Abramoff -- 1/12/06
Abramoff.
Ah, Abramoff. Where do we begin? Every time I sit down to explain all the strands of this evolving and messy Washington scandal the post gets way too long. Let me try to keep it short.
Jack Abramoff was a professional lobbyist -- a person hired by interest groups to influence government to make policy that the groups want (KTR, p. 561-564). In Abramoff's case, the groups he worked for were primarily American Indians, and he was paid, among other things, to get Congress to pass laws that would facilitate their gambling enterprises. It's not clear where all the money Abramoff got from these groups has gone, but at least some of it found its way into the coffers of various politicians. Last week Abramoff pled guilty to charges of conspiracy, fraud (swindling his clients of up to $20 million), and tax evasion, and now many of those politicians are busy trying to donate the money to charity so that they aren't tainted by the scandal consuming Abramoff. More compromising than the campaign contributions, which are legal as long as campaign finance laws are followed (KTR, p. 623-624) are the other little inducements Abramoff and his friends offered members of Congress -- free meals at a restaurant he owned, free tickets to sporting events, and free golf outings to Scotland.
In his plea agreement, Abramoff implicates at least one congressman (Bob Ney of Ohio), and Washington observers expect that 12 more could get caught in the net before this is over, along with various staff members. Abramoff himself is a Republican and most of his close friends and political associates are as well, partly due to the success of a strategy pursued by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay put pressure on lobbying firms to hire Republicans if they wanted to do business with the Republican majority in Congress., causing the boundaries between lawmaker and lobbyist to blur in some unprecedented ways (Thomas B. Edsall, Lobbyists' Emergence Reflects Shift in Capital Culture WaPo, 1/12/06). The upshot of this strategy, along with the fact that Republicans hold most of the positions of power in Washington now, is that this is, for the most part, a Republican scandal.
One huge consequence of the Abramoff plea agreement is that Tom DeLay, a close associate of Abramoff's (KTR, p. 566) who was already under indictment in Texas, had to step down from his leadership post permanently. DeLay was an extraordinarily powerful figure in the Republican Party (KTR, PP. 130, 266-267) and his departure from leadership set of a scramble to fill his seat (Mary Curtius, Across-the-Board Votes on House GOP Leaders Sought, LAT, 1/12/06).
Another consequence is that, as lawmakers wait for the other Abramoff shoe(s) to drop, they are vying to outdo themselves in their commitment to lobbying reform (KTR pp. 564-566). But as we explain in the text, making reform stick is a tricky business when the practices in need of reform are so entrenched and when the people who would have to do the reforming are the very people who benefit from the system as it is (See Todd S. Purdum, Go Ahead, Try to Stop K Street. NYT 1/8/06 and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Hill Weighs Curbs on Lobbying: More Disclosure, Ban on Sponsored Trips Under Consideration , WaPo, 1/12/06).