Jack Abramoff and The Lobbying Game

 by Steven D. Laib  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Ana Marie Cox wrote in an editorial for the Houston Chronicle that “The true scandal in the Abramoff affair–with its shades of 'The Godfather'–may be that it was all perfectly legal.”

With the recent decent of Tom DeLay from House Majority Leader, and Jack Abramoff's essential admission of guilt on corruption charges in connection with his lobbying efforts, it is a wonder that there aren’t more demands for controls on the actions of people and organizations attempting to influence legislators.

According to the Washington Post, “Abramoff is the central figure in what could become the biggest congressional corruption scandal in generations”. The fact that there were tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars involved makes this a realistic statement. And, because of the old maxim that the successful lobbyist pays off both sides of the political aisle, Abramoff and his associates almost certainly paid for influence with Democrats as well as Republicans, despite that current attention is focused on the latter because of the DeLay connection.

According to the Seattle Times Abramoff became involved in lobbying through his employment with the law firm of Preston Gates Ellis where part of his meteoric rise apparently stemmed from family connections to influential people. Abramoff left the firm in 2000, which departure appears to have coincided with the beginning of the activities, which are under investigation. Among the issues of concern is the amount of money he received from American Indian tribes, allegedly for the purpose of lobbying on their behalf over issues of casino taxation. This raises another issue, not to be dealt with here, of whether the casino business is a good idea for the tribes, as it carries the potential for accumulation of large sums of money and the possibility of concurrent corruption. The Seattle Times also reported that during a hearing on Sept. 29 2005, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., noted that millions of dollars were flowing from Indian casino operators to unspecified lobbyists, "But what the tribes actually received for such astronomical sums is mystifying". 

The problem, in this type of situation is that it is often easy to prove violations of legislative ethics, but difficult to prove anything else. While bribery is illegal, it would be necessary to show a quid pro quo on the part of the legislator, which may be impossible. Senator X could always claim that he or she intended to vote for a particular bill in any event, so the money received had no effect. Staffers who might disclose a truth contrary to this would be cutting their own professional throats. No one would trust them in an environment rife with corruption, unless they were corrupt, themselves, and willing to protect higher-ups out of self-interest.

Of course, government officials are expected to control themselves. As former California Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh (now deceased) once put it “If you can't eat their food, drink their liquor, ______ their whores - and then vote against them, you have no business being here.” Of course, what Unruh didn’t address is whether the legislators should have accepted the money, food and favors at all, regardless of how they voted. The problem then has two parts; keeping government officials from accepting money, and keeping the lobbyists from offering it. How we do this is very difficult to answer. Unruh also said that “Money is the Mother’s Milk of Politics” and nothing could be truer. The one most obvious answer, which generally flows from government, is to pass a law. But as some are frequently motivated to point out, passing a law does not prevent the act in question. It only makes it illegal, and passes the buck to the enforcement side of government. That may, in the end, only shift where the money goes, as the lobbyist now has to grease the palms of enforcement officials so that they look the other way when asked. Or, it might make for officials to disguise their corruption under more devious technicalities because they certainly don’t want to cut off the lobbyist’s gravy train.

What may be the bottom line issue here is that where government is concerned and where money raises its head, the ability of people in power or of those seeking power, to resist temptation is somehow extremely limited. The idea of becoming a career senator or representative is extremely tempting, and people cannot afford to run for office on their own money. Even John Kerry went after donations despite his access to the Heinz fortune. Careerism may well be the worst enemy of good government we face, absent some overarching morality, which would direct our legislature toward the good of the nation, rather than the good of their personal finances, or immediate pleasure seeking.

At bottom line, it appears likely that most people, once they enter the halls of government forget their duty to ordinary Americans; John and Jane Public. Many may never have been ordinary, and others would like to forget it. But restricting the access of money to government appears necessary. Unless something is done then John and Jane Tycoon have greater influence than John and Jane Public, and that is precisely what our system of representative democracy is intended to prevent. Unfortunately, it is, to all appearances, no longer doing so, if it ever really did.

One final note: Ana Marie Cox wrote in an editorial for the Houston Chronicle that “The true scandal in the Abramoff affair–with its shades of 'The Godfather'–may be that it was all perfectly legal.” She may be correct, and that is the great shame of it all. Influence peddling in the halls of government is as wrong today as was the presence of the moneychangers whom Jesus drove out of the temple in Jerusalem. The duty of government is to the individual citizen. With each additional scandal of this sort, the more the average citizen comes to distrust government and the less efficacy each citizen believes they have. Why should they bother to participate or trust government when the outcome of the vote has, to all appearances, been bought and paid for, by someone who has enough money to get away with it, or who has bought access to a legislator and can bend his ear while they pal around on the golf course? A government based on that kind of representation is doomed to fail. Pray that ours learns its lesson in time.

Politics: General

Read more articles by Steven D. Laib