Government Sleaze

[Guest guest]

A

Government Sleaze

Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:00:00 -0700

 

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/22180/

 

Turning Up the Sleaze

 

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted June 8, 2005.

 

 

Government is fast becoming a transactional institution as money

becomes more and more influential in politics.

 

 

A jaw-dropping article in the Texas Observer shows that two lobbying

clients of Jack Abramoff paid $25,000 to Grover Norquist's group for a

lunch date and meeting with President George W. Bush in May 2001.

Abramoff brought the Indian chiefs to the White House at the request

of Norquist, a leading " movement conservative " in Washington. In

addition, Abramoff obtained $2.5 million in contributions from the

Indians for a nonprofit foundation run by his wife and himself.

 

The White House guests were the chiefs of two of the six casino-rich

Indian tribes represented by Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon,

former top aide to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. The $25,000 check

from the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana is made out to Americans for Tax

Reform, an anti-tax group founded and directed by Norquist.

 

Norquist, Abramoff and Karl Rove have worked together for 30 years,

since they were national leaders of the College Republicans. Norquist,

DeLay and Abramoff are all key players in the " the K Street Project "

to turn the Washington lobby corps into an arm of the Republican Party.

 

(Obligatory disclosure: The Observer's story, " The Pimping of the

President, " is by Lou Dubose, a freelance writer with whom I have

written two books and am working on a third. However, Dubose has never

had anything to do with my newspaper column, nor am I involved with

any of his journalism. Another reporter who deserves credit on this

story is Shawn Martin of the Lake Charles (La.) American Press, who

has followed it from the end of the local Indian tribe.)

 

The Observer's story comes after a year of denials from the tribe (or

at least the majority on the tribal council and their lawyer, Kent

Hance, a major player in Texas Republican circles and former state

officeholder).

 

The Observer was too tasteful to crack any jokes about how forgettable

a meeting with this Great White Father might be. Dubose reports:

" According to a source close to the tribal majority, Chairman Poncho

recently 'revisited that issue' of his visit to the White House. He

had previously denied it because he thought he was responding to press

inquiries that implied he had a one-on-one meeting with Bush. He now

recalls that he did in fact go to the White House on May 9, 2001. ...

That meeting lasted for about 15 minutes and was not a one-on-one

meeting. ... Abramoff was at the meeting. "

 

According to the new version, Bush made some general comments about

Indian policy but did not discuss Indian gaming. Abramoff billed the

Coushatta $25,000 for the meeting.

 

" Norquist has not responded to inquiries about using the White House

as a fund-raiser. It is, however, a regular ATR practice to invite

state legislators and tribal leaders who have supported ATR anti-tax

initiatives to the White House for a personal thank-you from the

president. A source at ATR said no money is ever accepted from

participants in these events. The $25,000 check from the Coushattas

suggests that, at least in this instance, Norquist's organization made

an exception. The $75,000 collected from the Mississippi Choctaws and

two corporate sponsors mentioned in Abramoff's e-mail suggests there

were other exceptions. Norquist recently wrote to the tribes who paid

to attend White House meetings. His story regarding that event is also

evolving. "

 

Norquist now says the contributions were in no way related to any

White House event. " That doesn't square with the paper trail Abramoff

and Norquist left behind, which makes it evident they were selling

access to the president, " Dubose writes.

 

For an overview of the entire Abramoff scandal and its relation to Tom

DeLay and the K Street Project -- and what all this means in terms of

Washington sleaze -- see an article by Elizabeth Drew, " Selling

Washington, " in the June 23 issue of The New York Review of Books.

Drew and other students of Washington corruption conclude what we have

here is not so much a difference in kind as in degree of corruption --

but of a degree that's making a difference in everything.

 

Drew writes, " The effects of the new, higher level of corruption on

the way the country is governed are profound. Not only is legislation

increasingly skewed to benefit the richest interests, but Congress

itself has been changed. The head of a public policy strategy group

told me: 'It's not about governing any more. The Congress is now a

transactional institution. ...' The theory that ours is a system of

one-person, one-vote, or even that it's a representative democracy, is

challenged by the reality of power and who really wields it.

(Massachusetts Rep.) Barney Frank argues that 'the political system

was supposed to overcome the financial advantage of the capitalists,

but as money becomes more and more influential, it doesn't work that

way.' "

 

I doubt there is a more important story in this country today. All

reporters who want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein should follow

Dubose and Martin to the local ends of this story.

 

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.