Right now the question is - should this guy still be in
charge of appropriations for the Defense budget?
Corruption that politicians endorse
Betsy's Page
Congressman John Murtha explains why it's so much better for him to slip earmarks into bills to get benefits for his district. Otherwise, it would be those shadowy unelected bureaucrats evaluating programs and deciding where the money should go. Much better for the guys who have the most seniority on the Appropriations Committee to make those decisions.
<<< "If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district," Mr. Murtha said. "My job as a member of Congress is to make sure that we take care of what we see is necessary. Not the bureaucrats who are unelected over there in whatever White House, whether it's Republican or Democrat. Those bureaucrats would like to control everything. Every president would like to have all the power and not have Congress change anything. But we're closest to the people." >>>
That's about as clear of an explanation of political corruption as you're going to get from a politician. And ignore what is going on behind the curtain.
<<< Federal agents have subpoenaed records from a CTC subsidiary. In January, they raided Kuchera and carted away boxes of records. In suburban Washington, agents swarmed the offices of PMA Group, an influential lobbying group founded by Paul Magliocchetti, a former Appropriations defense staff member. Mr. Magliocchetti's firm lobbied for a number of companies that benefited from Mr. Murtha's earmarks, including CTC.
The reasons for the investigations remain unclear, but the common thread Murtha critics see connecting it all is the congressman's links to the various operations.
Critics of Mr. Murtha and the earmarks process say the congressman's success in directing federal dollars to businesses in his district has created a sort of triangular trade in politics: He directs earmarks to particular firms that hire lobbyists who, in turn, direct campaign contributions back to Mr. Murtha..
"Mr. Murtha has been a successful manager at the favor factory for many years," said Naomi Seligman, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that has branded Mr. Murtha "one of the most corrupt members of Congress" for his earmarking ways. >>>
Remember when Senator Coburn was calling earmarks "the gateway drug" to corruption. John Murtha can figure as the poster boy of that corruption.
And, as CQ points out, taking care of his district isn't what has gotten Murtha into trouble.
<<< It’s a classic example of setting up a straw man.
Murtha’s critics aren’t opposed to his ability to bring home the bacon; as the chairman, and then ranking member, and then chairman again of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee for the last two decades, Murtha’s control over the Pentagon’s purse strings is legendary, and the torrent of cash he has directed back to his 12th District makes the Johnstown Flood look like a spring drizzle.
His critics don’t begrudge him his pork. But they are questioning how close he has come to the line of ethical propriety. >>>
One benefit of Murtha's current scandal is that journalists are revisiting his sleazy role in the Abscam scandal, a scandal that he slithered away from by being labeled simply as an "unidicted co-conspirator," a moniker that is always a selling point in one's elected officials.
<<< In the fall and winter of 1979-80, FBI agents posing as Arab sheiks tried to lure corrupt members of Congress into accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for helping the faux sheiks get around U.S. immigration laws. The “Arab Scam” — Abscam — led to the convictions of five members of the House and one senator.
For his role, Murtha was given the same ignominious label attached to Richard M. Nixon in the Watergate scandal: “unindicted co-conspirator.”
Murtha refused to personally reach into a desk drawer and remove $50,000 cash, and insisted instead that a middleman take possession of the booty. When the FBI agent refused to agree to that arrangement, they agreed to meet again (at which point, the FBI agent hoped, Murtha would feel comfortable enough to take the cash himself). But before that second meeting could take place, the news media exposed the FBI sting operation, and Murtha agreed to testify against his congressional colleagues. After his testimony helped secure convictions, the Justice Department announced that Murtha would face no charges himself. >>>
The PMA scandal is now starting to smell a lot like the Jack Abramoff scandal that tarnished so many Republicans.
<<< The work of those lobbyists took them often to Murtha's Capitol Hill office, as well as those of fellow Democrats Peter Visclosky of Indiana, Jim Moran of Virginia and others on the defense appropriations subcommittee that Murtha chairs. The FBI says the investigation is continuing, highlighting the close ties between special-interest spending provisions known as earmarks and the raising of campaign cash.
For Murtha, Visclosky and Moran, the practice has paved the way for their congressional careers. In 2007 and 2008, the three directed $137 million to defense contractors who were paying Magliocchetti's PMA Group, a lobbying firm, to get them government business. That kind of clout put the midsized 33-lobbyist firm into the big leagues, ranking it in the top 10 in billings among Washington lobbying shops.
At the same time, the three lawmakers received huge amounts of political donations from PMA lobbyists and their clients. Murtha has collected $2.37 million in campaign contributions from PMA's lobbyists and the companies it has represented since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. Visclosky has collected $1.36 million; Moran, $997,348.
Those political donations have followed a distinct pattern: The giving is especially heavy in March, which is prime time for submitting written earmark requests. Over the past two decades, $1.1 million has flowed to the campaigns and leadership PACs of Murtha, Visclosky and Moran from PMA and its clients in March alone. >>>
I wonder which other politicians would adopt the Murtha defense that corruption is okay if you're taking care of your district.
Right now the question is - should this guy still be in charge of appropriations for the Defense budget?
betsyspage.blogspot.com |
