Congress to Revive Earmarks After Ten Years

Earmarks, although previously vilified, look set to make a come back on Capitol Hill (Wikimedia)

Congress plans to bring back the practice of appropriations earmarks, ten years after the practice was first banned following a series of high-profile spending scandals. Congressionally-directed spending, better known as earmarks, was a popular method for members of Congress to set aside money for specific projects in a spending bill. These earmarks often benefited their constituencies and helped lawmakers win support for reelection campaigns. Due to their reputation as wasteful and corrupt spending, earmarks were seen as politically toxic in the years after they were first banned, but are now making a comeback with significant congressional backing.

In the early 2000s, earmarks were widely viewed negatively, with one of the most famous examples being Alaska’s Bridge to Nowhere. The earmark, lobbied heavily by Alaska’s congressional delegation, consisted of a $398 million bridge that would have connected a city of 50 residents to a nearby airport. Republican presidential candidate John McCain used it as an example of federal waste, and former President Obama vowed to veto bills that contained such earmarks as a candidate. 

When Republicans won the House in 2010 on a platform of fiscal responsibility, they enacted a self-imposed moratorium on earmarks that was supported by Obama. Following a series of earmarks scandals, Congress effectively banned the practice. Despite complaints from Democrats and Republicans alike that the ban effectively cedes spending authority to the executive branch, then-Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who called earmarks “abusive,” stymied attempts to reinstate the practice.

With Democrats now in control of both the House and Senate, reviving earmarks has gained significant momentum. On February 26, House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) unveiled a new proposal that contains a series of reforms to increase transparency. Now dubbed “Community Project Funding,” earmarks would be capped to 1 percent of total spending (or roughly $13 billion) and lawmakers would be limited to 10 submissions, all of which would be publicly available online. In a departure from previous practice, private companies would be ineligible — only nonprofits and state or local governments could qualify. A federal watchdog would also audit earmarks to ensure no lawmakers have financial ties to earmarked projects. 

Despite earmarks’ reputation, the move to reform them is receiving broad support from within the Democratic caucus, and Republicans are likely to follow suit. A report from the bipartisan Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress endorsed bringing back earmarks with reforms, citing research from the Brookings Institution that banning earmarks only shifts the practice to the executive branch and that the majority of earmarks benefit local communities.

Although House Republicans have a rule against using earmarks, both Minority Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi have previously been strong supporters of earmarks because they allow congressional leadership to exercise more power by rewarding lawmakers for voting a certain way. Advocates for the move also point out that earmarks can help bridge the bitterly partisan atmosphere: lawmakers are more likely to pass large projects like infrastructure funding if their constituents can benefit directly, and earmarks can help moderates sell tough votes to their districts. 

When asked last week, McConnell declined to give a firm answer, saying that he hasn’t “given any real thought” to it. However, other Republicans have been more enthusiastic, with Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) saying that reformed earmarks would help a closely divided Congress by allowing lawmakers to feel more invested in their work.