End this earmark racket

The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee dispensed $636 billion this year to the Pentagon. Its members must look on the $103 million they earmarked for favored projects as mere crumbs from the table.

Outside the defense budget, however, $100 million a year is a tidy sum, and getting a piece of the action is a regular part of Washington's political culture. At the center is a mutually beneficial connection between members of Congress, their former staff members turned lobbyists, and corporations or non-profits seeking federal money -- what some social scientists call "relationship circles."

In this instance, it's better described as a blatant conflict of interest.

Money holds these relationships together. Organizations looking for federal money hire lobbyists with connections to legislators in a position to sponsor earmarks. To promote good will, the lobbyists and the petitioners frequently make campaign contributions to the legislators. One hand, as the saying goes, washes the other.

Except for rare legislators like Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., most members of Congress from both parties apparently don't view the cycle as necessarily corrupting, despite the obvious conflicts.

Control of who succeeds in getting earmarks enacted equals political power in the House. No one has been as aggressive in promoting earmarks for himself and other members in his favor as Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. In the past 10 years he has helped his district obtain more than $400 million in federal funds, including a mostly unused airport named for him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried and failed to make him House majority leader, but he still helps her discipline the Democratic majority, and he helps himself, plenty.

Last year the FBI lunched an investigation into allegations that a lobbying group led by former Murtha staffers was illegally promising campaign contributions in exchange for earmarks. The investigation continues, but it does not seem to have had any chastening effect on Mr. Murtha or members of his subcommittee.

A recent study by the Center for Public Integrity found that this year, 10 of 16 subcommittee members earmarked $103 million for contractors who employed ex-staffers as lobbyists. Meanwhile, they received campaign contributions from the same contractors or lobbyists. A majority of the panel "continued to engage in controversial relationships involving ex-staffers-turned-lobbyists, contractors, campaign cash and earmarks," it said.

Getting campaign funds from earmark beneficiaries ought to be outlawed.

Until it is, the Murtha racket will continue bleeding the public purse for political gain.