|
A tribal loophole for campaign gifts
Political Money Line reported that the 212
federally recognized tribes that have given contributions have used
nearly 2,000 different variations of their names in their
filings. One tribe has used more than 75 names.
Limits on other groups don't apply
February 2, 2006
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has altered the ways of
Washington. Congress is poised to stiffen the government's ethics
laws because of his indiscretions, and in the meantime, lawmakers and
lobbyists are already keeping their distance from each other.
But one of the biggest loopholes in the campaign funding system, one
that helped attract Abramoff to his principal clients - Native American
tribes - isn't being much discussed. Thanks to a regulatory
decision six years ago, tribes are allowed to donate much larger sums
to lawmakers than almost any other type of organization.
The basis for this treatment is that Indian tribes cast themselves as
sovereign governments. For this and related reasons, tribes are
often exempted from limitations that are placed on other groups, such
as corporations and unions.
And one such exemption involves campaign giving rules. Under the
usual limits, individuals can donate up to $2,100 per candidate per
election and a total of $101,400 over a two-year election cycle to
candidates and political committees. In 2000, the Federal
Election Commission decided to classify tribes as individuals for
contribution purposes, since they are not unions or corporations.
The agency then added a significant twist.
Tribes must abide by the same per-candidate limits as individuals, but
they are not bound by the aggregate restrictions. In other words,
the $101,400 cap that individuals must observe does not apply to Indian
tribes. They can give millions of dollars a year, and some do.
Political Money Line, a nonpartisan campaign finance analyst,
calculated that tribes funneled $25 million into political coffers from
2000 to 2005 thanks to this loophole. Before Abramoff left
lobbying and pleaded guilty to trying to bribe congressmen and their
aides, he had five Indian clients that together gave an average of
about $1 million a year.
Indian donations are also harder to track than contributions from other
groups. "Indian tribes don't need to form political action
committees to give their money, and they don't need to identify any
individuals as being responsible for the donations," said Jan W. Baran,
a campaign finance lawyer in Washington. "They are the only
entities in the campaign finance system that are free of those
restrictions."
Political Money Line reported that the 212 federally recognized tribes
that have given contributions have used nearly 2,000 different
variations of their names in their filings. One tribe has used
more than 75 names.
"I consider this a huge loophole," Baran said.
The National Congress of American Indians disagrees. Its
executive director, Jacqueline Johnson, said Indian tribes are
different from corporations or unions and should be treated differently
regarding campaign giving or any other purpose. "There is no
loophole," Johnson said. "We've been working hard to show that
tribes are unique. We're governments and don't fit into the
'organization' category."
In recent weeks, lawmakers have flooded the House and Senate with
lobbying and campaign finance plans, and some version is expected to
pass. The Senate is planning a hearing that will cover the Indian
issue, but only one proposal, by
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) mentions the loophole.
Rogers said he wants to "close the loophole which allows Indian tribes
to spend unlimited corporate funds on elections ... unlike every other
group."
The Federal Page, The Washington Post, Thursday, February 2, 2006
|