Conrad Burns Pulled Closer into Abramoff Probe

by Jonathan Singer, Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:28:09 AM EST

Yesterday, the Associated Press sent across the wires a Matt Gouras article detailing the difficulty Republican Senator Conrad Burns is having in trying to extricate himself from the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff. In short, Gouras writes that Burns is being hounded by Democrats wielding signs reading "Sold to the highest bid" and "Burns, your lie is open" throughout his home state of Montana.

If Burns believes that this effort will stop any time soon, or that voters will forget about his close ties to Abramoff, he is sorely mistaken. Today, The Missoulian's Jennifer McKee delves deeply into the relationship between Burns and Abramoff, specifically examining the extent to which the Senator was lobbied over issues relating to labor laws in the Northern Marianas Islands.

U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., met with a Marianas official who had close ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff in the weeks before Burns received an Abramoff-related $5,000 contribution from the Marianas and reversed his earlier position on a bill about the islands.

The politician, Gov. Benigno Fitial, has said he will cooperate with the Justice Department's ongoing investigation into potential bribery of public officials involving Abramoff, a man Fitial once described as a "close friend," according to Pacific Magazine, a Hawaii publication that covers the Pacific region.

[...]

Burns voted against a bill in May 2001 that would have strengthened U.S. oversight over the commonwealth's labor and immigration laws. A little more than a year before Burns had not opposed an identical measure.

Burns has said the $5,000 donation from an Abramoff client had nothing to do with his 2001 change in stance on the bill. Rather, the senator told Lee Newspapers this month he was persuaded to vote against the measure after reading two government reports about the islands and meeting with Fitial, who was then speaker of the Marianas House of Representatives.

Initially, Burns said he didn't know why he changed his position on the bill.

The more revelations that come out about the Burns' relationhsip with Abramoff, the more important the Democratic primary between Jon Tester and John Morrison becomes. Although the Cook Political Report still quizzically lists the Montana race in the "leans Republican" camp, the constant stream of negative press -- coupled with the possible Justice Department inquiry -- is continually diminishing Burns' ability to get reelected; as a result, the Democratic primary might not only be selecting the party's Senatorial nominee, it might also be choosing the state's next Senator. With this in mind, who would you rather see representing Montana in Congress next year, Tester or Morrison?

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

  • 3 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

3 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Burns
Cook may be on meth for still considering Burns relatively safe. However, if the Dems dont play this strategically, they would push Burns out of the race before the primaries and that will be the end of the pick up chance.
by Boilermaker 2006-01-21 10:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Jon Tester is my pick
Jon Tester both has the best chance of beating Burns (or another Republican) and is my choice to take the seat.  I had the good fortune of meeting him a few weeks ago in Missoula.  Down to earth, funny, and bright, he's the kind of guy Montana voters can relate to.  He convincingly was reelected to the state senate in a Republican district.  

The difference between Tester and many Democrats who struggle in rural areas is that Tester does not have to betray himself to try to get Republican votes.  He's grew up in eastern Montana and has found success farming organically because he realized his family's health did better if they didn't use fertilizer's or pesticides.  He doesn't have to apologize for his views because he presents them in a common sense way that  people who disagree with him can appreciate.  Montanans can look at him and say, "he's one of us."

by AD in MT 2006-01-21 12:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Don't lose sight of the issues
It's important to make a distinction between receiving political contributions from some bilked client of Abramoffs, and receiving laundered money from his bogus charities; taking lavish gifts, in violation of house and senate rules; and actual quid pro quos.

Any lobbyist worth their salt, would suggest a client make a political contribution, so they'd at least get their phone call answered.  It might suck, but it's legal.

This specific contribution, and Burns' 180 on the slave trade in the Mariannas, ought to be framed as an ethical issue.  For instance, does his change of heart not to enforce standards to a US Commonwealth reflect the values of the people of Montana?  Do the people of Montana want our elected officials to turn a blind eye to illegal sweatshop labor practices, and forcing women, often underage, into prostitution?

The point is, if it's framed as who received what from whom, in the form of an arguably legal contribution, it becomes nothing more than a food fight.  It plays right into the GOP talking points, as a both sides suck free-for-all.

by Dick Tuck 2006-01-22 02:47AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------