Corruption in Congress
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has released a list of “corrupt” members of Congress.
Who is CREW?
Since the 1970’s, citizens’ groups have been increasingly active in government investigations ranging from Watergate to Iran-Contra to the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill matter. But it was not until the 1990’s that some watchdog groups hit on the strategy of using private investigation and litigation to parallel and support government investigations. This began with Whitewater, continued through the campaign finance investigations, and culminated in the Paula Jones litigation and the presidential impeachment proceedings. The groups that have pioneered this type of legal advocacy are avowedly conservative: Judicial Watch, the Rutherford Institute, and the National Legal and Policy Center, to name just a few.
Conservative groups such as these have no real parallel in the progressive arena. There are a number of non-partisan groups that address government honesty, including Common Cause, Public Citizen, the Center for Public Integrity, and Democracy 21. While we applaud their efforts, we have noted that these groups focus principally on research and legislation. They do not use litigation to target outrageous conduct, nor do they bring the message of injustice to the people the way their conservative counterparts do. Because these public interest organizations focus mostly on policy issues and not on obstacles faced by ordinary citizens, these groups have not mobilized a shift in public opinion on the issue of government honesty. CREW fills that niche.
From that, we may deduce that most of the “corrupt” members of Congress will be Republican and they are.
However, there is one interesting non-Republican.
John Murtha is a seventeenth-term member of Congress, representing the 12th district of Pennsylvania. His ethics issues stem from abuse of his position as Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee to benefit clients of his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha, a registered lobbyist.
KSA Consulting
In 2002, Kit Murtha was hired by KSA Consulting, a firm that lobbies the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on behalf of defense contractors. Mr. Murtha joined the firm at the invitation of top KSA official Carmen Scialabba, who had worked for Rep. Murtha on the House Appropriations Committee for 27 years.
In 2004, Congress passed a $417 billion defense appropriations bill that went through Rep. Murtha’s subcommittee. The bill benefitted at least 10 companies represented by KSA and KSA directly lobbied Rep. Murtha’s office on behalf of seven of those companies, which received a total $20.8 million in earmarks.
PMA Group
Paul Magliocchetti worked with Rep. Murtha as a senior staffer on the Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense for 10 years. After leaving the committee, Mr. Magliocchetti founded the PMA Group, which has become one of the most prominent Washington, D.C. defense lobbying firms. In the current campaign cycle, the PMA Group and 12 of the firm’s clients rank in the top 20 contributors to Rep. Murtha, having made campaign contributions totaling $274,649. 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, totaling $95.1 million.
House ethics rules prohibit members from taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else. In addition, Rule XXIII of the House Ethics Manual requires all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.” By earmarking funds for companies represented by Kit Murtha and Paul Magliocchetti, Rep. Murtha has violated House rules.
There’s a five page PDF document available at the Murtha link with more details.
The people of his district should retire John Murtha and replace him with Diana Irey. Not just because of his horrible statements about our soldiers in Iraq. Not just because he is one of the kings of pork. Not just because he may have been corrupt as long ago as Abscam. He should be denied reelection for all of these reasons and those demonstrated by the CREW report.
Subscribe
Comments