1

WHAT CREW LEARNED ABOUT DOJS INVESTIGATION OF

PAUL MAGLIOCCHETTI AND THE PMA GROUP, INC.

In February 2011, CREW filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) based
on the agencys refusal to provide CREW with any documents in response to CREWs 2010
Freedom of Information Act request for information concerning convicted felon Paul
Magliocchetti.
1
Mr. Magliocchetti was the founder and president of PMA Group, Inc., a
lobbying firm with close ties to many members of Congress, including the late Rep. John Murtha
(D-PA).
2
Despite congressional and Justice Department investigations, questions remained
about the scope of PMAs illegal activities and the members caught up in its web of corruption.
In February 2010, the House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct released a 300-plus page report on its investigation of allegations of unlawful conduct
involving connections between Defense subcommittee earmarks and campaign contributions
from the PMA Group.
3
The Justice Department also had investigated Mr. Magliocchetti and the
PMA Group and in August 2010, charged Mr. Magliocchetti with making illegal campaign
contributions and false statements to a federal agency to conceal his illegal contributions.
4
On
September 24, 2010, Mr. Magliocchetti entered a plea agreement with the government in which
he agreed to plead guilty to making false statements, making illegal conduit campaign
contributions, and making illegal corporate campaign contributions.
5
On January 7, 2011, DOJ
issued a press release announcing Mr. Magliocchetti had been sentenced to 27 months in prison
for his offenses, and detailing his illegal activities.
6

Despite this plea and the widespread publicity surrounding Mr. Magliocchettis crimes,
including press releases issued by DOJ, the government initially refused to provide CREW with
any documents from its closed investigative files of Mr. Magliocchetti.
7
DOJ insisted no
document could be disclosed under the FOIA, as all were categorically exempt on privacy
grounds.
8
Once in litigation, the parties briefed the merits of DOJs exemption claim. On July
22, 2013, then-U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, in an oral ruling from the bench,
rejected the governments categorical exemption claim.
9
Judge Wilkins found:

1
http://www.citizensforethics.org/lawsuits/entry/crew-v-department-of-justice-magliocchetti.
2
David Kirkpatrick and Charlie Savage, Star Lobbyist Closes Shop Amid F.B.I. Inquiry, New York Times, March
29, 2009.
3
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 111
th
Congress, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to the
Lobbying Activities of Paul Magliochetti and Associates Group, Inc. (PMA), Report No. 111-423, February 26, 2010
available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-111hrpt423/pdf/CRPT-111hrpt423.pdf.
4
Dan Eggen and Maria Glod, Ex-lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti charged with campaign-finance fraud, Washington
Post, August 6, 2010.
5
Ex-Lobbyist Pleads Guilty to Illegal Campaign Donations, Associated Press, September 24, 2010; Press Release,
Department of Justice, United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lobbyist Sentenced to 27
Months in Prison for Role in Illegal Campaign Contribution Scheme, January 7, 2011.
6
Id.
7
http://www.citizensforethics.org/lawsuits/entry/crew-v-department-of-justice-magliocchetti.
8
Id.
9
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-files-complaint-against-doj-seeking-investigation-
records-magliocchi.
2

the public does have a substantial interest in examining the manner
which the Department of Justice handles investigations and
prosecutions involving allegations of official corruption,
particularly where a high profile and influential person with close
relationships to members of Congress reaches a plea agreement
with the Government.
10

As a result, DOJ was required to process CREWs request and release to CREW all non-exempt
documents.
11

Based on the judicially required re-review and processing of CREWs request, DOJ
released to CREW hundreds of pages of documents. This newly released material provides a
remarkable insight into PMAs illegal activities and raises more questions about whether
authorities could and should have done more.
Within the released documents, DOJ redacted dozens of pages and blacked out hundreds
of passages under various FOIA exemptions. The remaining documents, however, give a
number of clues into the investigation and how PMA operated.
For example, the released documents include spreadsheets PMA Group used to keep
track of its employees contributions to lawmakers.
12
A chart details the bonuses and
supplemental income given to PMA lobbyists, which in fact were payments intended to be
converted to campaign contributions to Democratic lawmakers. If these bonuses were not put
to those uses, the employees were told to expect adverse consequences.
13
Mr. Magliocchetti
added as much as $1 million to his companys payroll to finance this system of illegal conduit
contributions.
14
The documents make clear Mr. Magliocchetti considered the bonuses the cost
of doing business in Washington, D.C.
15
He also wined and dined representatives and staffers,
treating them to his personal wine locker at the high-priced D.C. restaurant Capital Grille as well
as tickets to Redskins, Nationals, and Capitals games.
16
Pay to play was implied.
17

Employees of PMA told the FBI Mr. Magliocchetti also encouraged clients to make campaign
contributions as well as $5,000 contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee (DCCC).
18

Another interesting aspect of the investigation is the bits and pieces revealed in the
heavily redacted records of FBI interviews. As CREW suspected, some members on the Hill
appear to be closer to the PMA Group than either the House ethics committee or DOJ concluded.

10
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. United States of America, Civil Case No. 11-374, Hearing
Transcript of Motion Before the Honorable Robert L. Wilkins, U.S. District Court Judge (D.D.C. 2013).
11
Id.
12
Magliocchetti Document 842 (references are to the Bates numbers on the documents produced by the FBI).
13
Magliocchetti Document 490.
14
Magliocchetti Document 851.
15
Magliocchetti Document 526.
16
Magliocchetti Document 414 and 443.
17
Magliocchetti Document 418.
18
Magliocchetti Document 402.
3

Taken as a whole, the documents offer an inside look at the shady, mysterious world of lobbying
on Capitol Hill.
For example, according to FBI interviews with PMA employees, some of whom were
protected under a cooperation agreement with authorities,
19
Rep. John Murthas office had
frequent, close contact with PMA. Rep. Murthas office also had a hierarchical chain of
command all lobbyists were required to follow.
20
The interviews with former PMA personnel
detail a system of contributions for earmarks.
While a number of these interviews were heavily redacted, they still offer clues into PMA
Groups lobbying and fundraising schemes. For example, notes from an interview of one PMA
employee included a partially redacted diagram of the earmark request process.
21
The crude
flow chart shows how requests went from clients through PMA employees to congressmen.
22
It
also was accompanied by questions members usually asked PMA lobbyists: 1) Are you in my
district? 2) How many jobs?
23

Also, judging from FBI interviews with PMA employees, it is possible other members
knew of and participated in PMAs processes. According to one redacted passage, another
congressman made a req.
24
Presumably, this member was making a request for contributions.
Other blacked-out parts of the document hint a member or staffer had close connections with
PMA, and one such relationship resembled the connection the group had with Rep. Murtha.
25

Another passage referred to a tit-for-tat system, while another said explicitly a pay-to-play
scenario, campaign contributions for earmarks existed.
26
One redacted passage featured the
quote I need x amount for an eventcan you attend at x amount[?].
27

Mr. Magliocchettis motive was apparent: he wanted to stand out to members as the guy
to go to for fundraising.
28
To make this happen, he would reward members who support PMA
clients.
29
One employee confirmed for potential clients PMA stood out as active with a
number of members in the defense arena and with members on the Defense Committee.
30

All was not happy within the ranks of PMA employees. Some PMA lobbyists
complained about the system of donating to candidates, and one lobbyist believed Mr.
Magliocchetti was too pushy about campaign contributions.
31
But all seemed to understand
that was the system in which they were operating. One employee said she felt campaigning for

19
Magliocchetti Document 756.
20
Magliocchetti Document 413.
21
Magliocchetti Document 406.
22
Id.
23
Id.
24
Magliocchetti Document 405
25
Magliocchetti Document 573.
26
Magliocchetti Document 444 and 476.
27
Magliocchetti Document 502.
28
Magliocchetti Document 504.
29
Id.
30
Magliocchetti Document 488.
31
Magliocchetti Document 447 and 497.
4

Rep. Murtha was part of her work as a lobbyist for PMA Group.
32
Another employee said about
PMA: they know what you have to do to be a successful lobbyist you have to raise money.
33

PMA lobbyists were acutely aware House members noticed those who helped them raise large
amounts of money.
34

Authorities also looked into Mr. Magliocchettis relationship with Rep. Peter Visclosky
(D-IN). Rep. Viscloskys office was communicating with Mr. Magliocchetti as far back as
1994.
35
Rep. Visclosky would later come under FBI scrutiny for sponsoring millions of dollars
in earmarks for PMA clients in the defense industry.
36
The House Ethics Committee dropped the
case against Rep. Visclosky in 2010, claiming there was no evidence of wrongdoing, despite a
series of suspicious emails between Rep. Viscloskys House and campaign staffers, the PMA
Group, and defense industry representatives.
37

According to the DOJ documents, however, either Rep. Visclosky or someone in his
office -- most likely his chief of staff Chuck Brimmer, who later resigned after receiving a
subpoena in connection with the investigation
38
-- frequently made deals with the PMA Group.
For instance, in 1997 a representative from Rep. Viscloskys office propositioned Paul
Magliocchetti, telling him earmarks were for sale.
39
He offered Mr. Magliocchetti earmarks
for the sale price of $10,000 to $15,000 in campaign contributions.
40
AEPTEC, a PMA client,
successfully raised a similar amount and in return received the earmarks the company
requested.
41
The unidentified individual also told Mr. Magliocchetti his clients could give
$5,000 to the Calumet PAC, if they could not raise enough money for the campaign.
42
Calumet
PAC happens to be Rep. Viscloskys political action committee.
43

In his own interview with the FBI, Mr. Magliocchetti claimed to be shocked at the idea of
paying campaign contributions for earmarks.
44
According to Mr. Magliocchetti, he often told his
PMA colleagues there were some members of Congress who were legitimately interested in
appropriating money or earmarks for much needed projects, but others were only interested in
campaign contributions.
45
Nevertheless, he continued with his strategy of raising money and
encouraging his workers to donate to key lawmakers.
46
When Rep. Visclosky won the chair of
the House Energy and Water Committee in 2004, Mr. Magliocchetti was told the price of

32
Magliocchetti Document 708.
33
Magliocchetti Document 399.
34
Magliocchetti Document 504.
35
Magliocchetti Document 624.
36
Sarah Fitzpatrick, Amid PMA Probe, Rep. Visclosky Relinquishes Chairmanship, The Washington Post, June 2,
2009.
37
Chuck Neubauer, E-mails lay bare firms pay-to-play links to lawmaker; The Washington Times, June 21, 2010.
38
Id.; AP report: Visclosky cleared by House panel investigation, Charleston Tribune, February 26, 2010.
39
Magliocchetti Document 625.
40
Id.
41
Magliocchetti Document 626.
42
Magliocchetti Document 628.
43
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2006&strID=C00386300.
44
Magliocchetti Document 625 and 626.
45
Magliocchetti Document 512.
46
Magliocchetti Document 629.
5

earmarks had now increased to $20,000.
47
While a number of his employees had trouble
meeting the $20,000, the earmarks continued to flow. Mr. Magliocchetti made the not surprising
observation that those who brought in more money received larger earmark amounts for their
projects.
48

The House Ethics Committee report disclosed emails between defense contracting
representatives seeking $20,000 in donations for Rep. Visclosky because he had helped the firm
acquire federal funds.
49
The documents the FBI turned over to CREW appear to support these
claims that someone in Rep. Viscloskys office was rewarding donors with earmarks for
contributions.
Additionally, the documents contain an interview regarding Mr. Magliocchetti dating
back to January 1990, suggesting the government had an eye on him since his days working as a
staffer on the House Defense Appropriations Committee, chaired by Rep. Murtha in the late
1980s.
50

The question remains: why did the FBI or House Ethics Committee not drop the hammer
on members like Rep. Visclosky, his staff, and others who appear to have been actively involved
in selling earmarks for campaign contributions? These newly disclosed documents provide some
insight into the activities of PMA and Mr. Magliocchetti and the members caught up in their
corrupt enterprise. Like many of the documents CREW receives from the FBI, however, this
batch was heavily redacted and raises as many questions as it answers. One thing is quite clear:
the FBI and the House Ethics Committee failed to vigorously pursue all available charges against
a much wider number of members of Congress involved with the PMA Groups illegal activities.

47
Id.
48
Id.
49
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 111
th
Congress, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to the
Lobbying Activities of Paul Magliochetti and Associates Group, Inc. (PMA), Report No. 111-423, February 26, 2010
available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-111hrpt423/pdf/CRPT-111hrpt423.pdf.
50
Magliochetti Document 688.