[Mb-civic] An article for you from an Economist.com reader.

Sat Jan 7 11:09:29 PST 2006

- AN ARTICLE FOR YOU, FROM ECONOMIST.COM -

Dear civic,

Michael Butler (michael at intrafi.com) wants you to see this article on Economist.com.

(Note: the sender's e-mail address above has not been verified.)

Subscribe to The Economist print edition, get great savings and FREE full access to Economist.com.  Click here to subscribe:  http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/email.cfm 

Alternatively subscribe to online only version by clicking on the link below and save 25%:

http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/offer.cfm?campaign=168-XLMT

JACK THE GIANT-KILLER
Jan 5th 2006  

Who else will Jack Abramoff bring down with him?

AS A young Republican, Jack Abramoff said his plan was to remove the
left from power permanently. He may end up having done more damage to
the right. On January 3rd, the once-powerful lobbyist pleaded guilty in
a federal courtroom in Washington, DC, to conspiracy to bribe public
officials, fraud and tax evasion. A day later, in Miami, he admitted to
another two counts, of fraud and conspiracy, related to a 2000
acquisition of casino boats. He is likely to serve ten years in prison
and he has already agreed to pay back $26.7m.

This massive scandal began with Mr Abramoff's contemptuous treatment of
the Indian tribes who were his clients. He and his business partner,
Michael Scanlon, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery
last November, persuaded tribes from Texas to Mississippi to hand over
some $80m. Under the "gimme five" scheme, Mr Abramoff would refer
tribes to Mr Scanlon's public-relations business, and Mr Scanlon would
send half the profits back to Mr Abramoff in kickbacks that the tribes
did not know about. In one case, Mr Abramoff accepted money from two
different tribes to lobby for opposing sides (one wanted casinos in
Texas, the other did not). He hid his gains from the Internal Revenue
Service with falsified financial records.

Mr Abramoff spent a lot of the cash on currying favour with lawmakers.
He took congressmen and their aides to play golf in Scotland, to watch
the Super Bowl, and to eat at fancy restaurants he owned in Washington.
One politician and his sidekicks got a trip to a remote Pacific island. 

The gifts bought influence. By his own admission in the plea deal, Mr
Abramoff "provided a stream of things of value to public officials" in
exchange for official favours. Statements were inserted in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and agreements were made to support certain laws
(one lawmaker, according to the plea, agreed to introduce a bill to
roll back a federal ban on commercial gaming so as to help one of Mr
Abramoff's tribal clients in Texas). 

A contrite Mr Abramoff wants "forgiveness from the Almighty and from
those I've wronged or caused to suffer". His erstwhile friends are less
concerned with his soul than with whom he will implicate. The
Department of Justice has promised to prosecute aggressively. 

Although roughly a third of Mr Abramoff's money went to Democrats,
Republicans are especially on edge. As the ruling party, they will be
held responsible for any sleaze, and they have already had one hiccup:
last November, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a congressman from San Diego,
confessed to accepting $2.4m in bribes and to evading over $1m in
taxes. His inducements included a Rolls-Royce, Persian carpets and the
use of a yacht.

Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican who chairs the House Administration
Committee, appears to be "Representative 1" cited in the plea deal.
According to the plea, Mr Abramoff channelled money to Representative
1, who put statements in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD beneficial to Mr
Abramoff's interests. Mr Ney stated that he "obviously did not know,
and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of
Abramoff's activities."

Also in the spotlight is Tom DeLay. The former House majority leader is
already in trouble in his home state of Texas where, barring high court
intervention, he will face trial this year on charges related to
campaign finance. He has had close political ties to Mr Abramoff, with
whom he has been golfing in Scotland. Mr Scanlon, Mr Abramoff's former
partner, was a former aide to Mr DeLay. So apparently was "Staffer A",
another figure cited in the plea, whose wife received $50,000 over ten
months allegedly to encourage him to stop legislation involving
postal-rate rises and internet gambling.

This is all unproven. But it surely dims Mr DeLay's already faint hopes
of regaining his leadership post, which he lost when he was indicted in
Texas. Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, has told the WASHINGTON
POST that his party "unequivocally" needs a new majority leader.

Some prominent figures in the conservative movement may also be
regretting their friendship with Mr Abramoff. One of the people who
helped him get into lobbying was Grover Norquist, a leading anti-tax
conservative. Another old friend is Ralph Reed, a former leader of the
Christian Coalition, whose bid to become lieutenant-governor of Georgia
may suffer from Mr Abramoff's past generosity--especially since money
for his anti-gambling crusades originated from Indian casinos.

Democrats are sharpening their knives. But they, too, have cause for
jitters. Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, also accepted campaign
contributions via Mr Abramoff. Politicians of all parties are now
returning that cash as fast as possible, but opponents will be sure to
bring up the taint in this year's mid-term elections. One of the latest
to take action was Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House. This week
he pledged to give to charity the $69,000 in campaign money he received
from Mr Abramoff and the Indian tribes.

Will this scandal cause Washington to develop a sudden case of ethics?
Cynics say that some such brouhaha comes up every decade or so;
lawmakers revert to best behaviour for a bit, but are never able
permanently to mend their ways. But Thomas Mann of the Brookings
Institution thinks that companies may get choosier about the dollars
they funnel to lawmakers. "Private companies are going to be much more
reluctant to pony up funds for fear of backlash from their boards,
their stockholders, and legal liability." Politicians in both the House
of Representatives and the Senate could also tighten rules about
disclosure and gift-giving.

Another important question is the resolve of the Justice Department. It
has been criticised for looking too political--for example, giving a
green light to Texas's pro-Republican gerrymandering (over fierce
objections from mid-level staff) and approving Mr Bush's secret
wiretaps. But the Abramoff mess looks too delicate and well-publicised
a matter for political interferers even to contemplate string-pulling.
Or that, at least, is the hope.

See this article with graphics and related items at http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VPGQGRS

Go to http://www.economist.com for more global news, views and analysis from the Economist Group.

- ABOUT ECONOMIST.COM -

Economist.com is the online version of The Economist newspaper, an independent weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting, commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science & technology, culture, society and the arts.
Economist.com also offers exclusive content online, including additional articles throughout the week in the Global Agenda section.

-	SUBSCRIBE NOW AND SAVE 25% -

Click here: http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/offer.cfm?campaign=168-XLMT

Subscribe now with 25% off and receive full access to:

* all the articles published in The Economist newspaper
* the online archive - allowing you to search and retrieve over 33,000 articles published in The Economist since 1997
* The World in  - The Economist's outlook on the year
* Business encyclopedia - allows you to find a definition and explanation for any business term

- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL -

This e-mail was sent to you by the person at the e-mail address listed
above through a link found on Economist.com.  We will not send you any
future messages as a result of your being the recipient of this e-mail.

- COPYRIGHT -

Economist.com privacy policy: http://www.economist.com/about/privacy.cfm