Abramoff and the Press

Once again, the NY Times sugar coats the news. This time, they try to make the Abramoff scandal look like some sort of overreaching by the prosecutors who may be trying to "redefine the meaning of the word 'bribery.'"

"I think there may have been some nervousness, but after reading the plea agreement today and seeing that only one person was named, there's got to be a little bit of relief out there," said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

But privately, some said they were concerned that the Justice Department might try to interpret bribery statutes more broadly than in the past. They fear a lesser standard of proof could ensnare lawmakers, lobbyists and aides, current and former.

"There's a lot of talk coming out of various quarters that the Justice Department is going to pursue a different definition of bribery, meaning that if somebody were to give a gift or a campaign contribution in the same time period as a member took an official action, that in and of itself would constitute bribery," said a former Republican leadership aide who insisted on anonymity. "That scares the bejesus out of people."

They completely overlook the real depth of this story, the surface of which the Washington Post at least starts to scratch.

Jack Abramoff represented the most flamboyant and extreme example of a brand of influence trading that flourished after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives 11 years ago. Now, some GOP strategists fear that the fallout from his case could affect the party's efforts to keep control in the November midterm elections.

Abramoff was among the lobbyists most closely associated with the K Street Project, which was initiated by his friend Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), now the former House majority leader, once the GOP vaulted to power. It was an aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists in what at times became an almost seamless relationship between Capitol Hill lawmakers and some firms that sought to influence them.

Now Abramoff has become a symbol of a system out of control. His agreement to plead guilty to three criminal counts and cooperate with prosecutors threatens to ensnare other lawmakers or their aides -- Republicans and possibly some Democrats. At a minimum, yesterday's developments put both sides of the lawmaker-lobbyist relationship on notice that some of the wilder customs of recent years -- lubricated with money, entertainment and access -- carry higher risks. In the post-Abramoff era, what once was accepted as business as usual may be seen as questionable or worse.

It is the enormity of the "K Street Project," with it's tentacles reaching into almost every bill Congress has considered that is the meat of this story. But, most of the press sees it as just another isolated case of corruption. As Tweety Matthews said on Hard Ball last night, "I don't think this will really have any political repercussions because some Democrats are also involved." [based on my recollection, not the transcript, which I am too lazy to look up at the moment] By the way, Abramoff himself only gave money to Republicans. Not one cent of Abramoff's money went to a Democrat. It is true that some of Abramoff's clients gave to some Democrats, but I'll be surprised if any of them turn out to be implicated in the Abramoff crimes. Abramoff and K-Street were Republican schemes right from the outset.

Update: Americablog informs us that Tweety Matthews helped fund and sponsor all-Republican Abramoff events in D.C.