A 'Microsoft Moment' for political e-mailers?
By Christian Crumlish, 01/08/2006 - 6:28pm

When Microsoft was being subjected to antitrust scrutiny by the US Department of Justice, the companies deep, accumulated e-mail archives proved to be an achilles heel, yielding one incriminating message after another, despite protests by Microsoft lawyers that the email messages were being taken out of context, or represented jokes, or constituted off-hand comments and not policy statements.

Now, with the Abramoff plea-bargain striking fear into congressfolks and staffers on the Hill (and perhaps some of their equivalents in the executive branch as well), Jack Abramoff's legendary fondness for putting all of his thoughts into the form of uncensored e-mail messages may prove to take down some of his former allies.

It was merely an embarassment when former DeLay aide and former Abramoff associate Michael Scanlon's wrote a memo referring to religious right footsoldiers as "the wackos":

The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

But the consequences are much more severe when Abramoff emails to Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, or congressional aides detail specific quid pro quos expected in exchange for payola. In fact, the email traffic among these three and others paint a picture of rampant backstabbing -- and that's just within the ranks of Republican lobbyists and powerbrokers.

SourceWatch cites this example:

Allegation of Double Dealling

Reed repeatedly denied knowing the source of the funds used to campaign against the casinos until prosecutors released emails exchanged between Reed and Abramoff. According to e-mails, Reed and Norquist contacted Abramoff separately in 1999 to say they wanted to do business. Norquist complained about a "$75K hole in my budget from last year." Reed said he was counting on Abramoff "to help me with some contacts."

In 2000, Abramoff warned Reed on February 7 that an initial payment for antilottery radio spots and mailings would be less than Reed thought. "I need to give Grover something for helping, so the first transfer will be a bit lighter," Abramoff wrote. The transfer was apparently lighter than even Abramoff expected. In a note to himself on February 22, Abramoff wrote, "Grover kept another $25K!" Norquist claims he had permission.

In 2000, Abramoff arranged for the Choctaws to give the Alabama Christian Coalition $1.15 million in installments. Norquist agreed to pass the money on to the Alabama Christian Coalition and another Alabama antigambling group, both of which Reed was mobilizing for the fight against a proposed Alabama state lottery.

In 2002, after Abramoff worked with Christian activist Ralph E. Reed, Jr. to close the casino of the Tigua tribe, he persuaded the tribe to hire him to lobby Congress to reopen the casino.

Of the $7.7 million Abramoff and fellow lobbyist Michael Scanlon charged the Choctaw for projects in 2001, they spent $1.2 million for their efforts and split the rest in a scheme they called "gimme five."

The lesson for future influence peddlers on the Hill is likely to be the same one learned by the business world after Microsoft's setback: Don't put anything in an email message that you wouldn't want to be read in an open court.

Further Reading:

Email archives from Senator McCain's Indian Affairs Committee:

Technology and the Internet are changing democracy in America. Personal Democracy Forum is a hub for the exciting conversation underway between political professionals, technologists, and anyone else invigorated by the remarkable potential of technology to engage citizens in the democratic process.



Navigation

© 2008 Personal Democracy Forum | All Rights Reserved |
The layout, use of images, color, and other qualities.
How well is does the site carry the message of the candidate?
How the site discusses the issues and how it uses language.
How easy is it to get involved in the campaign?
How well does the site utitlize blogs, video, podcasts, discussion boards, and other technologies?
The ease of navigation and the quality of interactivtity.