GOP Proposes Earmark Moratorium in Wake of PMA Scandal

In a scenario with shades of '06, Democrats and Republicans alike are trying to show their mettle on ethics reform after a House Ethics Committee revealed connections between contributions made by defense firms to a group of  seven Congressmen (5 Dems, 2 GOP) on a Pentagon subcommittee and the earmarks those contractors got.

The ethics panel found no "direct or indirect link" between the contributions from businesses represented by the PMA lobbying firm and the Congressmen (perhaps because it seems it didn't actually interview anyone beyond the draft reports from the Office of Congressional Ethics). But the numbers and the lobbyists themselves reveal what the Washington Post generously called a "thin wall" between lobbyist donations and contributions:

The House ethics committee, in an investigation of five Democrats and two Republicans on the subcommittee that funds the Pentagon, found that the seven lawmakers steered more than $245 million worth of earmarks to clients of a single firm and collected more than $840,000 in political contributions from the firm's lobbyists and its clients in little more than two years. Most of those clients were for-profit contractors, several of whom told congressional investigators that they thought their donations made it possible for them to win support for their projects.

Jim Moran, (D-Va.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), and in the least surprising development of '10, the late John Murtha (D-Pa.) are most mentioned in the accounts of the ethics report. Here's how one of the campaign contributors put it:

In the probe, the legislative director for Teledyne Controls, a California firm that benefited from some recent earmarks, told investigators that in making contributions, "it does go through your mind whether you are buying influence."

The treasurer for the company's political action committee said more bluntly that he had never seen a proposal to donate to any lawmaker who could not influence the company's earmarks, and that he would question "why it made sense to give the money" to such a lawmaker, the report said.

The ethics investigation also found that though Congressmen claim to have no knowledge of who contributes which amounts, the staff members who vet earmark requests are often the same ones who run fundraising events. Coincidence!

At least one activist who follows money in politics told the Post she is, "troubled that under the standard posited in the new ethics committee report, investigators must find credible evidence of a quid pro quo between donations and earmarks."

Democrats have since reportedly pondered a moratorium on all earmarks, but will more likely settle on a moratorium on earmarks for for-profit companies.

"It ensures that for-profit companies no longer reap the rewards of congressional earmarks and limits the influence of lobbyists on members of Congress," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, linking the move to earlier decisions to ban gifts from lobbyists and forbid privately financed travel.

You know, because there are certainly no non-profit special interests that have undue influence over Democrats.

The GOP went them one step better, calling for a moratorium on all earmarks, which will likely do more to appeal to voters than the half-measures and distinctions Pelosi is offering:

“For millions of Americans, the earmark process in Congress has become a symbol of a broken Washington.  We believe the time has come for House Republicans to adopt an immediate, unilateral moratorium on all earmarks, including tax and tariff-related earmarks, and we will support changing the official rules of the House Republican Conference to incorporate such a moratorium when a special conference meeting on the matter takes place Thursday.  When Republicans take back the House, we will rein in out-of-control federal spending and bring fundamental change to the process by which Congress spends American taxpayers’ money.”