Posted on 01/28/2010 11:06:57 AM PST by Maelstorm
Arizona's U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, ranked as one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from interests enmeshed in a raging lobbying scandal, has no reason to return the money, his top aide says.
Moreover, the donors want Hayworth to keep the funds, chief of staff Joe Eule said.
With four other politicians returning more than $250,000 in recent days to Indian tribes and others connected with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pressures have mounted for Hayworth and other recipients to follow suit.
Eule said that the Republican congressman has received campaign contributions totaling $150,000 from tribes affiliated at one time or another with the former lobbyist but that the donations had nothing to do with actions that have put Abramoff at the center of Senate and criminal investigations into possible influence-buying.
"The tribes have told us, 'We love you. We loved you before we met Jack Abramoff, we love you after Jack Abramoff, and we think it would be foolish of you to (give back) the money,' " Eule said.
Hayworth, now in his sixth term, has been deeply involved in Indian matters on several fronts and has received support from scores of tribes nationwide, Eule said.
In 1997, Hayworth joined U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to found and serve as co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, a pivotal group for legislation affecting tribes.
Kennedy aide Robin Costello said Thursday that the Democratic congressman has no intention of returning money received from tribes affiliated with Abramoff. Widely differing estimates of Kennedy's receipts range from $42,500 to $131,000.
"None of the political support has anything to do with Jack Abramoff," Costello said, "so, no, we have not considered returning the money."
Eule, in a point also emphasized by Costello on behalf of Kennedy, said Hayworth "had (his) own relationship with these tribes" and did not need Abramoff's intervention to attract political donations.
Campaign finance records for Hayworth and a political action committee he operates separately show that tribes have contributed a total of about $680,000 since 1999, Eule said.
Of that, 22 percent came from Abramoff-related tribes, and some of that was given before or after Abramoff served as the tribes' lobbyist.
Eule produced a letter from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a former Abramoff client, saying that the tribe had long donated to causes on both sides of the political spectrum and that its decisions were not "coerced or controlled" by Abramoff.
"You should be proud of the widespread support you have earned throughout Indian country," the tribe wrote Hayworth. "You've been willing to stand up repeatedly for tribal self-determination even when it was not popular or easy to do so."
Eule said similar support has been expressed by other tribes, and several are writing letters to that effect.
Independently, the Tigua Tribe of El Paso told The Arizona Republic earlier this year that it didn't want Hayworth or anyone else to return the more than $300,000 in political contributions it made in 2002 during Abramoff's unsuccessful attempt to win legislation to allow the tribe's casino to reopen after a court-ordered closure.
In a series of Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Abramoff and partner Michael Scanlon have been accused of fraud and underhanded dealings in collecting about $82 million from six tribes for questionable lobbying services over three years.
Scanlon has pleaded guilty to fraud and agreed to help in the ongoing investigation of possible corruption involving high-level government officials and several members of Congress.
Abramoff is under a fraud indictment in an unrelated Florida case and reportedly is in plea negotiations.
Attempts to rank who received the most campaign contributions from Abramoff-related interests have had mixed results.
This month, the Washington Post placed Hayworth third, at $86,750.
But in a compilation posted by the watchdog Center for Responsive Politics and published Monday by the New York Times, Hayworth showed up in first place, with $101,620 received.
Eule said the total is $150,000 over a seven-year period, but wherever that places Hayworth in the rankings is immaterial.
"Because tribes were unfortunate enough to have Jack Abramoff as a lobbyist, people all of a sudden think it's dirty money," he said.
"Look, if you're giving the money back, you're admitting that either the tribes did something wrong in giving it to you, or you did something wrong in taking it.
"In our case, neither of those is true."
In a major embarrassment involving Abramoff, however, Hayworth acknowledged a year ago that he had held campaign fund-raisers five times from 1999 to 2001 in sports skyboxes provided through the lobbyist but failed to report the value of the accommodations as required by federal campaign finance laws.
His campaign committee amended its Federal Election Commission reports and refunded nearly $13,000 to two tribes for use of the suites.
Ummm, let me think.....Nope. He hasn’t favored non-citizens over citizens either.
My, my, what have we here.
McCain’s Law Preserved Loophole for Tribal Contributions
by Amanda B. Carpenter Human Events
01/30/2006
Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, says the campaign finance reform law he sponsored in 2002 intentionally left open a loophole that allows Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to an unlimited number of candidates for federal office.
Before McCain’s law passed, most Americans were allowed to give an aggregate of only $25,000 to party committees and candidates for federal office in any two-year election cycle. Indian tribes were not subject to that cap. McCain’s law lifted the aggregate-contribution cap to $95,000 for ordinary American contributors, but declined to impose any cap at all on Indian tribes.
When I asked McCain last week why this was the case, he said, “Because tribes are ‘sovereign entities.’ They are treated on a government-to-government relationship, and we’re looking at that whole issue.”
I asked, “But it was an intentional thing?” McCain replied, “Oh yeah. … Because they are ‘sovereign nations’ unquote. We sign treaties with them.”
When I pointed out that the U.S. does not allow contributions from foreign governments, McCain said, “No, we don’t. But they’re American citizens. So, it’s a unique kind of a status.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11961
It’s also quite interesting to note the BIG contributors to McCAin..the same ones Obama gets! Merrill Lynch $
Citigroup Inc
Morgan Stanley
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Goldman Sachs
And the top 5 industries...2nd is LAWYERS, last is ‘conservatives’
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006424
See post 22
Wow. I have to admit that McCain is an expert at slithering through his job! Whenever I am overcome with contempt for American voters and their choices, all I have to do is look at McCain to appreciate how hard it is for voters to find the truth.
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.