
There is no evidence that any members of Congress exchanged earmarks for campaign contributions with the PMA Group, the House Ethics committee has found, sources tell (sub. req.) Roll Call.
The paper reports that the committee will release a report on the matter later today, exonerating of wrongdoing seven Appropriations committee members who it had been looking into in connection with the now-defunct lobbying group.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)Neither the Democratic nor the Republican campaign committees that raked in big bucks from accused Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford, according to the court-appointed receiver in the case, say they plan to return the cash.
The receiver, Dallas lawyer Ralph Janvey told the AP that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) had received $950,000 from Stanford, and that the National Republican Campaign Committee had gotten $238,500.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)A politically connected British defense contractor has agreed to plead guilty to having misled the government about payments that may have been used to help win contracts Saudi Arabia, the Justice Department has announced.
In a joint agreement with the U.S. and U.K., BAE Systems will pay a $400 million fine.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)In the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been quick to denounce a bid by Democrats to stop foreign corporations from pouring money into U.S. elections, claiming current law already bars such spending. As we've reported before, it's not nearly as simple as that -- but McConnell should know: The GOP Senate leader has raked in campaign cash from a subsidiary of a major foreign defense contractor that's currently being investigated by the Justice Department for bribery.
As we reported yesterday, McConnell, a longtime foe of efforts to get money out of politics, last week took to the Senate floor to pooh-pooh the notion that the court's decision could allow a flood of foreign money to sway our elections, citing an existing law that prevents foreign nationals, including corporations, from spending on U.S. elections. But that ban doesn't cover the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, or to foreign-owned corporations that incorporate in the U.S.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)
