Monday.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A crackdown on many of these people is probably far overdue. Too many of the politicians are involved in cutting corners related to campaign finance, corporations, lobbying, etc. Hopefully they follow through and go through everyone's files. The hypocracy in the multiple people calling out the other side of the aisle on both sides is just pathetic. Most will probably end up digging their own grave and should have left well enough alone for their own sake.

[cuervo72]

This begs to be rewritten as "Asimov Tied to Organ Donation"...

[flere-imsaho]

Real campaign finance reform would be nice, but as long as it's Congresscritters who are in charge of it, I don't see it happening.

[QuikSand]

I don't claim to know much of anything about this situation, but if you're going to scream "fire" every time a politician who takes an action favorable to a particular interest then receives support from that interest. Sometimes when there's smoke, there's just smoke.

If you form a PAC, or are an organization that seeks to become involved in the political process, it makes sense to try to support the efforts of those who support your cause. Frequently, this is very generic in nature -- a group like the NRA or the Sierra Club knows what positions various legislators have taken on various issues of importance to them, and they certainly support the ones whose views are consistent with the organization's goals. Nobody would act surprised by this at all.

Here, what seems striking is the timely connection between the political act and the contribution... and by all means, if there's any evidence of any kind of quid pro quo then this is a dirty deed. But what if it isn't like that? What if the lobbyist or some members of the group made their pitch to the Senator, he heard them out, and dcided that their cause seemed just... and agreed that lending his support to their cause was the right thing to do? Wouldn't it then be appropriate (in the same way that it would be from the Sierra Club or the NRA) for the organization to say "it looks like we have an ally in this Senator - he agrees with our issues, and seems willing to fight for them" and respond appropriately by trying to ensure that he gets re-elected?

Again -- I don't know anything about this particular relationship, though I do know Senator Dorgan a little bit, and hold him in generaly high esteem. But I also know that a perfectly benign sort of relationship on policy issues (which is an absolute necessity resulting from the sort of campaign finance system that we impose on our elected officials) can easily be taken completely out of context by an ambitious reporter and aired as if it were dirty laundry. Detach Abramoff from this little story and it becomes a whole lot less sexy, and I'd bet it also becomes pretty close to indistinguishable from countless other similar stories that apply to pretty much everyone in public office who is driven to the campaign trough to get re-elected.

[Flasch186]

I have a problem with someone being elected to office, then being a flag in the wind and said wind is actually blown around by money. To me that is not back bone, that is the ultimate definition of flip-flopping because its determined not by morals, not by ethics, not by right, not by civil service but by the all mighty dollar. People screamed about Clinton possibly receiving money from China, which couldve in turn determined our country's foreign policy towards them. In that same vain, this is a bad road to hoe. Campaign finance reform is necessary to prevent our government from becoming for sale.

I will ALWAYS cry foul when someone lies, cheats, steals or acts hypocritically...no matter iof theyre red or blue, regardless if it goes on every day. It shouldnt.

[Glengoyne]

It certainly sounds "slimy", but it has the markings of being completely above board and legal as well. It certainly doesn't sound like it would be easy to prove otherwise. This is the problem I have with even the current fund raising/campaign finance system. It amounts to legalized bribery, with an abundance of these of quid pro quo "arrangements". Lobbyists douldn't get a foot in the door, let alone results, if their money wasn't tied to votes.