Colorado Springs Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn. (Photo/lamborn.house.gov)

As the Colorado Independent reported Monday, Lamborn is not the only member of the Colorado delegation to be touched by the scandal. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Sen. Mark Udall and retired Rep. Tom Tancredo also worked to win contract money for PMA clients and also received campaign contributions either from the companies that benefited or from PMA.

According to The Seattle Times earmark database called “The Favor Factory,” Perlmutter and Tancredo received contributions from Colorado-based IHs, Inc., an information analysis company that provides consulting in the aerospace, defense and energy industries. IHS received $1.6 million for a Navy project described as “National Item Identification Number Validation and Correction.” IHS reportedly gave $2,000 to Perlmutter and $500 to Tancredo. Perlmutter’s office reports he received no contributions from IHS but did receive $2,000 from PMA through its political action committee.

The same Seattle Times database lists Lamborn and Udall as receiving contributions from Lockheed Martin. Lamborn reportedly received $2,000 and Udall, if the Favor Factory list is correct, upwards of $20,000.

According to the statement Lamborn sent the Colorado Independent yesterday, the congressmen worked last year to secure a “modest increase” of $1 million for Lockheed’s Senior Scout Integrated mission Trainer, an Air Force project.

Four Members of the Colorado delegation jointly sought a modest increase over the proposed budget request for the Senior Scout Integrated Mission Trainer. The Senate and House Armed Services and Appropriations Committees decided to increase the funding for the program by $1 million.

On the matter of accepting campaign contributions from Lockheed, Lamborn’s office denied any connection and refused even to pay lip service to the idea that mere reassurances from lawmakers must always be viewed as an inadequate check on corruption:

We will take your word that [Lockheed] did donate [to Lamborn's election campaign]. We haven’t checked because the bottom line is: campaign contributions have absolutely nothing to do with appropriations requests or any other legislative matter.

As Lamborn’s office surely knows by now, the FBI and at least one vocal Arizona congressmen disagree. As the Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday, the FBI has all but shut down PMA as its probe into the firm’s earmark-related lobbying activities proceeds, and the House is scheduled to vote today on whether to begin “an ethics investigation into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.”

Sen. Udall’s office has yet to respond to the Independent’s requests for comment.

—-
**CORRECTION: Rep. Perlmutter’s office called with the correction that appears above. “The Congressman did not receive a campaign contribution from IHS, Inc. It is Rep. Perlmutter’s policy never to accept contributions from companies he is working to secure funding for,” said spokesperson Leslie Oliver. The Colorado Independent regrets the error.

From left, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Golden), Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO).

The FBI is currently investigating PMA and apparently set off alarm bells in every corner of Capitol Hill as a result. PMA has worked Washington for years to gain mostly defense contracts for companies around the country. PMA clients last year received more than $300 million in earmarks included in just one defense-spending bill. The bill, PL 110-116, was managed by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and who is now on the hot seat — or the hottest of the hot seats — as the FBI investigation proceeds.

Colorado’s Perlmutter reportedly helped raise $2 million for IHS Inc., a defense contractor based in his 7th Congressional District. His office told The Denver Post that he’s following the lead of PMA-tainted politicians across the country and donating to charity the $2,000 he got from PMA. His alleged payola is going to the Boys & Girls Club.

Mark Udall likewise helped raise $2 million in PMA earmarks and received what looks like $6,553 in related campaign contributions. His office is looking into the matter.

Republican Rep. Lamborn appears only to have secured a paltry $1 million in earmarks and received $1,000 in contributions. He seems to be taking the Bush-Cheney approach to the matter; so far he has elected not to return calls from the press.

Lamborn and Udall’s earmarks appear to have benefited local defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Neither of their offices have returned calls for comment.

The Denver Post provides a peek at how this Washington lobby story unfolded locally, PMA magnanimously crossing the aisle to build bipartisan bridges:

Perlmutter said he was asked to join in the funding request for IHS Inc. with then-U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, and former Colorado Sens. Ken Salazar, a Democrat, and Wayne Allard, a Republican. Representatives from IHS and “probably” from PMA met with his staff, [Perlmutter spokeswoman Leslie] Oliver said.

Here’s the meat from Congressional Quarterly’s report:

No matter what the outcome of the federal investigation, PMA’s earmark success illustrates how a well-connected lobbying firm operates on Capitol Hill. And earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients.

In the spending bill managed by Murtha, the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriation, 104 House members got earmarks for projects sought by PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly’s analysis of a database constructed by Ashdown’s group.

See CQ’s list of House members who secured earmarks for clients of The PMA Group in the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations law.

Those House members, plus a handful of senators, combined to route nearly $300 million in public money to clients of PMA through that one law (PL 110-116).

[...]

And when the lawmakers were in need — as they all are to finance their campaigns — PMA came through for them.

According to CQ MoneyLine, the same House members who took responsibility for PMA’s earmarks in that spending bill have, since 2001, accepted a cumulative $1,815,138 in campaign contributions from PMA’s political action committee and employees of the firm.

(Photo/ishrona, Flickr)

But first an update on more rules that went into effect this week. The Interior Department’s rule that removes a provision requiring scientific review by the Fish and Wildlife Service before federally approved construction projects, such as road-building, went into effect yesterday. So did a rule from the Department of Defense mandating that certain government contractors and subcontractors use E-Verify, a system operated by Homeland Security that determines employees’ eligibility to work in the United States.

Two more midnight regs go into effect tomorrow: (1) A regulation for the leasing of public land to produce oil shale and (2) the changes to the guest worker program for the agricultural industry.

Click the image to enlarge the chart

The agency is essentially rolling back a 2007 proposal that environmentalists say would have prioritized public land use over private.

The revised rule, now in effect, replaces pro-public language with a requirement that renewals for reclaimed-land use be granted as long as the private use is compatible with public needs. Reviews for renewal will occur either at least once every five or 20 years, depending on the nature of the private use.

In its comment submitted to Reclamation, the Sierra Club called the agency’s move an unlawful reversal and criticized it for not providing the public with adequate notice to comment on the rule change. They also remarked that the review process now in place will be onerous and expensive.

The second rule is from the Department of Labor and has been touted as a move to better protect the privacy of laborers working on federally funded projects. The rule eliminates the requirement that contractors include Social Security numbers and home addresses on payroll forms submitted to the government.

But critics, including the U.S. Navy, say the rule will make it harder to enforce wage laws. Concerns have also been raised that it could open the door to kickbacks.

Two final notes: Six states, led by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, are taking legal action against the “provider conscience rule,” which protects health care workers from being disciplined should they choose to deny treatment they find morally reprehensible.

And the EPA made a move on one of its more controversial rule proposals this month — the decision on whether to federally regulate the contaminant perchlorate in drinking water. Rather than publishing a final rule, it chose to issue an interim health advisory that sets a minimum level for perchlorate to help state and local officials address any potential contamination.

It’s not quite the “about face” the agency did with respect to two Clean Air Act regulations. EPA stated in a press release that in light of public comments, the agency would “benefit once again from input from the National Academy of Sciences on several specific scientific issues raised by reviewers.” It looks like any final determination will now be up to the next administration.

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.