Abramoff & Willie Sutton: Knowing Where The Money Was

 by Gary Larson  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Poor denizens of casinos have endowed a few tribes with fabulous
wealth. And Jack Abramoff knew the best way to protect their monopoly.

Fat-cat profits from their Indian casinos bring enfranchisement, at least politically, for a handful of North American tribes.

Call this a good thing. Capitalism at work, economic freedom and all
that. Until you consider the fallout from a few tribes' largesse to
politicians to maintain a de facto monopoly on Indian “gaming.”

In many places only state-run lotteries compete with their casinos
for gamblers’ dollars. What self-respecting monopoly would NOT seek to
protect being in such a catbird seat?

Protecting their cash-cows stirs tribal governments' generosity to politicians.

Arising from two-bit bingo halls of the past, Indian “gaming” began
in earnest when Congress botched up (er, enacted) the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988. The goal was to lift Indians out of
perennial poverty. For a few, it worked, like hitting a continual royal
flush.  Straight one at that.  

IGRA put “gaming” on the map. Casinos dot our landscape, within
driving range for most Americans, even at $3 bucks a gallon. To heck
with trips to Las Vegas or Atlantic City. Poor suckers flock now to
local casino-style "gaming" in search of their Big Hits, those dream
jackpots that never seem to come to mama or to papa.   

By pursuing impossible dreams (Big Hits), poor denizens of casinos
endow a few tribes with fabulous wealth. This enables their enormous
spin-off donations to political classes. Think of it: 
Politicians’ war chests are swelled by poor Americans’ gambling losses,
taken with impunity in quite legal gambling houses, owned by the
once-disenfranchised Indians, operating under the auspices IGRA of
1988, that  all-giving federal law responsible for the de facto monopolies. Only in America?

Indians’ largesse to politicians likely is not to foster good
government, rather one that abides by their wishes. Putting gobs of
cash upfront on office-holders’ plates is a way of life.  For one
thing it helps the politocos with the high costs of getting re-elected.
(Few non-incumbents receive Indians’ dough.  Savvy businessfolks,
they’re nobody’s fools. Incumbents re-elected would take note of their
foes’ campaign sources and sometimes, it is said, act
accordingly.  Shhh.)

It takes a heap of money to get re-elected. Costly TV and radio
spots soak up dollars. Print ads, too, to say nothing of campaign
posters, eat up funds like a voracious animal.  So casino
dollars end up in politicians’ war chests to get them re-elected, thus
to corral more campaign dollars in the next election cycle.  Call
this a vicious cycle?

Affluent Indians find their sacrificial offerings to “the process”
– a.k.a. “the System” — criticized increasingly by the public as
pay-to-play politics. Well, dah!  What else?  Oh yeah, for
Good Government.  Even “liberal” news media, forever pushing
racial and ethnic preferences — to “right old wrongs” — are offended
by pay-to-play politics, particularly when practiced by the shady,
black-hatted Republican “operative,” Jack Abramoff, and his cohorts.

(“Republican” seems Abramoff's first name in wire service reports.
Agenda-driven media go to prodigious lengths to obtain a "gotcha" photo
of Abramoff with President Bush.  It is media circus, hilarious at
times, quite revealing intents and purposes of most journalists today,
i.e., biased totally to bring down a president in any way, fair or
foul, irrelevant or not.)   

Most of Abramoff’s casino booty goes (surprise!) to
Republicans.  Maybe, just maybe, this fact stirred media outrage
to higher levels?  With “Rs” in power, wouldn't one expect they’d
get the lion’s share?  Common sense dictates?  

While Abramoff takes the spear, the engine driving his gravy train,
Indian casino dollars, gets scarce notice. Nor do Jack’s palms-up
recipients, the see-no-evil politicians.      

Shocked (!) their campaign war chests are being enriched by the
poor, via tribal contributions,  politicians punt.  Either
they (1) return the tribal monies pronto, as most do, suggesting what
defense lawyers call “consciousness of guilt;” or (2) give it to
charities of their own choosing; or (3) keep it as an inherent benefit
of office-holding. (The latter brings incumbents' entitlement theories
to new heights of lunacy.)

What happened here, gentle reader, was attempted, so far as we know, quid pro quo. 
Schemes like this work in your everyday America.  In plain
view.  Elephants prance about the room, mostly unseen.   

Politically correct folks call it gaining access. Others,
reality-based, call it buying Clout. Smart money is on Clout — same as
Big Oil, Big Anything when pecuniary self-interest controls.

Protecting Indian casino monopolies is not new.

Killing an upstart casino in Wisconsin in 1995 served as the
template:  Tribes with bustling casinos fought fiercely against
their Ojibwe brethren’s would-be casino in the bucolic border town of
Hudson, a bedroom community of the Twin Cities.

Tribes with “resources” — read, cash — hired a small army of
well-connected Democrat lawyer-lobbyists. Against all odds, they
persuaded the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), usually thumbs-up to poor
Indians’ economic advancement, to deep-six the upstarts’ rival casino
bid.  (Local NIMBYs pitched in. Native Americans’ jobs in their cozy exurbia?  No way!)

After getting their way at BIA (on July 14, 1995), the well-heeled
tribes, prodded by their hired-guns, little Abramoffs all, rushed to
enrich the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  Pay-to-play
politics all right, and after the fact!  Nice work if you can get it.

(I penned a feature-length article on this little-known historic caper in January of 2005, “Bruce Babbitt’s Nemesis: Death of an Indian Casino.”)

As a result, incalculable profits flow endlessly now and forever,
presumably, to the wealthy Indians who prevailed at BIA in ‘95, with
palpable assistance from their allies at the DNC, in overturning the
Hudson deal.  Over the years, net gains accruing from their
undivided casino profits will amount to billions.  Yes, that's
billions — as in $0,000,000,000s!   

Makes chump change of the mere $417,250 in contributions DNC raked
in ‘95-96 (the next election cycle). Proving that, by winning the
pay-to-play game, enormous and lifelong dividends can and do accrue.
That fact of political life is not lost on Big Casino Indians (lessons
in future political gift-giving?) and on wannabe Washington lobbyists,
their fund transfer agents. 

Abramoff is akin to Willie Sutton. Both knew where the money was.
Getting it was the trick. Abramoff sold protection for his tribal
client's “legal” casino monopoly.  Cash up front, please. 
Jack just broke a few rules in getting it, same as bank-robber
Sutton.  Using the proceeds was No Problem.  Outstreched
upturned palms took care of that. 

Abramoff's business was a new wrinkle on the extortion racket. Only protection was not from thugs, but from rival casinos.

His targeted transfers from his Indian clientele went to 174
politicians.  They included Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
(D-NV), in for $68,941, and anti-gambling Senator Byron Dorgan
(D-N.D.), $79,300, as examples.  Others got more or less. 

But most of Jack's money — 64%, according to Federal Election
Commission — went to members of the in-power GOP.  Do the math.
Only 36% was left to divvy up among Democrats.  Cost of being in
the minority party?  

Contrast that 36% cut of the pie with 1995's take.  The DNC,
then under Chairman Donald Fowler, snared nearly 100% (!) of the
Indians’ largesse in the wake of the Battle of Hudson, denying
impoverished Wisconsin Indians a metro casino of their own to compete
with wealthy brethren.  (Where, one asks, was the noblesse oblige?)

Peddling influence then, as now, is “in” in Washington.  It is raison d’etre
for Abramoff‘s short-term “success.” Money greases the influence
skids.  Some cynics say it always has been thus, ever to be. 
But do we put an A-men on that?     

Why politicians get a free pass in media, and with constituents, is
only somewhat puzzling.  Still, their cynicism about campaign
finance abuses taunts politicians, even as reform forever eludes
them.  (What? Kill the golden goose?)

Why a few wealthy tribes escape reproach is a mystery, too. 
Payback for centuries of devastating disenfranchisement? For the
appalling land grabs and other gross injustices their ancestors endured
without pity?  Some are more equal than others?

Meanwhile, an avalanche of TV spots show happy ding-a-ling
“winners,” and nothing of poor losers. Print ads flash ecstatic
“winning” faces, grinning widely, giant cardboard checks in the
foreground.  Nary a loser in the bunch.  Casino ads invite
all to “join in the action” or "the fun."  (Really?)  One ad
exudes, “Enhance your gaming [sic] experience.”  Yeah. Sure. 
Like it's a true game?  One you’ll never win, that's for darn
certain.  House odds, you know, pay the overhead, multimedia
advertising, and politicians.  

Likely impossible: A free-at-last Congress and a bureaucracy
beyond reproach, not beholden to moneyed special inerests.  None
at all.  Nada!  Well, even we cynics can hope, dream even,
corruption falls out of favor.  Where are the idealistic Jimmy
Stewarts, Mr. Smiths trudging off to Washington, to clean up such
messes?   Wake up, fella!  It's merely the impossible
dream.

Politics: General

Read more articles by Gary Larson