Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (29307)	2/21/2009 1:12:34 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Murtha's looming earmarks scandal Betsy's Page Congressional Quarterly has traced back the earmarks that congressmen got in a Defense Appropriations bill shepherded through John Murtha's subcommittee and the donations that the PMA Group lobbying firm made to those same politicians. The FBI recently raided PMA and politicians have been sprinting to return the campaign donations that they got from PMA. <<< More than 100 House members secured earmarks in a major spending bill for clients of a single lobbying firm — The PMA Group — known for its close ties to John P. Murtha, the congressman in charge of Pentagon appropriations. “It shows you how good they were,” said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “The sheer coordination of that would take an army to finish.” PMA’s offices have been raided, and the firm closed its political action committee last week amid reports that the FBI is investigating possibly illegal campaign contributions to Murtha and other lawmakers. No matter what the outcome of the federal investigation, PMA’s earmark success illustrates how a well-connected lobbying firm operates on Capitol Hill. And earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients. In the spending bill managed by Murtha, the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriation, 104 House members got earmarks for projects sought by PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly’s analysis of a database constructed by Ashdown’s group. Those House members, plus a handful of senators, combined to route nearly $300 million in public money to clients of PMA through that one law (PL 110-116). And when the lawmakers were in need — as they all are to finance their campaigns — PMA came through for them. According to CQ MoneyLine, the same House members who took responsibility for PMA’s earmarks in that spending bill have, since 2001, accepted a cumulative $1,815,138 in campaign contributions from PMA’s political action committee and employees of the firm. >>> Read the rest of the details. And note the names, mostly Democrats, of those who inserted earmarks into the bill for those PMA clients. Many of them are associated in one way or another with John Murtha. Murtha was lucky enough to skate by over 30 years ago when he was caught on the FBI sting tapes in the ABSCAM scandal. Ruth Marcus, no right-wing stooge summarized Murtha's role. <<< The videotape is grainy, dark and devastating. The congressman and the FBI undercover agents -- the congressman thinks they represent an Arab sheik willing to pay $50,000 to get immigration papers -- are talking business in the living room of a secretly wired Washington townhouse. Two other congressmen in on the deal "do expect to be taken care of," the lawmaker says. But for the time being -- and he says repeatedly that he might change his mind and take money down the road -- he'd rather trade his help for investment in his district, maybe a hefty deposit in the bank of a political supporter who's done him favors. "I'm not interested -- at this point," he says of the dangled bribe. "You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't, you know." Indeed, he acknowledges, even though he needs to be careful -- "I expect to be in the [expletive] leadership of the House," he notes -- the money's awfully tempting. "It's hard for me to say, just the hell with it." >>> He got off then. Perhaps he'll get off now. He is a lot smarter three decades later about not being explicit when he accepts a quid pro quo, but he sure is slimey. And he's one of Nancy Pelosi's major lieutenants in the House. Even if he doesn't suffer anything more than some more uncomfortable headlines in this whole PMA scandal, he's the posterboy for trading money for influence and a clear indication that, despite all their fine talk, the Democrats didn't do anything to change the climate on Capitol Hill. Nancy Pelosi should have to answer questions about why she keeps supporting these old dirty dogs like Charlie Rangel and John Murtha. She is knowingly presiding over her very own culture of corruption. UPDATE: Here's a chart of all those congressmen who secured earmarks for PMA clients along with how much money they have accepted as donations from PMA. It's a bipartisan stinklist. betsyspage.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29307)	3/31/2009 4:04:34 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Ah, the widely unreported "Culture of Corruption"among Democratic politicians just gets worse & worse. *************** Murtha, Murtha, Murtha Mark Hemingway The Corner Two big stories out today relating to Rep. John Murtha. The NYT gets the scoop on the culture of corruption at PMA Group, the lobbying firm with extensive ties to Murtha, raided by the FBI last November: <<< That impresario act — pulling bottles from the private wine locker labeled “Mags” to entertain lawmakers at the clubby Capital Grille steakhouse, sending gift baskets or wine to lawmakers and their aides, or leasing each of his lobbyists a Lexus — helped Mr. Magliocchetti, a protégé of the powerful Representative John P. Murtha, build his lobbying firm into one of the 10 biggest in Washington. Now, however, Mr. Magliocchetti’s generosity is coming to an abrupt halt: his firm, the PMA Group, is closing its doors next week, after reports that federal prosecutors had recently raided his office and his home. And many on Capitol Hill, recalling the scandal that mushroomed around the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, are wondering who else will be ensnared in the investigation as prosecutors pore over the financial records and computer files of one of K Street’s most influential lobbyists, known both for the billions of dollars in earmarks he obtained for his clients and for his open hand toward those he sought to influence. >>> Shades of Jack Abramoff? That can't be good. Meanwhile, Politico has a good story about how the Democratic leadership may not be able to hold off Rep. Jeff Flake's call for an investigation into Murtha and PMA much longer: <<< A trickle of defections has Democratic House leaders wondering how long they can hold off calls for an investigation into the PMA Group and its ties to Pennsylvania Rep. John P. Murtha. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) got only 17 Democratic votes when he introduced a privileged resolution in February calling for an ethics investigation into “the relationship between earmark requests already made by members and the source and timing of past campaign contributions.” But Flake has kept trying — the sixth version of his resolution comes up for a vote this week — and he’s picked up support from eight Democrats who voted against his initial resolution. And that has Democratic leaders worried. >>>** corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (29307)	4/1/2009 8:51:44 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

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