SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (16941)1/23/2006 12:48:07 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Fix Congress, Not the Lobbyists

Lobbyists, for all their selfish intentions and dubious methods, aren't the problem. Members of Congress and the way they spend taxpayers' money are.

by Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard
01/30/2006

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE moments when you realize Congress is not an altogether serious body.
There have been others. One that comes to mind is the frantic effort several decades ago to stop the National Football League from blacking out home games on local television (unless stadium tickets have already sold out). This time it's worse. The current drive for lobbying reform is purely cosmetic. And it skirts the real issue. Lobbyists, for all their selfish intentions and dubious methods, aren't the problem. Members of Congress and the way they spend taxpayers' money are.

Lobbyists will always be with us. Barring them from taking members of Congress or staffers to lunch won't fundamentally alter the relationship between lobbyists and legislators. Nor will a ban on gifts to members or their aides. And while a prohibition on congressional travel paid for by private groups is a good idea, it's not a meaningful curb on potential corruption in Congress. Democrats want to establish a new office of public integrity to examine disclosure statements by lobbyists for possible violations. This is flyspecking.

Congress is noisily responding to the wrong scandal. Based on what we know now, disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is chiefly to blame for fleecing Indian tribes. Yes, he financed a golfing excursion to Scotland by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and may have prompted wrongdoing by Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio. But these incidents alone don't touch on the real source of corruption.

The case that does involves Republican Rep. Duke

Cunningham of California, who resigned from Congress after admitting taking bribes. This case exposed the incentives to corruption produced by the spending and budget practices of Congress. For a price, Cunningham would slip spending measures into appropriations bills with practically no one's noticing. The sheer complexity and opaqueness of the budget made it easy to do so.

It's not just so-called earmarks that lead to trouble. More broadly, it's the fact that Congress spends so much, and often in deceptive ways that go beyond earmarks, that makes Capitol Hill a rich target for lobbyists. So what's needed isn't lobbying reform, which deals merely with the symptom. What's needed is congressional reform.

Some members of Congress have known this for a long time. Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a fearless critic of earmarks, says that restrictions on lobbyists amount to "peripheral reform at best. We first have to look at our own conduct." Republican Rep. Mike Pence says the budget process has "led to excessive spending and outright corruption."

At the top of the list of reforms is the transformation of the congressional budget resolution into a legally binding document, signed by the president. Now it's merely advisory, yet it gives the public the impression that Congress is holding down spending. Congress then regularly exceeds the budget limit set in the resolution with impunity.

Another current abuse is "emergency" spending.
True, there are legitimate emergencies, such as Hurricane Katrina. But emergency bills are regularly larded with routine expenditures not related to any emergency. Legislation proposed by Republican Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Jeb Hensarling of Texas would carefully define emergencies as "sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary" and limit spending to those cases.

Earmarks, which Republicans have shamelessly expanded, should be outlawed entirely or, at a minimum, bear an actual "earmark" to identify the expenditure with the legislator who's inserting it.
The current process allows members of Congress to insert earmarks anonymously. "There's no requirement the spending be attributed to anyone," says Pence. Often when earmarks are "exposed to the light of day, no one steps forward to take credit," he says. By attaching a name, "you would create greater transparency and greater accountability overnight."

As things now stand, the president has the authority to pluck spending measures from the budget and ask Congress to revoke them. The process is called "recission," but it doesn't work because Congress usually ignores the president's requests. The solution? Force Congress to take up proposed recissions on an expedited basis. This is another way of exposing spending abuses.

Then there's the nuclear option. No, not the one to bar Senate filibusters of judicial nominations. I'm referring to term limits: three terms for House members, two for senators. This is an extreme measure, but there's a strong rationale for it if one really desires to reduce the influence of lobbyists.

The conventional wisdom in Washington--self-serving as usual--is that term limits would lead to a Congress dominated by lobbyists with extraordinary influence over callow legislators. Not true. Members freshly elected and not firmly entrenched in their seats tend to be the most attuned to their states or districts and thus the most impervious to the blandishments of lobbyists. After years in office, they often
become "Washingtonized" and pals with lobbyists. Term limits would short-circuit this.

Of course, budget and spending reforms have been proposed for years and have gotten nowhere. Ryan explains why: "We have a revenue and taxing machine that Democrats built in 1974, and [Republicans] have only built on top of it. . . . Most of the people in Congress don't want these reforms. Appropriators are scared to death."

In all likelihood, Congress will take the cosmetic approach, with a few innocuous reforms of lobbying. Republicans hope to avert being tarred by the Abramoff scandal, and Democrats aim to use the scandal for partisan gain.

For a perfect example of the Democratic response, listen to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, elected in 2004 and touted as an instant statesman. For Republicans, said Obama, "instead of meeting with lobbyists, it's time to start meeting with some of the 45 million Americans with no health care. Instead of hitting up the big firms on K Street, it's time to start visiting with workers on Main Street who are wondering how they'll send their kids to college or whether their pension will still be around when they retire."

Those are not the words of a serious man.

- Fred Barnes

weeklystandard.com



To: Sully- who wrote (16941)1/25/2006 4:32:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The More Things Change . . .

Washington lobbyists are still getting rich off Indian casinos.

by Matthew Continetti
The Weekly Standard
01/30/2006

IN 2003, AT THE height of his influence in Washington, the ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff represented seven Indian tribes, among them the Mississippi Choctaw, the Louisiana Chitimacha, the Louisiana Coushatta, the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla, and the Saginaw Chippewa. Each tribe operated a casino. Three years later, Abramoff has pleaded guilty, in his dealings with those tribes, to charges of mail fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy, and has agreed to cooperate with Justice Department lawyers as part of their wide-ranging, and open-ended, congressional corruption probe. Abramoff is on his way to jail. The tribes he represented, however, still pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to K Street lobbyists.

In 1995, shortly after he returned to the capital after an unsuccessful stint as a movie producer, Abramoff, then at the firm Preston Gates, registered as a lobbyist for the Choctaw, who had opened the Silver Star Resort and Casino in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the previous year. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 opened the door for casino gambling, and it took no time at all before many tribes stepped right in.

Abramoff enjoyed a long-term, and lucrative, relationship with the Choctaw. In 2001, the Choctaw followed him, along with most of his other clients and his team of lobbyists, to the firm Greenberg Traurig. Also that year, Abramoff directed the Choctaw to hire his former colleague, Michael Scanlon, to perform "grassroots" work on the tribe's behalf. From June 2001 to April 2004, the Choctaw paid Scanlon's company, Capital Campaign Strategies, some $14,765,000.
Scanlon, as per a secret arrangement known as "Gimme Five," then split the money with Abramoff. (Last November, Scanlon also pleaded guilty to conspiracy.)

Last year, the Choctaw hired Barnes & Thornburg LLP, an Indiana firm with branches throughout the Midwest as well as in Washington, to "protect tribal sovereignty and to ensure federal funding for critical tribal programs," according to Senate disclosure forms. Protecting sovereignty and ensuring funding are both expensive. In the first half of 2005, the Choctaw paid Barnes & Thornburg around $200,000.

Several of the lobbyists who work on the account are familiar with the tribe, since they also represented the Choctaw alongside Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig. Edward Ayoob, for example, worked for Harry Reid before joining Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig. Kevin Ring left Greenberg Traurig in October 2004, when that firm discovered he had received payments from Capital Campaign Strategies. Ring is a former legislative director for California Republican congressman John Doolittle, who is under scrutiny in the Justice Department's Abramoff investigation. Ring is also an author; Regnery published his Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice in November 2004.

Another Barnes & Thornburg lobbyist mentioned in the firm's disclosure forms is Neil Volz, a former chief of staff to Ohio Republican congressman Bob Ney
. In 2002, Volz left Capitol Hill to work with Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig. Ney, who last week resigned from his chairmanship of the House Administration Committee, has the dubious honor of being the only lawmaker mentioned in Abramoff's and Scanlon's plea agreements. And Volz has the equally dubious honor of being one of two former congressional staffers mentioned in the Abramoff plea agreement, where he is identified as "Staffer B."

The plea agreement, also known as a criminal information, says that shortly after he arrived at Greenberg Traurig, Volz violated the one-year ban on former staffers' lobbying their bosses by contacting Ney and others "for the purpose of influencing official action on behalf of defendant ABRAMOFF's and Staffer B's clients." Volz, it should be noted, was also Ney's chief of staff in 2000, when the congressman, at Michael Scanlon's behest, entered two statements into the Congressional Record that helped Abramoff and his partner Adam Kidan purchase the SunCruz Casino cruise line.

Volz is no longer working on the Choctaw account. A spokesman for Barnes & Thornburg told me last week that Volz had resigned from the firm on January 16. The spokesman would provide no reason for Volz's departure.

In 2004, another former Abramoff client, the Louisiana Chitimacha tribe, hired the firm Cassidy & Associates to "monitor general Indian matters," according to disclosure reports. For this, the tribe paid Cassidy & Associates $40,000 in the first half of 2004. In the first half of 2005, the amount increased to $60,000. In charge of the account is Todd Boulanger, a former legislative aide to retired senator Bob Smith, the New Hampshire Republican. Boulanger worked with Abramoff at both Preston Gates and Greenberg Traurig, and followed him to Cassidy & Associates when Greenberg Traurig fired Abramoff in early 2004, after an internal investigation into his business practices.

Also registered to lobby on the Chitimacha's behalf is Shana Tesler, a Democrat who worked with Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig. Tesler's husband, Sam Hook, also worked at Greenberg Traurig, where he was a registered lobbyist for Grassroots Interactive, one of Abramoff's front companies. Tesler no longer works for Cassidy & Associates. Last July, shortly after the Senate Indian Affairs Committee held its third public hearing into Abramoff's lobbying practices, she and her husband left the United States for Israel.

Not all of Abramoff's former clients have signed contracts with his former lieutenants. At present, for example, the Louisiana Coushatta have no lobbyists in Washington, though last year they briefly employed the services of Hance Scarborough Wright Woodward & Weisbart, an Austin-based law firm. In 2004, the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians, who operate a casino in California, hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's lobbying giants. The firm has six lobbyists working the account, according to disclosure forms. They are well compensated. In the last six months of 2004, the Agua Caliente paid Akin Gump approximately $320,000.

Finally, the Saginaw Chippewa tribe, which operates the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, has hired not one, not two, but three different lobbying firms. There is IETAN Consulting, which declares, on its website, that its primary responsibility is "protecting inherent sovereign rights of tribes." The Chippewa's primary contact at IETAN is Larry Rosenthal, the former chief of staff of the National Indian Gaming Commission. The Chippewa also employ Holland & Knight, a massive, 1,200-lawyer firm that, according to its website, offers "service without boundaries." The Chippewa's lobbyist there is Aurene Michele Martin, a lawyer with extensive tribal experience, including a stint working for former Colorado Republican senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and another as acting assistant secretary for Indian affairs at the Interior Department.

The third firm the Chippewa employ is Chesapeake Enterprises, which helped the tribe navigate the Senate Indian Affairs Committee's investigation of Abramoff. For this, the tribe paid Chesapeake Enterprises $36,000 in the last half of 2004, and another $20,000 in the first half of 2005. The chairman of Chesapeake Enterprises is Scott W. Reed, who ran Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign.

Until an unidentified lobbyist called Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt in the fall of 2003 to draw attention to his business excesses, Abramoff was Reed's chief rival for Indian casino clients. Now that Abramoff is gone, however, Reed is the unquestioned impresario of Indian gambling. According to Senate filings, at one time or another his firm has lobbied on behalf of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux, the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, the Mashantucket Pequot, the Pokagon tribe, the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, the Tunica-Biloxi tribe, the Florida Seminoles, the Catawba Indian Band, and the Oneida tribe of Wisconsin. His firm is flush with casino money.

In early January, Reed talked about his former rival with a reporter for Business Week. "Jack Abramoff," he said, "brought a microscope to the whole industry." It's Reed's industry now.

Matthew Continetti is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

weeklystandard.com



To: Sully- who wrote (16941)1/25/2006 10:45:35 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Leahy And Jeffords Linked To Abramoff's Inner Circle

In Jack Abramoff
No Agenda

Just a Republican scandal?

<<< The lobbyist imbroglio consuming the nation’s capital has ensnared Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a top Democrat, a Vermont Guardian review of campaign records has found.
Two widely circulated lists place Leahy and fellow sen. Jim Jeffords on a list of senators who have received campaign contributions from clients or colleagues associated with super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.


The Guardian has found that much of these donations came from clients or associates who were either not being represented by Abramoff at the time or working with him. However, several donations have been confirmed and implicate both senators, according to a Guardian examination of Federal Elections Commission (FEC) records available online. >>>


While such connections between Abramoff and Republicans equal a "culture of corruption," both Leahy and Jeffords' offices hold themselves to different standards and claim they are not connected to Abramoff.


<<< In 2002, Leahy received a $1,000 campaign donation from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, according to FEC records. The tribe was one of Abramoff’s more lucrative clients. By contrast, top Democrats and Republicans in the Senate received campaign contributions of $10,000 or more from the tribe in recent years.

However, the Guardian has found that Leahy has also received thousands of dollars from attorneys at Preston, Gates, Ellis, Meeds and Rouvelas, and Greenberg Traurig, the two high-powered legal firms where Abramoff hung his hat.

The two most distinguished names that appear on these contribution lists are those of Edward “Eddie” Ayoob, a former top aide to current Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and Michael D. Smith, a high-powered lobbyist. Both Ayoob and Smith have been connected to Abramoff’s allegedly wide-ranging scheme to buy influence for select tribes. Smith, another Democratic fundraiser like Ayoob, along with former Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND, have been linked to Abramoff for their work on behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts, who were seeking federal recognition.

Ayoob donated $250 to Leahy’s campaign in October 2003, and Smith donated $250 to a joint fundraiser hosted by Leahy and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA, in December 2003. >>>


Jim Barnett of the Vermont Republican Party does not buy into Leahy's and Jeffords' excuses.

    “Saying that Indian gaming is a Republican issue is a 
weak defense … Everyone knows that this is a process
called bundling, and that Abramoff would walk into the
firm and ask attorneys to donate $1,000, $500, or $250 to
a campaign,” said Jim Barnett, executive director of the
Vermont Republican Party. “This is Abramoff money and
this is just an example of the utter hypocrisy that this
issue only affects Republicans; Pat Leahy is an Abramoff
Democrat.”
    Barnett said Leahy and Abramoff may “personally have 
different political philosophies, but when it comes to
the clients he’s paid to work for, the influence peddling
has no partisan divide.”
There may be no partisan divide, but their certainly is a double standard.

noagenda.org

vermontguardian.com



To: Sully- who wrote (16941)1/27/2006 5:38:33 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
DELAY NOT PART OF ABRAMOFF PROBLE

Kathryn Jean Lopez
The Corner

This is news, isn't it? From the Washington Post: "His attorneys tell him not to trumpet the fact that the Justice Department told them he is not a target in the Jack Abramoff investigation."

corner.nationalreview.com

washingtonpost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (16941)1/28/2006 12:30:50 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
WaPo's Ombudsman: Kudos For Fairness (And Perserverence)

posted by Ace
Ace of Spades HQ

The left is howling about Deborah Howell's remarks that Jack Abramoff "gave" money to both parties. The sinestrosphere continues pushing -- strenuously-- the disingenuous Howard Dean line that "no Abramoff money went to Democrats."

Howell exposes this howler:


I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in
my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money
to both parties. A better way to have said it would be
that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties.
    Lobbyists, seeking influence in Congress, often advise 
clients on campaign contributions. While Abramoff, a
Republican, gave personal contributions only to
Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to
make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to
members of Congress from both parties.
    Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the 
Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff’s Indian
clients contributed between 1999 and 2004 to 195
Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of
lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions
on what members of Congress were to receive specific
amounts.
CBSNews' Public Eye comments:
    Howell even offered up documents obtained by the Post to 
back her up. Not good enough for those upset with Howell –
and the paper. It didn’t take long for comments to come
flooding in – none too supportive.
The nastiness and name-calling in the "debate forum" caused the WaPo to shut it down.

Since I bash the MSM a lot, it's only fair to also credit them when they get something 100% right-- especially when doing so causes them grief from the people whose opinions they most care about (i.e., their fellow liberals'). It's not easy to take on your core audience and ideological brethren and tell them, "Sorry, I know what you want me to say, but what you want me to say is a lie. You're flat-out wrong, and possibly dishonest."

This whole contretemps illustrates the left's reliance upon slanted reportage and a carefully-controlled and censored flow of information. When they're not getting that, they realize it's a dire threat to their political prospects, and their "outrage" postively redlines before the engine explodes from too much nitrous oxide.

It also illustrates their post-modern-esque belief that the world is not as it is, but as they say it is. And by saying it's otherwise than it is, they think they can change it. And when others won't play ball, again, it's a massive threat to them.


ace.mu.nu

cbsnews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (16941)1/31/2006 9:53:56 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
DNC Chairman Howard Dean Has A Rough Weekend:

By Katie MacGuidwin
GOP.com Blog

On Fox News Sunday DNC Chairman Howard Dean was asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace:
    "[I]f We Find That There Were Some Democrats Who Wrote 
Letters On Behalf Of Some Of The Indian Tribes That
Abramoff Represented, Then What Do You Say, Sir?"
Dean’s response?
    "That's a big problem, and those democrats are in 
trouble, and they should be in trouble, and our party, if
the American people will put us back in power in '06, we
will have on the President's desk things that outlaw all
those kinds of behaviors."
Oops. In reality, some democrats, including Harry Reid, did write letters on behalf of Indian tribes represented by Abramoff. Read the details here.

gop.com

And while on the subject of Dean, Roll Call reports this morning “Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean’s management of the Democratic National Committee and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee’s cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle.

gop.com

foxnews.com

rollcall.com