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.

A Bloomberg attempt to pry open the Federal Reserve moved forwards this week as Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled in favor of the FOIA request for certain documents related to the Fed's emergency lending. The Project On Open Government (POGO) lays out the story behind the case and explains that Fed Chair Ben Bernanke will have to answer questions about the Fed's transparency when he faces the Senate for his renomination hearing.

While President Obama and Defense Secretary Bob Gates have laid out a moderately ambitious plan for defense acquisition reform, Mother Jones finds that lobbyist-turned-Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn is standing in the way of further changes.

Public Citizen used Sunlight's Party Time data to show that no one is throwing for fundraisers than the banks bailed out by the federal government. The influence lives on.

In a mind-boggling ruling, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will allow Rep. Pete Visclosky, under investigation for potential earmarking abuses in PMA Group scandal, to use campaign funds to pay the legal fees of his staff -- including former staff. This means that Rep. Visclosky can pay the legal fees of PMA lobbyist Rich Kaelin because he is a former Visclosky staffer. As Zach Roth writes at TPM Muckraker, this also means that Rep. John Murtha could potentially pay for the legal fees of Paul Magliocchetti, the founder of the PMA Group, as Magliocchetti is a former Murtha staffer. Now you know where your campaign contributions are going.

What do top earmarkers talk about in Congress? Does our money go where their mouths are?

In the case of the top ten earmarkers for FY 2008, the top words they used from 2007-2008 (110th Congress) do often align with their duties in either the Appropriations Committee or in bringing home the bacon to their home state. Six of the top ten use appropriations-related language in their top words and three use their state's name in their top words.

The top ten earmarkers for FY 2008 were, in descending order with top word in parentheses, Rep. John Murtha (Billion), Rep. Jerry Lewis (Appropriations), Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (Defense), Rep. Pete Visclosky (Indiana), Rep. David Obey (Billion), Rep. Norm Dicks (Million), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Trade), Rep. Harold Rogers (Kentucky), Rep. Ike Skelton (Military), Rep. Chet Edwards (Veterans). Only one of these lawmakers (Rep. Skelton) is not on the House Appropriations Committee.

Three of these lawmakers -- Reps. Lewis, Murtha and Visclosky -- are either under federal investigation or have been mentioned in connection to an investigation in relation to their earmarking practices.

Check out the following word cloud visualization to see what these earmarking lawmakers are talking about. Below the visualization is a list of the Appropriations committee assignment for the nine lawmakers on the committee.

Last week, I posted about the relationship between PMA Group fanboy Rep. Pete Visclosky's campaign contributions from clients of the lobbying firm and the earmarks they received from the congressman. One thing I noted was Visclosky's regular use of the word "Indiana" -- his home state -- in the Congressional Record. This is what his word usage looks like over the last ten years:

Do regular earmarkers like Visclosky use their state name more than any other word in the Congressional Record? Do they talk about their district more than any other word? I'll be taking a look and will let you know soon.

(hat tip to @kerryrm and Capitol Words for the word cloud)

Here are a few of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and grantees from the past week:

Late last Friday, National Public Radio ran a piece by Andrea Seabrook about the Obama administration’s "Open Government Initiative," a three-part process to craft recommendations on open government. Seabrook quotes Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s executive director, saying the government should make it a priority to get the most important information up sooner. “And, in my mind, you got - priority data is the data that affects the public trust in its institutions. So, you know, personal financial disclosures, lobbying reports - there are many lobbying reports that are found in the Justice Department that have never seen the light of day. That is to say, they're not online - that being the definition of light of day in the 21st century.”

The second phase of the White House’s Open Government Initiative was a “brainstorming” session where the administration invited the public to submit ideas on how to achieve and sustain an unprecedented level of openness in government. The administration then encouraged participants to vote up or down on the ideas. They received 900 submissions and 33,000 votes on various ideas. House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (Ohio) submission to require Congress to honor a 72-hour public review period before voting on major spending bills ended up as one of the most popular, receiving nearly 1,000 votes. Roll Call (subscription required) and Federal Computer Week quote from Boehner’s statement noting Sunlight’s support for the 72-hour rule.

As normal, major press outlets depended on data from the Center for Responsive Politics to expose the power and influence of big money in Washington. The Wall Street Journal reported that in the first three months of 2009, the financial industry spent $27.6 million on lobbying and made $286,000 in campaign contributions to Congressional lawmakers. One industry goal was to get Congress to amend certain financial rules. So far, The Journal reported, they’ve succeeded in loosening one key accounting regulation and are working to get ride of it altogether. The Washington Post used CRP data to show the growing influence of tech titans Google, Microsoft, AT&T and Verizon. The same article mentions that the Center for Digital Democracy wrote to the White House protesting the Obama administration’s appointment of Google’s top lobbyist to the position of deputy technology officer. "We believe no special-interest connected person should assume a position of vital importance to the country's future," they wrote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s directive to enforce a new level of disclosure for official expenditures from the offices of House lawmakers and to post the documents online as soon as possible generated a number of mentions of Sunlight’s support for the move. National Journal’s “Tech Daily Dose” blog links to a blog post written by John Wonderlich, Sunlight’s policy director about the matter. They mention that Sunlight called for online disclosure of the expense records in December 2008 and again last week. T.W. Farnam, writing at The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” blog, noted Sunlight’s support for expenditure disclosure. He also quotes John saying “public accountability for member expenses comes with online access, which is a big change from an underground office.” CQ Politics’ Bart Jansen, in writing about Pelosi’s directive, quoted from John’s post, “Speaker Pelosi’s move should be interpreted as a recognition that public information — even potentially embarrassing information about how members spend public funds — should be truly accessible to the general public, which means online.”

In a post titled, “Visualizing how a dirty Congresscritter turned campaign contributions into earmarks,” Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow highlights and links to a blog post written by Paul Blumenthal, Sunlight’s senior writer, and a graphic created by Kerry Mitchell, sunlight’s creative director, that illustrates U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky’s (Indiana) connection to a lobbying firm, the PMA Group, which represented many of the recipients of federal money earmarked by the congressman. Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor at The Washington Examiner, wrote in a blog post, “If this graphic doesn't persuade critics that earmarks are the key to the culture of corruption that dominates Congress, I don't know what else will.”

The Associated Press’ Andrew Miga wrote about how the spouses of congressional lawmakers and other politically-connected figures are coming under increasing scrutiny, especially those in high-profile, high-paying jobs. Miga quotes Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, saying conflicts can arise when both spouses work. "High-powered people are often likely to be married to other high-powered people."

Katharine Q. Seelye, writing at The New York Times’ “The Lede” blog, reported on the Supreme Court’s plans to redesign and update their Web site. She quotes from and links to a blog post written by Daniel Schuman, Sunlight's policy counsel, and a mock redesign of the Court's site created by Ali Felski, Sunlight Labs' senior designer. Fast Company's Cliff Kuang highlighted Ali's mockup and links to Daniel's post. Kuang also links to the mockups for USA.gov, FEC.gov, EPA.gov and Data.gov Sunlight Labs has created.

Thanks and see you next Friday!

Mike

It comes as no surprise that Indiana Democrat Pete Visclosky's favorite word to say in Congress is "Indiana." While staying out of the spotlight in Washington, he has been a champion for his Northwestern Indiana congressional district, bringing home millions of federal dollars to create jobs and win fans. Since the decline in manufacturing, new jobs have become essential for this Rult Belt region and Visclosky, from his position on the House Appropriations Committee, has sought to get as big a piece of the federal pie as he can for his constituents.

This hard work bringing home federal dollars has made Visclosky a national news name as his connection to a lobbying firm, the PMA Group, which represented many of the recipients of federal money earmarked by the congressman, has brought him under investigation by the FBI. In the past two weeks, Visclosky's offices and campaign committess have been subpoenaed and he has reliquished control of the Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee to Rep. Ed Pastor.

All of this is due to the connection between campaign contributions flowing from the PMA Group and their clients to Visclosky's campaigns and the millions of dollars in earmarks to PMA Group clients that Visclosky secured in his post on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. After studying campaign contribution data for 1998-2008 (compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics) and earmark data for FY2008 and FY2009 (from both Taxpayers for Common Sense and Legistorm), the connection between those PMA Group clients that contributed money to Visclosky's campaigns and the earmarks they received is clearly evident. The visualization below -- created by our terrific designer Kerry Mitchell -- shows how connected the earmarks are to the receipt of campaign contributions. Click on the image for a larger version:

Note: Due to the lack of earmark disclosure prior to 2007, earmark data is only reliable for the last two fiscal years -- FY2008 and FY2009. Thus, while showing ten years of campaign contribution data, we cannot show ten years of earmark data. There is little doubt that the earmark numbers would be dramatically higher had there been earmark disclosure prior to 2007.

The offices of Indiana Rep. Pete Visclosky were subpoenaed last week regarding his efforts to secure earmarks for the PMA Group, the defunct lobbying group whose offices were raided by the FBI earlier this year. Visclosky has now stated that he will step down from his post as Chair of the House Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee. He will follow in a long line of lawmakers who stepped down from their committee posts when they found themselves under investigation.

Rep. Alan Mollohan stepped down as Chair of the House Ethics Committee after the FBI launched an investigation into his earmarking and personal finances. Mollohan also recused himself from all decisions related to Department of Justice funding in his role as Chair of the Commerce, Justice, & Science Appropriations Subcommittee. The investigation of Mollohan is ongoing. Rep. Bob Ney stepped down from his post as Chair of the Committee on House Administration after being pressured by party leaders. Ney eventually resigned from Congress and pled guilty to corrupt activities that involved Jack Abramoff.

Rep. John Doolittle left the House Appropriations Committee after his house and offices were raided by the FBI. Doolittle retired from Congress and the investigation, related to the Abramoff scandal, is still underway.

Rep. Don Young refused to step down from his post as ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee despite an ongoing investigaiton into his connections to Alaska oil companies. After the 2008 election, Young finally stepped down after it was clear his party would oust him in a vote. The investigation of Young is still ongoing.

Rep. Rick Renzi stepped down from his post on the House Intelligence Committee  after his house and office were raided. Renzi retired from Congress after he was brought up on a 35-count indictment.

Sen. Ted Stevens stepped down from his commmittee posts after he was brought up on a seven-count indictment. Stevens would be convicted on all counts, but that conviction would later be thrown out by the Justice Department due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Some lawmakers haven't been so keen to remove themselves from their coveted positions. Rep. Jerry Lewis did not step down when he was Chair of the House Appropriations Committee despite being under investigation. Lewis is still the ranking member on the committee and still earmarking to the clients of the same lobbyists that got him in trouble in the first place. Rep. Charles Rangel is still the Chair of the House Ways & Means Committee despite an ongoing investigation.

The calculation of stepping down is usually a measure of political viability for the party and the individual lawmaker under investigation. In Visclosky's case, this is a powerful PR move for him. Will it pay off? The record of what happens to those stepping down from committee posts doesn't look so promising.

In 2008, the PMA Group was hired by forty clients as their lone lobbying firm. These clients, largely seeking earmarks, secured a huge return on their investment in the PMA Group. After paying the PMA Group a combined $4.065 million in lobbying expenses, these forty organizations, a mix of companies and nonprofits, received $113.9 million in earmarks in 2008 -- a 2,703% return on investment.

Since falling under investigation for the alleged improper use of campaign contributions and possible favor trading in Congress, the PMA Group disbanded, leaving many of their lobbyists to flee for other top firms or create their own new firms. These lobbyists should come as prized possessions to any new lobbying firm as evidenced by the amount of money they can bring to a firm seeking earmarks.

The Windber Research Institute, performing research studies on women's breast cancer, received the largest return on investment, 59,900%. After paying the PMA Group $20,000 for the year, the military research hospital received a $12 million earmark from Rep. John Murtha. The Winder Research Institute, located in Rep. Murtha's district, has for years relied on federal funding through federal grants and the earmarking process to continue its research missions. According to an earlier report by my colleague Anupama Narayanswamy, Rep. Murtha earmarked $15 million in the previous year and his support was promoted by the Institure on their Web site.

Many of the other PMA Group clients receiving a large return on investment include recipients of earmarks from the three lawmakers believed to be under the most scrutiny in the PMA investigation, Reps. Murtha, Pete Visclosky, and James Moran. Of the clients in the top ten on return on investment, five of them received earmarks from Rep. Murtha, three received earmarks from Rep. Visclosky, and one received an earmark from Rep. Moran.

In the search for earmarks, lobbying expenses must be considered the principal investment for firms seeking funds. As one can see in the chart below -- listing the top ten returns on investment for PMA Group clients -- small lobbying expenses consistently translated into much larger returns. For the full forty clients that only retained PMA Group lobbyists, none received lower than a 525% return on investment.

Three lawmakers closely linked to the PMA Group lobbying and earmarks investigation have seen their collective campaign fundraising drop by 58% compared to the first quarter of 2007, according to the Washington Post. Reps. John Murtha, James Moran, and Pete Visclosky all were top recipients of campaign donations from the PMA Group -- before it disbanded -- and its clients.

Visclosky is the only one of the three to renounce campaign donations from former PMA Group lobbyists and former PMA Group clients. He has also forgone all earmarks for private firms. Unfortunately, this makes the connection between the contributions and the earmarks all the more clear, raising more questions about the Indiana congressman's prior actions than in quelling the potential pay-to-play questions. As my colleague Bill Allison writes, "Let’s see…could there be a connection?"