A new spin on the "myth" of Abramoffs Democrats

[southsider2k5]

http://brainster.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_b...017209588077752

[jasonxctf]

i love when people try and make the word "liberal" a bad thing. makes me laugh, and cry at the same time.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://brainster.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_b...017209588077752

I don't see this Abramoff thing as being a party issue. Yes, because Abramoff happened to work more closely with GOP'ers, there were undoubtedly more GOP folks caught in this web of criminality. But it could just as easily happened the other way around.

 

The problem here is in that Congress still is allowed to draw up rules to govern itself. This is, to me, a failing of the Constitution (which there are very, very few of). There needs to be a mechanism in place for some other body to establish rules of conduct (including campaign donations, travel expenses, lobbying regs, etc.). Congress has shown, across party lines, that it is simply not capable of policing itself. The fact that the "reforms" suggested in the wake of Abramoff have been shrinking in scope and action lately further shows this.

 

I sincerely hope that Abramoff takes a whole bunch of people down with him, from both parties, which may help speed the reform process.

[bmags]

I don't see this Abramoff thing as being a party issue.  Yes, because Abramoff happened to work more closely with GOP'ers, there were undoubtedly more GOP folks caught in this web of criminality.  But it could just as easily happened the other way around.

 

The problem here is in that Congress still is allowed to draw up rules to govern itself.  This is, to me, a failing of the Constitution (which there are very, very few of).  There needs to be a mechanism in place for some other body to establish rules of conduct (including campaign donations, travel expenses, lobbying regs, etc.).  Congress has shown, across party lines, that it is simply not capable of policing itself.  The fact that the "reforms" suggested in the wake of Abramoff have been shrinking in scope and action lately further shows this.

 

I sincerely hope that Abramoff takes a whole bunch of people down with him, from both parties, which may help speed the reform process.

 

seriously, can't we just punish all the corrupt politicians regardless of party lines? Do you think for a second i would want a corrupt democrat in office over a noble republican? Gimme a break. Abramoff worked native americans for millions! Put this guy in jail!

[Balta1701]

seriously, can't we just punish all the corrupt politicians regardless of party lines? Do you think for a second i would want a corrupt democrat in office over a noble republican? Gimme a break. Abramoff worked native americans for millions! Put this guy in jail!

He's going to jail, for a long long time. The only question is who all is coming down with him. He's gotten a slight reprive on his jail time to spend more time working with prosecutors to bring down more folks with him.

 

I will admit...that analysis is quite disturbing, and I shan't be using the study by TAP until I see a valid response from them.

[Rex Kickass]

It would be interesting to see a year by year breakdown for this contributions and see if there was a levelling off or plateauing of funding at any point.

 

Do I think Abramoff dealt with some Democrats at some point in time? Absolutely. Did the interests he represent dealt with Democrats - of course they did. But that doesn't make their dealings, illegal or even improper.

 

Abramoff is a GOP scandal because he's a GOP lobbyist. I'm sure there's a DEM lobbyist scandal waiting in the wings as well. If there isn't, it probably has a lot to do with the K Street Project and the avenues of influence that the Congressional leadership has actively encouraged over the past five years.

 

Influence peddling has peaked I think at least for the Dems. The K Street Project may have been the best thing ever for the Democratic party. It's forced them to look for the rank and file for their fundraising support. The Dem fundraising that has been maligned by the GOP, has for the most part come from small donors - not big biz. Which is, a good thing. Here's to hoping that the GOP leadership realizes this and starts to do the same thing.

[Balta1701]

Took em long enough, this is the blogosphere for crying out loud, I shouldn't have to wait a week for a reply. Here's their response.

 

Some in the right-wing blogosphere, in an effort to discredit Greg Sargent’s January 27 article “Dems Don’t Know Jack” and its conclusions about Abramoff's Republican influence on the political donations of the Indian tribes he advised, have argued that we were wrong when we asserted that the donations to Democrats from Abramoff's tribal clients fell 9 percent after he became their lobbyist.

 

In the interest of accuracy, the Prospect asked Dwight Morris, the professional analyst who did the original research for our article, to take another look at the data. His conclusion is that the 9 percent figure -- an overall average which was based on our reading of his numbers -- can't be validated statistically; indeed, he thinks it's statistically invalid to do any before-and-after comparisons in this fashion.

 

But in reanalyzing the data, Morris came up with several new and perfectly sound ways to compare those numbers, and guess what: His new analysis demonstrates even more compellingly that when Abramoff came along, the ratio of Republican contributions over Democratic contributions soared dramatically. In other words, his latest conclusions offer even stronger proof that our original conclusions were accurate.

 

Morris also gave us a statement, which fully supports the conclusions of our article while taking issue with the headline. We never meant that headline to be taken literally. Indeed, the story's lede makes it clear that we weren't arguing that no contributions to Democrats rose under Abramoff; just that any uptick to them was dwarfed by the rise in donations to Republicans. Still, given the heat around this issue, it’s possible that we should have written a different headline. Whatever Morris's misgivings about the headline, however, he clearly reaffirms that the data he provided fully support the main conclusions of the piece -- and regards the debate over the 9 percent figure as a distraction from those findings.

 

Statement by Dwight L. Morris, president of Dwight L. Morris & Associates:

 

Up to now I have remained largely on the sidelines of the “blog hysteria” surrounding the recent piece by Greg Sargent in the

 

Prospect on political donations by Native American tribes that were clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. While neither the data we prepared nor the first paragraph of Sargent’s piece support the story’s headline, “Dems Don’t Know Jack,” most of the criticism leveled at the piece deals with one small paragraph well down in the story. In part -- the offending part, apparently -- that paragraph states, “the donations by Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him.”

 

I can say two things about that figure: 1) it was not prepared by my firm because there is no statistically valid way to calculate this number given the way the data were compiled, and 2) focusing on it to the exclusion of all other data distorts the analysis laid out in the bulk of the piece.  (Edit by Balta:  so in other words, the 9% number is in fact not supported by the analysis done by the non-partisan firm.  That number was inserted by TAP into their article about the analysis.  However, the outside guy who they brought in to do the analysis took another look at the data, and tried to express it in a more coherent way.  Here's what he found)

 

As background, we were asked to document donations by the tribes from 1992 to the present (which at the time included part but not all of 2005). In doing so, we carefully researched the exact dates on which Abramoff began representing each tribe and the dates he ceased to represent them. We then divided the donations for each tribe into two pots: One pot represented the periods in which he did not represent the tribe; the second represented the periods in which he did represent it.

 

Based on our research, if I had written this piece rather than simply preparing the data, I would have pointed out the following calculations, which serve to buttress the piece’s main thrust:

 

•Overall, the tribes gave a total of $1,663,400 to Democratic and Republican candidates and party committees during the periods when Abramoff did not represent them. Of that total, 53 percent was donated to Democratic candidates and party committees, and 47 percent was donated to their Republican counterparts.

 

•During the periods that Abramoff represented the tribes -- which spanned a considerably shorter timeframe than the “non-represented phase” -- the tribes collectively donated a total of $2,866,858 -- an increase of 72 percent when compared with the periods in which he did not represent them. Of that total, only 30 percent went to Democrats and 70 percent went to Republicans (see chart).

 

•In the periods when they were not represented by Abramoff, six of the eight tribes gave more to Democrats than to Republicans, although in several cases the difference was small.

 

•In the periods when Mr. Abramoff was their lobbyist, six of the tribes gave more -- and in each case significantly more -- to Republicans than to Democrats.

 

In short, whatever one thinks of the 9 percent figure, these numbers demonstrate the undeniably Republican shift in giving in a far more compelling way. The nature of the giving switched from marginally Democratic to significantly Republican. The data do not show that Abramoff steered no money to Democrats. Congressional testimony from tribal leaders themselves shows that he clearly did so. However, Sargent made no such claim. As his article puts it, “a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans.” That was and remains the central point of the piece, and if that did not come through, then hopefully the record has been set straight.

So based on my reading, what this guy did in the response was basically remove time as a variable. The 9% decline figure from TAP came from comparing donations over differing numbers of years, which is obviously stupid.

 

So, he recalculated This Excel Chart (which appears in the piece 2k5 linked to in a shorter form) and says "Ok, what percentage of each tribe's total donations over the periods with Abramoff and Without Abramoff went to each party"? When he just uses that dividing line, yes the total contributions each year to Democrats increase, which is probably to be expected in an era of skyrocketing political donations (that was the focus of the piece SS2k5 linked to). However, the total donations to Republicans increase vastly more rapidly than those to Democrats when the tribes were associated with Abramoff.

 

There are only 2 tribes which buck that trend...the Cherokee, which stopped giving to Reps entirely after talking to Abramoff (maybe they didn't like him?) and the Mississippi band of Choctaw indians, which gave 87% of their donations to Reps before Abramoff and 68% of their donations to Reps afterwards. But, before Abramoff, they were only giving $35,000 total donations, after him they gave $1.2 million, so the difference between what was donated to the Republicans over the amount they donated to the Dems increased by over $400,000.

 

Just looking at the raw data presented this way, there certainly is a major jump in campaign donations from all of these groups (which is why that 9% number TAP put out was stupid), but the jump to the Republicans massively outweighed the Jump to the Democrats.

[Texsox]

I will never believe that one party does anything more or less than the other. The business of politics is the same for both parties. Even if Jack didn't touch a Dem, there is someone out there that did. Neither party has a monopoly on honesty or dishonesty. All we can do is reject those politicians as we find them and pray that the good and just people in both parties stay and have long successful careers. It is such a minority of leaders that are ever accused or convicted of any wrongdoing. By and large we have honest representation on both sides of the aisle.

[Balta1701]

Even if Jack didn't touch a Dem, there is someone out there that did.

There's a guy from Louisiana who's been under investigation by the Feds for about a year and who will probably wind up in jail. And Conyers (D-MI) seems to be having some ethics troubles too.

[kapkomet]

I will never believe that one party does anything more or less than the other. The business of politics is the same for both parties. Even if Jack didn't touch a Dem, there is someone out there that did. Neither party has a monopoly on honesty or dishonesty. All we can do is reject those politicians as we find them and pray that the good and just people in both parties stay and have long successful careers. It is such a minority of leaders that are ever accused or convicted of any wrongdoing. By and large we have honest representation on both sides of the aisle.

 

Our entire government is so corrupt. And when in Rome... (crumbles)

[Texsox]

Our entire government is so corrupt.  And when in Rome... (crumbles)

 

How many tens of thousands of local, county, state, and federal officials do we have? Both employed and elected? Add to it the police, fire, and military. Now add up how many convictions we have in that group for wrongdoings? A prisoner abuse scandle here and a blow job there, some questionable campaign contributions, overall, we have an incredibly honest government led by some equally honest and hardworking individuals.

 

America Love it Or Leave It!*

 

 

 

 

 

*or work to fix it.

[kapkomet]

How many greasy wheels are there in local government? I see it all the time. A sherriff paid off here, a local nutjob there, the racist (see, white) Dallas City Council, etc. The fact of the matter is to get elected you almost have to do it in a dishonest means anymore. That's the truth.

[Texsox]

How many greasy wheels are there in local government?  I see it all the time.  A sherriff paid off here, a local nutjob there, the racist (see, white) Dallas City Council, etc.  The fact of the matter is to get elected you almost have to do it in a dishonest means anymore.  That's the truth.

Not many greasy wheels. Are you suggesting that 25% are dishonest? 2.5%? .25%? ow many dishonest people do you think there are in government?

[Balta1701]

Not many greasy wheels. Are you suggesting that 25% are dishonest? 2.5%? .25%? ow many dishonest people do you think there are in government?

I would not be surprised at all if it was on the order of magnitude of 25%.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would not be surprised at all if it was on the order of magnitude of 25%.

I think there are stages as well. There are probably only 5% that are hard-core, completely in it for the money and power grab. But probably 50% of them are, to some extent, what I would call corrupt. Just to varying degrees.

[samclemens]

all politicians are corrupt?!? oh my god!

[southsider2k5]

The NYT issued a correction on the original statistics, but then of course gave their own spin on that correction.

 

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI...Q5EQ3BQ20xiQ51m

 

On Jan. 30 I cited an article in The American Prospect that reported that Indian tribes who hired Jack Abramoff had reduced their contributions to Democrats by 9 percent. Dwight Morris, who prepared the study on which the article was based, says on The American Prospect's blog that "there is no statistically valid way to calculate this number given the way the data were compiled." The American Prospect was sloppy, and so was I for not checking its methodology.

 

However, Mr. Morris goes on to say this is a minor point because other calculations show "an undeniably Republican shift in giving."

 

Pre-Abramoff, the tribes gave slightly more money to Democrats than to Republicans; post-Abramoff, they gave 70 percent to Republicans, versus only 30 percent to Democrats. In other words, there's nothing bipartisan about the Abramoff scandal.

[Balta1701]

The NYT issued a correction on the original statistics, but then of course gave their own spin on that correction. 

 

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI...Q5EQ3BQ20xiQ51m

Dude, that's the exact same spin I gave above.