I just did a quick headcount from Steve's highly useful list-link, and came up with 178 guilty Republicans, 116 guilty Democrats. Assuming the party division in Congress remained the same over the last few election cycles (not a wildly inaccurate assumption), that puts just under half of all Democrats on the take, versus just under two-thirds of all Republicans. The total cash disbursements by Abramoff and his Indian clients cut two-to one in favor of the Republicans.

That's a difference, but not enough to call this a partisan scandal, particularly when the Republicans are the party in power and therefore are setting the legislative agenda. (On this point, Abramoff seeems to have been as pitifully naive as most conservative Republicans.)

It's not so much Republican or Democratic corruption, it's congresscritters who are corrupt. Or maybe they're no more corrupt than the rest of us, but they get more chances to show it.

So much disinformation .

1. Percentage of Abramoff's personal donations that went to Republicans: 100%.

2. Tribal donations to political causes are 100% legal and do not violate any kind of ethical rules whatsoever. Abramoff and his clients are separate entities, with separate interests.

3. The scandal involves the intent to violate the law. Thus far, only Republicans have been implicated. Bob Ney, the Republican Chair of the House Administration Committee, is widely expected to be indicted for receiving bribes. Thus far, not a single House Republican has called for his resignation.

Oh, yeah, $1000 and $2000 personal donations are the ones likely to cause a politician to succumb to bribery.

Those $30,000, $60,000, $350,000 and $498,000 donations? They mean nothing. Politicians look at them and giggle.

Geek:
Last time I checked, personal donations to campaigns was legal... just as legal as lobbying.

Cash is fungible, you know. You might want to look that term up. So it does not matter if the cash was officially from Indian tribes or Abramoff's personal stash -- a bribe is a bribe, no matter the source. The question is -- when does lobbying cross the line into bribery? It's really difficult to see the difference.

uh, geek dude, personal contributions to an individual campaign are not illegal, as long as they are under the personal limit (2 grand I think).

the issue is influence peddling. We're talking 4.2 million in casino money vs. Abramoff's 200 thousand. Or 4.7% if you can handle the math.

all you're pointing out is he made personal contributions, under legal limits, to help elect Rs.

big. f'n'. deal.

1. Abramoff's campaign donations show which team he plays for--yours. Not ours.

2. There have been ZERO allegations of illegality involving Democrats. None. Zip. No evidence of a quid pro quo. In contrast, Bob Ney has been receiving bribes from Abramoff.

3. Why does Bob Ney still hold a position of leadership within the Republican party?

Abramoff's campaign donations show which team he plays for--yours. Not ours.

Geek, exactly which part of Abramoff's chicanery was included in the Evil Republican Agenda? I though he was cutting deals for tribal casino owners. I must have missed the part where he was bribing legislators to grind the faces of the poor and make Deuteronomy a required text in every science classroom.

Besides, you don't have to pay Republicans to do stuff like that. It just comes natural to us devolved knuckle-draggers.

Wow Geek,
This thing sure has got you going, hasn't it?
I'd bet money you're one of those dems who has been wishing on each and every one of the stars that kos and the rest of the lefty moronosphere have been tossing up into the sky since 2000.
Cindy? Why, this is the end of Bushco.
Plame? They're all going to jail!
Ohio? They stole the election. Stole it, I tell you!
Delay? NSA? Haliburton? Katrina?
Jesus man, how many chances do you need? Even with the cocksuckers in the media pushing each and every story in such a way as to get your guys elected, and with every loon in hollywood, and 90% of the publishing industry, and 90% of college professors and administrators trying to fuck the President in the ass at every turn, you continue to lose elections.
What does that tell us Geek?
That you are aptly named? Yes, there's that.
Also, it tells us that the American people are not as stupid as you people need them to be.
I'm sure you're working on that, but I'd hang on to my day job for a while if I were you.
That Junior Commissar gig may not be opening up for you any time soon.

Why does Bob Ney still hold a position of leadership within the Republican party?

Ney hasn't been charged with anything yet (I stress, yet) and he denies any wrongdoing. It would be messy to force him to step aside now, as he likely would be unwilling to do so. When he's charged, he'll be required to step down. Politically, it wouldn't be prudent for Republicans to call for his ouster just yet...it would suddenly put the entire media focus on the party and its perceived "disarray," and unavoidably make the Abramoff affair into a massive scandal (as opposed to only being a scandal that could potentially be massive, which is its current status). The Republican leadership wisely wants to prevent this from happening if at all possible. If Republicans want to get ahead of this story, it should be by introducing lobbying reform legislation.

Why does Bob Ney still hold a position of leadership within the Republican party?

Ummmm, Bob Ney is evil and the Republican Party is okay with that?

Maybe you could explain how Harry Reid attained a position of leadership (as such) with the Democratic Party (as such).

"There have been ZERO allegations of illegality involving Democrats. None. Zip. No evidence of a quid pro quo."

Harry Reid wrote a letter opposing an Indian casino for the Coushatta tribe, and the very next day he got a check for $5000.00 from Abramoff's client. Conclusive proof? No. Evidence of quid pro quo? You betcha. Especially by lax liberal standards of proof, whereby everyone with a whiff of suspicion must immediately be drummed out of office.

Did someone plead guilty to bribing Harry Reid?

Abramoff and Scanlon have pleaded guilty to bribing Ney. Not giving campaign donations with the hope of influencing him. But rather getting him to agree to take official actions in return for cash and other goodies.

As for this: "I must have missed the part where he was bribing legislators to grind the faces of the poor and make Deuteronomy a required text in every science classroom." Abramoff's other key role was to spread cash to various rightwing causes and organizations. He and DeLay also teamed up to keep near-slave labor conditions legal in the Marianas islands.

All very interesting. And yet you will hardly hear anything about the Democrats on the take. It's all very correct too that donations are hardly indicative of corrupt behavior, votes for cash, like the msmedia is selling this. Money makes the world go 'round. Duh. If an R wants to vote to help out gamblers and Indians, you'd think the D's would be happy, vicious, race-baiters that they are.
Ho, ho, ho.
D. Ox

Sobek:

I must have missed the part where there were criminal allegations involving Harry Reid.

But, you're right. The fact that federal prosecutors have convicted people (guilty pleas are convictions) for bribing Bob Ney really doesn't reflect on Bob Ney's fitness for a leadership position in the Republican party.

LOL, let's see who is indicted. My prediction: Republicans, in a landslide.

LOL, let's see who is indicted. My prediction: Republicans, in a landslide.

Yeah, it's gonna be Fitzmas all over again. Er, wait a sec...

Loose shit, Ace.

Your percentages don't compare Republicans versus Democrats. They compare Senate vs. House!

What I think you MEANT is:

National Republican Congressional Cmte -- $498,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte -- $354,700

National Republican Senatorial Cmte -- $436,500 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte -- $423,480

Of course, your point is entirely the same either way. I'm just a pedant.

Oh, god... I'm an effin' moron.

Unless of course you had the numbers right, but the names wrong. In which case your percentages are OK but, um, fake but accurate.

WTF????

Ace, your math is way, way off. How can a difference between two recipients of the SAME party mean the OTHER party got more or less?

You're comparing the wrong things.

Shit. Somebody beat me to it.

Well, Fitzmas wasn't about Democrats, was it? As I recall the indictee was a prominent Republican.

I suppose you are trying to suggest a tempest in a teapot, a peccadillo as opposed to a scandal. I'm sure that I don't know, but I am not terribly worried about a bunch of indictments for Democrats.

Let me re-phrase the prediction: the legal trouble will be all Republican, but we don't know the quantity of trouble.

Dogstar,

See above.

Mark

Abramoff's other key role was to spread cash to various rightwing causes and organizations. He and DeLay also teamed up to keep near-slave labor conditions legal in the Marianas islands.

Where to begin, Geek? Abramoff worked with Delay and the Marianas government to keep Clinton and the ILGWU from imposing the same labor standards in the Marianas that essentially destroyed the domestic garment industry. Until recently, the Marianas had a booming economy, and people flocked from all over the western Pacific to work for the “near-slave” wages of just over $3.00 an hour—considerably more than they could make in their countries of origin. Yeah, it was ”Arbeit Macht Frei” all over again.

At any rate, in the last year or so more stringent labor standards have been imposed, the garment industry and the economy have collapsed, and the population is now largely dependent on the government. Another Democratic success story. Oh, yes, and Abramoff was also strongly pro-Israel. For some reason, he wasn’t impressed with the Democrats as prospective allies. So much for his “key role” in advancing right-wing causes. (“Key role”? Who assigned Abramoff this role? Or do you mean “other stuff he did”? If so, it looks like you’re concocting a conspiracy out of pure vocabulary.)

Forgive me for being dense, but I still don’t see the logic behind bribing members of your own team. If Abramoff knew the VRWC secret handshakes, then he ought to have been bribing Democrats. If he was making campaign contributions to people because he favored their agenda, then he was doing what I would do, if I had the money. And if he was facilitating contributions on behalf of his clients, then he was influence-peddling—a big, dingy gray area. Your partisanship needs an infusion of basic logic.

"Forgive me for being dense, but I still don’t see the logic behind bribing members of your own team. "

So what? It is a matter of legal fact that Scanlon and Abramoff bribed Ney. It happened, whether you see the logic to it or not.

There's no doubt many Democrats, including myself, hope that the Republicans get their comeuppance with the whole Abramoff thing. But the fact is that specific wrongdoinng has to be proven, and I'm not sure I trust the Bush White House to do the job. But at any rate, neither Democrats or Republicans are guilty of anything just because they took campaign donations. Virtually every major politician takes money from lobbyists. The alternative is to be outspent 10-1 by your opponent and lose your seat.

The fact is that DeLay's K Street Project was designed to wrap up the lobbyists and make them an arm of the Republican electoral machine. To the extent that the stink ends up on them, they sort of asked for it.

And I don't think Democratic politicians are inherently more honest than Republican ones. But the fact remains the Republicans had more to sell, which is why I think they'll take the brunt of this oone.

Geek, the "Scnalon and Abramoff bribed Ney" part is a matter of legal fact. The claim that there's some meaningful link between his bribery and his political contributions is your personal assertion. I'm saying the assertion doesn't make any sense, in light of the facts that we both agree on.

Unless, of course, you regard Mochtar Riady as a member who played a "key role" on the Democratic team.

So what? It is a matter of legal fact that Scanlon and Abramoff bribed Ney. It happened, whether you see the logic to it or not.

Uh, for future reference, while evidence suggests that Abramoff and Scanlon bribed Ney, it is not "a matter of legal fact." The feds had Abramoff and Scanlon dead to rights on a number of charges, and they risked life imprisonment if they didn't plead and help the feds try to nail other guys. Those other guys deny any wrongdoing. Until they are convicted, it is not a legal fact that they've accepted bribes.

I'm not saying that I think Ney's innocent, but your description of the known facts is inaccurate.

1. Does anyone seriously deny that Abramoff is a Republican activist/organizer? The fact that every penny he's donated out of his own pocket shows where his sympathies, and agenda, lie. He is Tom DeLay's good buddy and ally, not Harry Reid's.

2. The K-Street project's aim was to make the lobbying industry a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party. That was Tom DeLay's agenda. And Abramoff was his ally in that quest.

3. The story isn't the campaign contributions. The story are the side-perks and the shady financial dealings that Abramoff and his associates engaged in.

4. Folks here ought to google "Scanlon" and "the wackos." That's what Abramoff was up to.

"Uh, for future reference, while evidence suggests that Abramoff and Scanlon bribed Ney, it is not "a matter of legal fact." The feds had Abramoff and Scanlon dead to rights on a number of charges, and they risked life imprisonment if they didn't plead and help the feds try to nail other guys. Those other guys deny any wrongdoing. Until they are convicted, it is not a legal fact that they've accepted bribes."

A conviction is a legal fact. There are convictions on the record that Abramoff and Scanlon bribed Ney. QED, it's a legal fact that they bribed Ney.

Ney hasn't been convicted of receiving the bribes yet, so as a formal matter the fact that he willfully received bribes is not a legal fact.

I guess the standard for ethics for Repulican leaders is "Not Convicted Yet."

A conviction is a legal fact. There are convictions on the record that Abramoff and Scanlon bribed Ney. QED, it's a legal fact that they bribed Ney.

No, they pled guilty to conspiring to bribe Ney. Conspiring to commit a crime does not mean that the underlying crime is actually committed; it simply means you planned with another to engage in an unlawful activity. In other words, just because it is a "matter of legal fact" that Scanlon tried to bribe Ney does not mean that it's also a legal fact that Ney was in fact bribed.

Again, I'm not disputing your inferance; I'm disputing you labeling it as a "matter of legal fact."

The criminal information/plea agreement makes it plain that Ney was, in fact, bribed. Not that Scanlon and Abramoff merely tried to bribe him, but that they succeeded in doing so:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/abramoff-plea9.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/abramoff-plea11.html

Abramoff actually pled to these charges in an effort to focus on real problems he's got in Florida. Simply because he pleads to a crime does not mean it is a fact the crime occured. Many times pleas will be accepted to lesser charges on the discretion of prosecutors. That in no way relieves prosecutors of the burden of proof for any related charges. Abramoff's pleadings have zero legal implications for Bob Ney's defense.

At least you got the Geek part right.

Except that Abramoff and Scanlon are now cooperating witnesses who will get on the witness stand and testify that Ney accepted bribes from them.

But, please, keep on defending the indefensible. And please, please re-elect Tom DeLay as majority leader.

Yeah, it's the Democrats who are in a panic.

Dream on.