Editorial: Paying to play

Columbus Dispatch does not like the PMA Scandal in their editorial yesterday. Kaptur is rightfully singled out.
Earmarks, the amendments that members of Congress attach to bills to fund special projects in their districts, are sometimes money well-spent -- for innovation, capital improvements and job creation.

But many earmarks are wasteful. Slipped quietly into unrelated bills without discussion or debate, they result in millions of taxpayers' dollars spent on projects that are frivolous. And sometimes they're dirty.


No votes yet

If a Lawmaker receives a donation and there comes an earmark for a company affiliated to the source of the donation, would this be considered a violation or an unethical practice?

Let's say I own a business that employs a certain number of people who assemble my product.
One of the key parts though is handled by a contractor not under my employ.

The owner of the outsourced business or the contractor donates X X amount of $$$ to the lawmakers campaign fund.

The contractor then gets the additional revenue from the sales of the key part to the earmarked business. That is of course the goal - the earmark improves visability making the business more profitable.

Could this be a method to skirt the rules?
Or is this allowable and totally legal?
Or is this what a scandal makes?

I'm like Marcy,
I don't know what they're talking about.
I don't know what they're talking about.
I don't know what they're talking about.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.