Gay Patriot Header Image

Berry Faults Moran for Hypocrisy on Campaign Finance:
10-Term Democrat Steers Earmarks to Campaign Donors

The first candidate we endorsed in the 2010 election cycle, Matthew Berry, is on a tear against his Democratic opponent, Jim Moran, quite possibly one of the most corrupt men in Congress.

Old Dominion Watchdog, whose mission it is “to investigate and inform the public about waste, fraud, abuse, ethical questions and safety concerns involving the use of taxpayer dollars,” confirmed Matthew’s allegations against the 10-term Democrat.  “[M]ore than 20 percent of Moran’s $396,952 in donations last year” came from “political action committees and lobbyists of companies to whom he’s directed earmarks”:

In total, Moran has received $82,700 total from these committees and individuals, according to Federal Election Commission reports. MobilVox, Inc. tops the list of donors, contributing $8,300 to Moran and receiving a $2 million earmark.

Berry is also correct that Moran requested earmarks for donors totaling more than $50 million. The largest earmark requests were $3 million each, requested for EM Solutions, Inc., Argon ST and DDL Omni Engineering. All of the earmarks given to donors of Moran were defense appropriations.

Despite these takings, Moran had the gall to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The career politician claimed the decision would “allow corporations to drown out the voices of average Americans.”  And Berry was quick to call Moran’s rhetora smokescreen hiding his support of lobbyists and special interest:

Given that Jim Moran funds his campaigns in large part through donations from executives, political action committees and lobbyists of companies to which he directs earmarks, it takes true chutzpah for him to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the grounds that it will allow corporations to drown out the voices of average Americans.

In Jim Moran’s office, corporations drowned out the voices of average Americans long ago. If Jim Moran were truly concerned about the corrupting influence of corporate money, he would immediately announce that he will stop requesting earmarks on behalf of his campaign contributors.



  1. Please, i need to understand better, because i do not right now. if it is bad that moran has been taking this money to finance his campaigns, and the supreme court ruling apparently removes almost all restrictions on the amount of money that corporate entities spend on candidates campaigns, how will this decision limit things like directing earmarks to campaign contributors. now defence contractors can surely put more money into the system to ensure that elected officials are even more financially beholden to them? or are you saying that that is not a bad thing? Please, i honestly don’t understand.

    Comment by shodane — January 22, 2010 @ 5:59 am - January 22, 2010

  2. shodane,

    You are asking about two different things.

    1) Moran has earmarked money to certain entities who have made political contributions to him in return. Those political contributions belong to him, should he leave office.

    2.) The Supreme Court ruled that unions and corporations have the right to express themselves politically right up to election day. McCain/Feingold had made this illegal. The decision did not change the”rules” about how much can be contributed to a candidate’s political campaign fund.

    You seem to be saying that there is some connection between these two.

    If you believe in a voter being informed, then you must also accept the right of voices, corporate or otherwise, to campaign for or against a person or a concept. The Supreme Court says that unions and corporations can spend as much as they wish supporting or opposing a candidate or political concept.

    Jim Moran appears to be tapping the corporate gravy train by sending earmarks their way and accepting donations in return. Whether there is any provable quid pro quo is doubtful in terms of proving graft and corruption, but it sure smells bad.

    You may recall that Obama made a point of not accepting campaign contributions from all sorts of special interests. It turned out to be a totally false claim, but he did successfully imply he was above graft and corruption.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2010 @ 9:52 am - January 22, 2010

  3. So the ruling means that previous restrictions on non-PAC 527 groups have been lifted? or that corporations no longer have to operate through 527 groups? are corporations now allowed to openly co-ordinate political campaigns with candidates?

    Comment by shodane — January 22, 2010 @ 12:13 pm - January 22, 2010

  4. Why are you talking about campaign contributions to candidates?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 23, 2010 @ 5:55 pm - January 23, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.