Boy is Ray on the defensive! Check out this month’s Interbusiness Issues article written by our very own U.S. Representative, “Earmark Story Misses the Mark.” It’s essentially his rebuttal to this article, written by Dori Meinert of Copley News Service, which raised questions about the ethics of LaHood giving federal money to companies that contribute heavily to his campaign.

“I was extremely disappointed by the recent news story written by a Washington-based reporter regarding the earmark process for securing federal support for projects here in our Congressional District,” LaHood starts out, vowing to “set the record straight” and provide a “complete set of facts.”

Of the 41 projects for which I helped to secure earmarked funds in fiscal year 2006, the reporter focused her story on four—two for Caterpillar, one for Firefly Energy, and one for Proctor Hospital—and somehow tried to tie them to campaign contributions I’ve received.

“…Somehow tried to tie them to campaign contributions”? It wasn’t very hard:

• Meinert’s article tells how Bill Lane, a lobbyist for Caterpillar in Washington, co-sponsored a fundraiser that raised $16,000 for LaHood. Total earmarks for Caterpillar: $26.6 million.
• Michael Herson, who sits on LaHood’s campaign steering committee, was hired by Firefly Energy and received $40,000 over four months for his services. LaHood claims they never talked about Firefly, but they got an earmark for $2.5 million — coincidentally, of course.
• Arthur Mason, who works for Cassidy & Associates and represents Proctor Hospital, is also on LaHood’s steering committee. Proctor got a $200,000 earmark.

To see a complete list of LaHood’s earmarks for fiscal year 2006, check out the State Journal-Register (Springfield), another Copley publication.

LaHood’s response: “Never have I asked someone for a contribution in return for funding we’ve secured or work my office has done.” He goes on to defend his procurement of earmarks for Caterpillar based on the fact that Cat is such a large employer and helping them helps the economy in the 18th Congressional District. He doesn’t mention the earmarks for Firefly or Proctor at all.

But he does bring up several other earmarks — things that can’t be attributed to a quid pro quo — such as emergency radio upgrades for Peoria County, a new sanitary sewer system for Pleasant Plains, and 9-1-1 enhancement for Logan County. And he brings up earmarks that he secured for projects Copley Press supported — like the new Lincoln Presidential Library and the Peoria Next Innovation Center.

He apparently didn’t read the end of Meinert’s article, because she did, in fact, mention Peoria Next and the $1 million earmark they received — they’re also represented by Washington-based lobbyist group Cassidy & Associates.

LaHood concludes by saying, “to somehow attempt to tie me to people like Jack Abramoff or Duke Cunningham is wrong, and it gives unfair license to a reporter in creating a perception that isn’t accurate,” and then asserting his professionalism, honesty, and integrity.

LaHood’s defense is filled with logical fallacies.

First of all, to bring up all the undisputed earmarks and not mention Firefly or Proctor or his association with Cassidy & Associates is the epitome of a red herring. This is like a person caught shoplifing some candy holding up a receipt for the all the other groceries he purchased and saying, “see, I’m innocent because — look at all the other stuff I did pay for!”

Secondly, it’s a non sequitur to suggest that because he agrees with Copley Press on, say, the Innovation Center that they should therefore endorse his means of funding it. I could give a million examples of this, but let’s just take a couple. We all want adequate fire protection in Peoria, but we don’t all agree that a garbage tax is the way to fund it. We are all in favor of urban renewal, but we don’t all agree on using TIF districts to fund that, either.

But most of all, there’s this tone about the article like he just can’t understand why people are questioning him on this. Is he really so out of touch that he doesn’t realize the electorate is cynical and jaded? Can he really not see that his earmarks at least give the appearance of there being a quid pro quo? In defending himself, he should at least acknowledge that much. He should say, “Hey, I know this may look bad in light of the Abramoff scandal, and I want to ensure voters that this situation is different…,” and then proceed to explain why it’s different.

He may even want to consider returning the campaign contributions he received from Cat, Firefly, and Proctor just as a show of good faith to his constituents. This wouldn’t be unprecedented since he states in his article, “we routinely return contributions my campaign receives that include a letter or note referencing assistance someone has received from my office or how I voted on legislation.” Since these contributions and related earmarks are causing so much controversy, why not just give up the campaign money? It’s not like he’s hurting for funds in his war chest, and no one is opposing him in the midterm elections.

In the end, the reason it’s so hard for LaHood to prove his innocence is because the earmark system is inherently flawed. Earmarks offer no checks or balances or any accountability for how funds are distributed. The best solution is the one LaHood rejects — abolish earmarks altogether.

LaHood says, “I believe the representatives of an area know their constituents’ priorities better than some Washington bureaucrat.” So, in LaHood’s logic, the two choices are letting him dole out the funds or letting a “Washington bureaucrat” dole out the funds. Hogwash. Why are these funds funneling through Washington at all? If they have all this extra money for our local needs, they should reduce our tax burden and let the local/state governments tax that money for their needs directly. In the case of military contracts, they should bid them out fairly, not have LaHood or other representatives choose the winners and losers. Any other projects that require federal funding should go through the legislative process as a separate bill, not be tacked on to an unrelated bill.

If LaHood were a real leader, he’d work for real reform.

Ray LaHood defends the “earmark” system in today’s Journal Star:

He said some high-profile problems with earmarking, such as the so-called “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, are projects “put in at the 11th hour by some powerful person, and nobody ever sees it before it’s voted on.” Such appropriations are “a perversion of the system,” he said.

He says later that he approves of earmarks as long as they’re done in a “transparent way” — meaning “people get to see it before they vote on it.”

Notice he doesn’t mention anything about reforming the system.  He wants to keep it in place, even if there is some abuse, because it brings in the pork.  He cites the Lincoln Presidential Library (Springfield) and a new law enforcement communications center (Lincoln) as examples of how he used earmarks to benefit Illinois.  He didn’t mention his recent earmark that gave Firefly Energy a $2.5 million military contract.

CNN recently reported (“Can this elephant be cleaned up?” by Perry Bacon Jr., Mike Allen, January 18, 2006; 7:16 p.m. EST, cnn.com, permalink gone):

Lobbyists are paid to land earmarks; Abramoff used them to get money for his tribal clients. The number of those earmarks mushroomed from close to 2,000 in a highway bill in 1998 to more than 6,000 in that bill last year. Practitioners say the boom is a major factor in the doubling of the number of lobbyists in Washington over the past five years, to almost 35,000, and Bush points to the popular practice as one of the reasons curtailing federal spending is so difficult.

Bottom line, earmarks are power. They allow congressmen to push money to their districts — sometimes benefitting specific private companies (like Firefly).  None of the senators, LaHood included, want to give that up. I understand that.

But some senators are talking about significant reform of the earmark system — beyond just getting to see the legislation before they vote on it.  Boehner, according to the CNN report, wants to “try to prevent federal dollars from going to private entities for exclusively private purposes,” for example.  Another plan “would identify the sponsors of earmarks and force members to defend them, eliminating the many mysterious entries that now bristle in the budget.”  McCain favors limits on earmarks as well.

In the Journal Star article, LaHood comes across as a defender rather than a reformer of the earmark system.  His reason:  it’s bringing home the bacon to central Illinois.  That’s not a very compelling defense when you consider every other congressman is bringing home the bacon to their states, districts, and private companies as well.  It’s a broken system, and LaHood should be working to reform it instead of defending it.

The Associated Press reports that Peoria-based Firefly Energy, Inc., has “landed a $2.5 million contract to develop its new generation of lighter, more powerful batteries for the military.”  Firefly is a pretty new company, founded in May 2003.  They use technology developed by Caterpillar to replace the lead plates found in batteries with a lighter, longer-lasting, and more ecologically-friendly material.

The part of the AP report I found interesting, though, was this:

LaHood said he secured Firefly’s contact through an addition to the defense bill known as an “earmark.” The practice has drawn criticism during recent debate over ethics reform because opponents say it breeds corruption, providing millions of dollars for lawmakers’ pet projects.

“Earmarks” are getting a lot of press these days. Congressman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) gave his “Porker of the Week” award to Congress for earmarks in the federal transportation bill for “the bridge to nowhere“ last November. The bridge in question costs $320 million and connects the town of Ketchikan (pop. 8900) with the island of Gravina (pop. 50) in Alaska. And it was John McCain (R-Ariz.) who said that earmarks “breed corruption.”

Being a curious person by nature, I wanted to find out how these dastardly “earmarks” get into bills in the first place. It appears no one knows except congresspersons and lobbyists. But somehow, through some secret process, members of Congress can direct money to individual companies by inserting these “earmarks” into huge appropriations bills. The earmarks are not debated and thus need not be defended.

So, I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is, do the ends justify the means?  Obviously this military contract for Firefly is good for Peoria, but I imagine the bridge in Ketchikan is good for the economy there, too.  Where do we draw the line?