Government Reform

You Don't Know Jack

What a new documentary gets wrong about Jack Abramoff and the lobbying-industrial complex


When the lights went down at the Washington premiere of Casino Jack and the United States of Money, a new documentary about disgraced super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, I was a bit gratified to see that the film begins by quoting something Abramoff once said to yours truly.

Among his many vocations, Jack had once been a film producer. And appropriately enough, the quote was "Why would you want to make a documentary? Nobody watches documentaries. You should make an action film." Of course, lately there's been a documentary renaissance, in large part due to the popularity of liberal celluloid polemics aimed at disparaging corrupt conservatives. Meanwhile, Jack is currently residing in a minimum security prison. Who says irony is dead?

Before I say anything more about Casino Jack, I should explain. Abramoff once bought me dinner at his restaurant. At the time I was a chronically underemployed writer, and all I knew was that some wealthy K-street type was looking for help writing a book.

Jack pitched me on a book he wanted to write about his days as an anti-communist activist during the Reagan administration. These activities led to various adventures in Africa, culminating in his dalliance as a movie producer. Abramoff had written and produced Red Scorpion, a thinly veiled anti-communist tract masquerading as a Rambo rip-off, starring Dolph Lundgren and filmed in Namibia.

For one evening, I sat slack-jawed as Abramoff regaled me with stories about everything from spastic Afghani warlords to Lundgren's rocky relationship with one of O.J. Simpson's ex-girlfriends. Suffice to say, when the evening was over I, like everyone in Washington at that moment, wanted to get into business with Jack.

But after that evening, I never saw him again. Jack was too busy making money to work on a vanity project. Some years later, how Jack made his money became national news and I wrote up my recollection of the evening. It landed me my first magazine cover story, making me perhaps the only person in Washington to have honestly profited from an association with Jack Abramoff.

Given this baggage, I approached Casino Jack with a weird mixture of anxiety and anticipation. I'd spent a lot of time reflecting on that evening and for a while had followed Abramoff's story obsessively. I knew it could be amazing; what he'd told me only covered a few years of his life and could have quite easily been turned into one hell of a book.

And therein lies the problem for a documentary. Telling the Abramoff story without leaving a lot of interesting stuff in the cutting room would be exceedingly difficult. First, there's his ascent into national politics as part of the Reagan-era College Republicans—imagine Animal House as envisioned by Richard Hofstadter. From there, Abramoff forged ties to the apartheid South African government and began getting involved in anti-communist causes from Angola to Afghanistan. Eventually he births Red Scorpion.

Finally, he returned to Washington to become the biggest lobbyist in town. Abramoff bilked $82 million in lobbying fees from six Indian tribes operating casinos before people started asking questions. And while all this was going on he was part of a group trying to buy some mobbed-up casino boats in Florida. Eventually, the Abramoff scandal forced the resignation of House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas), and sent Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) to prison.

Director Alex Gibney, whose last film, Taxi to the Dark Side, won the Oscar for best documentary, does a decent job laying all this out in two hours. It helps that the film incorporates a wide array of interviews with principle players in the events, including Delay and Ney. The production values are top notch (note the voiceovers by Stanley Tucci and Paul Rudd). But it's the research that is mind-blowing. I had previously investigated an event Abramoff organized in Jamba, Angola almost 30 years ago. I could get little information beyond a Time magazine article and the recollections of a few people involved. Gibney somehow found a cameraman who was there with 10 hours of unused footage from the event, used to great effect in the film.   

So in that respect Casino Jack tells the story of Abramoff admirably. But what's the moral? Ultimately, Gibney has to sell this film to liberal audiences, and I'm not sure the left-liberal worldview can adequately explain the lobbying-industrial complex.

To do the wet work here, Gibney leans heavily on liberal writer Thomas Frank to blithely explain how Abramoff and Delay's cronyism is the inevitable result of the Reagan revolution. Watching the film you might think Frank is another journalist, rather than a straight-up ideologue, best known for What's the Matter with Kansas? and other critiques of what he calls "market populism." Perhaps a more accurate term for Frank's obsession would be "straw men dressed up to look like Milton Friedman."

As it happens, Frank's last book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, was itself a lobotomized exegesis of the Delay-Abramoff scandals. According to Frank, conservatives believe that government is evil and confiscatory. Thus, they're honor bound to demonstrate such evil when they get elected. Or something.

The Wrecking Crew does, however, have one of the most unintentionally hilarious blurbs I've ever seen, culled from a New Yorker review: "Frank captures a quality of exuberant bullying in those of his conservative subjects he knows well enough to identify individually, rather than categorically." So Frank knows the names of the conservatives he criticizes, but that's about it.

The problem for Frank is that Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and instituted some not insignificant lobbying reforms. (Frank's book was published in 2008.) But in the post Abramoff era, we've seen the government buy General Motors for $57 billion to prop up the United Auto Workers union; Wall Street feasting at the $700 billion TARP trough while Goldman Sachs is leaving a toothbrush in the West Wing; and Big Pharma paying the White House $100 million under the table to carve themselves an exemption in the $1 trillion dollar insurance company giveaway known as health care reform. Meanwhile, the current White House political director is the former top lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union, which spent $60 million getting Obama and various Democrats elected in 2008. Lobbyists are greasing the skids more than ever—on both sides of the aisle.

In retrospect, Abramoff's over-billing of an Indian tribe whose casino clears $300 million a year seems like a delightful escapade compared to the taxpayer trail of tears we've endured under Democratic rule.

But have no fear gentle viewer, none of this keeps Frank from popping up at the end of the film to breezily explain how the Abramoff saga is responsible for various carbuncles on the body politic, particularly today's economic crisis. "They finally got what they wanted," Frank intones. "They got their deregulated financial markets and the whole thing came crashing down."

Who exactly "they" is isn't entirely clear. Republicans? Lobbyists? Dastardly free marketeers? Is there a difference? (Perhaps Frank shouldn't speak so categorically.) And looking at the financial crisis from a different vantage point, I'm also not sure how, say, government-sponsored entities effectively nationalizing the mortgage market in response to congressional directives constitutes the state of deregulation that Frank so vociferously deplores.

As it stands, lobbyists currently spend about $10 million a day in D.C. We could approach this problem of influence with vague calls for more regulations governing campaign cash, labor markets, and Wall Street, which is what Casino Jack ends up doing. But, to put the problem in economic terms and thus ensuring that Frank will have no idea what I'm talking about, the surest way to eliminate the supply of corruption is to dry up the demand. Each new opportunity for regulation means somebody has a financial stake in what the government does, and those affected will happily pay to influence where the regulatory chips fall. Smaller government is cleaner government.

Though the documentary makes him out to be a kind of larger-than-life buffoon, I spent just enough time around Abramoff to know full well how wily and intelligent he is. I have no doubt he carefully analyzed Washington's weaknesses and exploited them to the hilt, racking up eager accomplices along the way. And aside from forging a wire transfer and a few other comparatively niggling details, it's still not clear that the vast majority of what Abramoff did was even illegal. He was convicted under the "honest services fraud" law—a notoriously ill-defined statute currently under review by the Supreme Court.

The story of Jack Abramoff is a cautionary tale, to be sure, just not in the way this documentary would have you believe. If you think that more lobbying rules and more market regulation are preferable to transparency and limited government—well, you don't know Jack.

Mark Hemingway is an editorial writer for the Washington Examiner.

Editor's Note: This article originally misidentified House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

NEXT: Rater Haters Finally Find a Reason to Turn On Moody's, and It's a Bad Reason

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. EOM

  2. If course everyone loves lobbyists when they’re doing God’s work.

    1. Little “g” that “god” there, fella. Greentards are polytheists.

  3. Premature release. They should have held onto it until closer to November, those silly documentarians.

  4. I see someone liked King of America.

  5. Is there anyone worse than Thomas Frank? Good Gawd he is unreadable. If he has a column in the Wall Street Journal, I’m Charles Dow.

  6. Hi! Check out this new political forum! The forum is easy to read and conversations are very easy to follow! Feel free to reply to threads, create new ones, and even post your blog! There are even other sections such as political news, political cartoons, and a section called the hot seat where you can rate the members of government!

  7. Tom Delay wasn’t Speaker of the House.

    1. Crap. Sorry, Hastert was Speaker and he was Majority Leader. Fixing now. Thanks.

  8. hey check out this politics site i think u guys might like it

    1. I hate it.

  9. Sounds like Casino Jack got his money’s worth and then some from that dinner he bought.

  10. “But, to put the problem in economic terms and thus ensuring that Frank will have no idea what I’m talking about, the surest way to eliminate the supply of corruption is to dry up the demand. Each new opportunity for regulation means somebody has a financial stake in what the government does, and those affected will happily pay to influence where the regulatory chips fall. Smaller government is cleaner government.”

    Unfortunately the author has little evidence to back this statement up, and plenty of evidence to misprove it.

    There are plenty of large governments who have nowhere near the problems we have with lobbyists thanks to regulations on campaign financing.

    I get it, the author wants a smaller government. He should try to use facts to back up his assertions then.

    1. “and plenty of evidence to misprove it.”


      1. Damn, you pwned me!

        Learn how to contribute an opinion instead of writing like a middle schooler.

  11. “If you think that more lobbying rules and more market regulation are preferable to transparency and limited government?well, you don’t know Jack.”

    I agree that transparency in lobbying would be ideal, but I don’t think that simply being allowed to WATCH inhuman corporate entities literally draft legislation themselves and then pay to pass it is really all that American, or even libertarian. I’m not a fan of taking MY inalienable rights and giving them to a piece of paper. Nor do I weep when someone wants to regulate that piece of paper.

    You understand that corporations are a GOVERNMENT CREATION, right? By creating corporations, they are regulating the market.

    1. This is a good point. Transparency is another issue and is not necessarily connected with limited governments.

      In Sweden for example any government document (with few extreme exceptions) is public and can theoretically be requested by a journalist or private person.

      It also has very wide spread government, regulates campaign financing very tightly, and has excellent government transparency.

      The author should address such examples before he makes sweeping statements like he did. Blindly believing less regulations and a smaller government will cure all ills is just as incorrect as blindly believing that a broader government will fix all ills.

      It is better to examine evidence and take an objective view.

  12. I would strongly disagree that Jack “bilked” the Indian tribes. Look at his record in lobbying for those tribes, not the rhetoric you hear from John McCain or read in the Washington Post. The fees that Abramoff negotiated were based on his RECORD of successful lobbying, and to say that he “bilked” anyone is not true.

    Unfortunately, the media coverage of Abramoff was short on facts and long on the political rhetoric that came from Washington. I would hope that Reason of all publications could see through the nonsense that Washington produces and actually look at the basics of the case, as I have done myself.

    He had a choice: plead out to a number of questionable charges, or face a jury trial in Washington, D.C., in which he, a Jewish Republican, would have had his future determined by a jury of all or mostly Democrats, with a majority being African-American Democrats, who certainly would have had no love for a Jewish Republican.

    Why do most people plead guilty in federal court? They can do the math. As Harvey Silverglate has written, many innocent people plead guilty in federal court because it is just too easy to get convicted.

    There is much to the Abramoff case that people do not know, and certainly did not learn either from the documentary or this article.

  13. Dear Mr. Hemingway,

    When you remove Jack Abramoff’s penis from your mouth, can you please rewrite this article with a bit of objectivity? Thanks in advance.

    By the way, that was an extremely appropriate Trail of Tears reference. Yes, what is going on now under Obama and the Democrat-led Congress is exactly like the Trail of Tears, only worse. Perhaps in your upcoming rewrite, you can also mention the startling similarities to the Holocaust and American slavery. But mostly, life under Obama seems comparable to the life of a Cambodian villager under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. The blood in the streets is the most telling sign.

  14. The design of Replica Tiffany Jewelry is just as classical and exquisite as tiffany bracelets & bangles. Bracelet is one of the most beautiful ornaments for women. Bracelet can be wore for any kind of occasions like wedding parties, official parties etc. They make you look more pretty and elegant. Famous Tiffany BraceletS have many serials including Cultured Freshwater Pearl Bracelet, Cushion Two Row Bracelet with Toggle Closure, Elsa Peretti 5 Apple bracelet. Sterling silver, Elsa Peretti Aegean Toggle Bracelet, Medium, Elsa Peretti Mesh Bracelet with Sevillana Toggle and so on.

  15. I mean, er, awesome thoughts, Liz – I need some time to think about this!

  16. Intelligence agents arrested the president of Venezuela’s only remaining independent television station on Thursday, leading to concerns that freedom of speech …

  17. In many of the cases where Stevens has sided with the government, he has been opposed by Antonin Scalia and/or Clarence Thomas, justices who have undeserved reputations as authoritarians hostile to civil liberties. The truth is that they, like Stevens, have often but not always defended the rights of “those vulnerable to government excesses.

  18.…..-p-91.html This post is really very appreciable.your post is very advantageous for me and very good.I’ve always said that when looking for guidance for effective recruiting

  19. Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique ? un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 derni?res ann?es et ce blog est vraiment bon cet ?crivain a les capacit?s pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci
    ????? ???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.