The soft money, it Burns!!!

This looks to be about the most naked money-for-favors scenario in the history of the Senate:

U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., changed his stance on a 2001 bill after receiving a $5,000 donation from a lobbyist's client who opposed the legislation, records show.

The client hired Jack Abramoff as a lobbyist to defeat the kind of bill Burns voted against. Prior to receiving the payment, Burns did not oppose an identical bill that unanimously passed the Senate in 2000, Senate documents show.

Burns, who is up for re-election next year, told the Missoulian State Bureau on Friday that the campaign contribution had nothing to do with his vote, but said it happened so long ago, he couldn't remember why he opposed the 2001 measure. Burns said he may have initially not opposed the legislation's unanimous passage because it was politically more expedient not to stand in the way of a popular bill.

“Any time you put a hold on a bill, you expend political capital,” Burns said.

And why expend political capital when you can get actual working capital from lobbyists for changing your position? By the way, the bill Burns changed his vote on is completely disgusting, especially to me, given my family's history in textiles. Abramoff represented the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association, who were definitively seen to have been hiring illegal Chinese immigrants in the US Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, paying them next to nothing, and beating them if they did anything wrong (incidentally, clothes made on these islands can use a "Made in the USA" label, which is pathetic). The Senate wanted to broaden labor and immigration controls to the islands.

The Senate passed the bill in 2000 with unanimous consent; it died in the House. The Senate proposed the same bill in 2001. Burns voted against it. One of the lobbyists for the garment manufacturers used to be on Burns' staff. Abramoff was paid about a million and a half dollars to help defeat the bill. $5,000 of it wound its way into Burns' pocket.

And Burns ASKED to get on the record about this:

On May 23, 2001, the bill again came before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for a vote. In an unusual move, Burns requested that each member's vote be recorded next to their names - a so-called “roll call” vote. Oftentimes, such votes are recorded by voice only. On a voice vote, there is no record of how each member voted and it is impossible to tell from a transcript of the meeting how an individual senator voted.

Burns' roll call request meant that his vote would be a traceable part of the public record.

This time, Burns reversed course and voted against the bill. He was one of four committee members to do so.

The vote came one month and three days after Burns received the $5,000 donation.

It was like they wanted proof of purchase.