The Special Interest Trough Leads to Corrupted Politics

Capitol Hill Journal ^ | Jan 6, 2006 | Frank Salvato

[WatchYourself]

While Democrats and the “progressive” left were quick in trying to brand the Abramoff scandal as a “Republican scandal,” the facts indicate that this declaration is just another attempt by political opportunists at misdirection. In fact, Democrats do a great job at feeding off the special interest trough.

According to Internal Revenue Service records, and substantiated by the Campaign Finance Analysis Project, forty of the forty-five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and their Indian tribe clients. These recipients include: Charles Schumer ($29,550), Harry Reid ($68,941), Patty Murray ($78,991), Mary Landrieu($28,000), John Kerry ($98,550), Ted Kennedy ($3,300), Tom Harkin ($45,750), Dick Durbin ($14,000), Barbara Boxer ($20,250), Hillary Clinton ($12,950) and Byron Dorgan($79,300).

When tallied, Senate Democrats and their national committees accepted $3.1 million from Abramoff, his associates and clients, compared with $4.3 million in contributions to Republicans. So, the statement that this is exclusively a “Republican scandal” is simply not true.

[WatchYourself]

Daily reminder of the truth that the MSM will IGNORE!

[Restorer]

The Special Interest Trough Leads to Corrupted Politics

Nope. Government interference in business creates a necessity for business to defend itself by buying influence in government.

Much of what is portrayed as special interests buying influence can be seen at least equally accurately as politicians extorting money from businesses.

[adorno]

When tallied, Senate Democrats and their national committees accepted $3.1 million from Abramoff, his associates and clients, compared with $4.3 million in contributions to Republicans

It doesn't matter that the democrats were also getting their share of the money, illicit or not. Because, you see, when the democrats get the money, they're going to use it to help the children and women, and the poor. But, the republicans, when they get their share of the money, they only use it to help the super rich and the well off.

So, the illicit contributions are only illegal when the republicans do it and not when the democrats do it.

[K-oneTexas]

Having seen all the names (individuals, state party's and commities) it is interesting to see this has over 200 names from all parties (Rep., Dem. and Ind.). But also it covers at least a 4 year period of time.

What would be interesting is to "massage" the excel file and post by date. So then we could see current office holders in the House and Senate. Most of the names ring a bell, especially the Senate side. However on the House side I don't know current from former office holders nationally but in a very few instances.

It is interesting to not the names who hold leadership positions. It is also interesting to not some of the "reasons" for keeping the money. These "reasons" will end up as one of the '12 Most Interesting College Classes' someday.

[Sam the Sham]

Nope. Government interference in business creates a necessity for business to defend itself by buying influence in government.

Much of what is portrayed as special interests buying influence can be seen at least equally accurately as politicians extorting money from businesses.

For example, when government threatens to interfere with business by enforcing border security business has to protect its access to illegal cheap labor.

[Restorer]

Surely you jest. The profitability and even existence of businesses is always in jeopardy due to government regulation or persecution.

Many tech companies used to not contribute much to campaigns. The classic example is Microsoft, which used to be proud that it didn't contribute to or get involved in political campaigns. Their reward was an anti-trust prosecution that was remarkably flimsy.

Does anybody seriously think they would have been prosecuted if they'd contributed heavily to Clinton's campaign?

So guess what all the tech companies do now? They contribute heavily and get accused of corrupting the process. If the government didn't have so much to do with whether a business was allowed to succeed, they wouldn't need to have influence.

[GailA]

Has there been a list of House members who took Jack's money? I've not seen one so far.

[cgbg]

Many tech companies used to not contribute much to campaigns. The classic example is Microsoft, which used to be proud that it didn't contribute to or get involved in political campaigns. Their reward was an anti-trust prosecution that was remarkably flimsy.

Congress is fundamentally a criminal gang that sells "protection". If you don't pay they will harass you until you do.