Almost everyone knows that Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha has a bad reputation. (He was, after all, an unindicted ABSCAM co-conspirator.) Virginia Congressman Jim Moran is less well known, but would never be a poster boy for an ethics-in-public-service campaign. Almost no one outside Indiana has even heard of Congressman Visclosky, but we soon may know more, since he and his staff have been questioned in a corruption investigation.
These three congressmen share other things besides bad reputations; they are famous for adding earmarks to appropriations bills, and they are on House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And they share one more thing; they have all received large donations from a lobbying company, the PMA Group. Visclosky received $219,000 from the company between 2001 and 2008, Murtha $143,600, and Moran $125,250.
There is a fourth congressman who does not yet have a bad reputation, but is also famous for earmarks, also sits on the subcommittee, and received the fourth largest amount of donations from the PMA Group, $91,600. That congressman is Washington state's own Norm Dicks.
The Seattle Times, to its credit, noted Dicks' connections to the PMA Group in a front page story. But I am not confident that they will do the necessary follow-up stories. Dicks is, after all, a Democrat, and one with the power to help the newspaper. (Of course, I would be delighted if the Seattle Times proves me wrong on that. But I don't expect that they will, and so I urge any blogger in this area who wants to do some investigating work to take on this story.)
It is possible that Dicks has not broken any laws, possible that he has not even crossed any ethical lines. But his close ties to Murtha and to Murtha's confederates give us good reason to suspect that he has not always been working for the public, as a congressman. If he is innocent, he deserves a complete and fair investigation to clear him. If he is not, the public needs to know.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(I haven't said much about the party affiliations, but all four men are Democrats. About the same number of Republicans as Democrats have taken donations from the PMA Group, but the Democrats have taken much more money, totally.
The Seattle Times did have room today for a quiz on Britney Spears, devoting nearly a page to the pop star. I may be wrong, but I don't think Britney's fans are big newspaper readers.
Fun fact: Congressman Murtha was Nancy Pelosi's choice for House Majority Leader, after the 2006 election. Fortunately, the majority of House Democrats disagreed. I've mentioned this before, and I will mention it again, because it tells us much about Speaker Pelosi's ethics.)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 08, 2009 01:23 PM | Email ThisInsinuating that a person is a criminal because of the person's associations is usually considered tabboo. If you have any evidence that Norm Dicks is a crook, say so. But calling for an investigation of the man without any proof of wrongdoing--well, that doesn't take a lot of guts.
Posted by: DJ on April 8, 2009 02:04 PM"All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."
"It is the foreign element that commits our crimes. There is no native criminal class except Congress."
Many presently serving in Congress operate a criminal enterprise. The rewards are enormous. The risk of detection and prosecution are minimal so long as the corrupt main stream media provides cover by obfuscating reality.
The most cogent proof of this statement is the fact that Congress presides over the largest Ponzi scheme known to mankind, Social Security-Medicare, whose unfunded liability exceeds $50 trillion. Their continued spending of annual surpluses from tax revenue dedicated to fund Social Security/Medicare is further evidence of their corruption. Congress lies to cover up the Ponzi scheme by claiming that a trust fund containing these revenues exists.
Posted by: Paddy on April 8, 2009 04:05 PM
By the way, one of the big beneficiaries of PMA group and its clients was none other than earmark-bashing, lobbyist-hating John McCain, who just happens to be the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee. Over the last ten years, he's received about $481K vs. $536K for Dicks -- not that there's anything wrong with that! But, following Miller's logic, that's gotta make him at least 90% as suspicious as Dicks. It's possible that McCain hasn't broken any laws, possible that he has not even crossed any ethical lines, but who knows? If McCain is innocent, he deserves a complete and fair investigation to clear him.
Posted by: scottd on April 8, 2009 04:20 PMI'd happily trade the fake Republican McCain for the all too real Democrat Norm Dicks. They both have been in Washington DC so long now it's hard to imagine that they aren't both corrupt by now.
Posted by: Kato on April 8, 2009 04:26 PMHow do you feel about Jerry Lewis (R-Calif)? He's a real Republican, right? And he's picked up almost $800K from PMA Group and friends. He's been past chairman of the House Appropriations committee and Defense Appropriations Subcommitte -- just like Murtha! That's gotta make you suspicious!
Posted by: scottd on April 8, 2009 04:41 PMSince this matter became public, Senator Patty Murray (WA) has donated away thousands of $$$$ she received from PMA. Would she do this if there wasn't something to this money being dirty? By her actions, it seems not just fair but unquestionably reasonable to question what's behind Dicks' PMA treasure chest, which he has refused to donate as Murray has. Why aren't more reporters asking Dicks, 'if Murray thought the $ was dirty and got it off her hands, why don't you do the same thing'? His answers to date are weak and dodging.
PS (Murray is a Democrat too, the 4th ranking one in Senate leadership. Appropriately mentioned as late as possible in the post per news media's standard operating procedure.)
Posted by: Anon E. Muss on April 8, 2009 06:37 PMMurray was the one who refused to refund the Ambramof money from the Indian tribes, so I guess she can only be selectively bought off.
Posted by: Smokie on April 8, 2009 09:01 PMBut then again, one can never have enough "friends"...can they?
Posted by: Saltherring on April 8, 2009 09:14 PMI've been using the word naieve on this site so often I'm going to have to learn how to spell it, but it's naieve to think Dicks is working for his district when he's taking this kind of money from a lobbying group.
It's especially annoying considering the fact that Dicks is cemented in and doesn't need all that much money to win his elections.
Whether or not he broke laws, it would be great to have some light shined into his closet.
Thanks,
new left conservative # 1
Posted by: new left conservative # 1 on April 8, 2009 10:13 PM