Troha’s Habits

Daniel Bice has an excellent article detailing what appears to be another instance of Dennis Troha possibly using campaign donations to buy action from government.

Under a hush-hush deal with the company he used to own, JHT Holdings Inc., Troha is to be paid annual fees until 2010 because Congress passed a measure two years ago that specifically benefits the Wisconsin trucking conglomerate by easing a federal hauling regulation.

Bank records show JHT paid Troha’s consulting firm $107,238 one month after the measure became law. One wire transfer cites the legislation as the reason for the payment.

Leading the charge to push through the provision in 2005 were several congressmen, including U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who have been big-time beneficiaries of Troha’s campaign largess.

[...]

But Ryan and the other congressmen said last week that they had no idea that Troha had a direct monetary stake in the proposal.

“I’ve never heard of anything like that,” said Ryan, who has said he will return nearly $60,000 in donations from Troha’s family. “That’s extremely inappropriate.”

[...]

The donations, they suggested, were tied to legislation allowing 97-foot multitruck combinations on the highways. Previously, the maximum length was 75 feet.

This might sound like a technical change, but it has had a huge impact. Drivers moving trucks from manufacturers’ factories now can move four semitrailer truck cabs at once instead of three. The method - called a “saddlemount vehicle transporter combination” or, simply, a “four-way” - has the first truck fully on the ground, with each of the succeeding trucks piggybacked on the truck in front of it. Only the rear tires of the final three trucks touch the ground.

JHT will profit the most from the change because its subsidiaries have a near-monopoly on the business of hauling new heavy-duty trucks from the manufacturer. The new law means the company can move more trucks with fewer drivers, thereby cutting costs. The Federal Highway Administration recently passed rules spelling out how the new law is supposed to work.

[...]

Ryan was the most outspoken in his criticism of Troha’s side deal. The Janesville Republican signed two letters pushing the length law change, he said, because he was convinced it would help a major employer in his district while not jeopardizing safety.

In retrospect, he said, he wishes he had known what was going on behind the scenes. “It sort of frosts me,” he huffed.

First off, let’s seperate Troha’s giving of money to Ryan from the Doyle incident, because there are significant differences.

1) Ryan is not a direct decision maker over the issue. 
2) Ryan’s reason for supporting the legislation is very plausible.  If he truly believed that there was not a safety issue and that it would benefit a large local firm, he was acting correctly in supporting it. 
3) Ryan, unlike Doyle, does not have a history of questionable campaign schenanigans.
4) Ryan immediately and forcefully criticized Troha.
5) Ryan gave the money to charity after the Troha indictment. 

That being said, it does appear that Troha very clearly used large campaign donations to lubricate legislation.  Although this is a bit different than the casino project because he was one among many pushing for this legislation.  Also, in this case, it does not appear that Troha did anything illegal.  Unless one of the politicians involved put the legislation in in exchange for the campaign donation, there’s nothing illegal here.  It’s sleazy and unsettling, but not illegal.

And before you ask, no, this does not make me want to support campaign finance reform.  It makes me want to support more transparency and a lessening of the power of government, which attracts corruption.