January 6, 2006, 2:50 pm
The New York Times hiring policy needs to be clarified. A reporter realizes that Abramoff-related campaign contributions are now being returned to Native tribes and charities as politicians are trying to distance themselves from the “Republican” lobbyist.
Why did they wait until now to return it? And would it be better to direct the money to Mr. Abramoff’s victims, since he has said he is broke but has promised to pay more than $26 million in taxes and restitution?
How does the reporter answer that pivotal question?
“This is dirty money and now they are going to try to make themselves look good by donating to charity,” said Dan Kriwitsky, a Web site designer and Democrat in Sarasota, Fla., who was so outraged he wrote a reporter to complain. “It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody is now going to get a tax deduction on that donation.”
So, a Web site designer (and Democrat!) Dan Kriwitsky is outraged. WELL! It’s a good thing he wrote a reporter. Phew, I thought we would never understand just how corrosive Jack Abramoff’s influence was on our dignified political institutions.