The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – Fallen lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s deal to cooperate in an influence-peddling investigation surely sent a chill Tuesday through Capitol Hill, where the Republican plied dozens of politicians with campaign contributions and favored some with lavish trips, Super Bowl tickets and pricey meals in exchange for legislative help.

“They have to be just sweating bullets,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group. “Anybody who ever had anything to do with Jack Abramoff has to be rethinking every minute, every conversation with him.”

The Abramoff case may not be marked by the outright bribery of corruption sagas such as Abscam and Koreagate, where members of Congress pocketed envelopes stuffed with cash. But it has the potential to rank as one of Congress’ worst scandals in decades because of the number of lawmakers and aides who could be ensnared – and because of the disgraced lobbyist’s reach into the top rungs of the GOP leadership.

Abramoff, who was one of President Bush’s top fundraisers and traded on his ties to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, pleaded guilty Tuesday to charges of conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion. It marked the latest twist in a corruption inquiry that is believed to be focusing on DeLay, R-Texas, and as many as 14 others on Capitol Hill.

“Government officials and government action are not for sale,” said Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, who heads the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The Justice Department will aggressively investigate and prosecute these types of cases, which have a devastating impact on the public’s trust of government. We will not shy away from that responsibility, no matter where the trail leads.”

One lawmaker who may be in the crosshairs is Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee. In the Abramoff plea agreement, prosecutors detailed the legislative favors that Ney – identified only as “Representative No. 1” in court papers – performed for Abramoff’s clients after receiving political contributions, overseas travel and other gifts.

“At the time I dealt with Jack Abramoff, I obviously did not know, and had no way of knowing, the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff’s activities,” Ney said, denying wrongdoing.

Though Jack Abramoff has yet to become a household name, experts say the scandal could resonate with a public increasingly nervous about public corruption. An AP-Ipsos poll last month found that 88 percent of Americans believe corruption at all levels of government is a serious problem, with 51 percent calling it very serious.

“What makes a person like Abramoff so dangerous is he embodies and personifies problems that usually seem technical or abstract or too big to deal with,” said Julian Zelizer, a Boston University history professor who wrote a book on congressional scandals. “Here you have a kind of villain that I think Americans might start paying attention to a bit.”

And just as Republicans used ethics as a cudgel to end House Democrats’ four-decade lock on power in 1994, Zelizer and other experts said the current scandal holds peril for the GOP even though some Democrats also received Abramoff’s largesse.

“There is always the cliche “a pox on both your houses.’ But I do think the party in power does take extra heat on these things,” said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, among the watchdog groups that tracked the $2.1 billion paid by corporations and special interests to lobby Washington last year.

The Abramoff scandal holds the potential for strengthening lobbying disclosure and campaign finance regulations, particularly if the investigation remains front-page news with politicians’ indictments, Noble said.

At the very least, there could be more scrutiny of lobbying, which Center for Public Integrity executive director Roberta Baskin called the “fourth branch of government in Washington.”

“It’s like the sun coming up on K Street right now,” Baskin said. “There is the possibility and hope of there being a lot more scrutiny and accountability.”

But Danielle Brian, head of the Project on Government Oversight, predicted change would be slow without a public outcry to force lawmakers to action.

“I definitely am not looking to Congress to make the changes themselves,” Brian said, noting that the House and Senate ethics committees have been largely moribund in recent years. “I don’t see there is any evidence there is any real self-policing going on.”

—

Copy the Story Link