This is blogging like it oughta be - the Brainster digs into the Abramoff donation numbers ignored by the media, TAP, and everyone else. He concludes that, contra TAP and Krugman, "up" is not "down". The question revolves around the contribution habits of various Indian tribes before and after they retained Abramoff:
Now when I first tackled this article I quickly discovered an obvious flaw. The Prospect article claimed:
At the same time, two of those four tribes -- Saginaw and Chitimacha -- saw their giving to Democrats drop or remain static.
But when you looked at the information on the Saginaw tribe, it said:
1) Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $371,250
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $191,960
Okay, so pre-Abramoff the Saginaw Chippewa gave $371,250 to the Democrats over about 9 years, that's a little over $41,000 per year, while post Abramoff, they gave the Democrats $191,960 over three years, that's $64,000 per year.
So to the American Prospect, going from $41,000 per year to $64,000 per year--a 50% increase in donations from that tribe per year to the Democrats--means that tribe "saw their giving to Democrats drop or remain static."
But it gets better...
Indeed it does. Folks interested in the Abramoff scandal will be interested in this.
And let's note - anyone who wants to validate or refute the Brainster's number-crunching should hit his trackback. He provides plenty of links to the underlying data.
Hat tip to Don Luskin.