Posted by Joseph Y. Calhoun, III

From the Washington Post:

The House ethics committee ruled Friday that seven lawmakers who steered hundreds of millions of dollars in largely no-bid contracts to clients of a lobbying firm had not violated any rules or laws by also collecting large campaign donations from those contractors.

In a 305-page report, the ethics committee declared that lawmakers are free to raise campaign money from the very companies they are benefiting so long as the deciding factors in granting those “earmarks” are “criteria independent” of the contributions. The report served as a blunt rejection of ethics watchdogs and a different group of congressional investigators, who have contended that in some instances the connection between donations and earmarks was so close that it had to be inappropriate.

“Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member’s actions are being influenced by campaign contributions,” the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said in a unanimous statement.

Is there any wonder that the approval rating of Congress is now just 10%? Are any of these assholes worthy or our trust? Is there no shame left in our political class? How can a group of people review something so obviously corrupt and declare that no corruption exists? Has the US political system fallen completely down the rabbit hole where things mean exactly what the politicians want them to mean? Throw them all out in November and let’s start over.

Addendum: From another WaPo story:

A team of congressional investigators believed they had probable cause that Rep. Pete Visclosky sought campaign contributions in exchange for steering federal contracts to corporate donors, but a House ethics panel decided not to inquire further into the matter.

A report from the House ethics committee, released Friday, shows that a preliminary investigation found e-mail evidence suggesting that Visclosky’s staff arranged campaign fundraisers for corporate clients seeking earmarks, and the donors believed their donations were linked to whether they would win earmarks from the Indiana Democrat. The Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the more powerful House ethics committee use its subpoena power to require Visclosky and his staff to answer questions under oath about his earmarking practice.

But the committee said they found no evidence of wrongdoing, and opted not to subpoena Visclosky or any other records to answer the questions the OCE had raised.

The House ethics committee wrote in its report that the widespread perception of lobbyists that donations helped obtain earmark requests does not constitute a violation of House ethics rules by a lawmaker or staffer. A source close to the probe said Visclosky’s arrangement of fundraisers for earmark requests — in such close proximity to earmarks being granted — raised eyebrows, but did not prove anything. Deciding not to subpoena members was a judgment call, the source said.

I wonder what a jury would think? If 12 citizens heard this case, would they really acquit this guy of taking bribes?