Today, The Washington Post examined "the swift path to earmarks" from a D.C. lobbying firm's clients via Rep. Peter Visclosky. The firm, K&L Gates, was so confident of the "swift path" that it used the relationship with Visclosky in its marketing materials:

K&L Gates used its relationship with Visclosky as a marketing tool, a document obtained by The Washington Post reveals. "We also have a very good relationship with Representative  Peter Visclosky, chairman of the House Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee and third ranking member on the defense appropriations committee," lobbyist Edward C. Olivares, a former Army Special Forces officer, wrote to a potential client in early 2007, soon after Democrats took control of the House. "We can ensure that Mr. Visclosky has visibility of this important project when funding is debated."

Federal investigators are scrutinizing Visclosky's earmarks and whether a member of his staff tried to raise campaign money by promising funding. The Post recently reported that the Justice Department probe is examining the role played by Visclosky's recently departed chief of staff, Charles Brimmer, in negotiating with lobbyists and companies to solicit campaign donations. Brimmer's attorney declined to comment.

A decision by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) will allow members of Congress to use campaign funds to pay legal bills for their congressional staffers, including former staffers.  This means campaign dollars are being used to the benefit of House and Senate employees:

Federal regulators ruled for the first time Thursday that campaign funds can be used to help pay the legal bills of current and former congressional staffers.

The Federal Election Commission decided that Rep. Pete Visclosky's campaign committee could be tapped to pay these legal expenses. The Indiana Democrat is under investigation for his ties to a now-defunct lobbying firm, PMA Group. He and members of his current and former staff have been subpoenaed by federal investigators.

The agency previously had allowed campaign funds to be used only for legal expenses of officeholders or candidates. But this time around, the commissioners voted 5-1 in favor of allowing the practice.

FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther was the sole member to vote against the advisory opinion, saying he was concerned that there was not enough information to determine in some cases whether a former staff's legal bills would have been incurred independent of their work for Visclosky.

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) appears ready to rule that it's permissible for Rep. Peter Visclosky to use his campaign funds to pay the legal fees of his staffers.  Based on this article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, it even looks like a former staffer, who became a PMA Group lobbyist, can use those campaign funds for his legal bils. That really just doesn't seem right:

According to news accounts, a federal grand jury is looking into whether PMA Group and its employees gave campaign donations to members of Congress in exchange for receiving money for projects sought by their clients. The FBI raided the PMA offices in November.

Visclosky’s subcommittee has approved projects for PMA’s clients, and Visclosky has received campaign donations from PMA, its clients and its officers. Visclosky’s former chief of staff was one of PMA’s lobbyists.

In its draft opinion, the FEC said Visclosky’s campaign donations may be used for the legal fees of current and former employees as long as the investigations involve Visclosky’s actions as a lawmaker.

Visclosky got permission in June to use his campaign donations for his own legal fees in the case. A report he filed with the FEC in July said he had paid $1,945 to a law firm during the spring.

The FEC Commissioners will vote on this matter on Thursday.  This case is another example of why we need to fix the FEC. 

An editorial in Sunday's Washington Post explored the growing controversy swirling around earmarks and the PMA Group.  As we reported on Friday, the House Ethics Committee is investigating this matter.   Even in the short space of an editorial, it's clear why the investigation is needed:

CLAIMS THAT Washington lawmakers exchange earmarks for campaign contributions are nothing new. But the swirl of allegations surrounding the PMA Group, a defense lobbying firm that doled out millions of dollars to lawmakers before closing its doors after an alleged raid by federal agents last November, and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) in particular, is unusually far-reaching. The cozy relationship between certain members of Congress and PMA is worrying, and we're glad that the House ethics committee is taking a closer look.

The PMA Group, a lobbying firm started by former Murtha aide Paul Magliochetti, handed out more than $40 million to members of Congress from 1998 to 2009, according to the New York Times. The Times reported that members of Congress set aside $300 million in earmarks for PMA's clients last year; Mr. Murtha alone earmarked $38.1 million.

Mr. Murtha -- who explained to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in March, "If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district" -- has been the focus of a series of ethics controversies. In just the past few months, The Post's Carol D. Leonnig has reported that federal agents separately raided the offices of PMA and defense contractor Kuchera Industries, both of which have ties to Mr. Murtha; that a research center that received $250 million in funding from Mr. Murtha has distributed much of that money to companies that contributed to the congressman's campaign; that Mr. Murtha secured at least $150 million of earmarks for a state-of-the-art, eponymous airport in his district that has little commercial business; and that Mr. Murtha's nephew, who mentioned his uncle's name in business dealings, benefited from lucrative, no-bid defense contracts that his uncle could influence.

Mr. Murtha's office counters that no one from the Justice Department has contacted the congressman about any of the investigations. An aide to Mr. Murtha emphasized that only the media are alleging that Mr. Murtha has done anything improper.

The editorial concludes:

Republicans, after losing control of the House in 2006 due, in part, to a string of ethics scandals, see the PMA controversy as a way to reclaim the moral high ground and to damage the Democratic brand for the 2010 midterm elections; Democrats want to minimize the political fallout. With an ethics investigation underway, and with serious allegations to address, both parties should resist the temptation to turn the PMA controversy into a political football. 

Ethics wouldn't be a "political football" if members of Congress policed themselves.  Instead, members on both sides refuse to file ethics complaints, even when their colleagues have bee indicted.  The House Ethics Committee has a dismal track record.  Let's hope this time, it's different.

As we noted last night, the U.S. House voted for a somewhat weak resolution asking the House Ethics Committee about its investigation of the PMA Group scandal. But, the House Majority Leader didn't think the resolution was all that weak.  In fact, he thinks it was a call for the Ethics Committee to act:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has avoided saying much about the travails of his one-time leadership rival, Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha.

But that collegiality is beginning to fade.

On Thursday, Hoyer argued that a vague resolution the House passed Wednesday was a clear call for the ethics committee to investigate ties between a once powerful lobbying firm and a handful of his fellow Democrats, including Murtha, the man who challenged him for the majority leader's post in late 2006.

“This is a serious matter and ought to be looked at," Hoyer said Thursday morning at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast

.

The House approved a measure on Wednesday that starts a process for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to divulge whether it is investigating lawmakers' ties to the PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm that specialized in securing congressional earmarks for its clients.

The vote Wednesday did not require the ethics panel to initiate an investigation - or acknowledge it has. But some Democrats, like New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes, argue this vote was a clear sign that leaders want members of the ethics committee to investigate the PMA Group following a string of news reports that the lobbying firm is under investigation by the Justice Department.

Asked about his colleagues' claims that the Wednesday vote was a tacit push for the committee to act, Hoyer said, "I think it does."

Now, if Hoyer isn't sure, he could always file an ethics complaint against Rep. Murtha.  That would leave no question.

//

The controversy surrounding the now-defunct PMA Group isn't going away.  The investigation seems to be picking up, as evidenced by the subpoena issued to Rep. Peter Visclosky last week.  The Democrats who lead the House haven't led on this issue.  An editorial in today's New York Times thinks it time they did:

The House Democratic leadership should have the gumption to open its own ethics inquiry into members who awarded rich contracts to PMA’s clients and received handsome political donations from a grateful roster. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reportedly at odds with her majority leader, Steny Hoyer, who wants to defuse Republican criticism with an ethics committee resolution. The speaker would be wise to get ahead of the scandal.

The list of PMA’s pals is topped by Mr. Visclosky, Representative John Murtha, the powerful defense appropriations subcommittee chairman, and Representative James Moran. But it doesn’t stop there. Since 1998, PMA doled out more than $40 million in donations to members of Congress. Last year, more than 100 lawmakers earmarked $300 million in contracts for PMA’s clients.

It is a sordid and far-too-common tale: PMA’s top lobbyists began as House appropriations staffers and then capitalized on their connections and savvy to strike it rich in the private sector. Still the full story needs to be laid out before the public of how this money roundelay worked — from contractor to lawmaker, with the American taxpayer always footing the bill.

First, the news that a grand jury has subpoenaed the offices and some employees of Rep. Pete Visclosky as part of the federal investigation of PMA Group:

Federal law enforcement officials have subpoenaed the congressional and campaign offices of Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) to get information about a former defense lobby firm raided by the FBI, according to Visclosky.

Certain Visclosky employees have also been sent grand jury subpoenas requesting documents related to the PMA Group, a lobby shop with strong ties to the Indiana lawmaker. Visclosky’s former chief of staff, Rich Kaelin, was a high-profile lobbyist at the firm that closed its doors at the end of March.

We've seen this happen before and the response from House leaders has been very disappointing.   So, if recent history is any guide, the House Counsel will soon step in and move to quash the subpoena. Inserting itself into the criminal investigation into then Rep. John Doolitte (R-CA), the House Counsel argued subpoenas to the congressman violated the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. The House Counsel made similar arguments when Appropriations Committee staff member Greg Lankler was subpoenaed in the federal probe of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). And who can forget the House Counsel adding its voice to defend Rep. William Jefferson – scheduled for trial in early June – claiming the search of the congressman’s Capitol Hill office violated the Speech or Debate Clause? Or when the House Counsel stymied Florida investigators efforts to review the contents of former Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-FL) computer to search for evidence that he had sexually exploited teenage pages?

CREW's executive director Melanie Sloan, who has monitored how the House Counsel responded in the past, made this statement -- and asks a question:

Although members of Congress campaign against the “culture of corruption,” behind the courtroom door -- and out of the public eye – the House Counsel, acting on behalf of both the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader, routinely steps in to protect members who have abused their offices and the public trust from prosecution. The Republicans and Democrats may not see eye-to-eye on much, but both parties agree members of Congress should be above the criminal laws that apply to the rest of us.

You'd like to think the answer is that House leaders, on both sides of the aisle, don't believe members of Congress are above the law.  But, members don't police themselves.  They protect themselves.

While Rep. John Murtha has been the main focus of attention in the wake of the PMA Group scandal, he's not alone.  According to The New York Times, Rep. Peter Visclosky is also facing an investigation by federal authorities.  And, 

Federal law enforcement officials who raided the lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti’s PMA Group appear to be examining the firm’s relationship with Representative Peter J. Visclosky, a low-profile lawmaker with big influence over federal spending, people familiar with the matter said this week.

One person with knowledge of the investigation into the PMA Group said prosecutors had asked specific questions about Mr. Visclosky and his staff. Two people close to Mr. Visclosky, an Indiana Democrat, said he was taking steps to prepare for legal scrutiny, including retaining lawyers to review his compliance with campaign finance laws. All spoke on condition of anonymity, for fear of alienating either the prosecutors or Mr. Visclosky.

A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

Contacted repeatedly this week over the phone and at his Congressional office, Mr. Visclosky and his staff declined to answer questions about the investigation or his possible involvement.

Mr. Visclosky — chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee for energy and water, and thus one of the “cardinals” who control federal spending — is not the only lawmaker whom prosecutors involved in the case have asked about, people with knowledge of the inquiry say, and it is not clear whether he has become a target. But the prosecutors’ interest in him is the clearest sign yet that the investigation of the PMA Group may spread to Capitol Hill.

This is not the first time we've seen reports that members of Congress may be implicated in the PMA investigation.  Last month,  The NY Times also reported on concerns on Capitol HIll about where this investigation would lead:

More alarming to lawmakers and aides, however, is that prosecutors may turn their attention to the dinners at the Alpine and Capital Grille or other gifts they might have accepted from Mr. Magliocchetti — potential violations of longstanding Congressional ethics rules that could lead to more serious bribery charges if linked to official acts.

A report in today's New York Times indicates the focus of the FBI investigation of PMA Group may be over illegal campaign contributions.   This scandal is starting to have the feel of one that isn't going to end anytime soon:

Federal prosecutors are looking into the possibility that a prominent lobbyist may have funneled bogus campaign contributions to his mentor, Representative John P. Murtha, as well as other lawmakers, two people familiar with the investigator’s questions said Tuesday.

Employees of the PMA Group, the firm founded by the lobbyist, Paul Magliocchetti, have given a total of more than $1 million to political campaigns over the last three election cycles, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

In the first half of 2007, the PMA Group and its clients contributed more than $500,000 to three congressmen, Mr. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, and his close allies on the panel, Representative James P. Moran of Virginia and Representative Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana.

The lawmakers, meanwhile, earmarked more than $100 million in defense spending for PMA clients in the appropriations bills for 2008, according to a study by Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks earmarks.

In the last two weeks before the 2008 election, Mr. Murtha went on a last-minute fund-raising blitz, and PMA executives and clients gave him more than $100,000, according to a tally by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.