Three years after Dems rode Nancy Pelosi's promise to "drain the swamp" to a congressional majority, a potentially big scandal has been simmering that threatens to cause problems for the party going into the 2010 midterms.
It's a story involving what was one of D.C.'s biggest lobbying firms (until it was raided by the Feds and closed up shop), several powerful Democratic appropriators, and the defense industry. And it appears to be considerably more serious that the allegations of financial misconduct that have dogged Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) -- allegations that have gotten the lion's share of press coverage focusing on ethical transgressions.
A federal criminal investigation has touched two House Dems, and another three, along with two Republicans, are under scrutiny by a pair of congressional ethics panels in matters related to the defunct lobbying firm, PMA Group.
The investigation appears to have two focal points, according to reports: that PMA may have funneled sham donations to members of Congress through so-called "straw donors" who would be reimbursed, and that there may have been a quid pro quo, exchanging defense earmarks for campaign donations.
PMA's lobbying activities centered on winning earmarks doled out by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, chaired by John Murtha of Pennsylvania. It was founded in the late 1980s by a former aide on the committee, Paul Magliocchetti.* And it was staffed over the years by ex-aides for Murtha, Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN), and Rep. James Moran (D-VA).
TPMmuckraker has kept a close eye on the case. Major newspaper editorial boards have voiced their concerns. The Times and the Post have each done solid reporting. So why, at this point, nine months after the FBI raid appeared in the news, aren't we hearing more about this? Why hasn't it stuck?
It's probably a combination of factors: the infrequent media leaks from the Feds; the complexity and diffuseness of the case; and the lack of a single high-profile figure who is the focus of investigators.
It's not for lack of color that the story hasn't taken off. Like many Washington influence peddlers, Magliocchetti was a boisterous figure known for wooing lawmakers with fancy meals and booze. His wine locker at the Capital Grille steakhouse was famously labeled "Mags."
The FBI raided PMA's offices last November, and its top lobbyists scattered after the episode became public (the Feds have also reportedly raided Magliocchetti's home). The firm went under this spring.
The amounts of money involved -- including plenty of taxpayer dollars -- are staggering. Seven lawmakers who are under scrutiny by two House ethics panels steered $200 million to PMA clients in the past two years, according to watchdog groups.
What kind of projects was the money for? This year, some of PMA's former clients received federal contracts for "next-generation precision-airdrop capabilities" and "submarine navigation decision aids."
The lawmakers received fistfuls of cash from PMA and its clients over the years -- reportedly $1.75 million to Murtha alone over the past three election cycles. And, the Washington Post recently noted, PMA's services didn't come cheap:
While lawmakers received generous contributions, PMA used its growing influence with the panel over the past decade to become one of the top 10 lobby shops in Washington and took in $114 million in lobbying fees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.
Besides Murtha, the other lawmaker who appears most entangled with PMA is a little-known Democrat from Indiana named Peter Visclosky. A friend of Murtha who is also a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, he has been subpoenaed for documents in the probe, and his legal bills are soaring.
PMA isn't yet the Dems' Jack Abramoff, but it is certainly worth following closely. We plan to do just that.
* 11/30/09 Correction: In a previous version of this article, we incorrectly described Magliocchetti as a "former Murtha aide on the committee." Magliocchetti was an aide on the committee before Murtha was chair or ranking member. We regret the error.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

theWalrus
November 27, 2009 9:28 AM
Yes, we must investigate, uncover, root out, and punish Democrats who engage in illegal/unethical practices! It's the Law!
Republicans (especially those from the previous administration)?
Not so much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
November 27, 2009 9:34 AM
Gee, politicians that are lying, cheating, self-dealing scumbags.
Whooda thunk?
My favorite part;
Three Congressional scumbags account for hundreds of millions of taxpayer funded graft.
There are 432 more House scumbags and 100 Senate scumbags.
Just imagine how many "ex-staffers" they all have out there coordinating the massive ongoing looting of the US Treasury. For instance Barney Frank just sent one of his top "staffers" to join the banksters at Goldman Sachs. And this is repeated again and again and again.
And people wonder why the US is circling the drain...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
November 27, 2009 9:34 AM
Who are the two House Republicans under scrutiny?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FDRdog
November 27, 2009 6:42 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Exactly. Where's the TPM editor? This is a poorly written article. The republicans and another three should have been identified. another three what? Dems? Independents? Very fuzzy and what, for the love of mike, is a sham donation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Latimer
November 28, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to FDRdog
From Washington Post article about the House Ethics Committee document which was mistakenly posted online last month. It lists a gang of 7.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102904699.html
The investigations by two separate ethics offices include an examination of the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on defense, John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), as well as others who helped steer federal funds to clients of the PMA Group. The lawmakers received campaign contributions from the firm and its clients. A document obtained by The Washington Post shows that the subcommittee members under scrutiny also include Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) , C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Latimer
November 28, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to John Latimer
The sham donations refer to money donated to members of Congress by John Pugliese and Jon C. Walker, a couple of Florida restaurant business partners of Paul Magliochetti. The allegation is that they were fraudulenty listed as employees or board directors of PMA and donations were funneled to members of Congress in their name using PMA money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 27, 2009 9:51 AM
Sorry to disappoint all the anti-Obamaites who like to dwell her under our bridges, but there's been a stealth-bomber sneaking it's way towrds K-Street ever since Obama was inaugurated,a nd it just dropped it's load on the lobbyists, of ALL stripes and parties.
Check out this story from this morning's WaPo; the headline reads "New Obama policy bars lobbyists from federal advisory panels".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112602362.html
If you really hate corruption in our government, and you believe it is BOTH major parties, not one or the other, that participate in the quid-pro-quo status quo, you will find this both enlightening and refreshing.
If you are just an Obama contrarian, you will just find a way to trash it, no matter what it really means. Just can't admit Obama REALLY represents the very kind of change you, too, want for our nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
November 27, 2009 10:03 AM in reply to JEP07
Ah yes, but "experts" get to stay. Get a load of these firm names!
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/adv-com/members/
Unbelievable, but true!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
November 27, 2009 10:15 AM in reply to JEP07
From the linked WP story:
(my emphasis)Oh so they encouraged the prohibition, not ordered it. That's gotta be as terrifying to the DC scum as the famous "sternly worded letter". Yes I have great expectations for this latest bit of kabuki, er, I mean policy change.
And just for the record the change I want for the nation involves prosecuting the war criminals from the previous regime, not rewarding the very banksters who brought the world to the brink of financial disaster and reining in the Unitary Executive.
How's Obama doing on those issues?
Yeah.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DancingBear
November 27, 2009 10:51 AM in reply to McMia
Funny how you left out the next sentence from the WaPo story after the "encouraged but not ordered" sentence:
"Nonetheless, administration officials said, most Cabinet secretaries have implemented the recommendation, usually by barring renewals or new appointments for lobbyists."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 27, 2009 4:31 PM in reply to DancingBear
Of course he did. It would have falsified his entire rant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
November 27, 2009 11:02 AM in reply to JEP07
I think this is a HUGE step in the right direction. Time to ban lobbyists from the streets of DC. Next we need to take the status of "personhood" form corporations so that they cannot donate to campaigns. They shouldn't get that status anyways as we can't put the corp in jail if it violates campaign finance laws like they can if you or I do this. They are the biggest financiers of campaigns and it needs to stop. We should not be voting for a candidate because of how much money they spent on their campaign, we should be voting for them because they are the right one for the job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 27, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to JEP07
It's a good move, but nothing will diminish the influence of lobbyists until their money is made no good on Capitol Hill and that requires public financing of ALL elections. Banning them from participation and keeping them away from the decisionmaking process is all well and good but their real influence begins and ends with contributions. Cut off the spigot of influence and suddenly the lobbyists become a whole lot less sexy and seductive to elected officials.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
November 27, 2009 12:39 PM in reply to JEP07
I voted for him. I contributed monthly to his campaign. I "hope." I'm "fired up, and ready to go."
Now, if only he would dump the economic advisors who came to him fresh from the NY Fed and Goldman-Sachs, handling all those trillions going out to the same organizations, stop defending Bush-era wiretap and rendition abuses in court, and maybe prosecute previous administration types that clearly — through public admissions — broke serious laws, I'd be feeling ever so much more assured about his moves forward.
And there has been progress on several fronts. However, to fail to criticise him for his shortcomings or failures comes a little too close to the kind of hero worship and unquestioning following that is typically reserved for (as John Dean framed it in his study Conservatives Without Conscience) authoritarian followers following their authoritarian leaders.
Criticisms, where deserved (as my examples), still do not alter the fact he was the best choice on offer for president, and is a very itelligent president (what a change from the last one). But those things do not forgive him for defending continued constitution-shredding activities or allowing our economic strategies to be mapped out by people with too-close-by-half ties to Wall Street.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 27, 2009 9:55 AM
Not too worry. Not one but two congressional ethics panels are hot on the case. Now those are dogs with teeth. Well, more accurately, dogs. Thankfully, no one (of significance) will go to jail; wrong color, wrong industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 27, 2009 11:08 PM in reply to tiowally
More accurately old dogs, with no new tricks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 27, 2009 9:58 AM
Call me jaded. Call me shellshocked. I just can't consider a figure in the low nine digits "staggering" anymore. Admittedly, that may be part of the problem here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 27, 2009 10:32 AM
Numbers mean nothing... look at what King Harry said.
SENATOR HARRY REID on the floor: "He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, we’re talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. It’s a very small percent."
Your Highness - we peasants did the math and um 54 billion a year over 10 years is um... OVER 1/2 TRILLION!!! yet King Harry this this is so paltry a number to him that it is insignificant.
These people on both sides have lost all ability to comprehend the meaning of the number... they are just words now. No meaning, value or consequence.
See for your self - http://tinyurl.com/ylm432j
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 27, 2009 11:11 PM in reply to Odel Roo
Go post in a thread that is pertinent to the point you want to make.
In words YOU can understand: Go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 28, 2009 8:01 PM in reply to Odel Roo
I don't know if Harry mispoke or you misheard but that $54 bn was over ten years and a third of it came in the form of income taxes on premium saving by physicians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
November 27, 2009 1:04 PM
Flipping lobbyists. I for one am really tired of the pass the buck game between them and congress persons from all parties. I've been fweeping at my brother and friends about this for the last 5 years and I am finally getting through to some of them. Every person running for re-election should have listed in the national and local papers how much money they have received from K street and how many of thier staff work there. SOBs everyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
November 27, 2009 6:25 PM
As long as we continue to vote in crooks who protect and support crooks (they're called democrats and repblicans) we will continue to receive exactly what we deserve. Notice that even when small inroads are made by a few patriots, it is only for the immediate time, not passed into law for future administrations. This way the chain will nver again be broken. The most which will occur is news like above... that some promises are made which do not amount to mandates and is broken, no penalties exist beyond voting in another scumbag next time.
Face it folks... even voters somehow need to continue supporting the downfall of this great nation because for one reason or another, they believe their party is looking out for them... NONSENSE... IMHO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 28, 2009 7:52 AM in reply to johnnydoughey
I'm reminded that the "re-election" rate in the now-defunct Soviet Union's Politburo was 92%; the "return" rate of an incumbent to the U.S. Congress is 98%. Now that's change you can believe in, eh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bheartlib
November 27, 2009 8:48 PM
It seems like so many of our Liberal or Progressive friends have given up. Obama is a flop. His presidency is over. He is a huge disappointment. He hasn't done anything.
Think about where we have come from!! Arguably, the repubs have had 20 years to destroy the middle class of this country. In essence...the country, period. Obama has been in office for less than a year. The repubs are fighting him every step of the way, both on important things, and non-important things. Everything. He holds his hand out, and they slap it back, and tell us that it is his fault. Obama even has his own people fighting him. And, they are fighting them at their own peril...frigging idiots.
What I know is that Obama has a good heart. He wants to help us. He knows what it is like to be poor. He is also smarter than any President in my lifetime. He thinks, and most importantly, he actually listens to people. All people. I'm not going to do the "chess/checker" comparison here. It has been done to death. What I will say is that he does not have it in him to be harsh or mean or stern. I wanted him to rip Hillary a new one many times during the campaign. He was always a gentleman. He was right... he won, she is now part of his team, and she is a wonderful SecState.
He is not perfect...I don't like Geithner, Summers and Rubin. But I know that he will listen to us, and that we are infinitely better off than we were.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 27, 2009 11:09 PM
People formerly staffing Congress are now lobbyists?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Instead, all lobbyists should be former South Carolina contestants in the Miss United States/Universe contest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 28, 2009 2:33 AM in reply to Cal Gal
Go post in a thread that is pertinent to the point you want to make.
In words YOU can understand: Go away. Troll
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 28, 2009 8:15 AM
This Saturday at TPMMuckraker: Odel Roo and Cal Gal: The Grudge Match! YOU have to see it. YOU have to be there. NO Cage, NO Ring, NO Rules. PLUS "Big Daddy" Don Garlits, Don "The Snake" Prudhomme and Tom "Mongoose" McEwen battle it out for The Ultimate Prize. It's all this Saturday at TPMMuckraker. AND the first 100 with a shovel gets a FREE Gimmee Hat!! BE THERE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 28, 2009 8:19 AM in reply to tiowally
Sorry, folks. Couldn't resist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 28, 2009 8:24 AM in reply to tiowally
LOL... i know ... I couldn't resist either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 28, 2009 8:36 AM in reply to Odel Roo
Thanks for not taking offense. I'll tell Josh he owes you a TPMMuckraker Gimmee hat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 28, 2009 8:39 AM in reply to Odel Roo
BTW: I sure hope you don't know who Garlits, Prudhomme and McEwen are. If you do, there's nothing I can do to help now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 28, 2009 8:45 AM in reply to tiowally
Nothing to be offended about... and no, I don't know who Garlits, Prudhomme and McEwen are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 28, 2009 9:18 AM in reply to Odel Roo
Don't know who they are? Good. That means many more years to your life. Trust me.
(FYI: They were mid/late '60s-era Southern California drag racers. Very famous at the time. Or rather, the high energy/volume commercials for the races ran constantly on the [transistor] radio — AM band only; FM didn't exist — at the time. I won't tell you how I know that.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
November 28, 2009 4:10 PM
Why has this been underreported in the MSM? I should think that was obvious. This kind of political payoff/bribery stuff is a major arm of the military-industrial complex's grip on the national agenda. The MSM loves a war, too. So, color me not very surprised.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Desidero
November 28, 2009 5:44 PM
We had billions go out the door for the Iraq invasion and various military scams, and trillions have gone out the door for the financial scams. A couple of hundred million is chicken feed at this point.
As you go through life, make this your goal - watch the donut, not the hole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
totallynext
November 28, 2009 9:28 PM
this is just silly - every political contribution is a quid pro quo - to think anything else is just naive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
November 29, 2009 6:00 AM
You can't get rid of lobbyists. You don't actually think our legislators actually understand the laws they pass do you? They won't even read them much less do the homework to research issues. They rely on trade groups (lobbyists) to provide the verbiage in most complex legislation. Like healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevelaudig
November 29, 2009 6:48 AM
Visclosky's first campaign for congress, against an African-American woman was steeped in appeals to race. He's always been a disappointment to the left. To have such a safe seat go to such a slug is a shame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
November 30, 2009 11:12 AM
This is a boring scandal. Where's the sex? Where's the drugs?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
James101
November 30, 2009 3:42 PM
There is a great candidate running against John Murtha. I would encourage you to take a look at him and support him. Murtha will be able to raise millions from the corporations that he's given earmarks to. The only way to get him out, is with a nationwide grassroots fundraising campaign. Please go to www.timburnsforcongress.com and if you like what you see, make a contribution. I've met Mr. Burns and know he is a true conservative and he has never been in politics before. He's a businessman that has decided to serve his country by taking on this corrupt politician - John Murtha.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
J Baustian
December 3, 2009 12:46 AM
Duke Cunningham is in prison. Why is John Murtha still walking around as a free man?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?