Mark Schmitt writes:
Please don't reinforce the frame that this is a "lobbying scandal" and the villain a "lobbyist" named Jack Abramoff. That's the other side's frame. This is not a lobbying scandal. It's a betrayal-of-public-trust scandal. Lobbyists have no power, no influence, until a public servant gives them power. That's what DeLay and the K Street Project was all about. What they did was to set up a system by which lobbyists who proved their loyalty in various ways, such as taking DeLay and Ney on golf trips to Scotland, could be transformed from supplicants to full partners in government.
Abramoff did lots of terrible things and should go to jail, but never forget that every single criminal and unethical act of his was made possible by a public official. On his own, Abramoff had no power. At another time -- say, 1993 -- he would have been a joke.
Schmitt hints that the best policy response is a massive campaign finance overhaul, assumedly one with full public financing to ensure well-funded challenges against even the most entrenched incumbents. Certainly true. But more specifically, his political point is right as well. Given the frequency of congressional scandals and the low public regard for politicians, it's easy to think corruption a constant and Abramoff little more than an overzealous, but perfectly routine, actor in the tawdry drama that is the legislative process. That's the wrong way to go about it. As Mark says, Abramoff had no power without congressmen willing to sell him access and influence. The congressmen, at every step and each turn, retained agency, and the corruption is on their lap, not the lobbyist's.
