The fear that prosecutors may be pursuing a broader definition of bribery is pervasive among lawmakers and lobbyists, and is part of the reason that concern about the fallout of the Abramoff investigation extends beyond those who may be directly implicated.
More than 200 current members of Congress took campaign contributions from Abramoff or his clients. He has privately boasted of having information on dozens of lawmakers, although only one, U.S. Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), is alluded to in the plea agreement.
For many other members of Congress whose names have surfaced in the scandal, the magnitude of favors given and received varies -- from cases with suspiciously close connections to those with easy, routine business explanations.
In many cases, lawmakers say that their actions on behalf of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients is in keeping with their responsibilities to constituents. Several recipients of tribal donations come from states with large populations of Native Americans -- like Arizona, Montana and North Dakota.
But some lawmakers have raised eyebrows by acting to specifically benefit Abramoff clients with no apparent link to their regions or responsibilities. Many are now scrambling to return the Abramoff money they got, or to give it to charity.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) has had multiple ties to Abramoff and his clients. He received $150,000 in campaign contributions from them. Burns' chief of staff flew to the 2001 Super Bowl on a jet owned by Abramoff's SunCruz floating casino firm, and Abramoff later hired him.
Burns used his position as chairman of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee to secure $3 million for one of Abramoff's tribal clients for a school in Michigan. Democratic critics said the action was payback, but Burns said he put the money in because Michigan's two Democratic senators had asked him too. He has documented that claim.
But a spokesman for Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that was just one of several home-state projects they were seeking.
To prove bribery, prosecutors would have to show that Burns acted because of Abramoff, not the Michigan senators.
Similarly, the challenge for prosecutors, if Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) is in their sights, is to show that he pushed causes favored by Abramoff in explicit exchange for the lavish trips and contributions the lobbyist gave him. DeLay has argued that he pushed Abramoff's pet causes -- such as blocking a minimum wage increase for the Northern Mariana Islands -- because it was in keeping with his conservative, pro-business ideology.
