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

Saturday evening, Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s executive director, appeared on CNN talking about Recovery.gov. She made the point that Recovery.gov needs to be updated in real time so people can keep government accountable as it happens, instead of after the fact. Below is the video of the segment:

The New York Times published an editorial calling for Congress to provide Congressional Research Service reports online for all Americans to access free. The Times ran the editorial a week after Ellen met with an editorial writer at the paper. Last week, The Times published an article about the campaign being waged by Open CRS, a project of the Center for Democracy and Technology, OpenTheGovernment.org and Sunlight to get Congress to agree to release all CRS reports to the public.

Cyrus Sanati wrote a post on The Time’s “DealBook” blog that highlighted and linked to SubsidyScope’s county-by-county analysis of how the government is distributing Troubled Asset Relief Program funds throughout the country. The Atlantic’s Chris Good, on their “Politics” blog, also wrote about and linked to SubsidyScope’s map. The San Francisco Bay Guardian’s “Politics” blog wrote about Sunlight grantee MAPLight.org launching their Los Angeles site,  where they reveal campaign contributions to Los Angeles City politicians. MAPLight.org’s new site shows how much interest groups like real estate developers, teachers unions and others contribute to city officials and to candidates running for city office. The site is the first of its kind for any U.S. city. As always, journalists used Center for Responsive Politics’ data to uncover how Washington works. The Wall Street Journal reports that Lockheed Martin, the country’s largest defense contractor, doubled the amount of money spent on lobbying in first quarter of 2009 as it did during the previous three months ($6.41 million during the first quarter, up 97% from the prior quarter's $3.26 million), all in an effort to prevent defense spending cuts. The “Environment Blog” at the U.K.’s guardian.co.uk highlight CRP in a post about how to follow the fossil fuel money on Capitol Hill. The New York Times editorialized that “It is time to follow the money — all of it,” in light of CRP’s report that U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and two subcommittee colleagues, Peter Visclosky of Indiana and James Moran of Virginia, received more than $4 million in campaign contributions from PMA Group clients. In its June issue, Harper’s Magazine published an article by Nancy Watzman, director of Sunlight’s Party Time project. Nancy breaks down, bit-by-bit, a congressional lawmaker’s fundraising event invitation, revealing to those of us not accustom to writing politicians $2,500 checks what we’re missing. Speaking of Party Time, the Politico’s Chris Frates used data from the project to identify some of the bars and restaurants within easy walking distance of the U.S. Capitol where congressional lawmakers meet with lobbyists and other to raise campaign cash. Jose Vargas at The Washington Post compiled the second of his monthly report cards where he has a group of five online political observers grade WhiteHouse.gov. Last month’s report card produced an average grade of a C+. In this second round the group gave the administration an average of a solid B, with the individual graders giving a range from C to A-. Ellen and Andrew Rasiej, Sunlight’s senior technology advisor, participate as graders, and both gave WhiteHouse.gov a B-. If they were to grade the site on the basis of transparency alone, they would have given the site a C-, Vargas reported. Thanks! See you next Friday.

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.

Top Ten PMA Clients & Return on Investment (ROI)

Client	Lobbying Expenses	Total $ in Earmarks	ROI	Sponsoring Lawmaker
Windber Research Institute	$20,000	$12,000,000	59,900%	Murtha, John
Information Systems Laboratories	$10,000	$1,600,000	15,900%	Hunter, Duncan
Maine Marine Manufacturing	$15,000	$1,800,000	11,900%	Allen, Tom; Collins, Susan; Snowe, Olympia; Michaud, Mike
Mts Technologies	$40,000	$4,200,000	10,400%	Murtha, John
Sa Photonics	$20,000	$2,000,000	9,900%	Pelosi, Nancy
Optimal Solutions & Technologies	$30,000	$1,600,000	5,233%	Visclosky, Pete
Concurrent Technologies Corp	$320,000	$14,600,000	4,463%	Dicks, Norm; Murtha, John; Bishop, Sanford; Young, Bill; Hobson, David
Prologic Inc	$240,000	$10,400,000	4,233%	Murtha, John; Baucus, Max; Tester, Jon; Visclosky, Pete; Moran, James; Doyle, Mike; Kingston, Jack
Advanced Concepts & Technologies Intl	$70,000	$3,000,000	4,185%	Visclosky, Pete; Edwards, Chet
Conemaugh Health Systems	$240,000	$9,600,000	3,900%	Murtha, John

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?"

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.

After a series of articles noting the November FBI raid of the offices of the PMA Group, a Washington lobby shop tightly connected to House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair John Murtha, the New York Times reveals that a prominent lobbyist at PMA is under investigation for funneling fraudulent campaign contributions to Rep. Murtha and other lawmakers. That "prominent lobbyist" is former Murtha staffer and lead PMA lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti and those other lawmakers are likely Reps. Pete Visclosky and James Moran.

This marks the fourth major earmarking investigation launched against top appropriators in Congress, with many more related scandals along the way. The first large investigation netted the most extreme case of quid pro quo, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Cunningham was found guilty of corruption for trading earmarks to defense contractors in exchange for a variety of items including a yacht, an 1850 Louis Phillipe commode, and prostitutes. The next two investigations were of the more common variety, the typical tightrope walk of lobbyists selling earmarks by navigating that fine line between serving the public interest and quid pro quo. Appropriators and lobbyists have practiced this walk for many years, and like political Phillipe Petit's, they rarely fall. The investigations begun between 2005 and 2006 into Reps. Alan Mollohan and Jerry Lewis, both Appropriations Committee members, remain unresolved. Similar controversies have arisen around Reps. Don Young, Charles Rangel, and Curt Weldon (defeated for election in 2006) and former Sen. Ted Stevens (defeated in 2008).

The lack of resolution in these cases bodes well for the staying power of the lawmakers who appear likely to get caught up in this scandal, but it doesn't look great for Congress' means of appropriating money. Since the earmarking phenomenon exploded into these series of investigations (and other scandals), it has become clear that lawmakers and lobbyists have been playing a game that borders on, and often crosses into, corruption of a public office.

Robert Kaiser's new book So Damn Much Money lays out the history of the lobbyist role in the creation of the system of directed spending that we call earmarking. One key point that comes out of Kaiser's book is that this quid pro quo tightrope walk existed from the get-go. Earmarking was always a precarious game of greying ethical, and legal, boundaries. With the revelation of the investigation of PMA Group, a major earmark player, and their possible involvement with three long term, major appropriators, the legal system appears to have caught up with the tightrope walk.

As noted above, those under investigation, or convicted, for earmarking abuses are all long term, powerful Appropriations Committee members. Below is a chart of these members and others who face questions about their earmarking (let me know who I missed in the comments):

Congressmen Under Investigation, Convicted, or Under Fire for Earmarking Abuses

Name	Yrs. of Service	Position on Committee	Under Investigation?
former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA)	14 years	Defense Appropriations	Plead Guilty in 2005
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)	30 years	Appropriations Ranking Member (2007-Present), Chair of Appropriations Committee (2005-2007), Chair of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee (1999-2005)	Under Investigation for funneling earmarks to lobbyist and major campaign contributor Bill Lowery
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)	26 years	Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies	Under Investigation for funneling earmarks to nonprofits connected to business partners and lobbyists who are major campaign contributors
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)	35 years	Chair of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee (1989-1995, 2007-Present), Ranking Member Defense Appropriations Subcommittee (1995-2007)	Linked to investigation of PMA Group's alleged use of fraudulent campaign contributions to entice earmarks for clients
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN)	24 years	Chair of Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy & Water, sits on Subcommittee on Defense	Linked to investigation of PMA Group's alleged use of fraudulent campaign contributions to entice earmarks for clients
Rep. James Moran (D-VA)	18 years	Defense Appropriations Subcommittee	Linked to investigation of PMA Group's alleged use of fraudulent campaign contributions to entice earmarks for clients
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)	26 years	Chair of Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (2001-2007)	Revealed that Young inserted an earmark for a Florida campaign contributor after normal legislative process ended, not under investigation; Under investigation for connection to VECO oil services company in Alaska
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)	38 years	Chairman of House Ways & Means Committee	Earmarked funds for the Charles P. Rangel School of Public Service; Under investigation by House Ethics Committee for alleged abuses of fund raising for Rangel School of Public Service
former Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA)	20 years	House Armed Services Committee	Under investigation for pushing earmarks and contracts for Russian and Serbian interests that employed his daughter as a consultant; Lost reelection in 2006
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)	40 years	Chair of Senate Appropriations Committee (1997-2005)	Came under scrutiny for his large number of earmarks for his home state of Alaska; Convicted on seven felony counts of making false statements in case related to his connections to VECO oil supply company in Alaska; Lost reelection in 2008