Abramoff to plead guilty to fraud, other charges

[Apeman81]

Charles Rangel, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, recieved money related to Abramoff.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.) who received at least $79,300; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who received at least $45,750; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who received at least $68,941 and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who received at least $6,250.

All this does is show the truth that a lobbyist spreads money to whomever he believes can affect change in the matters related to the entities he represents.

The truly funny thing is that since he has plead quilty a crime involving a couple of people, now everyone is scrambling to calim that anyone who took money from this man was "bought". And all the while, hundreds of other lobbyist make the rounds, making contributions to congressmen hither and yon, and we, the people can't help but sit blithely and stare at the pretty light that is the Abramoff story.

So just keep staring at what you're told to attend to and ignore the hundreds of other Abramoffs behind the curtain.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Charles Rangel, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, recieved money related to Abramoff. Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.) who received at least $79,300; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who received at least $45,750; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who received at least $68,941 and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who received at least $6,250. All this does is show the truth that a lobbyist spreads money to whomever he believes can affect change in the matters related to the entities he represents. The truly funny thing is that since he has plead quilty a crime involving a couple of people, now everyone is scrambling to calim that anyone who took money from this man was "bought". And all the while, hundreds of other lobbyist make the rounds, making contributions to congressmen hither and yon, and we, the people can't help but sit blithely and stare at the pretty light that is the Abramoff story. So just keep staring at what you're told to attend to and ignore the hundreds of other Abramoffs behind the curtain.

Giving out and/or taking money is not illegal. It is all in the public record and regulated. Let's wait and see who is indicted for bribery. The Republicans seem much more worried than the Democrats. The DeLays of this world I suspect have a lot to worry about. Time will tell.

[Apeman81]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...yist_in_probe/

The revelation was made as Dorgan took to the offensive Monday, saying there was no connection between the $20,000 in donations he got from Abramoff's clients and a February 2002 letter he wrote urging the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund the tribal school building program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050301792.html

The two congressmen were James E. Clyburn (S.C.), now vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, and Bennie Thompson (Miss.), now the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.

http://www.utdemocrats.org/ht/displa...tails/i/721608

WASHINGTON - Utah Congressman Chris Cannon will return $2,000 in contributions from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Cannon had refused to refund the contributions as the months-long investigation into Abramoff's lobbying practices unfolded, but the congressman's chief of staff, Joe Hunter, said that with Abramoff's plea agreement Tuesday, it is appropriate to give back the money.

But Cannon won't be refunding $7,000 in contributions from Indian tribes that employed Abramoff. “There's just no reason to do that,” Hunter said.

[RickSp]

As I said, let's see who gets indicted. Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass over whether those charged are Democrats or Republicans. They are all the same to me.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...yist_in_probe/ The revelation was made as Dorgan took to the offensive Monday, saying there was no connection between the $20,000 in donations he got from Abramoff's clients and a February 2002 letter he wrote urging the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund the tribal school building program. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050301792.html The two congressmen were James E. Clyburn (S.C.), now vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, and Bennie Thompson (Miss.), now the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee. http://www.utdemocrats.org/ht/displa...tails/i/721608 WASHINGTON - Utah Congressman Chris Cannon will return $2,000 in contributions from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Cannon had refused to refund the contributions as the months-long investigation into Abramoff's lobbying practices unfolded, but the congressman's chief of staff, Joe Hunter, said that with Abramoff's plea agreement Tuesday, it is appropriate to give back the money. But Cannon won't be refunding $7,000 in contributions from Indian tribes that employed Abramoff. “There's just no reason to do that,” Hunter said.

Spin City. Anyone who doesn't think that Congress isn't bought and sold in the back room of political schemes is naiive. If the money were COMPLETELY removed from Congressional elections, I would be the first one to begin to believe these lying theives. It is like "It depends upon how you define the word 'is'..." Until then, SPIN ON, AND ON, AND ON, AND ON. I YI YI.... I get so dizzy. :. :rolleyes:

[Apeman81]

Quote by: brien Spin City. Anyone who doesn't think that Congress isn't bought and sold in the back room of political schemes is naiive. If the money were COMPLETELY removed from Congressional elections, I would be the first one to begin to believe these lying theives. It is like "It depends upon how you define the word 'is'..." Until then, SPIN ON, AND ON, AND ON, AND ON. I YI YI.... I get so dizzy. :. :rolleyes:

I'm not so sure that I would paint them, any of them, as lying thieves. Let's not be naive here. Mr. Smith does NOT go to Washington.

And why shouldn't a group of like minded people be able to band together, collect their wealth, and use it to bring about the laws they want to see enacted by giving that wealth to the campaigns and for the maintenance of operations of elected officials that hold sway over the laws of the land?

Elections take money. The successful operation of a political sphere of influence takes money. Is the contribution to an elected official in return for influence in a decision a bad thing? If not money, what else would groups like The Sierra Club, the NRA, NOW, PETA, HCI etc be able to use to influence the laws of the land?

So when does it become a problem? When Indian Gaming expands their casino base? When China gains superior technology? When the elected official uses the money to buy a house? And if there is a threshold that must be breached, then where do we set that threshold? And why?

[tusaki]

It becomes a problem when businesses and interest groups are able to buy legislation, at the expense of others. This is why we have democracy. Not to have policy turned into a commodity, but to protect the rights of everyone as good as possible.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: tusaki It becomes a problem when businesses and interest groups are able to buy legislation, at the expense of others. This is why we have democracy. Not to have policy turned into a commodity, but to protect the rights of everyone as good as possible.

Techincally, ours is a Representative democracy in the form of a republic.

Your use of the word commodity implies that votes are simply sold. If that were indeed true, if an elected official voted solely based on the money coming in, then he should be replaced at the ballot box.

But if an elected official has a point of view and voting record on a subject, then why should not we, the people, in the form of interest groups of like minded people, be able to monetarily aid the efforts of the elected official?

All legislation is "at the expense of others". A law prohibiting the molestation of children is at the expense of child molesters. Minimum wage laws affect the cost of good and service to consumers. Are we to eschew such laws because of the "expense" some will feel for their enactment?

[tusaki]

Quote by: Apeman81 Techincally, ours is a Representative democracy in the form of a republic. Your use of the word commodity implies that votes are simply sold. If that were indeed true, if an elected official voted solely based on the money coming in, then he should be replaced at the ballot box.

Agreed.

Quote by: Apeman81 But if an elected official has a point of view and voting record on a subject, then why should not we, the people, in the form of interest groups of like minded people, be able to monetarily aid the efforts of the elected official?

Because lobbying (with money) occurs constantly, not just for supporting a certain voting history. If a congressman would have voted differently without payments, trips, gifts, meals etc. Then this is treason to me, the voter.

Quote by: Apeman81 All legislation is "at the expense of others". A law prohibiting the molestation of children is at the expense of child molesters. Minimum wage laws affect the cost of good and service to consumers. Are we to eschew such laws because of the "expense" some will feel for their enactment?

Always true, but that was not my point. Look at it the other way around: what is easier for, say, a group of indian casino holders: (a) To actively campaign and convince the voters to vote for someone who is sympathetic to indian casino's? (b) To actively campaign and sent letters to congressmen to reason with them why more casino's should be built? or (c) To send money to a number of congressmen in the form of "campaign support", while underhandedly letting it be know to those congressman what they want.

We, as voters, do not want option (c), or even the slightest sliver of doubt that such a thing can occur. Yet, this is what happens. And this is not limited to Washington, you can find this is happying in other levels of the government as well. Same goes for other countries and organizations, some more than others.

[brien]

Quote by: Apeman81 I'm not so sure that I would paint them, any of them, as lying thieves. Let's not be naive here. Mr. Smith does NOT go to Washington. And why shouldn't a group of like minded people be able to band together, collect their wealth, and use it to bring about the laws they want to see enacted by giving that wealth to the campaigns and for the maintenance of operations of elected officials that hold sway over the laws of the land? Elections take money. The successful operation of a political sphere of influence takes money. Is the contribution to an elected official in return for influence in a decision a bad thing? If not money, what else would groups like The Sierra Club, the NRA, NOW, PETA, HCI etc be able to use to influence the laws of the land? So when does it become a problem? When Indian Gaming expands their casino base? When China gains superior technology? When the elected official uses the money to buy a house? And if there is a threshold that must be breached, then where do we set that threshold? And why?

Well my radical language is duly noted. That said, money corrupts the processes in DC. The processes needs to be reformed and insulated from the influence of the corruption in money. From lobbyists to candidate funding.

I have no problem with like people banding together. But wealth should not buy lawmakers. That is what happens now.

We don't need money influencing PETA, or anything else except citizens influencing legislation. They can have their say on the floor of Congress by having lawmakers present their viewpoints. We can have advocates for Congressional influence that are volunteers. Important legislation that affects all citizens should be put to National Referendum. Debates should be held in the National Media. Why do we fund PBS if we can't get the WHOLE story on any aspect of legislation? If we are going to have a honest PBS, then let's come clean and use it for the benefits of ALL citizens.

Congress has become a club for the rich and priviledged who are mostly lawyers. Let them present and shape legislation but let the people vote on important legislation through referendum at the local level, and make the Congress person(s) from that district, or state in the case of the Senate, beholding to the results of that vote.

Many people think that this is "mob rule" and don't trust it. I say that is elitist in nature and has no place in American politics. What we have now is elitist rule mostly by a bunch of lawyers who take as much money as they can to keep themselves in a job that perpetuates cronyism, illegal political activity, and political power.

The whole stinkin system need to be reformed.

[Apeman81]

“ Because lobbying (with money) occurs constantly, not just for supporting a certain voting history. If a congressman would have voted differently without payments, trips, gifts, meals etc. Then this is treason to me, the voter.”

I invite the ability to support the person who will vote my will, but not the ability to buy the person to vote my will. How easy for another to simply outspend me? We agree basically. I, however, would not invoke treason, but certainly evoke removal from office, by vote if merely suspected, and expulsion if demonstrated.