IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 667 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2009 

Mr. FLAKE submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the table 

RESOLUTION 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

Whereas The Hill reported that a prominent lobbying firm, 

founded by Mr. Paul Magliocchetti and the subject of a 

‘‘federal investigation into potentially corrupt political 

contributions’’, has given $3.4 million in political donations to no less than 284 members of Congress; 

Whereas, the New York Times noted that Mr. Magliocchetti 

‘‘set up shop at the busy intersection between political 

fund-raising and taxpayer spending, directing tens of millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers while steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks contracts 

back to his clients.’’; 

Whereas, a guest columnist recently highlighted in Roll Call 

that ‘‘. . . what [the firm’s] example reveals most clearly 

is the potentially corrupting link between campaign contributions and earmarks. Even the most ardent 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 667 LTH 

earmarkers should want to avoid the appearance of such 

a pay-to-play system.’’; 

Whereas, multiple press reports have noted questions related 

to campaign contributions made by or on behalf of the 

firm; including questions related to ‘‘straw man’’ contributions, the reimbursement of employees for political 

giving, pressure on clients to give, a suspicious pattern 

of giving, and the timing of donations relative to legislative activity; 

Whereas, Roll Call has taken note of the timing of contributions from employees the firm and its clients when it reported that they ‘‘have provided thousands of dollars 

worth of campaign contributions to key Members in close 

proximity to legislative activity, such as the deadline for 

earmark request letters or passage of a spending bill.’’; 

Whereas, the Associated Press highlighted the ‘‘huge 

amounts of political donations’’ from the firm and its clients to select members and noted that ‘‘those political donations have followed a distinct pattern: The giving is especially heavy in March, which is prime time for submitting written earmark requests.’’; 

Whereas, clients of the firm received at least three hundred 

million dollars worth of earmarks in fiscal year 2009 appropriations legislation, including several that were approved even after news of the FBI raid of the firm’s offices and Justice Department investigation into the firm 

was well known; 

Whereas, after a cursory review, the fiscal year 2010 defense 

appropriations earmark list recently made available includes at least seventy earmarks worth hundreds of millions of dollars for former PMA clients; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HRES 667 LTH 

Whereas, the Associated Press reported that ‘‘the FBI says 

the investigation is continuing, highlighting the close ties 

between special-interest spending provisions known as 

earmarks and the raising of campaign cash.’’; and 

Whereas, the persistent media attention focused on questions 

about the nature and timing of campaign contributions 

related to the firm, as well as reports of the Justice Department conducting research on earmarks and campaign 

contributions, raise concern about the integrity of Congressional proceedings and the dignity of the institution: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Offi2 cial Conduct shall immediately establish an investigative 

3 subcommittee and begin an investigation into the relation4 ship between the source and timing of past campaign con5 tributions to Members of the House related to the raided 

6 firm and earmark requests made by Members of the 

7 House on behalf of clients of the raided firm. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS