PMA politics may infect 2010 races

The federal investigation into potentially corrupt political contributions by the lobbying firm PMA Group has created a quandary for many lawmakers — especially those with tough races in 2010.

Members of the House and Senate have been all over the map in their reaction to the PMA investigation, with some donating all PMA funds, others donating only a little bit and still others taking a wait-and-see approach.

{mosads}What they all have in common is that very few are willing to part with substantial sums of money to head off potential future troubles. Among those parting with the money, the biggest recipients are giving back a little and only the smallest recipients are giving it all away.

The situation plays out nearly every time there is a suggestion of corruption regarding a top donor, but the current set of circumstances remains hard to read for many lawmakers.

The Kansas Senate race emerged this week as the first head-to-head match-up in which the two sides are clashing on the issue.

Kansas GOP Reps. Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt are engaged in an escalating primary battle for a 2010 open seat, and Moran’s campaign has drawn an early line in the sand on the PMA issue.

Moran’s campaign has told The Hill that it will donate to charity the $1,500 it has received from PMA’s political action committee (PAC) and employees, while Tiahrt’s campaign said it will only return the money if there is a conviction.

Tiahrt campaign manager Robert Noland said Tiahrt’s staffers “congratulate Congressman Jerry Moran for returning campaign contributions he believes were tainted,” but then demurred.

“We have a strict policy of returning any and all funds given by a contributor who has been convicted of a crime,” Noland said. “We remain committed to that policy.”

Moran’s campaign was quick to draw the distinction.

“While these donations were given a long time ago, this firm does not represent the values of Kansans, and Rep. Moran wanted to make sure that Kansans know that he will not accept — nor keep — questionable money such as this,” Moran spokesman Travis Murphy said.

The decision is more difficult for Tiahrt, of course, because according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), he has received much more — nearly $27,000 — from PMA’s PAC and employees in recent years.

Regardless, the situation in Kansas underscores a burgeoning campaign issue. Though most races around the country haven’t yet taken shape, campaign strategists are already studying the situation with an eye toward 2010.

One GOP consultant who is looking to use the issue said it is sure to crop up for the most vulnerable members.

“Any candidates who are running against incumbents who are vulnerable on this issue — clearly, they’re going to try and make a big deal out of it,” the consultant said.

Republicans stand to benefit the most from the controversy, given that almost all top recipients of PMA money are Democrats.

In all, PMA has given $3.4 million to 284 members of Congress, with nearly 80 percent going to Democrats, according to CRP.

But the several Republicans eyeing big races in 2010 — including Tiahrt — make for a delicate balance for the national party.

One GOPer likened the issue to the Jack Abramoff scandal, which implicated members of both parties but wound up sinking the Republicans, who were in far deeper.

So far, national Republicans have been content to go after individual Democrats with targeted releases on the issue. Last week, the GOP hit three dozen potentially vulnerable incumbents for voting against a PMA-inspired congressional investigation into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) offered another, similar resolution Tuesday, with PMA the official target this time.

Top vulnerable Republicans on the receiving end of PMA funds include Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Rep. Lee Terry (Neb.). Another GOPer, Rep. Zach Wamp, is running for governor of Tennessee.

Specter’s office said Wednesday that the senator is holding onto the money for now.

“If any lobbyist is found to have done something wrong, any contribution will be donated to charity,” spokeswoman Kate Kelly said.

Key Democrats dealing with PMA funds include several other lawmakers from Pennsylvania, as PMA was established by a former Hill aide who worked closely with Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.). Rep. Patrick Murphy has opted to donate the money to charity, while Reps. Paul Kanjorski, Chris Carney and Jason Altmire are awaiting further information.

Tony May, a former executive director of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, said the issue has gotten little traction in the state. “Until that story broke on the AP, I’d never heard of [PMA] before,” May said. “It’s not like Jack Abramoff … everybody had him in their Rolodex for some reason or another.

“I would say it’s not an issue here. They were one-day stories even in Johnstown, which is Jack Murtha’s hometown.”

Murtha, who could also be targeted in 2010 and is the third-largest recipient of PMA funds, has not said what he will do with the money.

Altmire said that he’s prepared to donate the money to charity if need be, but that he’s not feeling rushed.

“The legal process works, and we will see what happens,” Altmire said. “I don’t feel any pressure at home.”

Other lawmakers keeping the money include Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), who might run in a primary against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). Spokesman Ray Zaccaro said McCarthy would also monitor the situation.

Other lawmakers with statewide ambitions are returning the money, including Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.).
Among those who are safe in 2010, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) both said they would return certain contributions from dubious donors, which amount to small percentages of the money they have received in recent years. House ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) has said she would donate all $7,000 she has received.