About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

During appearance on Hardball, Scarborough failed to disclose previous contributions from Abramoff and his firms

January 09, 2006 4:54 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Appearing on Hardball to discuss the Jack Abramoff scandal, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough failed to disclose that he received $1,000 from Jack Abramoff and other contributions from Abramoff's firms.

9 Comments

In a discussion on the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews about Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff's plea agreement, MSNBC host and former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL) stated only that he "remembered Abramoff's name" but failed to disclose a $1,000 campaign contribution he received from the lobbyist in 1997. In addition to Abramoff's individual donation, Scarborough also received four contributions totaling $2,000 from the political action committee of Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP* (see here, here, and here), as well as $500 from Greenberg Traurig LLP, another firm where Abramoff was a lobbyist, in 2001.

Later in the broadcast, Scarborough decried politicians who are "bought by lobbyists." "I always ... told people if they supported me, gave me money, you know, they couldn't expect anything," he said. He went on to add, "And I'll tell you what: Lobbyists figure that out also. They figure out who they can buy, they figure out which guys come from Middle America that are just excited to be there and go golfing in Scotland. And they figure out which ones are kind of cranky and obstinate who they can't trust." When Matthews replied: "Like you," Scarborough added: "Yeah, and I'll tell you what, being cranky in the long run always wins votes. Instead of being bought by lobbyists."

Abramoff pleaded guilty to tax evasion, conspiracy to bribe public officials, and fraud on January 4 and to separate charges of conspiracy and wire fraud on January 5.

From the January 5 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Joe, let me ask you, as you watch this from the perspective of former membership in the Congress, and you see all these members now giving back money andobviously getting a little nervous about this guy Abramoff, how does he fit into the picture you recall from the Hill?

SCARBOROUGH: You know, it's funny, I remember Abramoff's name, I remember certainly that he was attached to DeLay's office especially but, you know, there were all always guys that would be coming in talking about Indian casinos.

We don't have Indian casinos in northwest Florida. I could never really figure out what that was all about. Now I am starting to figure out what it's about.

[...]

MATTHEWS: What always amazes me is how politicians stay bought. I mean, if somebody gave you money from the cigarette industry, somebody told me, "You'd have to vote with them, you probably would, even though if you hated the industry." I always thought you could, like, remember the old line from California, Jesse Unruh, "If you can't take their money and their booze and their women and vote against them in the morning, you don't belong here?" What happened to that spirit?

SCARBOROUGH: Well you know what, actually, that, that spirit is still there. I mean, the old bulls still say that on the Hill. I always said it too, always told people if they supported me, gave me money, you know, they couldn't expect anything.

And I'll tell you what, lobbyists figure that out also. They figure out who they can buy, they figure out which guys come from Middle America that are just excited to be there and go golfing in Scotland. And they figure out which ones are kind of cranky and obstinate who they can't trust.

MATTHEWS: Like you.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, and I'll tell you what, being cranky in the long run always wins votes. Instead of being bought by lobbyists.

* As listed on Federal Election Commission disclosure forms. Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP is now known as Preston Gates Ellis LLP.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mefirst (January 09, 2006 8:10 pm ET)
         

      no if's and's or but's. because the republican party is just a front for corporate america. and they keep the working class sheep voting for them with all these phony flagburning , ten commandments issues.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (January 09, 2006 8:57 pm ET)
         

      When Scareobough receives money from Greenberg et al, it very possibly could be a "bribe", but when a like amount of money goes to a Dem, it is merely a political contribution. Hmmmmm. Need to mull that one over for a while.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (January 09, 2006 9:40 pm ET)
           

        Find one instance of illegal money going to a Dem.

        You may not like Dean. You may think he's "crazy" or whatever the MSM tells you to think about him.

        But he's verifiably correct when he says NO Democrats received money from Abramoff. Look it up.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Sagra (January 10, 2006 11:27 am ET)
           

        But if Scarborough is going to comment on the Abramoff scandal, it seems like he'd want to inform the audience about the contributions he received. If he feels that they were clean, he should say so.

        In any case, the corruption doesn't have that much to do with campaign contributions -- it's more about golf trips and dirty pols getting their wives on the payroll of fake charities.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by zappatero (January 10, 2006 11:41 am ET)
             

          "he'd want to inform the audience about the contributions he received."

          Any truthful person would, but with Matthews and Joey the Scab on at the same time, the amount of truth dispensed is around zero.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by djheru (January 10, 2006 4:12 pm ET)
           

        Why are you ignoring the money that came directly from Abramoff? You must know that he never gave any money to Democrats!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (January 10, 2006 8:16 pm ET)
           

        Then talks about him in the media he needs to disclose the FACT he has that connection. Its basic ethics

        Report Abuse
    • Author by rusty shackleford (January 10, 2006 9:12 am ET)
         

      Scarborough says he remembers Abramoff's name, and I believe him. I wonder how many of his constituents' names he remembers.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by kalentros (January 10, 2006 11:09 am ET)
           

        You mean a representative of the people should be expected to know the people they're representing? Wouldn't that unravel the whole spectrum of reality?

        Oh wait they do know them...the big lobbyist firms writing the big checks......

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.