News Categories



Capitol Hill Blue is a not-for-profit, non-commercial experiment in on-line journalism published as an information resource for our readers. All material is © 2006 Capitol Hill Blue. For more information, please check out our FAQ. We take your privacy seriously at Capitol Hill Blue.
CHB Home / Half-Shell Home/ Print This Page / Email this page

Democrat Reid also took Abramoff client money and went to bat for them

February 10, 2006 06:08 AM / Capitol Hillbillies .

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid portrays convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's activities as involving only Republicans. But Abramoff's billing records and congressional correspondence tell a different story.

They show Abramoff's lobbying team billed for nearly two dozen contacts with Reid's office in a single year to mostly discuss Democratic legislation that would have set the minimum hourly wage for the Northern Mariana Islands, an Abramoff client, initially almost $3 lower than other U.S. states and territories.

Reid, D-Nev., also wrote at least four letters to the Bush administration helpful to Indian tribes Abramoff represented, often collecting donations from Abramoff-related sources around the same time.

And in the midst of the contacts, Abramoff's firm hired one of Reid's top legislative aides to lobby for the tribal and Marianas clients. The aide then helped throw a fundraiser for Reid at Abramoff's firm.

The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.

Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors.

Reid's office acknowledged Thursday having "routine contacts" with Abramoff's lobbying partners and intervening on some government matters _ such as blocking some tribal casinos _ in ways Abramoff's clients might have deemed helpful. But it said none of his actions were affected by donations or done for Abramoff.

"All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long-held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a fraud and bribery case and is now helping prosecutors investigate lawmakers, congressional aides and administration officials his team used to lobby.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum declined to comment on the Reid contacts.

Reid has assailed Republicans' ties to Abramoff while refusing to return any of his own donations. He argues there's no need to return the money.

"Senator Reid never met Jack Abramoff and never has taken contributions from him, and efforts to drag him into this are going to fail," Manley said. "Abramoff is a convicted felon and no one has suggested the other partners we might have dealt with have done anything impermissible."

While Abramoff never directly donated to Reid, the lobbyist did instruct one tribe, the Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002. About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department helpful to the tribe, records show.

Abramoff sent a list to the tribe entitled "Coushatta Requests" recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers he claimed were helpful to the tribe. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."

Following a pattern seen with Abramoff and Republicans, Abramoff's Democratic team members often delivered donations to Reid close to key events.

Reid and his Senate counsel Jim Ryan met with Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum wage bill" that affected the Marianas, according to a bill that Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the Marianas.

Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5, 2001, with Platt, but he also said he couldn't say for sure the contact didn't occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists who work Capitol Hill.

As for the timing of donations, Manley said: "There is no connection. This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising."

The U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean were one of Abramoff's highest-paying clients and were trying to keep their textile industry exempt from most U.S. laws on immigration, labor and pay, including the minimum wage. Many Democrats have long accused the islands of running garment sweatshops.

The islands in 2001 had their own minimum wage of $3.05 an hour, and were exempt from the U.S. minimum of $5.15.

Republicans were intent on protecting the Marianas' exemption. Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California, wanted the Marianas to be covered by the U.S. minimum and crafted a compromise.

In February 2001, Kennedy introduced a bill that would have raised the U.S. hourly minimum to $6.65 and would have covered the Marianas. The legislation, which eventually failed, would have given the islands an initial break by setting the minimum at just $3.55 _ nearly $3 lower than any other territory or state _ and then gradually increasing it.

Within a month, Platt began billing for routine contacts and meetings with Reid's staff, starting with a March 26, 2001, contact with Reid chief of staff Susan McCue to "discuss timing and status of minimum wage legislation," billing records say.

In all, Platt and a fellow lobbyist reported 21 contacts in 2001 with Reid's office, mostly with McCue and Ryan.

One of the Marianas contacts, listed for May 30, 2001, was with Edward Ayoob, Reid's legislative counsel. Within a year, Ayoob had left Reid's office to work for Abramoff's firm, registering to lobby for the islands as well as several tribes. Manley confirmed Ayoob had subsequent lobbying contacts with Reid's office.

Manley cast doubt on some of the contacts recorded in the billing records, saying McCue was out of Washington for a couple of the dates. But he acknowledged the contacts could have occurred by cell phone.

In January 2002, McCue took a free trip, valued at $7,000, to Malaysia with several other congressional aides. The trip, cleared by Senate ethics officials, was underwritten by the U.S. Malaysia Exchange Association, a group trying to foster better relations between the United States and Malaysia.

The trips were part of a broader lobbying strategy by Malaysia, which consulted with Abramoff and paid $300,000 to a company connected to him, according to documents released by Senate investigators. The arrangements included a trip by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his wife to Malaysia in October 2001.

While Abramoff worked behind the scenes, the Alexander Strategy Group run by two former DeLay aides, Ed Buckham and Tony Rudy, publicly registered to lobby for the U.S. Malaysia Exchange Association.

Rudy, who was cited in Abramoff's court case, had worked temporarily for Abramoff before joining Buckham at Alexander Strategy, and the three men were friendly. In January 2002, Alexander Strategy arranged two congressional trips to Malaysia underwritten by the association.

One trip took a delegation of Republican congressmen. A Democratic consultant hired by Alexander Strategy, former Clinton White House aide Joel Johnson, invited McCue and went on the second trip with congressional staffers.

Johnson said he invited McCue on behalf of Alexander Strategy and went on the trip with her but said he knew of no connections to Abramoff. "My interest was in getting Democrats to travel to the country and to learn more about Malaysia," Johnson said.

Reid intervened on other matters.

On March 5, 2002, he sent a letter to the Interior Department pressing the agency to reject a proposed casino by the Jena band of Choctaw Indians in Louisiana. Fellow Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, also signed.

The Jena's proposed casino would have rivaled one already in operation in Louisiana run by the Coushattas, and Abramoff was lobbying to block the Jena. The day after Reid's letter, the Coushattas wrote a $5,000 check to Reid's Searchlight group at Abramoff's suggestion.

Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas' gambling establishments.

"As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote. Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and has long argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Nevada Democrat signed a letter with California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California.

The casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff's tribes.

Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by Abramoff.

"The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.

The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for school building.

Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners _ including Platt and Ayoob _ donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Reid sent a fourth letter on April 30, 2003, joining Ensign a second time to urge Interior to reject the Jena casino.

A couple of months later, Abramoff's firm threw a fundraiser for Reid at its Washington office that netted the Nevada senator several more donations from Greenberg Traurig lobbyists and their spouses. Ayoob was instrumental in staging the event, Reid's office said.

___

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this story.

© 2006 The Associated Press


© Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

Comments

This is a very insightful article Doug.
I think we are going to find widespread corruption in all parties. I sure hope they investigate everything, leaving no stone unturned.
We as Americans deserve to know and before the upcoming elections.

Posted by scrugun at February 10, 2006 08:01 AM

I hope that Capitol Hill Blue will issue an immediate clarification of this deceptive article. Both AP and MSNBC omitted crucial facts about Reid's alleged involvement in the Abramoff scandals.
Click here: Daily Kos: State of the Nation

More on AP's hitpiece on Reid
by kos
Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:27:01 PM PDT
AP story notes all sorts of contacts with Abramoff's lobbyists and Reid's office regarding a bill to increase the minimum wage in the Marianas Islands.

Josh Marshall takes it from there:

What did Reid do in response? That's really the key issue.

Did he intervene on behalf of Abramoff's Marianas clients? The gist of the whole narrative is that Reid was Team Abramoff's go-to guy to kill the bill that would have hurt the Marianas sweatshop owners.

But did he actually rise to the bait?

I rung up Reid spokesman Jim Manley. He said Reid was a "cosponsor of Sen. Kennedy's bill; he spoke in favor of the bill on the Senate; he was a strong supporter of the bill." When I pressed Manley on whether Sen. Reid took any action adverse to the bill or made changes in timing that lead to the bill's demise, he said, "No."

Then I got hold of Ron Platt, the lobbyist referenced in the passage above, on his cell phone while he was down at a conference in Florida. I asked him whether, to the best of his recollection, Reid had taken any action against the Kennedy bill. "I'm sure he didn't," Platt told me.

According to Platt, the purpose of his contacts was to see what information he could get about the timing and status of the legislation. Reid's position on the minimum wage issue was well known and there would have been no point trying to get his help blocking it. That's what Platt says. "I didn't ask Reid to intervene," said Platt. "I wouldn't have asked him to intervene. I don't think anyone else would have asked. And I'm sure he didn't."

The problem exists when a lobbyist buys off an elected official. Here, let me give you an example:

U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., met with a Marianas official who had close ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff in the weeks before Burns received an Abramoff-related $5,000 contribution from the Marianas and reversed his earlier position on a bill about the islands [...]

8 percent of the island's population were noncitizen immigrants, drawn to the island's garment manufacturing jobs, government reports show. At the time, workers in the factories earned a minimum of $3.05 an hour, below the U.S. minimum wage of $5.15.

Burns voted against a bill in May 2001 that would have strengthened U.S. oversight over the commonwealth's labor and immigration laws. A little more than a year before Burns had not opposed an identical measure.

Reid didn't just support the increase in the island's minimum wage, but he co-sponsored it.

And the AP piece, penned by John Solomon and Sharon Theimer, conveniently omits that crucial bit of information.

http://www.dailykos.com/

Posted by Elsie Alderman at February 10, 2006 10:19 AM

This passes for journalism? I applaud the research, but the assmebly of various facts to persuade the reader that Reid is linked to Abramoff is transparent, almost campy. Trying to wade through this story with it's plot twists, changes of direction, and demands of the reader to make assumptions and create links was more than I in my ignorant stupor could manage.

Reading the headline, and knowing the story ahead of time, I was enthusisastic that the article would provide information that tightened the connection between Abramoff and Reid. That enthusiasm turned to disappointment when the expected information was nowhere to be found. The part of the headline "...and went to bat for them" seems to have been ignored. Citing examples where Reid voted as one would expect him to vote given his past and stated positions on those issues hardly implies any outside influence. I guess I finished reading this and thought "what's the point?".

John, Sharon: Obvously this article was written back to front. You didn't collect information which led you to a conclusion. You began with an assertion, then assembled select information to try to prove it. I realize this happens a lot these days in journalism, and some have made it an art. But you're not even any good at it.

Posted by neondesert at February 10, 2006 10:58 AM

Daily Kos is a partisan web site with admitted political leanings towards Democratic causes. We are not a partisan site. We lay out the facts and let the reader decide. Neither party gets a free ride here. As a non-partisan, I do not believe that either party -- Democrat or Republican -- can claim the high ground when it comes to being bought and paid for by special interest groups.

Doug

Posted by Doug Thompson at February 10, 2006 11:23 AM

Doug,

I am a life long Democrat. It sickens me that my party has become the party of incompetance, inactivity, and now it seems Every Bit as Coruptable as the Rethuglican Party. There doesn't seem to be ANYONE who has the cajones to stand up to the Rethuglicans. The Democratic Party seems to be real good at cowering in the corner and begging and pleading "OH PLEASE. WE'LL LET YOU DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. JUST DON'T CALL US LIBERALS ANYMORE!"

There was a time when being liberal was a quality that was admired.. Hopefully we will get there again, If not in MY Life time, maybe MY Grandson's.

Posted by at February 10, 2006 01:01 PM

Doug,

While attempting to be a non-partisan news outlet - to "lay out the facts and let the reader decide" - is a laudable position, this story in no way furthers your cause. Unless I'm missing something (entirely possible, and in which case I hope that "something" is pointed out to me), it doesn't prove it's accusation that Reid "went to bat" for Abromoff's clients. It leaves out the tit for tat evidence that's critical to make that claim.

I get the impression that it was published on your site without any kind of objective critique, but as "make-up" to further the appearance of CHB as non-partisan. That shouldn't be necessary. Surely there are plenty of articles about corruption by dems that something as weak as this one needn't be used.

By the way, glad you're back, and as far as I'm concerned you can keep crying wolf as long as you want. When that day comes that you really do retire (for more than 3 days), at least I'll still enjoy the warmth of that little flame of hope of your eventual return...

Posted by neondesert at February 10, 2006 02:20 PM

The issue is the timing of the contributions. AP documented that. I worked on the PAC side of the fence to recognize a quid pro quo. I also dealt enough with Harry Reid when I was running the National Association of Realtors PAC to know that he hand was out along with most other members of the House and Senate. When we sought his support on issues, he always wanted to know how much we had given him and what our contribution plans were for the future.

I can understand the desire to make the Abramoff scandal a one-party issue and Jack was a Republican who took care of his own but he was also in the business is buying votes for his clients and what meant buying some Democrats as well.

Doug

Posted by Doug Thompson at February 10, 2006 02:55 PM

I applaud the desire to be non-partisan, but the facts should be paramount. If the Dems are fudging the facts, put it to them. If the Republicans are, put it to them.

It is not illegal to take money from PACs or lobbyist's clients or even from lobbyists. Maybe it should be, but the only real way around that would be public financing of elections and free time on TV and radio. In the meantime, the Abramoff case is all about influence-peddling, bribery, pay-for-play, and the long-term ascension of the Republican Party to financial dominance by political thuggery. Find an instance where Reid took money and switched a vote, or did something that he wasn't going to do anyway. Yes, apparently, he took some money from the Marianas. Did he vote the way that Abramoff wanted? No. He took money from tribes. Did that change his votes? No. He is the senator from Nevada, after all. All politicians in that state have "a relationship" with gamblers. Is it a respectable reformer's relationship, or Michael Corleone's.

The big problem with Washington is that nobody has to feel responsible for anything. The other guy does it, so I don't have to pay attention to facts. This is one case where the facts are on our side, no matter how much people try to muddy the waters.

Posted by Jim Hass at February 10, 2006 03:11 PM

All of us, as Americans, need to take a good, hard look at ourselves and our system of government, and ask ourselves " why is it that no matter what party affiliation any of our politicians may have, the vast majority of them appear to have no honor, no sense of duty, no sense of decency, little in the way of morals, and a complete lack of purpose for what they ostensibly led us to believe they sought that office for? A large part of this we need to blame on ourselves, since in any election cycle, for any given office, a very small percentage of eliglble voters actually vote - to put it simply, hardly anyone gives a damn. If we don't care, why should they? And we need to ask why others around the world have little esteem for Americans? Don't expect business as usual in Washington to change any time soon

Posted by hammerhead at February 10, 2006 03:39 PM

Actually, it is places like CHB, Kos and all the other political sites, both left and right (well sort-of) that are encouraging a political discourse by the people. With the advent of the internet, every person with a computer now has a voice, and people of common belief can now gather regardless of physical location, race, class or gender.

We as a people are growing (albeit slowly) aware of our civic duty in keeping our government in check. Yes there are many out there in sheeple-land that have no clue, but there is a movement growing that, just as in the Revolutionary war of 225 years ago, are banding together against a repressive tyranny, and as long as the internet is free, so are the people. (so let's not let the corpos buy the net. Support Net Neutrality!)

Most folks have been told that they have no voice, that politicians are so crooked that they are just gonna take the money and vote for the contributors so why should they participate. Well, we now have shrubster in office destroying the nation. How long after a financial meltdown or declaration of martial law will it be before many who dont give a darn are ready to take up torches and pitchforks? That's what keeps me going, the hope that Democracy is a way of life and we as a people will fight for that way of life. That and CHB. Keep up tht great work Doug and glad to have you back.

Posted by Jeffersonian Patriot at February 10, 2006 03:55 PM

Jim:

I have to disagree that the facts are on anybody's side in a situation like this. I went to the FEC web site and took a look at the contributions history and they track with both Reid's cosponsorship and his letters of support. That's how the game is played. One set of contributions secures a cosponsorship, another gets a letter, still another gets a vote. The headline and story said Abramoff's clients gave the money and got the help. The facts support that.

While the game may be legal, I'm more concerned with the morality and the corruption built into the system. My experience as both a former PAC executive who bought votes and a journalist who writes about such activities is that both sides are for sale. The only real questions are cost and who's doing the buying.

Doug

Posted by Doug Thompson at February 10, 2006 04:05 PM

Doug,

Thanks for the clarification. But without your perspective, the point is lost as the article is written. It seems strained to make it's point based solely on the timing of contributions. And again, there's not one instance cited of Reid acting contrary to either his historic positions or Nevada gaming interests, so I can't find where the facts support the headline. It's a thin line between bribery, and contributing to a candidate or incumbent who you want to have in office because he already represents your views. It's a line that may be implied by the timing of the contribution, but not defined by it.

Still, you say you have reason to believe that Reid trades favor for cash, and I have no reason to doubt your judgement. Common sense tells me I need to know more before I can wad this up and put it in my pocket.

Maybe we can anticipate a future Rant to further analyze the article with the benefit of your once-PAC-connected perspective?

Posted by neondesert at February 10, 2006 05:17 PM

Hard to believe Dems still back useless old hack Harry Reid, who is their biggest liability right now. This guy is your voice in the Senate? No wonder the left gets constantly steamrolled by GOP buffoons.

Posted by Beast of Bourbon at February 10, 2006 05:20 PM

It isn't just Reid or any one member of either party; its the whole damn system that's rotten to the core! We need to get money out of our government!
Goddam to hell those defeatists who claim that it can't be done. It CAN be done and we MUST do it, if we ever hope to get our government back.

There is no earthly reason why a lobbyist with a fistful of money should get dibs on my Representative/Senator.
If we're going to accept that lobbyists should get to buy legislation (indeed write it) then let's be honest enough to revise our school textbooks to reflect that we do not have a democratic Republic but a plutocracy.

Perhaps then we'd have fewer people signing up for the military just to become cannon fodder for the rich. Educate the children and steer them away from the propaganda that leads them to slaughter!

Posted by Doubtom at February 10, 2006 11:12 PM

What comment text? It was about Reid accepting money from Abramoff. I thought it was fairly clear

Posted by Doubtom at February 10, 2006 11:17 PM

Neon:

I have written about my PAC days several times. One example is here.

Doug

Posted by Doug Thompson at February 11, 2006 07:03 AM

Post a comment

(Comments are moderated and will not be posted if they contain insults, flaming of other posters, profanity or libelous comments. Comments that are off topic will be deleted. Thanks for waiting.)


Top of Page

RECENT STORIES

Sign up for our Daily Newsletter mailing list!