NEW CORRUPTION REPORT RAISES TROUBLING QUESTIONS ABOUT JACK MURTHA
Monday, September 25, 2006
(JOHNSTOWN, September 25) -- Washington County Commissioner and Pennsylvania 12th district Republican Congressional nominee Diana Irey -- responding to a report released last week in Washington, DC, regarding Congressman Jack Murtha's unethical fundraising practices -- today released the following statement:
"A report released last week in Washington raises troubling questions about Jack Murtha's ethics.
"Last Wednesday, a liberal congressional watchdog group -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW -- released its second annual list of the most corrupt Members of Congress. Included in its list of 25 Members, sadly, was our own Member, Jack Murtha.
"Lest you think this is some kind of partisan hit job, it is not. This is not a report by a Republican or a conservative organization -- of the 25 Members listed, only four are Democrats. Two of the four Democrats are, at this very moment, under investigation by federal authorities to determine whether or not they broke federal laws. The third has apparently used her influence to financially benefit her husband, her son, and her daughter.
"The final Democrat listed with the other 24 Members of Congress is Jack Murtha.
"Specifically, CREW cited a pattern of abuse regarding Congressman Murtha's fundraising practices -- essentially, they argue that he trades federal contracts, loans, and grants for campaign contributions, in violation of federal law.
"CREW cites two former Murtha staffers as key players in Jack Murtha's triangle of influence -- men who, after working for the Congressman for years on the Appropriations Committee, now engage in lucrative lobbying businesses, representing clients who seek federal contracts, loans, and grants.
"'Paul Magliocchetti worked with Rep. Murtha as a senior staffer on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for ten years,' says the report. 'After leaving the committee, Mr. Magliocchetti founded the PMA Group, which has become one of the prominent Washington, DC defense lobbying firms. In the current campaign cycle, the PMA Group and 11 of the firm's clients rank in the top 20 contributors to Rep. Murtha, having made contributions totaling $274,649. In the 2002 and 2004 cycles, PMA and nine of the firm's clients ranked in the top 20 contributors, having made $236,799 in contributions and $279,074, respectively.
"'In turn, many of PMA's clients have benefited significantly from Rep. Murtha's earmarks. In the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill, PMA clients received at least 60 earmarks at a total of $95.01 million.'
"Stop and think about that for a moment. Over the last six years, officials and clients of the PMA Group have contributed roughly $800,000 to Congressman Murtha's campaign fund. In return, they have received at least $95 million in federal contracts, loans, and grants. That's a better than 100-to-1 return on investment. Not bad work, if you can get it.
"A second former Murtha staffer who now engages in a lucrative lobbying business is Carmen Scialabba, who now lobbies for a firm called KSA Consulting.
"In the 2004 Defense Appropriations bill, Congressman Murtha inserted earmarks valued at more than $20 million for at least ten KSA Consulting clients.
"According to a report in the Los Angeles Times last year, at least one client hired KSA Consulting on the direct recommendation of John Hugya, Congressman Murtha's chief of staff. Mr. Hugya conveniently neglected to return phone calls from the LA Times reporter writing the story.
"A provision of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Title V of the U.S. Code, paragraph 7353, prohibits Members of Congress from accepting 'anything of value' from 'a person seeking official action from' or 'doing business with' the House of Representatives. It also specifically prohibits a Member of Congress from accepting 'anything of value' from 'a person whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individual's official duties.'
"Specifically, and in whole, the relevant provision of the U.S. Code states:
"[N]o Member of Congress or officer or employee of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch shall solicit or accept anything of value from a person -
"(1) seeking official action from, doing business with, or (in the case of executive branch officers and employees) conducting activities regulated by, the individual's employing entity; or
"(2) whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individual's official duties.
"An earmarked appropriation is an 'official action' of the House of Representatives.
"A company seeking an earmarked appropriation is 'doing business with' the House of Representatives.
"A company seeking an earmarked appropriation is run by persons 'whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance' of the Congressman's official duties.
"A campaign contribution, as anyone who runs for office will confirm, is a 'thing of value.'
"Jack Murtha inserted earmarked appropriations into legislation he is largely responsible for writing and pushing to passage.
"Jack Murtha accepted campaign contributions from people whose interests were substantially benefited by those earmarks, and who were seeking official action from and doing business with the House of Representatives.
"Whether he solicited the campaign contributions is irrelevant to the law -- though I doubt he failed to ask.
"And whether he accepted the campaign contributions in advance of inserting the earmarks, as an inducement for future action, or after the insertion of the earmarks, as a reward or payoff, is also irrelevant.
"These actions raise troubling questions about Mr. Murtha's ethics. Sadly, this is not the first time Mr. Murtha has demonstrated a certain, shall we say, 'relaxed attitude' toward ethics.
"Mr. Murtha was, after all, the second most famous unindicted co-conspirator in American political history (right after Richard Nixon) for his role in Abscam -- where he initially refused an undercover FBI agent's attempt to bribe him with $50,000, but then suggested he might change his mind later, after he got to know the agent better.
"When questioned by the Tribune-Review about his actions in Abscam, Mr. Murtha then lied, saying 'they didn't offer me any money.' And he also failed to report the attempted bribe to the appropriate authorities in the House of Representatives, as he was required to do by the Rules of the House.
"Now comes this new report.
"And I just have to ask -- with all we read every day about elected officials treating themselves differently from the public they were elected to serve, with all we read every day about politicians doing the bidding of the special interests in exchange for special interest campaign cash, with all we read every day about politicians who serve their own interests rather than the public's interest …
"Isn't it time we had a Congresswoman who believes there's no interest more special than yours?" |
