Bloomberg News reports that after Abramoff began represented them Indian tribes reduced their giving to Democrats.
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.
...The numbers show that "Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans," said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.
"It is somewhat unusual in that most lobbyists try to work with both Republicans and Democrats, but we're already seeing that Jack Abramoff doesn't seem to be a usual lobbyist," Noble said.
It might be well to start calling the Indian tribes victims instead of clients. They were ripped off by a GOP operative who also induced them to give less to their long time Democratic friends. Now the GOP is claiming because they continued to give lower amounts to Democrats it proves this is a bipartisan scandal.
This controversy and reporting on it is shaking the media.
The Washington Post has shut down their blog about their paper to comments after Democrats and liberals became outraged by the hundreds after their ombudsman, in an otherwise excellent article on the paper's reporting on Abramoff, stated incorrectly that Abramoff gave money to Democrats. She then ended by hinting that while Republicans would soon face indictments Democrats might face indictments too.
Many respondents were furious and intemperate in their language. Imagine that. Think about the last time you really lashed out at someone. Could it have been when someone who claimed to be truthful and responsible lied? When someone in a position of trust to you, like an ombudsman is supposed to be to the readers, lied and showed they could not be trusted? Could you have gotten intemperate in your language?
The other editors of the paper have not been much better. They have been busy defending her while admitting she was wrong in related articles. The editor of the WP online edition only appeared on a conservative talk show, which regularly blasts the paper for being "liberal," to discuss the controversy. Brady is apparently is unaware of liberal talk show alternatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment