WASHINGTON — A lobbyist, Paul Magliocchetti, was a big winner when Congress failed this year to limit lawmakers’ ability to slip new federal projects into spending bills.

Companies represented by Mr. Magliocchetti’s lobbying firm, the PMA Group, won at least 64 special projects requested by members of Congress in the fiscal 2006 defense-spending legislation. That’s more than twice as many “earmarks” as clients of any other Washington lobbying firm got.

“That’s an awful lot of earmarks for one firm to get, and I think symbolizes the way in which this process works today,” Fred Wertheimer said. Mr. Wertheimer is the president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan group that advocates for tougher ethics rules in Congress.

Earmarking, where lawmakers insert funds for special projects in broader legislation without public debate, has surged in the past 12 years. The success of Mr. Magliocchetti, who is a former Democratic aide on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, illustrates the rapid growth of a part of the lobbying industry that specializes in obtaining such projects for clients.

Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion in 2006 to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994, when Democrats last controlled Congress, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The Arlington, Va.-based PMA Group has seen its revenue triple to $15.4 million from about $5 million since 1999.

Earmarking has also been at the center of recent bribery scandals, including one that led to the imprisonment of former Rep. Randy Cunningham, a California Republican.

Mr. Magliocchetti’s group is among a handful of lobbying firms that emphasize defense earmarks. His firm has gained access to key lawmakers by using a staff of experts with military and congressional funding experience and by maintaining a steady flow of campaign donations.

Four of the six Democrats and two of the nine Republicans on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee count PMA Group among their leading campaign donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based nonprofit group that tracks campaign-spending issues.

They include Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Peter Visclosky of Indiana, both Democrats, and David Hobson of Ohio and Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, both Republicans.

PMA Group’s clients include defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co., as well as dozens of smaller companies. The customers who have paid the highest fees over the years include DRS Technologies Inc. of New Jersey, and EDO Corp. of New York.

Mr. Magliocchetti did not return calls seeking an interview. His office referred inquiries to the company’s outside attorney, Carmen Jacobs. “They don’t give interviews as a matter of policy,” Ms. Jacobs said. “Write whatever article you want.”

PMA Group’s clients seem well-represented in the 2007 defense legislation, though House Republican leaders have said they are trying to keep pork in this year’s defense bill to $5 billion, down from last year’s $9.43 billion. For the first six months of this year, PMA Group’s lobbying fees were $7.66 million from 122 clients, almost all of them seeking help winning defense contracts through legislation, according to PMA disclosures.

“You need to make personal sales,” a political analyst at the Washingtonbased Center for Public Integrity, Alex Knott, said on why companies feel they need to hire earmark lobbyists.

“Something like 31 out of 34 of their lobbyists” have worked for Congress or the military, he said of the PMA Group. “They hire people who work directly in the Defense Department because of the great understanding they bring as well as the personal connections they can utilize,” Mr. Knott said. Mr. Knott’s center issued a report on PMA Group and other lobbying firms in 2004.