So, if you haven't heard, the Senate has voted in favor of the Department of Justice conducting an investigation of Alaska Congressman Don Young for mysteriously inserting a provision into a piece of legislation AFTER it had passed the House and Senate but before the President had signed it.

The provision would have widening an interchange at Coconut Road and Florida's I-75 -- an interchange that would have been helpful to a developer who'd held a fundraiser for Young shortly before the earmark was inserted.

The House has not voted on this yet, but probably will soon.

It is certainly an unfortunate and scare precedent to have a member of Congress insert changes to a bill after it has already been passed. It also seems a commentary on the level of `favoring' that goes on in Congress to benefit campaign contributors.

It's not like we couldn't find some other way to spend the money on infrastructure, like some new bridges, say.

It's good to be a friend of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).  Just ask his busines partners, Leonard Hyde and Jonathan Rubini.

This land deal is just one of several lucrative federal contracts Hyde and Rubini benefited from while Stevens, a major investor, served as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  According to Roll Call, these investments turned Stevens into a millionaire, where he once had been at the bottom of Senate wealth rankings.

Most of the Senate Appropriations Committee members distanced themselves from or severed ties with people and firms that might benefit from federal contracts once they took their seats.  Not Stevens, though!

The sad thing, however, is that by weak Senate ethics rules, Senator Stevens was allowed to work on this deal using his official capacity; why not recuse himself for having a conflict of interest, instead?  But then again, why pretend like he has an interest in transparency and accountability?

Sen. Stevens may not have done anything illegal, but this is just one more reason why Congress must implement stricter ethics rules and standards - now.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) takes the cake.  Actually, he'd be more likely to insert into the Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill a provision mandating that $20 million worth of cake is sent to citizens.  In Sweden.

And, he'd be proud of it.

A $320 million bridge to Nowhere, Alaska?  A $10 million earmark for a bridge in Florida?  And we're not supposed to question any of it?

Maybe Rep. Young should take a bridge to 2007, where his buddies Jack Abramoff and Mark Zachares are serving jail time on corruption charges.  Maybe then he'll understand that by saying he's "proud" to funnel millions to useless and unwanted projects at his donors' behest, he's only inviting trouble for himself and his party.

A snippet from Sunday night's Democratic debate:

This was the only mention of public financing of elections in Sunday night's debate. From the sound of the audience applause, it seems like a popular issue in New Hampshire.

Why don't candidates make more of an issue out of this? Would it be too hard to both advocate public financing while simultaneously seeking big contributions? If you ask me, Joe Biden is a great candidate to do it--but he shouldn't be the only one.

Update from Josh Zaharoff: Al Franken did just that on Huffington Post with a marvelous job of promoting public financing while campaigning.

I can't hardly keep up with all the recent news of unethical behavior...

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) is the latest name to surface in Beltway headlines.  According to The Hill newspaper, Miller secured a number of earmarks in the 2005 transportation bill that benefitted his business partner, Lewis Operating Corporation.  Miller has long-standing business ties to Lewis Operating, and enjoys their money, too - since he joined Congress in 1998, Lewis employees have donated $22,150 to his campaign committee.

There's much, much more in the article, including specifics of multi-million dollar earmarks for projects that would directly benefit Lewis Operating's real estate developments.

From USA Today:

About $37 million of that money went to companies tied to the bribery scandal of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA), who is now serving eight years in prison.  Another earmark is the $18 million defense contract Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) inserted for defense contractor PerfectWave, whose owner, Brent Wilkes, has pleaded innocent to federal charges of bribing Cunningham.

Can I repeat that amount?  $5.6 BILLION!  That's such an immense amount of money, it's no wonder a large chunk of it was misappropriated - either accidentally or on purpose - or misrepresented or outright stolen.

Something is noticeably missing from the $463 billion spending measure the House passed 286 to 140 last Wednesday. Leaders from both parties courageously agreed to remove all earmarks! Earmarks, or special provisions that set aside money for specific purposes, have been used in recent years to funnel billions of tax dollars toward pet projects and special interests.

This measure replaces the temporary budget that had been in place since last year, when Congress failed to pass 9 out of the 11 necessary budget bills. In addition, while the bill maintains most government agencies at 2006 level funding, it also includes some additional funding for veteran health care and Pell Grants, and an additional $1.6 billion to fighting diseases including A.I.D.S.

This year, many new congressmen came to office promising to control earmarks and special interest giveaways, and it is very encouraging to see them sticking to their word. We hope the Senate follows suit when it votes on the bill in the coming weeks.

Prosecutors:  The People.

Defendents:  Congress.

Exhibit 1:  Letitia White, former receptionist who rose through the ranks of Rep. Jerry Lewis' (R-CA) office to become his top defense aide.  Ms. White left Lewis' office in 2003 and now works as a lobbyist, earning upwards of $3.5 million in two years.

Exhibit 2:  Earmarks.  Lobbyists direct their clients to donate to certain lawmakers.  Those lawmakers then, coincidentally, earmark funds for projects beneficial to those clients.

Argument for the Prosecution:  An editorial from USA Today.  The editorial makes the case that White's access to her former boss Lewis, who now chairs the House Appropriations Committee (nicknamed by Jack Abramoff the "favor factory"), is just one example of the revolving door interplay between Congressional offices and the lobbying industry.