Walter Williams continues to be one of my very favorite writers. I hadn't thought of this aspect of why money works in Washington. The solution is now obvious to even me.
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Abramoff gave not one dime to Democrats. Not one dime.
Some of his patsies--er, clients--did, but not the great man himself. I'm afraid the Republicans own Abramoff completely.
Now that the facts are no longer in dispute, it's a ho-hum to argue that government should not muzzle rapacious capitalism. If government doesn't, no one will. If the inevitable dystopia ensuing sounds like Eden to you, God bless and good luck.
Yeah, Abramoff gave money _only_ to Republicans, more proof that the Democrats and their leftist fellow travelers are signed up to the Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda, repeat a big lie so often they hope it sticks.
That must be why out of the main 5 people under investigation and danger of indictment of this scandal, 2 are Democrats. Hell, even Harry Reid has gotten money from ol'Jack and his friends.
But this is a Republican scandal only, yeah, right, Howeird Dean said so!
When it fully hits the fan on this one even their allies in the MSM won't be able to fully spike the Democrats corruption in this.
Campaign Finance: Nearly all Senate Democrats took money steered their way by Jack Abramoff, and Hillary Clinton's fundraising committee has agreed to a $35,000 fine. Republicans aren't the problem. The system is.
It's absurdly hypocritical for Democrats to try to use the Abramoff scandal against Republicans. Any recent instance of Republicans playing fast and loose with campaign laws can be topped by a similar case on the part of prominent Democrats.
Sen. Clinton, for instance, was under investigation by the Federal Election Commission starting in 2001 for understating in-kind donations. Last week, The New York Sun reported that her "New York Senate 2000" fundraising organization conceded the falsity of its campaign filings and agreed to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars for underreporting donations.
The in-kind contributions of shady entrepreneur Peter Paul, who was convicted of three drug and fraud felony counts in the 1970s and 1980s and has also admitted to stock manipulation, were understated in the committee's filings by nearly $722,000. Paul claims he spent nearly $2 million on an August 2000 celebrity concert at a Brentwood, Calif., estate for President and Mrs. Clinton.
Then there's Sen. Charles Schumer, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) no less, who in 2003 quietly paid a $130,000 FEC fine, plus $120,000 in refunds to 77 donors, for violations by his 1998 campaign. But with a $26 million war chest and facing an unknown, cash-strapped GOP challenger, it was hardly a bump on the road in Schumer's 2004 re-election. He got 72% of New Yorkers' votes.
The DSCC and Hillary's campaign jointly set up the New York Senate 2000 committee for the express purpose of bypassing the $2,000 limit on contributions from individuals. It's that phony limit that empowers the likes of Abramoff, whose clients and associates gave Sen. John Kerry close to $100,000, according to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid apparently got nearly $70,000 from Abramoff sources, and Schumer himself benefited to the tune of nearly $30,000. All but five Democratic senators have taken Abramoff cash, says the NRSC.
And how about Charles Rangel, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, who took $36,000 from Abramoff's Indian clients, then gave the New York Post a Marx Brothers skit in response: "I don't know Abramoff, have never met Abramoff and have never accepted a political contribution from Abramoff. But if I do find that any contribution I have received was made at the behest of Abramoff, I will return it."
Abramoff — and all the sleazy middlemen who may never be caught — are byproducts of the misguided post-Watergate campaign reforms that actually encourage political money laundering. We need an end to individual contribution limits and to stealthy political action committees. We also need full and immediate transparency regarding those who give — personal details, occupation, etc.
Only a system based on public visibility will prevent future Abramoffs — and make sure those we elect aren't being bought off.
Anonymous, you are a true, died in the wool, liberal koolaid drinking moonbat. Let me guess, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is right? Bubba didn't really have sex with that chubby intern, cause he didn't really stick it in the "right" place.
Riiiight. Parse that grammar as fine as you like, a crook is still a crook, and that includes Abramoff and all the Democrat receipients of his largess.
If the Dims think that this kind of crap flies with the majority of Americans, they can expect to spend another few decades wandering in the wilderness, out of power, gnawing their own legs off out of frustration.
I recognize that the money is hard to follow. The republicans are probably not as skilled as the democrats in obfuscating where it comes from. Harry Reid, John Kerry, and every senator from Michigan made out like bandits in Abramoff's scam. But nobody seems to be attacking the root problem, which is that there is even a modicum of influence to be bought, and that there will always be a price on that. Give these knucklehead congressmen nothing to have influence over, and the money will stop chasing (and finding) them.
You gotta love the Liberal mind. They will sit there with a straight face and say things like "Abramoff gave not one dime to Democrats," ignoring the links and the fact his cronies did at his direction, like that makes some kind of difference. At the same time, if some poor grunt in the military decides to put a bag on the head of a terrorist prisoner on the other side of the world, then that was absolutely George Bush's fault, as he obviously directed it himself.
7 comments:
Abramoff gave not one dime to Democrats. Not one dime.
Some of his patsies--er, clients--did, but not the great man himself. I'm afraid the Republicans own Abramoff completely.
Now that the facts are no longer in dispute, it's a ho-hum to argue that government should not muzzle rapacious capitalism. If government doesn't, no one will. If the inevitable dystopia ensuing sounds like Eden to you, God bless and good luck.
Yeah, Abramoff gave money _only_ to Republicans, more proof that the Democrats and their leftist fellow travelers are signed up to the Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda, repeat a big lie so often they hope it sticks.
That must be why out of the main 5 people under investigation and danger of indictment of this scandal, 2 are Democrats. Hell, even Harry Reid has gotten money from ol'Jack and his friends.
But this is a Republican scandal only, yeah, right, Howeird Dean said so!
When it fully hits the fan on this one even their allies in the MSM won't be able to fully spike the Democrats corruption in this.
From Investors.com:
Abramoff Democrats
Posted 1/6/2006
Campaign Finance: Nearly all Senate Democrats took money steered their way by Jack Abramoff, and Hillary Clinton's fundraising committee has agreed to a $35,000 fine. Republicans aren't the problem. The system is.
It's absurdly hypocritical for Democrats to try to use the Abramoff scandal against Republicans. Any recent instance of Republicans playing fast and loose with campaign laws can be topped by a similar case on the part of prominent Democrats.
Sen. Clinton, for instance, was under investigation by the Federal Election Commission starting in 2001 for understating in-kind donations. Last week, The New York Sun reported that her "New York Senate 2000" fundraising organization conceded the falsity of its campaign filings and agreed to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars for underreporting donations.
The in-kind contributions of shady entrepreneur Peter Paul, who was convicted of three drug and fraud felony counts in the 1970s and 1980s and has also admitted to stock manipulation, were understated in the committee's filings by nearly $722,000. Paul claims he spent nearly $2 million on an August 2000 celebrity concert at a Brentwood, Calif., estate for President and Mrs. Clinton.
Then there's Sen. Charles Schumer, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) no less, who in 2003 quietly paid a $130,000 FEC fine, plus $120,000 in refunds to 77 donors, for violations by his 1998 campaign. But with a $26 million war chest and facing an unknown, cash-strapped GOP challenger, it was hardly a bump on the road in Schumer's 2004 re-election. He got 72% of New Yorkers' votes.
The DSCC and Hillary's campaign jointly set up the New York Senate 2000 committee for the express purpose of bypassing the $2,000 limit on contributions from individuals. It's that phony limit that empowers the likes of Abramoff, whose clients and associates gave Sen. John Kerry close to $100,000, according to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid apparently got nearly $70,000 from Abramoff sources, and Schumer himself benefited to the tune of nearly $30,000. All but five Democratic senators have taken Abramoff cash, says the NRSC.
And how about Charles Rangel, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, who took $36,000 from Abramoff's Indian clients, then gave the New York Post a Marx Brothers skit in response: "I don't know Abramoff, have never met Abramoff and have never accepted a political contribution from Abramoff. But if I do find that any contribution I have received was made at the behest of Abramoff, I will return it."
Abramoff — and all the sleazy middlemen who may never be caught — are byproducts of the misguided post-Watergate campaign reforms that actually encourage political money laundering. We need an end to individual contribution limits and to stealthy political action committees. We also need full and immediate transparency regarding those who give — personal details, occupation, etc.
Only a system based on public visibility will prevent future Abramoffs — and make sure those we elect aren't being bought off.
Money was "steered"?
From "sources"?
I stand by my statement. Abramoff gave not one dime to Democrats.
Have a happy election year!
Anonymous, you are a true, died in the wool, liberal koolaid drinking moonbat. Let me guess, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is right? Bubba didn't really have sex with that chubby intern, cause he didn't really stick it in the "right" place.
Riiiight. Parse that grammar as fine as you like, a crook is still a crook, and that includes Abramoff and all the Democrat receipients of his largess.
If the Dims think that this kind of crap flies with the majority of Americans, they can expect to spend another few decades wandering in the wilderness, out of power, gnawing their own legs off out of frustration.
I recognize that the money is hard to follow. The republicans are probably not as skilled as the democrats in obfuscating where it comes from. Harry Reid, John Kerry, and every senator from Michigan made out like bandits in Abramoff's scam. But nobody seems to be attacking the root problem, which is that there is even a modicum of influence to be bought, and that there will always be a price on that. Give these knucklehead congressmen nothing to have influence over, and the money will stop chasing (and finding) them.
You gotta love the Liberal mind. They will sit there with a straight face and say things like "Abramoff gave not one dime to Democrats," ignoring the links and the fact his cronies did at his direction, like that makes some kind of difference. At the same time, if some poor grunt in the military decides to put a bag on the head of a terrorist prisoner on the other side of the world, then that was absolutely George Bush's fault, as he obviously directed it himself.
Idiots and hypocrits.
Post a Comment