Are earmarks the answer to congressional deadlock?  Apparently many lawmakers think so.  Last week’s Reuters story suggests that – at least on the House side – many Members are having heartburn over the moratorium on earmarks put in place at the beginning of the 112^th congressional session and set to expire nine months from now.  The reason: congressional gridlock.

It all came to a head last month while the House was considering a federal transportation bill, usually a broad bipartisan love fest because of all the pet projects tacked onto the bill for lawmakers to shower on their home districts.  But despite the fact that the Republicans hold the majority, the Republican leadership was faced with a transportation bill in shambles and the prospect the bill might fail.  In prior Congresses, this have would been the stage where party leadership and appropriations committee chairs started doling out goodies to recalcitrant members to induce an aye vote.  No longer. 

We won’t go so far as to argue earmarks would be the deus ex machina that ends all legislative paralysis, particularly during an election year.  But if history is any guide, earmarking is a powerful bargaining chip to create bipartisan consensus on federal funding that’s going to be dispersed one way or another.  So what should we make of murmurings that earmarks may be back next congressional session?  

CREW has long advocated that if earmarking is practiced, there must be real transparency and accountability in the process. Over the years, neither party's efforts at reforming the earmarking process has been completely successful.  Legislative efforts to address the systemic flaws in the practice have been either too feckless or too draconian.  The conflict over earmarks pits those members who feel strongly Congress must have the ability to control some spending for public work projects and social spending in their districts against those who view any such spending, “earmarks,” as inappropriate in any circumstance.  In the end, however, no matter how small a percentage of the budget, many Americans see earmarks as a symbol of self-serving politicians and believe their hard-earned tax dollars are being frittered away on wasteful projects, such as the Bridge to Nowhere.

But what made earmarks particularly odious in the past – the sheer lack of transparency, projects with seemingly no merit, the unseemly connection between campaign contributions and earmark recipients, etc. – need not and should not be a factor in any revival of the practice.  In the waning months of 2010, CREW convened a distinguished group of lobbyists and good governance groups to find common ground on a practical approach to the earmarking process.  The result was five principles of earmark reform:

1		To cut the cord between earmarks and campaign contributions, Congress should limit earmarks directed to campaign contributors. Limiting total contributions from the earmark beneficiary and its affiliates to no more than $5,000 would help restore public confidence.
2		To eliminate any connection between legislation and campaign contributions, legislative staff should be barred from participating in fundraising activities. The attendance of legislative staff at fundraisers suggests a connection between campaign donations and earmarks.  Further, it is awkward for staff members who might prefer to forgo such after-hours functions to decline to participate.
3		To increase transparency, Congress should create a new database of all congressional earmarks.  Information about lawmakers’ earmark requests is scattered across hundreds of web sites in a variety of formats with differing levels of details.  The funding levels for ear earmark award are listed in a chart at the end of each spending bill.  While the data is technically available, it is virtually impossible to collect, understand and analyze all of the earmark information.  Congress should create a unified, searchable, sortable and downloadable database on a public website.
4		To ensure taxpayer money has been spent appropriately, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) should randomly audit earmarks.  Because oversight is essential to maintaining integrity in the earmarking process, the GAO should develop and implement a system to audit and report to Congress regularly on programs and projects funded through earmarks.
5		To promote Congressional responsibility without stifling innovation, Members should certify earmark recipients are qualified to handle the project. Requiring certification would increase accountability for earmarks, insuring they are awarded responsibly and to entities with appropriate expertise and capability.

If a diverse coalition of government reform groups and lobbyists can come to agreement on how to reform the process, however, there is no reason Congress cannot do the same.  If lawmakers do indeed revive earmarking, adopting these common sense reforms would help restore Americans’ diminished confidence in Congress.  

If you’d like to see our 2010 panel discussion discussing these five principles for real earmark reform, see here.  See the principles in legislative format here, and Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK.) remarks regarding our principles here.