|
The
Congressional Earmark
by
Alan Shapiro
To
the Teacher:
Unknown
to many Americans, congressional "earmarks" have cost
us billions of dollars in unaccountable spending. The two student
readings below examine this practice in the House and the Senate
and the reasons for it. Students will learn that there is more
to how a bill becomes a law than what we typically learn in school,
and they will see the connections between earmark spending and
political campaign cash.
Students
might also be interested in "The K
Street Strategy" on this website. It deals with what
has become a major Washington D.C. industry-lobbying, the bedtime
partner of the earmark.
Student
Reading 1:
Earmark spending and campaign cash
"No
money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations
made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts
and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time
to time."
--U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8
Why would an Alaskan congressman, Dan Young, be interested in
a proposed highway interchange at Coconut Road near Ft. Myers,
Florida? He was interested enough to earmark $10 million, in an
unrelated congressional bill, to fund this interchange--which
Florida officials themselves didn't even want.
Congressman
Young's interest was probably stimulated by the $40,000 campaign
contribution he received from a Florida developer who owned 4,000
acres along Coconut Road. The developer essentially paid Young
$10 an acre in the hopes that the congressman would support a
highway interchange that would greatly increase the value of his
property.
Webster's
definition of earmark (as a verb) is "to designate [funds]
for a specific use or owner." In the House of Representatives
or Senate, an earmark (as a noun) is an add-on to a bill that
usually has nothing to do with that bill and appropriates money
for a specific project or recipient.
Or,
as television journalist Bill Moyers said, "Think of earmarks
as individual pipelines of public funds allowing members [of Congress]
to designate for whatever purpose they choose, without hearings
or oversight." (www.pbs.org,
7/27/07)
Congressional
earmarks, rarely used in the past, have become explosively popular.
In transportation appropriation bills, for example, there were
two earmarks in the 1950s, but in 2005 there were 13,997 earmarks
worth $27.3 billion. These earmarks authorized money for projects
as unrelated as $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Weedsport,
NY, and $3 million for dust control on rural Arkansas roads. In
2006, there were 9,963 earmarks worth $29 billion. (Public
Citizen News, September-October, 2007) By
the summer of 2007, Congress members had filed 32,684 earmarks
for House approval. (Sunlight Foundation of the Center for Media
and Democracy, www.sourcewatch.org)
Recent congressional earmarks included $2.6 million for a new
grape genetics research center at Cornell University; $738,000
to study cancer-fighting chemicals in raspberries; $100,000 for
a Kansas prison museum; and $50,000 for a National Mule and Packers
Museum in Bishop, California.
Senator
Tim Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, calls earmarks "the gateway
to federal spending addiction."
Legislators
frequently argue that they know what's best for their district
or state and that an earmark speeds the approval process of a
needed project. Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat,
argued, "I obtained an earmark to rebuild a bridge that not
only was rated as deficient but also was identified by the Department
of Homeland Security as a major evacuation route in case of a
terrorist attack on Chicago." ("Don't Get Rid of Earmarks,"
New York Times, 8/24/07)
But
it's clear that legislators have other powerful reasons for including
earmarks in their bills. Through an earmark, they can:
- get
additional votes for a larger bill to which an earmark is attached
(you help me by voting for this bill and I'll help you by including
this earmark for your district or state)
- hand
out tax dollars to family and staff members, campaign donors
and other special interest individuals and groups without being
held accountable
-
fund projects that special interest groups want and then reap
the reward in the form of votes and campaign cash from those
groups. A notable example: Representative John Murtha, a Democrat
from Pennsylvania, is head of the defense appropriations committee
in the House. The committee was responsible for 26 earmarks
in three years that were worth "scores of millions, with
$413,250 eventually flowing into the Murtha coffers," according
to Taxpayers for Common Sense. (New York Times editorial,
9/27/07)
Congressman
Randy Cunningham, a California Republican, is now in prison for
taking millions in cash and gifts for inserting earmarks desired
by a military contractor into bills.
Both
Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate have grown used
to the earmark. Many have grown to love it. But others were prominent
in a campaign against earmark excesses that led to some reform.
Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said,
"Earmarks aren't inherently evil. But they have grown to
such an extent that there hasn't been any oversight."
For
discussion
1.
What questions do students have about the reading? How might they
be answered?
2.
What does an "earmark" mean to members of the House
or Representatives or Senate? Why are they so popular?
3.
What are Congressman Emanuel's reasons for supporting earmarks?
4.
What are other reasons that lawmakers favor earmarks? What makes
them a suspicious practice?
Student
Reading 2:
Recent earmark reforms
Congress
has passed a new set of rules governing earmarks and lobbyists,
including the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
Now legislators must:
- Disclose
the name of the sponsor and intended recipients and purpose
of an earmark and post that information on the internet 48 hours
before Congress approves a new tax appropriation.
- Certify
that neither the lawmaker nor his or her family will benefit
financially from an earmark.
-
Refuse any gift from a lobbyist or from a group that employs
lobbyists, including privately financed travel.
-
Forfeit their pension if they are convicted of crimes committed
during their service and related to official duties.
In
addition:
- Any
senator may remove an earmark that has not been deliberated
or voted upon in committee or on the Senate floor.
- Candidates
for office, political party committees, and leadership political
action committees must report semi-annually to the Federal Election
Committee on contributions bundled by a lobbyist that exceed
$15,000 in a six-month period. (Current campaign finance laws
prohibit anyone from contributing more than $2300 to a candidate
during an election period. But to curry favor with candidates,
lobbyists collect such sums from a number of people--a practice
called "bundling"--and then contribute the entire
amount, perhaps tens of thousands of dollars or even $100,000
or more.)
Lobbyists
must:
- File
semi-annual reports of contributions made to a Congress member,
federal candidate, political action committee, or political
party.
-
Pay $200,000 if they fail to comply with lobbying laws and serve
up to five years in prison.
-
Refrain from giving any gifts to lawmakers and their staffs.
In
addition, former senators and senior executive personnel must
wait for two years before becoming lobbyists. (This rule is intended
to curb what has become a "revolving door," as members
of congress retire to lobby their former colleagues.)
Critics
of earmarks, conflicts of interest and excesses of lobbyists supported
these reforms but argued that others are necessary because, they
say, the new rules:
- Do
not sufficiently slow the rush of senators and representatives
into lobbying careers after they leave office.
-
Do not state clearly how the new rules will be enforced.
For discussion
1.
What questions do students have about the reading? How might
they be answered?
2.
What are the connections among an earmark, a lawmaker and
a lobbyist?
3.
What do the new rules suggest about past congressional practices?
How do the new earmark rules aim to prevent the possibility for
corruption?
4.
Why do you suppose that so many members of congress become
lobbyists? If you don't know, how might you find out?
5.
Why is the lack of clarity about enforcement an issue for
critics of the new rules?
For
inquiry and citizenship
Have
individual students and/or small groups investigate the way their
own senators or representative handle earmarks. This might involve:
- Calling
or sending emails and/or letters to the legislator(s) with questions
regarding earmarks
- Determining
if earmarks are linked to campaign contributions or any other
questionable practices
- Reporting
to the class about their findings
- Preparing
a final report about student findings and conclusions to share
with lawmakers
Useful
sources:
This
lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside
Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome
your comments. Please email author Alan Shapiro at ashapiro7@comcast.net.
Back
to top
|
