In His Defense: Baron Hill's Defenders Crawl Out of Their Holes

My recent post noting the interesting coincidence between a former lobbying client for Baron Hill's chief of staff on one hand, and a nice earmark going to that former client on the other, was recently reposted over at Frugal Hoosiers.

It sure got Mr. Hill's defenders to come crawling out of their holes, posting--no doubt--entirely from house.gov and Seymour IP addresses.

Their spin on the entire thing was uniform and their faux outrage on full display.

What, after all, could possibly be wrong with Baron Hill getting an earmark for an emergency room?

What indeed?

Setting aside my objections to earmarks in general, it is not the earmark itself that is so questionable in the actions of Congressman Hill and Ryan Guthrie--his chief of staff--but rather the circumstances that surround it.

It is those circumstances that Hill's defenders seek to obfuscate and avoid in their high-spin comments at Frugal Hoosiers.

I'm all for more money for emergency rooms.

In fact, I wonder why Baron picked just this hospital's emergency room.

Why this hospital's emergency room instead of that of another hospital?

Why not emergency rooms at several hospitals?

I am sure that many need the assistance.

It is, rather, the startling conflict of interest and the stark fiduciary violation of the matter that is of considerable public concern in this issue.

As I said, the circumstances that surround the earmark, rather than merely the earmark itself.

A lobbying firm that employed both Hill and Guthrie--the former as a "senior advisor" and the latter as a registered lobbyist--did lobbying on behalf of Schneck Memorial Hospital in Seymour.

Ryan Guthrie was the lobbyist listed as holding the Schneck portfolio, and the lobbying firm was paid $30,000 in 2006 for Guthrie's services.

Now, Hill and Guthrie are giving $375,000 of taxpayer dollars to someone with whom Guthrie (and less directly Hill by his position as a "senior advisor") had a lobbyist-client relationship.

If the earmark had been obtained in 2006 and the lobbying fee paid in 2007 (instead of vice versa), it would be just as ethically questionable.

It would, thanks to revolving door provisions in the House ethics rules, most likely be illegal.

As it stands, it is quite shady and a shocking conflict of interest.

So I ask the simple questions:

Why this hospital?

Why--of all of the hospitals in the 9th District needing better emergency rooms (and I am sure that many do)--did Schneck Memorial get an earmark and not one in Salem or Madison or Jasper or somewhere else?

Why the favoritism?

Was it because Baron's chief of staff did lobbying on its behalf?

If not, that's a heck of a coincidence.

This hospital paid Guthrie and Hill's firm to lobby for them, then Guthrie and Hill turned around and got them an earmark for big bucks a year later.

Why that hospital? Why that emergency room?

Why is it the same one that paid Guthrie's (and Hill's) then-firm for lobbying?

Enquiring minds want to know.

EDIT: Label update.