As you know, it’s in response to the PMA meltdown/outrage (see here for some background posts):

Rep. Flake targets earmarks amidst PMA controversy
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), the House’s most vocal critic of pork barrel spending, is trying to shake the ethics committee into action on the link between earmarks and campaign contributors.

Flake has seized on the public corruption investigation of PMA Group, a once-powerful lobbying force that has disintegrated in the wake of an FBI probe into fraudulent campaign donations to numerous members of Congress.

In the past 24 hours, Flake has highlighted earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill for PMA clients, written a scathing op-ed to The New York Times about Congress’s pay-to-play practices and offered a privileged resolution on the House floor that would force the House ethics panel to scrutinize the connection between earmarks and campaign cash and report back to the full body in two months.

See also here. The vote on this should be very interesting; it need hardly be said that we will be watching very closely to see who’s going to be voting against a simple little request to investigate whether there’s a connection between special interests giving our legislators money and said legislators’ later appropriations history. After all, we can all agree that such things are not appropriate, right?

I said, “right,” Rep. Peter J. Visclosky?
Rep. John P. Murtha?
Rep. James P. Moran?
Rep. Norm Dicks?
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr?
Rep. Mike Doyle?
Rep. Loretta Sanchez?
Rep. Tim Holden?
Rep. Tim Ryan?
Rep. Michael E. Capuano?

Believe me, I can keep going.

Moe Lane

PS: Cute kid, huh?  Even cuter now.

Crossposted at Moe Lane.