Policy

POLICY

Earmark Reform

John Stennis, one of the lions of the old Senate, spent less than $5,000 on his first re-election campaign. But in 1982, facing a well-funded Republican opponent, Stennis’s political consultant told him he needed to raise $2 million, and recommended that the senator solicit contributions from the big defense contractors whose weapons systems Stennis had supported. Stennis, then eighty-one, was taken aback. “Would that be proper?” he asked.
(James K. W. Atherton, The Washington Post)^[1]

What was shocking to Sen. Stennis is commonplace today. The current earmarking process is deeply flawed. Among other things, it encourages pay-to-play malfeasance, which siphons off scarce taxpayer dollars to reward contributors and lobbyists. While some percentage of earmarks go to worthy projects with laudable goals, more often than not the process by which earmarks are allocated involves preferential treatment for campaign donors and meddles with agency priorities.

Furthermore, earmarks often circumvent the competitive bidding process used by agencies to ensure contracts are awarded to those offering the highest quality at the lowest price. In a 2007 report, the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation stated that the majority of earmark projects were considered by the agency to be “low priority,” yet they were funded over higher priority, non-earmarked projects. Worse, of those earmarked projects surveyed, 99 percent were not subject to the agency’s review and selection process.

The earmark problem is vividly illustrated in a recently published report by CREW on Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). CREW researchers found eight former Shelby staffers at lobbying firms procured nearly $267 million in federal earmarks for their clients since Fiscal Year 2008. In return, those former staffers’ lobbying firms and clients have donated almost $1 million to Sen. Shelby’s campaign committee and leadership PAC since 1999. Meanwhile, the lobbying firms employing those former staffers have collected over $10 million in lobbying fees from their clients since 2007.

The earmark addiction is not limited to one party. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, the 2010 fiscal budget contained 9,499 earmarks amounting to $16 billion. Given that 2010 was an election year, the odds that the 2011 fiscal budget will surpass this number are quite high.

Unfortunately, as CREW uncovered in our previous Pork Parade project, this is bipartisan business as usual in Washington. Too many members of Congress use the federal treasury as a personal checking account to support their friends, families and campaign donors.

• Clean Law for Earmark Accountability Reform Act: H.R. 2038
• Earmark Transparency and Accountability Reform Act – H.R. 3268
• Earmark Transparency Act – S. 3335 / H.R. 5258

These examples illustrate why Congress must enact new reforms with teeth and enforcement mechanisms. As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to reform the earmarking process. Now the president should pressure key lawmakers to pass comprehensive reform.

Numerous bills to reform the earmarking process have been introduced in both chambers, and while none in its current form offers a complete fix to the problem, they offer a good starting point for deliberation. Any real reform must provide for accountability and transparency in the process.

By passing comprehensive earmark reform, Congress would be doing the right thing for taxpayers and the overall integrity of the system. Approval ratings for Congress are dismal for good reason. Steps are currently being taken in Congress to address this problem and CREW will be updating this page regularly to reflect any progress on earmark reform, or lack thereof.

^[1] As reported in So Much Damn Money, by Robert G. Kaiser, p. 150-151.