In the Denver Post, Anne C. Mulkern reports on the earmarks of Rep. Doug Lamborn and finds one of those “only in Washington” wordings that make the head spin:

Lamborn made seven requests for projects tied to specific companies. Of those, five were to businesses whose political action committees had given him campaign contributions.

Officials with two of the companies, Goodrich Corp. and Aeroflex Inc., said there’s no connection between their contributions and their requests for earmarks.

The political action committees support lawmakers who back defense spending, both said.

The committee wants to help lawmakers who are the most responsive to their business needs, said Thomas Bezas, Aeroflex’s vice president of government and trade.

“We want to do everything we can to make sure they stay in office,” Bezas said. “The longer they stay in office, the more it benefits our company.”

So they make contributions to a member who’s most responsive to their business needs, who supports defense spending, but their business needs have nothing to do with earmarks, and awarding defense earmarks is unrelated to defense spending?