Ethical, Criminal Fallout from Abramoff Scandal

Former Representative Is Sentenced as Senate Reins in Lobbyists

The Jack Abramoff scandal has created a tidal wave of recent change in Washington, contributing to Republican electoral defeats, leading to significant tightening of Congressional ethics rules and sending former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) to prison for 30 months.

Washington Post special report: Lobbyist Jack Abramoff

Peter H. Stone, who has covered the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal extensively for National Journal and wrote the recent book "Heist: Superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, His Republican Allies, and the Buying of Washington," was online Monday, Jan. 22 at 1 p.m. ET to talk about how changes to ethics rules will alter the D.C. playing field.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Peter H. Stone: Thanks for the invitation to chat about the wide ranging and ongoing fallout from the Abramoff influence peddling scandal. Since the first details broke in The Post almost three years ago, the scandal has resulted in eight convictions and plea bargains including most recently former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) who last week was sentenced to two and half years in jail. On another front, both the House and the Senate half moved quickly and aggressively to address some of the abuses linked to Abramoff by placing new and tough curbs on lobbyists and their organizations buying meals and providing travel for Members. Much more is expected this year too from the federal task force that's been probing the scandal.

_______________________

Willoughby Hills, Ohio: We have attempted to regulate campaign finance, and corruption, in federal office for a century -- both parties. Aren't we simply changing the parties and incumbents? Can we not expect the Democrats to be as assiduous in skirting the laws in pursuit of greed as the Republicans were?

Peter H. Stone: So far it looks like the Democratic controlled Congress is off to a good start with the reforms that both Houses have adopted. But it remains to be seen just how the Democrats will deal with lobbyists in practice now that they control Congress.

_______________________

Southbury, Conn.: I'm not optimistic that any of the reforms will change things. They only initiate another wave of creative ways to get around the law. A positive step would be to eliminate the revolving door between K Street and the government by imposing at least a three-year waiting period between jobs.

Peter H. Stone: It's much to early to write off the reforms that Congress has just enacted some of which will have to be worked out in conference. The Senate has passed a new two year ban that if the House adopts it should be given a chance to work

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If the Abramoff scandal is such a significant event, why hasn't it caused the Democrats or even some Republicans (who supposedly have been hurt by it) to legislate public financing of elections, which would go a long way toward making our democratic process democratic again?

Peter H. Stone: I think that a few former members of Congress including Warren Rudman, a one time head of the Senate Ethics Committee, last year began to explore new proposals for public financing of Congressional campaigns. This might indeed eliminate the pressures which have increased enormously in recent years for Members to spend inordinate amounts of time raising money for their campaigns and turning to lobbyists and other special interests for help.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: As he seems to be quoted almost daily in The Post and other newspapers, I wonder whether Grover Norquist will ever be indicted for being part of an apparently money-laundering scheme that involved Abramoff and Ralph Reed. The scheme was unveiled by The Post, I believe.

Peter H. Stone: Most lawyers I have spoken with think that if Norquist has any problems they're most likely in the area of allowing Abramoff to use his nonprofit Americans for Tax Reform as a conduit to send funds to Ralph Reed and others. The consensus has been that he could face civil penalties and maybe lose the tax exempt status his group has enjoyed, but this is far from certain and the DOJ probe has been focused on bigger targets to date

_______________________

Waretown, N.J.: I am looking forward to reading your book. It certainly seems as though earmark reform, in some form, will be in place for the Fiscal Year 2008 budget. My question: Do you believe that the Fiscal Year 2007 Continuing Resolution (or Joint Funding Resolution) truly will be devoid of earmarks? Seems as though that would be difficult to do politically. After all, some earmarks have large constituencies. Thanks for your thoughts. Thank you so much.

Peter H. Stone: No earmarks aren't going to vanish overnight. But the new ethics reforms will provide considerable transparency that should curb some of the egregious ones involved in the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals.

_______________________

Pittsburgh: Every time a new set of laws against bribery and corruption is passed, they're effective -- but only until lobbyists et al find a way to circumvent them. Consider, for example, the post-Watergate reforms which, following the law of unintended consequences, resulted in PACs. I favor the current legislation on general principle but am concerned that it's just a matter of time until ways are found to undermine them. Do you think anything will ever be effective long-term?

Peter H. Stone: I think that reforms -- when they're successful ones -- address scandals or abuses that are clear. Lawyers and lobbyists are adept at finding loopholes, but right now it looks like Congress is trying to move aggressively to curb some of the bigger abuses i.e. earmarks, free junkets and other freebies -- that characterized the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: According to the media sources I listen to (e.g. FOX, Washington Times, Debbie Howell is one), Abramoff also was in cahoots with Democrats. Why haven't any of them been indicted?

Peter H. Stone: Abramoff through some of his lobbying associates did indeed have ties to some Democrats, but his forte was his links to GOP heavyweights like former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and now convicted ex-Rep. Bob Ney. The approach that DOJ has been taking so far is to focus mainly on and target those lobbyists, Capitol Hill aides and Members who have received multiple favors from Abramoff ("a stream of things of value" is the phrase that prosecutors have used) and done legislative favors in exchange. So far that's meant targeting mostly his GOP allies on Capitol Hill and K Street, but it's possible that this will widen or change before the probe wraps up.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The White House's effort to hide President Bush's ties to Jack Abramoff (quashing photos and visitor logs, etc.) made him look culpable too. Did you uncover any evidence of White House involvement in Abramoff's illegal activities?

Peter H. Stone: The extent of favors from the White House to Abramoff and his lobbying colleagues still is one that needs more probing by the media and perhaps Congress. There were some tantalizing emails and other documents released late last year by a House committee run by Rep. Tom Davis, and I think there's a possibility that more will come out this year with Rep. Henry Waxman D-Calif. now leading the committee. We did discover that Abramoff's long time aide Susan Ralston who went to work for Karl Rove at the White House took hundreds of dollars of sports tickets from Abramoff at a time when she was helping him schedule meetings at the WH and pass along lobbying materials. Ralston was forced to resign from Rove's office last year as a result.

_______________________

Chevy Chase, Md.: Which is the most scandalous: the amounts of money that Abramoff's clients were willing to pay to influence government decisions in their favor or the fact that Abramoff and his friend, Scanlon, were pocketing large amounts of those payments for their own use? I'm inclined to think that it is the former.

Peter H. Stone: Interesting question and certainly in some cases you have a point. Yet in this scandal and in terms of breaking the law, Abramoff and Scanlon clearly defrauded several casino rich Indian tribes by hiding their secret partnership. Known famously as "Gimme Five," this scam involved millions of dollars in kickbacks that Scanlon paid to Abramoff after the former was hired by the tribes at Abramoff's urging and with no knowledge that the duo had a secret deal.

_______________________

Norfolk, Va.: There seems to be an order of magnitude difference between Democratic (smaller) and Republican (huge) financial scandals. Is this your perception?

Peter H. Stone: I think that over the years both parties have been linked to big scandals that should and did embarrass them and lead to reform efforts.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: On a seamier front, is there much evidence to suggest Abramoff knew about the Sun Cruise murder case?

Peter H. Stone: Unless there are some bombshells to come, there's virtually nothing to suggest that Abramoff had any knowledge of Gus Boulis' murder in February 2001.

_______________________

Peter H. Stone: Thanks for all the good questions today. I hope folks keep paying attention to the scandal and its fallout because the story is far from over, and the scandal's importance as a cautionary tale about the rising influence of money and lobbyists in Washington is one that will resonate for a long time to come.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.