Abramoff Told the Truth about Heavy White House Access: Why it Matters

by Deb Cupples |  Former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been rather cooperative with federal investigators, even after he relocated to a federal prison in November 2006. 

In September 2006, the House Oversight Committee released a report which concluded that Abramoff and his ex-associates at Greenberg Traurig (a huge law firm involved in high-stakes lobbying) had had 485 lobbying contacts with White House officials from January 2001 - March 2004. [Documents and summaries are here.]

White house spokesperson Dana Perino flatly denied the Oversight Committee's conclusions, stating that the law firm's billing records and emails were "widely viewed as fraudulent." 

Given his penchant for diligence and fair play, Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman decided to investigate his committee's own investigation. The Committee just released a report on that investigation.

In short, the report admits that the Committee couldn't confirm that Abramoff or his Greenberg associates had had all 485 contracts with White House officials.

Instead, the Committee confirmed only 150 such contacts: 80 that Greenberg had already described and 70 new ones.

That's an average of one contact every eight days for three years.  Most of us taxpayers would be incredibly lucky to have the ear of a real-live White House official just once in our lifetime.

Documents also confirm that Abramoff persuaded White House officials to remove a State Department official who had pushed for reforms that Abramoff (and likely a fee-paying client) opposed. 

He's not playing ball, Mr. President: please get rid of him.

How could Abramoff -- a mere lobbyist, albeit with buckets of client cash -- directly influence White House policies or actions?  According to the Committee's report, a former Director of White House public affairs told the Committee (under oath) that he considered Abramoff (and his associate Tony Rudy) to be information sources worthy of "professional trust."

In other words, White House officials actually listened to Team Abramoff.

Then there were the hyper-expensive perks that inspired White House officials to smile whenever Team Abramoff called or emailed.

According to the Committee's report, the White House's own documents confirm that White House officials had repeatedly joined Team Abramoff for meals and entertainment for which Team Abramoff had shelled out major bucks.

This is how Washington has been working for years.  This is how the corruption occurs.

Very rarely do you come across a Duke Cunningham, who leaves trails of evidence showing that he'd traded government favors for outright bribes in the form of cash or perks. 

Our federal legislators are very clever about trying to cover up potential crimes.  The Clever Ones accept gifts (like trips, meals, or event tickets).  They accept campaign donations -- if not from  lobbyists directly, in the form of donations the lobbyists bundle from clients and friends and present to politicians in neat stacks held together by silk ribbons. 

More than that, The Clever Ones accept the unspoken promise of future donations for future campaigns.  This they find most appealing, because most of our politicians secure re-election by remaining in constant fund-raising mode.

Yes, the law allows all this -- partly because The Clever Ones write the laws.

In short, much of the corruption that costs us taxpayers so dearly thrives in the shadowed, gray areas of technically legal behavior.   

The lobbyists (and their clients) who funnel so much cash in The Clever Ones' direction wouldn't have it any other way.

It's a big vicious cycle, and I don't see much hope for changing it as long as so many politicians continue taking cash from the same lobbyists (or their clients) who have insisted that the system remain unchanged.

I know: the Democratic National Committee, has publicly claimed that it  is refusing to take donations from lobbyists.  The DNC is talking like a reformist duck, but it certainly isn't walking like one.

In short, the DNC has devised a plan whereby it can get public-relations points for refusing to take lobbyists' cash -- meanwhile, the lobbyists' cash is flowing into the door in the back alley.

Unfortunately, such deceit does nothing to relieve us taxpayers from wasting our dollars and suffering public un-friendly policies -- simply because of industry-friendly policies that our politicians technically don't sell to lobbyists and their clients.

Comments

[rawdawgbuffalo]

but we knew this, didnt we?

[Deb]

Raw Dawg,

I figured it was true, but White House flatly denied it.