A fighter-pilot-turned-congressman-turned-felon, Cunningham took the gold in brazenness and gluttony. He extorted a Rolls-Royce from a defense contractor and parked it in the congressional garage. He had the contractor buy his California house for a hugely inflated price and then demanded extra money to cover capital gains taxes and moving expenses. He offered volume discounts for frequent bribers, helpfully writing out the fee schedule on his congressional letterhead. In all, he raked in an astonishing $2.4 million in graft.

But if Cunningham is unparalleled, he is also symptomatic. The corruption scheme he was at the center of exposes systemic flaws that will persist well after he is behind bars: the seductive availability of millions in earmarked funds, the corrosive combination of money and politics, the easy slide into an egomaniacal sense of entitlement for lawmakers surrounded by staff and sycophants. The system didn't cause Cunningham's corruption, but it undoubtedly facilitated it.

Last week's guilty plea by Cunningham's co-conspirator, defense contractor Mitchell Wade, illuminates the way easy access to earmarks can corrupt even without bribes - or, to be a bit more blunt, with the legal bribes known as campaign contributions. The plea agreement describes how Wade wanted his company, MZM Inc., to open a facility in the district of Virginia Republican Virgil Goode (Representative A, in the language of the plea). MZM employees contributed $46,000 to Goode's campaign from 2003 to 2005, making the company his single largest source of campaign cash. Unbeknownst to Goode, but also unsurprisingly, Wade illegally reimbursed his employees and their spouses for their contributions.

And then - surprise - Wade asked for federal funding for the facility he wanted to build in the district. As described in the matter-of-fact language of the plea agreement, In June 2005, Representative A's staff confirmed to Wade that an appropriations bill would include $9 million for the facility and a related program. Wade thanked Representative A and his staff for their assistance. You bet he thanked them: a $9 million contract for a mere $46,000 in contributions - in comparison with Cunningham's prices, a real bargain.

Tit for tat

The link between campaign contributions and legislative favors wasn't exactly understated. The plea agreement describes Wade's dinner with Representative B - Katherine Harris, R-Fla. - at which they discussed the possibility of

MZM's hosting a fund-raiser for Representative B later in the year, and the possibility of obtaining funding and approval for a Navy counterintelligence program in Representative B's district and locating an MZM office in that district. Subtle, huh? Wade didn't get his funding, but that doesn't make the seamy intersection between campaign cash and legislative favor-seeking much less distasteful.

Prosecutors said Harris, like Goode, wasn't aware that the $32,000 she received from MZM employees and spouses was secretly underwritten by Wade - though he turned up with the checks in hand to deliver them to her personally. Did she and Goode think that all these MZM employees from outside their districts had spontaneously come to the realization that they were the best two members of Congress? When someone who has never given campaign donations suddenly decides - along with a spouse - to write out checks for the maximum donation, something fishy is up. When you need the cash, though, there's not much incentive to sniff too hard to discern precisely how odoriferous it is.

Large egos

If the system discourages politicians from questioning the sources of their campaign cash, it also encourages them to behave like potentates, cosseted by fawning staff. An analysis by UCLA psychiatrist Saul Faerstein, submitted to the court by Cunningham's lawyers, concludes that the fighter pilot's sense of grandiosity and mantle of invulnerability, while adaptive and life-preserving in Vietnam, were maladaptive in the Washington culture. With all due respect to the doctor, if he thinks an outsized sense of ego is unique to Cunningham among members of Congress, he probably hasn't met too many.

Indeed, the sentencing memo - prosecutors are asking for 10 years - illustrates how Cunningham's staff enabled his corruption. When Cunningham bought a Chevy Suburban from Wade for well below the market price, his staff altered the title registration application to increase the sales price - though Cunningham never paid the higher amount. A top aide delivered a cash-stuffed envelope from Wade to Cunningham. When the aide finally confronted Cunningham about these shady dealings and asked him to resign, or at least not seek re-election, the congressman pondered the matter and decided to stay on.

And here's a tale of what passes for principle in Washington: The staffer didn't turn him in - he quit. He's now a lobbyist, specializing in - you guessed it - defense and appropriations.

Ruth Marcus is a member of The Washington Post's editorial page staff.

© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers

And in Washington, scores of less flashy, but still lucrative, fundraisers will be held in the coming weeks for Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike. Lobbyists, along with clients and friends, will constitute many of those in attendance.

The expensive events are perfectly legal. But they have raised questions about whether Congress is missing the point as it responds to the scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful influence peddler who this year pleaded guilty to defrauding clients and conspiring to bribe lawmakers.

As has become clear in recent days, legislation with the best chance of passing does not tackle campaign finance issues, but would require members of Congress and lobbyists to more fully detail their contacts with each other.

Some lawmakers and many watchdog groups say a failure to address what they see as the source of lobbyists' greatest influence - political contributions - would be a glaring oversight.

"If we're truly serious about getting to the core of the problem, we need to look not only at lobbying reform but at campaign finance reform," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said.

But Dodd agreed with other members of a key Senate committee last week that trying to limit the fundraising clout of lobbyists as part of efforts to overhaul congressional ethics rules would virtually ensure that neither takes place.

Figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that studies political fundraising, illustrate the growing importance of lobbyists in producing donations.

The group found that lobbyists' contributions to 2004 congressional candidates totaled $22 million - nearly five times as much as a decade earlier. And that figure does not include the substantial amounts that lobbyists persuaded others to give.

Many lawmakers and their aides say they see nothing wrong with relying heavily on lobbyists for fundraising help, so long as contributions are disclosed.

"From the beginning of the Republic, lawmakers have interacted with people who lobby," said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), a member of the House GOP leadership. "Either you abide by the law [regulating such relationships] or you don't."

Watchdog groups, however, contend that under existing rules, it is hard to gauge the extent to which lobbyists prod clients and friends to make donations.

Alex Knott, head of the Lobby Watch project for the Center for Public Integrity, said lobbyists had "huge cadres of people that they do business with on a daily basis who want political favors. They can tap these donors" for contributions.

Lobbyists' effectiveness in spurring others to give is shown by how often lawmakers name them to fundraising positions. Knott's group estimates that since 1998, at least 79 members of Congress have hired lobbyists to head or act as treasurer of their campaign committees or political action committees.

With an eye on these trends, Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21, said a two-pronged approach to reform was needed.

He has recommended significant cuts in contributions lobbyists can make to House and Senate candidates or the political action committees set up by members of Congress. His plan would limit their donations to a candidate to $200 per election, down from the current $2,100 cap. The maximum contribution per year to political action committees would be $500, down from $5,000.

Wertheimer's proposal also would bar lobbyists from soliciting or delivering contributions and from leading candidates' political committees.

Although there seems to be little backing in Congress for such moves, some lawmakers are voluntarily changing their fundraising practices in response to the Abramoff scandal.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) canceled fundraisers for his political action committee that were scheduled at resorts in Hawaii and Orlando, Fla.

His campaign spokesman, John McGovern, said Hastert hoped other lawmakers would follow his lead.

"The speaker believes that he should lead by example," McGovern said, adding that Hastert had encouraged lawmakers in both parties to "avoid participating in events that although perfectly legal, may create an appearance that … can be misconstrued by the public."

Hastert has by no means abandoned fundraising, a key aspect of his job. In late February, he headlined a fundraising breakfast at Westwood's posh Regency Room for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

A business lobbyist who declined to be named because he did not want to offend lawmakers he dealt with said his invitations to fundraisers at expensive resorts had declined. But he said he was still inundated with invitations to more modest affairs; his calendar included 14 such events one day last week.

H. Stewart Van Scoyoc, head of a Washington lobbying firm, said bookings of a special room in his offices for fundraising events had dropped.

The room, with a view of the Capitol's dome, is being used about two times a week this year, down from three to five times a week at this point last year.

"People are being more cautious," Van Scoyoc said.

Still, at least 175 fundraisers are scheduled this month for members of Congress. And some lawmakers continue to devise events that go far beyond the usual banquets.

Those who made large contributions to the political action committee established by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) received invitations to a recreation-oriented weekend in early February at the Big Sky Resort.

Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, hosted a seven-hour train ride from Fort Worth to San Antonio in return for $5,000 donations to his political action committee.

Planned fundraising events for other lawmakers revolve around baseball's spring training camps, a pheasant hunt, a paintball tournament and a circus.

Lawmakers generally use their political action committees to provide financial help to others in their party. That's one reason McKeon, the new chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, made no apologies for this weekend's "Key Largo Get-Away" that benefits his committee.

The GOP "is going to need money" to hold its House majority, he said.

Invitees to Burns' winter festival gave large contributions to his reelection campaign or his political action committee.

Polls show he is facing a tough reelection fight this fall, in part because of his links to Abramoff. He recently returned donations he had accepted from Indian tribes Abramoff had represented.

But Burns said he had no qualms that the get-together for his backers this weekend would cause him political damage.

He said he had hosted similar events in the past. "It's old stuff."

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times

"The big network operators are saying, 'We built the network; we own the network; everybody's basically got to go along with what we're saying.' What I'm saying is, 'No, the consumers built the network; the subscribers built the network. They paid for the network. That is what this is all about,'" Wyden told reporters in a conference call.

The Federal Communications Commission would be given power to police violations and hand out "cease and desist" orders, according to the bill, titled the Internet Non-Discrimination Act. Wyden said that he didn't oppose companies offering different speeds of service at different prices, a practice already undertaken by several major Internet providers, provided that content is treated equally within each level of service.

No broadband provider has proposed to block certain Web sites. But they have said Yahoo, for instance, could pay a fee to have its search site load faster than Google. Other possibilities include restricting file-swapping applications that hog bandwidth, or delivering their own video content faster than a similar service provided by rivals.

BellSouth pledged in a statement on Thursday not to block or degrade "legitimate" Net traffic, but said it would not support Wyden's bill. "Without a managed network, the only way customers will be able to be sure they can enjoy high-bandwidth services is by upgrading to higher-speed connections whether they need them for everyday applications on not," said Herschel Abbott, the company's vice president of governmental affairs. "That choice should be the customer's choice, not the government's choice."

AT&T also said it will not block or degrade content. It said in a statement: "At this stage, we're exploring different product models, but feel strongly that this is an issue that has to be solved in the marketplace."

With a few exceptions that were quickly remedied by the Federal Communications Commission, no telecommunications provider appears to be blocking Internet traffic and demanding payment to lift the block. The FCC also has adopted a nonbinding policy statement saying that Americans are "entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."

The U.S. Telecom Association, which counts both large and small telecommunications providers as members, said Thursday that the bill was unnecessary because "the FCC clearly has the authority and has already demonstrated the will to protect consumer choice and address cases of blocking, impairment or degradation."

Telecommunications providers generally argue that they have the right to be compensated for money spent in building the networks and to create a "fast lane" for those willing to pay up. Intrusive federal legislation, they say, would reduce the incentive to invest in speedier networks in the future.

On the other side are Internet content and application providers, which say Net neutrality requirements are essential to preserve the Net's traditional openness.

Dozens of technology companies and advocacy groups sent a letter Thursday to the House of Representatives' Commerce Committee, urging that "Congress take steps now to preserve this fundamental underpinning of the Internet and to assure the Internet remains a platform open to innovation and progress."

The list of groups includes Adobe Systems, Amazon.com, the American Association of Libraries, EarthLink, eBay, Google, Match.com, Microsoft, Skype, TiVo and Yahoo.

Other proposals in Congress address network neutrality--including a draft bill before the House Commerce Committee--but technology companies say those don't go far enough. One proposal, from Texas Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican who chairs the panel overseeing telecommunications law, says providers "may not block, or unreasonably impair or interfere with, the offering of, access to or the use of any lawful content, application or service provided over the Internet."

The CIA released an official statement on the matter to ABC News, saying: "It is standard practice for CIA's Office of Inspector General -- an aggressive, independent watchdog -- to look into assertions that mention agency officers. That should in no way be seen as lending credibility to any allegation.

"Mr. Foggo has overseen many contracts in his decades of public service. He reaffirms that they were properly awarded and administered."

The CIA said Foggo, the No. 3 official at the CIA, would have no further comment. He will remain in his post at the CIA during the investigation, according to officials.

Two former CIA officials told ABC News that Foggo oversaw contracts involving at least one of the companies accused of paying bribes to Congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham. The story was first reported by Newsweek magazine.

Friendship With Defense Contractor

The California Republican has pleaded guilty after admitting he accepted $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for arranging defense contracts. He was sentenced today to eight years and four months in prison for corruption. Federal law enforcement officials said Cunningham is cooperating and the investigation is continuing.

As executive director of the CIA, Foggo oversees the administration of the giant spy agency. He was appointed to the post by CIA Director Porter Goss after working as a midlevel procurement supervisor, according to former CIA officials.

While based in Frankfurt, Germany, he oversaw and approved contracts for CIA operations in Iraq.

Foggo is a longtime friend of Brent Wilkes, listed as unindicted co-conspirator No. 1 in government documents filed in the Cunningham investigation. The two played high school football and were in each other's weddings.

According to government documents, Wilkes gave Cunningham $630,000 in cash and gifts in exchange for help in getting government contracts.

Wilkes was the founder of ADSC Inc, in 1995. Under Wilkes, the company obtained more than $95 million in government contracts.

Officials say they could not describe the CIA contracts in question because some of them were classified secret.

'Bribe Menu'

Cunningham is involved in what prosecutors call a corruption case with no parallel in the long history of the U.S. Congress. He actually priced the illegal services he provided.

Prices came in the form of a "bribe menu" that detailed how much it would cost contractors to essentially order multimillion-dollar government contracts, according to documents submitted by federal prosecutors for today's sentencing hearing.

"The length, breadth and depth of Cunningham's crimes," the sentencing memorandum states, "are unprecedented for a sitting member of Congress."

Prosecutors will ask federal Judge Larry Burns to impose the statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

The sentencing memorandum includes the California Republican's "bribery menu" on one of his congressional note cards, "starkly framed" under the seal of the United States Congress.

The card shows an escalating scale for bribes, starting at $140,000 and a luxury yacht for a $16 million Defense Department contract. Each additional $1 million in contract value required a $50,000 bribe.

The rate dropped to $25,000 per additional million once the contract went above $20 million.

At one point Cunningham was living on a yacht named after him, "The Dukester," docked near Capitol Hill, courtesy of a defense company president.

ABC News' Vic Walter contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

On the sixth day after she was identified as a recipient of illegal campaign contributions, the Republican congresswoman from Longboat Key stayed behind closed doors. She issued a statement in which she denied knowing that contributions made to her by defense contractor Mitchell Wade had been illegal.

She also had her employees release a partial series of documents, requested by the Tribune, that relate to her attempts at obtaining federal tax dollars for dozens of special interests since 2004.

Among the documents: An April 26 letter to defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman C.W. Bill Young, the Largo Republican, in which Harris seeks $10 million for a Navy project backed by Wade.

In the letter, Harris emphasizes the importance of the project, asking that it be added to her list of five priorities and identifying it as her new No. 3 choice.

She denied any connection between her help for Wade's company, MZM Inc., and the illegal contributions.

Wade told prosecutors he personally handed over the contributions to Harris in 2004. A year later, he gave her his proposal for the project.

At the time, MZM-related contributions to Harris' 2004 campaign amounted to more than any other source.

"I never requested funding for this project in exchange for contributions, but rather to bring more high-skill, high-wage jobs to the region," Harris said in her statement.

As she huddled with Ginsberg, Young and other advisers, executives of Florida's state university system and their Washington lobbyist stopped by her office to make their seasonal pitch to Florida's delegates for money in spending bills.

Usually, the politically connected university system visitors - including state Chancellor Mark B. Rosenberg - are treated with deference and escorted into a back office.

This time, they didn't even get to meet with their contact, a deputy chief of staff who wasn't in the office. Instead, Harris' legislative director, Scott Weaver, sat down with them in a small waiting room.

Weaver apologized for the absences, blaming "abnormal circumstances."

As the education officials prepared to list their wishes for funding, Weaver interrupted.

"Look, we may not even request anything this year," Weaver told them. "The climate here is such I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen. We may just not do it at all."

Wade pleaded guilty Feb. 24 to bribing a California congressman, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and funneling illegal contributions by reimbursing employees who wrote checks to Harris and a Virginia congressman, Virgil Goode.

Cunningham, Harris and Goode helped Wade and MZM in their attempts to secure federal tax dollars by slipping appropriations into massive spending bills.

Like Harris, Goode has touted the benefits to his district, where MZM, he said, would bring jobs and spur economic development.

Harris, a candidate for U.S. Senate, said in her statement Thursday that she had not been contacted by officials regarding the MZM investigation. Nor have her employees been contacted or been sent "target letters," Borie said.

Harris' office did not release all her earmark request forms Thursday, as Harris pledged she would do in an interview with the Tribune five weeks ago. Harris released her supporting letter for the MZM project, but neither she nor Rep. Young would turn over the standard request form for the proposal.

Still, in her statement Thursday, Harris reiterated her earlier contention that such records should be disclosed.

"I am supportive of bringing transparency to the appropriations process," she said, adding that she would support reform to make full disclosure a congressional standard.

Young, who received 3,570 earmark requests from members of Congress last year, feels differently.

"This isn't just about her," Young spokesman Harry Glen said. "This has been the policy of the committee for years. It's internal correspondence from one member to another."

"It's my interpretation that the Byrd Amendment is pretty clear, that if you look at the legislative history, they certainly didn't follow the law that I thought they should have," Shelby, R-Ala., said in an interview after a congressional hearing on the Dubai Ports World deal. He referred to the 1992 law that requires extra national security review of some foreign investments.

Shelby and others are planning legislation to tighten the government's review of major foreign investments in the United States by giving Congress more notice of the transactions before they are complete.

Criticism of the Bush administration's approval of an Arab state-owned company's purchase of a London port-management firm has been severe from Republicans and Democrats alike.

The critics argue the decision put economic considerations ahead of security.

The U.S. government's formal review lasted about 30 days, and the deal was approved once the relevant agencies determined there was no risk to national security. A second, more detailed 45-day investigation was skipped.

Following the uproar, Dubai Ports World announced it would volunteer for the 45-day review.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., sponsored the law in 1992 and said at the time that it was meant to trigger a longer investigation whenever companies controlled by foreign governments were involved. Treasury officials say they've always believed it was unnecessary if the security concerns are satisfied in the first 30-day review.

"If you familiarize yourself with the legislative history and you believe the statute is unclear, would it be fair to say that you're putting the letter of the law over the spirit of the law?" Shelby asked a top treasury official during the hearing.

"We shouldn't let a legal interpretation separate us," said Robert Kimmitt, deputy treasury secretary.

Shelby shot back, "But that's what you're doing."

Kimmitt said that 46 times during President Clinton's administration, foreign state-owned companies applied for the U.S. government's approval to invest in the United States and only one deal was extended to the 45-day investigation. During the Bush administration, there have also been 46 such applications and four of them got the extra scrutiny.

With its purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. in London, Dubai Ports World would take over terminal operations at six American ports.

U.S. officials argue the work is limited to using piers and cranes to load and unload cargo from ships at ports that are owned by state or city governments. They also said that between 70 percent and 80 percent of American ports have some foreign-owned company operating on them.

`La-la land':

But Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., whose district includes one of the affected ports, said anyone who suggests that terminal operations are unrelated to security is "living in la-la land."

Many members of the banking committee called for national intelligence officials to have more involvement in the foreign investment review process. And Shelby dismissed suggestions that an increased role for Congress would improperly inject politics into decisions that affect national security and international relations.

"We're a co-equal body. We have to be involved. I believe if we had been involved earlier on this ... they might not be where they are today," Shelby said.

On Thursday, Britain's High Court agreed to the $6.8 billion sale of the London-based P&O Co. to Dubai Ports World, The Associated Press reported. But Justice Nicholas Warren agreed to delay his ruling until today to permit Miami-based Eller & Co. Inc. to appeal his decision. Eller is a business partner with the British company and has complained that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government.

A second Dubai-owned company confirmed Thursday that the Bush administration has launched an additional investigation over the potential security risks of its business moves in the United States, The AP reported.

Dubai International Capital LLC said it was confident the United States would approve its plans to buy a British precision-engineering company with plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make parts used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.

Senators complained that a deal involving tank engine parts drew the extra investigation while the port deal did not.

E-mail: morndorff@bhamnews.com