A second lawmaker this year sent the House Appropriations Committee a letter asking for — and securing — an earmark for a lobbying firm rather than its client. And like a colleague who made the same mistake, he subsequently corrected the request.

New transparency rules adopted by the House at the beginning of the year have forced members to identify the earmarks they sponsor and the recipients of those earmarks, giving the public a clearer window into how earmarked dollars are apportioned.

Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, in a March 15 letter requested what became a $2 million earmark in the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill (HR 3222) for the development of a monoclonal anthrax antibody. His request to the committee mistakenly named Ervin Technical Associates, a boutique lobbying firm located on Capitol Hill, as the intended recipient of the earmark. But it is PharmAthene, an ETA client that pays the firm $200,000 a year, that wants the money to develop an anthrax antibody.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., also sought the earmark for development of an antibody, but he named PharmAthene as the recipient in his request letter to the Appropriations panel.

Latham’s office realized the error — and sent a corrected letter — after Congressional Quarterly reported Aug. 6 on a $3.5 million defense spending bill earmark that Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., requested in a letter to the committee naming the lobbying shop Cassidy & Associates as the recipient. The firm is known for its ability to win earmarks in appropriations bills.

The new earmark rules do not bar lobbying firms from receiving set-asides, and indeed the Appropriations Committee fulfilled the requests to earmark money for Ervin Technical Associates and Cassidy & Associates even though neither produces the goods and services lawmakers sought to acquire for the Pentagon.

The earmarks initially designated for lobbying firms by Inglis and Latham both went to companies tied to campaign donors.

Inglis later sent a letter clarifying that the money he requested for cold-weather clothing would go to a company owned by South Carolina textile magnate Roger Milliken, who is an Inglis donor, not Cassidy & Associates.

ETA’s president, Jim Ervin, has previously donated to Latham’s campaigns, as has John Pappajohn, an Iowa venture capitalist who sits on the board of directors of PharmAthene, which is based in Annapolis, Md. Ervin wrote a $500 check to Latham’s campaign committee at a long-scheduled March 6 fundraiser that was recorded by the campaign committee on March 14. Pappajohn donated $2,300 that was recorded March 20.

Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said it is difficult to ignore the coincidence of political donations and earmarks.

“The contributions are an expensive thank you that reminds a lawmaker that you appreciate their help,” said Ashdown, who first brought the earmark to CQ’s attention. “While it isn’t a massive amount of money, it shows that a little political grease can go a long way in making sure your earmarks become law.”

But Latham spokesman James Carstensen said there is no connection — at all.

“Trying to draw a correlation between the two is nothing more than speculation void of facts,” he said.

Carstensen said Latham’s earmark for PharmAthene is a reflection of the congressman’s continuing engagement in the issues he dealt with as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security in the 108th and 109th Congresses.

“Bioterror has always been a subject of interest for the congressman,” Carstensen said. “He felt that this project stood on its own merits.”

Latham’s second letter on Aug. 10 to Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., and top committee Republican Jerry Lewis of California asked that the panel’s records be updated to reflect his substitute request.

“The letter previously submitted for this project was found to include an incorrect name and address for the funding recipient,” Latham wrote.