The real question here is whether these military contractors think they're contributing to the same Duncan Hunter or not.
Records show connections between companies Rep. Hunter has worked with and some individuals who are contributing to his son's campaign.
Rep. Hunter added language to the 2008 Defense Appropriations bill awarding $19 million to L-3 Communications, which has an office in San Diego, for the development and testing of a missile system, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Executives from that company contributed $2,750 to Duncan D. Hunter's campaign.
Rep. Hunter also earmarked San Diego-based Trex Enterprises Corp. $1.5 million for the development of a device that will help helicopter pilots navigate with limited visibility. Campaign finance records show Trex employees, including a scientist, donated $4,800 to Duncan D. Hunter's campaign.
Lobbyists working for the companies have also supported Hunter's campaign. Patrick McSwain and Frank Collins, who were listed as principals at the lobbying firm Northpoint Strategies, collectively donated $2,500. Northpoint worked on behalf of L-3. McSwain and Collins were both former [Rep. Duke] Cunningham chiefs of staff.
You know, why wouldn't they? Hunter was a reliable champion for whatever boondoggle weapons system these contractors thought up, even planes that can't fly. There's no reason to believe that his son won't act the same way.
Calitics has endorsed Democrat Mike Lumpkin in this seat.
Josh Marshall is puzzled by the defense strategy employed by celebrilawyer Mark Geragos for corrupt defense contractor Brent Wilkes. So far he's called to the stand exactly one witness, who pretty much just called Wilkes a nice guy. That hardly refutes the voluminous amounts of evidence showing Wilkes' multiple bribery schemes.
So what's the strategy? Perhaps Geragos is hanging Wilkes out as a possible flipper for a bigger fish:
The only logic I can see to this is based on something a lawyer friend told me. If Wilkes tries to push an 'everybody does it' too hard at trial then he's locked himself to a set of facts that will make it a lot harder for him to turn around and cut a deal in exchange for serving up Bill Lowery and Rep. Lewis (R-CA).
That makes sense, I guess. Though I think I need to guard against a professional investment in having it having it be true since Wilkes serving up these two jokers would be a veritable festival of muck, something akin to taking a pin to a muck balloon. But in that case, why'd he go to trial in the first place? Something about the whole thing just doesn't fit to me.
According to RollCall, a former staffer for the House Appropriations Committee that worked for then Chairman Jerry Lewis said he intends to defy a federal subpoena he was served today from the US District Court for the Central District in California...
The staffer, Greg Lasker, is trying to hide behind the "speech and debate" clause of the Constitution and claim that the subpoena is not consistent with the "rights and privileges of the House." I guess it's a lead-by-example thing, the President and his staff doesn't see any need to comply with subpoenas, so why should Lasker?
After months of dormancy, the new US Attorney in Los Angeles, Thomas O'Brien, appears to have ramped up the Lewis investigation. Stay tuned...
A prostitute whom prosecutors say a defense contractor provided to former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham testified Wednesday that the congressman fed her grapes as she sat naked in a hot tub before they headed to a bedroom at a Hawaiian resort.
Is dry heaving due to something I read that's not work-related on company time covered on my group plan?
(This came out in the Brent Wilkes trial, by the way, as just one of the gifts offered in bribe from the defense contractor to members of Congress. But if you're reading this far, you have an AMAZINGLY strong stomach.)
Henry Waxman is doing yeoman work today at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Blackwater, not only taking them to task for the irresonsible and lawless behavior of their security personnel within Iraq, but directly blaming the State Department for blocking meaningful investigation.
Waxman pointed to a Dec. 2006 incident, in which a drunken Blackwater contractor shot the guard of the Iraqi vice president:
The State Department advised Blackwater how much to pay the family to make the problem go away and then allowed the contractor to leave Iraq just 36 hours after the shooting. Incredibly, internal e-mails documented the debate over the size of the payment. The charge d'affaire recommended a $250,000 payment but this was cut to $15,000 because the diplomatic security service said Iraqis would try to get themselves killed for such a large payout.
Waxman noted that in light of such evidence, it's hard "not come to the conclusion that the State Department is acting as Blackwater's enabler."
If Henry Waxman today wants to go to Iraq and do an investigation, Blackwater will be his support team. His protection team. Do you think he really wants to investigate directly?
It's hard to characterize this as anything but a veiled threat. Disgraceful.
(Incidentally, for another California connection, the CEO of Blackwater was an intern for Dana Rohrabacher many years ago. Can you say "conflict of interest"?)
As usual, it would be better to quote this Digby post verbatim, but let me just give you the relevant section from the article in question:
(Loretta) Sanchez, Orange County's only Democratic member of Congress, voted in 2002 against giving President Bush authorization to invade Iraq. More recently she voted to begin pulling troops out within 90 days.
Tuesday night Sanchez said she could not support the protesters (who want to cut funding for the war) because the $145 billion in Iraq war funding was in the same bill that would provide money to build the C-17 aircraft in California.
"I never voted for this war," she said. But "I'm not going to vote against $2.1 billion for C-17 production, which is in California. That is just not going to happen."
Sanchez has been consistently against the war, and she cannot be fully blamed for protecting her constituents. But she's constrained by the fact that a major military contractor in her district has a gun to her head. Particularly in California, but all over the country really, the massing of the war machine has a definite impact on policy. They put their factories in all these different districts, so that shuttering an obsolete weapons system will be met with enormous resistance. This ensures that you can never decrease military spending or even keep it the same. And eventually, all these systems have to be justified. Through war.
This is approximately why the nightly news has all of these ads for Lockheed Martin and Boeing on them. I can't buy a 757, but Boeing can keep that news network in line by threatening to drop their ads if they stray from the party line.
Here's Digby:
It's just another way that big money distorts our politics. Sanchez's statement makes it quite clear that the "power of the purse" is not about stopping anything. It's about funding all kinds of things that have been set up over many years to keep politicians like Sanchez in line. She really does have to answer to her constituents --- many of whom make their living off the military industrial complex dime. You can't blame her.
I don't even think public financing will stop this. You're talking about thousands of constituents' jobs. And California embodies this problem as much as any state in the union. It's something we really have to think about. How do we, after 60 years of massive military buildup, put this genie back in the bottle?
(This isn't limited to defense, by the way, John Dingell's attempt to upend CAFE standard legislation preferred by the Speaker comes from him protecting his constituents, just as resistance to gas taxes comes from legislators protecting theirs.)
Brent Wilkes loves the smell of rolling tanks in the morning... smells like cash:
When Poway defense contractor Brent Wilkes heard that the United States was going to go to war with Iraq, he was ecstatic, say several former colleagues.
"He and some of his top executives were really gung-ho about the war," said a former employee of his now-defunct firm ADCS Inc. "Brent said this would create new opportunities for the company. He was really excited about doing business in the Middle East."
He was especially excited about the prospect of damaged tanks and aircraft and a shortage of ordnance and dead soldiers and Iraqis... 'cause you, that'd all have to be REPLACED!
I watched a little of today's hearing on Iraq war profiteering and contracting. It's really nothing short of amazing. It's like watching the movie Iraq For Sale in Congressional hearing form. They're focusing on Blackwater Securities today, whose contract for Iraq couldn't even be found until today, and who were sending out truck drivers without proper equipment to save money, while pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars through overcharging the government. It's great to see these bastards nailed to the wall.
And the man who's putting this all together is my Congressman, Henry Waxman. He is nothing short of heroic for bringing the spotlight to this war profiteering in his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. And he's a dogged investigator and questioner. He painted the picture in yesterday's session with Paul Bremer of the Federal Reserve packing 363 tons of cash in palettes onto military aircraft to be sent to Iraq to simply be passed out. Today, Waxman repeatedly asked a spokeswoman from the Army how many security contractors they have hired, and she dodged and dodged and finally had to answer that she didn't know the precise number. And finally, there was his brilliant smackdown of GOP attack dog Rep. Patrick McHenry, who spent the entire session trying to blame profiteering on the Clinton Administration and calling it a show trial: he said "I suggest the Congressman return under his rock."
Waxman deserves a lot of credit for his pursuit of lawbreaking and official corruption. And his reputation in this district is gold sterling. He was right there on the front page of the New York Times the other day. And he's a great, longtime champion for liberal values. He took on the cigarette companies. He wrote the Clean Air Act. And on and on.
However, it's important to note that Waxman voted for the war, is not part of the Out of Iraq caucus, and while he has finally come out against the escalation, is "on the fence" about de-funding the war and bringing the troops home.
