Perhaps the worst vote in U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky's congressional career came on Wednesday.

Visclosky, D-Ind., voted with all but two Democrats to delay a possible ethics investigation into congressional earmarks and campaign donations tied to PMA Group, a powerful lobbying firm.

Visclosky, of all people, should be zealous about ethics investigations. Even if he has forgotten about the countless lapses in Northwest Indiana over the years, he couldn't forget about the troubles former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich faces.

And how can he forget about the controversy swirling around U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, one of the final ways Blagojevich thumbed his nose at the people of Illinois before being booted from the governor's office?

Surely Visclosky feels the same disgust about ethical violations as we folks back home.

Could it because this time the ethics investigation would examine Visclosky's own actions?

That's all the more reason for Visclosky to have agreed with U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who asked for a House Ethics Committee investigation into the relationship between earmark requests and campaign contributions. Visclosky ought to be eager to clear his name.

Visclosky might not be the king of earmarks, but he's easily a crown prince. Last year the Taxpayers for Common Sense group ranked him as the sixth-biggest earmarker in the House.

Not all of the federal money he secures goes to his district, but a good portion of it does. It's a common mentality here: No money locally? Just ask Pete to shake the federal money tree and see how many coins fall.

Visclosky stands by his funding decisions. When I spoke with him last week, he said he wouldn't make any changes in the way he obtains federal funding for specific projects. He evaluates the requests and rejects ones he doesn't believe are worth the federal government's money. Fair enough.

I smiled when Visclosky promised to return at least $16,000 in PMA Group donations in light of the news that the FBI raided PMA's Virginia-based offices in November.

That was an important, though somewhat delayed, announcement by the congressman. He needs to distance himself from any allegation of impropriety.

Responding to Flake's request for an investigation, Visclosky said Wednesday, "I certainly respect the congressman's concern, and people should hold all of us to a very high standard given the trust that is placed in us."

We do.

So voting for the ethics investigation would have made him look cleaner than voting against it. At minimum, Visclosky should have abstained.

That's why this vote was one of the worst decisions Visclosky has ever made.