LAT: Scandal May Upset Rules of Enrichment in Congress

[hang a left]

THE NATION
Scandal May Upset Rules of Enrichment in Congress
# Lawmakers fear that the Abramoff case could widen the definition of an illegal contribution.

By Richard B. Schmitt and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers

"Lawful lobbying does not include paying a public official a personal benefit with the understanding — explicit or implicit — that a certain official act will occur. That's not lobbying; that's a crime."

Alice Fisher, Justice Department official



To many, the scandal surrounding fallen super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff has the ring of business as usual.

After all, it's no secret that lobbyists hoping to gain favorable treatment for their clients offer not only campaign contributions but favors. And some members of Congress accept both.

But Abramoff's agreement Tuesday to plead guilty to federal crimes and cooperate with prosecutors — in what could be the farthest-reaching corruption scandal to hit Congress in a generation — is focusing new attention on the rules of the influence-peddling game, and the line that separates the illegal from the merely unsavory.

That line, as it turns out, may be moving.

Traditionally, bribery cases involving public officials are among the most challenging for the government to crack. Prosecutors must prove that a lawmaker would not have taken a certain action if he or she did not receive the benefit that was given — a so-called "quid pro quo."

snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-corrupt6jan06,1,3357651.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true