Sunday, May 03, 2009
Perriello challenges the untouchable
Luanne Traud
Recent columns
- Marking a difficult anniversary
- My daughter, the voter
- A few new Voices would be nice
- A rush to legislate
From the RoundTable blog
Tom Perriello isn't behaving like a freshly minted member of Congress. New back-benchers generally hope that one day, they, too, might rise to prominence. But first they need to demonstrate they are reliable, loyal party stewards so that they can gain the right assignments and, eventually, when they've put in the time, rise to chair an important subcommittee.
Perriello's independent streak has no time for rank-and-file allegiance. He has made haste to challenge entrenched House practices.
He's already pushed for transparency that requires members to post on their Web sites requests for earmarks. And now, he has signed on as an original cosponsor of a bill that would prohibit members from taking campaign contributions and awarding earmarks to the same people.
It's a courageous move, made all the more so because Perriello isn't just challenging the opposition party but is taking on power brokers within his own Democratic Party. Few are more powerful, more wedded to earmarks, more capable of dealing out harsh punishment to those who buck them than John P. Murtha.
Esquire magazine last fall dubbed Murtha one of the 10 worst members of Congress. He called his party's 2006 ethics reforms "total crap." The magazine called Murtha's earmarks "breathtaking," noting the more than $100 million annual appropriations to his Johnstown district are "the richest handout in the country." The magazine also pointed out that as "Defense Appropriations Subcommittee chairman, he routinely punishes other members by taking away their earmarks."
For the 2010 budget, Murtha seeks to reward 10 recent campaign donors with $31 million in earmarks. This despite an ongoing FBI investigation into the PMA Group, a lobbying firm started by a Murtha associate that has received millions of dollars for its clients, who were large campaign contributors.
In a recent phone interview, Perriello said he wanted to "sever the tie between campaign cash and government earmarks." I asked if he was risking punishment for taking on the Murthas of the House.
"The leaders know I'm independent," he said. "Murtha is just one example of how the old guard did business."
Perriello might wish to use the past tense but control still rests with that old guard. Perriello's cosponsors on the CLEAR act arrived in Congress during the 2006 reform takeover.
"The '06 and '08 class have really different attitudes. They come mostly from business or nonprofit work," Perriello said. "I'm hoping we can be the accountability caucus."
Perriello's accountability is rooted in ethics, transparency and a sense of developing good policies that benefit the many instead of the few. It runs counter to Murtha's definition.
For Murtha, accountability is measured by how well you take care of your own. I know this because Jack Murtha used to be my congressman. How that came to be demonstrates the type of power he wields.
Following the 2000 census, Pennsylvania lost two congressional seats and had to redraw the districts. The governor was Republican and the party controlled both the state House and Senate. It was a given the districts would be redrawn to carve out more Republican-friendly districts.
First, though, deference was paid to one Democrat: Murtha. His district was redrawn to give him a solid Democratic district that stretches from his central Pennsylvania home west to the West Virginia border. (The new map plunged political gerrymandering to new depths. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the districts, in which the constituents had little more in common than political registrations, would stand; representatives can indeed choose their voters.)
Think if there were any Virginia Democrat so untouchable that he could keep himself safe if Republicans controlled the process or vice versa.
The benefit of being a Murtha constituent quickly became obvious: Soon he was bringing defense contractors to the far reaches of his district with enough money for startup costs and promises of future contracts that would keep them in business and his new subjects employed. He sincerely believes his role as a congressman is to create jobs, even if that means redirecting Americans' tax dollars to his district and requiring those recipients to build factories to benefit his voters.
Do these same company executives donate to his campaigns in gratitude or anticipation? Is it quid pro quo? Is he an effective or corrupt congressman?
Murtha, in a recent interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, said, "If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district. My job as a member of Congress is to make sure that we take care of what we see is necessary."
Perreillo sees that something else is necessary: a restoration of the public's trust. Whether his voters will reward him for good-government ideals, as Murtha's have rewarded him many times over for stuffing them with pork, will be interesting to see.
Traud is a member of The Roanoke Times editorial board.
