January 6, 2006
Lobbyist's Downfall Leads to Charities' Windfall
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, NY TIMES

LINK

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 - The White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, a shelter for battered women in tiny Mission, S.D., is far removed from the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal that rocked Washington this week. But the society, along with many other charities large and small, is among the latest beneficiaries of Mr. Abramoff's legendary largess.

As panicked lawmakers rush to distance themselves from Mr. Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, after his guilty pleas in federal and Florida state courts, tens of thousands of dollars in political donations from him and his Indian tribe clients are being returned or redirected to charities in a vast Robin Hood-like reordering of campaign funds.

Many of these charitable groups - including the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, which will receive $2,000 from Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota - have Native American ties, creating a certain symmetry, albeit an imperfect one, given that Mr. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bilking the tribes of millions.

Some tribes like the Saginaw Chippewa and the Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians are getting campaign contributions back. But the refunds are not entirely welcome; tribal officials complain of being branded as pariahs and worry that their clout in Washington will be diminished if lawmakers refuse to accept their money.

Yet the Abramoff plea bargain has been a boon to organizations as varied as the Boy Scouts and the Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund. President Bush is giving $6,000 to the American Heart Association. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, is giving $18,500 to a Christian mission in his home state. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, is giving $2,000 to New York charities that have not been publicly identified.

Campaign finance experts say the donations are perfectly legal, so long as the original contribution did not violate the law. But the sudden flow of campaign dollars into charities is raising a new set of questions:

How do the lawmakers decide who gets the money? Why did they wait until now to return it? And would it be better to direct the money to Mr. Abramoff's victims, since he has said he is broke but has promised to pay more than $26 million in taxes and restitution?

"This is dirty money and now they are going to try to make themselves look good by donating to charity," said Dan Kriwitsky, a Web site designer and Democrat in Sarasota, Fla., who was so outraged he wrote a reporter to complain. "It wouldn't surprise me if somebody is now going to get a tax deduction on that donation."

Tax deductions are not, in fact, permissible - campaign committees are nonprofit entities and do not pay taxes - and experts say the law gives elected officials few options when disposing of excess cash. They may return the money to the original donor, make limited donations to other campaigns or national party committees, or give it to charity, so long as they will not benefit financially from the donation.

"This is purely a political decision," said Kenneth A. Gross, an authority on campaign finance at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "It is not a legal one."

As for the charities, they are happy to get the Abramoff money, if a teensy bit uncomfortable with the attendant publicity.

"If we go down the road of assessing what's in the mind and hearts of every donor, we might find ourselves in tricky waters," said Diana Aviv, president and chief executive of Independent Sector, a nonprofit group that represents more than 600 American charities. "Part of it is to get rid of money that for them is hot. So what are their options? Give it back to Jack Abramoff? I don't think so."

At the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, which has been operating on the impoverished Rosebud Indian Reservation since 1977, the director, Tillie Black Bear, had no idea she would be receiving $2,000 from Mr. Thune. But it came as good news.

"Because we are funded primarily by grants, there is no leeway in how we can use any of the money," she said. "This would be put into an unrestricted account where we can serve women for whatever they need."

Mr. Abramoff, 46, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion, and has agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in a widening corruption investigation. The authorities say he used campaign contributions, expensive meals and lavish trips, including golf outings to Scotland, to influence lawmakers and their aides.

He donated money on his own, advised his clients on how to steer donations and also raised money for Republicans. President Bush's campaign organization, for instance, named Mr. Abramoff a "Pioneer," putting him in a select group of donors who helped raise $100,000 or more for the 2004 re-election effort - far more than the $6,000 the campaign is giving away.

"In terms of the money he has helped raise, at this point there is nothing to indicate that any of those contributions were anything but appropriate," said Tracey Schmidt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, which is handling the transaction.

Ms. Schmidt said the heart association would receive $2,000 donated by Mr. Abramoff, $2,000 donated by his wife, and $2,000 donated by the Saginaw Chippewa.

David Livingston, corporate secretary for the heart association, said that despite having a small concern "about being linked to some sort of scandal," the group was pleased to have the money. "Our average gifts are on the small side," Mr. Livingston said, "so $6,000 is an important gift for us."

Not all politicians are rushing to divest.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, is keeping the $30,500 donated to him and his political action committees by tribes represented by Mr. Abramoff. "He feels that Abramoff was a Republican operative and this is a Republican scandal," said Mr. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. "He's done nothing improper."

But the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, reached a different conclusion. Mr. Durbin directed his staff to review his campaign contributions for the eight years he has served in the Senate, and found no personal donations from Mr. Abramoff. But he did find seven contributions totaling $11,000 that came from Indian tribes represented by the lobbyist and the firm he worked for.

"Because Mr. Abramoff's web of influence was so widespread and so corrosive," Mr. Durbin said in a statement, "I have decided to donate these funds to two Chicago-area organizations serving Native Americans - the American Indian Center of Chicago and the American Indian Health Service of Chicago."

Some tribal officials say they are mystified as to why anyone would want to return or give away their money.

Last month, Representative J. D. Hayworth, Republican of Arizona and the co-chairman of the House Native American Caucus, wrote to the tribal chief of the Mississippi band of Choctaw to seek advice on handling the tribe's contributions. The chief, Phillip Martin, urged the congressman to keep the money.

"Since our tribe has done nothing wrong, our willingness to participate in the democratic process should be welcomed, not shunned," the chief wrote, adding that to return contributions "would make absolutely no sense."

Mr. Thune, who is giving his money to the White Buffalo society, said through a spokesman that he considered Mr. Abramoff's "crimes to be reprehensible."

Ms. Black Bear had a different reaction. She was asked if she recognized the name Jack Abramoff.

"No," she said. "It doesn't ring any bells."

January 6, 2006
Abramoff Conviction Gives New Impetus to Moves in Congress to Toughen Curbs on Lobbying
By CARL HULSE, NT TIMES

LINK

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 - The criminal conviction of the high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff is giving new impetus to Congressional initiatives to toughen restrictions on lobbying as Republicans and Democrats vie to establish their credentials on a potentially potent election-year issue.

Both parties are preparing to roll out lobbying reform proposals in the aftermath of Mr. Abramoff's guilty plea to public corruption charges. They are considering a variety of ideas certain to draw resistance from the lobbying community and other lawmakers.

"These are tough changes, and some of them will be quite controversial among our colleagues here," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said Thursday as he endorsed a plan developed by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, after his hearings into Mr. Abramoff's bilking of Indian tribes through a lobbying operation.

The plan by Mr. McCain, a chief author of changes in campaign finance law, is one of a handful that have been percolating behind the scenes for weeks.

Now that the Abramoff inquiry has exploded, those plans are unlikely to be quietly shelved. Lawmakers are eager to show that Congress is willing to crack down on practices that have become business as usual in a city increasingly driven by campaign contributions and cozy relationships.

"I will be working with colleagues this session to examine and act on any necessary changes to improve transparency and accountability for our body when it comes to lobbying," said Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, who late last year assigned a colleague to begin exploring new regulations on lobbying.

Democrats say Mr. Frist and other Republican leaders are latecomers to the call for changes, noting that Democrats in the House and Senate introduced proposals in the spring and summer only to be treated dismissively by Republicans. And they say they are skeptical that proposals from the Republican leadership will be sufficiently tough.

"Congressional Democrats have been pushing to clean up Congress since long before the indictments started coming down on the culture of corruption," John Lapp, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Thursday. "We continue to wait for Republicans to join us."

House Democrats announced Thursday that 120 Democratic lawmakers now back a proposed overhaul of House rules that would prohibit any lobbyist involvement in paying for travel of members of Congress. That change follows disclosures that Mr. Abramoff funneled money through organizations to underwrite lavish trips for Republican lawmakers like Representatives Tom DeLay of Texas and Bob Ney of Ohio. Those men say they were unaware of Mr. Abramoff's ruse.

House and Senate Democratic leaders plan to unveil extensive lobbying changes later this month. Like other proposals, they would extend the prohibition on lobbying of Congress by former lawmakers and staff members to two years from one, eliminate floor privileges for former members who are registered lobbyists and put new limits on gifts and Congressional travel. Penalties for violations would be significantly increased.

The McCain measure that Mr. Lieberman is backing would take similar steps, including requiring lawmakers to disclose employment negotiations that could pose a conflict - an area of controversy in recent years as lawmakers and senior aides left Capitol Hill to work for industries formerly under their legislative jurisdiction.

The proposal would institute extensive requirements for financial disclosures by lobbyists. It would also require lawmakers to pay the true costs of flying on private jets owned by outside interests rather than reimbursing the jets' owners at first-class travel rates as is now the practice.

Mr. Lieberman said he believed that new public disclosure of lobbyist activities could curtail some abuse though he acknowledged, as some outside watchdog groups have asserted, that lack of enforcement of current rules by the Congressional ethics committees is an issue.

"I think it's a reasonable question to ask about the work of the ethics committees," he said.

Senior Republican aides in the House and Senate said their proposals were still being assembled and negotiated among lawmakers, but they promised that the measures would have teeth.

"The leader expects a serious and credible lobby reform proposal for the Senate," said Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Mr. Frist, "and the ideas proposed to date fit that bill to bring more transparency and accountability to the lobbying world."

Members of both parties say it is likely some legislation will be enacted, particularly with elections coming up in November and with public regard for Congress at a low in public opinion polls.

"The Congress needs to respond," said Representative Zach Wamp, Republican of Tennessee.

Lobbying Reform Jumps to Forefront
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

There's the shame factor and then the fear factor. Both, according to one senator, explain the sudden congressional interest in cleaning up the relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers now that Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing has been exposed.

Bills dealing with lobbying ethics that have been dormant for months are getting a new look as lawmakers digest the consequences of Abramoff pleading guilty to corruption and tax evasion charges, and his agreement to cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation that could taint dozens of members of Congress.

The "dramatic revelations" about Abramoff's activities "will help spur reform," said Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis. "That's the way it always works."

Feingold noted that the campaign finance scandals of the 1996 presidential elections provided an impetus for eventually passing a new campaign spending law he and Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., had been pushing for years.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., reacting to the Abramoff's guilty plea this week, has pledged to "examine and act on any necessary changes to improve transparency and accountability for our body when it comes to lobbying."

The third-ranking Republican in the Senate, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, is already working on legislation that could include steps to address some of the excesses revealed by the Abramoff case, which involved defrauding Indian tribe clients and arranging campaign contributions, trips, meals and entertainment for public officials they hoped to influence.

In the House, Republican leadership aides said there was a good chance that lobbying legislation will get a vote this year.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said the momentum for action is very different from last May when he said GOP leaders gave the cold shoulder to a lobbying ethics measure he introduced with Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. He said he was told that the bill was unnecessary, a stunt.

It's now become clear, Emanuel said, that "we've got to overhaul the system that rewarded a pay-for-play practice."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who led Republicans to a House majority in 1995 by stressing how power had corrupted Democrats, said GOP leaders can no longer ignore the issue. "If they intend to retain a majority," he told reporters, "they need to take the lead in saying to the country 'we need to clean this mess up.'"

Bruce Josten, vice president for government affairs with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of Washington's most influential lobbying groups, said he was "left incredulous" by the Abramoff case, adding that it "clearly is going to have a long tail reaching into Congress."

There probably will be new rules and laws, he said. But, he added, "Congress needs to keep in mind that this is not a typical way of conducting business in this town."

Bills already introduced would tighten regulations in such areas as disclosure, trips and entertaining, gift exchanges and moving from the public sector into lobbying jobs.

McCain, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., are promoting legislation that would require grassroots organizations, often run by professional lobbyists, to disclose their lobbying activities. Lawmakers and their aides would have to pay fair market value for use of private planes. Sports and entertainment tickets in skyboxes would be valued at the cost of the highest priced ticket in the arena.

Like that bill, Feingold's proposal has a "revolving door" provision that extends from one year to two years the waiting period for administration and congressional employees before they could take lobbying jobs. Feingold also would prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts to members or their staffs.

Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., with the backing of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, has proposed a package that would bar lobbyists from paying for, sponsoring or arranging congressional trips. Obey, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, also would end some of the lobbying activities carried out by congressional leaders themselves, such as promising special projects to win votes for other legislation.

Lieberman said history has shown that the influence of money in politics will never be totally eradicated. But stronger laws and more disclosure will help restore the trust of Americans in the system, he said, and, "will make this for the short term a pretty pristine place to be."

January 6, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The End of Influence
By MICHAEL WALDMAN , NY TIMES

THERE are shivers running through official Washington, and it's not just the January cold. The plea bargain by the lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare key lawmakers in scandal and potential legal troubles, including some Congressional leaders. The case, with its luxury skyboxes, politicians shilling for gambling interests and lobbyists stealing from Indian tribes, symbolizes Washington's extreme cash-for-policy culture. But what can we do to ensure that, when the dust clears, things won't just go back to politics as usual?

In the long struggle to strengthen democracy, reform sometimes follows scandal, but not always. Often appalling corruption has produced a yawn rather than a shriek. True progress comes only from rare "reform moments," when accumulated public outrage combines with potent policy changes.

In the late 1800's, everybody knew that campaigns were financed by patronage appointees, but it took the assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881 by a spurned job-seeker to spur civil service reform.

At the beginning of the last century, the rise of corporations bred new corruption, tainting even President Theodore Roosevelt. After it was revealed that Roosevelt had received large donations from the insurance industry in 1904, he felt his honor had been besmirched. "Sooner or later, unless there is a readjustment, there will come a riotous, wicked, murderous day of atonement," he told a reporter, and eventually he won passage of the first federal law banning corporate campaign gifts.

A 1906 muckraking article in Cosmopolitan magazine called "The Treason of the Senate" exposed how corrupt state legislatures controlled the senators they appointed and sent to Washington. Public outcry was so fierce and sustained that the Constitution was amended in 1913 to provide direct election of senators.

Another great wave of reform came in the 1970's. After Watergate, Congress established public financing and voluntary spending limits for presidential races. It even imposed spending limits on legislative contests, though that provision was struck down by the Supreme Court. Scandal begat reform locally, too. New York City's landmark public financing system, under which candidates receive matching public funds, was enacted not because of vague good-government sentiments but in response to the 1980's scandals that led to party leaders being imprisoned and a former Queens Borough president, Donald Manes, committing suicide.

Unfortunately, just as often scandals lead merely to cynicism and fatigue, from Teapot Dome in the 1920's to the Abscam criminal convictions of Congressmen in the 1970's. The savings and loan collapse of the 1980's produced the memorable image of the Keating Five senators testifying in shame before Congress. A new president, Bill Clinton, whom I served as a political reform adviser, proposed reform. But House Democratic leaders soon got what Lincoln diagnosed in his generals as "the slows." I will never feel more frustrated than I did standing in the Senate antechamber as reform was filibustered to death.

Intriguingly, the most recent campaign finance law passed without the spur of a specific scandal. Yes, the public was aware of the rising role of soft money, and stories of big donors staying in the Lincoln Bedroom got wide attention. But the bipartisan campaign reform act introduced by Senators Russell Feingold and John McCain passed only after six years of patient organizing.

So, can the Abramoff mess become a true tipping point? It depends on the boldness of the reform proposals. Yes, measures to tighten disclosure for lobbyists, like those proposed by Senator McCain and Representative Marty Meehan, are no doubt needed. But voters should insist on a stronger system to transform campaign finance at the same time.

For example, last year Connecticut passed a full public-financing system for legislative and statewide elections after a series of scandals, including one that forced the resignation of Gov. John Rowland and his guilty plea to a conspiracy charge. Another approach would be a matching funds system for Congressional races similar to New York City's system.

Just as important, the public must be persuaded that change will truly bring accountability. Reform must not be presented simply as a matter of political hygiene, but as a way to bolster voters' voices in the legislative process. Mr. Abramoff was central to the Republicans' so-called K Street Project, in which the Congressional majority sought to create a political machine tying Republican politicians to business lobbyists. A century ago muckrakers educated the public about such networks; perhaps today's bloggers can play a similar role.

Finally, the reform moment will arrive when politicians, in their own self-interest, press for change. There are hopeful signs. Democrats, finally shedding their incumbent mindsets after a decade in the minority, have now made political reform a central plank. Republicans are far more implicated in the current scandal, which may give their rank and file new reasons to turn to Senator McCain for leadership.

Jack Abramoff's football stadium skybox may never become a symbol as potent as the parking garage where the cinematic Deep Throat whispered, "Follow the money." But even a jaded public can reach a tipping point. As the scandal unfolds, let's hope it leads not just to lurid headlines but lasting change.

Michael Waldman is the executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

January 5, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Saving the House
By DAVID BROOKS, NY TIMES

LINK

I don't know what's more pathetic, Jack Abramoff's sleaze or Republican paralysis in the face of it. Abramoff walks out of a D.C. courthouse in his pseudo-Hasidic homburg, and all that leading Republicans can do is promise to return his money and remind everyone that some Democrats are involved in the scandal, too.

That's a great G.O.P. talking point: some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us.

If Republicans want to emerge from this affair with their self-respect or electoral prospects intact, they need to get in front of it with a comprehensive reform offensive.

First, they need to hold new leadership elections. As Newt Gingrich and Vin Weber told me yesterday, Tom DeLay needs to take care of his own legal problems and give up the dream of returning as majority leader.

But Republicans need to do more than bump DeLay. They need to put the entire leadership team up for a re-vote. That's because the real problem wasn't DeLay, it was DeLayism, the whole culture that merged K Street with the Hill, and held that raising money is the most important way to contribute to the team.

New leadership elections would, at least, make the current leaders re-earn their slots with new platforms. At best, they would allow the party to reinvigorate itself under new management. A party led by young talents like Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence and Mark Kirk would be taken seriously as a party of reform.

Second, the Republicans need to get a grip on earmarks.

Earmarks are the provisions that single members can stick into gigantic bills to steer spending toward favored projects. They're an invitation to corruption. If individual members of Congress can control $100 million federal contracts or billion-dollar pork barrel projects, then of course companies are going to find ways to funnel graft to those members.

To prove they're serious about special-interest spending, Republicans could declare a one-year earmark moratorium until they get a handle on this problem. Or they could promote legislation mandating that earmarks eat up only 1 percent of any spending bill's total cost.

Third, Republicans need to steal David Obey and Barney Frank's lobbying-reform ideas. For some insane reason, having to do with their own special interests, Democrats have been slow to trumpet the ideas coming from their own party. Republicans have a chance to hijack them before the country notices.

Specifically, there should be a ban on lobbyist-paid travel. (Members should be allowed to take spouses on publicly financed travel because it is important that members get out and see the world.) Former members should not be allowed to lobby on the House floor. All lobbyist contacts with government officials should be posted on the Internet.

Gingrich intriguingly suggests abolishing all fund-raising in the Washington metro area. Make the lobbyists go to the districts if they want to attend $1,000 cocktail parties.

Fourth, enforce House rules. There's bound to be corruption when spending provisions can be slipped into legislation in the dead of night, outside the normal oversight procedures. There's bound to be corruption when members are forced to vote on sprawling bills nobody has a chance to inspect. Instead, all legislation should be posted online for 72 hours before the vote, so the staff and bloggers can nitpick and expose.

Fifth, rebuild the ethics committees. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute proposes a bifurcated process. The investigations should be conducted by a commission of former members and former staffers. That way, current members are not investigating one another. Then the committees can vote on the commission recommendations.

Sixth, readopt the pay-as-you-go budget rules. As long as a $2.6 trillion a year government is expanding into more areas of national life, businesses will have an incentive to invest in lobbyists. The 1990 pay-as-you-go rules, which forced Congress to offset new expenditures with spending restraint, not only imposed fiscal discipline but also forced pork projects to compete for limited resources.

Finally, today - before noon - fire Bob Ney as chairman of the House Administration Committee. For God's sake, Republicans, show a little moral revulsion.

Back in the dim recesses of my mind, I remember a party that thought of itself as a reform, or even a revolutionary, movement. That party used to be known as the Republican Party. I wonder if it still exists.