0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
1K vues5 pages
In February 2011, CREW filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice based on the agency’s refusal to provide CREW with any documents in response to CREW’s 2010 Freedom of Information Act request for information concerning convicted felon Paul Magliocchetti. Mr. Magliocchetti was the founder and president of PMA Group, Inc., a lobbying firm with close ties to many members of Congress, including the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).
In February 2010, the House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct released a 300-plus page report on its investigation of allegations of unlawful conduct involving connections between Defense subcommittee earmarks and campaign contributions from the PMA Group. DOJ also had investigated Mr. Magliocchetti and the PMA Group and in August 2010, charged Mr. Magliocchetti with making illegal campaign contributions and false statements to a federal agency to conceal his illegal contributions. On September 24, 2010, Mr. Magliocchetti entered a plea agreement with the government in which he agreed to plead guilty to making false statements, making illegal conduit campaign contributions, and making illegal corporate campaign contributions. On January 7, 2011, DOJ announced Mr. Magliocchetti had been sentenced to 27 months in prison for his offenses.
Despite this plea and the widespread publicity surrounding Mr. Magliocchetti’s crimes, the government initially refused to provide CREW with any documents from its closed investigative files of Mr. Magliocchetti. DOJ insisted no document could be disclosed under the FOIA, as all were categorically exempt on privacy grounds. On July 22, 2013, then-U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, in an oral ruling from the bench, rejected the government’s categorical exemption claim. Based on the judicially required re-review and processing of CREW’s request, DOJ released to CREW hundreds of pages of documents. This newly released material provides a remarkable insight into PMA’s illegal activities and raises more questions about whether authorities could and should have done more.
In February 2011, CREW filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice based on the agency’s refusal to provide CREW with any documents in response to CREW’s 2010 Freedom of Information Act request for information concerning convicted felon Paul Magliocchetti. Mr. Magliocchetti was the founder and president of PMA Group, Inc., a lobbying firm with close ties to many members of Congress, including the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).
In February 2010, the House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct released a 300-plus page report on its investigation of allegations of unlawful conduct involving connections between Defense subcommittee earmarks and campaign contributions from the PMA Group. DOJ also had investigated Mr. Magliocchetti and the PMA Group and in August 2010, charged Mr. Magliocchetti with making illegal campaign contributions and false statements to a federal agency to conceal his illegal contributions. On September 24, 2010, Mr. Magliocchetti entered a plea agreement with the government in which he agreed to plead guilty to making false statements, making illegal conduit campaign contributions, and making illegal corporate campaign contributions. On January 7, 2011, DOJ announced Mr. Magliocchetti had been sentenced to 27 months in prison for his offenses.
Despite this plea and the widespread publicity surrounding Mr. Magliocchetti’s crimes, the government initially refused to provide CREW with any documents from its closed investigative files of Mr. Magliocchetti. DOJ insisted no document could be disclosed under the FOIA, as all were categorically exempt on privacy grounds. On July 22, 2013, then-U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, in an oral ruling from the bench, rejected the government’s categorical exemption claim. Based on the judicially required re-review and processing of CREW’s request, DOJ released to CREW hundreds of pages of documents. This newly released material provides a remarkable insight into PMA’s illegal activities and raises more questions about whether authorities could and should have done more.
In February 2011, CREW filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice based on the agency’s refusal to provide CREW with any documents in response to CREW’s 2010 Freedom of Information Act request for information concerning convicted felon Paul Magliocchetti. Mr. Magliocchetti was the founder and president of PMA Group, Inc., a lobbying firm with close ties to many members of Congress, including the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).
In February 2010, the House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct released a 300-plus page report on its investigation of allegations of unlawful conduct involving connections between Defense subcommittee earmarks and campaign contributions from the PMA Group. DOJ also had investigated Mr. Magliocchetti and the PMA Group and in August 2010, charged Mr. Magliocchetti with making illegal campaign contributions and false statements to a federal agency to conceal his illegal contributions. On September 24, 2010, Mr. Magliocchetti entered a plea agreement with the government in which he agreed to plead guilty to making false statements, making illegal conduit campaign contributions, and making illegal corporate campaign contributions. On January 7, 2011, DOJ announced Mr. Magliocchetti had been sentenced to 27 months in prison for his offenses.
Despite this plea and the widespread publicity surrounding Mr. Magliocchetti’s crimes, the government initially refused to provide CREW with any documents from its closed investigative files of Mr. Magliocchetti. DOJ insisted no document could be disclosed under the FOIA, as all were categorically exempt on privacy grounds. On July 22, 2013, then-U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, in an oral ruling from the bench, rejected the government’s categorical exemption claim. Based on the judicially required re-review and processing of CREW’s request, DOJ released to CREW hundreds of pages of documents. This newly released material provides a remarkable insight into PMA’s illegal activities and raises more questions about whether authorities could and should have done more.
In February 2011, CREW filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) based on the agencys refusal to provide CREW with any documents in response to CREWs 2010 Freedom of Information Act request for information concerning convicted felon Paul Magliocchetti. 1 Mr. Magliocchetti was the founder and president of PMA Group, Inc., a lobbying firm with close ties to many members of Congress, including the late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). 2 Despite congressional and Justice Department investigations, questions remained about the scope of PMAs illegal activities and the members caught up in its web of corruption. In February 2010, the House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct released a 300-plus page report on its investigation of allegations of unlawful conduct involving connections between Defense subcommittee earmarks and campaign contributions from the PMA Group. 3 The Justice Department also had investigated Mr. Magliocchetti and the PMA Group and in August 2010, charged Mr. Magliocchetti with making illegal campaign contributions and false statements to a federal agency to conceal his illegal contributions. 4 On September 24, 2010, Mr. Magliocchetti entered a plea agreement with the government in which he agreed to plead guilty to making false statements, making illegal conduit campaign contributions, and making illegal corporate campaign contributions. 5 On January 7, 2011, DOJ issued a press release announcing Mr. Magliocchetti had been sentenced to 27 months in prison for his offenses, and detailing his illegal activities. 6
Despite this plea and the widespread publicity surrounding Mr. Magliocchettis crimes, including press releases issued by DOJ, the government initially refused to provide CREW with any documents from its closed investigative files of Mr. Magliocchetti. 7 DOJ insisted no document could be disclosed under the FOIA, as all were categorically exempt on privacy grounds. 8 Once in litigation, the parties briefed the merits of DOJs exemption claim. On July 22, 2013, then-U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, in an oral ruling from the bench, rejected the governments categorical exemption claim. 9 Judge Wilkins found:
1 http://www.citizensforethics.org/lawsuits/entry/crew-v-department-of-justice-magliocchetti. 2 David Kirkpatrick and Charlie Savage, Star Lobbyist Closes Shop Amid F.B.I. Inquiry, New York Times, March 29, 2009. 3 House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 111 th Congress, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to the Lobbying Activities of Paul Magliochetti and Associates Group, Inc. (PMA), Report No. 111-423, February 26, 2010 available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-111hrpt423/pdf/CRPT-111hrpt423.pdf. 4 Dan Eggen and Maria Glod, Ex-lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti charged with campaign-finance fraud, Washington Post, August 6, 2010. 5 Ex-Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to Illegal Campaign Donations, Associated Press, September 24, 2010; Press Release, Department of Justice, United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lobbyist Sentenced to 27 Months in Prison for Role in Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme, January 7, 2011. 6 Id. 7 http://www.citizensforethics.org/lawsuits/entry/crew-v-department-of-justice-magliocchetti. 8 Id. 9 http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-files-complaint-against-doj-seeking-investigation- records-magliocchi. 2
the public does have a substantial interest in examining the manner which the Department of Justice handles investigations and prosecutions involving allegations of official corruption, particularly where a high profile and influential person with close relationships to members of Congress reaches a plea agreement with the Government. 10
As a result, DOJ was required to process CREWs request and release to CREW all non-exempt documents. 11
Based on the judicially required re-review and processing of CREWs request, DOJ released to CREW hundreds of pages of documents. This newly released material provides a remarkable insight into PMAs illegal activities and raises more questions about whether authorities could and should have done more. Within the released documents, DOJ redacted dozens of pages and blacked out hundreds of passages under various FOIA exemptions. The remaining documents, however, give a number of clues into the investigation and how PMA operated. For example, the released documents include spreadsheets PMA Group used to keep track of its employees contributions to lawmakers. 12 A chart details the bonuses and supplemental income given to PMA lobbyists, which in fact were payments intended to be converted to campaign contributions to Democratic lawmakers. If these bonuses were not put to those uses, the employees were told to expect adverse consequences. 13 Mr. Magliocchetti added as much as $1 million to his companys payroll to finance this system of illegal conduit contributions. 14 The documents make clear Mr. Magliocchetti considered the bonuses the cost of doing business in Washington, D.C. 15 He also wined and dined representatives and staffers, treating them to his personal wine locker at the high-priced D.C. restaurant Capital Grille as well as tickets to Redskins, Nationals, and Capitals games. 16 Pay to play was implied. 17
Employees of PMA told the FBI Mr. Magliocchetti also encouraged clients to make campaign contributions as well as $5,000 contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). 18
Another interesting aspect of the investigation is the bits and pieces revealed in the heavily redacted records of FBI interviews. As CREW suspected, some members on the Hill appear to be closer to the PMA Group than either the House ethics committee or DOJ concluded.
10 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. United States of America, Civil Case No. 11-374, Hearing Transcript of Motion Before the Honorable Robert L. Wilkins, U.S. District Court Judge (D.D.C. 2013). 11 Id. 12 Magliocchetti Document 842 (references are to the Bates numbers on the documents produced by the FBI). 13 Magliocchetti Document 490. 14 Magliocchetti Document 851. 15 Magliocchetti Document 526. 16 Magliocchetti Document 414 and 443. 17 Magliocchetti Document 418. 18 Magliocchetti Document 402. 3
Taken as a whole, the documents offer an inside look at the shady, mysterious world of lobbying on Capitol Hill. For example, according to FBI interviews with PMA employees, some of whom were protected under a cooperation agreement with authorities, 19 Rep. John Murthas office had frequent, close contact with PMA. Rep. Murthas office also had a hierarchical chain of command all lobbyists were required to follow. 20 The interviews with former PMA personnel detail a system of contributions for earmarks. While a number of these interviews were heavily redacted, they still offer clues into PMA Groups lobbying and fundraising schemes. For example, notes from an interview of one PMA employee included a partially redacted diagram of the earmark request process. 21 The crude flow chart shows how requests went from clients through PMA employees to congressmen. 22 It also was accompanied by questions members usually asked PMA lobbyists: 1) Are you in my district? 2) How many jobs? 23
Also, judging from FBI interviews with PMA employees, it is possible other members knew of and participated in PMAs processes. According to one redacted passage, another congressman made a req. 24 Presumably, this member was making a request for contributions. Other blacked-out parts of the document hint a member or staffer had close connections with PMA, and one such relationship resembled the connection the group had with Rep. Murtha. 25
Another passage referred to a tit-for-tat system, while another said explicitly a pay-to-play scenario, campaign contributions for earmarks existed. 26 One redacted passage featured the quote I need x amount for an eventcan you attend at x amount[?]. 27
Mr. Magliocchettis motive was apparent: he wanted to stand out to members as the guy to go to for fundraising. 28 To make this happen, he would reward members who support PMA clients. 29 One employee confirmed for potential clients PMA stood out as active with a number of members in the defense arena and with members on the Defense Committee. 30
All was not happy within the ranks of PMA employees. Some PMA lobbyists complained about the system of donating to candidates, and one lobbyist believed Mr. Magliocchetti was too pushy about campaign contributions. 31 But all seemed to understand that was the system in which they were operating. One employee said she felt campaigning for
Rep. Murtha was part of her work as a lobbyist for PMA Group. 32 Another employee said about PMA: they know what you have to do to be a successful lobbyist you have to raise money. 33
PMA lobbyists were acutely aware House members noticed those who helped them raise large amounts of money. 34
Authorities also looked into Mr. Magliocchettis relationship with Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN). Rep. Viscloskys office was communicating with Mr. Magliocchetti as far back as 1994. 35 Rep. Visclosky would later come under FBI scrutiny for sponsoring millions of dollars in earmarks for PMA clients in the defense industry. 36 The House Ethics Committee dropped the case against Rep. Visclosky in 2010, claiming there was no evidence of wrongdoing, despite a series of suspicious emails between Rep. Viscloskys House and campaign staffers, the PMA Group, and defense industry representatives. 37
According to the DOJ documents, however, either Rep. Visclosky or someone in his office -- most likely his chief of staff Chuck Brimmer, who later resigned after receiving a subpoena in connection with the investigation 38 -- frequently made deals with the PMA Group. For instance, in 1997 a representative from Rep. Viscloskys office propositioned Paul Magliocchetti, telling him earmarks were for sale. 39 He offered Mr. Magliocchetti earmarks for the sale price of $10,000 to $15,000 in campaign contributions. 40 AEPTEC, a PMA client, successfully raised a similar amount and in return received the earmarks the company requested. 41 The unidentified individual also told Mr. Magliocchetti his clients could give $5,000 to the Calumet PAC, if they could not raise enough money for the campaign. 42 Calumet PAC happens to be Rep. Viscloskys political action committee. 43
In his own interview with the FBI, Mr. Magliocchetti claimed to be shocked at the idea of paying campaign contributions for earmarks. 44 According to Mr. Magliocchetti, he often told his PMA colleagues there were some members of Congress who were legitimately interested in appropriating money or earmarks for much needed projects, but others were only interested in campaign contributions. 45 Nevertheless, he continued with his strategy of raising money and encouraging his workers to donate to key lawmakers. 46 When Rep. Visclosky won the chair of the House Energy and Water Committee in 2004, Mr. Magliocchetti was told the price of
32 Magliocchetti Document 708. 33 Magliocchetti Document 399. 34 Magliocchetti Document 504. 35 Magliocchetti Document 624. 36 Sarah Fitzpatrick, Amid PMA Probe, Rep. Visclosky Relinquishes Chairmanship, The Washington Post, June 2, 2009. 37 Chuck Neubauer, E-mails lay bare firms pay-to-play links to lawmaker; The Washington Times, June 21, 2010. 38 Id.; AP report: Visclosky cleared by House panel investigation, Charleston Tribune, February 26, 2010. 39 Magliocchetti Document 625. 40 Id. 41 Magliocchetti Document 626. 42 Magliocchetti Document 628. 43 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2006&strID=C00386300. 44 Magliocchetti Document 625 and 626. 45 Magliocchetti Document 512. 46 Magliocchetti Document 629. 5
earmarks had now increased to $20,000. 47 While a number of his employees had trouble meeting the $20,000, the earmarks continued to flow. Mr. Magliocchetti made the not surprising observation that those who brought in more money received larger earmark amounts for their projects. 48
The House Ethics Committee report disclosed emails between defense contracting representatives seeking $20,000 in donations for Rep. Visclosky because he had helped the firm acquire federal funds. 49 The documents the FBI turned over to CREW appear to support these claims that someone in Rep. Viscloskys office was rewarding donors with earmarks for contributions. Additionally, the documents contain an interview regarding Mr. Magliocchetti dating back to January 1990, suggesting the government had an eye on him since his days working as a staffer on the House Defense Appropriations Committee, chaired by Rep. Murtha in the late 1980s. 50
The question remains: why did the FBI or House Ethics Committee not drop the hammer on members like Rep. Visclosky, his staff, and others who appear to have been actively involved in selling earmarks for campaign contributions? These newly disclosed documents provide some insight into the activities of PMA and Mr. Magliocchetti and the members caught up in their corrupt enterprise. Like many of the documents CREW receives from the FBI, however, this batch was heavily redacted and raises as many questions as it answers. One thing is quite clear: the FBI and the House Ethics Committee failed to vigorously pursue all available charges against a much wider number of members of Congress involved with the PMA Groups illegal activities.
47 Id. 48 Id. 49 House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 111 th Congress, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to the Lobbying Activities of Paul Magliochetti and Associates Group, Inc. (PMA), Report No. 111-423, February 26, 2010 available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-111hrpt423/pdf/CRPT-111hrpt423.pdf. 50 Magliochetti Document 688.