Prosecutors Opt for Wide Probe of Rep. Ney By Susan Schmidt and Chris Cillizza, Washington Post Staff Writers

Federal prosecutors signaled this week that they have decided to pursue a wide range of allegations about dealings between Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, rather than bringing a narrowly focused bribery case against the congressman.

Ney faces a primary challenge in his eastern Ohio district Tuesday, as his ties to Abramoff have become national news. It is the first time since his 1994 election to Congress that Ney has had to compete for his party’s nomination. …

The allegations against Ney have taken a toll on his political career and his prospects for reelection.

Ney will face off against financial analyst James Harris in next week’s Republican primary in Ohio’s 18th District. Despite his travails [mjh: read “crimes”], Ney has won the uniform backing of district Republican officials and is favored to win. …

Democrats acknowledge privately that the only way they can win in this Republican-leaning district, which President Bush carried with 57 percent in 2004, is for the election to be a referendum on Ney. He has vowed to remain in the race even if he is indicted.

A tough guy just bearing his cross? By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate

I never minded DeLay’s being a tough guy — it was his syrupy claims to carry the banner for Christianity that I found offensive, as he frog-marched the House toward being a cash-operated special-interest machine. The idea of putting pressure on lobbyists to give only to Republicans, pressuring lobbying firms into hiring only Republicans and then letting lobbyists sit at the table during committee meetings where legislation was written — it was just screaming overt corruption.

DeLay and Gingrich turned the U.S. House of Representatives, “the people’s House,” into a pay-for-play machine for corporations. Put in enough money, get your special tax exemption, get your earmarked government contract, get your trade legislation and your environmental exemption, get rid of safety regulation. …

“Stand firm,” he added. “Resist evil. Remember that all truth and blessings emanate from our Creator.” He then went with Tan to see a cockfight.

This is why DeLay’s professions of Christianity make me sick. He was there. He could have talked to the workers. Instead, he chose to walk with the powerful and do real harm to the very people whom Jesus mandated we especially care for.

One for you, two for me … By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate

AUSTIN – We need to keep up with the daily drip, that endless succession of special favors for special interests performed by Congress, or we’ll never figure out how we got so far behind the eight ball. While the top Bushies lunge about test-driving new wars (great idea — the one we’re having is a bummer, so let’s start another!), Congress just keeps right on cranking out those corporate goodies.

Earlier this month, the House effectively repealed more than 200 state food safety and public health protections. Say, when was the last time you enjoyed a little touch of food poisoning? Coming soon to a stomach near you. What was really impressive about HR 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act, is that it was passed without a public hearing.

“The House is trampling crucial health safeguards in every state without so much as a single public hearing,” said Erik Olson, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This just proves the old adage, ‘Money talks.’ The food industry spared no expense to ensure passage.”

Thirty-nine attorneys general, plus health, consumer and environmental groups, are opposing the law. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the food industry has spent more than $81 million on campaign contributions to members of Congress since 2000.

The bill would automatically override any state measure that is stronger than federal law — the opposite of what a sensible law would do. …

Here’s another little gem, one of those “it was after midnight and everyone wanted to go home” deals. A no-cost sweetener to encourage oil and gas companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico — and who needs more encouragement these days than the oil companies? The poor things are making hardly any money at all.

Just have the federal government waive the royalty rights for drilling in the publicly owned waters. Turns out this waiver will cost the government at least $7 billion over the next five years.

I roared with laughter upon reading that U.S. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas had assured his colleagues that the provision of the energy bill was “so noncontroversial” that senior House and Senate negotiators had not even discussed it. That’s one of the oldest ploys in the Texas handbook of sneaky tricks and has been successfully used to pass many a sweet deal for the oil industry.

“The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” U.S. Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts told The New York Times. “Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

God Bless Molly Ivins, Part I

The Doolittles’ Rich Deal
How one congressional couple collected campaign checks — and put $215,000 in their pockets

IMAGINE THAT every time members of Congress received a $1,000 campaign contribution, they could skim $150 off the top and put it straight into their personal bank accounts. Sound shady? That is, in effect, how Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) and his wife, Julie, operate. According to our review of campaign finance records, Mrs. Doolittle has received at least $215,000 from Mr. Doolittle’s various campaign committees since 2001. This doesn’t include $6,800 in payments to another of Mrs. Doolittle’s companies, Events Plus, before she started doing his fundraising work. She’s taken in nearly $100,000 during the 2006 campaign alone.

The arrangement couldn’t smell more.

Burns May Be Bouncing Back
Polls Suggest Montana Senator Is Shedding Ties to the Abramoff Scandal
By Blaine Harden, Washington Post Staff Writer

BILLINGS, Mont. — The Republican primary debate was over, and three challengers had barely laid a glove on Sen. Conrad Burns.

No one mentioned the $150,000 he accepted from lobbyist Jack Abramoff and later returned. No one brought up the $3 million federal grant secured by a wealthy Indian tribe — and Abramoff client — after Burns pressured the Interior Department. No one quoted Abramoff telling Vanity Fair that he and his clients had received “every appropriation we wanted” from a subcommittee chaired by Burns.

Only one question during Friday’s debate even mentioned Abramoff, whose web of illegal lobbying has spawned the largest congressional scandal in years. And Burns pugnaciously dismissed it, saying, “If you want to know something about the Abramoff deal, you got to ask the Democrats.”

Polls here suggest that Burns, 71, a three-term incumbent who has been targeted by the Democrats as one of the most beatable Republicans in the Senate, may be bouncing back from the pounding he took late last year after the publication of several articles detailing his ties to Abramoff.

For a while after the stories broke, Burns essentially hunkered down, offering little response to the allegations while his political fortunes flagged. Republican strategists in Washington believe Burns stayed silent for too long. In the past three months, however, his campaign has spent heavily on radio and television ads that attack Democrats for attacking him. In a current ad, Burns tells Montana voters that “the daily partisan assault is an assault on you and what you stand for.”

After the debate, Burns was asked about the new poll numbers, which show him tied with or narrowly trailing his two most likely Democratic opponents. He is expected to win handily in the Republican primary.

“Never lose faith in the people,” he said with a tight smile.

Would he answer any questions about Abramoff?

“No!” Burns said, with a tight smile.

For all his bravado, Burns remains in trouble, especially in a state that generally tilts to the Republicans. But his experience also suggests the challenge that Democrats around the country will have in turning this year’s scandals into tangible gains at the polls.

Ashcroft, No Sellout By Al Kamen

Washington State University Vancouver folks were puzzled last week when only 100 people bought advance tickets for former attorney general John D. Ashcroft ‘s speech on national security and civil liberties.

After all, last year’s speaker, newly named Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean , sold out the 1,100 seats before the event. …

[Ashcroft] received a $27,000 speaker’s fee …. And that was substantially less than his usual $60,000. With travel and other costs for receptions and dinners, the tab came to about $36,000.

Dean’s fee, she said, was only $17,000. …

“We did an all-out blitz” to gin up interest among local Republican Party folks and others, Long said. In the end, about 700 showed. Of those, 225 paid the full $10, 400 students were comped and 75 were VIPs. Several rows in the back were roped off to make the room appear smaller.

A couple of dozen protesters were outside and one inside ….

[mjh: More might have attended if he promised not to sing “Let the Eagle Soar.” Names of attendees were added to the Get Out Of Jail Free Database.]