The latest issue of Mother Jones tells that Congressman Mike Turner “has declared himself to be a pork buster” and that he is sponsoring legislation to prohibit House and Senate members from using earmarks as a “backdoor” means to get funding for local projects. But, the magazine reports, “For Turner, pork has been a family affair. Since 2004, Turner has requested millions in earmarks for a local organization that later hired his wife, and a highway project that would benefit one of her business partners.” Excerpts from the article:

• Turner, hit a patch of trouble earlier this year when the Dayton Daily News disclosed that his wife, Lori Turner, who owns and operates a PR company, Turner Effect, had been awarded a lucrative no-bid contract by the Dayton Development Coalition, which lobbies Congress for funding for local projects. …After the story broke, Lori Turner dropped the contract. Her firm had already been paid nearly $400,000.
• According to tax records, the Dayton Development Coalition — many of whose members are also major Turner donors — shared an address, phone number and president with a partner organization called Development Projects, Inc. (DPI). What did not come out in the news stories was that Congressman Turner had requested $3.4 million in federal earmarks for local development that would be passed through DPI, of which about $700,000 was actually approved and disbursed.
• Turner has received more campaign contributions from developers than from any other industry. In 2002, Lori Turner and Tom Peebles, a prominent Dayton developer and longtime Turner donor, incorporated a real estate firm called Peebles Homes of Beavercreek. Congressional ethics rules state that “interest in a limited partnership established to purchase real estate” must be revealed as part of members’ financial disclosure, but Peebles Homes did not appear on any of Turner’s filings. Turner’s spokesman says it was not reported because the real estate firm was actually a subsidiary of Turner’s wife’s company, Turner Effect.
• In 2004, Turner won $6.75 million in earmarks for a massive new highway project south of Dayton. Foes of the project call it an assault on Dayton’s urban center, but it will be a boon for developers — including Tom Peebles
• This past February, three weeks after the Dayton Daily News disclosed Lori Turner’s contract with the Dayton Development Coalition, her partnership with Tom Peebles was dissolved. Lori Turner says the business ended “due to market conditions.”

From Mother Jones, “Honey, I Got The Earmark,” written by Ryan Grim

I got a nice e-mail from DDN reporter Jessica Wehrman in response to my e-mail about Congressman Mike Turner’s impeachment vote and about his use of the franking privilege to print and mail literature to voters in the 3rd District.

In my original e-mail, I questioned whether Turner used the franking privilege to target different geographic regions with different literature — a practice widely used in campaigns, but, it seems to me, a practice that could hardly be justified as a proper use of the franking privilege, especially during a reelection campaign. The franking privilege, using government money to send literature to constituents, I’m sure, has rules regulating its use. Targeting geographic regions with different literature — depending on the region’s economic or political status — is a campaign tactic. It would seem that this would be a good question — Did Congressman Turner violate franking rules? — for an investigative reporter to look into, and I’m hoping that Ms Wehrman might take up the challenge.

Wehrman replied in her e-mail that Turner’s opposition, Jane Mitakidas, in fact, made the same accusation, that Turner, “does send different pieces to different geographic regions of the district.” I’m wondering if Ms Wehrman will research an article about Turner’s use of the franking privilege and will print her findings in the DDN (?)

Jessica Wehman’s e-mail to me:

Hey, Mike,
I’m on vacation for a few days but will be returning later this week. I’ll be glad to e-mail you back in detail then, but let me say off the top of my head that I think I wrote something about the impeachment article, and I think Turner’s explanation for that vote was not because he wanted Bush impeached, but I think (if I remember correctly) he wanted to send it to Judiciary where they could effectively bury it in committee. I think that was what he said, but I’ll try to look it up when I get back.

I hadn’t heard of the propeller franking piece. I know his opponent said that he does send different pieces to different geographic regions of the district. The House disclosure doesn’t say exactly where he sends which particular piece, so without getting it from his office I don’t think I could tell you which areas get what.

Hope that helps….
Jessica Wehrman

My response to Jessica:
Jessica,
I can’t find any record of DDN printing a story about Turner’s impeachment vote. Maybe, at this point, since the story is getting old, there isn’t a story worth reporting. But the fact is, Kucinich, himself, made the motion to send the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee and all Democrats voted “Yes.” Turner was one of nine Republicans who voted “Yes,” and the action of these nine Republicans by Daily Kos and other blogs was described as “breaking ranks.” I saw one internet article that referred to these nine Republicans, who voted “Yes,” as RHINO’s (Republican in Name Only). I don’t think this is how Turner wants to be identified, and so, I wonder if Turner simply mis-voted? After all, the votes of the nine Republicans were not needed since all Democrats supported the vote. Regardless, it seems to me that Turner’s surprising vote to back the Kucinich resolution is of sufficient importance that Turner should have been called upon to explain his vote. I believe that there should have been an article about the matter in the DDN, and I can’t find a record of such an article.

The use of the franking privilege during an election year, I feel, should be more thoroughly reported. It should be reported how many pieces of literature were sent, at what cost, etc. Explaining the advantage the franking privilege gives incumbents is a topic your readers should be informed about; it is a topic well worth an article. The literature I received from Congressman Turner (I live in Kettering) starts, “Now is the time to reduce our dependence on foreign oil …”, and has the picture of Turner superimposed on a picture of a scene showing huge electricity producing windmills. The literature that I received from Turner sounds like a different piece of literature from what your article described. Sending different literature to different voters, of course, is an accepted campaign strategy — but since this literature was paid for by using the franking privilege, it seems to me, Turner should be called upon to explain his actions. I posted this article, “Dayton Daily News Should Do In-Depth Reporting About Congressman Mike Turner,” on DaytonOS

Mike