Posted on 01/07/2006 10:24:38 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Russ Feingold's campaign said Friday it was returning campaign contributions from political action committees and individuals associated with the law firm of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Feingold campaign aide George Aldrich said in a statement that the campaign is returning $1,600 worth of donations from a PAC and two individuals associated with Greenberg Traurig, where Abramoff worked.
"We are not aware that any donation to our campaign committee is tied to Mr. Abramoff, but because he worked at the law firm during the time we received contributions from others at Greenberg Traurig, we have decided to return those contributions," Aldrich said.
Feingold, D-Wis., is co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.
Abramoff, 46, pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiracy and wire fraud charges connected to his purchase of a gambling boat fleet. The plea came a day after he admitted guilt on three other federal charges as part of an agreement requiring him to cooperate in a corruption investigation that could involve up to 20 members of Congress.
Ten Freeper Bonus Points will be awarded to anyone that can explain why 'McCain-Feingold' led to this scandal in the first place.
"Feingold! Feingold! He's Our Man!" Ping.
From what I understand, the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection Act (and assualt on the 1st Amendment) was designed to funnel as much money as possible to the architects of that worthless piece of legislation.
Right you are! You'll have to split the Bonus Points on this round, LOL!
"March 20, 2001
McCain-Feingold Will Hurt Democrats--And They Know It
by John Samples
John Samples is director of the Cato Institute Center for Representative Government in Washington.
For years, congressional Democrats have loved playing "heads, I win; tails, you lose" with the regulation of soft money.
The Republicans raised more soft money, so if a ban on such funds became law, the Democrats got better off. Conversely, if Republicans stopped restrictions in the Senate, the Democrats could claim credit for supporting a noble cause (and blame the Republicans for being "corrupt").
Now the game has changed. "Heads, I win; tails, you lose" has turned into "watch what you wish for; you might get it."
Sen. John McCain's proposed ban on soft money may become law. The Democrats are becoming worried. Here's why:
In the 2000 election, the Democrats drew even with the Republicans in soft-money fundraising. They still lag behind in raising funds regulated by federal law (so-called "hard money") and have no real prospect of catching up. The Republicans are simply too good at raising small donations.
Sen. John Breaux, D-La., concludes that McCain's bill will create "an unlevel playing field." He's right.
But that's not the end of the bad news for Democrats. McCain's bill shuts out labor-union TV and radio ads for the last 60 days before an election. Labor unions may be declining in numbers, but their focused and ruthless media campaigning is a major Democratic weapon. Democrats in close elections need that weapon in 2002 and beyond.
Apart from practical politics, Democrats may suspect that McCain's ban on soft money is a sham. McCain claims a ban would get the special interests out of politics. Seasoned Democrats realize that far from disappearing, soft money will simply go to interest groups and their media campaigns in 2002.
Yes, the very interest groups Sen. McCain wants to drive out of politics.
Congressional Democrats should find a new game to play. Instead of "watch what you wish for," they might try "doing well by doing right." More than a few Senate Democrats know that a ban on soft money would hurt their party and the nation. In the next few weeks, they can help their party and the country by stopping McCain's bill."
While no great friends to Republicans, the CATO Institute saw through this (as did others ) from the git-go.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-20-01.html
Top 10 Democrat Senators "on-the-take": http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060106
The demorats think that all they have to do is give money back and claim they didn't know and everything is squeaky clean. However, they attack Republicans and demand that they acknowledge bribes. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Here's a very thorough chart I just found, updated as of 1-5-06. Everyone was eating at that trough:
Jack Abramoff Lobbying and Political Contributions, 1999 - 2006
http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R
Thanks for that link. See my Post #9 for a chart of all the players. ;)
If I heard Rush correctly, McCainiac also gets a lot of indian reservation money. Isn't that just ... special? McCainiac AND Feingold, the 'heroic campaign reformers'. Warms the heart.
I'm also glad that the emphasis is on corruption, because of the REAL Clinton scandals: I just don't feel any closure, you know? I want CLOSURE regarding the Clinton scandals, and I'm not talking about blue dresses.
Thanks for the site.
Huh, I thought that a$$hole, gasbag preening turd didn't accept money from lobbyists outside of our blessed state.................hypocrite.
More than two GOPers for every rat. [Shrug.] Let the games begin. Let Truth win out. And let ALL scandals be scrutinized, such as oh... I don't know... Pardongate? Chinagate? The Misty Three?
FRegards....
"If I heard Rush correctly, McCainiac also gets a lot of indian reservation money. Isn't that just ... special? McCainiac AND Feingold, the 'heroic campaign reformers'. Warms the heart.
I'm also glad that the emphasis is on corruption, because of the REAL Clinton scandals: I just don't feel any closure, you know? I want CLOSURE regarding the Clinton scandals, and I'm not talking about blue dresses.
I heard Rush say the same thing. Between McCain and Feingold, it's a coin toss to determine which of the two is more (1) corrupt, (2) Anti- Constitution and (3) beneath contempt.
I guarantee you that I will do everything that I possibly can to see McCain's Whitehouse aspirations go straight into the crapper. I wouldn't trust him as CIC any more than I would Hitlery.
This so he can run for president. What a dope! I have a better chance.
Holier-than-thou Russ Feingold has bee OWNED... he needs to sit down.
Because McCain wants to be president that bad, he will lend his name to anything.
Bump to here
Thank you for the confirmation. McCainiac will never, ever get the GOP nomination, even if this scandal didn't come out. Rush was the Kingmaker of 2000, IMHO. He veered heavilly toward Bush, so we got Bush. And despite a wimpy campaign by Bush, Rush helped him win.
I think a lot of other new media outlets are catching up to Rush, however. I think he lost a bit of credibility, because Bush is more of a fiscal and cultural moderate, albeit a great war leader-- the most successful, due largely to Weinburger's research and development during the Reagan days.
But back to who the future kingmakers will be. I think the collective new media will have tremendous clout. It will be the new media that selects the GOP candidate-- that's for certain. There are still a number of power brokers in the new media: Rush, Hannity, Savage, Boortz, and Laura Ingraham. I also think that Mark Levin has great potential as well. Savage may have some heavy competition on his hands. I always enjoy hearing Levin on Hannity and look forward to finding his show on the radio one day, on those nights when Savage wants to talk about pasta.
And then there's the internet. What will our forum be like by 2008? What bloggers will have any pull? I think that the left wing forums will have even more influence over the DNC. That will push them to be more honest about what the left's agenda really is.
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.