If you look at the amounts and the party affiliations, he showered the majority party in an attempt to influence their votes. Moreover, if you look at the contributions he made to the non-federal politicians, he was clearly going for Republican state reps and governors.
Attempting to buy votes is still attempting to buy votes. It would seem that the reasons why the republicans gained the majority in 1994 in part in response to corruption in the democratic party lawmakers no longer apply. What's even sadder is that many of the lawmakers in congress who benefited from Abramoff came into office in 1994 on an anti corruption campaign. Such hypocrisy. larry On 1/6/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So you're saying they're not AS guilty. Got it. > > http://newsbusters.org/node/3465 > > On 1/6/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > Actually not. There were considerably more republicans who have > > received his largess than democrats. http://www.antiwrap.com/?836 Far > > more republicans than democrats received donations from his lobbying > > groups. Mind you that list consists of those who are keeping the > > money. There are more than a few lists of who has received funding > > from Abramoff's groups, just count the numbers > > > > Also his largess went to more than the federal level, for instance > > Republican Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., received $16,000, and > > about 12 Marlyand legislators received around 1,000 to 5,000 each. > > > > larry > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:190989 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
