Talk:K Street Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 "Coziness"
2 Added NPOV language
3 Liberal spin
4 Saginaw Chippewas contributions
5 Obscuring of donation continuance
6 Deleted Abramoff content
7 Quotes
8 More Information Needed
9 Trademark

[edit] "Coziness"

If you don't like the word "coziness", replace it with a suitable appropriate word, but the basic allegation has been reported in numerous news articles for almost 5 years. Here are some of the first hits for Google searches such as coziness bush administration lobbyists regulations or similar: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1315-2004Aug14.html http://www.citizen.org/congress/regulations/issue_areas/faa/articles.cfm?ID=6215 http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/rtk111103a.htm

And of course, Dick Cheney's "Energy Task Force" has been extremely widely reported. AnonMoos 17:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Coziness" is fine as a characterization, but it should probably have quotes around it, just as was done here, since it's a characterization made by some people, but not by all, and is a word that could throw this into NPOV issues. Nhprman 01:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've read the article in greater detail, and noticed that the text is plagarized from a Leftwing Think Tank's Website. It is NOT a neutral article, and needs work. Nhprman 02:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added NPOV language

NPOV language added to avoid a NPOV "disputed" tag, which I surely would have instigated in its previous form. Nhprman 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal spin

I see the liberal spin machine is alive and well. Democrats took "nothing" from Abramoff or his associates? I think not. The same article in which Bush is meant to be seen as "lying" about the Democrats taking money goes on to say, "In the last week, two Democrats have said they're returning donations from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff and from his associates. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota -- the top Democrat on a committee investigating the lobbyist -- gave back $67,000. Senator Max Baucus of Montana is returning $18,893." But as long as we keep both sides represented here (i.e. that in fact Democrats took money from his ASSOCIATES - a technicality) then we're cool. Nhprman 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nhprman that this article seems a bit slanted against Republicans at the moment, separate from the issue of how much culpability either party has in the scandal. For example, the statement "No Democrat, however, has received money directly from Abramoff", although from a reliable source (CNN), was made by Howard Dean, hardly an unbiased observer. I'll fix that to make his claim specific. The best citation would be a financial report from a neutral organization. Similar changes making the claimants or sources clear might help avoid some accusations of bias. After all, there will be no shortage of pundits and politicians getting their personal and often highly-biased opinions quoted by reliable papers in this controversy. We should strive for more factual sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To be completely fair, however, I have to say that this scandal is hitting Republicans far harder at the moment than Democrats, so everyone should bear in mind I'm not trying to sweep anything under the rug by pointing out that Democrats have given back money, too, and that this may very well hit some Democrats in the House, as well. Nhprman 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assertion that the fact that dems got money from Abramoff's "associates" (and not him) is merely a "technicality". Especially given that another word for "associates" could be "victims". Furthermore, Abramoff's clients had a history of giving money to democrats, and actually gave them less AFTER hiring Abramoff as a lobbyist. So in fact Abramoff DECREASED the amount of money going to democrats, yet you say it's tantamount to him giving them money? I don't see the connection.

[edit] Saginaw Chippewas contributions

I expanded the example of the Saginaw Chippewas' contributions to make the "reduced their percentages" statement clearer. But I noticed an interesting correlation. In both cited periods, the tribe contributed roughly 2-to-1 in favor of the party in the White House. Because of this, it may not be the most compelling evidence tying Abramoff to Republicans (as opposed to the sitting President's party), which the inclusive paragraph seems to be arguing. (Not that I'm trying to make or attack this case; it just seems to be a potential weakness in the argument.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obscuring of donation continuance

I removed the following text because it appears to be an unsourced claim and is too vague, lacking any specific examples:

The generic accusation that "both parties took donations" from Abramoff clients obscures the fact that some of these groups were Democratic donors before they became Abramoff clients, and simply continued to donate to Democrats in the same dollar amounts as they had previously done.

This seems likely to be true. It also seems likely to be true for at least some Republican Party donators. We need sources because without them, these non-specific claims, however likely, are just speculation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Abramoff content

The following was deleted from the article because it's about Abramoff, not the K Street Project. Pretty sure it repeats information already included in Jack Abramoff and Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal...

Abramoff's associates gave donations to members of both parties, but two-thirds of the cash went to Republicans.[1]. However, federal records show that between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff himself gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats. [2]. Political analysts say that the scandal currently hurts the Republican Party more than the Democrats, but members of both parties have returned large cash contributions given to them by Abramoff (as to Republicans) or his clients in past campaigns. All of Abramoff's personal campaign contributions went exclusively to Republicans. [3]. The five people charged or directly implicated so far in this scandal are Republicans. [4].

U.S. President George W. Bush called Abramoff "an equal money dispenser" who helped politicians of both parties. However, federal records show that between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff himself gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats. [5]. Abramoff's tribal clients reduced their percentages of contributions to Democrats after Abramoff began representing them. [6]. For example, between 1997 and 2000, the Saginaw Chippewas gave $158,000 to Republicans and $279,000 to Democrats, a 64%-to-36% split favoring the Democrats. Between 2001 and 2004, the tribe's contributions to Republicans more than tripled to $500,500, while their Democratic donations were nearly unchanged at $277,210, reversing the ratio to 64%-to-36% favoring the GOP. [7].

Yet, in mid-January, two Democrats returned donations from Indian tribes represented by Abramoff and from his associates. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota — the top Democrat on a committee investigating the lobbyist — gave back $67,000. Senator Max Baucus of Montana said he would return $18,893.[8]. As of early January, 2006, at least 24 politicians (all but three of them Republicans) have pledged to relinquish $515,199 in Abramoff funds, including House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) (at least $60,000), Tom DeLay (R-Tx.)($57,000), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) ($8,500). [9] U.S. President George W. Bush pledged to give up $6,000, but not the more than $100,000 Abramoff raised for the Bush-Cheney campaign. [10] The Republican Governors Association will donate to charity $500,000 in campaign contributions linked to Abramoff.[11]

As long as it doesn't return in a biased format, it can stay gone as far as I'm concerned, even though I added some of it. Nhprman 02:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Question, however. Why did you leave in "The Abramoff connection" section at all? Why not delete that, too, if he's irrelevant to this article? As is, it only tells PART of the story, only serving to bring some political digs at the GOP's expense, and will be taken out or revised if left in. In fact, that's why some balance was put in the comments you deleted. Nhprman 02:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I don't feel that I know enough about this to edit the page myself, but I feel like it could benefit from some more direct quotes that relate to some of the statements made, especially those about Santorum. Some can be found on the links provided in the article, but I think more research can be done on this.

In particular, the Defenses of the K Street Project section contains only vague references to Republicans who have publicly defended it. I would love to get a better sense of who precisely they are.

Also, since some in this discussion have expressed the view that the article is slanted against Republicans, and the article also talks about Senator Santorum's involvement, maybe we could add a link to the letter that Santorum wrote to Harry Reid? In it he defends himself against allegations of his involvement. It can be found here: [12] Nisaba Gray 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)NisabaGray

One of the guidelines here is to Be bold in updating pages. Feel free to add what you think is appropriate. Someone may disagree, may change it a bit, or delete it. You can make a case then for keeping it, changing it, etc. Thanks for the input! Nhprman 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Information Needed

There's a lot at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/scahill Exile on K Street -- a project for someone: go through the list and update the appropriate articles: Alexander Strategy Group, Ed Beckham, Roy Blunt, K Street Project, Tom DeLay, ARMPAC, Ellis, Abramoff, etc etc . . . phew! Sholom 21:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)