Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff says in a new book that the 1,299 nights he spent in jail have opened his eyes about how to rid Washington of corruption.
Abramoff, who was convicted for his involvement in a massive corruption scheme in which he pleaded guilty to cheating Indian tribes out of tens of millions of dollars in lobbying fees and bribing lawmakers and staffers with lavish gifts, writes that he had “an epiphany” in prison.
POLITICO obtained an advanced copy the autobiography, “Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist,” set to be released on Nov. 7.
In the 3½ years he spent at Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Md., Abramoff says he paced the track at the medium security prison day after day, “consumed” by the problem of how government can be cleaned up.
One of the conclusions he draws is to entirely eliminate any campaign contributions by lobbyists, those bidding for federal contracts and anyone else who stands to benefit financially from public funds.
Lobbyists should not only be banned from making campaign donations, but they should also not be allowed to give gifts, he argues.
“Instead of limiting the amount of money a lobbyist may spend on wining and dining congressional members and staff, eliminate it entirely,” says Abramoff, himself guilty of once having lavished contributions, meals, event tickets, travel, golf and jobs on federal officials. “No finger food, no snacks, no hot dogs. Nothing.”
The ex-lobbyist also proposes eliminating the “lure of post-public service lobbying employment,” suggesting anyone who served in Congress or as a congressional aide should be “barred for life” from lobbying the government.
“That may seem harsh — and it is,” he says, but nonetheless adds, “If you choose public service, choose it to serve the public, not your bank account. When you’re done serving, go home. Get a real job.”
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
3 Responses
Perhaps reb Abramoff was also in prison when the U.S. Supreme court ruled in the Citizens United case that any such restrictions on donations to political parties or candidates is unconstitutional under the Free Speech clause.
Why not require a politician to recuse himself from any matter in which someone who has contributed anything to him has a interest? That way you solve the problem, without banning free speech. Citizens could still contribute to their favorite politicians, but the politician wouldn’t be allowed to take part in decisions that would benefit the contributor. Thus when Mr. Abramoff bribed (via contributions) all those politicians, it wouldn’t help since they wouldn’t be allowed to vote on the matters that would help his clients.
Gadol: You are right. When the 9 robed “Judges” can rule against 90 years of case law, already approved by generations of other 9 robed Judges, they are legislating by the bench.
There are 2 options:
1) Impeach them (Hard to do), or
2) Amend the Constitution. (Hard to do … but possible.)
Citizens United proves that you have no power because, just as Abramoff thinks, lobbyist have way, way too much influence. Corporations have too much power. And whether the SCOTUS can decide a law is unconstitutional is NOT in the Constitution. Since Marbury v Madison, The Supreme Court has too much power.
Kudos to Jack!