It really is quite astounding that despite corrections from readers, corrections from the FEC, and corrections from politicians, most of the media still insists that Jack Abramoff's corruption extends to both parties. Here's an example from an AP story (via Josh Marshall):

The Abramoff investigation threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials.

[...]

With the midterm elections 10 months away, Democrats have tried to link Abramoff to Republicans, the main recipients of his largesse.

To the so-called "journalist", everything comes down to a "on the one hand" analysis balanced by a "on the other hand" report. That's ok when you have two hands playing by the same rules. But when you have a political dynamic where one side is playing by a totally different set of political rules, it becomes cover for the corrupt.

Let me emphasize something that has been said, oh, 500 times in the blogosphere:

> Democrats received zero money from Jack Abramoff. FEC records prove this beyond a doubt. All Abramoff money went to Republicans.

> Democrats did take contributions from Indian Tribes that Jack Abramoff gave money too. These were perfectly legal fund-raising contributions, just like money contributed from any organization. If you don't like it that politicians have to raise money from special interest groups, then change the laws of campaign financing. As long as the law is the way it is now, the Democrats performed perfectly legal/ethical/acceptable fundraising activities with organizations that received money from Abramoff.

> There are zero Democrats under investigation for corruption.

It's critical that the message about this scandal be accurate. This is about Republican corruption that goes well beyond recent scandals involving Democrats. Remember, the worst Democratic scandal offender in recent memory is Dan Rostenkowski who was removed from office because he illegally took postage stamps!

The news media's ho-hum approach to the story is hurting the country and preventing voters from seeing the depth of mob-like corruption and payola that has gone on. This is part of what I was discussing here. It's the media reaction and the Dems poor messaging that has Digby so negative. But with continuing pressure from the new emerging "liberal" media outlets, perhaps the message will get through. I hope.

ADDED: Of course. Further evidence that the media is full-o-shit on this issue. Indians typically give money to Democrats rather than Republicans. But in the case of "Abramoff money", the Indians actually gave more money to Republicans!