Check out this headline from the Moonie Times.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060217-125720-1671r.htm

Lobbyists have given more to Democrats
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 17, 2006


Democrats have taken more money from lobbyists than Republicans during the past 15 years, according to an independent analysis of campaign contributions.

Since the 1990 election cycle, Democrats have accepted more than $53 million from lobbyists while Republicans have taken more than $48 million for their election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Data provided by the nonpartisan group also shows that when Democrats controlled Congress in the early 1990s, they consistently hauled in more than 70 percent of the town's lobbyist money. The group is a leading critic of Texas Republican Rep. Tom DeLay's ties to lobbyists.

"When the Democrats were in charge, they were getting an incredibly higher amount of lobbyist money compared to Republicans," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Now that the tables are turned there is parity between the two parties."

Since 1990. How about the numbers since say 2000?

in control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Those lobbyists sure know whose palm to grease. Oh wait, the Democratic party is in charge of nothing. Now why are the lobbyists greasing such useless palms?

no matter what it takes.

I'm sure, even before looking, that they excluded some types of fundraising where republicans hauled in more money. And I'm sure that ignored individual LARGE DONORS who favored republicans over many smaller donors who favored Democrats.

And I say what does this article have to do with indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff?

It's an obvious, shameless diversion. They're just trying to put Democrats on the defensive, and in the process make people forget that the issue is Abramoff, not lobbyists in general.

I suspect the last five years have been very different.

But forgetting the last five years, if you count the 1990's, there were more years when that could have been the case. Democratic majorities in Congress in the early 90's, and then Clinton in the White House.

Unfortunately, the Democrats became uncomfortably close to Big Money Interests in the 1990's. The influence of Big Dirty Money really is a bi-partisan problem, even though the Repubs have been the worst abusers since Bush became president.

is that there has been legal changes and rules changes inside the period covered. What it fails to do is to say how much in illegal contributions were accepted by repukes and dems. And how many different politicians of either party were implicated in illegal or unethical lobbying activity.