Abramoff lobbying scandal suddenly a boon
for charities
The San Francisco Chronicle/NY Times
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times
January 5, 2006
Washington -- The White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, a center for battered
women in tiny Mission, S.D., is far removed from the Jack Abramoff lobbying
scandal that rocked Washington this week. But the society, along with many
other charities large and small, is about to become a beneficiary of Abramoff's
legendary largess.
As panicked lawmakers rush to distance themselves from Abramoff after his
guilty pleas in federal and state courts, tens of thousands of dollars in
political donations from the disgraced Republican lobbyist and his Indian tribe
clients are being returned or redirected to charities in a vast Robin Hood-like
reordering of campaign funds.
Many of these charitable groups -- including the White Buffalo Calf Woman
Society, which will receive $2,000 from Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. -- have
American Indian ties, creating a certain symmetry, albeit an imperfect one,
given that Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bilking the tribes of millions.
Some tribes such as the Saginaw Chippewa and the Mississippi band of Choctaw
Indians are getting campaign contributions back. But the refunds are not
entirely welcome; tribal officials complain of being branded as pariahs and
worry that their clout in Washington will be diminished if lawmakers refuse to
accept their money.
Yet the Abramoff plea bargain has been a boon to organizations as varied as
the Boy Scouts and the Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund. President Bush is
giving $6,000 to the American Heart Association. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,
is giving $18,500 to a Christian mission in his home state. Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton, D-N.Y., is giving $2,000 to New York charities that have not been
publicly identified.
Campaign finance experts say the donations are perfectly legal, so long as
the original contribution did not violate the law. But the sudden flow of
campaign dollars into charities is raising a new set of questions:
How do the lawmakers decide who gets the money? Why did they wait until now
to return it? And would it be better to direct the money to Abramoff's victims,
since he has said he is broke but has promised to pay more than $26 million in
taxes and restitution?
"This is dirty money, and now they are going to try to make themselves look
good by donating to charity," said Dan Kriwitsky, a Web site designer and
Democrat in Sarasota, Fla., who was so outraged he wrote a reporter to
complain. "It wouldn't surprise me if somebody is now going to get a tax
deduction on that donation."
Tax deductions are not, in fact, permissible -- campaign committees are
nonprofit entities and do not pay taxes -- and experts say the law gives
elected officials few options when disposing of excess cash. They may return
the money to the original donor, make limited donations to other campaigns or
national party committees, or give it to charity, so long as they will not
benefit financially from the donation.
"This is purely a political decision," said Kenneth A. Gross, an authority
on campaign finance at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
"It is not a legal one."
As for the charities, they are happy to get the Abramoff money, if a teensy
bit uncomfortable with the attendant publicity.
"If we go down the road of assessing what's in the mind and hearts of every
donor, we might find ourselves in tricky waters," said Diana Aviv, president
and chief executive of Independent Sector, a nonprofit group that represents
more than 600 American charities. "Part of it is to get rid of money that for
them is hot. So what are their options? Give it back to Jack Abramoff? I don't
think so."
Abramoff, 46, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, fraud and tax
evasion, and he has agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in a widening
corruption investigation. The authorities say he used campaign contributions,
expensive meals and lavish trips, including golfing outings to Scotland, to
influence lawmakers and their aides.
He donated money on his own, advised his clients on how to steer donations
and also raised money for Republicans. Bush's campaign organization, for
instance, named Abramoff a "pioneer," putting him in a select group of donors
who helped raise $100,000 or more for the 2004 re-election effort -- far more
than the $6,000 the campaign is giving away.
Not all politicians are rushing to divest.
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, is keeping the $30,500
donated to him and his political action committees by tribes represented by
Abramoff. "He feels that Abramoff was a Republican operative, and this is a
Republican scandal," said Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. "He's done nothing
improper."
But the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, reached a
different conclusion. Durbin directed his staff to review his campaign
contributions for the eight years he has served in the Senate, and it found no
personal donations from Abramoff. But he did find seven contributions totaling
$11,000 that came from Indian tribes represented by the lobbyist and the firm
he worked for.
"Because Mr. Abramoff's web of influence was so widespread and so
corrosive," Durbin said in a statement, "I have decided to donate these funds
to two Chicago-area organizations serving Native Americans -- the American
Indian Center of Chicago and the American Indian Health Service of
Chicago."
|