The Washington Post reports a ‘casualty’ in the Abramoff scandal:
One of Washington’s top lobbying operations will shut down at the end of the month because of its ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former House majority leader Tom DeLay.
Alexander Strategy Group, which had thrived since its founding in 1998 thanks largely to its close connections to DeLay (R-Tex.), will cease to operate except for a relatively small business-development division, Edwin A. Buckham, the former top DeLay aide who owns the company, said yesterday.
Buckham said in a telephone interview that the company was fatally damaged by publicity about the ongoing federal investigation into the affairs of Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last week to fraud and conspiracy charges. Abramoff is cooperating with prosecutors in their probe of congressional corruption.
Heh. ‘Fatally damaged by publicity’ means ‘Our own putrid stench was driving people away.’
Ancient Purple
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
KCinDC
I’m sure those lobbyists will all be reduced to begging on the street. No chance that they’ll simply start up the same corrupt behavior at a different firm.
Ozymandius
Of course not. You can be sure that these men and women will all commit ritual seppuku at the steps of the Capital Building to atone for their misdeeds.
demimondian
I think that in this case, “Fatally damaged by the bad publicity” means “Oh, my God! They’re going to want to see our books…how can we hide them?”
The Other Steve
I think this is a good example of how the system does work.
However, we also need a Black List. People like this should have their names put on a list to warn govt officials of never doing business with them.
demimondian
“Are you, or have you ever been, a member of Jack Abramoff’s circle of friends?”
I don’t think so…
Steven Donegal
If they are really shutting down, why are they keeping “a small business development division”? They’ll all resurface…different name, same faces.
jack
I would have thought for sure that in the never-ending Abramoff story, Howard Dean’s latest ignorance would have garnered a mention. Isn’t it important to note that the head of the DNC has decided that the best defense is outright lying–in the face of existing facts to the contrary?
Or do we ignore this? Like we’re ignoring that 40 out of 45 Democrat senators got money through Abramoff in this Republicans-only scandal? Or like we’re ignoring that some of the Democrats reluctance to get rid of the money tainted by this scandal?
I know, we’ll parse the contributions–THESE ones were bad, but THESE ones were good. It’s like security leaks.
Do you honestly believe that people aren’t seeing this?
KCinDC
What on earth does “through Abramoff” mean, Jack? Abramoff didn’t give any money to Democrats. Democrats got money from some Abramoff clients, but as far as I know the Indian tribes in question weren’t set up as shell corporations by Abramoff, nor did he use his evil mind control to coerce all of their spending. Believe it or not, they existed before Abramoff, and they can and do make donations on their own. Besides that, accepting campaign donations, on its own, is not a crime.
As usual, the lying is coming from the Republican sping machine, not Howard Dean.
The Other Steve
What you’re talking about is legal campaign contributions given by Indian tribes. At no point has anybody accused the Indian Tribes of doing anything illegal, and last I checked giving campaign contributions is still the right and privilege of every US citizen.
Where the money get’s dirty is when Abramhoff received it, because he swindled these tribes into giving it to him. As such, any money coming from Abramhoff or his phoney charity operations is dirty.
It’s you who are the ignorant one.
The Other Steve
And BTW… I should note that I think it’s important for Democrats to maintain this distinction, and not try to smear other Republicans who also did nothing except receive some campaign contributions from Indian tribes.
jack
Exactly. Parse the contributions. Just because they got contributions from the tribes Abramoff was lobbying them for, does not mean that there was anything untoward about the DEMOCRATS accepting money. I mean, it’s not as if they were accepting money from Abramoff, only from the tribes Abramoff was lobbying them for. It’s a big difference. It is.
You keep telling yourself that.
W.B. Reeves
Typical partisan self hypnosis. Jack can’t demonstrate any connection between the campaign contributions and Abramoff’s criminal activities, so he resorts to innuendo. Wake up and smell the coffee Jack. What you’re suggesting, without a shred of evidence, is that the tribes were co-conspirators in Abramoff’s illegal activities. Tell me, how many of the tribal leaders have been indicted? Oh that’s right, none.
According to Jack’s logic, if you are foolish enough to hire a con artist who bilks you out of millions, you are then implicated in every other act of malfeasance that the con man commits. Further, anyone who then accepts a legal contribution from the saps who were taken to the cleaners is also implicated, even if no direct link between the contribution and Abramoff’s criminal activities can be demonstrated. How, exactly, is that suppose to work?
What Jack and the increasingly hysterical defenders of GOP corruption want to obscure is that this case isn’t about campaign contributions to third parties by those who were suckered by Abramoff. It’s about Abramoff’s direct involvement in the bribing and corruption of Government officials both elected and appointed. It is about the monies that passed directly through Abramoff’s hands, not the independent actions of those who had the misfortune of being his clients.
Is it possible that some Democrats may get swept up in the investigations? Sure. It isn’t likely to be many though, since the entire purpose of the GOP’s vaunted K street project was to kick the Dems off the lobbyist’s money train. Blathering about legal campaign contributions in order to muddy the waters concerning actually criminal actions isn’t going stand up well in the face of indictments and prosecutions. That so-called conservatives would think otherwise is yet another instance of the contempt that they have for the intelligence of the US electorate.
They’d be better off arguing that we’re at war so it’s ok to ignore the law.