Report says nonprofits sold clout to Abramoff (1 Viewer)

[aps]

Report says nonprofits sold clout to Abramoff
Senate panel concludes that 5 groups ‘appear to have perpetrated fraud’

WASHINGTON - Five conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, [:lol:] "appear to have perpetrated a fraud" on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senate investigators said in a report issued yesterday.

The report includes previously unreleased e-mails between the now-disgraced lobbyist and officers of the nonprofit groups, showing that Abramoff funneled money from his clients to the groups. In exchange, the groups, among other things, produced ostensibly independent newspaper op-ed columns or news releases that favored the clients' positions. . . .

Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy and could go to prison as early as next month. Prosecution and defense lawyers jointly filed papers yesterday asking a judge to recommend that he be sent to a federal facility in Cumberland, Md., to make it easier for him to cooperate with the ongoing probe. The investigation has resulted in one conviction and seven guilty pleas -- including one from a lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), who is to appear today before a federal judge in the District. . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15244022/

So it's only conservative groups that are involved? What a surprise (NOT). We reap what we sow, don't we??

 

[aps]

So no republicans have commented on this article. Interesting.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

Abramhoff was just a legit businessman trying his trade--the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is just taken this all out of context--Abramhoff is Jewish and anyone who believes he's guilty is just anti-semitic.

 

[RightinNYC]

Considering that nonprofits don't have the same stringent requirements that Members have on their funding and spending, I fail to see the problem here. It's impossible to "bribe" a nonprofit, as every single nonprofit in existance shapes its mission around the intentions of its donors. That's how it works. The difference between 501c(3)'s and 501c(4)'s is verrrry thin.

 

[aps]

Considering that nonprofits don't have the same stringent requirements that Members have on their funding and spending, I fail to see the problem here. It's impossible to "bribe" a nonprofit, as every single nonprofit in existance shapes its mission around the intentions of its donors. That's how it works. The difference between 501c(3)'s and 501c(4)'s is verrrry thin.

I could see your point if the person that was dealing with the nonprofits was someone who was honest and reputable. I find it very hard to believe that someone bribes Congressman, but is just so darn honest when it comes to dealing with nonprofits. Not. LOTS of Abramoff's "friends" have pled guilty or have been convicted (Safavian).

 

[RightinNYC]

I could see your point if the person that was dealing with the nonprofits was someone who was honest and reputable. I find it very hard to believe that someone bribes Congressman, but is just so darn honest when it comes to dealing with nonprofits. Not. LOTS of Abramoff's "friends" have pled guilty or have been convicted (Safavian).

That's not the point. Clearly, Abramoff was trying to influence the course of the nonprofits by making donations. The difference between the situation with Members of Congress and this situation is that it's not illegal for nonprofits to change their stance on issues as a result from shifting donor priorities.