Democrats shouldn’t block investigation of earmarks

Democrats shouldn’t block investigation of earmarks

There is little question that if the House Ethics Committee opens a full-scale investigation into possible links between campaign money donated by clients of the lobbying firm PMA and congressional earmarks that sent lucrative contracts to clients of PMA, a few Democrats will suffer some consequences.

On the other hand, if the Democratic Party can be portrayed as blocking an inquiry into hundreds of millions of dollars in possible sweetheart contracts, a lot more Democrats could be hurt politically.

The irony is that even if an ethics investigation were opened and its findings, good or bad or terrible, became public, it is unlikely that the highest profile name among the suspect Democrats would pay much of a political price. That’s because John Murtha of southwestern Pennsylvania is the Democrat who the Republicans have in their sights, and little short of a tsunami is likely to sweep him out of Congress. Certainly we in the Mahoning Valley know how loyal the voters can be to a popular congressman who comes under attack.

Some big money

Since 2007, according to watchdog groups, Murtha earmarked $76.1 million in projects for PMA clients. PMA was founded in 1989 by Paul Magliocchetti a former Capitol Hill staffer. Over the years, Murtha collected $2.37 million from PMA’s lobbyists and the companies it has represented, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money.

Two other Democrats, who also served on the powerful Appropriations Committee with Murtha, were among PMA’s favorites, Rep. Pete Visclosky of Indiana, who collected $1.36 million, and Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia, who got $997,348.

The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation of PMA just as Magliocchetti was preparing to retire, and FBI agents swept into his office last November.

Congressional Democrats don’t even have to be students of history to realize how damaging it can be when it appears that a party is not willing to hold its own to account. Most of them were in Congress in 2006 when foot-dragging on ethical issues cost Republicans control of the House.

An ethics investigation certainly could prove embarrassing to Murtha, politically damaging to others and uncomfortable for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who received strong support from Murtha.

But Congress owes the American taxpayers more transparency than is being delivered. And if any congressman gave PMA and its clients more for their contributions than ethics or the law allows, those congressmen should be held to account.

A full investigation is not only the right thing to do; in the end, it’s the politically smart thing to do.