E-mails obtained by the Associated Press indicate how Abramoff’s team used the lure of campaign contributions to obtain an earmark for a school construction project desired by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan

Abramoff’s team worked with Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow to get the Senate Democrats, then in control of the Senate, to request the money. Abramoff also turned to Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) to write the earmarked provision for the money. The plan hit a snag when a lone GOP House staffer, Joel Kaplan, objected to the money. That is when the e-mails become of interest:

A staffer for the National Republican Congressional Committee, Jonathan Poe, suggested Abramoff's team compile a list of tribal donations, comparing Republicans with Democrats, to help make the case for lawmakers to overrrule Kaplan, the e-mails state.

Poe's "suggestion for me was to have a list of money contributed by tribes broken down 'r' to 'd' so that I can make the cleanest argument that we are about to let the Senate Democrats take credit for the biggest ask of the year by the most Republican-leaning tribes," Abramoff lobbying associate Neil Volz wrote.

Abramoff's team obliged, creating a tally that showed his tribal clients overwhelmingly donated to Republicans — $225,000 compared with $79,000 for Democrats.
…
The Abramoff team's pressure came the same day the NRCC, the GOP's fundraising arm for Republican House candidates, held its major fundraising dinner with President Bush. The Saginaw were a dinner sponsor, donating $50,000.

Aside from the Republican Party getting involved in Abramoff's contribution-for-action scheme two specific lawmakers come up for scrutiny in the e-mails:

In early 2003, Kaplan's new boss, House subcommittee chairman Charles Taylor, R-N.C., ended any problems in the House when he signed onto the Saginaw money. Burns' office took up the fight in the Senate.

Both oversaw subcomittees that controlled Interior's budget, and the two lawmakers wrote a letter in May 2003 in an effort to overcome resistance inside Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was arguing the Saginaw shouldn't qualify for the school program.
…
The blunt letter has caught federal investigators' interest because it referenced correspondence that had been drafted inside Interior but never delivered. Federal agents are investigating whether an Interior official leaked the draft to Abramoff's team so it could be used by the lawmakers to pressure the department.

In addition, both Burns and Taylor got campaign money around the time of their help.

A month before the letter, Abramoff's firm threw Taylor a fundraiser on April 11, 2003, that scored thousands of dollars in donations for the lawmaker's campaign, including $2,000 from Abramoff and $1,000 from the Saginaw. The tribe donated $3,000 more to Taylor a month after the letter.

Burns, likewise, got fresh donations. Several weeks before the letter, Burns collected $1,000 from the Saginaw and $5,000 from another Abramoff tribe. The month after the letter, the Saginaw delivered $4,000 in donations to Burns.

Nothing is coming up Burns these days.

Despite the inability of a deeply-split Congress to pass any kind of immigration bill before heading off for their Easter recess, the surprisingly large and widespread turnouts of marchers around the country – largely Hispanic – are keeping this issue very much alive. That’s making a lot of politicians nervous, and for good reason. Unlike most issues dealt with in Washington, this one isn’t being carefully stage-managed solely by the usual inside-the-Beltway operatives: lobbyists, PR companies, and money men. In fact, looked at through the lens of money in politics, the immigration issue is almost invisible. A search of the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets website shows eight PACs with “immigration” in their names: • Americans Against Illegal Immigration • Americans for Legal Immigration

Currently, federal law sets the rate of pay for the President of the United States at $400,000 a year. Assuming that he works 48 weeks a year (there are those who would argue that our current President doesn't, but I tend to think those arguments are cheap and petty -- even on vacation, the office travels with him), that works out to an hourly rate of $208.33 ($400,000/(48 wks * 40 hrs/wk).

Meanwhile, private contractors charge the government, for the use of some employees -- well, look here, on page 9 -- to see that Deloitte & Touche charges the Feds $249.37 an hour for a partner/principal, or here for the $294.21 charged by George Washington University for a Senior Executive Consultant/Lecturer (defined as someone who is a...

Top leader in subject area. Serves as distinguished subject matter expert in content or delivery. Maintains current knowledge of industry best practices and ongoing industry developments and completes whitepapers and speaking engagements on such topics as requested by preeminent publications and organizations. Works with other senior management and senior corporate management to develop the direction of the organization and ensure that the organization s people can meet those needs.

...or here to see the $225 an hour for a senior economist, $230 for a managing director, $320 an hour for a vice president (the one we elect--the one who lives in the Naval Observatory--earns a scant $108 an hour by comparison), $380 for a senior vice president or a senior managing director, and $420 an hour for president (twice what we pay the one we've chosen to faithfully execute the laws of these United States) charged by Lukens Energy Group. Good enough for government work indeed.

Yesterday the New York Times reported on the involvement of spouses and family members in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Julie Doolittle, the wife of Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), “has been subpoenaed … and questioned by the F.B.I.” about her “marketing and events-planning work for Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying firm and for his Washington restaurant, Signatures”. Rep. Tom DeLay’s wife Christine “received $115,000 in consulting fees from 1998 to 2002” from the U.S. Family Network, a nonprofit run by former DeLay chief of staff Ed Buckham who is currently “under scrutiny by the Justice Department because of his lobbying contacts with Mr. DeLay’s House office.” Lisa Rudy, the wife of Tony Rudy, the ex-deputy chief of staff to DeLay who pled guilty last week, “received $50,000 in consulting fees as a result of what her husband has acknowledged was a corrupt scheme with Mr. Abramoff to influence the workings of Mr. DeLay’s office and promote the concerns of Mr. Abramoff’s clients on Capitol Hill.” Wendy Buckham, the wife of Ed Buckham, “shared more than $1 million in consulting fees with her husband from the U.S. Family Network, a nonprofit group tied to Mr. DeLay. The group has drawn the scrutiny of law enforcement officials because so much of its income was directed to the Buckham family and appears to have come from Russian businessmen eager to court favor from Mr. DeLay.” The Times also provides a graphic illustrating the connections to family members in this bribery scheme.

This morning's Washington Post reports (based on an earlier Wall Street Journal article that I don't have access to) that federal investigators are looking into the finances of Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), the Ranking Minority Member on the House Ethics Committee:

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that federal prosecutors have opened an investigation of Mollohan's personal financial disclosures. The article also raised questions about earmarks -- or special provisions included in federal spending bills -- that he has steered to nonprofits in West Virginia in the past five years. Mollohan, a member of both the ethics and appropriations committees, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. He acknowledged in an interview making real estate investments with the head of a nonprofit company that received federal money from earmarks Mollohan backed. But, he contended, he is fully "at risk" in the investments and received no special favors in either financing or locating the investments.

You can look up Mollohan's financial disclosures here; the issue is the rapidity with which Mollohan's net worth increased. The Post reports on a press release from the National Legal and Policy Center

"Mollohan's 2000 Financial Disclosure Report listed his income-producing assets as being worth from $179,012 to $562,000 with liabilities of $170,000 to $465,000. . . . Just four years later, Mollohan's 2004 Financial Disclosure Report showed him with assets worth $6,313,025 to $24,947,000 offset by liabilities in the $3,665,011 to $13,500,000 range. It also showed him owning an oceanfront beach house on Bald Head Island, NC which was valued at $1,000,000 to $5,000,000."

According to CongressDaily PM, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is calling on Minority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) to remove the ranking Democrat Alan Mollohan from the Ethics Committee after a Wall Street Journal article stated that he is currently under investigation in a possible earmarking scandal.

Go read Bill Moyers on corruption and money in politics. Click through to get a taste (read more):

The Saginaw Chippewa tribe that benefited from a $3 million earmark written by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) will return the money to the government and ask that it be distributed to other tribes in the wake of revelations that the earmark may have been generated through a corrupt process involving Jack Abramoff. The Washington Post reports,

"After careful consideration, our tribal council has decided not to move forward with the construction of the school, because it is not financially prudent to pursue this project at this time," tribal officials wrote in a letter yesterday to Burns and other lawmakers. They asked that Congress use the money to offset some of the cuts in the BIA's budget.

...

Burns has said he sought the grant because he is interested in improving conditions on Indian reservations. A spokesman for his office had no immediate comment on the tribe's decision.

...

Abramoff's lobbying team had strong ties to Burns's staff. One appropriations aide went back and forth between jobs on Burns's staff and Abramoff's team. Another Burns appropriations staffer and Burns's chief of staff were treated to a trip to the 2001 Super Bowl in Florida on a corporate jet leased by SunCruz, a Florida casino cruise line then owned by Abramoff and several partners.

Porkbusters has a great chart on their site showing how deep the reductions in earmarks are for the coming fiscal year. Their source says that earmarks have been reduced by 37% from fiscal year 2006, a huge drop considering that every year over the past decade they have grown exponentially. This also comes on the heels of yesterday’s Roll Call story on Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) enforcing new earmarking rules, restricting members to 5 earmark requests each.

 

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has established a new website to push for accountability in how taxpayer funds are spent. The website states:

Each month, taxpayers "contribute" to the Federal government out of their hard-earned income. That "contribution" is taken by the Federal government under laws of Federal taxation, under threat of imprisonment and fines for those who refuse to pay their taxes. When a government wields this enormous amount of power, there is no room for any abuse of that power. Unaccountable spending of tax dollars is an abuse of power. Taxpayers have a right to demand accountability of all Federal agencies and programs.

 

Accountability means that an agency or program measurably achieves the mission it was created to achieve, in a cost-effective, efficient, and open manner.

 

As the branch of government that spends the taxpayers' money, Congress is ultimately responsible for ensuring accountability for those expenditures. When Congress fails to do its job overseeing current Federal spending, while at the same time, increasing that spending each year, citizens have been unconstitutionally deprived of appropriate checks and balances to which they are entitled as taxpayers.

Coburn's new site plans to issue reports on government waste, earmarks, and failures to account for government spending of taxpayer funds. It mirrors the House Government Reform Committee Minority Office website run by ranking Democrat Henry Waxman (D-CA) that regularly issues investigative reports on government actions and spending.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that the Justice Department has commenced a probe of Alan Mollohan (D-WV), the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee, for his use of earmarking projects for nonprofits in his district:

A 12-term congressman, Mr. Mollohan sits on the House Appropriations Committee, a panel that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff dubbed the "favor factory." Working with fellow West Virginian Sen. Robert Byrd, Mr. Mollohan has steered at least $178 million to nonprofit groups in his district over the past five years using "earmarks" -- special-interest provisions that are slipped into spending bills to direct money to pet projects.

 

The money has brought more than jobs and building projects to his district. It has formed and financed a tight-knit network of nonprofit institutions in West Virginia that are run by people who contribute regularly to Mr. Mollohan's campaigns, political-action committee and a family foundation. One of these people also invests in real estate alongside Mr. Mollohan and his wife. The network of contributors also includes private companies that get contracts through these nonprofits.

…

Central to the Mollohan network is a former staffer, Laura Kuhns, who heads the nonprofit Vandalia Heritage Foundation. It is a historic-preservation group that is financed almost exclusively by earmarks backed by Mr. Mollohan. It paid her $102,000 in 2004. Vandalia is coordinating construction of the new building for the Institute for Scientific Research, or ISR, and Ms. Kuhns sits on its board and those of three other nonprofits that get funds via earmarks.

 

She and her husband also are partners with Mr. Mollohan and his wife in five properties in Bald Head Island, N.C., valued in local real-estate records at a total of $2 million. The Mollohans recently bought a $1.45 million oceanfront home on the island, called the Peppervine House, which they rent out for $8,555 a week, next to the Kuhns' house, known as Cape Fearless. These and other investments, including a stake in a nine-story luxury condominium complex in Washington, appear to have made the Mollohans wealthy.

Mollohan has not been accused of wrong doing but “[s]uch a pattern raises questions about whether the donations or deals might be a way beneficiaries of earmarks could influence the legislator's actions.”