The data do not seem to support the GOP spin that the Abramoff scandal is bi-partisan. I will use real facts to establish that proposition, unlike the media pundits. If you disprove my facts, you disprove my proposition.

A philosophical question: If Abramoff gave 99% of his personal contributions to Republicans, and 1% to Democrats, and the Republicans control what legislation gets passed, is it honest to characterize the scandal as “Bi-Partisan” because Abramoff gave 1% of his money to Democrats? —- Would your opinion change if Abramoff gave 0% to Democrats? ——- By the way, there is no evidence that Abramoff even gave 1% of his contributions to Democrats, in the last several years at least.

Below, I will deal with Abramoff’s personal political contributions, and ALSO deal with the question of whether the evidence suggests that Abramoff steered money from his Indian Tribal clients to Democrats.

INTRO about Jack Abramoff

Jack Abramoff was a powerful lobbyist and GOP activist who pled guilty to felonies recently. See the link for a Wikipedia profile of him.

Prosecutors are investigating whether Abramoff steered his client’s political contributions to selected lawmakers in exchange for the lawmakers supporting legislation favorable to his clients.

Abramoff was a GOP lobbyist and GOP powerbroker. The data do NOT show that the Abramoff scandal is bi-partisan. I will offer some proof of that assertion below.

But Abramoff is VERY bad for the image of the GOP as somehow having a better line to God and Ethics than the evil Democrats. Abramoff’s money flowed to GOP lawmakers and to Christian activists such as Ralph Reed.

Reed seems to have been paid by Abramoff to mobilize Reed’s unsuspecting Christian Brethren to oppose certain selected casino and public gambling proposals, where Abramoff’s Real Goal was to eliminate competition for Abramoff’s Indian casino clients.

An issue under investigation is whether Ralph Reed knew that he was using unsuspecting Christians to fight FOR Abramoff’s Indian Casino clients. See this Wikipedia article on Ralph Reed, former Director of the Christian Coalition and long time GOP activist, discussing accusations against Reed.

Pundit Cal Thomas (see below) has weighed in on the Abramoff scandal below, claiming, despite the real facts, that the scandal is bi-partisan. Thomas was once again dishonest by omission.

The reason I say “dishonest by omission” is that Cal Thomas has terrific access to real facts. He knows the real facts, and did not list them or even describe them in an honest way. In fact, he certainly knows that the real facts point to a conclusion completely different than the message he conveyed (in order to help the GOP), that the Abramoff scandal is a fully bi-partisan scandal. See below for Thomas’s comments, and for facts refuting his spin.

This is the second time this week I’ve picked on Cal Thomas, the first time being about his dishonest omission of the 72 hour warrant window for wiretaps under the FISA. Thomas sometimes shows a thoughtful libertarian streak which I admire, and it disappoints me when he puts on his GOP propagandist hat.

We all propagandize I suppose, but major media figures have a responsibility to the public to be honest and forthright about the facts, even though they might reach controversial conclusions based on the facts. Thomas and SO many other pundits assert as being “truth” things that are utterly disproved by real evidence, or they willfully omit mentioning material opposing facts —- and that’s just plain irresponsible and dishonest in my view.

We are all fallible of course, and sometimes will simply be ignorant of the real facts (so ignorant that we don’t know to look for other facts). But SO MANY of the big spinmeister pundits have a pattern of dishonest intellectual behavior in willfully omitting material opposing facts from their analyses. They flat out ignore key facts that would undermine their opinions.

And the mainstream media are too lazy to report complex stories in sufficient factual detail to permit the public to make well-informed decisions.

Let’s use real facts to prove that the Abramoff scandal is a GOP scandal, and NOT reasonably described as “bi-partisan”

FIRST I WILL QUOTE THE OFFENSIVE THOMAS WRITING:

SEE Opinion - Cal Thomas: Cleaning up Congress - sacbee.com

More recently, some of the same Democrats now lashing Republicans for their real and perceived sins have, themselves, taken money from Abramoff. There may be nothing illegal about taking the money, unless members traded their votes and influence on behalf of Abramoff’s clients. It is whether members “sold” their votes and influence that has attracted the attention of the Justice Department.

[The highlighted words from Thomas above, some of the same Democrats now lashing Republicans for their real and perceived sins have, themselves, taken money from Abramoff, are not true, to the best of my ability to determine. Here are two attempts to prove my assertion:]

ABRAMOFF DID NOT MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEMOCRATS, AT LEAST OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS:

See List of Jack Abramoff campaign contributions from 1999 to 2005 (ONLY Republicans appear on the list of politicians who received Abramoff contributions, to my eye).

So, if my source for Abramoff’s actual personal contributions is correct, we have disproved Cal Thomas’s assertion that Democrats received contributions from Abramoff.

And now we’ll talk about the alleged steering of client contributions to Democrats. The chief example that people use regards Indian tribes …..

ABRAMOFF’S INDIAN CLIENTS DID NOT STEER MONEY TO DEMOCRATS BECAUSE OF HIS INFLUENCE. IN FACT, ABRAMOFF’S INDIAN TRIBAL CLIENTS OVERALL REDUCED THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEMOCRATS WHILE CLIENTS OF ABRAMOFF:

I will first present an executive summary, then show some real numbers.

See Comparison of Indian Contributions to Democrats and Republicans, year by year, from the American Prospect. The American Prospect commissioned a study of Indian Tribal giving to Republicans and Democrats.

Here area few of the overall trends from the study:

• in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;
• five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;
• four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;
• Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP — exactly the reverse pattern.

And now for some of the real numbers, from the American Prospect article, regarding Abramoff clients:

1) Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $285,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $191,960
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (9/2000 - 2003): $401,500

2) Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $61,320
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $48,560
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $64,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP(9/2000 - 2003): $162,590

3) Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 4/2001): $1,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 4/2001): $750
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (4/2001 - 6/2004): $40,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (4/2001 - 6/2004): $168,750

4) Tribe: Pueblo of Sandia (New Mexico)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 3/2002): $24,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 3/2002): $15,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (3/2002 - 6/2003): $18,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (3/2002 - 6/2003): $11,500

5) Tribe: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (California)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 7/2002): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 7/2002): $400,200
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (7/2002 - 6/2004): $70,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (7/2002 - 6/2004): $216,708

6) Tribe: Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1/2003): $35,470
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1/2003): $6,050
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1/2003 - 12/2003): $250
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1/2003 - 12/2003): $0

7) Tribe: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1995): $4,600
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1995): $31,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1995 - 2004): $409,273
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1995 - 2004): $884,927

Per the American Prospect’s analysis - “The big picture is also compelling. Taken together, Abramoff’s tribal clients gave $868,890 to Dems before hiring him; afterwards, they gave $794,483 — a decrease of nine percent. By contrast, the tribes’ donations to Republicans went from $786,560 pre-Abramoff to $1,845,975 after he became their lobbyist — an increase of 135 percent. In other words, when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled.”

CONCLUSION:

The data do not seem to support the GOP spin that the Abramoff scandal is bi-partisan.

Democrats can and should use the Abramoff scandal to prove to the closed-minded right wingers that God’s Party is not so holy after all.

The GOP knows that Abramoff scandal gives their holier-than-thou image a black eye. And so, the GOP and its apologists in the media feel they MUST do everything possible to somehow spin the scandal into a seemingly bi-partisan scandal, to spread the corruption around. But in order to spin the scandal properly, the pundits have to be quite intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.