Giving away Abramoff's money -- too late?

Libertarian · 6th January 2006, 06:50 AM

Maybe some of you scholars can explain this to me. I've seen several stories about politicians, up to and including the President, who are getting rid of funds that they received from Abramoff, either by giving it to charity or some other means.

To me, this looks ridiculous! Are the politicians and the electorate so cynical about the current state of politics that these actions are supposed to absolve the lawmakers from scrutiny?

Tex · 6th January 2006, 08:22 AM

Politicians are all about image. Giving the money away may not actually help them, but keeping the money would look pretty bad. Just my guess.

shecky · 6th January 2006, 08:34 AM

I'm not so sure it's necessarily a sign of dishonesty. It's entirely possible that a politician is truly unaware of where or how money gets into his pockets. And the cynical may not really want to know.

TragicMonkey · 6th January 2006, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by shecky

It's entirely possible that a politician is truly unaware of where or how money gets into his pockets.

To me, that's the hallmark of someone who doesn't need to be in office, ever. If they can't stay on top of their own damn campaign fund while running for office, what the hell will happen when they're elected?

davefoc · 6th January 2006, 10:14 PM

I wondered exactly about this when the Bush administration gave back the $6,000 it got directly from Abramoff.

Why not give it back a long time ago. Was there somebody in the Bush administration thinking that Abramoff wasn't in serious trouble? The $6,000 bucks was an insignificant amount to the Bush campaign chest, why hold on to it until after abramoff pleads guilty so that the story of giving back the money looks like just a phoney public relations gesture?

The Bush administration hasn't given back the money raised by Abramoff yet, I guess they see that as the result of gains from legitimate corporate bribery but they see accepting the money that was personally donated by Abramoff as a bit ethically challenged. I think it says something really good about the Bush administration that they can make these difficult moral distinctions with such precision.

On the subject of saying something legitimately good about the Bush administration, it is the justice department that they control that is going after these guys. I wonder what the reality there is. Is this a case of pure altruism, a kind of running the government in the best interests of the American citizenry or is this just a few out of control federal prosecutors going off on their own to do something they think is right and the Bush administration doesn't have the political capital to reign them in.

Art Vandelay · 6th January 2006, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

To me, that's the hallmark of someone who doesn't need to be in office, ever. If they can't stay on top of their own damn campaign fund while running for office, what the hell will happen when they're elected?

If you're raising millions of dollars, it's hardly reasonable to expect them to keep track of every single one of them. In fact, why would you want them to? What use would they have for that knowledge, other than to know who they "owe" once they get into office?

jj · 6th January 2006, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

If you're raising millions of dollars, it's hardly reasonable to expect them to keep track of every single one of them. In fact, why would you want them to? What use would they have for that knowledge, other than to know who they "owe" once they get into office?

Why does this sound just like the phrase "I did not have sex?"

Cut me a break, Art, this is lamer than Mr. Bill, and that is pretty (rule 8) lame.

punchdrunk · 6th January 2006, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

If you're raising millions of dollars, it's hardly reasonable to expect them to keep track of every single one of them.

I think it's very reasonable. If you have millions of dollars, and presumably most of that money is of the clean variety, why not spend a little bit of it towards accounting for what you are taking in?

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

In fact, why would you want them to? What use would they have for that knowledge, other than to know who they "owe" once they get into office?

Uh, so they don't take money from people like Jack Abramoff?

Art Vandelay · 6th January 2006, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Why does this sound just like the phrase "I did not have sex?"

I have absolutely no idea. Do you?

Quote:

Cut me a break, Art, this is lamer than Mr. Bill, and that is pretty (rule 8) lame.

What's lame about it? It seems quite reasonable to me. If a politician doesn't know that corporation X gave him a campaign contribution, then he won't be influenced to vote in corporation X's favor.

6th January 2006, 06:50 AM	#1
Libertarian Thinker Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 248	Giving away Abramoff's money -- too late? Maybe some of you scholars can explain this to me. I've seen several stories about politicians, up to and including the President, who are getting rid of funds that they received from Abramoff, either by giving it to charity or some other means. To me, this looks ridiculous! Are the politicians and the electorate so cynical about the current state of politics that these actions are supposed to absolve the lawmakers from scrutiny?
Libertarian Thinker Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 248	__________________ "Making fun of born-again christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." -- P. J. O'Rourke "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." -- G. Norquist

6th January 2006, 08:22 AM	#2
Tex Scholar Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 100	Politicians are all about image. Giving the money away may not actually help them, but keeping the money would look pretty bad. Just my guess.
Tex Scholar Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 100

6th January 2006, 08:40 AM	#4
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,069	Originally Posted by shecky It's entirely possible that a politician is truly unaware of where or how money gets into his pockets. To me, that's the hallmark of someone who doesn't need to be in office, ever. If they can't stay on top of their own damn campaign fund while running for office, what the hell will happen when they're elected?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

6th January 2006, 11:08 PM	#7
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,503	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay If you're raising millions of dollars, it's hardly reasonable to expect them to keep track of every single one of them. In fact, why would you want them to? What use would they have for that knowledge, other than to know who they "owe" once they get into office? Why does this sound just like the phrase "I did not have sex?" Cut me a break, Art, this is lamer than Mr. Bill, and that is pretty (rule 8) lame.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

6th January 2006, 11:35 PM	#8
punchdrunk Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,003	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay If you're raising millions of dollars, it's hardly reasonable to expect them to keep track of every single one of them. I think it's very reasonable. If you have millions of dollars, and presumably most of that money is of the clean variety, why not spend a little bit of it towards accounting for what you are taking in? Originally Posted by Art Vandelay In fact, why would you want them to? What use would they have for that knowledge, other than to know who they "owe" once they get into office? Uh, so they don't take money from people like Jack Abramoff?
	__________________ Freedom is self-responsibility; nothing less, nothing more. Finally, proof!: "Republicans = evil fundie criminal warmonger vampires" - (BPSCG, 5/11/06)

6th January 2006, 08:34 AM	#3
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	I'm not so sure it's necessarily a sign of dishonesty. It's entirely possible that a politician is truly unaware of where or how money gets into his pockets. And the cynical may not really want to know.

6th January 2006, 10:14 PM	#5
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,254	I wondered exactly about this when the Bush administration gave back the $6,000 it got directly from Abramoff. Why not give it back a long time ago. Was there somebody in the Bush administration thinking that Abramoff wasn't in serious trouble? The $6,000 bucks was an insignificant amount to the Bush campaign chest, why hold on to it until after abramoff pleads guilty so that the story of giving back the money looks like just a phoney public relations gesture? The Bush administration hasn't given back the money raised by Abramoff yet, I guess they see that as the result of gains from legitimate corporate bribery but they see accepting the money that was personally donated by Abramoff as a bit ethically challenged. I think it says something really good about the Bush administration that they can make these difficult moral distinctions with such precision. On the subject of saying something legitimately good about the Bush administration, it is the justice department that they control that is going after these guys. I wonder what the reality there is. Is this a case of pure altruism, a kind of running the government in the best interests of the American citizenry or is this just a few out of control federal prosecutors going off on their own to do something they think is right and the Bush administration doesn't have the political capital to reign them in.

6th January 2006, 11:02 PM	#6
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey To me, that's the hallmark of someone who doesn't need to be in office, ever. If they can't stay on top of their own damn campaign fund while running for office, what the hell will happen when they're elected? If you're raising millions of dollars, it's hardly reasonable to expect them to keep track of every single one of them. In fact, why would you want them to? What use would they have for that knowledge, other than to know who they "owe" once they get into office?

6th January 2006, 11:35 PM	#9
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by jj Why does this sound just like the phrase "I did not have sex?" I have absolutely no idea. Do you? Quote: Cut me a break, Art, this is lamer than Mr. Bill, and that is pretty (rule 8) lame. What's lame about it? It seems quite reasonable to me. If a politician doesn't know that corporation X gave him a campaign contribution, then he won't be influenced to vote in corporation X's favor.