A lobbyists's excesses make case for reform (USA Today)

Mon May 23, 6:30 AM ET

As a general rule, when a lobbyist becomes a household name outside Washington it is not a good thing - not for the lobbyist and, most certainly, not for the rest of us.

Jack Abramoff has become the latest example of that rule. He arranged lavish trips for lawmakers - most notably House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas - that mock guidelines limiting such outings to official business. He used his sports arena skyboxes for a kind of network of influence-peddling.

And when not cozying up to powerful lawmakers, he was enriching himself from Native American gambling interests. Abramoff and a colleague collected an estimated $82 million from Indian tribes, some of whom he referred to in internal e-mails as "monkeys" and "idiots." In one instance, he worked both for and against a Texas tribe trying to get approval to reopen a casino.

Abramoff is not the capital's only conniving lobbyist, but he may be the best example of what Washington has come to. He was not some fly-by-night operative but was a close ally of DeLay and other leaders. As such, his fall from grace could - and we hope will - bring pressure on Congress to mend a system that is broken.
...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/alobbyistsexcessesmakecaseforreform

Drip, drip, drip. (Rating the story will help turn the faucet up.)

It's partly that lobbyists -- and the corporations who hire them -- have more influence on politicians than voters do. Tightening up the rules a little is not going to affect that.

Beyond that, there's a special problem involving Indian gambling. The tribes are sovereign entities, which means they are effectively exempt from a wide range of U.S. regulations -- zoning regulations, pollution regulations, and more -- which is increasingly creating problems for the municipalities where their casinos are located. This is one reason that extreme free market types like Abramoff and Norquist were interested in working with them. Their profits are also sheltered to a large extent from financial accountability.

Put those two things together and you have a recipe from disaster. We should count ourselves fortunate that Abramoff was only interested in how much money he could screw out of the tribes to spend on his pet projects. The next time someone comes along who sees the long-term advantages of a sovereign and well-funded power base, we may not be so lucky.

Republicans really know how to find great "corruption niche markets," don't they?