Today, well after it cannot hurt his reelection campaign, the Washington Post details how Murtha helped an aide set up a non-profit to help the disabled and used this outfit to channel contributions to him and federal money to favored companies:
That arrangement over the years has yielded millions of dollars in federal support for the contractors, businesses and universities, and hundreds of thousands in consulting and lobbying fees to Murtha's favored lobbying shops, according to Federal Election Commission records and lobbying disclosure forms. In turn, many of PAID's directors have kept Murtha's campaigns flush with cash.
When the Democrats take control of Congress on Jan. 4, ethics and budget restructuring will be the first orders of business. Among the provisions in the Democrats' ethics package are demands for more transparency in the doling out of federal funds to home-district projects and a required pledge that no earmarks benefit a member of Congress personally. That could put an uncomfortable spotlight on lawmakers such as Murtha.
Yes, the paper indicates it highlights Murtha's problems in connection with a reform attempt to improve the ethical climate in Congress, but what are the ethical implications of the paper's sitting on this story so the voters of Pennsylvania were unaware of it until too late to effect the election?