So, if you haven't heard, the Senate has voted in favor of the Department of Justice conducting an investigation of Alaska Congressman Don Young for mysteriously inserting a provision into a piece of legislation AFTER it had passed the House and Senate but before the President had signed it.

The provision would have widening an interchange at Coconut Road and Florida's I-75 -- an interchange that would have been helpful to a developer who'd held a fundraiser for Young shortly before the earmark was inserted.

The House has not voted on this yet, but probably will soon.

It is certainly an unfortunate and scare precedent to have a member of Congress insert changes to a bill after it has already been passed. It also seems a commentary on the level of `favoring' that goes on in Congress to benefit campaign contributors.

It's not like we couldn't find some other way to spend the money on infrastructure, like some new bridges, say.

Since we're on the subject today, here's an update about the report that Rep. Don Young had received illegal campaign contributions from a seafood company.

It seems that Rep. Young has changed his mind about the donations.  You may recall that earlier he had said that though his campaign would pay back $2400 of the contributions, it would keep $3175 that came in before 2004, and were therefore outside of the statute of limitations.

Well, they're not giving an explanation, but now his office says they're paying back that $3175.  Maybe, in the face of all the other ethics questions Young is facing, they just decided that this was one problem with an easy fix.

It must be a little strange for Alaskans these days.  Their great state, widely known for it's beautiful scenery, fishing industry, and oil, is in danger of becoming known for an altogether less appealing reason - corrupt politicians.

Consider the following:

• Sen. Ted Stevens (R) is under federal investigation for a couple different situations, including allegations of accepting bribes from an energy company.
  
• Rep. Don Young (R) has been drawn into the same investigation.  His long ties with uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff have also earned him unwanted attention.
  
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) recently came under fire for her purchase of a vacant lot from a campaign supporter for well below market value.

For those of you keeping score, these three comprise the entire Alaskan Congressional delegation.  Throw in a bunch of state legislators busted for corruption recently, and it all makes for a rather embarassing situation.

The DCCC has asked that Rep. Don Young (R-AK) vacate or be removed from his position on the House Natural Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees in light of recent revelations that he is a subject in a federal corruption investigation. Reps. John Doolittle (R-CA) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) relinquished their committee seats once their parts in criminal probes were made public, and Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), currently under indictment for corruption, was stripped of his committee assignments.

No response from Republican leadership, on whose laps the decision would fall, but there is this from Young's office:

It's true, says the Wall Street Journal: Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is under criminal investigation along with Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) in the long-running corruption probe going on in that state.

The Journal article is subscription only, so I'll reproduce what the Associated Press has to say about it:

It's been mostly talk up until now, but the Journal must be confident in its sources in order to publish this. The only conclusion is that the Alaska delegation is in serious trouble.  Bill Allen and another VECO executive, Rick Smith, are cooperating with investigators as part of their guilty pleas - clearly, they have something to say about Young and Stevens that is keeping investigators interested.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is back in the news.

From Roll Call (subscription req'd):

What does this mean, besides easily-written headlines?  Well, trade associations are by law prohibited from making campaign contributions to Members of Congress, so this is clearly a violation.  But Young's assertion that the statute of limitations is only three years may not be entirely correct - the FEC has often imposed five-year statutes of limitation.

This is assuredly low on the list of worries for Rep. Young, who spent $262,138 in legal fees in the second quarter - more than anyone else currently in Congress.  He is (so far) peripherally involved in a federal corruption probe in Alaska, and has extensive ties to Jack Abramoff.

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) takes the cake.  Actually, he'd be more likely to insert into the Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill a provision mandating that $20 million worth of cake is sent to citizens.  In Sweden.

And, he'd be proud of it.

A $320 million bridge to Nowhere, Alaska?  A $10 million earmark for a bridge in Florida?  And we're not supposed to question any of it?

Maybe Rep. Young should take a bridge to 2007, where his buddies Jack Abramoff and Mark Zachares are serving jail time on corruption charges.  Maybe then he'll understand that by saying he's "proud" to funnel millions to useless and unwanted projects at his donors' behest, he's only inviting trouble for himself and his party.

The New York Times has a great story about a particularly egregious example of the influence of money in politics.

Rep. Don Young (R-AL), best recalled perhaps for the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" $200 million earmark last year, is at it again. Again with the bridges. Young has steered $10 million to build a bridge in Florida. Now, one might ask, what would an Alaskan congressman want with building bridges in Florida?

The answer lies, very simply, in the fact that he has a campaign contributer who stands to gain a lot from this:

Several studies by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Highway Administration have all warned about the potential environmental impact of this undertaking. County planners had voted not to use the money, until they were threatened by Rep. Young that it would jeopardize future federal resources for the area.

Usually, as the article in the Times notes, this kind of thing is done more discreetly. Of course, $40,000 isn't easy to come by, and, with the cost of running for reelection, it's not a bad deal. Perhaps if Young put a sign on his door that read "Representative for Sale," he might get more business. Or perhaps, if we institute clean elections, he wouldn't need to.