Earmarks and campaign contributions ...

CQ reports that more than 100 House members secured earmarks for clients of a lobbying firm and received over $1.8 million in campaign contributions from the firm's political action committee and some of its employees. The article doesn't report the campaign contributions provided by employees of the corporate recipients of the earmark funds.

The lobbying firm, PMA Group, has connections to Rep. John Murtha (D. Penn.) To be fair, CQ reports that "Of the 104 lawmakers who lent their names to earmark requests for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon spending law, 91 have, since 2001, received campaign money linked to PMA, either from its political action committee or its employees." Thus, more than 13 did not receive contributions. Again, it must be noted that the report doesn't look at contributions from the employees of the firms receiving the benefit of the earmarks.

Of course, nothing is necessarily illegal in giving or receiving campaign contributions. Also, earmarks are permitted under the present House rules. However, the giving of campaign contributions to obtain a US Senate seat or to receive the benefit of earmarks would seem to have the potential to violate bribery laws.

At a minimum, the entire earmark business raises serious ethical issues. It avoids the protections afforded by the appropriations process and the federal procurement process. It substitutes political connection for merit and price based decisions made in the course of the procurement process.

Not only do we face potential ethical issues involved in campaign cash for earmarks, but there may also be massive waste in unnecessary appropriations being made outside the appropriations process. Perhaps even more damaging and difficult to determine, firms winning political connections and earmarks may be providing inferior products and services to our defense department that may weaken our defenses.