Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Dems Don't Know Jack

By Greg Sargent, The American Prospect. Posted February 1, 2006.


Not so bipartisan after all: A new study reveals that Abramoff's scummy money was twice as likely to line Republicans' pockets.
Advertisement

(This article is reprinted from The American Prospect.)

A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate.

The analysis, which was commissioned by The American Prospect and completed on Jan. 25, was done by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a for-profit firm specializing in campaign finance that has done research for many media outlets.

In the weeks since Abramoff confessed to defrauding tribes and enticing public officials with bribes, the question of whether Abramoff directed donations just to Republicans, or to the GOP and Democrats, has been central to efforts by both parties to distance themselves from the unfolding scandal. President Bush recently addressed the question on Fox News, saying: "It seems to me that he [Abramoff] was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties."

Although Abramoff hasn't personally given to any Democrats, Republicans, including officials with the GOP campaign to hold on to the Senate, have seized on the donations of his tribal clients as proof that the saga is a bipartisan scandal. And the controversy recently spread to the media when the ombudsman for the Washington Post, Deborah Howell, ignited a firestorm by wrongly asserting that Abramoff had given to both. She eventually amended her assessment, writing that Abramoff "directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties."

But the Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it's highly misleading to suggest that the tribes' giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.

The analysis includes a detailed look at seven of Abramoff's tribal clients, and a comparison of their giving with that of approximately 170 other tribes. (Abramoff is often said to have had nine tribal clients. But Morris omitted two of the tribes -- the Pueblo of Santa Clara, whose donations were virtually nonexistent, and the Tigua Indian Reservation, because it isn't listed in Federal lobbying files as having a lobbyist, and Abramoff worked on contingency. At any rate Santa Clara's post-Abramoff donations to the GOP were overwhelmingly higher than to Dems, so including them would have added even more to the GOP side of the ledger.)

The analysis shows:

  • In total, the donations of Abramoff's tribal clients to Democrats dropped by 9 percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up.
  • Five out of seven of Abramoff's tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones.
  • Four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on.
  • Abramoff's clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.

"It's very hard to see the donations of Abramoff's clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels," Morris, the firm's founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Less than half!
Posted by: AlanSmithee on Feb 1, 2006 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How dare these tribes give less to democrats than to republicans! Don't they know that democrats depend on bribes too? Disgraceful!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Per cent of corruption
Posted by: blueneck on Feb 1, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, so the Democrats are only half as corrupt as Republicans! They must really be patting themselves on the back!
Blueneck

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great, so they don't know one lobbyist...
Posted by: Newtopia on Feb 1, 2006 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This means the Dems aren't crooked as a 90 year old dick?

Do you have any idea how many lobbyists there are?

Do you know who AIPAC is?

Do you know how much money THEY dole out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obviously
Posted by: Artkansas on Feb 1, 2006 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans should Swift-Boat the Democrats for being unworthy of being bribed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HAHAHA!! We didn't give Bush SHIT!!!!
Posted by: Againstthewindwalking on Feb 1, 2006 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems my brothers, and sisters of the Western Bands of the Cherokee Nation didn't give Bush a damned dime after Abramoff! And everybody thinks Cherokees are TAME!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it just me?
Posted by: ccbite on Feb 1, 2006 6:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, quick, someone remind me again of why giving money to lobbyists is a good idea to begin with? And don't me give some of this prisoner's dilemma crap. Yeah, Abramoff funneled $ to the Republicans but most of the tribes are still sending $ to Democrats. Yeah and neither party ever second-guessed it. Sorry to rant here but power is still being traded like porn star trading cards. Why don't we just call it like it is and take the decisions that are made behind closed doors and just auction off influence to the highest bidder? How hard can it be to rent a warehouse in Las Vegas, televise it and let it be done? At least we would have some transparency and get our supposed 'public' deals back out in the open. Maybe it could be turned into a 'reality' TV series? I'm sure C-SPAN needs a new demographic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]