BCT Editorial – 1/8/06

This page was last updated on January 8, 2006.

Dirty money; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 8, 2006.

Talk about painting with a broad brush. According to this editorial, everyone who accepted campaign contributions from Mr. Abramoff or his clients committed an illegal – or at least unethical – act. While I have little doubt some politicians accepted the contributions on an explicit “quid pro quo” basis, which I believe is illegal, I’d like to believe that was not the case for most recipients. Why? If you accept the Times assertion, you believe that 40 of 45 Democrat senators were “on the take” from Mr. Abramoff or his clients. For example, Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) received approximately $70,000 of Abramoff-linked money. As much as I disagree with the policies of Democrats, I don’t believe the majority would take bribes.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Charities should refuse to accept lawmakers’ donations from Abramoff

“Charity is the last refuge of scoundrels.

“In the wake of the plea bargain agreement between Washington super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Justice Department (in return for his cooperation in its investigation), politicians in the nation’s capital are scrambling to rid themselves of the dirty money they received from him.

“Apparently when it comes to their acceptance of Abramoff’s money and their attempts to repent publicly for accepting it, politicians have turned their thoughts to charity. A number have decided to donate the money to organizations that do good works.

“Don’t fall for their sham. They should have turned down Abramoff’s money when it was offered to them. Instead, they’re trying to fool the public by making a big deal out of giving the money to good causes.

“That’s sheer hypocrisy. These guys don’t care about the less fortunate and the needy. They’re terrified about the consequences of accepting Abramoff’s money on next year’s elections.”

[RWC] This paragraph is a hoot. With no apparent supporting evidence, the editorial implies all recipients of Abramoff-linked contributions are crooked, and this paragraph apparently expresses wonder that contribution recipients would be “terrified about the consequences.”

“If the organizations to which they are giving this dirty money have any integrity, they’ll tell the senators and representatives who have suddenly become more generous to get lost.

“This ploy should sound familiar to Pennsylvania residents. When the public reacted so vociferously to last summer’s pay grab, some lawmakers tried to deflect the heat by using the so-called unvouchered expenses to fund worthwhile projects.”

[RWC] There are some differences between the two cases. In the case of the PA payjacking, all members of the General Assembly knew their actions were both unethical and violated the PA Constitution. In the Abramoff case, I’d like to believe the majority of recipients did nothing wrong. If I’m wrong, we have widespread corruption in Congress and whether or not someone turns over contributions to charity is among the least of our problems.

“Pennsylvania residents didn’t buy these self-serving gestures, and Americans should do the same with the Abramoff money that members of Congress are trying to dump on charity. Their phony generosity can’t erase the original sin.”

[RWC] Earth to the editorial author. Contributions from Mr. Abramoff and his clients are “dirty” only if the recipient did something illegal or unethical to acquire the contribution.