President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 17, 2008 04:40 PM UTC

Schaffer/Abramoff: When the Cat's Away...

  • 27 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

A few of you may know that Michael Riley, the author of last week’s hard-hitting series of articles detailing Colorado Senate candidate Bob Schaffer’s relationship to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and labor policies in the Northern Marianas, left on a two-week vacation to South Asia over the weekend. Most of you probably didn’t know that, but Riley had planned the trip for months before this story broke.

Schaffer manager Dick Wadhams, however, was keenly aware of Riley’s absence, and used the time when the reporter doing his homework was away to attack Riley’s story with reporters who haven’t. Result? As the Denver Post’s Joey Bunch uncritically reports today:

U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall accepted $1,500 in campaign donations from political action committees connected to jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his campaign said Wednesday night after it was contacted by a conservative website.

Lobbying firm Preston Gates gave $500 to Udall’s congressional campaign in 2000, and Greenberg Traurig donated $1,000 two years later.

The lobbying work of the disgraced lobbyist has emerged as an issue in the race between Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer.

“We know of absolutely no connection between the contributions and Abramoff’s operations,” said Taylor West, a Udall campaign spokeswoman.

She said Udall would give the money to a Saipan-based organization that helps victims of human trafficking. The campaign had been contacted about the donations by Facethestate.com.

Schaffer’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, called Udall’s decision “insincere” because “he held that money for six and eight years.”

Wadhams provided a document titled “Mark Udall & Jack Abramoff” that showed two votes in which Udall opposed anti-gambling legislation that Abramoff was angling to defeat. In July 2000, Udall was among 245 House members to vote against the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, the first vote Wadhams noted. House records show Schaffer voted the same way as Udall.

Wadhams said he knew of no Abramoff-connected campaign donations to Schaffer.

“There’s only one candidate in the Colorado Senate race that has received money from Jack Abramoff, and that’s liberal Democrat Mark Udall,” he said.

Anyone even casually following the Schaffer/Abramoff story knows that last statement is patently ridiculous. Schaffer has received thousands of dollars in donations from Abramoff clients in the Northern Marianas; Udall has taken none. If all we were talking about here was Preston Gates money, scores of Congressmen would be “guilty,” and Schaffer would have a valid counterargument. But he doesn’t, and we see the potential for backfire on the other side of this, as the Post refocuses on the real issue at the end of today’s story despite Wadhams’ best efforts:

Udall co-sponsored three bills aimed at addressing labor practices in the Northern Mariana Islands during his time in Congress, according to documents provided by his campaign.

Those would be the reforms Schaffer opposed, right? The ones that Schaffer battled against in congressional hearings, denied the need for after his return from Saipan, and rejected out of hand when he endorsed the territory’s status quo as a model, right? In perfect harmony with the strategy to stall reform there, masterminded by Abramoff and Schaffer’s campaign donors from the Northern Marianas like Gov. Benigno Fitial, right?

Right back where Michael Riley left off, folks.

Tweet
Share

Comments

27 thoughts on “Schaffer/Abramoff: When the Cat’s Away…”

    1. And connects Schaffer back to 2006.  And Abramoff.  And virtual slavery, forced abortions, etc.  And Wad Dickem’s outright lying.

      This is today’s news, not just who we love or hate.

    2. Dick Wadhams needs to shut up about Moderate Mark’s votes as a representative – as they’re all in the past too…

      You have to understand, no matter how long ago it was, some of us are reticent to consider a candidate for Senate who supports forced abortions, forced underage prostitution, and forcibly baring people from attending church.

      Maybe you chalk that up to us liberals having our priorities off…

      1. Hold on a second here, disinterested has a point.  If Udall does have connections with Abramoff, shouldn’t we have daily updates too?  I see disinterested’s point here; a story gets run about Udall’s connections with Abe, and it’s posted as an attack of Schaffer?  And you’re saying that Schaffer supports mandatory abortions?  Come on!

        If it came out that Schaffer had taken the 1500.00, libs here would be calling for his head.

        1. Can you tie the 1500 to any actions that Udall took to defend Ambramoff’s clients? Well, no. He cast 1 of 245 votes for one bill and other than that he worked against the same interests Sweatshop Schaffer was defending.

          Even you can see that there’s no “there there” in this story.

          Schaffer took a $13,000 junket on Abramoff’s clients dime then came back and did Captain Jack’s dirty work for him.

          Has Udall done anything equivocal? Not according to this story. If this is the best Dick’s got on Udall/Abramoff color me unimpressed.  

            1. would’ve voted against the workers even without the trip.

              But the trip brought Schaffer into a select group, including Tom DeLay and Don Young, who worked against CNMI labor and immigration reform efforts. These junkets, paid for in a shell game between Abramoff, his clients and his front organizations, were “one of the most effective ways to build permanent friends on the Hill,” Abramoff boasted.

              Schaffer carried out Abramoff’s strategy to discredit a Bangladeshi worker testifying about abuse at the hands of traffickers and his Marianas employers, including Ben Fitial and the Tan family. Fitial and the Tans bundled thousands of dollars in contributions to Schaffer’s next campaigns. When Abramoff’s contract with the islands was threatened, Schaffer was one of three “permanent friends” who wrote Fitial an endorsement on congressional letterhead. And when Fitial was concerned the islands would suffer from a tourism decline after 9/11, who did he call for help? Schaffer.

              That $13,000 tropical vacation bought a lot more than Schaffer’s vote.

              1. Schaffer, as a member of Tom Tancredo’s immigration reform caucus, was not well-known for lax immigration policies, and as a Catholic you’d think that the religious freedom and abortion issues would have given him pause. Maybe his distaste of minimum wage laws would have offset that, but I tend not to think so.

                Schaffer always cultivated an image of being a principled movement conservative. Principled movement conservatives don’t vote that way.

                And it’s not just about a vote, as you say.

                1. Given that Schaffer is an anti-immigrantion Catholic I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that Captain Jack’s boondoggle influenced his vote.

                  At the very least it influenced his actions in committee, that is very clear from the record.  

    1. If Udall did take money from Abramoff… Shame on him too.  His research folks should have caught it and returned it in 2006 when the Abramoff money witch hunt was in full swing.

      Before you all jump on me for saying is 1500 is as bad as a 13,000 dollar trip and votes but Udall cannot toss stones when he lives in a glass house.  

      1. I’m pleased to see this:

        She said Udall would give the money to a Saipan-based organization that helps victims of human trafficking.

        Why won’t Sweatshop Schaffer reimburse the “Traditional Values Coalition” the $13,000 — or even better donate it to an organization that is fighting to undo the sweatshop conditions that Schaffer protected while in Congress.  

      2. (Donor of 1,000 of the 1,500) is a huge law firm with almost 2,000 lawyers.  Abramoff may have been associated with them, but he by no means controls the operation.  Maybe the Schaffer campaign knows of some more specific connection, but if not, its pretty disingenuous to say that money from Greenberg Traurig is Abramoff money, as I bet you could ask their 100 or so employees in Denver, and none would consider themselves Abramoff cronies.

        1. wasn’t even a contributor to Greenberg Traurig’s PAC, while more than a hundred lawyers with the firm, from all over the country, chipped in.

          Is Schaffer willing to take responsibility for every PAC donation he ever received from an organization that employed someone later convicted of a crime? Does Pete Coors and his plea bargain count?

      3. Udall didn’t “take money from Abramoff,” and Dick Wadhams repeating it won’t make it so.

        Preston Gates is a huge law firm. In 2000, its PAC gave Udall $500, while donating $168,053 to all congressional and senate candidates, roughly evenly split between Dems and Repubs.

        In the next cycle, in 2002, after Abramoff had moved to Greenburg Traurig, the Preston Gates PAC donated another $500 to Udall (and $2,000 to Wayne Allard). In 2004, Ben Campbell got $1,000 and Udall got $250 from the firm’s PAC. During those five years, the firm represented hundreds of clients, from Time Warner to a library district in Washington State.

        This fits well with Wadhams’ narrative that everyone “took money” from Abramoff, but only if you stretch the thread of connection to the breaking point.

        In 2002, Greenburg Traurig’s PAC gave $1,000 to Udall, and $1,000 to Allard, and $171,689 to all other congressional and senate campaigns. The next cycle, in 2004, no money for Udall but $1,507 for Bob Beauprez, $1,000 for Allard, and even $500 to Russ Feingold, out of $206,685 total contributions for federal races. This demonstrates exactly what, that Greenburg is a politically connected law firm?

        That same year, one of our local law firm PACs, Brownstein Hyatt’s, gave $1,000 each to DeGette, Hefley, Musgrave, Tancredo, Udall and Campbell, while bestowing $4,000 on Beauprez. Law firm PACs spread the money around. This is news?

  3. The issue is forced abortions, denial of the sacrament and slave labor–Abramoff is just an instrument.

    Schaffer said that the CNMI was model guest worker program (fact).

    The CNMI guest worker program has been repeatedly cited for abuses (fact).

    Schaffer went to the CNMI for 4 days, spent at least some of the time recreating and dismissed the reports of forced abortions and sex slavery out of hand (fact).

    Schaffer attacked the US government agencies reporting on human rights abuses and the victims themselves using notes prepared by Abramoff (fact).

    Schaffer an obscure backbencher from 5000 miles away recieved 10% of all contributions given from Saipan, most of those came from donors directly connnected to the sweatshop owners(fact).

    Abuses continued until this year when the Democratic controled congress has finally taken action (fact).

    Abramoff has never been the main issue–it is Schaffer’s support of slavery.

  4. If Udall voted against the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which prevents me from depositing money on poker websites,  than that is just another reason for me to support him.

  5. His attempt to turn this around on Udall is amazingly pathetic. Thanks for getting us several more stories on Sweatshop Schaffer’s unethical and vial actions in cohoots with Jack Abramoff!

    If Wadhams strategy is to keep this story in the press then by all means let’s help him out. In the immortal works of Dick, Let the crap flow!”  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

87 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!