Arlen Specter earmarked almost $50 million to Defense Lobbyist clients

[RSchewe]

USATODAY.com - Senate aide's spouse gets a windfall

By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. Arlen Specter helped direct almost $50 million in Pentagon spending during the past four years to clients of the husband of one of his top aides, records show.

Specter, R-Pa., used a process called "earmarking" 13 times to set aside $48.7 million for six clients represented by lobbyist Michael Herson and the firm he co-founded, American Defense International. The clients paid Herson's firm nearly $1.5 million in fees since 2002, federal lobbying records show.


Herson

Herson's wife, Vicki Siegel Herson, is Specter's legislative assistant for appropriations. She deals with Specter's work on the Senate Appropriations Committee and its defense subcommittee, where all the earmarks originated. Siegel, who uses her maiden name at work, is a former lobbyist for defense contractors who has worked for Specter since 1999.

(snip)

In a statement responding to questions from USA TODAY, Specter said he did not know the earmarks were going to clients of Siegel's husband. "I am advised that at no time did her husband lobby my office or seek appropriations from any member of my staff," the statement said. Specter declined to be interviewed.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-15-specter-earmarks_x.htm

[WI_DEM]

1. I wish that senile old goat would be forced to resign so that

the Gov. Casey could appoint a real pro-choice Democrat to that seat.

[Lasher]

2. Why lobby when you've got your wife writing the legislation?

Looks like Specter has decided to use the 'Ken Lay' defense, which is also known as the 'I'm stupid' ploy.

[RSchewe]

3. A the least it looks like a conflict of interest in a Specter staffer.

It opens up speculation for a sort of "laundering" of a possible quid pro quo. By this I mean done by a staffer for a lobbyist clients instead of directly by Specter himself.

This is all speculation of course, but it also shows how the earmarking practice in Congress of off the charts.

All of this is conditional on if this lobbyist has done anything like contribute or done anything in return for the earmarks in anticipation of the earmark benefits. IF that link is established, it would be a pretty big wrench in the machinery of the Republican Party.

This article only reveals half or one side of a would-be quid pro quo.

[Metta]

4. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

No doubt about it.