Casino Jack and the United States of Money: A First Look

It would inaccurate to describe "Casino Jack" as enjoyable movie. It's well made, compelling and tells its story with powerful first-person accounts.  But its really downright uncomfortable to see and hear the ways Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and their lackeys abused the power for personal gain. 

Friday, I had the opportunity watch an online screening of the film, which will hit theaters next Friday, May 7.  It tells the story of Abramoff's rise to power through as a Young Republican, his close relationship and collaboration with Republican leaders in Congress and his schemes to extract millions of dollars from clients like the Louisiana Coushatta tribe.

The documentary focuses primarily on former legislators and Abramoff associates-- Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Michael Scanlon, Neil Volz and others.  Indeed, I got the impression while watching that the filmmakers intentionally avoided any direct indictments of sitting lawmakers and candidates. 

Still, Roy Blunt makes a few appearances that could make supporters squirm. This isn't surprising, given his  documented connections to Abramoff (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here for examples) and very close ties to DeLay.  For example, Blunt's visage appears in a slot machine and as the film focuses on Abramoff's fleecing of the Coushattas.  Moments later, we see Blunt's signature prominently displayed onscreen -- this is presumably from the unusual letter signed with DeLay, Speaker Dennis Hastert and others sent on behalf of the Abramoff client.  The Washington Post wrote about the effort on September 28, 2004:

DeLay has also shown support for causes important to Abramoff's clients. A source close to Abramoff who asked not to be named because of the continuing grand jury investigation said Abramoff lobbied DeLay's office to organize a June 2003 letter -- co-signed by DeLay, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Deputy Whip Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.) -- that endorsed a view of gambling law benefiting the Coushattas' desire to block gambling competition by another tribe.

The letter, sent to Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, said the House leaders opposed a plan by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians to open a casino at a non-reservation site, expected at the time to be outside Shreveport, La., not far from a casino owned by the Coushattas. The intent of the letter, the source said, was to protect the income from the Coushattas' casino -- about $300 million a year.

V. Heather Sibbison, a lobbyist at the time for the Jena Band, said: "I do this for a living, and I have never seen a letter like that before. It was incredibly unusual for that group of people, who do not normally weigh in on Indian issues, to express such a strong opinion about a particular project not in any of their home states."

DeLay spokesman Roy did not address whether Abramoff had contacted DeLay about the letter but said: "The majority leader has been consistent in his opposition to the expansion of gambling. Accusations and insinuations to the contrary are simply attempts to make a sexier story."

Earlier in the film, as the relationship between DeLay and Abramoff is laid out, viewers are treated to this now-familiar passing of the torch (ahem, hammer) to Roy Blunt. 

Though much of the story was familiar, I was not expecting to find Tom DeLay quite as revolting as he was. (That's a weird statement from me, I know).  But seriously -- it would be hard to overstate how slimy and disgusting the man is in his statements and actions with Abramoff and the exploits examined in the film.

I won't ruin any more of the film with this substandard review.  Go see it when if and when it hits theaters -- or find it on Netflix.  It will make your stomach churn and make you angry.  But this is history worth remembering.