Vanity Fair on Abramoff: Democrats did it too?

[EarlG]

I just finished reading Vanity Fair's piece on Jack Abramoff, and while it's certainly devastating for Republicans - notably Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, and Newt Gingrich, among others - the article still maintains that "Democrats did it too."

There are just a few throwaway paragraphs in the article relating to Democrats, with no real details about their alleged connections to Abramoff. For example:

"Most lobbyists meet with a committee chairman, staff, a few members," Abramoff recalls. "We'd meet with the whole leadership of the House and Senate, the entire committee on both sides, then create a roster of who might ideologically support the idea and get them in the war."

And:

Democrats, too, mainly in the Senate, could do Abramoff favors, and, while they may have abhorred his politics, his money still smelled good. They got more than a million dollars.

Who are these Democrats taking "more than a million dollars" of money that "smelled good?" Vanity Fair gets it right on personal contributions (Democrats did not receive a penny of Abramoff's political donations) but continues to muddy the water by noting that Democrats took money from Abramoff's clients:

Democrats insist that the Abramoff scandal is strictly a Republican affair. Of the more than $200,000 he gave away of his personal money, not a dime went to the Democrats. He always stipulated that his lobbying activities accord with his staunchly conservative beliefs. But Democrats received money from Abramoff's tribal clients, including: Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada ($30,500); Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota ($28,000); Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa ($14,500); and Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island ($31,000).

That's very misleading. It's common knowledge that Indian tribes have traditionally donated to Democrats - Vanity Fair even acknowledges this in their article:

Abramoff quickly brought in clients such as the government of Pakistan and, most important, the Northern Mariana Islands, an American territory in the Pacific whose exemption from certain American labor laws — factories there could pay their workers a pittance but still label their products "Made in the U.S.A." — was for Abramoff a classic case of free enterprise at work. So, too, he felt, were the Indian reservations. The Indians had always been Democrats, for Democrats were more sensitive to their social-welfare needs.

Vanity Fair mentions that Abramoff "promptly made (the tribes') agenda mesh with that of the conservatives," but as I noted back in January, Bloomberg News reported the important fact that tribes which hired Abramoff dramatically increased their contributions to Republicans while maintaining or decreasing their traditional contributions to Democrats:

Bloomberg News

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff joined with his former partner, Michael Scanlon, and tribal clients to give money to a third of the members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, according to records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group. Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or 66 percent of the total.

Of the top 10 political donors among Indian tribes in that period, three are former clients of Abramoff and Scanlon: the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of California. All three gave most of their donations to Republicans -- by margins of 30 percentage points or more -- while the rest favored Democrats.

(snip)

Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past.

The Saginaw Chippewas gave $500,500 to Republicans between 2001 and 2004 and $277,210 to Democrats, according to a review of data compiled by Dwight L. Morris & Associates, a Bristow, Virginia-based company that tracks campaign-finance reports. Between 1997 and 2000, the tribe gave just $158,000 to Republicans and $279,000 to Democrats.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arVHles5cKJc&refer=us#

So I'll ask again - how is it that Democrats are tainted by tribes which gave them less money after hiring Abramoff? Why does Vanity Fair insist that Abramoff's money "smelled good" to Democrats, when they had been taking similar contributions from Indian tribes for years, and were actually facing a decrease in those contributions?

This is not a rant about the conservative media - there's plenty of other evidence to support that claim. In fact I think Vanity Fair did quite well with this piece. And if Democrats really were involved in a quid pro quo with Abramoff then of course they should face the same consequences as Republicans.

But Vanity Fair's failure to connect the dots between Democrats, Abramoff, and a decrease in tribal contributions, instead choosing to throw out the ambiguous claim that "Democrats did it too," is just plain lazy. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who gets indicted over this.

[MaineDem]

1. No Democrats took Abramoff's money

No Democrats were offered Abramoff's money. He was a Republican lobbyist and wouldn't "waste" his money on Democrats.

I hate articles like this that hint at wrongdoing with no proof! I agree with you that it's lazy journalism. But I've learned that most journalists are lazy and are willing to have a story handed to them without needing to do any research.

Some of Jack's clients donated to Democrats but the big difference is that they did it legally and without the quid pro quo Abramoff always asked for when he donated. And, you're right, these donations have been decreasing.

No story...

[Blutodog]

3. Not Lazy at all:

Vanity fair purposely is painting a vague picture of Democratic complicity for it's readers to fill in the blanks. It's just their way of trying to spread the blame around and lessen it's impact on it's clint base the Big Corps. and their party the rethuglikens.

[wtmusic]

2. Great post. K&R. nt

[TayTay]

4. This makes no sense to me.

It's like saying that someone was mugged and that, since you knew the victim and he/she once loaned you money, you are guilty as well. That makes no sense at all.

The Indian tribes were the victims of the Abramoff and his cronies. They were not the ones who violated the law and did the crime. They are the victims of the crime.

[ProSense]

5. Vagueness implies guilt! Corporate equation to save ad dollars:

Abramoff = Tribes


False.

[Roland99]

6. I sent this in an email to Vanity Fair >>>>>

On Pg.247 of the new issue, Vanity Fair mentions the Dems received money from clientsof Abramoff, not from Abramoff nor from his firm. That's a very sly way of trying to link the Dems to the scandal. Who says the tribes were solely clients of Abramoff? They didn't deal with anyone but Abramoff? Vanity Fair also failed to note that once Abramoff was their main contact, that the tribes' contributions to Dems dropped dramatically.

How about some journalism in the commentary instead of spewing right-wing talking points?

[AX10]

7. One would expect more of Vanity Fair. I guess not.

Vanity Fare might as well be the New York Post. They KNOW VERY WELL THAT THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT TAKE ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER FROM JACK ABRAHMOFF. They also know that Abrahmoff is a Republican.

Looks more like the Mooney Times to me--> "Democrats insist that the Abramoff scandal is strictly a Republican affair. Of the more than $200,000 he gave away of his personal money, not a dime went to the Democrats. He always stipulated that his lobbying activities accord with his staunchly conservative beliefs. But Democrats received money from Abramoff's tribal clients, including: Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada ($30,500); Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota ($28,000); Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa ($14,500); and Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island ($31,000)."

[radio4progressives]

8. I think Vanity Fair hesitates to spell out specifics ..

because they don't personally wish do the job for prosecuters. But in the very least, to be credible, they have to at least mention Democrats in general terms. If prosecuters don't go after these Dems, then either because their is no crime committed - or there is no "there - there"...

but for any of us to protest the mentioning of Dems involved with lobbyist is really being rediculously naive - Dems were up to their ears and necks in this stuff forever - and still are - just because Dems aren't in the majority - don't make them saints on this issue. c'mon people!

Vanity Fair problably knows a lot more damaging information and are giving us a break - if that's the case - then the very least they needed to do for credibility is to at least mention what has already been reported in other publications.

take off those rose colored glasses, and start looking at everybody in washington with a much more critical eye - after all we've been through, witnessed and learned, one thing should stand out to everyone and that is we have too few friends in Congress. (friends of the working class, ordinary citizens)...