Members of Congress and their staffs are barred from using their positions for personal profit. But their spouses and other relatives can — and often do — cash in when lawmakers spend taxpayer dollars. Lobbying groups employed 30 family members last year to influence spending bills that their relatives with ties to the House and Senate appropriations committees oversaw or helped write, a USA TODAY investigation found. Combined, they generated millions of dollars in fees for themselves or their firms. The connections are so pervasive that, in 2005 alone, appropriations bills contained about $750 million for projects championed by lobbyists whose relatives were involved in writing the spending bills. "It smells bad; it is bad," Mickey Edwards, a Princeton University lecturer, said when told of the newspaper's findings. "If it is not already completely outlawed, it should be." Edwards served on the House Appropriations Committee during his 16 years as a Republican congressman from Oklahoma. USA TODAY examined the family ties between lobbyists and the 94 members of the House and Senate appropriations committees, as well as 250 top staffers who serve those members. Those committees control the federal government's purse strings, allocating hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars each year. The family connections between lobbying and lawmaking are prompting complaints that Congress is not doing enough to police itself. No rules or laws prevent lawmakers or their staffs from being lobbied by relatives, and proposals to address the practice have stalled on Capitol Hill. Neither lawmakers nor lobbyists must report if they are related to each other, so USA TODAY reviewed thousands of pages of financial disclosures and lobbyist registrations, property records, marriage announcements and other public documents to identify which lawmakers and staffers had relatives in the lobbying business. The newspaper found 53 cases in which relatives of lawmakers or their top aides worked at lobbying firms last year. In 30 instances, those relatives, or firms in which they are principals, sought money in the appropriations bills their family members or their family members' bosses helped write. Of those 30 relatives, 22 succeeded in getting specific language inserted in the bills that guaranteed money for their clients, USA TODAY found. Among them:
Lawmakers who wrote or approved such spending language sometimes received campaign contributions from the clients and the lobbyists that represented them, the newspaper found. For instance, federal records show Rep. Hobson received a total of $8,000 in campaign contributions from 2005 through 2006 from Pacquing and executives at TPI, the company that hired Pacquing to lobby him. "It pays to be related to a member of the appropriations committee," said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington. "It shows a serious conflict of interest between those appropriators who are supposed to be appropriating for the public interest and their relatives, who obviously have special access to these individuals. "In the balance of the public interest vs. private interest," Thurber said, "it seems the public interest loses again." No 'special treatment:' When lobbyist is an in-law The lobbyists, lawmakers and staffers who spoke to USA TODAY insist that no special treatment was sought or given. Many lobbyists say they have no contact with their family members on appropriations business, though they admit lobbying others who work with or for their relative. Lawmakers say they are not swayed by their family ties. That's the position of Florida Rep. Young, whose daughter-in-law Cindy Young is a partner in a small Pennsylvania lobbying firm that primarily serves defense contractors. Rep. Young said his daughter-in-law handles legal and business issues for the firm, but she has not registered to lobby Congress. "Cindy has said, on occasion, 'Hey, would you see this client?' and I've done that," Young said. "But they don't get any special treatment." He said all of the projects had to have another congressional sponsor before he would meet with company officials or consider funding them — a rule he said he enforces for all lobbyists seeking money from his panel. Young said he accepts no campaign contributions from any clients of his daughter-in-law's firm. And he points out that he rejected requests from two of those clients because he wanted to give the military more of an opportunity to review the projects. "Bottom line," he said, is that those companies "don't get any special treatment, no different from the clients of any other lobbyists who bring people in to see me." Young said his daughter-in-law is within her rights to run a lobbying firm, even if it represents companies seeking federal funding from his panel. He said his office consulted with the House ethics committee to ensure that her status with the firm, and his interactions with her and her clients, all were within the scope of House rules. "My daughter-in-law has a right to make a living," the congressman said. "I don't know that I can see one lobbyist or one attorney and not see another just because she has a relationship to my son." Last year, clients of Cindy Young's firm won $2 million in funding in the defense spending bill that her father-in-law oversaw. In one case, $1 million was directed to one of Cindy Young's clients, Dynamic Defense Materials, to develop body armor for the military. The money came in the form of an "earmark," a provision that lawmakers add to spending bills for an item or program that wasn't requested by the agency getting the money, or authorized by previous legislation. Cindy Young did not respond to requests for an interview. 'I don't lobby my husband:' Lines not always clearly drawn Juliet Pacquing's husband, Kevin Cook, is the top staffer for the House Appropriations subcommittee for energy and water programs. The chairman of that subcommittee — the lawmaker who relies most heavily on Cook as a staffer — is Rep. Hobson. During the past two years, one of Pacquing's main clients, TPI Composites, has received more than $500,000 in federal contracting work under programs funded by Hobson's energy and water appropriations bill. Hobson also sits on the Appropriations defense subcommittee. In a defense appropriations bill, TPI got $4.5 million to help the Army develop a composite vehicle similar to the Humvee. In a news release, Hobson took credit for getting the money, noting that some work on the vehicle would be done at a TPI facility in his district. Pacquing acknowledged that she has lobbied Hobson for defense earmarks on behalf of TPI. But she said she never seeks money under the energy and water bill that Cook helps the congressman write. She said she was unaware that her client benefited from the bill. "I don't lobby my husband," she said. "There's a conflict there." Pacquing said her lobbying work relies on contacts she made in her previous job as a staffer on the Appropriations defense panel. Those clients, she said, are almost exclusively defense contractors. "I'm just a small fish," she said. "I don't know why you're talking to me." Hobson said he was also unaware that TPI has a financial stake in programs funded by his energy and water bill. That legislation controls spending for a variety of programs, including research into wind energy technology. TPI manufactures blades for experimental wind turbines being developed by Sandia National Laboratory. "I didn't even know that the contracts were there or that (TPI) even dealt with Sandia," Hobson said. "There's no problem there, because (the Sandia contracts) were competitively bid. ... (But) we have to make sure that we continue to have this firewall" between Pacquing and Cook. As for the earmark for the Army vehicle, Hobson said Pacquing's relationship to Cook "had absolutely nothing to do with it." He said he has been pushing the Pentagon for years to develop lighter, better-armored tactical vehicles, and TPI has been at the forefront of that effort. TPI declined to comment. Executives with the company donated a total of $6,000 to Hobson's campaign in 2005 and 2006, federal records show. Pacquing gave $2,000 to Hobson in the same span. "I don't know whether you can say I encouraged" the contributions from TPI, Pacquing said. "It's just common sense to donate. They've been working with Congressman Hobson, and they'd like for him to be re-elected." The lawmaker and the cousin: Lobbyist says relative isn't benefit Lobbyist William Clyburn Jr. said he sees no benefit to having family on the Appropriations Committee. The lobbyist is the son of Rep. Clyburn's first cousin, and Clyburn said he grew up calling the lawmaker "uncle." Rep. Clyburn is the third-highest-ranking House Democrat and a member of the Appropriations panel handling transportation projects. Cedric Johnson, chairman of the Augusta (Ga.) Airport Commission, said that the board knew of the lobbyist's family ties to Rep. Clyburn but that he wasn't hired for his family connections. He said the board sought William Clyburn's help because they knew him from his days as a staffer for then-senator Zell Miller, D-Ga. Regardless, Johnson said the board could not have won the $2.5 million for terminal improvements without the lobbyist. "He helped us quite a bit with showing us the ropes and what we needed to do to get funding," Johnson said. In an interview in July — before the newspaper contacted Rep. Clyburn's office — lobbyist William Clyburn acknowledged that he discussed funding for the Augusta airport with his congressman cousin. He didn't credit that relationship for his success. Instead, he talked of the contacts he made during more than a decade in Washington as a congressional staffer and member of the Surface Transportation Board. "There hasn't been anything that, 'Because Jim is your relative, you're going to get this or that,' " William Clyburn said. "It was really dependent on the network I had developed over the years." Kristie Greco, a spokeswoman for Rep. Clyburn, told USA TODAY in September that the congressman and his cousin had not discussed the Augusta airport funding or any other business. "He doesn't lobby before the congressman," Greco said of William Clyburn. She suggested that the newspaper contact the lobbyist again. The next day, in a second interview, William Clyburn reversed what he had told the newspaper in July. He said he discussed other matters with his cousin but had not discussed the Augusta airport funding with him. "Going to a relative, that doesn't make it happen for that project," he said. "You have to have both House and Senate, both Democrats and Republicans." 'To go above and beyond:' A policy of no-contact Just months after Holly Piper left her job as an aide for Sen. McConnell to join the lobbying business in 2004, she married his chief of staff. Piper went to work for Bates Capitol Group, a Louisville lobbying firm with a client list heavy on Kentucky businesses. One company for which Piper sought money, is e-Cavern, lobbying records show. The company has teamed with local universities to turn a 3-million-square-foot cavern near the city into an underground "technology business park." There, companies or government agencies can build secure facilities to store critical infrastructure and financial records. As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, McConnell secured $1 million in federal funding for the facility in 2004, Piper's first year as a lobbyist for e-Cavern. In 2005, McConnell secured another $1.5 million for the project. In those two years, e-Cavern's annual lobbying payments to Bates Capitol climbed from $80,000 to $220,000. Last year, two of e-Cavern's top executives contributed $1,000 each to McConnell's campaign account. McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said Piper's relationship to the senator's top staffer had nothing to do with McConnell's steering federal funds to the project. "The senator's priorities have been (focused) on making the commonwealth's universities world class, making them competitive," Stewart said, "so that (funding) flows right into his objective." Stewart said McConnell barred any lobbying contacts between Holly Piper and her husband after they were married. And a year later, in spring 2005, he expanded that policy to forbid anyone on his staff from having any contact with lobbyists who have a relative in the senator's office. Holly Piper has since left the lobbying business and declined to comment. McConnell's no-contact policy for Piper "was just him trying to go above and beyond what was required," Stewart said. All of his funding decisions are made on their own merits and "are completely justified," Stewart said of McConnell. "He's willing to defend any of them." In the case of e-Cavern, Stewart said, any lobbying of McConnell or his staff would have been done by the company's other lobbyist at Bates Capitol: company president Hunter Bates — the man who served as McConnell's chief of staff before Billy Piper got the job. Strict rules for others Unlike Congress, the judicial and executive branches have strict guidelines on nepotism and contacts with lobbyists and business interests, said Ronald Utt, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. For example, laws bar executive branch employees from taking action affecting the financial interests of their spouses or minor children. Federal judges are required to remove themselves from cases affecting the financial interests of their spouses or minor children, or when lawyers or parties to the case are related to the judge. "It's particularly troublesome, because (Congress is) in an environment that has very limited, formal ethical standards to begin with," Utt said. "The ethics of it are terrible," he said of the newspaper's findings. "It's getting to the point where no one bothers to hide what appear to be raging conflicts of interest." Utt said it's "both impossible and preposterous" to believe that relatives who are lobbyists don't influence their family members. Congress appears unlikely to act this year to address how lawmakers and their staff should deal with family members in the lobbying business. As the congressional session enters its final weeks, lobbying bills passed in the spring by the House and Senate have stalled. Congressional leaders have yet to set up a committee of House and Senate members to reconcile differences between the two pieces of legislation. Those differences must be resolved before a final bill can be voted on, let alone passed. The Senate bill would bar all "official contact" with a lawmaker's office by a registered lobbyist who is an "immediate family member" of that lawmaker — a definition that includes spouses, children and certain in-laws. That bill does not address situations in which a lobbyist is related to a staff member. The House bill is silent on the issue of lobbying relatives. Currently, the only official pronouncement on the issue of family ties is an opinion by the Senate Ethics Committee. The committee recommended that a lobbyist related to a senator's chief of staff should not be allowed to lobby anyone in that senator's office. The opinion was never adopted as a rule. And it has no bearing in the House. "There has to be a serious review of congressional rules in terms of the lobbying done by spouses of members and other relatives," said Fred Wertheimer, a longtime advocate of tighter lobbying restrictions who heads the reform group Democracy 21. "In effect, Congress as an institution has said with regard to all the congressional corruption scandals, 'It's none of your business,' " Wertheimer said. "That's just dead wrong. ... It's the public's interest that Congress is responsible for protecting."
WHAT IS A LOBBYIST? A lobbyist is a person who seeks to influence lawmakers on behalf of a particular company, organization or institution. Lobbyists, who often work for large law firms focused on Capitol Hill, must register with the secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House. Many larger companies and institutions, such as universities or non-profit organizations, have their own lobbyists on staff. A GUIDE TO GETTING EARMARKS What's the best way to get money from Congress? Some groups go about it this way:
Source: USA TODAY research
LITTLE ACCOUNTABILITY IN EARMARKS Family ties give lobbyists insight into how legislation is written - and access to those who are in positions to secure millions for specific projects. "These are the insiders' insiders," said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a budget watchdog group. "Lobbyists rule the legislative process. But lobbyists who are family members really have the inside track." One of the most popular ways to ensure a project gets funded is by adding a provision called an "earmark" to an appropriations bill. An earmark commits the government to spend a specific amount on a specific program. Earmarks that benefit companies usually direct money to a project that the companies are hired to handle, not to the companies themselves. Members of the appropriations committees can add earmarks. Often, their staff members, who write much of the legislation, are in position to encourage their bosses to do so. John Scofield, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, says earmarks are an appropriate way for Congress to put its stamp on federal policy. "That's the way (the legislative branch) is supposed to work," he said. There is little accountability in the earmark process, however. Lawmakers can add the language anonymously. Until recently, no rules required Congress to disclose an earmark's sponsor, and the information is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act or other public-records requirements. The House changed its rules Sept. 14 to require that spending and tax bills include the name of the lawmaker sponsoring an earmark. However, that rule expires Dec. 31. In the past decade, the number of earmarks in appropriations bills has more than tripled, to almost 16,000 in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service. Taxpayer groups and fiscal conservatives in Congress point to earmarks as a major source of waste. "There's no question that unaccountable earmarking leads to wasteful spending and special favors for campaign contributors or family members who are lobbying for stuff," Miller said. Occasionally, a company will announce that it has received funding via an earmark. Lawmakers sometimes take credit for them, too, to show that they are fighting for a local project. In February, USA TODAY reported that Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., added 13 earmarks over four years that set aside almost $50 million for clients of a lobbyist married to a top aide. Specter said he did not know the beneficiaries were clients of his aide's husband. The FBI is now investigating whether the aide, Vicki Siegel Herson, broke the law by helping her husband Michael Herson. Specter has said he did nothing wrong.
