The Volokh Conspiracy

I'll be interested to see who is elected in his place. It might suggest a lot about how the GOP intends to market itself for the midterm elections.

NJ Annuitant, when you refer to "Abramoff money" do you mean that (1) Abramoff gave money to Reid, or (2) Reid received money from someone that was also a client of Abramoff? If (2), is there any proof that Abramoff has any connection with the giving of the money to Reid? If it is not (1) and you do not have proof of any connection between the giving of the money to Reid and Abramoff (other than the the contributor was a client of Reid), why do you refer to it as "Abramoff money?"

I think the next person most likely to get it is John Boehner. The press has talked about him a lot so they must be hearing some buzz from members.

Er, no. Surely it has not escaped your attention that the press has its own agenda, which is not often consistent with that of the Republican Party? You here a lot about John McCain from the press, too. Hopefully you don't think that's because he's broadly popular among Republican rank-and-file.

I also think that David Dreier of California might have a shot.

That seems very unlikely. I think the Republican Party regards California as occupied terrority, and not without reason. A leadership post should go to someone who represents the core of the Party, which is why DeLay was good for and at the job, which is why he was Enemy #3 (after GWB and Dick Cheney) to the Democrats and the press. Giving the post to someone who can't do boo for the party in his home state, and who is far from the Party's core constituencies, makes very little sense, regardless of his personal qualities.

In short, look for another true-blue red-state Southerner.

Wrightflier:
One of Reid's senior staffers took a job with Ambramoff, and while on Abramoff's payroll raised money for Reid, and even held a fundraiser for Reid in Abramoffs offices. It would be hard to paint a picture where the money fron Abramoff's clients was unrelated to Abramoff. Reid also wrote at least one letter on behalf of those clients to the Dept. of Interior.

But that doesn't mean Reid or Delay did anything wrong. I can't believe the corruption in Washington is so bad that lobbiests are offering ileagel bribes indiscriminately. It probably more like they build up confidence over time whidh congressmen are willing to go over the line and then exploit that. Congressmen as powerful as those two don't need to go over the line to haul in the cash. There are lots of others that do need to put out the extra effort to get contributions and they should be rooted out.

I'd love to see a reform neasure that outlawed all corporate money, both profit and non profit, including unions, going to candidates or parties.

The last sentence in that first para should be:

"Hence, there is no inherent need for those folks to give those campaign donations back, as long as there was no quid pro quo for the donation."

NJ:

I would first like to point out that David Dreier already is in the leadership. He is committee chair of the Rules Committee. This, of course, is the most important committee to running the House, because it establishes the rules for what amendments can be offered and how votes will go on bills.

Second, if you read what I wrote, you would have seen that I said Roy Blunt is most likely to win to keep consistency in the leadership. I was only trying to handicap it and introduce some other people who may challenge Blunt and have a reasonable shot. Dreier, because of his leadership position and his consistent conservative philosophy has a shot. Boehner also has a shot because of his conservative record and his leadership in the House.

One final note on the press. The press may have an agenda and it may not. Despite what I have heard from conservatives throughout my life, I have never seen a consistent agenda from the MSM. I have seen agendas in many different institutions, but I do not think they are what you think they are or are running in the same direction. Ignoring that for a moment and accepting your proposition that the MSM has a consistent agenda, the agenda would not be harmed nor helped by denying or faking rumors of one candidate or another as the leadership of one house or the other. If you will note, the press, especially the Washington Post, were the first to name Nancy Pelosi as the most likely to be minority leader. They also were the first to suggest that Delay would move up from majority whip to leader after the Gingrich resignation.

Noah

Kazinski said:

"I'd love to see a reform neasure that outlawed all corporate money, both profit and non profit, including unions, going to candidates or parties."

I'd love to see a reform measure that outlawed all money going to candidates and parties, period. (How much trouble could they cause if defunded?) I suspect we are equally likely to see our wishes granted.

Kaz:

The charges against Abramoff and Scanlon are that they bribed a Congressman. These charges were proved correct by Abramoff's guilty plea. The Congresman in question has been demonstrated to be Bob Ney (R-OH), because the facts of the case and the facts in the Congressional record show it to be Bob Ney.

Second, as to your point that there is no greater evidence against Delay than Cantwell, I would disagree. Scanlon was a Delay staffer. Furthermore, Delay accepted several trips from non-profits run by Abramoff where he had conversations with Abramoff's clients and Delay preformed official actions to address those clients' concerns. No quid pro quo has been proven yet and thus Delay is innocent until proven guilty, but these actions are definately shady and Delay will be investigated for them. Cantwell, on the other hand, has had no charges made against her of a similar nature as far as I know.

I think people are not making the important distinction between Abramoff's clients and Abramoff himself. I have looked through websites that follow campaign contributions and have found no contributions from Abramoff to a Democrat. I have on the other hand read news reports that demonstrate Abramoff's clients gave money to Democrats. Some may see this as a distinction without a difference. I don't. I think that the money Abramoff's clients have given to Democrats may be independent of Abramoff. If not and if Abramoff directed his clients to donate to Democrats, this may not illegal because there may have been no quid pro quo. None of this is publicly known yet. On the other hand, some Republican members' possibly illegal actions have been demonstrated and thus it is not to much of a presumption to say so far this is a Republican scandal even if Democrats received money from Abramoff.

Finally, from all the publicly known information, Republicans seem to be more involved in this than Democrats, but we will soon find out all the relevant information.

Noah

KMAJ:

The names I have heard are Ney, Delay, Burns and possibly Dorgan. I have never heard Reid brought into any discussions of possibly illegal activities. I was hoping you could flush out what the accusations are against Reid and tell me from where you got it.

Noah

I would suggest that anyone who might like to know why the Republican party is probably in more trouble here should google for the "K Street Project."

Essentially, ten years ago, Delay and Abramoff devised a plan to shift the influential lobbyist firms on K Street into the Republican political machine by forcing lobbying firms to employ republicans in exchange for access to policy makers. It was at the time regarded as a brilliant political move, but now that there will be a period of scrutiny regarding lobbying, it will probably be a liability for the Republican party.

McCain is not real popular with Conservatives. He is popular with middle of the roaders that think we can find common ground with the Democrats. Conservatives appreciate the way he has stood with the President on Iraq, but distrust someone that would sell the first amendment down the river in exchange for incumbent protection.