Five conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, "appear to have perpetrated a fraud" on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senate investigators said in a report issued yesterday.
The report includes previously unreleased e-mails between the now-disgraced lobbyist and officers of the nonprofit groups, showing that Abramoff funneled money from his clients to the groups. In exchange, the groups, among other things, produced ostensibly independent newspaper op-ed columns or news releases that favored the clients' positions.
Officers of the groups "were generally available to carry out Mr. Abramoff's requests for help with his clients in exchange for cash payments," said the report, issued by the Senate Finance Committee. The report was written by the Democratic staff after a yearlong investigation and authorized by the Republican chairman, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).
[....]
The Senate report released yesterday states that the nonprofit groups probably violated their tax-exempt status "by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff's clients."
The report bolstered earlier revelations that Abramoff laundered money through the nonprofits to pay for congressional trips and paid Norquist to arrange meetings for Abramoff's clients with government officials including White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
The groups named in the report are Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform; the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became secretary of the interior; Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Center for Public Policy Research, a spinoff of the Heritage Foundation; and Toward Tradition, a Seattle-based religious group founded by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.
E-mails released by the committee show that Abramoff, often with the knowledge of the groups' leaders, exploited the tax-exempt status and leveraged the stature of the organizations to build support among conservatives for legislation or government action sought by clients including Microsoft Corp., mutual fund company DH2 Inc., Primedia Inc.'s Channel One Network, and Brown-Forman, maker of Jack Daniel's whiskey.
So what does this mean? Abramoff was taking money from his clients, and then sending it to these conservative non-profit groups. In exchange for Abramoff's money, the conservative non-profits were writing news releases, opinion-editorials that favored Abramoff's clients. And while the conservative non-profits were producing these materials which supported Abramoff's clients, Abramoff could then lobby the Republican lawmakers, while using these same news releases and opinion-editorials to support his position. Talk about a self-generating marketing scheme to sell favorable legislation to your clients here.
Continuing with some of the details in the WaPost article:
Abramoff traded on Norquist's cachet, at one point referring to him in an e-mail as a "hard-won asset" of his lobbying empire. In exchange for Norquist's opposition to taxes on Brown-Forman products, Norquist recommended that a $50,000 donation be made to Americans for Tax Reform, according to an Abramoff e-mail.
"What is most important, however, is that this matter is kept discreet," Abramoff wrote to a colleague at the Preston, Gates & Ellis law firm. "We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement."
The e-mails show that Abramoff and Norquist explicitly discussed client donations to Norquist's group in exchange for Norquist's support. The group's advocacy "appears indistinguishable from lobbying undertaken by for-profit, taxable firms," the report said.
Among those who agreed to donate money for an opinion piece was DH2, which in 2004 pushed for tax breaks for its customers.
E-mails show that DH2 understood that Norquist's help came with a price tag. The tab was sent to DH2's managing director, Robert S. Rubin.
"I told Rubin he needs to round up some $$$ for ATR," wrote lobbyist Michael E. Williams to his boss, Abramoff.
"Get the money from Rubin in hand," Abramoff replied, "and then we'll call Grover."
How much, Williams asked.
"50K," Abramoff wrote.
Abramoff e-mailed Norquist on Feb. 10, 2004: "I have sent over a $50K contribution from DH2 (the mutual fund client). Any sense as to where we are on the op-ed placement?"
Replied Norquist: "The Wash Times told me they were running the piece. . . . I will nudge again."
The Washington Times has published about 50 Norquist op-eds since 1993 but apparently none on mutual funds. Norquist did write a letter in April 2004 to a congressman praising him for sponsoring "legislation that would finally allow mutual fund shareholders to defer their capital gains tax" and pledging that his group "is committed to helping you pass this legislation."
Norquist wrote an op-ed piece, published in the Washington Times, as part of an extensive Abramoff campaign for Channel One, which broadcasts educational programming and advertising into public school classrooms. An Abramoff e-mail to Norquist offered him $1,500 for an op-ed, and another e-mail exchange suggested up to $3,000 to buy an "economic analysis."
This is damning evidence that shows just how deep the Republican corruption has gotten here. This was a relationship congressional legislation benefited corporate interests while in exchange; Republican congressmen received money from the corporate interests which translated into power for the Republican Party. The conduit between these relationships was Jack Abramoff, while the conservative non-profits generated the marketing materials, on Abramoff's behalf, to help "convince" the Republican lawmakers in passing the legislation benefiting the corporate interests. This was how the game was played.
In other Abramoff News: There has been some other Abramoff news over the past two weeks that I haven't had a chance to look over or comment on. The first is this Washington Post story, dated October 7, 2004:
A top aide to White House strategist Karl Rove resigned yesterday after disclosures that she accepted gifts from and passed information to now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, becoming the first official in the West Wing to lose a job in the influence-peddling scandal.
Susan B. Ralston submitted her resignation to avoid causing political damage to President Bush a month before the midterm elections, officials said. "She did not want to be a distraction to the White House at this important time," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
A congressional report showed last week that Ralston accepted sometimes-pricey tickets to nine sports and entertainment events from Abramoff while she provided him with inside White House information. The bipartisan report said there is no evidence that Rove knew of or approved of Ralston's actions, and sources said yesterday that the White House was surprised by the report's revelations.
As right hand to the president's most important adviser, Ralston was closer to the center of the Bush operation. She was a key organizer of presidential events, coordinating with White House political, scheduling, advance and public liaison offices. "She will be missed because she solves problems, and finding people in government who solve problems" is rare, a colleague said.
As a former Abramoff assistant, Ralston played intermediary between the lobbyist and Rove. The congressional report found 66 Abramoff contacts with the White House, more than half of them with Ralston. In addition, Abramoff's lobbying colleagues contacted Ralston 69 times.
So Abramoff had a contact with Sue Ralson in the White House that he was also using in an attempt to lobby his clients. And he was giving gifts to Ralston. But I'm not sure how effective Ralston was in providing White House favors for Abramoff. According to the WaPost:
More often, Abramoff fell short at the White House. Abramoff contacted Ralston to get Rove to place a close ally, Mark Zachares, as head of the Interior Department's Office of Insular Affairs. Ralston rebuffed a meeting with Rove for Zachares, saying it was unnecessary because Rove was on their side. But Zachares did not get the position.
In November and December 2003, Abramoff e-mailed Ralston about Iraqi bonds apparently issued by one of his clients, American Bondholders Foundation, the House committee said. In response, Ralston indicated that the National Security Council had not "gotten back to me yet." Six days later, she had an answer. "The NSC is very suspect of this proposal," she wrote. "The White House will not support it."
What this story does show is that Abramoff was certainly interested in using the White House to lobby for his clients. Of course, if Abramoff could get to Ralston, then you also have to wonder who else in the White House could Abramoff get to?
Then there is this September 29, 2006 Washington Post story:
Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his colleagues billed their clients for more than 400 contacts with White House officials between 2001 and 2004, according to a report released yesterday by the House Government Reform Committee. The report did not determine how many of those contacts -- referenced in e-mails and Abramoff's often falsified client bills -- actually occurred.
The 93-page report was jointly issued by the committee's chairman, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), and its ranking Democrat, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.). They wrote that their investigation found the current reporting requirements "failed to protect public officials from the ethical undertow generated by Abramoff's claims of access to executive branch deliberations, particularly at the White House."
The report, based on 14,000 e-mails and other documents, conveys many assertions by Abramoff and his team about their efforts to lobby White House officials on matters affecting their Indian tribal clients.
Abramoff's team offered officials tickets to 19 sporting events and concerts, the report states, but "in many instances the documents do not indicate whether the White House officials requested or attended the events." One who did accept tickets, the report said, was Susan Ralston, executive assistant to White House presidential adviser Karl Rove.
The report also cites documents suggesting that former White House political director Ken Mehlman, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, may have helped Abramoff's team get money for a tribal client from the Justice Department. But the committee did not corroborate the claim.
[....]
The committee subpoenaed Abramoff's client billing records and other documents from Greenberg Traurig LLP, his former firm. The report said the Abramoff team billed clients for $23,981 in meals and drinks with White House officials. But the report said it could not determine how many of those meals took place or whether White House officials paid their own way.
One exchange of e-mails cited in the report suggests that former Abramoff lobbying team member Tony C. Rudy succeeded in getting Mehlman to press reluctant Justice Department appointees to release millions of dollars in congressionally earmarked funds for a new jail for the Mississippi Choctaw tribe, an Abramoff client. Rudy wrote Abramoff in November 2001 e-mails that Mehlman said he would "take care of" the funding holdup at Justice after learning from Rudy that the tribe made large donations to the GOP.
Abramoff was certainly persistent in his lobbying the Bush White House. I'm not sure what to say about Mehlman's connection with Abramoff--he certainly helped provide the funds to build a new jail for the Mississippi Choctaw tribe. And he may have taken care of it after learning that the tribe made a large contribution to the GOP. This certainly is suspicious. I would be curious to see if there are more examples of Mehlman giving away government favors to Abramoff clients in exchange for GOP campaign contributions.
No comments:
Post a Comment