With thanks to an anonymous but alert reader, may I direct your attention to another sizeable national Republican name in Dickie Scruggs’s orbit — in fact, this one rather deep into Dickie’s pocket? Maybe I better wait for a sec, while y’all go run find bandannas to tie ’round yo’ haids — let’s not have any jaws broken on floors around here.
(twiddles thumb-petals, hums)
Okay, y’all strapped up and in?
Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce you to Grover Norquist? Yepper, sez here in the April 14, 2006, TPMMuckraker:
I guess everyone has their price. For Grover Norquist, it was $4.3 million.
Two weeks ago, Grover Norquist’s non-profit Americans for Tax Reform was exposed in The Boston Globe as a lobbying front – maybe you missed it. The piece had the misfortune to land on a busy news day (Tony Rudy pled guilty), but, man, is it good.
For years, journalists have been trying to get their hands on ATR’s donor list, to no avail. But the Globe finally got it, and found, as many have suspected for quite awhile, that “contributors include an array of special interests ranging from tobacco companies to Indian tribes to a Las Vegas casino.” ATR is a big-time lobbying firm posing as a nonprofit. But that’s not even the good part.
The biggest contributor to ATR was Richard Scruggs, a Democratic lawyer from Mississippi. He put in $4.3 million. What was he after? …
Toddle on over to The Mucker and read on . . .
February 21, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
No surprise. Norquist courted groups like CAIR in an effort to get them to donate to Republicans, even after 9/11 as he saw Muslims as another demographic group to enlist. He tried to get the administration to soft pedal some of its anti terrorism measures so as not to offend groups that are linked to terrorists. Seriously. Gaffney’s group can not stand him.
February 21, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
Who in the hell is Grover Norquist? Yes, I can read above …its a rhetorical question. Until this moment of reading this thread, I had never heard of him. And I keep up with things much more so than the average or even above average guy. IF he is a big dog, it must be in his own mind. LOL.
Does anyone know what type of tax reform this group is for? I am also for “tax reform”, but that term could mean almost anything.
February 21, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
Really, afotl — you’ve never heard of Grover Norquist? Wow.
Google his name (either alone or with “Ralph Reed” and “Jack Abramoff”). MAJOR newsmaker — and not for the good. A very big dog in BushCo, fer sher.
February 21, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
Is it The North American Union that Bush is having Norquist to work on..Will look this up later but I believe his group is part of the big secret.
February 21, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
afotl and mag (et al.), browse down this get-acquainted page a bit . . .
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=12&search=grover+norquist&x=11&y=9
February 21, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
love this line from the Boston Globe article:
Scruggs saw the attack on their fees as a Republican effort ”aimed at essentially de-funding the Democratic Party by penalizing trial lawyers.”
Scruggs decided that he needed to hire a prominent Republican antitax activist to fight what he viewed as a tax on legal fees. ”There is an expression, ‘If you need a thief, take him from the gallows,’ ” Scruggs said.
what’s the saying…”takes one to know one”
February 21, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
Me too, IAG. Our Dickie sure has him a way with words.
February 21, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
Well, I guess if this Scruggs mess has taught me anything, its that there is a whole new world out there ( to me anyway) of crooks who call themselves “lobbyists”, whether registered, or under the radar. Likewise with respect to some of these non-profit organizations, PACs, etc. And I need to start paying more attention to them, and not just to the politicians. Bribery of public officials, and the many ways to do it, is a new topic for me to study, learn about, be aware of, and monitor. Apparently it is so rampant, some don’t even think it is wrong. And that must stop.
I am just getting more and more disgusted every day, the more I hear, read, and learn.
I think the IRS needs to require every tax exempt nonprofit organization in the country to undergo a “review” of its activities every so often to insure that the organization is following the rules and not engaging in partisan politics, but in something that truly is worthy of bipartisan merit and the tax exemption. There are many such organizations out there, both “conservative” and “liberal”, that cross that line on a routine basis. Such organizations do not deserve the tax exempt status.
Moreover, I might even be in favor of just eliminating such status at all for any such organization other than truly “charitable” ones. This is being abused so much, IMO, that it may be time to reconsider the merits of even having such tax-exempt organizations. The line between promoting interests of society and politics has become so blurred, for the most part, that everything seems political these days.
February 21, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
afotl, do you begin to understand why watching just li’l ol’ Mississippi’s corruption these days is a veritable holiday from the D.C. stuff I’ve been watching for years?
February 21, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
Norquist is a big name in republican circles in DC. Used to write in the American Spectator on a regular basis. All about the money. Used to head up Citizens Against Government Waste.
February 21, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
yeah, the chickens are coming home to roost, and they are now hard to ignore —they now have my full, undivided attention and contempt
February 21, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
Just reminds me of the good ole US Chamber and their political expenditure arms, most notably the benevolent “Law Enforcement Alliance.” Secret orgs buying influence! What a notion.
February 21, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york031903.asp
from national review.
February 21, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
… there’s a whole new world out there (to me anyway) of crooks who call themselves “lobbyists” …
Sure is, and Haley Barbour is one of its biggest, brightest (shining 100% on swamp-gas) lights.
February 21, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
HB is a crook?
February 21, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
Here ya go, MT:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=12&search=haley+barbour&x=6&y=11
February 21, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
Trying to clarify your statement, Lotus… it wasn’t clear to me
February 21, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
mt
HB was one of the most prominent, influencial and well-paid lobbyists of big coal this country has ever seen. He was a Southern man (the company.) And if you want to know what ignoring the well being of American citizens for simple corporate greed looks like take a long study of big coal. There’s a great book “Big Coal” – http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/review/25powell.html
February 21, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
Lobbyists may be the only permanent government we have. Politicians come and go, public attention waxes and wanes, but the lobby is always there, always interested in the nuances of every Congressional race, every executive order and administrative regulation, every court ruling and even the staffers and grunt workers in the offices.
If you want to try to keep up with the subject, once source of data is :
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp
They process and make available lobby expenditure data on the federal level.
Influence is hard to track for a lot of reasons – the path is often confused and indirect. For example, most smart lobbyists will maintain a client list that includes “feel good” organizations – colleges, charities, environmental interests and the like – so that if they can’t get in to see Congressman X about their telecom client, they can stop by to lobby for “Hug the Polar Bears” and just mention a few telecom issues while they’re in the office.
February 21, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
Sailor is on target about the US Chamber and their many front groups like “Law Enforcement Alliance” and the American Tort Reform Association. What trial lawyers donate to candidates, especially elected judges, pales in comparison to the US Chamber contributions. As a result, they “own” may State Supreme courts. Just look at recent rulings by the Mississippi supremes.
February 21, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
mslawyer, I assure you that I don’t need a lesson in HB or his resume… asking for clarification on a statement, that’s all.
February 21, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
Speaking of whom, expat, new post up-top . . .
February 21, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
MT, if you’ll click on that TPM link, you’ll see why I hold your guvnah in the same esteem as I hold Dickie Scruggs.
February 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
I posted this on here a week or so ago. The $4.3 million to Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist) was part of the tobacco settlement attorney fees that went to the Blake-Anderson-Sears circle. In the Scruggs deposition for the Luckey case, Merkel asks Scruggs about a document that refers to payments to Anderson-Sears, that includes the Blake payments, the Developing Markets Group payments, and the $4.3 million to ATR. Scruggs says that John Sears recommended using Norquist to oppose the proposed tax on the attorney fees. Norquist already was taking tobacco money to oppose the proposed increase in the cigarette tax.
See the discussion in comments 25-41:
http://www.folo.us/2008/02/17/a-narrative-of-the-bribery-case-part-5-balducci-patterson-lackey-1018-1031/
February 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
Ooo, I just added interesting update to the McCain post: “the story behind the story” (from The National Review). Fun when reporters turn their scopes on each other . . .
February 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
With respect to your earlier vow to keep the politics outta this in relation to comments you didn’t appreciate about Obama (and therefore I didn’t post anything about his recent accusations of plagerism since I agreed with you)… and keeping it to our ongoing good discussions…. wanted clarification of whether you indeed implied crook or lobbyist with that statement.
February 21, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
Yikes, sorry, Researcher — sometimes this all goes smeary on me.
February 21, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
No problem, Lotus. I understand why no one remembered it. Around the time I posted the Norquist link, Jim Hood created mass hysteria with an op-ed and an editorial board interview.
February 21, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
Lotus,
Also on the Muckraker page was a link to VP Cheney’s Energy Task Force. Among the friends involved was Ken Lay.
Interesting reading.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/07/todays_must_read_131.php
There is so much news going on today I feel like a dog that got locked up overnight in a meat market. I just don’t know what to taste next.
Keep up the good work
February 21, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
Thanks, kycol — I’m getting perty wo’ out. Bout time to pour something and cook something, I’m thinking . . .
February 21, 2008 at 5:39 pm |
Sorry, I just now spotted your 26, MT. And I fear I’ve probably already answered it to your distaste.
February 21, 2008 at 5:44 pm |
A question about Scruggs’ payment to Norquist:
Attorneys can work on litigation on a contingency basis, but what is described here is lobbying, not litigation or settlement negotiation.
I believe that lobbyists are prohibited from billing on a contingency basis.
Is this transaction illegal?
February 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm |
Miss expat, And have you seen Donohue’s (recent quote in an LA Times article) vow that the US Chamberwill spend at least 60 million in this campaign cycle to influence campaigns (including state judicial). I don’t have the link right now, but he said something charming like “when we bite your butt it will bleed.” Lovely, I’m getting a** tourniquets for all my candidates they will target. Look at what they’ve been doing in Mississippi judicial races since 2000!
February 21, 2008 at 7:19 pm |
Why surprised at Dickie having more Repub friends than Trent? He gives to both Dems and Repubs. Diane Scruggs, homemaker donates to the Republican state election committee (250,000 last year alone). In 2000, Dickie gave Bush/Cheney and to the GOP $250,000…the list goes on. And those funds are the ones that were reported. Seems Dickie is a man w/ no party or cause loyalty– he’s rather generous to pretty much anybody who might be able to help him out at some point.
February 21, 2008 at 7:25 pm |
Sailor, Dickie is a bipartisan contributor, but I have heard him say that he is a democrat and that he despises everything the Republican party stands for. That won’t stop him from trying to grease their palms if he thinks it will help him, though.
February 21, 2008 at 7:27 pm |
Amen, Sailor 34. Dickie’s only remaining membership-in-good-standing is in The Money Party.
February 21, 2008 at 8:04 pm |
The TPM article refers to Norquist and DeLay as the founders of the K Street Project. Don’t forget who the third, and at the time most important, member of that troika was — our own Haley Barbour, then-chairman of the RNC.
February 21, 2008 at 10:14 pm |
Norquist is scum. Nice to see it doesn’t bother anyone that he is all for treating terrorist-related groups as another constituency that can donate money.
February 23, 2008 at 11:08 pm |
Back to Norquist for a point/question:
According to the Boston Globe article, Norquist reported the $4.3 million from Scruggs as a contribution to the non-profit Americans for Tax Reform.
But Scruggs explains in the article and in his deposition in the Luckey case that this was payment for lobbying services rendered. Lobbying is not a non-profit activity.
I am not certain, but I think Norquist commited tax fraud if he reported lobbying fees as non-profit contributions.
February 24, 2008 at 4:33 am |
I sure hope our loyal FBI readers are not only on this thread but were already onto Norquist’s IRS filings, Researcher — much thanks.