Gordon Smith: AWOL on Jack Abramoff
The big inside-baseball story in Washington D.C. this summer has been the massive corruption that appears to swirl around lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He directs millions of dollars of contributions from various Indian casinos to right-wing politicians, organizes "educational" junkets for electeds and their staff, and appears to have been hiding all kinds of secrets.
The big hearings have been held by the Indian Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee - looking into the casino corruption and nonprofit fraud, respectively. Our very own Gordon Smith sits on both of those committees.
According to Willamette Week, the Senator has not said a single word or asked a single question during the hours and hours of hearings:
Yet in three public hearings on the matter in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, transcripts show Smith hasn't uttered a single word."He's been kind of quiet," says Gary Ruskin of the Congressional Accountability Project, a watchdog group following the Abramoff hearings. "That's interesting."
Why so mum? Perhaps because the issues raised by Abramoff-who was arrested by the FBI last week-hit a little too close to home. ...
Ruskin calls it Congress' corruption problem, and he says the real scandal is that even in the wake of Abramoff, people such as Smith are silent. "He's part of it, and he doesn't have the courage to stand up to do anything about it," says Ruskin.
Discuss.
|
Sept. 08, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:42 a.m.
Sep 8, '05
It will be interesting to see if the Oregonian picks up this story or lets it slide.
Sep 8, '05
"If it matters to Oregonians, it's in the Washington Post."
Or BlueOregon.org.
Sep 8, '05
He took lots of different contributions from most of Abramoff's tribal clients and three separate ones in his 2002 campaign from Abramoff himself.
The overall amount isn't huge, but Gordon Smith was clearly "on the list" of people Abramoff was attempting to buy.
I can't believe he's against ethics reform at this point, after everything that has already been revealed.
Sep 8, '05
Don't forget that Mr. Abramoff had worked for the Florida law firm (lobbyist firm) that Portland contracted with to usher their plan to purchase PGE, inclusive of contingent pay of 4.5 million dollars. The pattern matches the same game, even if the PGE deal did not directly reference Mr. Abramoff or Tom Delay.
Sounds to me like Tom Potter, and the entire City Council, must be as answerable as good old Mr. Smith.
Sep 8, '05
That's a little spurious, and the reference you make isn't even clear.
But if you dredge up some campaign contributions to Mayor Potter from Mr. Abramoff or, say, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians... then he has some splainin' to do as well.
Sep 8, '05
Going all the way to the ends of the Earth (Florida) just to get a legal advocate for the PGE takeover and then to wrap it up into a 4.5 million dollar bonus project makes the City of Portland as gullible as one of the Indian clients. It is best that Tom claim idiocy, for the alternative is worse.
Search on Abramoff Slate and see what pops to the top of the list.
Dare I add the odd timing of Gov. Ted's public announcement of support for CoP's knowingly extraterritorial grab for PGE and his support for a new casino to boot.
Connect the dots man.
The world of lobbying does not hinge on the direct transfer of campaign donations. That would be far too obvious and capture only true idiots. I have opposed the CoP lobbying initiative not because I do not think there is not wholesale graft but because judges need to be just a bit more demanding on the assertion of public merit for proposal x y or z. The absence of traceable donations does not translate to an untainted campaign either . . . is that your reasoning?
FEC . . . funny. Do your job, would yah.
<h2>The explaining that needs to be done is by the Oregon State Bar for not publicly blasting the contingency component of the CoP legal advice contract with the Florida outfit. Chew on that one and tell me I'm spurious there too. The abdication of the representation of the public interest is just too obvious.</h2>