Talk:Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on June 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

References to Harry Reid's acceptance of multiple bribes from Abramoff's lobbying group for Indian Gaming keep being deleted. This censorship clearly violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. DO not delete the tag until this is resolved. --DaleEastman 17:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are calling it a bribe shows that _you_ are engaged in POV. Yes, Reid took campaign contributions. So did dozens of other Congressman. Not all of them are listed. You are making an issue where these is none. -- Sholom 19:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The selective listing of only Republicans in this article and repeated editing out of Democrats when Abramoff gave to both Republcans and Democrats is telling. As for POV, that's what a discussion page is for - not an article. Get the difference? This article is among the most biased I've seen at Wikipedia. --DaleEastman 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
These things were discussed in great detail in the past at Talk:Jack Abramoff; see the archives there. I was actually arguing the same thing early on when the scandal first broke, that it was not fair to characterize the donations as Republican only. However, as the evidence came out and was analyzed, it was clear that the preponderant bulk of Abramoff's lobbying activities were for the benefit of a few GOP candidates.
The matter of who gave what money to whom is handled in detail at Monetary influence of Jack Abramoff - although now that I look at that article, I see some bits that might need some POV work.
Also, the only confirmed bribe, per the charges against Abramoff and his plea, was to Bob Ney. KWH 02:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The indian tribes had given to the Democrats in the past. There is no evidence to suggest that Abramoff ever met a democrat to lobby them for any purpose at all. It was Abramoff who was corrupt, not his firm. The firm he was 'working' for was one of the parties that was being swindled in this scheme. It was a 'full service' firm which means they work both sides of the street (OT: full service is also a euphemism for prostitution). They have two separate sets of lobbyists, one for each side. The tribes gave the money to the democrats through a separate lobbyist. All the internal communications show that Abramoff was precisely what he claimed to be: a partisan Republican who had worked his way up through the college republicans. Early on the article had a somewhat silly list of every $500 abramoff had ever given. The list is silly because the bribes were in the millions. --Gorgonzilla 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the absence of further debate and the clear preponderance in favor of the article as it stands I removed the NPOV tag. --Gorgonzilla 02:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COPYVIO

Use of copyrighted images is not allowed. It appears this article has had copyvio problems before. It's time to kill it before it embarrasses Wikipedia any further. --John Henry 02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Then remove the images. But you don't cite why you think they are copyvios and earlier today you tried to claim that a murder case Abramoff is seriously implicated in is not relevant to the Abramoff article. If someone is indicted for stealling $30 million from a guy who is murdered and a company the guy is co-owner of paid a quarter of a million dollars to two of the alleged three hitmen those are very relevant facts. --Gorgonzilla 03:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


No, COPYVIO is a reason for sppedy deletion regardless. You had your chance to fix things in August. You didn't. Nor did you even fix your copyvio on both images in this article. Your removal of the speedy delet tag is vandalism. You have been reported. Do not vandalize this article again. --John Henry 03:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please provide the website you believe the article is being copied from. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You are clearly not making this claim in good faith. A copyvio can always be fixed. You have failed to identify which material is allegedly violation of copyright and an issue with an image is not an reason to delete the article. You have misapplied the speedy tag. --Gorgonzilla 03:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason you gave in nominating the article for speedy deletion is that the image is copyrighted. You are welcome to nominate the image for deletion at WP:IFD, but a copyrighted image is not a reason to delete the entire article text. Feel free to nominate the image at IFD, but don't place a speedy or copyvio tag on the article again. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, now you've added the copyvio tag, but you neglected to show what website you're asserting its text is copied from. Please provide it, or the copyvio tag needs to come off. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyvios are reasons for Speedy Deletion nomatter what the copy vio is. Since Gorgonzilla has repetedly committed this crime, and since you now seem to be running cover for him, I have not only flagged his crime to wikipedia but to the image's owner as well.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Jul-12-Sat-1997/photos/ralphreed.jpg

--John Henry 04:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well, this is an easy fix. I'll remove the image. Feel free to deal with the image itself from here on WP:IFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


OCTOBER 2005??? Why is this still a current event? Anonymous - May 18, 2006.

[edit] Copyvio FIXED

Replaced text entirely I removed the entire possible copyvio text from the Reed article and replaced it with the text I wrote for Abramoff. This was the original intention.--Gorgonzilla 00:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as info, Gorgonzilla does the history behind this material continue to reside at the original site? I'd be concerned if material sourcing gets lost in these transfers.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
In the end I just deleted the Reed article entirely, it was not very good, it was simply a series of cut and paste quotes, probably fair use but no citations and no narrative. I took about four paragraphs from the Abramoff story and then expanded. The current wording is mine. --Gorgonzilla 14:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new info (page five is best)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050829/29jack_5.htm

[edit] http://caymannetnews.com/2005/08/912/foreign.shtml

http://caymannetnews.com/2005/08/912/foreign.shtml

[edit] Right picture?

Is that Abramoff? It sure looks like Norquist to me. Daniel Case 05:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May be relevant

new info! http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Beyond_Abramoff_Gambling_lobbyist_joined_forces_with_antigambling_congressman_derailed_gambling_0901.html

[edit] gop score card

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:gwTJLADYbD4J:www.waynemadsenreport.com/scorecard.doc+&hl=en

[edit] Allleged copyvio

Can you provide a link to the information you feel is a copyvio? · Katefan0(scribble) 03:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I had to put this somewhere

Abramoff investigation has GOP holding its breath CIA leak probe may be getting more attention, but troubles surrounding former lobbyist worry Republicans more. Advertisement

Dennis Cook/ASSOCIATED PRESS (enlarge photo) Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, right, with lawyer Abbe Lowe on Capitol Hill, is being investigated by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for his past lobbying activities on behalf of Indian casinos.

By Scott Shepard

WASHINGTON BUREAU

Sunday, October 16, 2005

WASHINGTON — A grand jury investigating the White House leak of a CIA agent's name is expected to wrap up its work in the next couple of weeks, but it is another investigation — of former Republican superstar lobbyist Jack Abramoff — that has the Republican political establishment holding its breath.

Abramoff is at the center of ever more complicated inquiries that touch on subjects as wide-ranging as allegations of influ- ence-peddling in Congress and the White House, a gangland-style slaying in Florida and political shenanigans in Guam.

And while the CIA leak investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, now in its second year, has yet to yield indictments, the investigations of Abramoff have resulted, so far, in bank fraud charges against him; obstruction charges against David Safavian, the Bush administration's former chief procurement official; and the withdrawal of President Bush's nomination of Timothy Flanigan, a onetime associate of Abramoff, to be the No. 2 official at the Justice Department.

Abramoff has had close connections with leading Republicans, including Bush; U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, the former House majority leader; Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; party strategist Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform; and strategist Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition executive director and Bush campaign official who is now running for lieutenant governor of Georgia.


Ethical 'linchpin'


Karl Rove, Bush's longtime senior political strategist and the White House deputy chief of staff, testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury for a fourth time Friday.

Rove "has some serious problems," said Naomi Seligman, spokeswoman for the watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "But while most of Washington is focused on Mr. Rove, we know that the linchpin to the ethical downfall of the White House and some members of Congress is the Abramoff investigation."

Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report newsletter, agreed that the Abramoff investigation is "the one that they (Republicans) are really worried about" because it has the potential of tarring the party.

"This is a real one," Cook said. "It has the potential to take the scandal issue to the next level."

Republicans are clearly nervous. Two prominent GOP figures, Santorum and Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have returned campaign donations that they received from Safavian.

"We just felt, with so many unanswered questions, that was in the best interest," Santorum media consultant John Brabender said.

A federal multiagency task force and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee are investigating Abramoff's past lobbying activities on behalf of Indian casinos, which reportedly netted him as much as $82 million in fees, and his golfing trips for members of Congress and other Republican luminaries.

Congressional Democrats have called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether Abramoff played a role in the demotion of a federal prosecutor in Guam in 2002 after the prosecutor started investigating a lobbying deal between Abramoff and Guam court officials. Their actions were prompted by an article in the Los Angeles Times this month suggesting that Rove might have been involved in the demotion.

Abramoff also is slated to stand trial in Florida in January on bank fraud charges in connection with his 2000 purchase, with partner Adam Kidan, of the SunCruz gambling ships from Greek financier Gus Boulis. They are accused of defrauding lenders in the $147 million purchase.

In an unusual twist of events, Boulis was shot to death at the wheel of his BMW sedan shortly after leaving his office one evening in February 2001, about a month after he had filed suit against Abramoff and Kidan, accusing them of failing to pay him $23 million in connection with the SunCruz sale.

Throughout the investigation, lawyers for Abramoff and Kidan repeatedly have said their clients know nothing about the circumstances of Boulis' death, and last month two men from Florida and a third from New York, none of whom have any known ties to Abramoff, were charged in the slaying.

Abramoff's lawyer, Neal Sonnett of Miami, did not respond to requests for comment.


Consequences


Safavian's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, said federal officials are pressuring her client, who once worked in a lobbying firm with Abramoff, to cooperate in their investigation of Abramoff. She accused the officials of "a creative use of the criminal code to secure his cooperation."

Safavian became the first government official charged in the corruption inquiry related to Abramoff's activities in Washington when, in a complaint filed by the FBI in mid-September, he was accused of making repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a congressional golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002 and of concealing his efforts to help Abramoff acquire federally managed property in Washing- ton.

The 2002 golf trip has attracted a lot of attention because it included not only Abramoff and Safavian, then the chief of staff of the General Services Administration, but also Reed and Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee. It was similar to a 2000 trip that DeLay made to England and Scotland for which part of the expenses were charged to a credit card of Abramoff's.

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists, but DeLay and Ney have both said they thought the trips were financed through a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, whose board of directors included Abramoff.

Flanigan, a former deputy counsel for Bush, had his Justice Department nomination withdrawn this month, the day after the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to question him further about his ties to Abramoff. Before joining the Bush administration, Flanigan worked for Tyco International Ltd. as a lawyer, a position in which he oversaw Abramoff's lobbying efforts for the Bermuda-based company.

From 2002 to 2004, Tyco paid Abramoff's firm $2.1 million to stop congressional efforts to deny federal contracts to companies that moved offshore to save on U.S. taxes.

The Judiciary Committee's action was prompted by a written response from Flanigan in which the Bush nominee said that Abramoff, one of the elite "Pioneer" fundraisers for the Bush presidential campaign, had boasted of his contacts with Rove.

The committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said the questions raised about Flanigan's ties to Abramoff "merit answers."


'Exploitation, deceit'


Abramoff has largely avoided public events since he and onetime partner Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide, endured blistering attacks from members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigating the fees that they received for lobbying on behalf of six casino-operating tribes.

The committee released hundreds of e-mails that Abramoff and Scanlon exchanged during their representation of the tribes, some of which referred to their clients as "idiots" and "troglodytes" and celebrated the hefty fees that they received. "Is life great or what!" Abramoff wrote in one.

While "every kind of charlatan and every type of crook" has exploited American Indians since the sale of Manhattan Island, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the committee chairman, "what sets this tale apart, what makes it truly extraordinary, is the extent and degree of the apparent exploitation and deceit."

grazon 23:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Major re-org

This story made the Washington Post again. [5] Rumour has it that there are indictments pending, hence the interest in this story despite the fact that the Rove-Libbey-Miller scandal and the DeLay (Texas) scandal are dominating the headlines.

I think that our article has got a little out of hand towards the end. Instead of a separate heading for every Congressman or staffer who has a connection to Abramoff I think that only the principals should have separate sections and the rest listed in a condensed bullet point list. I suggest that the principles here are :

  • Abramoff - Reed - Norquist (the original triumvirate) Scanlon (partner)
  • DeLay, Ney (the golfers) Burns
  • Safavian (plea bargain)

There are a couple of other staffers who seem to be implicated in a major way but the current structure of the article does not mention them while having a separate heading for every congressman who accepted a campaign donation. --Gorgonzilla 04:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this called Abramoff-Reed?

The very title of this article is predjudicial, and inaccurate.

Ambramoff was indicted and as far as I am able to determine no grand jury is looking at charges that would result in Reed's indictment. That would make Reed a witness and perhaps a victim of Ambramoff.

This title is simply creating guilt-by-association. patsw 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree-
From The Nation, July 12, 2004:
"a broad federal investigation into lobbying abuses connected to gambling on Indian reservations has unearthed evidence that Reed has been surreptitiously working for an Indian tribe with a large casino it sought to protect--and that Reed was paid with funds laundered through two firms to try to keep his lucrative involvement secret."
From the Washington Post, June 23, 2005:
"Reed has acknowledged receiving $4 million from Abramoff and Scanlon to run anti-gambling campaigns in the South. Reed has said he did not know where the funds were coming from, but e-mails suggest that he was aware that some of the money he was getting came from the casino-rich Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians."
From the Texas Observer, August 26, 2005:
"After leaving the executive director’s job at Pat Robertson’s Christian organization, Reed wrote Abramoff to ask for help in “humping” corporate accounts. Reed was instantly humping Indian tribes, as Abramoff paid Reed’s firm to direct anti-gambling campaigns designed to preserve regional Indian gaming monopolies. (Reed says he didn’t know the source of the money.) The millions Abramoff paid Reed was good for business but bad for electoral politics. Reed is starting his first campaign for public office, as a candidate for lieutenant governor in the Georgia Republican Primary."
From The New York Times, November 3, 2005:
"Mr. Abramoff's previously released internal records show that Mr. Reed's lobbying company was paid millions of dollars to help block gambling that might compete against casinos owned by Mr. Abramoff's tribal clients. Mr. Reed, among Mr. Abramoff's closest friends, has insisted that he had no knowledge that the anti-gambling effort might have been underwritten by the proceeds of Indian casinos. Another witness...said Mr. Abramoff had asked her to try to find a way to hide the source of more than $150,000 that the tribe was offering to support Mr. Reed's effort. The tribe was among Mr. Abramoff's most lucrative clients, paying him and his partners more than $32 millon."
J. Van Meter 14:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
J., what you've added above supports what I contented above -- namely that Reed is not under investigation by a prosecutor or grand jury as Abramoff was and is. Therefore the article is misnamed. patsw 15:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but this article is not called the "Abramoff-Reed Indictment", nor even the "Abramoff-Reed Investigation", it's called the Abramoff-Reed Scandal and the newspaper citations above simply show that Reed is undeniably involved.
Scandal: A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society; A person, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to cause disgrace or outrage; Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace.(dictionary.com) J. Van Meter 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The degree of criminality of Abramoff and Reed as alleged is now so disparate that linking their name is inaccurate and misleading. Several others have the same degree of business affiliation with Abramoff as Reed does and the same allegation of scandal and their names do not appear in the article title. patsw 16:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually Reed is under investigation in this affair, he has been from the start. Abramoff, Norquist, Reed and Scanlon have been under investigation from the start, the indictment of Scanlon suggests that indictments of Ney (Representative A) and DeLay are likely as well. Abramoff has also been indicted over a fraudulent wire transfer of $20 million as part payment for SunCruz, he is also a person of interest in the murder enquiry. These are not related to the lobbying scandal except to the extent that Ney was involved --Gorgonzilla 03:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not be called Abramoff-Reed. I am a Washington reporter who has been following this story for more than a year, and Reed is at most, a peripheral player (as far as the present evidence shows). Calling this "Abramoff-Reed" elevates him to central figure, which he is not. This controversy is clearly centered around one man, and only one man: Jack Abramoff. It's touched on others, Ney, Scanlon, etc., but Abramoff is clearly the nexus of the story. The title should be Abramoff Indian Gambling Scandal, or even more precisely, Abramoff Lobbying and Corruption Scandal.

The story was originally written before the first Abramoff indictment and described the corrupt lobbying operation run by Abramoff, Scanlon, Reed and Norquist. The crux of the original story was that Abramoff used money from the Indian tribes to pay Reed to run anti-gambling campaigns. Reed was not a minor partner in that event, he was central to it. Abramoff and Reed were running a classic K-Street shakedown operation together, tribes who failed to pay Abramoff would be attacked by Reed. Since then the bribery aspect of the story has taken center stage and the center of gravity has shifted from K-street to the hill.
The only indictment in this particular scandal to date is of Scanlon who has made a plea bargain. Abramoff has not been charged in this case, the Sun Cruz indictment is not connected. The Scanlon indictment makes it clear that charges are likely to be brought against Ney, DeLay and several others.
There probably should be three separate Abramoff scandal stories. The Indian Gambling scandal should probably be split into two, one on the K-Street shakedown operation and a second on the Abramoff bribery scandals, the Sun-Cruz casinos affair is complex enough and involves enough players to justify a story in its own right. --Gorgonzilla 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, given that the cast of characters includes half the leadership of the Republican party it is rather strange to claim that the story is about one man. Actually it is about at least twenty people and we are likely to see at least a dozen indictments before it is all through. --Gorgonzilla 03:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I don't want to get into a debate with someone as poorly informed as you, Gorgonzilla, but I'll ask you two questions. How was this a shakedown operation? Abramoff never attacked tribes who weren't on the take. Nothing of the sort has ever been alleged. And more importantly, what in Scanlon's plea agreement says, or alludes to any sort of involvement of DeLay? Representative #1, if you didn't know, is Ney, not DeLay, a fact acknowledged by Ney's own lawyer. The quality of this article sucks, as does the quality of this discussion.

Perhaps someone should go read no personal attacks... I never said DeLay was the Representative mentioned in the indictment as Rep A, but he certainly is facing indictment for accepting huge illegal gifts along with Ney. Perhaps you failed to get the memo from GOP astroturf HQ telling you folk to lay off the slime attacks?
It was a shakedown operation, Abramoff took money from tribe A and gave it to Reed to mount an astroturf campaign against tribe B, this continued until tribe B paid off Abramoff. That is a classic shakedown, pay up or else. --Gorgonzilla 15:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW you really don't sound much like a reporter, unless, hey is that you 'Bulldog'? --Gorgonzilla 15:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it looks like this scandal may well be being called the Abramoff-DeLay Scandal before long. The Abramoff-Norquist-Reed shakedown of the tribes is really a $84 million sub-plot. The two common factors to the Web of corruption being uncovered are Abramoff and DeLay. Abramoff was actually running the PAC that DeLay has been indicted over. Abramoff himself appears to have escaped indictment there mostly because of jurisdiction issues.

Anyway, I propose that we create a new 'hub' story for the Abramoff scandals that would in turn reference the separate sub scandals: Indian gambling, SunCruz, K-Street Project.--Gorgonzilla 16:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Reed wasn't indicted and isn't doing a plea deal, but the story is not finished. I support the article rename. patsw 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turn donations into a table?

There are clearly two classes of involvement in this scandal. There are politicians whose involvement was limited to receiving campaign contributions and there are others who illegally received lavish hospitality and personal gifts in return for services at the heart of the scheme.

I think that having separate itemized headings for each politician that merely received a campaign contribution overstates that aspect of the operation. These entries should all be consolidated into one table listing the name of the recipient, the amount of the donations, the date they were received and if appropriate the date they were returned (expect most to be returned in the comming weeks!). Part of Abramoffs MO was to make donations to politicians of either party after favorable votes, it allowed him to then claim responsibility for the votes to his clients. So the mere existence of a contribution does not mean that there was influence, it is very doubtful he even met some of the parties he is alleged to have influenced.

Separate sub-headings should only be used for the principal actors in this affair, the politicians accused of receiving illegal gifts (DeLay, Doolittle, Ney) and the staffers and lobbyists mentioned in the indictments and emails (Scanlon, Saffavian, Abramoff, Reed etc).

[edit] can we add this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html?referrer=emaillink

yes that's fair use of an item that Wash Post is giving away free Rjensen 19:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We can add a link to it and cite the information in it but the graphic itself is copyright.

[edit] this must be added!!!

Sen. Dorgan Returns Tribes' Donations

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1205/285514.html

It's been added. This article is a bit lopsided at the moment, focusing primarily on donations to Republicans. There is involvement by politicians in both parties in this scandal.--Ombudsperson 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think that the donations issue is beside the point. Abramoff was a lobbyist and funneled money to both sides. Like most lobbyists he was partisan and gave much more to one side than the other. Its a dirty and corrupt business but entirely legal. The Abramoff scandals have to do with a particular set of illegal gifts, contributions and bribes that were paid to a much smaller group of politicians in return for very clear favors. The money given to Ney bought contracts, support for the casino takeover the gifts to Burns bought grants, blocked rival casinos, The gifts to DeLay caused criminal charges to disappear.

There is a nexus here but it is not the Republican party, it is one small faction within the party, albeit one that has been dominant since they deposed Gingrich. We are talking about 10 politicians and 30 staffers, not the entire Republican caucus that ever received $50 from him. --Gorgonzilla 05:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "InGam Scam"

Google returned 9 results for this phrase. I don't think it's necessary, unless it becomes more prevalent. --Wasabe3543 04:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Money Data

FYI, I'm currently working on putting together some form of table with the money data here. I used the CRP list and attempted to automatically determine when the person was a US Representative or Senator. it would be helpful if you can look at some of the entries with ?? and either Wiki-link them to the correct names and/or identify where/how they serve in government. Thanks. -Kwh 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI most of the money was related to US Congress campaigns in 2000-2006, so some of the individuals are failed candidates, some got the job, and some moved on to other positions (Spencer Abraham and Brian Schweitzer, for instance). The way I am working the data in the table, I am trying to use "Representation" to represent what they were running for, and (can.) if they were a failed candidate, but am listing the secondary office if they ran elsewhere and succeeded (e.g. Schweitzer ran for Senate, failed, and ran for Governor and won - therefore I listed Governor). I may have some of these wrong. Also, I don't understand the inclusion of "Tom Foley" - the most 'famous' Tom Foley did not run for office 2000-2006, so I don't know if this is him or someone else.-Kwh 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True?

"100% of Abramoff's "contributions" went to Republicans. Every single instance of "Abramoff's money" going to dems is a case where someone ELSE gave money to dems and then there is some sort of backup "document" where the someone thanks Abramoff for the money or somehow links the two, regardless of the fact that Abramoff and the dem have never even met.

The skybox thing with Dorgan - Dorgan saw a game in a skybox he thought was provided by a TRIBE. He didn't know Abramoff and had no reason to believe he was involved. Later we find that the box was paid for by Abramoff. Dorgan has no way of knowing that. Dorgan gets caught up in the thing.

Note that the e-mail trails clearly show Abramoff and Scanlon's common practice of creating backup documentation after the fact to cover their asses.

You know, like letters from tribes thanking democrats for stuff, which end up making a false link between Abramoff and the dems.

Abramoff himself never gave any money to dems AT ALL. Dems think they're getting campaign contributions from tribes and find out later Abramoff has his finger in it. They weren't dealing with Abramoff.

Of course, the dems deserve to take a big hit if they can't manage to make this clear. I've never seen a worse bunch of losers for the past 10 years, completely unable to counter the bullshit repukelican spin and the utter stupidity of the "media" who can't seem to understand anything unless it's bulleted neatly in a document entitled "GOP Talking Points"."

Yeah, as far as I have found, Abramoff never (like never ever ever) gave money to Democrats directly. It is true that some political contributions to the Dems originated with Abramoff, but were from PAC's and special interest groups that Abramoff trusted to distribute his donations to the "right" candidates (or just had no hand in deciding where his donations would go). It bothers me that while in the last section it says that 35 percent of his money went to Democratic candidates, it so conveniently leaves out this key fact. The last section wants to make Democrats guilty by association, but they are largely uninvolved in this scandal. Of course, I probably sound like a partisan hack (and I probably am), but I'll go ahead and and a sentence about that. If anyone has an issue with neutrality, just remove it, I don't care, but as far as i can tell it's perfectly factual.65.11.70.246 22:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That can swing both ways. Of the money investigated by CRP, only $200,000 of the $4.4 million came directly from Abramoff. So that means every one of those Republicans (except for those few which were directly implicated by Abramoff's emails) can make the same claim as Democrats like Dorgan - "I was just meeting with my Tribal constituents, I had no idea."
At any rate, the word parsing about the difference between a tribe buying a skybox for Dorgan vs. a tribe buying a skybox for Delay doesn't have any place in an encyclopedia article.
First, find a 'credible' citation for the fact that none of the "Abramoff-direct" cash went to Democrats - true or not, I've only heard that being reported in relatively biased sources. Second, the whole matter of the money takes a lot more sorting out. The CRP report is based on a relatively naive look at money - simply searching the FEC contributions from Abramoff and from organizations/tribes that were clients - it does not prove a quid-pro-quo in any case. For what it's worth, I'm currently working on loading the actual FEC data into a PostgreSQL database so I can analyze the primary source myself, and see if I can make a more analytical decision.
And for what it's worth, when you say "the last section wants to make Democrats guilty by association" - you are projecting your own POV. I insisted on stating those facts (65 and 35%) exactly as they were reported by CRP. Just for what it's worth, I believe in progressive politics, and I would probably vote for a Democratic candidate on that basis, but I am neither a registered Democrat nor a Democratic party 'fanboy'. So if you think that I'm going out of my way to make Democrats guilty by association, you're dead wrong. I stand with the facts.
We're editing an encyclopedia here; there's 1,001 political blogs out there where you can login and trash-talk on political parties and the media, if you want to. Here, I check my politics at the door, and I suggest you do the same. -Kwh 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kwh. While I too have only "heard" that little tidbit, I'm not sure where or if even from a reputable news organization. And besides, the whole thing sounds shaky due to the fact that it's established by weasel words, "it is alleged" (who alleges?). If a non-blog source can be found, though, it's fine as far as I know.B1oody8romance7 03:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Here we go. I found a perfectly good source for you. You're welcome =]. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/abramoff.fallout/ B1oody8romance7 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style - Bullets and Timelines

I'm just going to put this opinion out there.

Two Three things that I hate in Wikipedia articles:

  • Bullet points
  • Timelines
  • Parentheticals (If you structure your sentences properly, you shouldn't have to use them).
  • (Yes, that's intended to be somewhat ironic)

I feel that they should both ALL be eschewed if at all possible. I think that bullet points are a warning sign that data is being expounded on at a level of detail more verbose than necessary for an encyclopedia, and I think that timelines are just a lazy way of putting up information; a good writer should be able to report the story in a way more engaging to the reader than dates and blurbs. I'm not saying that there isn't a time or place where bullets and timelines are necessary, but I don't think it's here. -Kwh 04:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree -- while I think timelines can be very useful, I don't think it's necessarily useful here, and certainly not with only two data points. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find _any_ timeline that has only two data points to be useful. Sholom 05:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Pretty much the whole section on Bob Ney has copyright problems, with similarities to a CREW press release and a RAW STORY article. There's too many similarities for coincidence. Unless the person who contributed this can provide proof that both of these sources have provided release to GFDL, this entire section needs to be rewritten from scratch without reference to the prior. I now need to pick through the rest of the article to see if there is any other risk of WP:CP that might cause the whole article to need to be rewritten. People - don't do this to Wikipedia. It puts the values of Wikipedia at risk, and at the end of the day you're just cheating yourself of valuable writing experience. Research the facts and report them in your own words. Unless you are quoting an individual's specific words for effect, don't copy anything word for word, or even just change every third word. This is not freshman composition and that won't cut it. -Kwh 05:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Research shows that the questionable information was originally pasted into the Jack Abramoff article on July 15 by a certain anonymous IP, and was later copied from Jack Abramoff over to this article.[6] -Kwh 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some things to do

Here's some things that I think people might need to focus on to make the article better:

  • Focus on the actual story of how Abramoff/Reed worked together. For example, according to the emails, Abramoff was using Reed to organize phone banks and letter campaigns against the Interior Dept and other candidates from people who had a religious objection to gambling, while ironically the net effect supported the tribal gambling.
  • The Gale Norton connection; I recall from the emails that Abramoff funneled cash to Norton's former environmental PAC, possibly to get access in the Interior.
  • A Dramatis Personae - not literally, but at least explain the various tribes involved and some of their motivations (one tribe wanted the others casino shut down, etc.)
  • Add more quotes from the emails (which are public record) to support the allegations.

-Kwh 05:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congressman Ney

I am not convinced that the text "a person identified as "Representative #1," but [who]is obviously Bob Ney, a Republican congressman from Ohio" would be adequate disassociation/justification were the Congressman to deny involvement and sue Wiki for defamation. Indeed, it appears to make blatantly clear that the attribution is purely the opinion of a Wiki contributor, being cited as fact. -- 62.25.109.196 09:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Newsreports have identified Ney as "Representative 1", and his own staffers have confirmed this earlier on in the process. Guettarda 09:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
"The agreement alleges that Abramoff bribed public officials, including a person identified as "Representative #1," but is obviously Bob Ney, a Republican congressman from Ohio."
The way it's written doesn't attribute it to news reports, and isn't even proper grammar for what it's worth. It needs to state "The New York Times reported on this date that according to their analysis, Rep. #1 was probably Bob Ney" or "So-and-so's staffer/spokesman confirmed that Rep #1 was Bob Ney.", preferably with a cite link in either case. That's what's necessary for Wikipedia to avoid the "Seigenthaler" effect. -Kwh 15:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is how two news outlets put it (note that these sentences should not be used in the article, for copyright reasons): "The plea bargain mentions that 'Representative #1' - said by the US media to be Republican Congressman Bob Ney from Ohio..."[7]
"Ney, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, which oversees the operations of the House, is never referenced by name, although Ney's spokesman confirmed that Ney is the "Representative #1" repeatedly mentioned in court documents outlining Abramoff's wrongdoing."[8]
It is indeed obvious that it is Ney (the indictment does everything short of saying "His last name is three letters, starts with an N and ends with a Y") but as encyclopedia editors we must either prove the logical assertion or else report what others have stated. -Kwh 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are some useful quotes toward that end: From AP today "Ney is not mentioned by name, but his identity is clear from a description of his committee chairmanship." and (in http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060103/NEWS02/60103022&SearchID=73231646596151): "Court papers released today also detailed lavish gifts and contributions that Abramoff gave an unnamed House member, identified elsewhere as Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee, in return for Ney’s agreement to use his office to aid Abramoff clients." Furthermore, it *was* Ney who inserted comments into the Congressional Record about Boulis and SunCruz. Finally, this quote from Scripps-Howard News Service, at http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=SCANDAL-12-06-05&cat=WW : "Last month, Scanlon, the public-relations executive with whom Abramoff orchestrated some of his strategies, pleaded guilty to conspiring with Abramoff to bribe a congressman - revealed as Ney - and other unnamed public officials, and to cheat Indian tribes" So, whaddya think? Sholom 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Somebody be bold and change it... ok I will but I will likely never look at this article again so y'all will have to decide whether it is a good edit. MPS 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being bold, I went ahead and changed it. When in doubt, you usually have to dissect and reassemble the sentence structure. -Kwh 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Is there a resource we can use to put a timeline of Abramoff-related contributions (or contributions from his clients) to politicians? For instance, how far back has Abramoff been donating or had the tribes donating? 209.62.224.224 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In any event, the timeline needs to either be expanded or dropped. The Jan 4 plea is not even in there! Sholom 03:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines for parties involved?

Just wanted to raise my voice as someone who liked it better with individual headlines. After the latest change it's just a letter soup. Common Man 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

From Help:Editing: "Headings organize your writing into sections. The Wiki software can automatically generate a table of contents from them." In my opinion, the amount of information in the individual paragraphs was not really worthy of individual "sections", and the net effect was to add about 30 extra entries to the TOC, making the TOC far less useful for a reader. I'd concede that the headings were better if you can show me an example of a good article using the same method. Besides, I am coming to the conclusion that the brief little 'blurbs' on who returned what money belong in a separate list-format article, if anything. The article needs to do better at telling an engaging story to the reader about the Abramoff scandal, rather than just being a collection of facts. I'm still trying to figure out how to re-org it to make it less boring but still include as many facts as possible. -Kwh 04:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, this depends on what you would call "good" - which is obviously a matter of taste, since we differ in regard to whether your change was an improvement. For me, it's clearly worse when there are three screens full of text without a headline. Don't let this discourage you from your dedicated and otherwise good work, though. If you really feel strongly about the TOC, here are two possible suggestions:
  • Make the would-be headlines bold. This would at least improve the immediate appearance.
  • Move the prose for each person out to the person's article (if it isn't already there). Instead, replace it with a summary and a list (or table) of people. This might address your concern about a collection of facts.
Just my 2 cents. Common Man 05:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Right - just FYI, the would-be headlines are already bolded using a semi-colon at the beginning of the line. I wouldn't even have a problem if the names were the same size as headings, as long as they didn't interfere with the TOC. (First part of reply by Kwh 02:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC) - remainder now below)
I see - that explains our different perception! For some reason, on my screen the semicolon doesn't do what it should, so it all looks non-bold to me. Common Man 03:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AbramoffMoney Table

Also, I'm working on something like your second suggestion here. I am trying to check/reproduce the data by loading the actual FEC data into a database. I've got 1994, 96, and 98 loaded for Candidate and individual contribution data. It will take me another week or two to get what I really want out of it. Eventually the amounts returned can go in the list as well. -Kwh 02:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, way cool! This looks better than what I imagined, or what we have in the article so far, for that matter. I can't wait to see it there. Can I help you with it? Common Man 03:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Be bold - you can go ahead and add to it where it is, or put it in the article if you dare; it is based directly on the data at www.crp.org but I used some programming to chew it up and put some wiki formatting on it. FYI, it looks like the source released some corrections as of January 05[9] so you might make those fixes. I also only put the total cash regardless of donor. I was working on taking the actual FEC data myself and re-deriving this info (so I could make sure it was accurate, and so there was no question about copyright). -Kwh
Yeah, I'm concerned about copyright, too. It does look very similar. How about if we just asked them? Maybe they're fine with us using it? So this is why I haven't put action behind my words yet. The table change shouln't take much time. What looks like much more work, though, are the texts, which would have to be merged into the individual person's articles. This is too much for one person, and I'm not even sure how it would be received. I often found it hard to consolidate information on Wikipedia, because (if I may exaggerate a bit) everyone feels their particular bit of information needs to be reproduced on as many as possible pages. Common Man 08:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donate for taxes

"Many politicians have returned or donated money received from Abramoff or his clients. According to CBS, over 100 law makers have donated Abramoff related money to charitiy. It is not yet clear if donating the money give tax advantages in a way that returning the money does not."

I'm not sure the insinuation on donating for tax purposes belongs in there. IANAL but I am pretty certain that a political campaign (527) is always tax-exempt anyways[10]. Seems to be a pretty simply answered question. -Kwh 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics

Image:Sample_AbramoffMoneyGraph.jpg This is a sample image of a graph I am trying to create showing the Abramoff money flow. The graph is automatically generated by graphviz based on data I enter. I just threw in a few names to test the concept, so this does not actually reflect the money flow. I'm interested in feedback on how to best represent things. -Kwh

It breaks the margin on my screen. (This comment by 216.165.33.63 (talk • contribs) )
This is a great alternative to the table we talked about above! It certainly looks a lot better, and it has the potential of conveying more information at a glance. I can imagine, though, it is also more effort. How easy is it to work with graphviz? OTOH, what makes it easier is that it will not have to be updated for every small change in $ amount.
Detail questions and suggestions:
  • What's the difference between dotted and solid lines? Availability / reliability of the information?
  • Maybe you could also give an indication of the amount by using, say, three different widths for the arrows or sizes of the name boxes. (Since there are probably more people than organizations it might be easier to arrange and resize them if you kept the people in rectangles, and organizations in ovals.)
  • Size: It does take more room than the table, so it probably wouldn't be feasible to render the whole long list. Still, I'm not too concerned about "breaking the screen margin", since I think all browsers have scroll bars that allow you to display everything. You could make the writing smaller, though.
  • How about the money that some paid back? Maybe this could be rendered with an arrowhead pointing backwards. (Not sure if graphviz allows this, but maybe the position of the backwards arrow could indicate at what time someone paid it back.) Common Man 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A second arrow pointing back might overclutter the chart. Also, some have donated the money to charities and whatnot. What about a parenthetical within the box/bubble indicating money paid back/donated/etc.?

This really just came about as a brainstorm of mine, Graphviz is primarily used for certain types of diagrams in computer science and it has some limitations, but it's very good at taking raw data and just auto-arranging the boxes/circles/lines onscreen. I can use a little programming to turn list-format data into the graphviz specific format, and kick out a graph, as opposed to using an actual graphic design utility. Conceptually I have the dotted lines from the various Leadership PACs to their candidates, and from Abramoff to his clients as a way of showing 'influence' and solid lines as actual money flows. It is very possible to put a parenthetical (label) on the actual line, such as with year/dollar amount, but it could be more difficult (I think) to do backward lines because it might make the graph cyclical which graphviz does not like. There's also going to need to be some form of icon/connection for some of the "non-cash" things we know about (like the Scotland golf trip) and who was connected to those. Thanks for the good feedback, keep the ideas flowing and I'll see if I can come up with another example. -Kwh 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

label on line: I would rather not, for two reasons: It will about double the space needed for the graphic, and it will be hard to maintain or be outdated quickly. (KISS!)
cash/non-cash: Makes sense. Alternatively, you might want to use different colors, which would free the dotted lines for unclear connections. Green seems to symbolize money for most in the US, but it seems a bit tentative, as opposed to black and most other colors. Or, to keep it simple, just use the dotted line both for uncertain money amounts and non-cash connections.
paid back/donated: The backward arrow isn't worth the trouble. And of course, it wouldn't make sense if it went to charity anyway. Just an asterisk (or dagger) behind the name, for a footnote, suffices. Common Man 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] accurate?

http://www.opednews.com/toenje1.jpg

[edit] poor tribes

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1830

Wow. I don't know about the bias of that paper (seems to definitely focus on left politics) but that tells a very compelling story. -Kwh 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name should now be Abramoff Scandal

At this point this is simply the Abramoff scandal, not because he is the only person involved or even because he is the central character but because he is the prosecution's principal witness. In ten years time it will be referred to as the Abramoff scandal, not the Jack Abramoff scandal.

It is fairly clear that with his guilty plea Abramoff is not likely to be going to jail on his own. The reports in the press center on Ney and DeLay in Congress and his associates Norquist and Reed.

In the guilty plea Abramoff admits diverting over $20 million. This is much, much larger than the $1.7 million involved in the Abramoff-Norquist-Reed scam. It beggars belief that such a sum would be collected by any lobbyist however well connected on their own behalf. What is really being uncovered here is a huge slush fund similar to CREEP. I strongly suspect that John McCain knew this all along, or at least suspected it.

I suggest a fairly major revision to the article.

  • The name needs to change to Abramoff scandal.
  • The focus should be on the federal investigation into the alleged bribes
  • The influence peddling and campaign contributions should be secondary, it is not necessary to have a separate subheading for each person who ever received a donnation from an Abramoff client.
  • The murder of Boulis and the whole Suncruz scheme is certainly relevant and is certainly the most serious (likely) charge that Abramoff faces personally but it is not at the center of the scandal.
  • There should probably be some sort of short piece describing the timeline of the scam and the way in which it unravelled.

--Gorgonzilla 02:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla - please see the outline we have been working on at Talk:Jack Abramoff#Proposed rewrite. The general idea is to take all the good paragraphs we have and rearrange them into an actual compelling story, rather than just a collection of facts. I might spend some time on this tonight, if Wikipedia stops going so slow. I think there are enough details to create several articles, one for each major scandal. Jack Abramoff eventually needs to be an article about his life in particular, with breakout links to articles on the Suncruz scam, the Tribe scam, etc. You will see in the outline how the money links are becoming more clear, I need more research to find out how/if/when the other checks were cut at Abramoff's direction.
On Boulis, this needs to be handled very carefully. Abramoff has not legally been implicated or charged in the murder. 3 men were arrested, one of which is a longtime associate of Kidan. Kidan has not actually been charged. A Google News search for 'abramoff boulis "person of interest"' returns nothing, and a regular Google search for the same returns only pages who got the information from Wikipedia. Unless someone has a media or legal authority source saying Abramoff is under direct investigation it is a potentially libellous inference. Agreed, Abramoff is a scumbag for what he did to the tribes and to the political process, but it's a giant leap to go from that to killing another human being. -Kwh 04:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, you might disagree with me, but there's two facets to TribeScam - one is the fact that several tribes got conned out of a lot of money. The other is a view of how the actual political process works nowadays - public officials like Griles step back and forth to being a lobbyist when they're "between government jobs", all sorts of loopholes to get around lobbying and finance laws, "grassroots" campaigns being invented behind the scenes, even to get people to protest 'against' something that they would actually support, when it's expedient. It's very cynical, and I don't think Abramoff invented it; that's just Washington. Also, remember that even after all of that, we probably wouldn't know about any of it if Abramoff had succeeded in keeping his tribal clients happy; if they had nothing to complain about, the authorities wouldn't have gotten hold of all of Abramoff's emails. In other words, this is just a drop in the bucket, the tip of the iceberg. -Kwh 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A surprise!

I created a page at wikisource to transcribe the voluminous Abramoff emails released by the SIAC. This is where all the meat and potatoes are. If you have any ability with OCR software you might give it a try, I'm going to work my way through the pages 1 by 1 with OCR and correction. This 'full text' doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on the web so this should be a killer thing if folks pitch in and help out. I did one page as an example. Try to stick to headings (and a "----" at the bottom) for each page so that we can sublink it as a source. Thanks, -Kwh 08:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to Comment: "Abramoff Money", moneys returned, etc.

I've now come to think that listing all the folks who ever got money from any client of Ambramoff is starting to become burdensome, and not particularly enlightening. I was going to explain why, but then ran across the following, by John Marshall of talkingpointsmemo.com, who says it pretty well. Thoughts?

When you hear about Republicans and Democrats getting 'Abramoff money' what's being talked about aren't personal contributions from Abramoff but contributions from entities he worked for as a lobbyist. So, for instance, Abramoff lobbies for Indian tribe X. Indian tribe X contributes to politician Y. Hence, politician Y got 'Abramoff money'.

(Often these calculations figure in only the tribes and not other groups and individuals Abramoff worked for; but that's another story.)

Now, is that logic fair? Is that 'Abramoff money'?

As a political matter, it probably makes sense now for every pol to unload that money -- a conclusion most of them, as you can see, are coming to on their own.

On the merits, though, it's more difficult to make generalizations.

We know from some of the publicly released emails, that Abramoff in many cases used his clients' bank accounts very much as if they were his own, often giving them specific amounts and recipients for political contributions. In many cases, too, he had them make donations that had little or nothing to do with their own interests (defined in lobbying terms). For instance, what interest did a couple of Abramoff tribe clients have giving money to the New Hampshire Republican party a day or two before they pulled their phone-jamming scam?

There are other cases though where a given politician was associated with Indian rights issues either before Abramoff came on the scene or because of the state or district they represent. There are members of Congress in both parties who fall into that category and are, to some extent, being unfairly tarred.

For these reasons, pure dollar amounts can't tell the whole story without getting more deeply into the context.

More generally, I think you'll see over the course of the next year that these federal 'hard' money contributions -- either from Abramoff or his clients -- aren't where the real game was being played. The real action was in money funnelled or laundered through various DC-based non-profits or de facto cash payments to members of Congress or their staffs.

So, I'd like to see removed most references to who got money, and even who returned money, unless some other connection can be showed.

Thoughts? Sholom 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree now. After a lot of the reading I did in trying to do a rewrite covering the whole Abramoff saga, the CRP report is a very naïve analysis - only looking at who were Abramoff's clients-of-record, and who they gave money to. In addition, it focuses on the period 2000-2006, when many of these clients were taken on in 2001, 2002, or later. In addition, Abramoff knew how to play the game; most of the money which went to apparent 'quid-pro-quos' was funneled through non-profits like 'Capital Athletic Foundation' and through multiple hands in other relationships which are not subject to full public accounting. This is basically what TPM is saying also.
Ultimately, most of the people who are divesting themselves of this money are doing it in a panic, and ultimately there's nothing per-se illegal (though distasteful) in most of the $4.4 million contributed. I find it a form of POV to intuit within the article that there's something wrong with Candidate X if they didn't return all the "Abramoff-related" money; remember that these people, right or wrong, accepted the contributions to pay for campaigning, and it makes perfect sense that they would spend money they received in 2002 or 2004 on campaigning in those years. Thus, if they are "giving it back", they are actually giving someone else's money (contributed in a later cycle) back to Abramoff or to a charity.
Also, interestingly, part of Abramoff's scam is that in some cases he wasn't really able to bring the sort of lobbying power he promised for his clients; for example, when he took on Agua Caliente as a client, the legislation was starting to go their way anyways, and Abramoff rushed to make it seem as though this 'good fortune' was a direct result of their lobbying.
The determination of which money was 'funny' depends on going to a more detailed and primary source. Really, the most primary source on Abramoff's TribeScam are the documents showing Abramoff's emails and the SIAC hearings which are available at indian.senate.gov. Those documents and the actual indictments describe much of the actual illegal 'scandal', outside of all partisan rants. A full reading of those will define many of the points which are important to this particular article. However, I think that there are still many other questionable elements which will probably never be brought to ethics investigations or indictments, due to lack of compelling evidence or other machinations. -Kwh 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent -- well, at least you and I agree! It ought to make the re-write a whole lot cleaner, too! Sholom 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Democrats' involvement

At the risk of opening another can of worms, I think it is worthwhile to keep a (well documented) mention of Democrats in the main article, especially as these tenuous links are being used to suggest that the Abramoff Scandal is not partisan. In particular Clyburn and Thompson are usually mentioned as having recieve tainted, well, travel from Abramoff. This news story at sfgate seems a pretty neutral reference. --mik 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If one is to use that article, I think it may be wise to at least mention that the two congressman say that they were lead to believe that a foundation was paying for the trip, which is legal. Also, this article is something like 8 months old. I'm wondering if there is any more recent article on those two which may reveal whether anything new has been found out, or if they've given back the money, etc. FleetAdmiralJ 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I actually suggested that article (really from AP, though I cannot find it on the AP site) because it included references to the foundation. As far as I have been able to tell, these two were called to testify and basically said (with documentation) that they had no way of knowing that the foundation didn't pay for their trips like they strongly implied they would. There seems to be conflicting information that Abramoff's law firm did actually get reimbursed by the marianas, presumably rendering the money untainted, even if complience with house ethics rules is still questionable (opening the question of whether Repubs were similarly misled, including DeLay). In the end, mention of Dem links should probably either be promoted to a higher level or moved to a marianas page, as this particular issue has nothing to do with the Indian lobbying scandals... On the other hand, news reports keep suggesting that all donations from all Abramoff clients are somehow tainted - extremely silly, but perhaps worth addressing directly in the article bodies. Ack, what a mess. --mik 16:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The claims of Democrat involvement should be covered as should the extensive rebuttals. Abramoff was a partisan Republican lobbyist, it is simply not the way that Washington works for a lobbyist to work both sides of the street. If a Republican lobbyist representing a client wanted to run a bipartisan event for some reason he would most likely call up the Democratic lobbyist representing his client. That is even more so in the case of a 'full service' firm like the one Abramoff worked for. -- Gorgonzilla 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the scandal if you believe this. Abramoff plead guilty to essentially "playing both sides of the street". The way it worked is he had one Indian client wanting a piece of legislation and another wanting it defeated. Abramoff ginned up support for both sides, paying off the politicians to support/thwart legislation with his clients money and driving up his own fees. He used both Democrat and Republican lawmakers to be on either side of the issue. This was a form of fraud and this is what the Abramoff scandal is. It has nothing to do with his direct contribution or his party affiliation. Tbeatty 01:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Abramoff admitted to playing both sides for and against building the casinos, but that was not a partisan split. It was not Democrats for casinos and Republicans against. It was one tribe against another. There is no record of Abramoff ever meeting with any Democrat. That is not how Washington works, another partner at the same law firm, Platt was responsible for lobbying Democrats. But there is no evidence that Platt ever tried to bribe anyone. Platt was not renting out four skyboxes at sports arenas or running restaurants, so he had considerably less scope to give away free tickets and food to lawmakers and staffers in return for access and favors. Also note that the law firm was also a target of the fraud, Abramoff was bilking them as well by taking kickbacks. It is only Abramoff and his partner Scanlon who have admitted bribery and so far the only people that have been identified as recipients of the bribes are Republicans. --Gorgonzilla 01:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a partisan split for/against casinos and that was my point. There is no evidence of bribes, but rather money was funneled to lawmakers from Abramoff. Both parties were the recipients of Abramoff's clients money and gifts and Abramoff played both sides of the casinos. It is believed there is a link between that money and the legislation that was created, supported or thwarted. Both parties participated in this and took the money. There is no admission or charge of bribery. Harry Reid, possibly unwittingly, was a part of this. In exchange for money from an Abramoff client, he opposed a casino because it would have competed with another of Abramoff's clients. Reid got his campaign contribution and Abramoff got his fee from both tribes. Tbeatty 03:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
First, no one disputes that Abramoff's personal contributions went ONLY to Republican politicians. Second, campaign contribution records show that he directed sharply increased tribal giving to Republican poliiticans (many of whom had gotten NOTHING before) while reducing or keeping steady contributions to Democratic politicians, virtually ALL of whom had already been involved with tribes (had supported them, had received contributions) prior to Abramoff becoming a lobbyist for the tribes. Third, Abramoff helped with fundraising ONLY for Republicans. Fourth, there is no evidence that Reid did anything that he would not have otherwise done without Abramoff, unlike other (Republican) politicians, who evidenced sudden concern with tribal affairs and other things that Abramoff had interests in. In short, it's not a scandal if tribes contributed to give money to Democrats with whom they had an ongoing relationship, and it's not a scandal if Reid voted consistently with what he'd done before, and it's not a scandal if Abramoff's records show that he contacted Reid's office. (And yes, I think that Democrats can be corrupt, and corrupted; I just think this is a situation where a lot of people - Republicans, generally, starting with George W. Bush - want this to be seen as a bipartisan scandal, when in fact it is not and never has been.) John Broughton 18:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

From the Washington Post - But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators. Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November. Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue. Remind me how it's not a bipartisan scandal? Dubc0724 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trustable?

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m19810&l=i&size=1&hd=0

[edit] Abramoff's racist comments

I don't know how you could not call his comments racists, calling a group of people troglodytes is clearly racist, that's about as racist as you can get. You're essentially comparing a group of people to cavemen, I really can't think of a more racist comment, seriously. If I wanted to insult someone's race I would say that they are barbarians, or thugs, or cavemen, the People all over the world did that stuff all the time, to promote racial superiority.--M4bwav 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Let the reader make the judgement. There's no need to use a negative Power Word which would probably be considered controversial by others. There's no evidence that Abramoff believed in some theory of racial supremacy of Jewish persons of Russian extraction. He also called them mofos, but that was probably not meant literally. KWH 19:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's fair i guess. Though, realistically it is racist, whenever you condemn a race of people you are promoting people not of that race. But yeah, I guess you might as well let everyone's decide that.--M4bwav 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beginning

Something I thought I would point out: It appears that 2 this email from Scanlon to Abramoff transcribed on wikisource.org contains the beginning of the actual "conspiracy" in the Indian lobbying scandal. Reproduced in full:

A few weeks ago you mentioned something to me. I took the concept and have put together a 
plan that will make serious money. We also talked briefly about it in the beginning of the
year but I think wo can really move it now. Here are the broad strokes; I have been making 
contacts with some larger Public Affairs companies in town for a few months. I have two 
solid relationships that will seriously consider acquiring Capitol Campaign Strategies. 
The problem is that there is not much in CCS riqht now. However, if we build up Capitol 
Campaign Strategies enough I can get it acquired by a large firm by the end of next year 
at 3x the firm revenue. Bottom line: If you belp me get CCS a client base of $3 million a 
year, I will get the clients served, and the firm acquired at S9 million. We can then 
split the up the profits. What do you think?

Although Abramoff and Scanlon were "skimming" a lot off the bogus consulting services which weren't provided, the big payoff was the $9 million they expected to get at the end. I think these sort of details on the actual crime, more than the political effects, are more interesting. KWH 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information to be added

A lot of links are here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200603020007

[edit] Disambig needing fixed

Ralph Reed

Don't know which one this is, sorry. pls fix--66.41.169.244 02:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focus of article

I had a thought that the focus of this article would be specifically on the scam Abramoff ran on the Coushatta, Tigua, etc... This scam began in 2001, the below text from the article obviously has to do with events 1999-2000, which are already largely covered at Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.

Does anyone else think this article needs to refocus? See the notes at Jack Abramoff timeline starting at "2001-2006 - He lobbied Congress and the administration on behalf of Native American tribes, some of which he has plead guilty to defrauding." KWH 03:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Reed repeatedly denied knowing the source of the money used to fund his campaign against the casinos until prosecutors released e-mails exchanged between him and Abramoff. According to e-mails, Reed and Norquist contacted Abramoff separately in 1999 to say they wanted to do business. Norquist complained about a "$75K hole in my budget from last year." Reed said he was counting on Abramoff "to help me with some contacts."

On February 7, 2000, Abramoff warned Reed that an initial payment for anti-lottery radio spots and mailings would be less than Reed thought. "I need to give Grover [Norquist] something for helping, so the first transfer will be a bit lighter," Abramoff wrote. The transfer was apparently lighter than even Abramoff expected. In a note to himself on February 22, Abramoff wrote, "Grover kept another $25K!" Norquist claims he had permission.

On May 23, 2000, Abramoff e-mailed Reed a retainer letter for Reed's work to build grass roots support to help defeat a ban on Internet gambling that was then being considered by Congress. The e-mail stated that the agreement was in connection with the "elot project." eLot Inc. is the parent company of eLottery Inc. an Internet gambling company that feared that the passage of the anti-Internet gambling legislation would hurt its business. [1]

On June 22, 2000, Susan Ralston e-mailed Abramoff, "I have 3 checks from elot: (1) 2 checks for $80K payable to ATR and (2) 1 check to TVC for $25K," [...] "Let me know exactly what to do next. Send to Grover? Send to Rev. Lou?" [2]

Thus eLottery money went through Norquist's foundation, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the Faith and Family Alliance, and Reed's company, Century Strategies, while the last check was sent to Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition (TVC).

In 2000, Abramoff forced the Choctaws to give the Alabama Christian Coalition $1.15 million in installments. Norquist agreed to pass the money on to the Coalition and another Alabama antigambling group, both of which Reed was mobilizing for the fight against a proposed Alabama state lottery.

[edit] Tom DeLay peer review

Editors of this page may be interested in checking out the peer review of Tom DeLay. Please leave your comments, criticism, and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Justification for revert

Mentioning that most lawmakers involved with Abramoff are Republicans is a matter of fact. Choosing to instead only mention that Minority Leader Reid is connected is is focusing on one instance out of many just to make the scandal seem bi-partisan (which is NOT the same as neutral- its just a different POV)--Jsn4 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like people are whitewashing this scandal to avoid mentioning Democrats who have involvement. Mentioning Harry Reid is appropriate since he did receive money, and did help the tribes after receiving money. August 25, 2006
He is mentioned at Monetary influence of Jack Abramoff, along with details on all of the dozens of other major individuals. KWH 06:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy smokes

I highly recommend reading the final report, this is really the Rosetta Stone to the whole scandal. KWH 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] access to bush

  • [11] 69.210.146.123 16:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The title of the article is wrong

The title of the article?? Who the heck came up with this: "Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal"???? I think the whole thing can be described without the word Indian. The implication is that the Indians, and for full disclosure I'm one, were working in concert with Abramoff and his clones and they understood and agreed with everything that Abramoff and his losers were doing. Why can't that name for changed? Am I missing something? Does the word Indian have to be in the Wikipedia article name???--Getaway 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expand

I am attempting to expand and refactor this article to include much of the research from the Final Report from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. I am trying to keep it roughly chronological and just hitting the high points. The notes at Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor may also be useful. This is a work in progress so please do not "cleanup", but continue to expand and refactor the existing material. Thanks, KWH 03:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Below are the sections I was planning to follow "The Texas Menace", together with notes from Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor - I am pasting them here for now, will pick up work on them tomorrow: KWH 05:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note: due to the fact that much of the information I am adding is from the senate Final Report, I'm not sure how I want to cite it. For now, I have been putting the page number from the report in a comment (e.g. <!-- 101-102 -->) KWH 07:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shutting down the Tigua

        • Jan 2001 - Abramoff and Scanlon discuss ways to use TX legislature to shut down Tigua.
        • Abramoff funneled cash to Cornyn, cash to Reed, Dobson, Christian Coalition to defeat Tigua in TX. Funneled cash through bogus American International Center, Delaware shell corp, as well as through Grover Norquist orgs. Abramoff used Reed as cover, Reed went on 'anti-gambling' crusade, brought in numerous pastors and evangelical sources to lobby and 'propagandize'. Abramoff hid the fact that he was behind the Tigua defeat.
          • Cornyn started fighting Tigua casino (Speaking Rock Casino in El Paso) as Atty Gen'l in 1999.
          • Case for Tigua shutdown was based on a reading of the 1987 law which recognized the Tigua and AL Coushatta, which was considered vague [3].
          • Note: The statute was vague because although it prohibited the tribe from "All gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas", but TX did have a state lottery (therefore not prohibited), enabling the Tigua to fit casino gambling through a loophole by calling it a form of "lottery" [4].
        • 11/30/2001 - JA and Reed discuss an event where pastors will deliver a letter to Cornyn (AG) demanding that Tigua be shutdown. Reed discusses "choreographing" Cornyn's response.
        • 11/2001 - Abramoff and Scanlon discuss ways to keep AL Coushatta from opening a casino to threaten LA Coushatta business. Discuss having officials threaten the chief with jail.
          • late 11/2001 - MS Choctaw send $1,000 to Delay's TRMPAC.
        • 12/11/2001 - Delay, Pete Sessions, John Culberson and Kevin Brady write letter to Ashcroft, Norton, District Attorney, Gov. Perry asking that AL Coushatta casino be shut down. "We feel that the Department of Justice needs to step in and investigate the inappropriate and illegal actions by the tribe, its financial backers, if any, and the casino equipment vendors." [5]
          • 3 months later, tribal clients (who?) send $6,500 to Pete Sessions PAC

[edit] Shutting down the Jena Choctaw

      • Jena #1-In January 2002, Jena Choctaw submitted compact to get approval for a casino (in LA). [6]
        • Abramoff had Reed and Dobson do the first 'anti-gambling' crusade, resulting in first Jena shutdown. (Reed got $4mil altogether)
        • Abramoff funneled cash to Federal level (Dept. of Interior, indirectly through CREA ($225K), Gale Norton's former PAC, now run by Italia Federici to get access to Griles and Norton in Interior) and cash to Senators and Representatives to write letters to Interior to stop Jena.
        • Abramoff was on first-name basis with Griles, Griles arranged meetings between Coushatta and MS Choctaw chiefs (MS Choctaw also an Abramoff client, also opposed Jena) and Norton. Meetings occurred at CREA functions as well as officially, at Interior.
        • Vitter wrote letters to Interior, got 26 other house members to sign. Reed promoted Vitter in postcard campaign, who later won LA Senate race.
        • Senators Breaux, Lott, Cochran send letters to Interior.
        • March 6 - After all the letters have been written, Coushatta cut the checks to 61 members of Congress. Also, one check on the list makes the CREA->Norton link implicit: "Council for Republican Advocacy (Norton)."
        • March 7 - DoI rejects Jena compact.

[edit] CREA and the Department of Interior

[edit] Jena returns

        • After rejection, Jena hired their own lobbyists (Patton-Boggs) and tried again, this time with tacit support of Billy Tauzin and Breaux.
        • March 2002 - LA Rep. McCrery's chief of staff, Bob Brooks (who later went on a Scotland golf trip with Abramoff) writes up legislation to block Jena.
        • June 2002 - Strongly worded, Abramoff-written letter to Norton opposing Jena is signed and sent by Delay, Hastert, and Blunt.
        • more cash to CREA to get influence with Interior. Also, cash to CREA from Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan tribe? Why was this?)
        • Griles tries hard to influence Norton within Interior. He is challenged by Michael Rosetti, Counsel at Interior, 'who did not want Norton's decision process on the Jenas influenced by "outside people".'
        • Vitter tries to urge Interior to block Jena via language in Appropriations report.
        • December 2002 - Norton eventually allows Jena compact, but the tribe ultimately gets shot down by LA gov. Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco, who does not want any expansion of gambling.

[edit] "Saving" the Tigua

        • February 2002 - Abramoff knows through Reed that the Tigua casino is about to get shut down by Cornyn. Abramoff and Scanlon make a move to take on Tigua as clients.
        • Abramoff and Scanlon soak the Tigua (who historically donated to Democrats) for vastly inflated rates, because Abramoff looks like an extremely powerful lobbyist (by what he has been able to do for the Coushatta and others) and because he is the Tigua's last hope.
        • JA sells the Tigua on a massive, national political campaign. He is basically charging them enough for a presidential campaign. The actual work described in this campaign is not really ever started.
          • Scanlon's "Operation: Open Doors". Abramoff is working for free ('pro-bono'), Scanlon is getting paid millions and splitting behind the scenes with JA ("gimme five")
        • Abramoff starts shipping out Tigua cash to Delay, ARMPAC, Blount, Ney. Big payoff to Ney. This is to get a clause put into the Help America Vote Act to 'save' the Tigua from Cornyn. (by amending [7]) Delay, Blount, Ney, will use their power to make sure the amendment doesn't get debated too much. Dem. Sen Chris Dodd is allegedly supposed to help the bill pass the Senate. Per Dodd, someone from DNC (Democratic National Committee) and 2 Ney staffers approach Dodd, but he will not help. Abramoff emails Scanlon - "get our money back from that mother fucker who was supposed to take care of dodd" (Interesting fact to research here - Ney staffers went to Dodd because they were wondering whether the amendment (which Ney supported in the House) was going to pass the Senate. Ney claims he realizes he was 'duped' by Abramoff when he found out that Dodd was not going to support it. Who was the person from the DNC? was this the person Abramoff/Scanlon paid to try to coerce Dodd?)
          • April 04 2002 - John Robinson from DNC faxes Scanlon a "position statement" on DNC letterhead supporting Tigua's right to casino
          • Here's the answer [12] [13] [14]
          • Scanlon paid Brian Lunde (formerly of DNC) who paid Lottie Shackelford (at the time vice-chair of DNC) to lobby Dodd. $50,000 to Lunde, $10,000 to Shackelford.
          • This was a marginally illegal sub-rosa lobbying operation as Shackelford was not a registered lobbyist on this issue.
          • Dodd turned down Shackelford flatly
          • Abramoff/Scanlon had to get a Democrat (Dodd) on-board because the Senate was a Democratic majority at the time, due to the Jim Jeffords 'flip'. It's also possible that Dodd was on the appropriate committee for 'reconciliation' of the bill amendments.

[edit] The end

        • March 2002 - According to indictment, Ney agrees to help Tigua.
        • The bill will not pass, but nobody tells the Tigua. Abramoff asks Tigua to pay for Ney's scotland golf trip. (w/Safavian, Reed, Abramoff) Tigua will not pay, but they convince AL Coushatta to pay $50,000 to Capital Athletic Foundation, as it will help AL Coushatta also.
        • June 2002 - Ben Nighthorse Campbell holds SIAC hearing on conflict between TX and Tigua/AL Coushatta: "I guess I'm just trying to figure out what Texas is complaining about.", says Campbell
        • June 2002 - According to indictment, Abramoff asks Ney and Ney agrees "to introduce and seek passage of legislation that would lift an existing federal ban against commercial gaming for another Native American Tribe in Texas." - AL Coushatta
        • June 2002 - District Court rules AL-C casino must shut down within 30 days.
        • July 24 2002 - Abramoff cashes CAF check from AL-C, same day their casino closes.
        • March 26, 2003 - in a last ditch effort to get the last drop of blood out of the Tigua, Abramoff suggests a "Tribal Legacy Financing Program". Life insurance policies are written on tribal elders > 75 years old. Premiums are paid by Eshkol Academy, Eshkol is also beneficiary. This is suggested as a way for Tigua to pay for lobbying fees to reopen their casino (because they are flat broke without a casino). By July 30, the Elder's rejected the plan, and started getting wary of Abramoff (they found out about his other tribal clients)
        • July 25, 2003 - AMAZINGLY, Abramoff writes Reed suggesting a 'Black Church Elder' program similar to the Tribal Legacy financing program.
        • Tigua get hosed, complain ... eventually this all gets investigated by SIAC
  1. ^ http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0304metreed.html
  2. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501539_3.html
  3. ^ [1]
  4. ^ [2]
  5. ^ Maria Recio. "Politicians are divided on donations", Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 6, 2006.
  6. ^ [3]
  7. ^ [4]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal_5e47.html"