Tester leads and Burns gets testy
In Montana's crucial Senate race, Democrat Jon Tester clings to a narrow advantage as incumbent Republican Conrad Burns dodges questions about Abramoff and the feds.
By Tim Grieve
Read more: Politics, News, Tim Grieve, 2006 Elections
AP/Wideworld photos
Sen. Conrad Burns and Jon Tester
Sept. 26, 2006 | GREAT FALLS, Mont. -- At a Sunday afternoon barbecue on the edge of town here, Sen. Conrad Burns wanted to talk about all of the federal money he can deliver for Montana residents and all of the ways in which his Democratic challenger will raise their taxes and leave them at the mercy of terrorists.
What he didn't want to talk about was Jack Abramoff.
Burns took more money from Abramoff, his clients and associates than any other member of Congress, and press reports say he may be next in the sights of federal prosecutors who have already bagged plea agreements from Abramoff, two former aides to Tom DeLay, a former aide to Ohio Rep. Bob Ney and, most recently, Ney himself.
When a reporter put the Abramoff question to Burns at Sunday's barbecue, the senator barked back: "Old news." Burns said that he's not a "target" in the Justice Department's ongoing Abramoff probe. But when I asked him whether he falls into the category of potential "targets" federal prosecutors call "subjects," Burns said, "I'm not a target." I asked him again if he's a "subject." "I'm not a target," he said again.
Burns spokesman Jason Klindt confirmed later that the Justice Department has told Burns' criminal defense lawyer that he's not a target. But when I asked Klindt whether Burns is a "subject" -- described in the U.S. Attorney's Manual as "a person whose conduct is within the scope" of a criminal investigation -- he said he wouldn't go beyond what he had just told me.
At the barbecue, another reporter asked Burns about the "tremendous amount" of Abramoff-related money he took. "I'm not talking about that situation," he responded. "We're going to talk about the future and what we can do for our state. I mean, all this has been a swirl out there, and nothing has happened."
When I started to say that something has happened -- that in Bob Ney, there's now a member of Congress who has agreed to plead guilty in the case -- Burns' slow simmer hit full boil. "Now listen," he snapped. "You guys are coming out of that 17 square miles of logic-free environment" -- that's what Burns calls Washington, D.C. -- "and I'm not answering to you. I answer, I answer -- my dialogue is with Jon Tester, who is my opponent. Period. End of conference. Thank you for coming."
It wasn't really the end of the impromptu press conference -- another reporter cajoled Burns into talking about Iraq -- and it almost certainly won't be the end of the Abramoff questions Burns will have to face. The "culture of corruption" may have waned as a campaign theme for Democrats around the country, but it's alive and well in Montana, where questions about the money Burns took from Abramoff -- and the favors he may have done in return -- have softened up the Republican incumbent for a challenge from Democrat Jon Tester. When a panelist raised the Abramoff question during a candidates' debate in Butte Saturday night, Burns blew it off as nothing but "baseless allegations drummed up in a negative campaign." Tester, meanwhile, said he'd never "sell Montana down the road by cutting deals with lobbyists like Jack Abramoff." In an interview afterward, he told me that he expects Burns to continue "dodging" the issue until November because he doesn't want to admit what he's actually done. "The truth hurts," Tester said. "That's a fact."
What's the truth about Conrad Burns and Jack Abramoff? The basic facts aren't really in dispute. Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff, his clients and associates gave Burns nearly $150,000. In 2003, Burns tried to steer $3 million in federal funds intended for poor Native Americans to the casino-rich, Abramoff-represented Saginaw Chippewa tribe of Michigan instead. When Interior Department officials resisted, Burns delivered the money anyway via an earmark in a 2004 appropriations bill. There are also questions about an all-expenses-paid trip to the Super Bowl two Burns aides enjoyed courtesy of SunCruz, a Florida company partly owned by Abramoff, and about Burns' effort to block legislation involving the Northern Marianas Islands that just happened to be opposed by two of Abramoff's clients.
As the Abramoff story unfolded last December, an aide to Burns said the senator wouldn't be returning any of the money from the disgraced lobbyist, his clients or associates. Then Burns switched course and gave the money back, saying that the contributions had "served to undermine the public's confidence in its government."
Returning the money may have helped Burns politically, but it's not likely to have much of an impact on the opinion of federal prosecutors. Burns has long been mentioned as one of the lawmakers in whom Abramoff investigators are interested. Now, with Ney having agreed to plead guilty next month, Time says that investigators are paying "particular scrutiny" to the junior senator from Montana.