From Reuters:
WASHINGTON - Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s guilty plea in a U.S. corruption probe sent shock waves across Washington on Wednesday as top Republicans sought to avoid being tainted by the scandal and Democrats pressed the issue.
President George W. Bush, House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois and House Majority Leader Roy Blunt were among Republicans who donated to charities the campaign contributions they had received from Abramoff…
…The Republican National Committee said Bush will return $6,000 that Abramoff, his wife and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe, an Abramoff client, gave to Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. But the campaign doesn’t plan to return more than $100,000 that Abramoff raised from friends and associates, spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said.
Okay, a lot of you have been wondering why I haven’t posted anything about Jack Abramoff yet. I’ll explain.
Like the President, like Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and I have a history. And like President Bush, I wanted to make sure that I’d cleared my name before I spoke up, because I can’t in any conscience condemn the man before I return any and all direct assistance he’s provided to me over the years. I’ve now done so. Here’s the full disclosure of my association with Mr. Abramoff:
- In 1995, in exchange for getting his nephew a job on a popular PBS children’s show, Jack Abramoff contributed $2,000 to my “Little Felber Achievers” program for inner city youths. He also engineered $45,000 in other contributions. Though the ski chalet time-share in Utah that I purchased with the money was not technically used by any “Little Felber Achievers” (the program was dissolved in 1998, before we’d located any actual “inner city youths”), it was all done quite legally. Still, I am returning the $2,000 to Mr. Abramoff.
- In May of 1997, Jack Abramoff took me on a golfing trip to the Scottish highlands. On the second night of the vacation, Jack also bought me a Glenlivet at the hotel’s bar. The purpose of the trip was to set me up with various Hollywood TV producers in return for my making “a few funny but pointed jokes” on NPR about the Connecticut legislature trying to limit a Native American tribe’s right to open a casino or two. The casinos are now open, and the relationships I formed on the trip have helped me establish myself as a television writer. I have returned the $12 for the scotch plus a dollar for the tip to Mr. Abramoff.
- In July of 2002, I hosted a fundraiser for one of Jack’s clients. This was in return for Jack calling on a noted “friend” who “owed him a favor” to “take care of” another comedy writer who had been offered a job that I wanted. I did not know any of the details of the arrangement, nor did I want to.
About a week after the fundraiser, however, I received a postcard from Jack telling me to read the obituary section of the next day’s LA Times. The next morning I did so, to find that the writer and his wife had perished in a fire at their home. Only his 5 year-old son was saved, albeit very severely burned. A few days later I was offered the writing job, which began the string of good fortune and good jobs that funded my move out here to Hollywood.
It’s hard to put a price on something like that. But in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I have returned the postcard to Mr. Abramoff, along with a 23-cent postcard stamp.
There. That, to my knowledge, is the full extent of the monetary benefits that I received directly from Jack Abramoff, and as you can see, I’ve made more than full restitution for all of them. So with a clear conscience I can now say that I hope that anyone who is implicated by Abramoff’s testimony is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I have long said that lobbying laws need reform, and perhaps this will be the beginning of a movement. And as I’ve always said (privately, mostly, and often while alone and writing scripts here in the beautiful mountains of Utah, but still…), it’s time to stand up to the influence-peddlers and those who’d benefit from their machinations.





48 comments
madbard
January 5, 2006 at 6:46 pm
1well then. i guess that is that.
Vinnie (not my real name)
January 5, 2006 at 7:10 pm
2In exchange for assisting Vito “The Cracker” Boldernado in removing three surprisely heavy rolls of lumpy carpet from the home of wealthy socialite, Anne Coulter at 3:30AM one morning in February, 1991, I received nothing from Jack Abramoff. The cheap ass sum’bitch stiffed me. Vito said if I ever mentioned this incident to anyone, he would personally rip out my lungs and feed them to his woverine. Vito, unfortunately was hit by a bus last night, shortly after stopping five 9mm Hollow Points and catching a 2 ton safe thrown off of an 18 story office building in the Eastland Mall area of Charlotte. I may have not witnessed this. Bide your time, I always say. Wait until they don’t even remember who you are. Then - even the score. Mr. Abramoff may opt for protective custody. It would be in his own best interest if he did.
SeattleDan
January 5, 2006 at 8:57 pm
3And,Mr.Felber,you are absolutely certain there were not contributions to your presidential campaign in 2004 by Mr.Abramoff? Or any of his cronies?
Murray
January 5, 2006 at 9:18 pm
4(As has been first aired on hedera’s blog), one of the ideas proposed to punish those congresspersons (OK men) who have subverted the democratic process, spit on our laws, obscenely enriched them selves at our expense, while still arguably not breaking any (or at least not more than a couple) laws, a penalty of having to wear an orange vest with a $ sign on it.
All of the time.
24/7.
They have to wear it in the shower.
This would be a law that 94.372% of Americans would endorse enthusiastically.
Only one problem.
It would be those several hundred congressmen condemned to wear these “vest of derision” who would need to vote for the law.
Odds are against this.
(Adam, brilliant post!)
Maximum Bob
January 5, 2006 at 9:27 pm
5A careful search of records indicates that in 2004, Jack Abramoff arranged for Columbia House to send the Felber campaign 12 CDs. Adam, you owe someone a penny.
cooper
January 5, 2006 at 11:31 pm
6A golf junket to St. Andrews, Scotland? Christ on a crutch, Adam, how common. I never have understood the fascination with that place, anyway. Okay, the history of it and all, but did you actually try to play golf there? The rain, sweet Jesus, comes off the North Sea horizontal at 60 mph (96kph) for weeks on end. The Tourist Bureau waited 4-1/2 years for a sunny day (hour actually) and wildly ran around and snapped the pictures for the website and those brochures. If you spent more that an afternoon there, yu’d be needin’ mar dan one shot o’ Glenlivet, dat’s fer sher!
Jerry
January 6, 2006 at 12:57 am
7Dammit! In 1997 I contributed nearly $100,000 to “Little Felber Achievers,” and I want my money back! Well…OK. It was closer (a lot closer) to 39 cents, and the guy may have said something about a short-dog of fortified Gallo rather than “Little Felber Achievers,” but I still want my money back. And with inflation being what it is (especially in the cost of Iraqi oil which I use exclusively, being a real American) I want the full 100K!
David
January 6, 2006 at 1:43 am
8So, Tom Delay still believes he will return as majority leader, Bob Ney still believes he’s running for re-election, Newt Gingrich believes he can warn off Republicans from playing Whack-a-Mole with the K-Street crowd, W believes he can make his Iraqi policy all better by meeting with a gaggle of former secretaries of state and defense, Pat Robertson continues to believe he speaks for God, and Adam believes his Jack Abramoff tainted patootie is now wiped clean.
What a six-pack.
ginny
January 6, 2006 at 2:21 am
9It’s a whole crock of six packs. It’s a crock-pack. Sir, there is much to be ’splained.
I believe someone is omitting the 2 gambling junkets to “the boats,” and thus $1.98 should be donated to charity (for the ginormous shrimp cocktail, .99 cents per, natch).
I had something to say earlier about that high-level meeting with former Cabinet officials. Tomorrow maybe a little Photoshopping is in order.
Sophie
January 6, 2006 at 4:09 am
10As I type this from the top of a snow-dusted ski lift (hi Adam! I have a gorgeous view of your chalet from here), I reflect that sadly, the mountains of Utah are one of our few redeeming features. That, and the GREATEST SNOW ON EARTH!, as our license plates would have you believe. We have got a pretty awesome and extensive speed-dating system, though. It’s for returning missionaries that don’t really have the time for finding soul-mates of the same religion, and for our Utah legislators.
Jim Hurley
January 6, 2006 at 10:54 am
11Adam,
How have I missed this stuff for so long? Could it’ve been those letters I kept getting warning me that I’d visited a prohibited site, listing this one by name. If I wasn’t the curious freethinker I am I’d never have found you.
Great essay.
Jim
Thompson
January 6, 2006 at 11:07 am
12Why, cooper, I’m surprised at you.
-Everyone- needs more than one shot of Glenlivet, whether they’re in Scotland or not.
tim
January 6, 2006 at 11:35 am
13I’m enjoying the rather transparently cynical Republican rapid response to the scandal.
1) Give back any of the puny checks with Abramoff’s actual signature on them, while keeping the other millions he helped raise and denying that all that campaign cash and the golf trips and Malaysian junkets he arranged had anything to do with influencing pending legislation, and
2) Pound the hell out of the idea that, “Hey, Democrats took his money too! Washington is a cesspool.” while conveniently glossing over the fact that he was once a key figure in the College Republicans (and is still very close friends) with Rove, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, et. al., and that the overwhelming majority of the cash and influence peddling were directed at Republicans.
Speaking of the College Republicans, there’s a story in my local paper about the leader of the College Repubs at UPenn going off to fight in the National Guard in Iraq. Finally! A Neo-con who walks the walk. Godspeed, Nick Miccarelli. And stay away from Pat Tillman’s unit.
ice weasel
January 6, 2006 at 1:27 pm
14Dear Sir/Madams,
I have been the Minister for Charitible Donations of the fine nation of Blogistan. I understand that you may soon be refunding some parts or part of donations made to you through political connections you are reported to had.
If you would see fit to deposit those funds in an account for our nations, we would match said monies at a rate of $10USD for every $1USD you deposit in said accounts. We seem to be having similar problems because we have monies as well that we cannot access through normal means. Can we help each other here?
In addition, you will have the good hearted feeling to knowing that your money will be helping the starving children of Blogistan and you will be made wealthy beyond your wildests dreams.
Please contact me immediately the number below to confer this transactions so that we may, together, cleanse your account of disreputedable chartity and help both us.
Most sincierely,
Katarina Geane-Lopsez
Blogistan Minister of Chairitys
Turning bad moneys into good Since 2001
p.s. We also know (through our secret national sources) that you are not refunding all said moneys, just part. Don’t worry, that’s our little secrets together, eh?
ginny
January 6, 2006 at 2:27 pm
15*bowing and chanting* We are not worthy. We are not worthy, O Weasel of the Ices.
DouglasG
January 6, 2006 at 5:40 pm
16Just curious… Does anyone actually believe (including Adam - Snark!) that this is going to make one bit of difference?
“He helped raise $140,000 and gave it all to us so we’re returning the $6,000 of the ‘tainted’ money from his own pocket. That’ll absolve me of any wrong doing!” Are we Americans that gullible? (Gullible isn’t in the dictionary you know…) My national pride has been once again insulted! Anybody know how I can contact Vito about this?
Vinnie
January 6, 2006 at 6:22 pm
17DouglasG, Vito sleeps with the fishes, so forgeddaboutit!
another David
January 6, 2006 at 9:23 pm
18This isn’t going to make much difference to voters because this money isn’t very different from “untainted” funds that clearly don’t belong there either.
Example: my San Diego, CA district (Rep. Hunter), where something like 80% of contributions come from defense contractors in the southeast US. Now why should Alabamans be so interested in my congressman? Just because he chairs the house armed services committee?
As much as we would like to believe this is a huge republican-smearing scandal, this is going to look like business as usual to a lot of people. Until we ditch this campaign financing system, we will get exactly the congress we let the wealthy buy for us.
Siobhan
January 6, 2006 at 10:24 pm
19With the current campaign finance system that so heavily favors incumbents and districts drawn to further lock them in, it gets tempting to talk about term limits. Of course, people always want term limits for everyone else’s congressperson. That, and there are a few that it’s worth retaining. So how about this:
Choose a reasonable number of terms - two for senate, three for reps, maybe. After someone has served that number of terms, they can be re-elected, but the required margin increases and continues to increase with each subsequent election. So after your second senate term, you can run again but you’ve got to get at least 55% of the vote to win. Since representatives have shorter terms, maybe their margin requirements only increase by 2-3% each time. You make it a little easier to challenge the incumbents, but you’re not arbitrarily chasing out the good ones. The lobby money will slow for the long-term incumbents because it will become more expensive to mount the type of campaign that can bring in 65% of the vote, so it’s more cost-effective to support challengers.
cooper
January 7, 2006 at 12:15 am
20Yet another rat deserts the sinking Ship of State -http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/81916E7A-DB9A-4BB8-B123-9A3976 865345.htm
David
January 7, 2006 at 1:43 am
21Whoa, thanks for the link, Cooper. Some rats in the center, most rats to the right, here we are stuck in the Ship of Dire Straits.
hedera
January 7, 2006 at 2:24 am
22“Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, Here I am, Stuck in the middle with you…”
This week’s Economist has christened Mr. Abramoff the Demon Briber of K Street. So where’s Angela Lansbury??
ice, I love the starving children of Blogistan, but isn’t that letter supposed to include references to the widow of the late Sani Abacha??
And I’m afraid another David is all too right…
Thompson
January 7, 2006 at 10:10 am
23Siobhan…
While an intriguing idea in principle, your proposal has a fairly large inherent flaw. Corporate interests who want to buy a congressperson will, rather than supporing the incumbent, instead front the most corrupt candidates possible under such a system by buying their loyalty ahead of the election. In a bizarre way, having “safe” districts makes it possible for corporate-funded candidates to maintain at least a little honesty, because they’re not -entirely- dependant upon corporate funding for their reelection–they’ve got their stable and already-manipulated base secure in their pockets. As long as they play to the voting majority of the folks back home–which is what a congressperson’s job ultimately is–they don’t have to worry quite as much about corporate funding as they might under your proposal.
Without campaign funding limits, all the corporations would have to do is launch a campaign that knocks their bought-and-paid-for newbie into an ever-decreasing margin of the popular vote. They didn’t win this round? No problem, they can afford to wait 2 or 6 years and try again. Heck, they could sit back and actually calculate how many runners they’d have to buy among the different states and wait to run all their campaigns at once, thus creating blocs of corruption brought into the government under the thumbs of individual special interests.
In the end, the only safe and certain way to make sure that special interest money does not enter the race is to require public funding of -all- candidates, and to demand public disclosure of financial records for any candidate who chooses to supplement a race with personal funds.
hedera…
I’d like to think that some things are so distasteful, even Mrs. Lovett wouldn’t serve it with a flaky crust.
Siobhan
January 7, 2006 at 10:33 am
24Thompson, probably true alas. I was working from the assumption that the money will always find a way to get through, and trying to think of ways to dilute its impact. Solving the problem of getting the money out of the equation is beyond my simple brain.
ice weasel
January 7, 2006 at 11:51 am
25Hedera, I thought about including a widow or even a child dying of cancer who would be saved by responding to a microsoft email where the respondents got a free trip to disneyworld and $35. But it was just too much. Only Adam has the power to synthesize that much bullshit and package neatly. Me? I have to limit my options.
Thank Ginny. You are certainly worthy, no question about that.
Maximum Bob
January 7, 2006 at 2:05 pm
26No term limits, thanks. We have them in the California state legislature, thus guaranteeing that members are forced to leave just as they start to figure out where the rest rooms are. And term limits are indiscriminate: they kick out the bums and the giants. My district lost Byron Sher, a great state senator, to term limits in 2004.
As for throwing out the crooks and the incompetents, well, that’s what elections are for. In theory, anyway.
hedera
January 7, 2006 at 5:32 pm
27Maximum Bob, here’s whole-hearted agreement from another disgusted Californian. My district used to be represented by Tom Bates, who was a really good assemblyman, and who is now, due to term limits, a somewhat smudged mayor of Berkeley… The trouble with publicly funded elections, at least in California, is that (a) the state is broke, and (b) we still have the anti-tax Nazis who rammed through Proposition 13, and who would rather see the whole state fall into the Pacific rather than pay another zloty in taxes to improve anything… but if somebody will put it on the ballot, I’ll vote for it!
Ice, I was actually thinking more of the verbiage you see in Nigerian fraud emails (I have $X million dollars that I can’t remove from country Y legally, please give me your bank account number…), your wording rather reminded me of them. (I collect them for their amusement value.)
nigel
January 7, 2006 at 7:04 pm
28Bill Proxmire is an example of just how irrelevant money can and should be to politics (see penultimate paragraph):
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/proxmire.shields/
David
January 7, 2006 at 7:19 pm
29Thank you, Mark Shields, for writing this spot-on tribute to William Proxmire, and thanks, Nigel, for the link. While saddened by the loss of Senator Proxmire, this tribute, with its reminder of who and what this man was, made my day a bit brighter.
Siobhan
January 7, 2006 at 10:20 pm
30Max Bob, I’m with you but I guess I wasn’t articulate enough.
We live in SF, but have a second place in the form of a family cabin in the Santa Cruz mountains that’s been there since the late 20s. We hope to retire there someday, so stay very active in local politics. Our area had a great rep, Fred Keeley, who got termed out. I think he could have been reelected by a 70% margin if he’d been given the chance, which is what made me think of the quasi-term limits. Those who aren’t serving their local populace wouldn’t make the cut soon enough, but those who are really doing what the people want could be reelected.
In addition to what Thompson said above, the biggest problem that I could see is that it would make the pork problem even worse than now. The person who could really deliver the bux to a district would have a huge advantage. What’s good for a district is not necessarily good for the country.
We just gotta look at some other options. This isn’t the answer, but maybe elements of it make sense. Whatev.
hedera
January 8, 2006 at 1:26 am
31What a man was Proxmire! We shall not look upon his like again… dammit!
Linkmeister
January 8, 2006 at 2:36 am
32hedera, if you collect ‘em, you’ll be delighted to know that yesterday I received one from someone purporting to be Yassir Arafat’s widow.
Pete IVDL
January 8, 2006 at 8:41 am
33Oh, it’s great to see the smarmy Republislugs slithering for cover! And I actually laughed out loud when Two-Shot Scott came out and actually said “this is terrible, shocking, awful, but they (pointing to the Democrats) did it too!” Now even Howie Dean is looking better. Until he admits something stupid. Or farts in public. Or breathes.
And to watch Hot Tub Tommy fall on his sharpened deposit-book pen… Priceless!
‘Course, now the betting starts. 5 to 2 says the Dems take the honourable route and hara-kiri themselves like Left-wing shishkebabs within the week. The actual method they will employ I leave as an exercise for the student.
Pete IVDL
January 8, 2006 at 8:45 am
34Siobhan, what a great idea! It sounds like someone has been thinking about this for a while… Only problem is, sooner or later the corporates will figure out the breakeven point between paying more for a bought pollatician or paying less but training the Bright New Senator. (Hang on, there’s a definite oxymoron in that last sentence. Darn.)
cooper
January 8, 2006 at 12:05 pm
35Well, the Hammer is down. My, my. I suppose that asshole is thinking he’s just about hit the bottom. Stay tuned; more to come.
I wonder if this will embolden the Democrats to go after Alito with more than a cursory running of the laundry list of Politically Incorrect laws and statements he’s espoused over the years. Probably not.
Pete, still luxuriating the the Downunder Summer? Ah, for a beach, blue skies and 90F. BTW, Mr. Bush is screening all international communications coming into this Bastion of Freedom and Liberty That All Right Thinkers Adore and All Terrorists & Unbelievers Hate. The extra “u”’s and dearth of “z’s really pisses him off, too. Just a tip to watch your “p”’s and “q”’s and your back as well.
Your pal,
tess
January 8, 2006 at 6:30 pm
36cooper,
I always imagined that poor Mr. Bush didn’t manage to make it through grade school learning to tell the difference between a “p” and a “q.” But enough cheap shots.
I’m just cynical enough right now to imagine that the whole house of cards is going to stay upright for another mid-term election. People were tired during the 2004 election, but they still managed to re-elect our glorious leader, so I don’t imagine that unless the Dems learn to play as dirty as the ‘thugs that there’s going to be any shift in the political scene worth mentioning. Other than more nasty smear campaigns.
cooper
January 8, 2006 at 7:34 pm
37tess, I imagine you’re right about Mr Bush, since he is dyslexic and “p” and “q” would likely present a problem for him.
Hot Tub Tommy
January 8, 2006 at 7:49 pm
38Okay, cooper. So you think I such an asshole, well when you’re right, you’re right. I know where all the bodies are buried, so if I start getting serious slammer time, then I’ll start drawing maps & that house of cards that tess is so worried about will come crashing down. And it won’t be those feckless, dickless Democrats doing the damage.
Moo-haa-haa-haa-haa!!!
Rep. Thomas Delay (R-TX)
ginny
January 8, 2006 at 8:02 pm
39Since we’re playing a few tunes on the side, how about this oldie from Queen? Yes, “Hammer To Fall.”
Here we stand or here we fall
History won’t care at all
Make the bed light the light
Lady Mercy won’t be home tonight yeah
You don’t waste no time at all
Don’t hear the bell but you answer the call
It comes to you as to us all
We’re just waiting
For the hammer to fall
David
January 8, 2006 at 8:39 pm
40Excellent, ginny, most excellent.
ginny
January 9, 2006 at 1:06 am
41Well, I did get my start on the Internets by being a Highlander fangirl. The tree never strays far from its roots.
Murray
January 9, 2006 at 12:22 pm
42There is no way to separate money from politics, but I have heard of an idea that might be able to separate the influence from politics.
Here is how it works.
Any one can give as much money as he wants to what ever candidate he chooses. The money goes to a 3rd party for warehousing, (like the League of Women Voters) and at the end of the month or so it is turned over to the candidate as a lump sum and no information from the donors.
This way you can help the candidate of you choice and you can go to him and say you gave $1,000,000, and so can every other person in your district, whether they did or not.
Because there is no direct link from the money to the candidate, the influence is greatly reduced.
Unfortunately this too requires the people who benefit from the current situation to vote for something that benefits the people and not them selves.
Ann
January 9, 2006 at 4:15 pm
43Murray, that sounds brilliant! And just for the record, I donated $1000 to help Adam maintain this Web site. Anonymously, of course.
David
January 9, 2006 at 9:41 pm
44Murray,
The sneaky bastards would probably find a way around it, but still, I like it.
Pete IVDL
January 9, 2006 at 11:11 pm
45Coop, yeah the summer is coming. Another couple of 34+C days in a row. But I beat it! Woo-hoo! I bought 2 split system air conditioners on eBay and spent the last 3 days installing ‘em. Now I’m as cool as a cucumber, even though I can’t move my legs. Or arms. Psst - don’t tell the Authorities, it’s now illegal here to install such devices without a licence. But it was a lotta fun learning (I can now bend & flare copper pipes just like a perfessional). And I didn’t leak more than a gram or two of refrigerant!
Murray, that’s yet another good idea. Unfortunately, it relies on human discretion, which is like building a papier-mache furnace. Automating the process could help though…
David
January 10, 2006 at 3:39 pm
46Unfortunately, it relies on human discretion, which is like building a papier-mache furnace.
Pete IVDL,
Thank you for the much needed chortle. The image is absolutely wonderful, and of course we in Bushworld get to see the value of voluntary compliance (aka corporate discretion) on a daily basis. We might yet be able turn the entire globe into a pastiche of papier-mache furnaces.
hedera
January 15, 2006 at 12:51 am
47Who else heard WWDTM this morning on the subject of Jack A.? Apparently the young Jack Abramoff ran for president of his high school class, and was disqualified from the election because (I love this) he spent money to buy everybody cupcakes, to encourage them to vote for him! (The rules said, spend no money…)
As the twig is bent, so grows the tree…
David
January 16, 2006 at 2:36 pm
48I thought I heard it was elementary school, which means this guy probably came out of the womb a corruption-meister.