quote:Gambling Interests Funded DeLay Trip Later in 2000, Lawmaker's Vote Helped Defeat Regulatory Measure
By James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, March 12, 2005; Page A01
An Indian tribe and a gambling services company made donations to a Washington public policy group that covered most of the cost of a $70,000 trip to Britain by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), his wife, two aides and two lobbyists in mid-2000, two months before DeLay helped kill legislation opposed by the tribe and the company.
The sponsor of the week-long trip listed in DeLay's financial disclosures was the nonprofit National Center for Public Policy Research, but a person involved in arranging DeLay's travel said that lobbyist Jack Abramoff suggested the trip and then arranged for checks to be sent by two of his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and eLottery Inc.
The dates on the checks coincided with the day DeLay left on the trip, May 25, 2000, according to grants documents reviewed by The Washington Post. The Choctaw and eLottery each sent a check for $25,000, according to the documents. They now say that they were unaware the money was being used to finance DeLay's travels.
But Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center, said that, when the trip was arranged, Abramoff promised he would secure financial backing. She said that even without Abramoff's efforts, the National Center would have borne the cost of the trip, which was intended to allow the group to network with conservative British politicians and included an outing to the famous St. Andrews golf course in Scotland.
"We paid for the trip," Ridenour said. "This trip was going to be paid for by the National Center, regardless of whether we got the donations from the Choctaw or eLottery."
House ethics rules allow lawmakers and their staffs to have travel expenses paid only for officially connected travel and only by organizations directly connected to the trips. The rules also require that lawmakers accurately report the people or organizations that pay for the trips. They prohibit payments by registered lobbyists for lawmakers' travel.
DeLay's spokesman, Dan Allen, said: "The trip was sponsored, organized and paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, as our travel disclosures accurately reflect and what the National Center has publicly said."
Abramoff's attorney, Abbe David Lowell, declined to comment. Abramoff, the National Center and the flow of money between them are now being investigated by a federal task force and by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; DeLay was admonished three times last year for infringements of House ethics rules.
To prove an ethics violation, investigators would have to show that DeLay and his staff knew the gambling interests were funding the trip, said Jan W. Baran, a Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP ethics lawyer who often represents Republicans. "If somebody is doing some backdoor financing, how would the member know?"
Abramoff, a member of the National Center's board, joined the DeLays on the May 25 to June 3, 2000, trip, which DeLay's congressional office has said included a stop in London and a visit with Margaret Thatcher, along with the golf outing at St. Andrews, where colleagues say Abramoff has a membership.
DeLay, an avid golfer, listed the purpose of the trip on a report filed with the House clerk as "educational." He was majority whip at the time and brought his wife, Christine, and two top staff members -- Tony Rudy from the whip's office and chief of staff Susan Hirschmann, as well as her husband, David Hirschmann, according to filings with the House clerk that indicated the total cost of transportation, lodging and meals was $70,265.
Internet Gambling Bill Killed
Two months later, in July 2000, DeLay and 43 other Republicans joined 114 Democrats in killing the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which would have made it a federal crime to place certain bets over the Internet and was opposed by eLottery and the Choctaws. The bill was supported by 165 Republicans and 79 Democrats but fell about 25 votes short of passage; because of a parliamentary maneuver, it required a two-thirds majority vote.
DeLay spokesman Allen said that DeLay voted against the bill because it had exemptions for jai alai and horse and dog racing. Rudy later that year went to work for Abramoff as a lobbyist.
The Choctaw Indians run a highly profitable casino near Philadelphia, Miss., that bankrolls their community activities and has subsidized an extensive lobbying effort in Washington. The tribe donated a total of $65,000 to Ridenour's group in 2000 and $1.07 million in 2002.
Tom DeLay needs to step down.
Has no-one in Congress ever heard of the rules that the rest of us live under? The "no appearance of impropriety" line that stops us from even approaching the point of questionable ethics?
Every government worker I know lives under that admonition. Why not our elected officials?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From that article, it sounds like accepting a trip from that group is something commonly done. I think that sounds pretty fishy in and of itself, but let's assume that impression is correct.
Then the only issue is whether DeLay knew where the money came from before the trip.
One thing that stood out is that the money was received by the group on the day DeLay left on the trip. How many trips to foreign countries don't require outlays before hand?
Until someone shows a connection, this is simply accusation. Worthy of further investigation, but I almost guarantee I could find similar coincidences with any Congressman who has traveled a significant number of times with funds from non-profit groups. There are three co-incidental (hyphen intentional) events here:
1.) DeLay's Travel 2.) The donation to the non-profit. 3.) The action on bills opposed by the donors two months later.
Look at the number of actions that affect potential donors, and the number of donations non-profits receive, and it looks like such a lineup could happen quite often.
posted
I'm more irritated by the 114 Democrats who voted with DeLay. Folks vote for Republican representatives specificly to be dishonest, to abuse the Law to protect and enrich the unethical.
posted
aspectre, keep posting like that and people will stop taking you seriously.
I like you and agree with many of your political views. You've backed me up many times throughout various Hatrack debates and each time I appreciated having such a passionate and articulate person on our side.
I hope you don't view this post as an attack. But it would be a shame if you are viewed as a purely partisan guy instead of the thoughtful poster you have been for the past three years.
Of course, if you just misplaced a emoticon, shoot me. Shoot me now.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's something about redundant incumbancy that just makes our Representatives and Senators feel, I don't know, ummm... immune.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but folks, we'll never fix the problems until we turn the rascals out. And we know that they will never impose term limits on themselves.
Next election, please, please, please, just vote for the non-incumbent candidate. Forget party affiliation, forget what they have done for you. Just turn them out.
Politicians are like diapers, they really do need to be changed often. Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rules are for little people, Bob. Besides, it takes questionable ethics just to be elected in the first place.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what, I'm just idealistic enough to believe that there have got to be ways to be a candidate for office and to actually serve at a high level in state or Federal elected positions without being corrupt. I grant you that I don't see much evidence of it, but it seems to me that a few rules that apply to government workers should be applied to our elected representatives.
The one about avoiding the appearance of impropriety is one example. Every state and federal worker I know would never knowingly accept ANYTHING from a contractor, even if that person was not currently working on or seeking a contract from them. Gifts up to $5 in value are allowed in most government agencies since such a value is considered negligible and no-one would ever risk their job over such a pittance. That allows government workers to, for example, accept calendars once a year, or go to trade shows and pick up booth trinkets without worrying.
But most I know would never even take that level of offering. I can't recall the last drink I purchased for a government worker, even a cheap beer. It just doesn't happen.
I can't imagine a person in Congress even thinking twice about the appearance of it.
But I can imagine a Congress that worked under the same set of rules as everyone else.
And just because DeLay isn't alone in this kind of behavior doesn't make it okay. The fact that he's been under investigation several times is owing to the fact that he's in a position that makes him a natural target for the opposition. But it is also owing to the fact that his behavior is not above suspicion, as it should be. His behavior is always right on the line that he's not supposed to cross. And sometimes he does cross it, and sometimes he doesn't. But he always seems to be skirting the edge of ethical behavior.
I prefer to have leaders who are above reproach, not seeing how much they can get away with before they're caught.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I prefer to have leaders who are above reproach, not seeing how much they can get away with before they're caught.
Bob,
Remember that brief idea when I floated the idea about the analogy of "strict guidelines" in the healthcare system relating to things like assisted suicide, withholding of treatment - to being more like "posted speed limits?"
Perhaps the analogy might be useful in thinking about this issue as well.
I wonder attitudes/compliance regarding any law or regulation go through an analogous process. First people tendo to obey the letter of the law, recalling first hand why the law was put in place. Then, over time, they forget the reasons for it, or they just decide to push the envelope until, eventually, the law really is unenforceable because societal standards have made it so.
Hmm...
Thanks Stephen, you always know how to cheer me up.
quote:I prefer to have leaders who are above reproach, not seeing how much they can get away with before they're caught.
Bob, I may agree with a tougher standard as well (see my post above). But, the issue at hand is did he violate the rules?
If he didn't, and we think what he did was wrong, then we should be trying to change the rules. This is different than "It's OK that Y did it because X did it." This is "It's OK that Y did it because it's allowed by the rules."
Absent more evidence, the only way you can look at this is from DeLay's ex ante perspective that he was accepting a trip from a non-profit, non-lobbying group. You can't impart knowledge of the tribe and corporate donations to him.
posted
Yes, until they investigate and turn up evidence of his prior knowledge (which is extremely unlikely), the bottom line is that it simply has the appearance of impropriety.
I'd like to see the rules change, for sure. I'd also like our leaders to not need a set of rules to govern their behavior. If 1000's of Federal employees can abide by a simple rubrick, then I don't see why our elected officials can't routinely avoid the appearance of impropriety.
DeLay seems not to be able to even recognize when situations might need care and judgement. He just goes with whatever he wants to do and damn the rules or appearances. This time he might be within the letter of the rules. But he (and apparently many others) are out there accepting trips from these groups and they really shouldn't be. I don't care if this organization supposedly doesn't lobby. It's a wink and a nudge to the insiders anyway. They are behaving like the rules are made to be broken and this behind the scenes HUGE donation from groups that REALLY DO lobby makes a farce of that supposed independence.
Like no-one would clue the guy in later about who really paid for his trip. Sure.
This is a loophole that needs closing. With dynamite.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't necessarily want to see such things be against the rules, but as the saying goes, where there's smoke, there's fire.
And Delay manages to churn up on awfully large amount of smoke (plus a number of small fires, I think he's been cited a few times).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in favor of a no-gifts-from-anybody rule, with all financial assets to be put in index funds (the Rep can choose asset allocations) or bank accounts. No individual stock trading.
Basically, every dollar members of congress get to come from their congressional paycheck. Give them a raise or a housing allowance to account for having to have two houses. Give them an unlimited travel budget within their state/district and to/from DC.
Hard to say what to do about closely held businesses though. And harder to figure out how to stop bribes through family members.
posted
I hope that folks do not take me too seriously, BerenOneHand. It is far too easy to be mistaken for an Authority.
While it's nice to have ones input viewed as worthy of some consideration, having an Authority on board does tend to be stifling. Folks usually say less: perhaps in expectation of a "real answer" from the "Authority"; and perhaps cuz some feel embarrassment at (the possibility of) being corrected on details.
Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis : that's why seminars exist. Anyone can pull out records of speeches and formal question&answer sessions, or at the very least the original papers they were based on. The real info-sharing is during the informal gatherings in which folks -- through alcohol/etc and/or the tomfoolery of camaraderie -- let their guard down enough to spread lesser-known "secrets" along with wild and/or contrarian thoughts in "BS sessions", ie: Let's toss the seeds and fertilizer into the air, and see what grows when it lands. Cuz it's easy "knowing" things. What's hard is coming up with the "It's a crazy idea, but is it crazy enough to be true?" that can be answered with YES.
So you are correct: if I desire to be taken more seriously, I should tone down the rhetoric. ie Express my opinions as politely as SaraSasse, Bob_Scopatz, dkw, sndrake, etc...
However I have been the "LastWord" elsewhere, and believe it hushed conversation on those forums more than it added. Though my strong tendency is to give very earnest responses on medical/psychological/safety/legal&science threads, when it comes to politics especially, I prefer being thought of as "that clown" who occasionally provides a useful tidbit of information or insight. The irritant which initiates the pearl so to speak. Thus I indulge myself by posting hyperbolic political statements which more reflect my errrm...different sense of humor -- irony "of the hammer&tongs kind" as FredColon puts it -- than my actual beliefs. Cuz politics is really really REALLY HARD.
posted
Well, let's face it. No one can be more polite than Sara.
You are right that informal banter can foster a fun environment where people can "let their guard down" and come up with innovative ideas. However, there is an unusually high level of bitter partisanship on Hatrack recently and sometimes our humor might get misinterpreted by people who do not share our political views. You are definitely not a major contributor to the bitterness, but still every little bit does weigh on our collective nerves. (I know I've been guilty of this, especially during the election.)
FWIW, I do take you seriously and I think of you as a person who provides useful insights on a regular basis. Of course, your posting style is your own personal choice and I respect that. I will always consider your views aspectre, I guess I'm just selfish in that I also want everyone to do the same.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think that no one argues with those people, you need to read more posts.
I wouldn't argue with Bob about traffic stats, but everything else is his opinion, and he gets called on those on a regular basis.
As do the others.
Don't worry, no one would mistake you as an authority on politics....not becaue of anything you have said or done but because there is no such thing, really...it is completely subjective.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you are correct: if I desire to be taken more seriously, I should tone down the rhetoric. ie Express my opinions as politely as SaraSasse, BobScopatz, dkw, sndrake, etc...
::picking self up off the floor after being held up as an example of expressing opinions politely::
Okay, I guess I am pretty polite here. But, OTOH, aspectre, please remember that it was a discussion of some of my activist stuff that inspired Sax to start the Being Inflammatory thread.Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
clown" who occasionally provides a useful tidbit of information or insight. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
