# Posted 9:49 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

CAN LOBBYISTS "DIRECT" DONATIONS TO A POLITICIAN? First, Deborah Howell wrote that Jack Abramoff donated money to both Republicans and Democrats. Whereas responsible liberals such as Kevin Drum and Jay Rosen criticized Howell for irresponsible reporting, the angry left flooded the WaPo with a stream of profanity that forced it to shut down post.blog.

After an extended silence (well, I guess three days is a long time on Media Planet), Howell corrected herself to say that

While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

Apparently, her case was strong enough to persuade Tim Russert, who brought up the issue twice yesterday morning on Meet the Press. First, there was this exchange with Barack Obama:

MR. RUSSERT: You’ve been appointed, selected as the Democrats’ point man on lobbying reform in the Senate. I want to talk about Jack Abramoff and the scandal now in terms of lobbying and potential reform. According to the Center for Responsive Politics and The Washington Post, Mr. Abramoff and his clients and his associates gave about $3 million to Republicans, about $1.5 million to Democrats. Is this a bipartisan scandal?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think the problem of money in politics is bipartisan...And I think Jack Abramoff and the [K Street] Project, that whole thing is a very particular Republican sin.

MR. RUSSERT: No sin for the Democrats?

Then there was this exchange with Paul Begala:

MR. RUSSERT: Paul Begala, The Washington Post and the Center for Responsive politics investigated this whole Abramoff situation, and there’s a pie chart which breaks up this—explains how the money was distributed, if you will: 66 percent, 2.9 million, went to Republicans; 34 percent, 1.5 million went to Democrats. Senator Reid, Patrick Kennedy, Patty Murray, a lot of prominent Democrats received money from—associates, clients, of Jack Abramoff. Two-to-one Republican, but is it not fair to say it’s not just Republicans that have to be cleaned up, it’s the whole process?

Mr. PAUL BEGALA: Well, yes, to the latter, absolutely...There were a lot of Democrats who didn’t want to clean up the system, quite candidly. They, I think, were hoping to sweep out the corrupt Republicans lobbyists and bring in corrupt Democratic lobbyists.

But on Abramoff, that’s misleading. This is a Republican scandal. Mr. Abramoff is a movement-partisan Republican. There’s no evidence in all of the indictments, in all of the e-mails, in all of the investigation that any of the money that went to Democrats from Indian tribes was directed by Mr. Abramoff. You know, the Indian tribes mostly gave money to Democrats who had Indian tribes and casinos in their state. There’s no evidence at all that it was directed by Mr. Abramoff, and if there were, I’m sure we’d have it by now because it’s coming out.

So I think it’s unfair to say Democrats are part of the Abramoff scandal.

So what is the state of play on the issue of Abramoff "directing" contributions? Is getting money from Abramoff's clients different from getting the cash from Abramoff himself? I really don't know the answer.

Isn't the real issue whether there was a quid pro quo given in exchange for such donations? After all, there's nothing illegal about accepting big donations from Indian tribes or any one else. Yet Begala seems very eager to deny the charges.

I have to make a phone call now, but then I'll hit the blogosphere for some answers. I'm guessing that within ten minutes I'll have found more posts on this subject than I could possibly ever read. (5) opinions -- Add your opinion