Walz voted against tabling PMA Group investigation resolution

Over at the appropriately named Hot Air, conservative blogger Ed Morrissey writes in House votes to ignore PMA pay-for-play scandal:

Jeff Flake tried his best to get the House to clean up after itself in the wake of raids on the lobbyist group PMA and some of its clients.  Flake got a vote on a resolution to begin an investigation into PMA and the hundreds of millions of pork dollars that has flowed to its clients from Representatives who have financially benefited from them.  Unfortunately, only 21 Democrats went along with Flake — and a few Republicans defected (via Instapundit)...

Morrissey's source article in Politico doesn't link to the Roll Call vote on this one. Congressman Walz was one of the 21 Democrats who voted to begin the investigation. With the exception of Representative Kline, who voted "present" because he is on the ethics panel that would hear the evidence*, the rest of Minnesota's delegation voted along partisan lines.

In Firm with Murtha Ties Got Earmarks From Nearly One-Fourth of House, CQPolitics explains part of the issue fairly well. Over 100 current and former House members secured earmarks for clients of the lobbying firm (no current or former Minnesota representative is on the list). The article notes:

“It shows you how good they were,” said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “The sheer coordination of that would take an army to finish.”

PMA’s offices have been raided, and the firm closed its political action committee last week amid reports that the FBI is investigating possibly illegal campaign contributions to Murtha and other lawmakers.

No matter what the outcome of the federal investigation, PMA’s earmark success illustrates how a well-connected lobbying firm operates on Capitol Hill. And earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients.

In the spending bill managed by Murtha, the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriation, 104 House members got earmarks for projects sought by PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly’s analysis of a database constructed by Ashdown’s group.. . .

The Washington Post focused on the FBI probe of PMA in Despite Listing, Donors Don't Work for Firm Being Probed:

These errors, along with other unusual donations linked to the firm, come as the Justice Department examines allegations that PMA may have violated campaign finance laws. The offices of PMA, which ranked last year as the 10th-largest Washington lobbying firm by earnings, were raided in November by FBI agents and Defense Department investigators.

. . .Federal investigators are focused on allegations that PMA founder Paul Magliocchetti, a former appropriations staffer close to  Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), may have reimbursed some of his staff to cover contributions made in their names to Murtha and other lawmakers, according to two sources familiar with the investigation. PMA has long had a reputation for securing earmarks from congressional appropriators, particularly for defense contractors, and it has donated generously to influential members of Congress. Magliocchetti personally gave $98,000 in campaign donations last year, according to campaign records.

Federal election laws limit the amount of money individuals may contribute to candidates, but lobbying firms often show their clout by collecting and bundling contributions. It is illegal for employers to reimburse donors for their contributions.. . .

Walz received one $1000 in 2008 from the group's PAC ( none in the 2005-2006 cycle), but did not receive any contributions from individual PMA Group employees as near as we can tell by looking at the FEC database by the employer search feature of the advanced search option. 

Looking  for Minnesotans in the committee's giving in the 2007-2008 cycle, we see that former Senator Norm Coleman, and Representatives McCollum and Oberstar received contributions. None of the potentially scandalous earmarks or suspicious individual giving involved Minnesotans serving in Congress--at least as far as we know.

We think the investigations of the PMA Group should lead not so  to partisan gotcha, as to calls for the continued reform in the process of earmarking and transparency. We're guessing this vote didn't come easy for Walz, but we're pleased that he's walking the talk about reforming congress.

One additional Minnesota connection with the story: former representative Tim Penny is on the advisory board of Taxpayers for Common Sense.  Unlike Morrisey, this group doesn't use the word "pork" to describe earmarks, one staff member told us at last weekend's Transparency Camp noted that calling appropriations "pork" oversimplifies the issue and impedes real earmark reform. An interesting point we're inclined to agree with. Congress is charged by the Constitution with appropriating money for the federal government: what is the best method for funding worthy projects in districts and regions (such as public works like the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System) while avoiding corruption?

As the CQPolitics articles points out:

earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients.

We hope Congressman Walz continues to work for accountability and tranparency.

*The Yahoo/CQ Politics article contains some minor inaccuracies about the vote, so we're relying on the official House Roll Call.