| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2505
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 3:25 pm: | 
|
Here are Abramoff’s seven tribal clients, according to Morris’ analysis, complete with their pre-Abramoff and post Abramoff contributions:
1) Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $285,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $191,960
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (9/2000 - 2003): $401,500
2) Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $61,320
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $48,560
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $64,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP(9/2000 - 2003): $162,590
3) Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 4/2001): $1,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 4/2001): $750
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (4/2001 - 6/2004): $40,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (4/2001 - 6/2004): $168,750
4) Tribe: Pueblo of Sandia (New Mexico)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 3/2002): $24,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 3/2002): $15,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (3/2002 - 6/2003): $18,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (3/2002 - 6/2003): $11,500
5) Tribe: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (California)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 7/2002): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 7/2002): $400,200
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (7/2002 - 6/2004): $70,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (7/2002 - 6/2004): $216,708
6) Tribe: Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1/2003): $35,470
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1/2003): $6,050
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1/2003 - 12/2003): $250
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1/2003 - 12/2003): $0
7) Tribe: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1995): $4,600
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1995): $31,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1995 - 2004): $409,273
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1995 - 2004): $884,927
As the above numbers show, four out of seven tribes -- Saginaw, Chitimacha, Coushatta and Mississippi – saw their contributions to Republicans increase significantly, even vastly, after they became Abramoff’s clients.
At the same time, two of those four tribes -- Saginaw and Chitimacha -- saw their giving to Democrats drop or remain static. The other two -- tribes Coushatta and Mississippi -- did see their giving to Dems rise under Abramoff, but by amounts that were dwarfed by the increases in giving to the GOP.
These patterns strongly suggest that Abramoff’s representation of the tribes manifested itself largely in a dramatic rise in contributions to the GOP. And it also suggests it’s likely that Abramoff had little impact on giving to Democrats.
Nor does it appear likely that Abramoff steered contributions to Dems from the remaining three tribes who didn’t see their giving to the GOP climb. Of those three tribes, one tribe -- Pueblo of Sandia -- saw a negligible shift in donations to both parties. The second -- Agua Caliente -- slashed its contributions to both parties, but even so, the percentage of that tribe’s giving that went to Republicans still rose dramatically. The third -- Cherokee Nation -- simply stopped giving altogether.
The big picture is also compelling. Taken together, Abramoff’s tribal clients gave $868,890 to Dems before hiring him; afterwards, they gave $794,483 -- a decrease of nine percent. By contrast, the tribes’ donations to Republicans went from $786,560 pre-Abramoff to $1,845,975 after he became their lobbyist -- an increase of 135 percent. In other words, when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 608
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
I just can't wait until 2/3's of Congress resigns. What a political moment that will be! |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 795
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 4:20 pm: |
|
But but but...Katie Couric says it's a bipartisan scandal!!!
I just can't wait until 2/3's of Congress resigns.
Oh, if only... |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 924
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Great post themp--
The big picture is also compelling. Taken together, Abramoff’s tribal clients gave $868,890 to Dems before hiring him; afterwards, they gave $794,483 -- a decrease of nine percent. By contrast, the tribes’ donations to Republicans went from $786,560 pre-Abramoff to $1,845,975 after he became their lobbyist -- an increase of 135 percent. In other words, when Abramoff entered the picture, contributions to Dems dropped, while donations to Republicans more than doubled |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
There seems to be a difference about the source of monies as well. Some say that their contributors were the Indian tribes themselves, and therefore it is a question of "clean money" because it did not flow through Abramoff's coffers.
Others say that if the money came from the Indian tribes but was handed out by Jack A and the Moneybags, that the contributions are tainted, and the recipients gave in to the temptations of corruption. Qui sait? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5114
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
The tribes were giving money to those who they thought would help them and were in position to do so -- be it Democrat or Republican. Bribery and Fraud don't necessarily follow from that, but they can. The investigation will prove that out.
People donate to those they think will vote for their interests. Democrats seem to think when they get money for their voting record, that's fine, but not so for Republicans. Like Democrats would still vote for Indian concerns if they didn't get the campaign cash?  |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page