Editoral: Earmarks don't have to go, but the process must be changed

Publication: Columbus Dispatch

Jonathan Riskind
June 8, 2008

Earmark doesn't have to be a dirty word, loaded with connotations of political pork, wasteful spending, cronyism and favoritism.

But whether the taint will be removed is up to Congress.

Today's Dispatch carries a lot about earmarks, from a national perspective by the Associated Press and from an Ohio-oriented perspective in stories by me and my Washington bureau colleague, Jack Torry.

So, just what is an earmark?

It's when a lawmaker -- sometimes several of them -- obtains federal funds that are directed by Congress to be spent on a specific purpose and/or is given to a specific entity, such as a community organization, hospital, university or private company.

That's different than Congress deciding in broad terms how much should be spent on, say, transportation programs and leaving it up to federal agencies to divvy up the money.

Sometimes earmarks go for purposes that have been requested by federal agencies and/or their counterparts at state and local governments. But earmarks also can supply money for things that have never been requested by anyone other than the individual organization, company or entity that asked the lawmaker for funding.

Earmarks have fueled a vast and expensive industry in Washington, as those who want earmarks hire lobbyists they think have the right connections with the right lawmakers to help get those earmarks.

Some say earmarks are on their way out, but I remain skeptical. With so much money tied up in the process, I don't see lawmakers, lobbyists or those with influence over lawmakers letting earmarks pass away.

Many lawmakers say they have as much right to direct money to specific entities and for specific purposes as any agency. Those lawmakers maintain they know their states and districts better than federal bureaucrats and have a responsibility to try to secure money for local organizations that can help, yes, with economic development but also further local, state and sometimes national interests and goals.

But all sorts of problems can accompany earmarks.

For instance, it doesn't look good when a private company that wins a $1 million-plus earmark has executives that give generous campaign contributions to the lawmaker who got them the earmark.

While many fiscal and ethics watchdogs would like to do away with earmarks altogether, simply making the process transparent could eliminate many concerns.

Democrats insist they have made big strides in this area after taking over the congressional majority. And yes, there is more information about which lawmaker won which earmark -- after the money is awarded.

But figuring out which companies, organizations or whatever are the recipients simply by looking at the final earmark lists in spending bills remains very difficult. Projects are named in broad terms that often give no clue as to the actual recipient. For that, you have to either hope the lawmaker puts out a press release or you have to dig up the letter naming the recipient that the lawmaker wrote when making the request, and those often are available only by going in person to the Capitol, unless they are posted online by a watchdog group such as Taxpayers for Common Sense or the Sunlight Foundation.

Lawmakers don't want to disclose what projects are requested of them and what projects they decide to seek from the appropriations committee because they don't want to anger the people whose projects they don't request.

Still, if earmarks are to be respectable, then the process must be completely open, regardless of whether that causes discomfort for lawmakers or their supporters. The process needs to be more transparent, more honest and more accessible to anyone who wants to know precisely how lawmakers are spending -- or even trying to spend --taxpayer dollars.

A transparent and easily accessible earmark system -- now that would be a reform worth bragging about.

Jonathan Riskind is chief of The Dispatch Washington bureau.