What do House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich have in common? Both have been implicated in pay-to-play political pandering, but only one is facing jail time.

While Blagojevich is under indictment for allegedly trying to sell President Obama’s former Senate seat, Pelosi, along with 103 House members, reportedly secured earmarks for clients of the now-defunct PMA lobbying group. Coincidentally, 91 members received political contributions from PMA.

This is Washington power brokering at its worst.

Unfortunately, this “iron triangle” is all too common on Capitol Hill: a lobbying firm makes a donation to a member of Congress, and then that member secures an earmark in a piece of legislation for one of the firm’s clients. Though this might be routine, the PMA scandal is unique for its sheer size and the major players involved.

The Justice Department is now investigating the matter and has already issued subpoenas to Peter Visclosky (D-IN), who reportedly secured over $21 million in earmarks for PMA clients, in return for $219,000 in campaign donations since 2001 from PMA and its employees. Visclosky is hardly acting like an innocent party, having invoked his privilege under Article I of the Constitution, the Speech or Debate Clause. Visclosky claims that this clause gives him protection for acts performed in his official capacity as a representative.

Indications point to the leader of this imbroglio as House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chair John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha has had a long-standing relationship with PMA and carved out $38.1 million for the firm’s clients in a single defense spending bill last year. During the same period, FEC reports show $143,000 in PMA donations to his campaign coffers.

Murtha is no stranger to corruption charges. During the infamous ABSCAM pay-to-play corruption scheme in the 1970s, Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator. He is now one of the most influential members on Capitol Hill, boasting that his middle initial, “P,” stands for power (it actually stands for Patrick).

Jeff Flake (R-AZ), puzzled that a pay-to-play corruption scheme has not generated interest by the House Ethics Committee, has repeatedly petitioned the committee to investigate the matter. But, Pelosi and Murtha have lobbied Democrats to vote against the Flake measure. Pelosi’s grip on her caucus seems to be waning, however.

In February, when Flake introduced his first measure, he could convince only 17 Democrats to push for an ethics investigation. Last month, as more and more members came to grips with the sheer size and scope of the PMA scheme, Flake was able to convince 29 Democrats to vote for the measure. Only four Republicans (Howard Coble (NC), Walter Jones (NC), Tim Murphy (PA) and Don Young (AK)) voted with Murtha and Pelosi.

The question is why would Pelosi, who took the speaker’s gavel with the promise to restore integrity from a scandal-plagued Republican Congress, seek to kill an ethics investigation? Could it be because Pelosi is also a grateful recipient of PMA’s largesse? In any case, she is far removed from her 2006 statement: “We will restore civility, integrity, and fiscal responsibility to the House of Representatives. We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.” With indictments looming in Congress’ future and a $1.5 trillion federal deficit, it is time for Pelosi to admit that her promise to the American people in 2006 is now wholly bankrupt.

Pelosi, in a strange attempt to break “the link between lobbyists and legislation,” secured $2 million for PMA clients in 2008 and took $4,500 in PMA money since 2001. Her personal and political motives are the driving factors behind her willingness to kill the PMA ethics probe, and with 103 members in the same boat, Pelosi might have enough allies to steer her through this ethics storm.

According to aides on the Hill, Pelosi “won’t even consider” a move that would displace John Murtha from his perch atop the Defense subcommittee, even though Murtha appears to be the leader of the PMA scandal and has even written thank you notes to members. Also, according to aides, the idea of an ethics investigation is a “no-go zone.”

With the Justice Department issuing subpoenas and more Democrats defecting by the day, the question remains, what is Nancy hiding?