SocraticGadfly: Abramoff - not just a Republican thing

December 13, 2005

Abramoff - not just a Republican thing

Of course, I'm in the definite minority of independent-minded, gadfly-like independent progressives to point that out.

But this nice Washington Post graphic presents my case very well.

It makes a number of points.

First, note that Democrats got 35 percent of the Abramoff pie. Throw out the big spike in 2002, and it’s nearly 38 percent for other years.

Second, look at the lower left bar graph. Of Abramoff’s giving to national political committees, the Democrats got nearly 42 percent of the total.

Third, look at the horizontal bar graph, bottom center. The second-largest recipient, three of the top 10 and six of the top 15 are Democrats.

Fourth, lobbyists buy access. Remember that during the entire time frame of timeline, the Republicans controlled the House. Except for a little more than a year after Jim Jeffords’ defection out of the Republican party. You buy access with the majority party.

I don’t know if the same would have happened with a Democratic majority, even given Abramoff’s connection to Tom DeLay. Is it possible, though? Certainly.

At the least, if the minority — especially in the Senate — were as weak as it claims, Abramoff’s sharing the wealth would have been less bipartisan.

The House and Senate rankings of his chief recipients from both parties underscore the fact that Abramoff was buying access.

Fifth, look at the top timeline, the one that has Abramoff’s contributors beneath the peak. Look just below the peak in the timeline of Abramoff’s tribal donors. Besides Abramoff’s well-known connections with Louisiana’s Coushattas and the Texas Tiguas he was bending over, you have two New Mexico pueblos with gaming.

I’m not a prude on gambling, but I think this does show some of its corrosive power, especially when handled like it is in America. Frankly, if we would legalize it everywhere, it would probably lose some of its allure. At the same time, a lot of Indian tribes who have succumbed to that allure would find themselves financially high and dry. That still might be better than pitting tribe against tribe, bribing politicians with executive branch connections or needy pockets to muscle the Department of the Interior and worse.

And, you would eliminate the temptation to this corruption.

At the same time, contra Josh Marshall, posters on Kos, and such, I’m not claiming that Democrats are equally guilty as Republicans. But to partisans who have trouble not seeing multiple offenders, who can’t see beyond polarities, dualities or blacks and whites, I am saying that Democrats appear to have their share of guilt.

No comments: