Does Abramoff Scandal Threaten Vitter?

After about a gazillion years of Republican harping about Democratic corruption, it looks like the Jack Abramoff scandal appears that it could well involve significant members of the Republican Congressional leadership in Washington.

Abramoff's partner in crime, Michael Scanlon, copped a plea today in a federal court in Washington, agreeing to turn state's evidence against Abramoff. Scanlon knows everything that happened. Much of the money involved in the scandal ($80 million from Indian tribes alone) flowed through his bank accounts. He's agreed to give the tribes $19 million in restitution.

The indictment alleges that Scanlon and Abramoff used Abramoff's Washington restaurant Signatures and luxury boxes at the MCI Center and FedEx Field to hand out favors to lawmakers and policy makers. Those favors apparently came in the form of not billing for things like food and drinks.

According to the New York Times, Scanlon's plea agreement included new information:

The plea agreement released Monday offered new details of many of the accusations against Mr. Scanlon.

It said that beginning in January 2000, Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Abramoff conspired to begin offering a "stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts and influence and agreements to provide official action and influence."

"Those things of value included, but are not limited to, travel, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment, election support for candidates for government office, employment for officials and relatives of officials and campaign contributions," it
said.

One of those "candidates for government office" who benefited from the Abramoff/Scanlon partnership was then-Congressman, now United States Senator David Vitter.

An April 15, 2005, article in BusinessWeek highlighted an Abramoff-sponsored fund raiser for Vitter held at Signatures on September 9, 2003:

A separate fund-raiser at the restaurant is causing headaches for freshman Senator David Vitter (R-La.). After BusinessWeek inquired about his Sept. 9, 2003, evening fund-raiser at the restaurant -- where then-Representative Vitter raised $12,000 -- the senator sent letters seeking clarification to the FEC and to Signatures restaurant on Apr. 15.

A Vitter spokesman says the campaign had signed a contract agreeing to pay for the 16-person event and provided Vitter's personal American Express card number to cover the tab -- but was never billed. Nor did the campaign report the event as an in-kind contribution.

A notice advertising the event to potential donors said the $1,000 per-head cocktail reception would be hosted by Abramoff, but Vitter's office now says that the lobbyist wasn't at the dinner.

GREAT LOBSTER. In his letter to FEC General Counsel Larry Norton, Vitter asks the commission for advice on how to "report this information on our FEC reports.... We do not want to compound one reporting error with another." In a letter to Signatures, Vitter says the restaurant "did not comply with the terms of our agreement" to charge the event to his personal credit card. "I am hereby directing you to charge my credit card today for the costs of the event and to immediately furnish me with proof that the charges have been duly posted," he writes.

Speculation in Washington is that this scandal will turn out to be the biggest Congressional scandal in more than a century. Coming as it does during a time when Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the White House, the bulk of the impact will be on that party and its 'conservative' leaders.

Apparently tax cuts for the rich, ripping away the social safety net, and shifting the federal tax burdens to the middle class were not enough for this crowd. They wanted more.

Here it comes!

Huge Break in Abramoff Corruption Case. Scanlon Flips!

The Washington Post reports that Jack Abramoff's partner in crime, Michael Scanlon, is going to plead guilty on Monday to charges of conspiracy to commit fraud and bribe government officials, including at least one member of Congress.

The victims of the fraud to which Scanlon will plead guilty to conspiring to commit include the Coushatta Indian Tribe of Louisiana.

This is a huge break in this case as Scanlon worked tightly with Abramoff on the schemes to scam the Indian tribes out of about $80 million and then use that money as a political slush fund used to influence politicians and policy makers in Washington.

Scanlon is a former staffer of Congressman Tom DeLay, former House Majority Leader and a prominent funder of Congressman Charles Boustany's 2004 campaign.

Scanlon's importance to the case cannot be overstated. Here are a few relevant paragraphs from the Washington Post story:

Scanlon could help investigators learn more about the purpose of gifts and nearly $3 million in campaign contributions Abramoff and his tribal clients lavished on members of Congress and their staffers, who night after night filled the lobbyist's four sports skyboxes. Scanlon may also be able to elaborate on e-mails that have been made public by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, in which Abramoff discussed job offers to public officials and his efforts to get political appointees at the Interior Department to intercede on issues affecting clients.

Scanlon may also be knowledgeable about Abramoff's direction of tribal funds to several charitable foundations and advocacy groups and tax-exempt organizations, including one run by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. E-mail shows that Scanlon was intimately familiar with some of the financial dealings of anti-gambling activist Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition.

Reed, a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in Georgia, has acknowledged receiving $4 million in dealings with Abramoff to whip up anti-casino campaigns in the South, but has maintained he did not know the funds came from the gaming proceeds of tribes that wanted to scuttle competition.

E-mails and other documents obtained by The Washington Post, and some released by the Indian Affairs Committee, show that Reed was routinely paid with tribal funds that were sent to Scanlon's firm, then routed to an Abramoff company called KayGold, and then sent to one of Reed's Atlanta-based political consulting firms.

Scanlon's e-mails and memos often reveal an aggressive, take-no-prisoners style. In a 2001 memo to a representative of the Louisiana Coushatta tribe, Scanlon said his political program was "designed to make the Coushatta Tribe a politician's best friend -- or worst political nightmare."

While the focus of the case is on activities around the money taken from the Indian tribes, it has tentacles that extend broadly across Washington and Republican politics. Abramoff and Norquist worked very closely with DeLay and with Karl Rove. The case has already reached into the White House with the indictment last month of David Safavian.

The New York Times story on the scandal quotes long-time Congress watcher Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution:

"I think this has the potential to be the biggest scandal in Congress in over a century. I've been around Washington for 35 years, watching Congress, and I've never seen anything approaching Abramoff for cynicism and chutzpah in proposing quid pro quos to members of Congress."

The significance of this corruption scandal is not limited to the individuals involved. It is important to recall that the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 1994 largely by running against what they called the entrenched corruption of the Democratic Party which had held majority power in the House since the 1950s.

As the charges against Abramoff and Scanlon detail, in one short decade the corruption unleashed by the Republicans makes the corruption of the Democrats look quite pedestrian.

Scanlon Charged With Conspiracy to Bribe Officials, Cheat Indian Tribes

Abramoff partner and former DeLay spokesman Michael Scanlon is indicted for defrauding Indian tribes (including the Coushatta Indians of Louisiana). Here's a story. Here's the indictment (pdf).

There'll be a lot more about this in the next few days.

But, isn't it interesting that the Republican corruption machine has come a cropper while playing in Louisiana's allegedly ultra-corruption? And, where are the Louisiana-based U.S. Attorneys on this case? Guess they're still only targeting Democrats?

Boustany Votes to Make Farmers, Students and Poor Pay for Tax Cuts for the Rich

Congressman Charles Boustany voted in lock-step with the radical leadership of his party again yesterday, voting twice to force cuts in support programs for farmers, students and the poor in order to cover the costs of Republican tax cuts for the rich.

Boustany did not join a group of conscience-driven Republican moderates who said they could not support the more draconian cuts proposed by the Republican leadership. Those cuts were defeated in a vote on Thursday (with Boustany voting to make those cuts).

Republicans, after giving away hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest segments of society (and, in the process turning the largest surplus in history into the largest deficits), have been looking for opportunities to display some semblance of fiscal responsibility while, at the same time, working to extend those tax cuts.

Boustany has been following the GOP leadership at every turn at the expense of the interests of the people of the Seventh Congressional District.

How so? Here's a description of who will be affected by the cuts Boustany supported:

The House measure would cut about 220,000 people off food stamps, allow states to impose new costs on Medicaid beneficiaries, squeeze student lenders, cut aid to state child-support enforcement programs and trim farm supports.

Let's start with farmers. The Seventh District has thousands of farmers (pdf) who get substantial supports from the federal government. Boustany voted to reduce those supports.

The Seventh District has a significant number of food stamp recipients. Boustany voted to remove more than 200,000 people from this program. People in his district will be affected.

The bills Boustany supported also reduce funding for Pell Grants for college students and low-income heating assistance programs (a few months after voting to give tax breaks to energy companies!).

Charles Boustany has been a loyal vote for those who raised money for him; too bad those folks don't have the interests of the Seventh District at heart!

Abramoff's Corruption Circus Crosses Party Lines

The Associated Press has broken new ground in the saga of the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, Indian Casino Licensing Division. An Indian casino license request by a tribe in Louisiana is at the center of the latest revelations, and so, too, is the fact that Abramoff's influence (i.e., "money") reached across party lines to influence action on the license.

In an article appearing in papers across the country today, the AP reports that 33 senators and congressmen who wrote letters to Interior Secretary Gale Norton in opposition to the Jena Choctaw's license request received contributions from Abramoff's clients or were the direct beneficiaries of Abramoff fund-raising operations. The total money distributed, according to the AP, was $830,000 between 2001-2004.

Abramoff's favorite ATM, the Coushatta Indian tribe of Louisiana, was the primary donor, the AP reports.

The list of 27 lawmakers who were recipients of Abramoff's operation extends into the leadership of both parties. The AP reports congressional leaders did quite well by doing Abramoff's bidding: House Speaker Dennis Hastert ($100,000), Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid ($66,000), former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ($57,000).

Louisiana lawmakers of both parties got in on the dealing, too. Representative Jim McCreary got $36,000 in Abramoff-related contributions; Senator Mary Landrieu got $24,000; former Senator John Breaux got $1,000 in campaign contributions and $10,000 "for his library fund."

Senator David Vitter, the AP reports, took money from Abramoff and used Abramoff's restaurant for a fund-raiser for his Senate campaign. He later returned the contributions and the money from the fund-raiser. Apparently that does not get him out of hot water:

Federal prosecutors are investigating whether Abramoff's fundraising influenced members of Congress or the Bush administration, and whether anyone tried to conceal their dealings with Abramoff.

The AP includes Senator Vitter as one of those whose activities are being scrutinized.

Does all this money in response to cooperation with a lobbyist constitute corruption? The politicians say no. One watch dog group thinks it does:

Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor, said lawmakers' denials of a connection rang hollow.

"Special interests do get more and they do get what they pay for despite the constant denial that lawmakers can't be bought," said Sloan, who now runs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a group that monitors public officials' conduct.

It's clear that the high cost of running campaigns and the huge growth in size and influence of the lobbying industry in Washington in recent years have opened new avenues for corruption. The result is that expensive campaigns have created an addiction to campaign money that leads politicians to replace the interests of their constituents with the interests of their contributors.

If you want to know in whose interest government works, in the words of Watergate's Deep Throat, follow the money.

Bush/Cheney War on Truth Intensifies

The war now being waged by the Bush/Cheney administration against those intent on holding the President and Vice President accountable for (well, anything, but specifically) their rush into an unprovoked war in Iraq and their failure to prepare for the aftermath is getting more intense.

Knight Ridder's Washington Bureau says recent speeches by President and Vice President are playing fast and loose with the facts.

This Explains Why They Didn't Testify Under Oath

With public anger rising about already high fuel costs rising nearly as fast as oil company profits, Congressional Republicans recently made a big show of grilling the top executives from those companies about their profits and fuel costs.

The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Republican Ted ("Bridge to nowhere") Stevens of Alaska, ignored protests of committee Democrats and did not require the oil execs to swear that their testimony would be truthful.

Now we know why.

The front page headline in today's Washington Post reads: "Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force."

Here are the first paragraphs:

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.

Here's another:

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.

I can't for the life of me figure out why Vice President Cheney has fought so hard to keep the record of these energy task force meetings secret!

High fuel prices with record oil company profits, coupled with oil execs so giddy that they are willing to lie to the Congress about their role in shaping policy? Sounds to me like energy policy is the Bush administration policy initiative that has worked exactly as it was designed!