Jack Abramoff and Me

An incredibly nuanced and ethically unimpeachable disclaimer.

DISCLAIMER. Before proceeding with this week's column, please be advised of the following: I have not received any money from Jack Abramoff, and I am giving it back. Further, to the best of my knowledge, and based upon an intensive and thorough self-investigation, I have not received any money from Jack Abramoff's clients, and I am returning that, too.

��

Further, lest there be any doubt regarding my moral scruples, let me make clear that Jack Abramoff is a scoundrel who deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if not beyond, and whose name should be reviled by future generations until the end of time, if not thereafter.

Let the record show that I am the first journalist to make this type of disclaimer. No other journalist has yet demonstrated my level of moral scruple in this matter. Let the record also show that my condemnation of Jack Abramoff is second to none, and that no one in the journalistic community believes more firmly than I that Jack Abramoff is a scoundrel whose actions are dismaying and deplorable. You can quote me on that.

ELABORATION OF DISCLAIMER. You may have noticed that my position in the Abramoff affair is nuanced, inasmuch as I pledge to give back monies that I deny receiving. I would only point out that Washington is rife with nuance in the Abramoff matter.

For example, any number of powerful Washington personages take the position that they did absolutely nothing wrong or inappropriate as a result of receiving money from Jack Abramoff or his clients, which is why they are unloading it as fast as they can. This is a highly nuanced position. According to the Associated Press, as of early January (when Abramoff, a prominent Republican lobbyist, pleaded guilty to corruption charges in federal and Florida courts), at least 70 politicians, from President Bush on down, had returned or donated to charity money given to them by Abramoff or his lobbying clients.

CONTEXTUALIZATION OF DISCLAIMER. To the best of my recollection, Jack Abramoff never bribed me, but please note that I am more than important enough to be bribed, and the fact that I have not actually been bribed in this particular case does not imply that I am not, in principle, worth bribing. If Jack Abramoff had bribed me, that would have been wrong, but it would not have been a worse investment than bribing, say, David Brooks or David Broder, in whose league I definitely am.

ELUCIDATION OF DISCLAIMER. Please note that because I am 100 percent Abramoff-money-free, at least as far as I can recall and am prepared to admit in print, the Abramoff scandal proves definitively that I am not corrupt. As a result of the Abramoff scandal, you can rest assured that everything you read in this space is true.

This leads me to a very important broader point. It has been alleged that the Abramoff scandal proves that Washington is corrupt. This allegation is false. In fact, the Abramoff scandal proves mathematically that Washington is overwhelmingly noncorrupt. Reason: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, federal candidates raised $4.4 billion for congressional and presidential races from 2000 to 2004, the period when Abramoff was active as a lobbyist. Of that amount, the center reports, personal contributions by Abramoff and his wife account for only $206,253. This proves that Washington is 99.995 percent noncorrupt. Virtually none of the money sloshing through the capital is the evil, tainted money of the scoundrel Jack Abramoff.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement