Of Pork and Payback

[groovedaddy]

AS we watch Senator Roland Burris take the lead role in the latest episode of “The Rod Blagojevich Show,” a question arises: Is there a substantive difference between a governor promising a Senate appointment in exchange for campaign contributions, and a member of Congress securing an earmark for the same — aside from a vulgar telephone call discussing the transaction? Perhaps not.

This is not to suggest that every earmark, which is in effect a no-bid contract, is given in exchange for a campaign contribution. But even a cursory glance at a few campaign finance reports alongside any appropriations bill will leave you convinced that Mr. Blagojevich was a rookie at best. The Seattle Times has a database of defense earmarks matched with campaign contributions. It’s chilling reading, as is research by Taxpayers for Common Sense analyzing the uncanny alignment between earmarks and campaign cash.

But nothing has illustrated the insidious nature of Congressional pay-to-play better than the PMA Group, a powerhouse lobbying firm that imploded this month after word got out that it was being investigated over campaign contribution indiscretions. Over the past few days we’ve learned that PMA’s clients received nearly $300 million worth of earmarks in one defense appropriations bill. In what is best described as circular fund-raising, millions of those dollars made a return trip to Capitol Hill in the form of contributions to members of Congress.

The 2009 defense appropriations bill, approved last September, contained more than 1,000 House earmarks, dozens of which were for PMA clients. There was no full committee “markup” where such links could be examined, nor were challenges to the earmarks allowed on the House floor. Further, unless it’s been hurriedly scrubbed by an alert staff member, the omnibus appropriations bill scheduled for debate this week includes many earmarks for PMA clients.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24flake.html?th&emc=th