In case you needed a dose of the absurd for your Monday take a look at the case of ex-lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti.

On Friday an announcement was made that Magliocchetti, the former head of the now-defunct PMA Group, would plead guilty later this month on charges that he organized the widespread fraudulent donation of campaign contributions to members of the House Appropriations Committee. The PMA Group was an earmark powerhouse, backed by Magliocchetti's long ties to his former boss the now-deceased former appropriator John Murtha.

A coterie of lawmakers on the appropriations committee were lavished with campaign contributions from PMA Group lobbyists and clients, as well as the fraudulent contributions organized by Magliocchetti. These lawmakers also provided a number of earmarks to the clients of the PMA Group. The lawmakers tied closest to the PMA Group's earmark lobbying include, but are not limited to, Murtha, Pete Visclosky, Jim Moran and Bill Young.

Earlier this year the House Ethics Committee dismissed ethics complaints against members of the appropriations committee stating that no member or staffer had acted inappropriately in awarding earmarks to campaign contributors. The independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) seemed to signal their disagreement with the ethics committee when they sent the details of their investigation to the Department of Justice for further action.

Now we have the lead lobbyist in the conspiracy to funnel campaign contributions to appropriations committee members pleading guilty and possibly providing information to the Department of Justice. Politico reports, "there is specualtion that [Magliocchetti] may assist prosecutors looking into how lawmakers awarded hundreds of millions in spending earmarks to defense contractors."

A lobbyist will plead guilty to, essentially, bribing a number of lawmakers to win contracts for his clients. He may then turn around and provide information to the Department of Justice on how he traded contributions for earmarks, despite the ethics committee in Congress having already exonerated the lawmakers of all ethics charges in relation to the investigation.

And so the mind-boggling self-policing by Congress continues.

Last week, the cable news networks were blanketing their shows with stories about the leaking of a report from the House Ethics Committtee detailing the nearly 30 lawmakers under investigation by the committee. Despite all of the bombast of cable news anchors over the investigations, the totality of the leak is less than meets the eye. Seventeen out of the twenty-nine lawmakers investigated by the committee have already been reported on and a number more had been connected to investigations previously, but their investigation had not previously been reported. In total, only seven investigations were released that were previously unreported, mostly for what would be minor infractions. This amounts to a pretty small amount of unknown investigations for what has turned into a big story.

Importantly, as many are highlighting, the leaked report does show that the Ethics Committee is doing its job. For years, the committee has taken heat for failing to investigate lawmakers and slow-walking those investigations when it does. Despite early clashes, it appear that the new, independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) has prompted the committee to investigate and review a number of cases regarding potential ethical misconduct by lawmakers. This is a positive development, however, the leaking may cause problems as many lawmakers are now associated with ethical problems despite the fact that they have not had a full hearing and could well find these ethics complaints dismissed.

On the actual investigations, the biggest information from the leak is that half of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is under investigation for allegedly trading earmarks for campaign contributions. Previously, the public was aware that federal investigators and the committee were likely looking at Reps. John Murtha, Pete Visclosky and Jim Moran. Now we know that the committee is investigating those three lawmakers plus Reps. Bill Young, Marcy Kaptur, Norm Dicks and Todd Tiahrt. Aside from the probe of Rep. Charlie Rangel, this investigation involves the most serious allegations and could cause trouble for this bipartisan cast of lawmakers. Furthermore, it continues to show that the appropriations process, particularly for defense spending, is a failed process. This is now the third major investigation into defense appropriations in the past five years. Previously, Rep. Duke Cunningham was sentenced to prison for trading earmarks and appropriations for goodies and Rep. Jerry Lewis has been the subject of a similar federal investigation.

The other investigations involve four lawmakers probed for improperly receiving a tax break on their homes in Maryland or the District of Columbia; North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler is under investigation for a land swap deal; Florida Rep. Connie Mack is under investigation in connection to an earmark for Coconut Road that was submitted by Rep. Don Young; Rep. Joe Barton was under investigation for gifts given to a non-profit that he operates by companies with business before his committee, but he has since been exonerated. All the other lawmakers under investigation have been previously publicly reported.

The New York Times reports today on what could be the next great lobbying scandal. After his house and offices were raided by the FBI, Paul Magliocchetti, top lobbyist at the PMA Group, is shuttering his lobby shop. Once seen as the top earmark factory in Washington, the PMA Group fell apart weeks before the FBI raid occurred as rumors circulated that Magliocchetti was under investigation for various reasons, including making fraudulent campaign contributions and potentially trading contributions and gifts for legislative actions--earmarks--from legislators.

According to the Times, Magliocchetti was a pioneer and master of the earmarking process who skirted as close to the ethical line as possible:

[S]everal former PMA lobbyists and former Congressional staff members, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation from lawmakers close to Mr. Magliocchetti, said that for decades he sought loopholes to shower food, drink and gifts on the members and staff members of the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

He regularly arranged food deliveries for late-working committee staff members, for example, taking advantage of an exception written into the fine print of the ethics code, the former PMA lobbyists and Congressional staff members said. And each year he hosted lawmakers and their staff members at a legendary Christmas party at the Alpine or, more recently, at the Army Navy golf club, that fit into a gift-rule exception for “widely attended events.”

Mr. Magliocchetti helped pioneer the lucrative specialty of helping contractors lobby for military earmarks, the several billion dollars in pet spending items that members of the panel insert in annual spending bills, often with little oversight.

Many are beginning to question whether Magliocchetti is the new Jack Abramoff; the next lobbyist who could ensnare dozens in a corrupt conspiracy. My colleague Bill Allison offered his thoughts on the Magliocchetti-Abramoff comparison at the Real Time Investigations blog:

I’ve told a few people that while the PMA Group scandal is different from Abramoff, in many ways it’s more serious. Abramoff was a sort of Bernard Madoff character, unique in his personal excesses, corrosively corrupting, but still just one guy. PMA Group is a methodical business. It rakes in millions of dollars in lobbying fees. Its employees and PAC contributes a few hundred thousand to various congressional campaign committees and leadership PACs. Its clients get hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks and billions more in federal contracts. Abramoff’s excesses were fairly unique; PMA Group’s business model is standard operating procedure in Washington.

And for the most part I agree with this assessment. (Abramoff's operation was tightly wound up in a racket to ensure the maintanence of power by then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay. So, he wasn't quite a rogue grifter.) PMA Group's excess highlights what one could call a "culture of corruption" that exists around the Appropriations Committee, most prominently in the House.

When we look at the scandals of the last few years, these Appropriations Committee members keep popping up. Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis, Alan Mollohan, and now, the Magliocchetti connected John Murtha. Others have come under close scrutiny for their practices including Bill Young, Hal Rogers, Pete Visclosky, and James Moran. It really is an epidemic when this many members of a single committee bring this kind of attention (in many cases, federal investigations) to themselves.

It's doubtful that lawmakers, especially appropriators, want any sunshine shed on the relationships between appropriators and appropriations seeking lobbyists. Perhaps some stricter disclosure rules would help to stop the ethical tightrope walk that the appropriations process has become.