A signal example of how to vivify and add depth and breadth to the “summary of a report” article. Naturally the story leads with a succinct statement of the most sizzling allegation---conservative nonprofits exchanging cash for influence with Abramoff. Then, after specifying the source of the report, we get the current state of play---the legal status of Abramoff and Rep. Ney. Then there follows a lengthier digest of the report, followed by responses from each of the five organizations cited. Once both sides are established, there are details of three interrelated “cases”: the connections between Abramoff and Norquist; one’s group’s “underwiting” of Norquist op-ed pieces; and promised access to him, and to former ... More »

Direct quotes from people and emails make this a well-sourced story. Although numerous people and groups are subjects of Abramoff emails, this story focuses on 5 well-known non-profit organizations. Could use one more viewpoint on the legality of non-profit relations with Abmramoff.

It draws some important connections, and lays out the web of deceit well. Slate.com published emails between Ridenour and Abramoff in March 2006. They are availabel at http://www.slate.com/id/2138082/entry/2137077/

Although ultra conservatives have already reacted with their time-worn quotidian denials: "political nonsense, Democrats' fault, no laws violated, etc."-- the story is both informative and objective.