Scandal May Upset Rules of Enrichment in Congress
WASHINGTON — "Lawful lobbying does not include paying a public official a personal benefit with the understanding -- explicit or implicit -- that a certain official act will occur. That's not lobbying; that's a crime."
Alice Fisher, Justice Department official
*
To many, the scandal surrounding fallen super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff has the ring of business as usual.
After all, it's no secret that lobbyists hoping to gain favorable treatment for their clients offer not only campaign contributions but favors. And some members of Congress accept both.
But Abramoff's agreement Tuesday to plead guilty to federal crimes and cooperate with prosecutors -- in what could be the farthest-reaching corruption scandal to hit Congress in a generation -- is focusing new attention on the rules of the influence-peddling game, and the line that separates the illegal from the merely unsavory.
That line, as it turns out, may be moving.
Traditionally, bribery cases involving public officials are among the most challenging for the government to crack. Prosecutors must prove that a lawmaker would not have taken a certain action if he or she did not receive the benefit that was given -- a so-called "quid pro quo."
That has left a hole for defense lawyers to argue that the largesse that was showered upon their clients did not influence their official actions. And some say the pressure on legislators to raise money to campaign for reelection has compromised their ties with lobbyists.
"You could argue that our entire system is one of organized bribery," said Randall D. Eliason, former chief of the public corruption section at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington. "People say, 'I got this huge contribution but it had nothing to do with the way I voted.' On some level, it is an elaborate charade."
At the same time, as some lobbyists have become more sophisticated in extending and concealing favors, the Justice Department is using aggressive new legal theories in corruption cases.
The strategy is directly reflected in the department's deal with Abramoff; among the three felonies he pleaded guilty to was a charge that the perks he lavished on lawmakers and their aides deprived the public of the honest services of a member of Congress. The crime is considered a sort of legal catchall that is easier to prove than outright bribery, and does not require proof of a quid pro quo.
