Betting on Abramoff

Did Jack Abramoff give money to any Democrats or Democratic causes?  Some time back, irritated by attempts to paint the Abramoff shenanigans as a bipartisan scandal, I offered a small sum ($10) on the Far-Right newsbusters.org site to anyone who could find that Jack Abramoff gave money to any Democrat or any Democratic cause.  I've received some flack from some of the NewsBusters netizens, who claim that I've lost the bet.  I think I won.  Welcher or winner? Here's the facts, you be the judge:

First the the facts on the Abramoff case with regard to Democrats and cash:

1. Nobody has demonstrated that Abramoff himself contributed to Democrats or Democratic causes.
2. Several of Abramoff's colleagues at his law firm did make contributions to Democrats and/or Democratic causes.
3. Several of Abramoff's customers (e.g., Indian tribes) did make contributions to Democrats and/or Democratic causes.

Now let's take a look at the terms of the offer.  As far as I can tell from looking back with Google, I offered a reward on three occassions:

The first offer was on January 5th, 2006: 

"If you can, before 9:00 PM EST, come up with a credible reference demonstrating that [Democratic Senator] Patty Murray received personal donations from Abramoff, I'll send a $10 contribution to any cause you desire."

Since Abramoff did not make any personal donations to any Democrats, I clearly can keep my cash.

The second offer, made on January 17th 2006, was a bit more liberal - it was made to address some bellyachin' along the lines of "somehow we just know that the Democrats got money from something illegal that Abramoff was involved in".  So I opened it up to contributions from any person or entity in the "criminal cabal".  Here's the offer I made:

"I'll make a $10 contribution in your name to the cause of your choice if you're the first person, before midnight tonight, to reference a reliable source that indicates that any Democrat received money:

• Directly from Jack Abramoff or
• directly from any indicted associate or indicted client of Jack Abramoff"

Still safe here - nobody has shown that an indicted Abramoff associate or client ever gave a cent to a Democrat or Democratic cause.  So scratch the "getting if from Abramoff's criminal cabal" angle.

The bellyachin' continued, along the lines of "Well, we just know that this is a bipartisan scandal!  Abramoff must have told his customers to bribe Democrats!"  This should have been covered by the previous bet - after all, if the customers did something illegal, they should be indicted.  But I acquiesced yet again and, on January 20th, 2006, I expanded the offer:

"We Liberals are tired of the press making stuff up in order to appease the Fringe Right. The Democrats have tremendous faults, but stretching reality to pretend that the Democrats have sunk to the same moral depths as have the Republicans is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Once again, my offer to the Right: I will donate $10 to the cause of your choice if you are the first one, by midnite tonight, to provide a credible demonstration that:

• Jack Abramoff donated any money to a Democrat or a Democratic entity, or
• that an entity substantially controlled by Jack Abramoff donated any money to a Democrat or a Democratic entity, or
• that an indicted associate or indicted client of Jack Abramoff donated any money to a Democrat or a Democratic entity"

The expansion was that I'd cough up the cash if "an entity substantially controlled by Jack Abramoff donated any money to a Democrat or a Democratic entity"

Now some folks seem to be having an issue with the term "substantially controlled". They seem to feel that Jack Abramoff. "substantially controlled" the Indian Tribes that were his customers.  Seems like an odd way to think, but let's flesh it out: what does "substantially controlled" mean?

My own understanding was that it means an entity who can, effectively by himself, herself, or itself, make all the decisions for an entity. But perhaps I was mistaken.

I first tried to find a definition for substantially controlled on Google.  I found the phrase used in many legal documents - but no definition.

So I turned to the news group alt.lawyers, figuring lawyers should know the precise meaning.  My post was as follows:

"I have a bet which hinges on the definition of "Substantial Control". Does it mean any measure of influence, or does it mean significant control, or does it mean pretty-much-total control?

Thanks!"

I received one response:

"That's a very hard question, maybe even impossible to answer.  The first
reason is that lawyers, when drafting legislation, regulations and
contracts, use terms such as "substantial control" and "reasonably
necessary" to mean that the judge and jury should examine the facts of each
case to determine whether the standard has been met in that case.  The
drafters use those terms because they are not able to define a rule that
would be a clear, "bright line" rule for every possible circumstance.
Therefore, there is no single definition of the term.

If an English comp answer would help, as opposed to a law answer,
"substantial control" means more control than "any measure of influence" and
less control than "pretty much total control".  "Significant control" might
be a perfect synonym for "substantial control", but that's not helpful.
That just leaves us with task of defining "significant control", and we're
worse off than when we started."

Quite a reasoned answer! And certainly more than I was expecting.  Just for kicks, I replied to the respondent with a followup in the hope that he could make a ruling on my exact usage of the phrase:

"Thanks for your answer!

Thanks"

I actually got a response!

"A person's customers, suppliers and employees would never be considered to
be entities substantially controlled by that person unless there are
extraordinary circumstances.  The term "substantially controlled entity" is
used in law to refer to a corporation (or LLC, partnership, trust, etc.) in
which the person is the president or owns enough stock to have the power to
control the corporation."

Which is, pretty much what I thought it was.

So the $10 is staying put in my pocket, no matter how much bellyachin' I get - I guess we'll just have to file this Righty attempt to redefine language under "Truthiness".