Abramoff donations vs. Abramoff-directed ones

I’ve seen a number of opinionators, including one linked on Raw Story and a number of Kos diarists, try to parse this difference as proof that the Abramoff scandal is all about Republicans.

Actually, I have a different idea, which says this conventional “Democratic talking point” version of the distinction between Abramoff and Abramoff-directed client donations is all wet.

Instead, the difference between the two is that of Abramoff playing two political games at the same time.

On his personal donations, by giving only to Republicans, Abramoff was playing to the hilt his role as good boy K Street Project lobbyist. Nothing should surprise anyone there, given that the man is a former Tom DeLay aide. (But, see a partial exception to this in the next paragraph.)

But, in directing his Indian tribal clients, and others, to donate to both parties (and allowing his personal skybox to be used by members of both parties in Congress, or members of their staff, Abramoff was playing pre-1994, pre-K power politics.

In other words, this system of Abramoff distinguishing between his own donations and directed donations was his attempt to have his cake and eat it, too.

I don’t know why North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan gave back his Abramoff-connected money. (Remember, he also used the Abramoff skybox, so for the last time, let’s have “Democrats are always right and never even ethically challenged” folks shut up.)

I suspect this is behind Harry Reid both taking a healthy chunk of Abramoff-connected money, and now rejecting repeated appeals to give it back. Nevada’s not known for its political niceness, and despite his Mormon heritage, Reid is not a total choir boy either.

Now, by the letter of the law, Abramoff money may have a taint that Abramoff-directed money doesn’t.

But in the sphere of public opinion, such niceties aren’t parsed.

And to the degree that the sometimes sordid world of high-dollar gaming is involved, maybe such niceties shouldn’t be parsed.

As I’ve said before, bottom line in this issue for me, in one sense, is not Jack Abramoff, criminal convictions, or anything of the sort.

As the lawsuit against the Department of Interior by a number of American Indian tribes for a century-plus of fiduciary mismanagement points out on a parallel front, this issue is ultimately about Indian rights and agreements.

And to the degree that Democrats as well as Republicans have failed on that, they are ethically challenged.

Sadly, too, many tribes see gaming as a quick fix. In small tribes of just a few hundred enrolled members, I wonder whether it won’t instead be a breeding ground for vicious long-term jealousies.