Did Murtha Say What He Meant?

31 Mar 2009 // “If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district.”

So said Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa., in a weekend interview with a home-state newspaper. What he was trying to convey was that the only thing his critics can complain about is his success in directing federal dollars to his district — if “taking care of” his district is a bad thing, well, then, he’s all for bad things.

It’s a classic example of setting up a straw man.

Murtha’s critics aren’t opposed to his ability to bring home the bacon; as the chairman, and then ranking member, and then chairman again of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee for the last two decades, Murtha’s control over the Pentagon’s purse strings is legendary, and the torrent of cash he has directed back to his 12th District makes the Johnstown Flood look like a spring drizzle.

His critics don’t begrudge him his pork. But they are questioning how close he has come to the line of ethical propriety.

And it’s fair to ask whether Murtha remembers any of the lessons he learned during that big of unpleasantness known as Abscam.

In the fall and winter of 1979-80, FBI agents posing as Arab sheiks tried to lure corrupt members of Congress into accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for helping the faux sheiks get around U.S. immigration laws. The “Arab Scam” — Abscam — led to the convictions of five members of the House and one senator.

For his role, Murtha was given the same ignominious label attached to Richard M. Nixon in the Watergate scandal: “unindicted co-conspirator.”

Murtha refused to personally reach into a desk drawer and remove $50,000 cash, and insisted instead that a middleman take possession of the booty. When the FBI agent refused to agree to that arrangement, they agreed to meet again (at which point, the FBI agent hoped, Murtha would feel comfortable enough to take the cash himself). But before that second meeting could take place, the news media exposed the FBI sting operation, and Murtha agreed to testify against his congressional colleagues. After his testimony helped secure convictions, the Justice Department announced that Murtha would face no charges himself.

Granted, that was almost 30 years ago. Certainly, it’s possible that Murtha learned his lesson.

Murtha’s current headache is an FBI investigation into The PMA Group, a defunct lobbying behemoth headed by a former Appropriations Committee staffer named Paul Magliocchetti — “Mags,” as his wine locker at the Capital Grille restaurant identifies him. In recent months, FBI agents have raided PMA Group offices, carting off boxes of evidence.

Given that PMA was ranked last year as one of the largest lobbying firms in Washington, and given its track record in both political giving and in getting earmarks, the FBI’s decision to investigate is not to be taken lightly.

If the investigation is going after any members of Congress, it will not be enough merely to prove the existence of a campaign contribution from a lobbying firm client, or even from a lobbyist, that took place right around the time of a given legislative action.

That may raise eyebrows, but it’s perfectly legal.

No, the Justice Department would have to prove that a particular contribution was given and accepted with the understanding by both parties that the contribution was made in exchange for a particular legislative action.

In most such cases, that’s a heavy lift. And that’s the reason that no matter what critics of earmarking and campaign fundraising practices have to say, it’s very rare to see those complaints turn into criminal cases.

Which leads to Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake , a Republican pushing to change the rules of the House.

His suggestion?

Define “financial interest” to include campaign contributions, so that members requesting earmarks would be required to declare that not only do they not have a direct financial stake in any earmarked appropriation they seek, but also that they are not accepting campaign contributions from those lobbyists or lobbyists’ clients associated with that particular earmark.

To a newer generation of congressmen, this may seem perfectly reasonable.

The ranks of Republicans — depleted by the electoral disasters of 2006 and 2008, caused, at least in part, by their own tolerance for corruption among their allies — may feel similarly amenable.

But since they’re not in charge, the real question is how the Democrats feel about corruption and the intersection of earmarks and campaign money.

Do they share Murtha’s view? Will the straw man stand? Or will it get blown over by the PMA investigation?