Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jack Bull
Your analysis of the direct contribution from Abramoff vs. indirect money funnelled via the clients is excellent.

Let me echo those that applaud your phrasing of the "poison pill" analogy. Some politician has GOT to be smart enough to steal that. Let's just hope it's one of ours. I'd suggest that you find some way to trademark or copyright it so that you can control it's use. ;^>

You wrote:

A direct contribution in the sunlight is how the system works best-- Jack Abramoff is not a special interest group. He has a plethora of clients. A direct contribution from him couldn't possibly be for a vote on an issue or bill. Funneling money from a lobbyist's clients to politicians strikes me as being potentially more sleazy. There is no "sleaze-free zone" when it comes to dirty money. I get the sense that Democrats are celebrating their good character because they took something akin to laundered Abramoff money.

There's an extended scandal here that is being obscured by the ways the dims and MSM are reporting this. It's the Indian Tribe money and I think it could actually end up being a weapon that would be a direct threat to McLame, particularly if he emerges as the Republican candidate in 2008. The so called campaign finance reform legislation, AKA McCain/Feingold, has a loophole that you could sail an aircraft carrier through, thanks to the wording and an FEC ruling (encouraged by McCain). CFR limits contributions from everyone, but the tribes have been ruled exempt from many of CFR and even earlier restrictions (I forget the specific logic). I read that this has had the effect of turning the tribes into giant funnels for all sorts of money, dirty and otherwise. Once money is given to a tribe, for whatever purpose, the tribe can turn around and give it in virtually unlimited, incompletely disclosed and virtually untraceable amounts to a politician. And this includes taxpayer money. The tribes can even get a "finders fee" for laundering the money in many cases.

The dirty money is most specifically not the money Abramoff gave personally to campaigns of people he agreed with politically. By law that must be, and was, disclosed openly. The dirty money is what was laundered through the tribes, which isn't fully traceable or even regularly reported. And McLame and the FEC made it possible. How much of it did HE get?

842 posted on 01/29/2006 10:38:48 AM PST by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies ]


To: Phsstpok

Thanks. I guess I was hoping people on this board might send it around if they think it is a legitimate analogy.


853 posted on 01/29/2006 10:47:49 AM PST by Jack Bull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok
A direct contribution in the sunlight is how the system works best-- Jack Abramoff is not a special interest group. He has a plethora of clients. A direct contribution from him couldn't possibly be for a vote on an issue or bill. Funneling money from a lobbyist's clients to politicians strikes me as being potentially more sleazy. There is no "sleaze-free zone" when it comes to dirty money. I get the sense that Democrats are celebrating their good character because they took something akin to laundered Abramoff money.

EXCELLENT POINT!

That is one of the best points I've seen made around here in a long time. I'd like to encourage you to send this to your Senators, Rush, Brit, etc. Well done and excellent analysis.

862 posted on 01/29/2006 10:52:57 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok
The dirty money is what was laundered through the tribes, which isn't fully traceable or even regularly reported. And didn't Howard (the Scream) Dean say on the Today Show that the Dems didn't receive any money directly from Abramoff but from the tribes and thus, were pure as the driven snow????
871 posted on 01/29/2006 10:58:23 AM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok

"How much of it did HE get?"

According to capitaleye, McCain got a total receipt was $5k over 2 years from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. That said, he's a Sen from AZ, so I highly suspect he gets LOTS of $$$s from tribes.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=N


917 posted on 01/29/2006 11:32:21 AM PST by Seattle Conservative (God bless and protect our troops and their CIC. (Seahawks are going to the Superbowl!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 842 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson