On October 11, 2006, Citizens Blogging did a post on earmarks linking to a Wall Street Journal article that provided one of the best explanations of the issue we'd seen. In light of the revelation that Rep. Obey intends to publicize earmarks in advance, we thought it might be a good time for a refresher on the controversy behind the earmarks process:

Today's Wall Street Journal article about Charles Taylor also provides a succinct description of the earmarks process. There has been an enormous amount of attention paid to earmarks because of the scandals involving Members of Congress, like the currently imprisoned Duke Cunningham. The passage below explains both how the process works and the opportunities for abuse:

But the growth of earmarks and the secrecy that shrouds the practice inevitably raises questions of self-dealing. Earmarking has been at the center of the influence-peddling and corruption probes that have shaken public confidence in Congress this year. The practice also played a central role in the case against former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The California Republican was imprisoned after pleading guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense firms in exchange for earmarks and other favors.

The growth of earmarking points to a shift in the way Congress works. Most federal spending originates in requests by departments and agencies. The Transportation Department might seek funds to build a highway interchange, for example, or the Pentagon might ask for new tanks. The spending proposals are then put into legislation which must win approval by Congress.

Earmarks are different because lawmakers can directly insert them into spending bills, often without public scrutiny. Many lobbyists and corporations have discovered in recent years that one of the fastest ways to get the spending they desire is to approach an individual lawmaker of either party on the House or Senate appropriation panel about an earmark. That has fed the growth in earmarks to an estimated $47.4 billion last year from $19.5 billion a decade earlier, according to the Congressional Research Service.

When you see terms like "secrecy that shrouds the practice" and "without public scrutiny" associated with members of Congress, it can't be good. Understanding how this game is played is critical to exposing it.