Washington » Sen. Bob Bennett received nearly $100,000 in campaign contributions last year linked to defense companies that sought his help obtaining congressionally directed earmarks.

While no other federal lawmaker from Utah could match that amount, all but one in the state's delegation obtained defense earmarks for campaign contributors. The only exception was Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who didn't request any earmarks at all.

A review by The Salt Lake Tribune showed that most of these contributions came from larger contractors operating in multiple states such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Many small Utah-only firms didn't donate, but still received help from Utah's congressmen.

"While it's hard to prove a quid pro quo, these companies are not contributing out of the goodness of their hearts -- it's to benefit their bottom line," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that opposes earmark spending.

He said bigger companies are more likely to donate because they have larger budgets, more lobbying experience and may not be seen as locally important.

"Larger companies know the ropes and try to play the game," he said.

But Bennett took issue with the notion that these contributions were in any way unscrupulous.

"They have a constitutional right to express their support for any member of Congress with whom they agree," he said.

Bennett is a member of the powerful appropriations committee, and he is facing a tough re-election fight this year, so it isn't surprising that he received the most earmarks and the most campaign contributions in The Tribune review, which focused on defense projects because they are the most likely to go to private companies.

The three-term Republican senator supported the requests of 48 companies and secured funding for half of them, equaling nearly $84 million. A dozen of the companies receiving an earmark donated to his campaign, while a dozen had not. The contributions came from the companies' officials, political action committees or hired lobbyists. Companies that asked for an earmark and donated to his campaign received federal support about two-thirds of the time.

Bennett described any contributions from those seeking earmarks as a sign of support for a recent vote or his overall record. He says it's appropriate for anyone to donate to a politician who supports his or her causes, just as it would be appropriate for a person to withhold a contribution to protest a vote he or she disliked.

But Ellis says a contribution coming from people seeking federal funding isn't good government.

"The potential corrupting influence of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions begetting millions in earmarked taxpayer cash is too strong when you are dealing with private, for-profit companies," he said.

On this issue, Ellis has the support of President Barack Obama and Utah's Chaffetz.

In particular, Chaffetz says earmarks shouldn't go to for-profit companies, such as the defense contractors in The Tribune review, unless they win a contract through an open bidding process.

"Government contracts should be put up for a bid, not handed out based on political favoritism," Chaffetz said. "If that company is the most worthy one for the project, then they will get it."

In August, the president said the act of companies securing earmarks is "the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we've already seen."

That includes the Duke Cunningham scandal, where a House member from San Diego accepted bribes in return for defense earmarks.

Obama and Chaffetz argue that reforming the process -- making it more public and less frequent -- is a necessary step to rebuilding the public's confidence in their government.

"I do think Congress needs to win back America's trust and they don't have that right now," Chaffetz said.

But Bennett takes a different lesson from the Cunningham bribery scandal.

He said the laws worked as they should. The congressman was caught, charged and convicted.

Since then Congress has required members to publicly disclose the earmarks they request and receive, including a brief explanation for why the project should receive the cash.

"I don't see any reason why we need to go any further," Bennett said.

Chaffetz, along with some of Bennett's GOP colleagues in the Senate, has a different opinion.

He has proposed a series of reforms starting with a ban on earmarks to private companies and ending with a proposal blocking members of the appropriations committee from obtaining earmarks.

"I want the person who is cutting the pie to not take a piece for themselves," Chaffetz said. "Maybe it is all on the up and up, but it certainly doesn't look like it. And too much of this favoritism goes to those who sit on the committee."

The freshman congressman recognizes his proposal is "radical" in Washington and unlikely to pass, but he said "it is the right thing to do."

Bennett, a member of the appropriations committee, doesn't like this idea. He thinks appropriators will still seek money for projects back home through favors with colleagues and behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

"That frankly would lead to less transparency rather than more," he said.

And as a supporter of the earmarking process, he said the change would harm some senators' ability to represent their voters.

"You just can't divorce the responsibility of a senator to represent his state from the system," he said.

mcanham@sltrib.com