[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 667 Laid on Table in House (LTH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 667

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2009

  Mr. Flake submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the 
                                 table

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas The Hill reported that a prominent lobbying firm, founded by Mr. Paul 
        Magliocchetti and the subject of a ``federal investigation into 
        potentially corrupt political contributions'', has given $3.4 million in 
        political donations to no less than 284 members of Congress;
Whereas, the New York Times noted that Mr. Magliocchetti ``set up shop at the 
        busy intersection between political fund-raising and taxpayer spending, 
        directing tens of millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers 
        while steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks contracts 
        back to his clients.'';
Whereas, a guest columnist recently highlighted in Roll Call that ``. . . what 
        [the firm's] example reveals most clearly is the potentially corrupting 
        link between campaign contributions and earmarks. Even the most ardent 
        earmarkers should want to avoid the appearance of such a pay-to-play 
        system.'';
Whereas, multiple press reports have noted questions related to campaign 
        contributions made by or on behalf of the firm; including questions 
        related to ``straw man'' contributions, the reimbursement of employees 
        for political giving, pressure on clients to give, a suspicious pattern 
        of giving, and the timing of donations relative to legislative activity;
Whereas, Roll Call has taken note of the timing of contributions from employees 
        the firm and its clients when it reported that they ``have provided 
        thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions to key Members in 
        close proximity to legislative activity, such as the deadline for 
        earmark request letters or passage of a spending bill.'';
Whereas, the Associated Press highlighted the ``huge amounts of political 
        donations'' from the firm and its clients to select members and noted 
        that ``those political donations have followed a distinct pattern: The 
        giving is especially heavy in March, which is prime time for submitting 
        written earmark requests.'';
Whereas, clients of the firm received at least three hundred million dollars 
        worth of earmarks in fiscal year 2009 appropriations legislation, 
        including several that were approved even after news of the FBI raid of 
        the firm's offices and Justice Department investigation into the firm 
        was well known;
Whereas, after a cursory review, the fiscal year 2010 defense appropriations 
        earmark list recently made available includes at least seventy earmarks 
        worth hundreds of millions of dollars for former PMA clients;
Whereas, the Associated Press reported that ``the FBI says the investigation is 
        continuing, highlighting the close ties between special-interest 
        spending provisions known as earmarks and the raising of campaign 
        cash.''; and
Whereas, the persistent media attention focused on questions about the nature 
        and timing of campaign contributions related to the firm, as well as 
        reports of the Justice Department conducting research on earmarks and 
        campaign contributions, raise concern about the integrity of 
        Congressional proceedings and the dignity of the institution: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall 
immediately establish an investigative subcommittee and begin an 
investigation into the relationship between the source and timing of 
past campaign contributions to Members of the House related to the 
raided firm and earmark requests made by Members of the House on behalf 
of clients of the raided firm.
                                 <all>