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.

Jon Henke , one of the founding editors at The Next Right, wrote an interesting post comparing the bribes Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is accused of soliciting and the give-and-take "bribery" of Congress and its "cash constituents." Jon writes, "Gov. Blagojevich merely did what our US Congress does as a matter of routine." In one sense, I can see his point. While it doesn't appear to be quite as direct is what Blagojevich is accused of, we often speculate that both Democrats and Republicans exchange campaign contributions for favors. But Blagojevich is accused of soliciting money for himself personally. That's not quite what Congress does routinely, though there are certainly some examples of it.

There are lawmakers who have been accused (William Jefferson ) and convicted (Randy "Duke" Cunningham ) of similar types of bribery. And there was the 1980 Abscam where FBI agents dressed up as Middle Eastern sheiks willing to bribe politicians. The sting netted scores of pols, leading to19 people (including seven members of Congress) being convicted of bribery or related charges in the case. But does the horse trading Congress conducts, often unseemly as it is, reach that level of crude bribery? It might be close, but I don't think it's quite the same kettle of fish.

This is where more transparency is key to combating corruption. Openness is not only the cure for the sickness; it's a prophylactic that åcould prevent the illness in the first place.

Take Jon's hobbyhorse  --  earmarks. The practice of earmarks might not be a problem...or the problem just might be the lack of transparency. Suspicions of quid pro quos is all too strong where the process is opaque and there is huge potential for corruption. If the decisions were made in the light of day, I suspect there would be far less abuse.

Seth Hettena spills the beans on the names of the five lawmakers that Mitchell Wade provided information on to federal investigators. They are:

Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hi.

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan,  D-W. Va

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va.

Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Fla.

As Hettena explains, Inouye and Lewis are more directly related to deals that Wade's former partner Brent Wilkes was seeking from the government. Harris, Goode, and Mollohan all received large campaign contributions from Wade and his company MZM, Inc. as he sought to locate his operations in their respective districts.

Both Harris and Goode are no longer in Congress; Goode having lost his seat this year. Mollohan and Lewis have both been under investigation by the Justice Department for some time. This is the first word that the Justice Department has been looking at the actions of Sen. Daniel Inouye, the incoming chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The chief witness in the investigation into former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham may have spilled the goods on more lawmakers than the now imprisoned San Diego Republican. According to Seth Hettena, the author of a book about Cunningham's crimes, Mitchell Wade's sentencing memo contains new revelations about his cooperation with federal authorities:

A 42-page sentencing memo filed by Wade’s attorneys says he aided the government in its investigation “of at least five other members of Congress” who were under investigation for “corruption similar to that of Mr. Cunningham.” These no doubt include Virgil Goode and Katherine “Pink Sugar” Harris. Wade wanted to open facilities in their districts and made $78,000 in “straw” contributions  to grease the wheels. Neither Harris nor Goode has been charged with wrongdoing.

Prosecutors drop tantalizing hints about an even bigger, ongoing investigation. Wade was debriefed in 2006 and provided “moderately useful” background information in another “large and important corruption investigation” that also has not yet resulted in any charges.

Who are the other 3 members of Congress? And what is this "even bigger, ongoing investigation"? Ken Silverstein has some speculation on who the 3 unmentioned members of Congress are.

Of particular interest is the way in which Wade revealed the information to law enforcement: he released a searchable, electronic database of 150,000 documents.

If you're a lawmaker, or former CIA official, caught in a corruption investigation there are many different ways to get out of trouble:

• "Graymail": Under indictment and facing trial for corruption and fraud, K. Dusty Foggo, the former number three at CIA caught in the Duke Cunningham investigation, is threatening to reveal classified information related to terrorism in the trial. Prosecutors claim that Foggo wants to turn the trial into a referendum on the war on terror and portray himself as an anti-terrorism hero. K. Dusty Foggo: "Freedom isn't free, it costs prostitutes for me. And then you get your classified government contracts."
• "Deny": Yesterday, TPM Muckraker reported that the indictment of Kevin Ring included information linking Ring's actions to the office of Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico. Ring is alleged to have provided gifts, including tickets to basketball games, to a staffer in Wilson's office. Wilson, who also received campaign contributions and a hosted fundraiser, issued a strong denial of any involvement in Ring's activities.
• "Challenge": Lawyers for Sen. Ted Stevens have issued a series of challenges and accusations against the government prosecution including a filing on Tuesday stating that the government refuses to turn over certain documents related to VECO CEO Bill Allen's possible relationship with an underaged girl.
• "Wait it out": Republicans are calling for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to remove Rep. Charles Rangel from his post as chairman of the House Committee on Ways & Means. Pelosi won't budge and instead insists that the House Ethics Committee must first finish their investigation. The call for committee removal seems a bit premature, as I can only remember lawmakers removing themselves, or being removed, after an indictment, guilty plea, or, in the case of Alan Mollohan, when they are the chair of the Ethics Committee. However, I have little faith that the Ethics Committee wil conduct a full investigation by the end of the year.
• Also, CREW released their annual list of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress.

Yesterday, the Senate opened their arms and hearts to Sen. Ted Stevens while vulnerable Republicans simultaneously emptied their campaign coffers of his contributions. In an age reversal, the 90-year old Robert Byrd took on the role of PeeWee from Eight Men Out, crying to Stevens, "Say it ain't so." According to Dana Milbank's take, many other senators expressed condolences and embraced the disgraced senator.

Present at the moment of Stevens' senatorial embrace were a few reminders of why this scene is so appalling. Sens. Larry Craig and David Vitter, both cast out, particularly Craig, for personal failings that in no way involved them using their position as senator to enrich themselves. Sen. Craig's use of a public restroom as a "closet" led fellow Republicans to force him to retire. Sen. Vitter, who slept with prostitutes, was initially shunned and subsequently welcomed back into the Republican conference.

Homosexual acts are unacceptable and require immediate removal from office; sleeping with prostitutes is a shun-able offense; profiting off of the trust of elected office is embraced and wished away. The scale of personal morality appears to be unbalanced in the Senate.

The San Diego Union-Tribune, experienced in covering this kind of behavior, brings us a reason to the overlooking of a chum's abuse of power. Entitlement:

On its own, this sense of entitlement is bad enough. But for the vast majority of the House and Senate, it is more annoying than corrupt. What turns it to corruption in the handful of cases is when members start to take a little too much enjoyment in the company of the very rich.

Certainly, that was the case with Cunningham. He liked to hang around with big spenders and the wealthy. From early on, he wanted to live like them.

“You're being called 'Mr. Chairman,' but it's the other guy who is going off in a limousine,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

And then Stevens – like Cunningham before him – had to watch some former staffers strike it rich in lucrative lobbying jobs.

“He has people who worked for him at Appropriations and Commerce (committees) who are earning seven-figure salaries,” said Thomas Mann, an expert on Congress at the Brookings Institution.

Mann said members of Congress see the way their former staffers live and ask, “Why don't they do something for me?”

That's the extreme of entitlement: Cunningham, and, if proven guilty, Stevens. But the "annoying" entitlement is what is key. In many instances, the belief that elected office puts oneself in a position to behave as though certain normal restrictions do not apply is corrosive to the institution of Congress and creates these skewed scales of moral boundaries.

You're accepting VIP loans from mortgage industries that are fleecing your constituents and not asking questions, writing fundraising letters on congressional letterhead for a center to be named after yourself, and thinking nothing of the contributions and travel that influence seekers bestow upon you. You might not be freezing cash in food containers or hitting golf balls in Scotland, but you most certainly are contributing to a general sense of moral laxity and imbalance that allows the Duke Cunningham's, the Bob Ney's, and, yes, the Ted Steven's of the world to run amok. Stevens was embraced after his indictment, while those committing lesser crimes were treated as villains. The Union-Tribune echoes this:

Of course, we have seen this before. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., was brought down by a sweeping scandal that included a cash-for-stamps scheme; Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, had others pay for his golf; Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., is charged with hiding bribe money in his freezer.

In every case, the allegations shocked. In every case, the response was the same – a variation of a plaint that “I am an honorable man so, by definition, I could not do anything dishonorable.”

And in every case, the initial response from the accused's colleagues has been similar to what greeted the Stevens indictment. Senators from both parties expressed “sadness.” Sen. John Warner, R-Va., even praised Stevens as “a hero.” No condemnations of the alleged acts could be heard. No outrage.

As with the Cunningham case, the congressional ethics committees were silent. Members believe they are entitled to a lot of things. But under the current broken system, scrutiny of their unethical behavior is not one of them.

Something in this system has got to change.