Posted on 01/28/2006 1:02:04 PM PST by TitansAFC
Only thing I can figure is what Abramoff didn't donate directly he got his clients the tribal community to donate to. So every member in Congress is guilty.
The milquetoasts at the RNC have decided it was better to left Bush take the blame for 9/11 and have Republican mean "corruption" than to get dirty fighting the Dems.
I agree. But the issue won't play out of the beltway. I think this was 5th or 6th (single digits I believe)on a list of issues that were important to Americans.
People expect politicans to be like this and it'll only affect the guys that are directly involved if any indictments are handed down at all.
Apparently, for the rats, it is DIFFERENT when you take money from Abramoff's MACHINE, as opposed to taking it from HIM...somewhere there is this difference, I guess.
There is no "scandal" here..just the usual bleating of the sheep.
Hell, Mike Espy took all the gifts (35k worth), as much as admitted he took all the gifts, tht DA proved he received all the gifts, but the jury found no "quid pro quo", so Mike Espy was not guilty.
America, what a country,
I found this googling...
Federal campaign laws limit the size of a donation an individual can make directly to a federal campaign (presidential, Congressional, Senatorial) to $1,000 prior to the party's nomination and $1,000 after the nomination.
This isn't a big problem for incumbents. They get enormous free publicity, so they need less money for advertising. And special-interest groups are glad to fund-raise on their behalf, presenting incumbents with $50,000 or more in $1,000 donations they've bundled from their members.
The contribution limits are even less of a hurdle for Senators and Congressmen who chair committees — people like, not surprisingly, Senator John McCain. Political Action Committees, corporations, and individuals line up to contribute or provide in-kind help in order to obtain access to a committee chairman, in the hope of passing pet legislation or warding off bills that are dangerous to their own interests.
Federal Election Committee Citizens' Guide
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
Beware! Beware! of anything with the byline:
By Greg Sargent
Greg never wrote of a democrat he doesn't love. His adoration of Hillary is widely know. He is an avowed Bush hater and has never wrote a complimentary word of him.
Giving money to Republicans is NOT a crime. Unless a deal was made - money in exchange for votes - there is no there there! The Democrats are trying to make it sound like lots Republicans are in trouble because they took lobby money. Some might have taken "gifts" for clear and voiced promises of votes. That would have to be proven in a court of law. Dems might have as well.
They are trying to make Bush look guilty because he talks to lobbyists when they work to support leglislation he wants passed. The lobbyists' repesenting me - handing out campaign money to conservative politicans and talking to them are pro-life and small government/low tax lobbyists.
Dems are trying to criminalize the system that gives Republicans more money than they get. They want to ban for profit companies and corps from lobbying. Ofcourse, they don't mind their non-profit and union groups doing it.
“It’s very hard to see the donations of Abramoff’s clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels,” Morris, the firm’s founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect."
Former editor for the LA Times, and this is a "non-partisan" outfit? Sorry...but I don't buy it.
Unless there are some indictments on Republicans for taking bribes or skimming money (like this guy did) I don't see how it will go far EXCEPT to galvanize those who already hate Republicans
Well, your friend's silly "non-partisan" analysis is cute, but wrong. Thanks for trying, but you don't have any actual facts to back that nonsense do you?
You newbies have much to learn. Boston Republican put up a "summary" of a "non-partisan" "analysis". BWAHAHAHAHA.
Here, on FR, we prefer facts. You agree with him, right? Do you have any verifiable FACTS on which you base your feelings of agreement?
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.