Flake to offer measure on earmark guidelines

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is trying to refocus public scrutiny on earmarks after a rash of scandals has plagued House Democrats.

Flake plans to offer a privileged resolution on the House floor this week that would ask the ethics committee to provide better guidance on accepting campaign contributions from entities requesting earmarks.

The move is a result of Flake’s frustration with a recent ethics committee report exonerating lawmakers with ties to PMA Group, a lobbying firm known for showering members with campaign contributions in return for receiving multimillion-dollar earmarks for its clients.

“The ethics committee ruling is going over like a lead balloon out there,” Flake said. “We’ve established that there is a clear perception of a quid pro quo, at least from the outside. I think the ethics committee is going to be forced to revisit this or at least issue new guidance for members.”

The ethics committee in late February cleared seven members of the Appropriations Defense subcommittee of allegations that they were involved in pay-to-play schemes for accepting campaign contributions from earmark recipients. In its report, the ethics panel acknowledged the outside groups believed the donations influenced the lawmakers’ decisions to dole out earmarks but said lawmakers weren’t responsible because there are walls erected between their campaign operations and their earmarking decisions.

The report, however, included details of an investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) that showed that, in many cases, there was only a very thin wall between fundraising and earmarking decisions. Some staffers involved in determining earmarks for the office attended fundraisers with corporations requesting the earmark or communicated with the corporations about earmarks and donations via e-mail.

Watchdogs are lambasting the ethics committee report on PMA Group, as well as both parties’ earmarking track record.

“Their action on PMA showed fear — fear that the earmarking and fundraising practices could not withstand real public scrutiny and investigation,” said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.

Unless a member is caught in e-mail or on the phone making a direct link between the contribution and the earmark request, she said, it seems like the ethics committee is saying, “This is how the system works.”

House Democratic leaders appeared to recognize their vulnerability on the ethics issue after enduring a particularly rough week in which Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) stepped down from the Ways and Means panel amid an ethics scandal and Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) resigned amid allegations he sexually harassed a male staffer. Over the weekend, reporters also started scrutinizing details of the ethics committee’s PMA report.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is now trying to convince her party to declare a moratorium on earmarks — as a way to outflank Republicans, who have at various times over the past few years considered full earmark moratoriums but failed to impose them.

Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said Pelosi’s consideration of earmark reform is proof positive that the ethics committee’s conclusions in its PMA report have left Democrats vulnerable on the issue.

“If no one is doing anything wrong and campaign contributions aren’t tied to earmarks, why do we need earmark reform?” Sloan asked. “There’s a logical inconsistency here.”

Anti-earmark Republicans immediately embraced the idea of moratorium, although they questioned the timing of it coming in a difficult election year for Democrats.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) applauded the idea in a press release with the headline “DeMint to Force Senate Vote on Pelosi Earmark Ban.”

DeMint said he would try to force a vote on a resolution calling for a moratorium in the Senate this week and said he already has the support of 15 senators, including Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who co-sponsored a similar bill earlier this year.

Last May, 29 Democrats voted with Flake on his resolution calling on the ethics committee to act on the PMA earmark controversy.

Flake would support any effort to pass a moratorium. In fact, he began circulating a letter calling for another GOP earmark moratorium late last week. If it receives 50 signatures, he could force a vote within the GOP conference on the idea.

He admits, though, that this year such a moratorium would amount to playing politics rather than imposing real reform. The more lasting solution, he argues, would be for the ethics committee to issue clearer guidance on the link between campaign contributions and earmarks.

If Flake had his way, the committee would change House ethics rules and treat campaign contributions the same way it does members’ personal finances. Right now lawmakers must certify that they or their spouses don’t have a personal financial interest in any earmark they request. Flake wants the ethics committee to regard campaign contributions as a “financial interest” and bar any earmarks from entities that have donated to the lawmaker.

Ethics watchdogs would rather see more restrictions on campaign contributions to lawmakers from entities receiving earmarks. For instance, if a lawmaker requests an earmark from an entity, the member cannot also accept donations from anyone affiliated with the entity within the current election cycle or Congress.

“Anybody seeking anything from a member of Congress should not be giving that member campaign contributions,” Sloan said.

---