Media Matters fogs the air about Abramoff money to Democrats.
(the) suggestion that Democrats took money from Abramoff at all appears to be false — a search of the Center for Responsive Politics’ database turned up no data showing any contributions from Abramoff himself to any Democrats.
While that’s technically true, what Media Matters doesn’t say (and what they could not help but know), is that while Abramoff didn’t directly give money to Democrats, his clients did so, at his direction. So for Media Matters to muddy the waters and imply Dems received no Abramoff money is just more of the same evasion and dissembling that Democrats attack Republicans for doing.
So, why did Abramoff donate directly to Republicans but through intermediaries to Democrats? There’s a definite pattern here, as it appears most if not all money to Dems was funnelled that way. The answer isn’t rocket science. Congressional Democrats no doubt wanted no paper trail or embarrassing questions about why they were taking money from Abramoff, that’s why.
Documentation of Congressional Democrats receiving Abramoff money
Capital Eye has "a detailed look at Abramoff’s lobbying, and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, since 1999."
Here’s the list sorted by amount given, with Democrats in blue and Republicans in red. 109 Democratic members of Congress received Abramoff money, as well several state and national Democratic groups.
The contribution summary shows 1.5 million to Democrats and 2.8 million to Republicans from 2000-2006, of that Abramoff gave $200,000 directly, the rest was via clients. Now do you see why Democratic spinners are being so pious about not getting money directly from Abramoff? Because they got it from his clients, that’s why. The same questions need to asked of them too, what did Abramoff want in return for the money?
Though Abramoff personally only gave money to Republicans his Indian-tribe clients contributed to Democrats as well, campaign-finance records show.
National Republican campaign groups received $1.24 million from sources linked to Abramoff since 1999, while Democratic groups took in $844,000 during that same time period, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.
From the Times of London
Yet although the Justice Department’s investigation appears to be focusing on several high-profile Republicans, some senior Democrats also had dealings with Abramoff, making it far from certain that Democrats will be able to paint the scandal as an exclusively Republican problem. Recent polls suggest that the US public has little confidence in the ethics of either party.
Instead of using this to call for real reform, to clean up the sleaze in DC, Democratic leadership instead is being evasive about their own role and strangely silent about reform. A real opposition party would be unleashing the pit bulls now against the incumbent party, rather than distorting the facts as they run for cover.
But that’s what you get when an elite, clubby class protects their own. Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) will do little to end the corruption until they are forced to by the people. That means organizing, mobilizing, getting people in the streets. Then the parties of Tweedledum and Tweedledee will have to clean up their acts, whether they want to or not.