Posted on 01/04/2006 7:05:21 AM PST by LouAvul
WASHINGTON - President Bush's re-election campaign will give the American Heart Association thousands of dollars in campaign contributions connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the White House said Wednesday, as the government pressed forward with a broad-ranging corruption investigation.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that Abramoff, his wife and the tribal associates that he helped win influence on Capitol Hill donated thousands to the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign. Donations to charities has been the policy in similar situations in the past, McClellan said.
Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's 2004 re-election effort, earning the honorary title "pioneer" from the campaign. It was unclear how much exactly the campaign would be giving to charity since McClellan referred questions about the matter to the Republican National Committee, which did not immediately return phone calls about it.
McClellan said Bush does not know Abramoff personally, although it's possible that the two met at holiday receptions. Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House, the spokesman said.
In a plea agreement with government prosecutors Tuesday, Abramoff has agreed to tell the FBI about alleged bribes to lawmakers and their aides on issues ranging from Internet gambling to wireless phone service in the House.
The full extent of the investigation is not yet known, but Justice Department officials said they intended to make use of the trove of e-mails and other material in Abramoff's possession as part of a probe that is believed to be focusing on as many as 20 members of Congress and aides.
"The corruption scheme with Mr. Abramoff is very extensive and we will continue to follow it wherever it leads," said Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, head of the Justice Department's criminal division.
Court papers in Abramoff's case refer to an aide to then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who helped stop anti-gambling legislation regarding the Internet. Abramoff, the papers state, paid the staffer's wife $50,000 from clients that benefited from the actions of the staffer, identified by a person close to the investigation as Tony Rudy, DeLay's former deputy chief of staff.
The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the probe is ongoing. Rudy did not return a phone call Tuesday at his lobbying firm.
DeLay, R-Texas, voted against his party on the Internet anti-gambling legislation which was designed to make it easier for authorities to stop online gambling sites.
DeLay attorney Richard Cullen said he believes that when the investigation is completed and the truth is known that the Justice Department will conclude that his client, who had risen to House majority leader before stepping down from the post last year, did nothing wrong.
Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion, with his conduct outlined in court papers that refers to "a stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts and influence."
On Wednesday, Abramoff was to plead guilty in Miami to criminal charges stemming from Abramoff's 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos, a case that touches on Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio.
The political ramifications of the Abramoff probe were apparent, with minority Democrats intending to make ethics a campaign issue in this election year. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Abramoff's confession in court was "not a surprise because this Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history and the American people are paying the price."
Some political consultants and analysts are comparing potential damage from the Abramoff investigation to the 1992 House banking scandal that led to the retirement or ouster of 77 lawmakers.
Abramoff's cooperation has made lawmakers nervous.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., became the most recent addition to the roster of politicians announcing plans to donate Abramoff's campaign contributions to charity.
The court papers in the Washington case refer to Ney, saying that regarding SunCruz, the congressman placed a statement drafted by Abramoff partner Michael Scanlon in the Congressional Record. The statement, the court papers say, was calculated to pressure the owner of SunCruz to sell on terms favorable to Abramoff.
Ney denies wrongdoing, saying that "at the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff's activities."
Abramoff and his former partner, Adam Kidan, are charged with concocting a false $23 million wire transfer making it appear they contributed a sizable stake of their own cash into the $147.5 million purchase of cruise ships.
The court papers released Tuesday in Washington raised questions about Ney's former chief of staff, Neil Volz. The documents say the ex-staffer contacted the congressman on behalf of an Abramoff client that won a lucrative deal from Ney to improve cell phone reception in House buildings.
Volz contacted his ex-boss within one year of leaving the congressman's staff, the court papers say, a possible violation of federal conflict of interest laws which impose a one-year lobbying ban.
Volz referred questions to his attorney, who was not immediately available for comment.
Abramoff was once a well-connected lobbyist able to command almost unimaginable fees: A Louisiana tribe once paid Scanlon and him more than $30 million over 26 months. Now facing up to 11 years in prison, Abramoff apologized after pleading guilty.
"Words will not ever be able to express my sorrow and my profound regret for all my actions and mistakes," Abramoff said. "I hope I can merit forgiveness from the Almighty and those I've wronged or caused to suffer."
"A whole lot of donating went on. But which "donations" were actually an illegal bribe?"
It's a fine semantic point, frankly. Lobbyists do not donate with no expectations, and they make those expectations known.
I think the problem here that won't go away is that there was a murder involved, also gambling.
I will be waiting to see who Hillary donates her $25,000 bribe to. Has she ever paid for the plane she used to campaign in New York???
I guess we are all even, cause she hates us and herself equally.
It won't take much to find something, these guys pulla lot of S&it. It is just that Democrats are never handed guilt, they work for a Higher Cause, (they think) so that makes them better than the evil Republicans. (sarcasm of course, but that is what they believe.)
I would the question should be how can the GOP clean up its act.
Re: "you go down".
So, do you have proof President Bush, or the Bush Campaign, knew that Abramoff was a scumbag heavily engaged in illegal dealings, at the time they received the contribution?
Do tell.
The thing is this is the result of the huge escalation in campaign spending that has been going on for ages. If we want these things to stop, we have to eliminate lobbying altogether. We also need to change the constitution back to what our founding fathers originally wrote. The senate should be appointed by the legislatures of the states. That way they will represent the state instead of special interests. The other thing that would help is term limits.
I'm with you. I agree with the dems on one thing, which I've stated repeatedly here the last few days. I think this is the most craven, corrupt, arrogant, and in-your-face about it Congress in history. It explains why they've grown government more than any other Congress in history. It also explains why so much is covered up, whitewashed, sanitized, nothing-to-see-here, and buried right before the eyes of those of us who are watching. They're ALL on the take. I find it hard to believe that President Bush would be so stupid, but as for the rest of them, let the chips fall where they may.
(p.s. I still don't think this is going to help the rats in November. They're still a bunch of weak-kneed fairies that wouldn't know how to defend the country even if Mexico invaded and annexed San Diego.)
Sure, but if I am known as someone who supports X, and a lobbyist donates money to me because he works for X, and then I vote for X, how does anyone know if it was a bribe?
That's why this story won't have a long shelf-life in the MSM.
If it was just Republicans, we'd be hearing about this for months.
This is bad. Some of my (few) favorite lawmakers are on that list, and some of the ones I was hoping could take a shot at the Presidency, including Brownback, and Hayworth.
I see that Tom Tancredo's name is conspicuously missing, and that is one ray of light.
"The thing is this is the result of the huge escalation in campaign spending that has been going on for ages. If we want these things to stop, we have to eliminate lobbying altogether."
I'd agree with you, basically. I don't think we should eliminate lobbying, though. I think we should prohibit all monetary donations from lobbyists, instead. Let the lobbyists continue to make their case to legislators, but prohibit all monetary or "in-kind" transfers from any lobbyist to any person connected with government.
Let them try to convince legislators and regulators, but keep it on the information-only basis.
Get the darned elected people out on the stump again, convincing voters. This whole TV-oriented campaigning is BS, in my opinion. Most people have no idea what their candidates are actually doing.
"Sure, but if I am known as someone who supports X, and a lobbyist donates money to me because he works for X, and then I vote for X, how does anyone know if it was a bribe?
"
The thing is, Dianna, that most legislators don't let themselves be known as supporting X. If they did, then there would be no reason for the lobbyist to make those donations, would there? So, they pretend they're undecided, and get that money coming in. It's an ugly business there in D.C.
If you believe the polls that over 50% of the public think elected officials are on the take and that this is just the way things work I do not know that this will be as much trouble to the politicians as the media hopes. Try to get the ordinary person to understand the difference between lobbying and being on the take and watch eyes glaze over.
How about our representatives staying in their home districts and voting and teleconferencing electronically with their peers? That's the prospect they hate the most -- after all, when they physically travel and set up shop in D.C., they are effectively getting away from day-to-day contact with the people they represent.
Traveling to Washington to do some legislatin' is so 1700s.
You can do that yourself pretty easily. Just find any of the tribes looking for favors (read the Abramoff articles), then look up the tribes in opensecrets.org to see if they gave to her. I found one right away: Chippewa.
Nope, I simply stated that anyone, no matter if a R, D, or I comes after their name, needs to go down IF proven to have accepted 'donations' in exchange for special treatment, i.e. bribery.
Did Bush know Abrahmoff even donated to his campaign, probably not. Did Delay, Kennedy, Clinton, etc? Probably.
Let the chips fall where they may, on either side of the aisle.
"Try to get the ordinary person to understand the difference between lobbying and being on the take and watch eyes glaze over.
"
Yeah, well, these days the difference is miniscule. Lobbying is not what it used to be. It's a money game these days.
I see she has had lots of union donations from all sorts of unions. No surprise there.
I notice they don't mention anyone D-any state. But hey, there's no bias in this story whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.