Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (2200)	1/11/2006 11:22:45 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224655

Wrong as usual, Armpit. The vast majority of the money to every pol on that list is from a short list of Indian tribe clients of Abramoff. Less than 5% was from Abramoff himself. Furthermore, no Republican took more than $8k for him and the vast majority of those who did take his personal contributions took from $250 to $2000 (the average was $1,200) - fairly everyday sums for a lot of campaigns and PACs. That those he personally gave campaign contributions to are all Republicans is neither surprising nor relevant. This scandal isn't about whether he made perfectly legal personal contributions exclusively to Republicans or Republican entities. There is nothing illegal or even unethical in taking campaign contributions from a US citizen who happens to be a lobbyist. It is about whether he was bribing members of Congress to get their votes on legislation his Indian tribe clients had an interest in. Now, there is nothing inherently illegal or unethical about taking campaign contributions from his tribal clients, either. Where there are potential legal and ethical issues is where he or anyone else makes contributions in exchange for votes on legislation or other favors from members of congress. Since the scandal around "Abramoff money" is all about whether his influence peddling on behalf of a few Indian tribe clients constituted bribes for votes on particular legislation, the money members recieved from those clients is AT LEAST as relevant as what he personally gave. I'd argue more so. After all, it was the clients who had an interest in pending legislation, not Abramoff. His personal giving more likely reflects his personal interests - e.g. his party affinity and friendships - rather than the legislative interests of these few clients. So what matters is not whether the money came from him personally or from one of his tribal clients, but rather whether ANY of it was given as a bribe -i.e. to buy votes on pending legislation. And if he was directing money to pols from Indian tribes interested in pending legislation, anyone who thinks the money going to Republicans was to buy votes while that going to Democrats FROM THE EXACT SAME SOURCES was just honest, everyday campaign fundraising among Indian tribes half a country away from home is ... well ... delusional. But then, we already knew you were delusional. PS: While 196 recipients of this tribal "Abramoff money" were Republican, there were also 117 Democrats and 1 independent recipient who, on average, took over $13,000 each. The average tribal contribution to Republicans was only $570 higher. 37% of all the tribal money went to Democrats. Over 1.5 million Dollars. These facts can all be found at the link provided in the earlier post. Only the cognitively dissonant and slothfully inductive would argue that no Democrat had financial relations with that man, Jack Abramoff.