IT’S been a rotten year for Chris Dodd. Time and again, the Connecticut senator has been caught both doing favors for heavy hitters and receiving them — and then lying about it. Sometimes the mess involves a firm like AIG or Countrywide, enmeshed in the abuses that have so damaged the US economy. Sometimes Dodd’s pal is just a felon in need of a presidential pardon. But the cavalcade of scandal clearly puts the five-term senator in danger of losing his next re-election bid.
Dodd’s collapse began last June, when Conde Nast Portfolio revealed that he had gotten two cut-rate mortgages of nearly $800,000 from subprime giant Countrywide Financial in 2003. As the magazine reported, Dodd was a “Friend of Angelo” — one of several notables marked for special treatment by Countrywide co-founder Angelo Mozilo. That triggered a dizzying carnival of misleading Dodd statements. First, he issued an angry written statement denying any favorable treatment. A few days later, he told some reporters that he knew he’d been treated as a VIP by Countrywide, while the same day assuring other reporters that he hadn’t. He also promised he would release documents related to his mortgages. It took more than seven months for him to produce anything, and he still hasn’t disclosed all the paperwork. On Feb. 2, he let some Connecticut reporters look at some papers — but allowed no copies to be made and refused to list the documents provided. Dodd has promised to refinance the Countrywide deals, which would save him at least $70,000 over the life of the mortgages. But this is plainly damage control, not remorse. There’s no question why Countrywide wanted Dodd’s friendship. Dodd has long been a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the industry. In 2003, at the time of the first sweetheart loan, he was close to becoming chairman — and a big catch for a company that depended on government policies that encouraged lending over prudence.

Nor is this the only sweetheart deal to surface:
* He bought a Washington, DC, condo in 1986 with New York bon vivant Edward Downe Jr. Dodd lived in the unit; Downe paid half the mortgage, fees and taxes — but rarely used the apartment. The subsidy ended in 1990 as federal authorities closed in on Downe’s lucrative off-shore insider-trading scheme. In 1994, Dodd bought a waterfront home on 10 acres in County Galway, Ireland. Actually, he got a 1/3 interest: Buying the rest was William “Bucky” Kessinger, Kansas City, Mo. real-estate developer (and also a college classmate and longtime business partner of Downe, who by then had been convicted. The total purchase price was $160,000; eight years later, Dodd bought out Kessinger for only $122,351. He says he also paid the balance of the outstanding mortgage — but other records suggest that couldn’t have been much, so Dodd still realized a substantial profit on the deal. Dodd claims that price was based on an independent appraisal. If so, he owned the only piece of property in Ireland that was nearly untouched by the biggest boom in Europe. Dodd’s Irish real-estate bonanza, likely worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars in 2002, came the year after he obtained a full presidential pardon for his and Kessinger’s pal Downe. Circumventing the usual vetting process for pardons, Dodd had made his plea directly to President Bill Clinton. Downe still owed millions to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The latest Dodd disaster, of course, involves those AIG bonuses. In February, Dodd inserted an amendment into the stimulus bill ensuring that executives of firms bailed out by the government could still collect already-contracted bonuses. When that became so controversial this month, Dodd at first denied doing the dirty work — then admitted it, but tried to blame the Obama administration. Even voters who might believe that story will also note that AIG had donated more to Dodd than to any other American politician. And now it turns out that his wife served for three years (2001-2004) on the board of a Bermuda-based company in the AIG constellation.

Polls show Dodd, long unassailable as a Democrat in Connecticut, in a close race with ex-Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Stonington). But his real danger comes from outside Connecticut. Jay Leno no longer needs much setup to skewer Dodd in his monologue. The California audience gets it, and the Connecticut one does, too.

Kevin Rennie, a lawyer and a former Republican state legislator, is a columnist for The Hartford Courant.

Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009
From NBC’s Chuck Todd

In the midst of the congressional outrage over bonuses and bailouts, many of the very firms who benefitted from TARP funds are still making political donations. And the politicians are still taking them. According to the latest F.E.C. data for February, several members of Congress who have been critical of the federal government’s bailout of U.S. companies have received campaign contributions just in the last six weeks – from the firms they bailed out. Campaign-finance-reform advocate Fred Wertheimer says the government’s been bailing out banks and other major “too-big-to-fail” firms — as these same companies continue to use their PACs to make contributions. “It all adds up to kind of a magic circle involving the government, TARP recipients, members of Congress, and campaign contributions.” The reality, of course, is that these contributions, individually, aren’t a lot of money. But many members of Congress (including Speaker Pelosi and Financial Services Chair Barney Frank) have decided against taking any of the money. The optics of this for both the banks and for the members of Congress is bad, and only feeds the credibility problems both entities have with the American public.

So who is getting money and giving it right back to the politicians? Here’s a list of companies who received at least $1 billion in TARP funds and in February alone also gave money to members of Congress or national parties: (Note: more TARP-recipients may have given money in February but not every company PAC reports their contributions monthly, some do it quarterly, meaning we won’t know until mid-April if these figures are actually higher)

Citigroup
Bank of America
Goldman Sachs
U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Chrysler
American Express
KeyCorp
BB&T
Huntington Shares

Now here’s a list of House leadership and banking committee members who got money from these bailed-out companies:
(Note: Some members of Congress received contributions directly to their campaign accounts and some received money to their leadership PACs.)
Steve Austria, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., $5,000 from Bank of America
Melissa Bean, D-Ill., $5,000 from Bank of America
Roy Blunt, R-Mo., $1,500 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
John Boehner, R-Ohio, $5,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from American Express; $1,500 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Kevin Brady, R-Texas, $1,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from American Express
Eric Cantor, R-Va., $2,500 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from Chrysler; $2,500 from American Express
Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., $1,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., $5,000 from Bank of America
Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., $1,000 from Chrysler
Vern Ehlers, R-Mich., $1,200 from Huntington Shares
Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, $1,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
Steny Hoyer, D-Md., $1,500 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., $1,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp
Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Leonard Lance, R-N.J., $1,000 from Citigroup; $2,000 from Goldman Sachs
Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., $1,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., $5,000 from Bank of America
Gary Miller, R-Calif., $1,000 from Bank of America
Gwen Moore, D-Wis., $2,500 from Bank of America
Richard Neal, D-Mass., $4,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from American Express
Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Devin Nunes, R-Calif., $5,000 from Bank of America
Glenn Nye, D-Va., $250 from BB&T
Mike Pence, R-Ind., $1,000 from Chrysler
Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., $1,000 from Chrysler
Mike Rogers, R-Mich., $1,000 from Chrysler
Pete Sessions, R-Texas, $5,000 from Bank of America
Lamar Smith, R-Texas, $1,000 from American Express
Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Mel Watt, D-N.C., $1,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from BB&T; $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC

But Senators also benefitted:
(Note: Both Reid and Shelby say they returned their checks.)

Michael Bennet, D-Colo., $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Robert Bennett, R-Utah, $1,000 from Chrysler
Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, $1,000 from Chrysler
Richard Burr, R-N.C., $5,000 from Bank of America
Tom Carper, D-Del., $620 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Jim DeMint, R-S.C., $2,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $2,000 from BB&T; $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., $1,000 from Citigroup
Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., $1,000 from Bank of America
Bob Menendez, D-N.J., $5,000 from Bank of America
Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., $2,500 from Citigroup; $4,000 from Bank of America
Harry Reid, D-Nev., $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Richard Shelby, R-Ala., $5,000 from Bank of America
Arlen Specter, R-Pa., $2,000 from Chrysler
George Voinovich, R-Ohio, $5,000 from Bank of America

And so did the Parties.

The Democrats:
(Note: Both the DSCC and the DCCC say they never received the checks Bank of America reported in their March FEC report)
NDCPAC, $5,000 from Citigroup, $5,000 from Bank of America
Blue Dog PAC, $5,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
DSCC , $15,000 from Bank of America
DCCC, $15,000 from Bank of America
FourOhDems, $1,000 from Huntington Shares

And the Republicans:
HouseConFund, $5,000 from Bank of America
GOP Main Street, $5,000 from Bank of America
NRSC, $15,000 from Bank of America
NRCC $15,000 from Bank of America

Interestingly, Goldman Sachs actually reported members of Congress who refused to cash their checks, including Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., Rep. Pete DeFazio, D-Ore., and then-Congressman and now chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Sen. Chris Dodd says Treasury forced him to add language to the stimulus bill last month that specifically excluded executive bonuses included in contracts signed before the bill’s passage. In a dramatic reversal Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd confessed to adding language to a spending cap in the stimulus bill last month that specifically excluded executive bonuses included in contracts signed before the bill’s passage. Dodd, D-Conn., told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change. “As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications to it,” he said. “They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem that obnoxious or onerous.” But the provision has become a flash point for criticism amid the controversy over $165 million in bonuses given out by AIG after securing more than $170 billion in federal aid. The language in the stimulus bill wasn’t specific to AIG, but some have expressed outrage that it appears to have created a loophole. Dodd said the argument put forward by Treasury was that a “flood of lawsuits” would come forward if the change was not made. Dodd said he was unaware of the AIG bonuses at the time the bill was being written back in early February. He also said he has no reason to believe Treasury officials making the argument knew about the AIG bonuses. When asked how administration officials have this kind of leverage over members of Congress, Dodd said, “The administration has veto power. … No one suggested a veto to me, I don’t want to imply that to you. But certainly that’s not an insignificant tool.” On Tuesday, Dodd told FOX News that he didn’t add the exemption. “When the language went to the conference and came back, there was different language,” he said then. “I can tell you this much, when my language left the Senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did.” Dodd still thinks the Treasury can get the bonuses back, despite the inclusion of a date in the stimulus bill, and he said officials are, in fact, using his very language to claw back the money.
“There is language after that date that says explicitly that the Treasury has the right to modify, reaching back, those bonuses, compensations, if it’s inconsistent with the TARP legislation or contrary to the public interest,” he said. “In fact, it’s that phrase that the administration is relying on this evening as a means by which they can reach back and maybe get these bonuses back,” he said.
Still, Dodd has his enemies. The Senate Republican re-election campaign quickly shot out a statement on the Dodd reversal, as he is a prime target in the 2010 midterm elections and is facing a Republican opponent who, in one poll, is in a statistical tie with him.
“Senator Dodd’s reversal on this issue is both astonishing and alarming,” the National Republican Senatorial Campaign said in a written statement. “Contrary to his statements and denials over the last 24 hours, Senator Dodd has now admitted that he and his staff did in fact change the language in the stimulus bill to include a loophole for AIG executive bonuses.” The group added that Dodd had “misled voters and equivocated on his statements .”

By Brad Friedman
Those of us who have demanded transparent voting systems because we understand that only the ability for complete citizen oversight and transparency can effectively counter those who would game elections, have been disingenuously criticized over the years as somehow questioning the integrity of the hard-working, honest election officials out there.
The fact is, those who know anything about computer security understand that it is the insiders who are, by far, the greatest threat to security on such systems, as even the phony, GOP-operative-created Baker/Carter National Election Reform Commission determined in its final report: “There is no reason to trust insiders in the election industry any more than in other industries.”
The best election officials in the country, however, will underscore that point, and agree that there is no reason any citizen should ever have to simply “trust” them.
Over the years, we’ve detailed the arrests and other unsavory behavior of many of the not-so-good election officials who, we were told, should simply have been trusted (our “favorite” has always been the case of Monterey CA’s Tony Anchundo, who told us on air we should “trust” him, just a month or two before being arrested on 43 counts). Well, now we’ve got a whole passel of still more crooked officials to add to the list. Moreover: The Kentucky officials arrested and indicted today, “including the circuit court judge, the county clerk, and election officers” of Clay County, have been charged with “changing votes at the voting machine” and showing others how to do it!

From Lexington, Kentucky’s NBC affiliate this afternoon:
Five Clay County officials, including the circuit court judge, the county clerk, and election officers were arrested Thursday after they were indicted on federal charges accusing them of using corrupt tactics to obtain political power and personal gain.
The 10-count indictment, unsealed Thursday, accused the defendants of a conspiracy from March 2002 until November 2006 that violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO is a federal statute that prosecutors use to combat organized crime. The defendants were also indicted for extortion, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to injure voters’ rights and conspiracy to commit voter fraud. According to the indictment, these alleged criminal actions affected the outcome of federal, local, and state primary and general elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006. The article goes on to list some of the criminal actions listed in the indictment. Among them [emphasis added]:

* Clay County Clerk, Freddy Thompson, 45, allegedly provided money to election officers to be distributed by the officers to buy votes and he also instructed officers how to change votes at the voting machine.
* Election officer William E. Stivers, 56, allegedly marked votes or issued tickets to voters who had sold their votes and changed votes at the voting machine.
* Paul E. Bishop, 60, allegedly marked voters or issued tickets to voters who sold their votes and he also hosted alleged meetings at his home where money was pooled together by candidates and distributed to election officers, including himself. He was also accused of instructing the officers how to change votes at the voting machine.
In addition to the absurd charge that those of us who believe in transparency are unduly “attacking” election officials, the latest PR line from e-voting vendors, and election officials alike, is that there is no proof that any election has ever been manipulated electronically. Setting aside that we disagree — wholeheartedly — with that oft-used bit of propaganda, the above indictments would seem to give us a very specific allegation of exactly that, manipulation of electronic votes. Clay County uses the horrible ES&S iVotronic system for all of its votes at the polling place. The iVotronic is a touch-screen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) device, offering no evidence, of any kind, that any vote has ever been recorded as per the voter’s intent. If the allegations are correct here, there would likely have been no way to discover, via post-election examination of machines or election results, that votes had been manipulated on these machines. ES&S is the largest distributor of voting systems in America and its iVotronic system — which is well-documented to have lost and flipped votes on many occasions — is likely the most widely-used DRE system in the nation. It’s currently in use in some 419 jurisdictions in 18 states including Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

FURTHER UPDATE: Having now reviewed the indictment, as linked above, here are some additional details on the alleged conspiracy which included election fraud though the buying and selling of votes to be cast in a certain way, with the aid of one of the defendants who served as a poll worker during the Early Voting period. Also, at the polling place on Election Day with aid of poll workers, drafted as both Democratic and Republican judges, to elect a slate of candidates — some of them bribed — the conspirators would manipulate the votes of “qualified voters” at the voting machines themselves. Many of the voters, it seems, had no idea that their votes were manipulated after they’d left the touch-screen voting machine. While the Early Voting scheme involved finding voters who might wish to be paid to have their vote cast a certain way, the Election Day scheme, carried out in primary and general elections in at least 2004 and 2006, was accomplished by taking advantage of a “feature” on all DRE (usually touch-screen) voting systems and “voter unfamiliarity with new voting machines.” Essentially, they tricked voters into leaving the ‘booth’ after pressing the “Vote” button on the ES&S iVotronic. That button, does not actually cast the vote, as one might think (and as these voters were told), but instead, it brings up a review screen of the voter’s “ballot.” Instructing the voters that they were done, the conspirators then, after the voter had left, would change the voters’ votes as they saw fit, before finally pressing the “Cast Ballot” button.

Here’s the explanation of how they did this on Election Day, according to the indictment:
* It was part of the conspiracy that the Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to take advantage of voter unfamiliarity with new voting machines by misleading voters as to the mechanics of casting their votes once they were selected.
* It was part of the conspiracy that WW serve as the Democrat election judge in the Manchester Precinct. It was further part of the conspiracy that CW serve as the Republican election judge in the Manchester Precinct. Both WW and CW were instructed by Defendants Freddy W. Thompson and Charles Wayne Jones to tell voters that when they had pushed a button labeled “Vote” that their votes had been cast, when, in fact, that function merely provided a review screen of the voter’s selections in each race, and that the further step of pushing the “Cast Ballot” button was required. This review screen gave the voter the opportunity to change any candidate selections prior to casting the ballot.
* It was part of the conspiracy that when the misled voters left the voting booth after pushing the “Vote” button, WW and/or CW entered the booth, changed their votes to candidates selected in part by Defendant Russell Cletus Maricle and cast the ballot by pushing the “Cast Ballot” button.
As mentioned, the voters in question were all “qualified voters”. The fraud could not have been accomplished without the conspiracy carried out with the aid of the insiders at the polling place, who changed election results on the voting machines, as needed.
“Many of the qualified voters duly voted for one or more of the aforesaid candidates and their votes were counted and certified as part of the total number of votes cast for such candidates,” the indictment reads. “Other voters had their votes destroyed by the Defendants and their co-conspirators.” The Early Voting scheme, which included vote buying and selling, also required the aid of insiders, stationed at the early voting location:
* It was part of the conspiracy that the Defendants discussed and agreed to buy votes also during the early voting of absentee voters in favor of “the slate.” This plan involved having Defendants William E. Stivers, William B. Morris, and Debra L. Morris pay absentee voters for their vote and then sending them to Defendant Charles Wayne Jones who was acting as operator of the voting machine at the Clay County Clerk’s Office. Voters who sold their votes were given a mark or otherwise told to signal to the Defendant Charles Wayne Jones by Defendants William E. Stivers, William B. Morris, or Debra L. Morris and, based upon the mark andior signal, Defendant Charles Wayne Jones would cast their vote for “the slate.”
* It was part of the conspiracy that the Defendants discussed and agreed that in order to implement the method of corrupting the voting process described above, it would be necessary to cause to be appointed as precinct workers for both major parties persons who were in the conspiracy. It was further necessary that their assignment to respective precincts be coordinated so that no one outside the conspiracy would be in place to observe their actions.
* Over numerous days during on or about a date in January 2006 to on or about November 7,2006, a list of voters who agreed to sell their votes was compiled by Defendants Russell Cletus Maricle and William E. Stivers and other co-conspirators made
arrangements with these persons for voting and payment. On numerous occasions, voters were brought to the courthouse during normal voting and the early voting period for absentee voters and paid to vote for candidates on “the slate” by Defendants William E. Stivers, William B. Morris, and Debra L. Morris.
* On or about May 16,2006, and November 7,2006, Defendants William E. Stivers, William B. Morris, and Debra L. Morris paid voters to vote for members of “the slate,” as described above. They informed these voters to ask for assistance from selected precinct workers who then took them into the voting booth and selected the votes for them.

Of course, to accomplish all of this, the defendants had to be able to draft poll workers who would do what they needed. Three of the named defendants, circuit court judge Russell Cletus Maricle, Clay County Superintendent of Schools Douglas C. Adams, and election officer Charles Wayne Jones, all had among their powers on the election board the ability to “exert influence over the selection of precinct workers” for local elections. Election officer Jones, it’s alleged, is the one who “instructed other election officials…how to change votes at the voting machines.” “Part of the scheme to defraud,” according to the indictment, also included that “defendants instructed election officers to assist the voters who sold their votes and to destroy voter assistance forms which may have resulted so as to not report the number of people they assisted at the voting polls as required by law.”
So will the voting machine company representatives out there (and that includes many election officials who have forgotten for whom they work) continue to report that no election has ever been manipulated via an electronic voting system?…

WASHINGTON – The fight over earmarks is not over. For all of President Obama’s promises of reform, a close look at just three of the more than 9,000 earmarks contained in the $410 billion spending bill that he signed last week shows just how hard it will be to clamp down on lawmakers’ pet projects. Take Catalyst Renewables, an energy company that failed to win a $30 million grant from the federal government last year but got a $500,000 earmark courtesy of New York lawmakers.
Or PPG Industries, a manufacturing conglomerate based in Pittsburgh that received nearly $1.2 million to develop windows that double as solar panels, which lawmakers promoted as a one-of-a-kind initiative even though the company has many competitors.
Or the $190,000, secured by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, for a community center in New Orleans to be built by a nonprofit group founded by her brother, allocated even though the project is defunct.

Billions of dollars in earmarks
The three projects represent just a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars in earmarks in the bill, but they help illustrate why critics continue to demand more restraints and how new rules announced by Democrats on Capitol Hill and embraced by Mr. Obama might serve to block some initiatives but not others. They also help explain why the larger struggle over who decides how tax dollars are spent — Congress, the Obama administration, or state and local officials — will not be resolved anytime soon, making “Congressionally directed spending” the favorite new euphemism on Capitol Hill, even as earmarks remain a small part of overall federal spending. The earmarks in the bill approved last week totaled between $3.8 billion and more than $12.8 billion depending on how the projects are defined, or roughly 1 to 3 percent of the overall spending. The new rules seek to curb the most blatant abuses of the earmark process by requiring competitive bidding for any money that lawmakers want to direct to a for-profit company. The regulations also require a 20-day review of all earmarks by the relevant federal agency. Lawmakers and agency officials, though, say it might be impossible for agencies to review thousands of projects in such a tight time frame, and at such an early stage of the appropriations process.

Supporters defend the new requirements
Supporters, including the House Appropriations Committee chairman, Representative David R. Obey, defend the new requirements, saying they will bring further accountability on top of a 2007 ethics law that required the disclosure of all earmarks and their sponsors. Mr. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, and others say the competitive bidding rules will allow members of Congress to earmark money for a purpose but not necessarily for a specific for-profit recipient. Critics warn that earmarks can be written in such a way that only a specific recipient can win. A company like Catalyst Renewables, which has its headquarters in Dallas but also has offices in upstate New York, would have had to clear more hurdles to get the $1 million it has received — $500,000 allotments in the last two years — from New York’s Congressional delegation, including Representative John M. McHugh, a Republican who was a sponsor of both earmarks. The company, competing with others last year, failed to obtain a $30 million grant from the Energy Department to build a biorefinery. The company was told that it had not provided sufficient data to win the money. Eric L. Spomer, president of Catalyst Renewables, said the earmark process allowed lawmakers to recognize merit, and finance a smaller aspect of the company’s operations, even though agency officials would not finance the new plant. “We’re a small company and we don’t have a budget for R & D,” Mr. Spomer said. “We knew what we needed to do, but it was a question of where are we going to get the money.”

Worthwhile is in the eye of the beholder
New York lawmakers insist the Energy Department was wrong to deny the grant money. And Mr. Spomer conceded that under a competitive system the company might not have received its earmark either. “Worthwhile,” to be sure, is in the eye of the beholder. When officials at PPG Industries pitched lawmakers for help with their effort to build solar-panel windows, Representative Mike Doyle, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said he recognized a winner. “Nobody else in the world does this work,” declared Mr. Doyle, who sponsored a $1.2 million earmark for PPG. But Covalent Solar, a Massachusetts start-up founded by researchers at M.I.T., said it was one of several companies working to develop nearly identical technology and would eagerly bid for federal money if given the chance. “We would immediately submit a proposal,” said the company’s president, Jon Mapel. Mr. Doyle, who just completed six years on the House ethics committee, said he had long published his earmark requests and would proudly defend his efforts to support businesses in his district. He said that the Energy Department already oversees the program that will direct the money to PPG, making the 20-day review superfluous, and that competitive bidding would be mostly pointless. “If this makes people feel better, go ahead and do it,” Mr. Doyle said. He said he was unaware of competitors who were working on similar technology, but suggested they might not have the track record with the Energy Department that PPG did.

Critics: Focus on local interests is problem
Critics of earmarks say Mr. Doyle’s focus on local interests represents a major problem. “This is Congress picking the winner that happens to be in the lawmakers’ district, rather than unleashing America’s promise and saying, ‘Here’s the problem, here’s what we are trying to fund, and let companies across America see if they can actually meet that need,” said Steve Ellis, a spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks and opposes earmarks. Mr. Mapel said he worried that bigger, more established companies had an unfair advantage in the earmark process. In its quest for earmarks, PPG was represented by the PMA Group, a lobbying firm being investigated by the F.B.I. for its role in directing campaign contributions to lawmakers who provided millions of dollars in earmarks for the firm’s clients. In a written statement, a PPG spokesman said the company had reviewed the matter and found no evidence of misconduct. Even earmarks for nonprofits can be complicated, as evidenced by the $190,000 secured by Ms. Landrieu for the Lake Area Community Center, a nonprofit group founded by her brother Martin. Ms. Landrieu, in an interview, said she had been aware of her brother’s support for the center but not that he personally had incorporated the nonprofit group. Still, she said, she would have backed the earmark. The project does not seem to violate ethics rules that bar senators from requesting earmarks in which they or an immediate family member has a “pecuniary interest.” It is unclear if a 20-day review by the Department of Housing and Urban Development would have found that the project was defunct and kept it out of the budget bill.
“That project is not off the ground at all,” Mr. Landrieu said in an interview. “There is no funding for it, other than the federal money that has been talked about.” Officials said that projects could always fall apart, and that agencies routinely verified the status of recipients before releasing money. Ms. Landrieu’s office said HUD would not be likely to release money for the project.

Unfair to suggest special treatment?
Mr. Landrieu said it would be unfair for critics to suggest special treatment. “To put the message out or to suggest that you know an earmark is set aside because I was involved in something is a little bit misleading,” he said. “Mary, as my sister, and as a U.S. senator, was extremely interested in helping that neighborhood to recovery, not just that neighborhood but every neighborhood in New Orleans.” Ms. Landrieu said that she supported further reform of the earmark process but that lawmakers often had a better grasp of local needs than agency officials in Washington. “We have to be careful about just jumping to the conclusion that agencies know better and that federal bureaucrats who have never stepped in a place know better than officials who have literally campaigned there door to door,” the senator said. “On the other hand, there have been some gross abuses to the system.”

This story, “Old Problems Resurface in New Earmark Rules,” first appeared in The New York Times.

The House on Wednesday passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill packed with pet projects requested by Democrats and Republicans alike. The 245-to-178 vote came just a week after President Obama signed one of the largest spending bills in the nation’s history, a $787 billion measure meant to rejuvenate a sluggish economy. The new bill, a reflection of Democratic priorities, increases spending on domestic programs by an average of 8 percent in the current fiscal year, which began in October. On Thursday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to send his budget for the next fiscal year to Congress. He did not take a formal position on the bill passed by the House. “It’s a big document,” a White House official said. “We are still reviewing it.” Republicans, however, did not mince words in describing the spending bill as wasteful. And one watchdog group said the bill provided nearly $8 billion for more than 8,500 pet projects favored by lawmakers, including $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory in Weslaco, Tex.; $346,000 for research on apple fire blight in Michigan and New York; and $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, including wine. Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana, said Mr. Obama’s call for fiscal responsibility, in a speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, was “sandwiched between two wasteful spending bills.” Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, pointed out that the new bill came just two days after the White House held a forum to promote fiscal restraint.

If I believed Obama at his word, I expect the bill to be sent back to Congress with the reply: “Clean it up”. Will that happen? If it doesn’t, then I will feel that once again, politicians cannot be trusted, deal only in rhetoric and are only interested in their own personal agendas. Those teary eyed faces on election night – they have been duped as I have. The only difference is that perhaps I recognize it, while they will be in denial for 4 or 8 years….whatever will become of the US? I fear deeply for our children and grandchildren, more so than ever in my life.

What set Abramoff apart from legitimate Washington power brokers, federal prosecutors say, was his willingness to exploit an extensive network of Capitol Hill contacts — from well-positioned congressional staffers to members of the Republican leadership — regardless of the rules. “The corruption scheme with Mr. Abramoff is very extensive,” Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said. “Government officials and governmental action are not for sale.” Abramoff’s campaign of corruption officially ended Tuesday (1/3/2006) when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion. In addition to about 10 years in prison, he may be forced to repay more than $25 million, according to court documents. Prosecutors say Abramoff’s cooperation is central to a wide-ranging corruption investigation that stretches from Capitol Hill to congressional districts across the USA. At least a dozen FBI field offices have been drawn into the inquiry, FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said. Authorities have declined to disclose the number of possible targets in the ongoing inquiry, but it goes beyond one member of Congress or his office. “No criminal resources of the FBI will be spared in support of this important mission,” Swecker said.

MAJOR FIGURES IN INVESTIGATION
Some leading figures in the Washington corruption investigation:
Jack Abramoff: The central figure is a Republican lobbyist who cultivated ties on Capitol Hill over a decade with two prominent Washington firms, Preston Gates and Greenberg Traurig. Abramoff kept luxury boxes at sports venues where he entertained clients and lawmakers, and he owned a restaurant in Washington.

Michael Scanlon: A former press secretary for Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, he made millions when Abramoff counseled clients to hire his public relations business. Unknown to the clients, the firm did little work but funneled kickbacks to Abramoff, according to prosecutors. Scanlon pleaded guilty to fraud and bribery in November.

David Safavian: The former procurement chief at President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget was charged last fall with lying and obstructing justice in the Abramoff case. Safavian, a former lobbying partner of Abramoff, accompanied the lobbyist in 2002 on a golfing trip to Scotland, and he discussed Abramoff’s interest in acquiring federal property, according to the charges.

Adam Kidan: Abramoff’s Florida business partner pleaded guilty last month to fraud in connection with a deal to buy SunCruz, a company that runs casino ships.

Rep. Bob Ney: An Ohio Republican, Ney is chairman of the House Administration Committee and sometimes is referred to as “the mayor of Capitol Hill.” Federal documents allege that “Representative #1″ helped Abramoff clients in return for trips, meals and entertainment. Ney’s attorney said he’s the lawmaker involved. Ney denies wrongdoing.

The plea agreement outlined a scheme by which Abramoff and his secret partner, public relations operative Michael Scanlon, billed Indian tribes for exorbitant fees, then split the profits. Abramoff hid some of the money from the IRS by directing it to a non-profit group he established, the Capital Athletic Foundation.
Abramoff’s share of the kickbacks from fees paid by four Indian tribes in Louisiana, Texas, Michigan and Mississippi came to more than $20 million, prosecutors said.

Abramoff and Scanlon also provided “a stream of things of value” to public officials to get their help. The stream included “foreign and domestic travel, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment, election support … employment for relatives of officials and campaign contributions,” court documents say. Among the recipients were a House member identified by the lawmaker’s attorney as Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and members of Ney’s staff. They got trips to the Northern Marianas Islands in 2000, to the Super Bowl in Tampa in 2001, and to Scotland’s storied St. Andrews golf course in 2002, according to the documents. Ney also held fundraising events at Abramoff’s now-defunct Washington restaurant, Signatures. In return, Ney and his aides put statements in the Congressional Record supportive of Abramoff’s interests and helped an Abramoff client get a wireless telephone contract with the House of Representatives, the government charged. In a statement, Ney denied that he was influenced by Abramoff.

Abramoff also funneled $50,000 to the wife of an unnamed congressional aide in 2000 and 2001, in return for the aide’s help in blocking legislation for a client. Abramoff’s guilty plea follows weeks of other scandal news involving government officials.

Republican Tom DeLay stepped down from his position as House majority leader last year after he was indicted on money-laundering charges in a separate case in his home state of Texas. DeLay has close ties to Abramoff, who employed some of the Texan’s former aides and paid for a separate golf trip to Scotland for DeLay. Randy “Duke” Cunningham resigned from the House in November after pleading guilty to taking at least $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Dec. 16-18 found that 49% of American adults say they believe “most members of Congress are corrupt.” That’s 1 percentage point below the level of 1994, when voters turned control of Congress over to Republicans. The GOP appears to be tarred by scandal slightly more than the Democrats; 47% said “almost all” or “many” Republicans are corrupt, compared with 44% for Democrats.
Among registered voters, 55% said the issue of corruption will be the “most important” or a “very important” factor in their decision on whom to vote for next year. The poll has a margin of error of +/—3 to 5 percentage points, depending on the question.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan called Abramoff’s confessed conduct “outrageous.”
“He needs to be held to account, and he needs to be punished,” McClellan said. Abramoff was among President Bush’s Pioneers, who raised at least $100,000 for his re-election in 2004.

WASHINGTON — A longtime former aide to Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran has been charged in the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, accused of accepting gifts and granting favors for the imprisoned former lobbyist. Court documents filed Thursday say Ann Copland took thousands of dollars worth of event tickets and meals out in Washington from Abramoff and associates at his firm. Prosecutors say the gifts were in exchange for her favors benefiting one of their top clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Charges against Copland were outlined in a legal document called a criminal information, which only can be filed with the defendant’s consent and typically signals a plea deal. The document says Copland understood that Senate rules prohibit staffers from soliciting gifts from lobbyists, but still secretly did so.
“It was a purpose of the conspiracy for defendant Copland to be unjustly enriched by her receipt of things of value, and to conceal these gifts from the U.S. Senate and the people of the United States,” the document said. Copland worked for Cochran for 29 years, then abruptly left his office last spring after Abramoff prosecutors had netted a dozen convictions in the scandal.Cochran’s office refused to comment on the case Friday.

Campaign finance records show that Abramoff, his associates and his clients gave Cochran at least $82,500 in campaign donations during the years in question, from 2001 to 2004. But there is no indication from the documents that Cochran, a Republican, knew of Copland’s behavior or is being investigated.
E-mails revealed in court documents show Abramoff’s firm went out of its way to keep Copland happy because, as lobbyist Todd Boulanger once wrote to his boss, “she’s more valuable to us than a rank-and-file house member.” The e-mail was revealed in a plea agreement Boulanger struck recently .
Prosecutors included a copy of an e-mail that Copland sent to one of Abramoff’s deputies, Kevin Ring, in March 2002, detailing a list of tickets she wanted and how many for each event. She asked to see Paul McCartney, an ice skating event, ‘NSync, Green Day and a hockey game. She also asked for two to six tickets to see the circus, but only if they were floor seats.

Ring, currently awaiting trial on charges of conspiring to corrupt government officials, forwarded the note to Abramoff saying, “Wow … We already told her she was fine on McCartney, ice skating, and Green Day _ although we need to let her know how many tix she can have for each. Also, please review the other requests and let me know what we can do there.” Abramoff wrote, “She’ll get everything she wants.”
Other court documents show that Copland was not shy to complain when she didn’t like her accommodations, like when she got the lobbyists’ luxury suite for a Baltimore Orioles game. “Ackkk. Only beer and no Hebrew National hot dogs,” she complained in an e-mail to Boulanger.
Copland sounded angry in another e-mail from the firm’s box suite at a the ice-skating event after no food had arrived for her party of 14 people. “I’m freaking out here,” she wrote, and Boulanger replied that she would be reimbursed for any food she had to buy. The documents say Copland “on repeated occasions” provided official actions benefiting Abramoff’s firm, particularly the Mississippi Choctaws.

For example, when Copland asked a lobbyist for the suite at the Orioles game in 2003, he responded in part by asking whether a Choctaw provision the firm no longer wanted had been removed from an appropriations bill. Copland assured him it had, and the final version of the bill contained an explicit statement that the provision “is no longer necessary.”