So powerful was Representative John P. Murtha at one time that he used to put up billboards in his Western Pennsylvania district declaring that "the P is for Power." Few in Congress dared disagree: he doled out or withheld billions in federal money each year for lawmakers' pet projects, better known as earmarks. Now, however, a string of federal criminal investigations of contractors or lobbyists close to Mr. Murtha, the top Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, are threatening to undermine his backroom clout.
In the weeks since the news that prosecutors had raided the offices of the PMA Group -- a lobbying firm founded by a former Murtha associate that became a gateway to his office and his biggest source of campaign money -- about two dozen rank-and-file Democrats have risked his wrath by calling for a House ethics investigation of the matter. One Democrat has even foresworn seeking earmarks for the military contractors in his district because of ethical concerns about the process.
In a private meeting with the chairman of the House appropriations committee, Mr. Murtha, the unofficial leader of the "old bulls" who oversee the subcommittees, was forced to accept a series of new restrictions on his authority to grant earmarks, Democratic aides briefed on the meeting said. In previous weeks he had already acquiesced to another steep cut in the volume of earmarks he dispenses, down by half this year from a few years ago. He had also submitted to new disclosure requirements, including public hearings, that cramp his ability to cut last-minute deals.
Now Mr. Murtha also agreed to accept a new rule requiring competitive bidding on earmarked contracts. Furthermore, one of his usual lieutenants -- Representative Peter J. Visclosky, Democrat of Indiana and member of the defense subcommittee who is chairman of the energy and water panel -- unexpectedly switched sides to back the new restrictions, perhaps because he too is under new scrutiny for his ties to the PMA Group.
"Whatever the hell it is, we will work our way through it," Mr. Murtha groused after the meeting to the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call.
While past presidents often courted Mr. Murtha with phone calls and private meetings, President Obama has extended to him no such courtesies. On a visit to the White House, the lawmaker told senior defense officials that it would be "foolish" and "ridiculous" to cancel all of a $13 billion contract to buy new presidential helicopters, as he later recounted to a defense industry newsletter. But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has insisted on scrapping the deal as a symbol of waste.
And in a recent meeting with the secretary, Mr. Murtha pushed a plan to divide a $35 billion contract to build a new airborne refueling tanker between two rival contractors -- a compromise that pleases both but would cost the government much more. Mr. Gates listened with little response, several people briefed on their conversation said, but he later dismissed it.
"I've had conversations with Congressman Murtha," Mr. Gates said in a briefing at the Pentagon this month. "I still believe that it is not the best deal for the taxpayer, to go with a split buy."
Even among donors, mainly defense interests, Mr. Murtha's standing appears to be slumping. His first-quarter campaign contributions were down by half from the same period after his previous re-election -- to about $225,000, he reported this month.