TheAgitator.com
The Favor Factory
Monday, November 17th, 2008Last month, the Seattle Times assembled a handy database breaking down the earmarks attached to the 2008 defense appropriations bill. The paper looked at how many of the bill’s earmarks went to each congressional district and, in turn, how much money in campaign contributions the recipients of those earmarks have given to the congressmen who requested them.
For example, my congressman, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) larded the 2008 defense bill with $40.6 million in earmarks. Over the last five years, the recipients of those earmarks have given Moran more than $890,000 in campaign contributions. Moran was second only to Rep John Murtha (D-Pa.) in raking in contributions from recipients of his sponsored earmarks—Murtha reaped $1.6 million in contributions from the whopping $126 million he put in the bill.
Only about 10 percent of Congress requested no earmarks at all.
I wonder about this study. John McCain is shown to have requested $0 in earmarks (which was reported often and accurately) but then shows 11 “earmark recipients” who donated to McCain. How can that be?
He probably had a proxy request the earmarks he wanted, in exchange for, maybe, a cabinet position? Or a piece of the $700 billion?
@Brandon:
If so, he wasn’t very good at that either. His fellow AZ senator, Jon Kyle, got almost 12 times as much money from 4 times as many contributors. Kyl requested $12.8 million in earmarks. (Hmmm…maybe McCain got Kyl to do all the asking!!!)
But seriously, how can I trust this data? If it’s supposed to be matching money-getters with money-givers, but then lists money-givers who got nothing, how can I look an any individual’s statistics and believe them?
Well, FWIW, my congressman (Pitts, PA) is among the no-earmarkers. Still don’t like him, though. Intensely socially conservative.
Still, if one understands the Constitution, no monies may be spent on ANY local project. The limitations in Article I, Section 8 , paragraph 1, restrict ALL expenditures to the “debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the united States…” There are no provisions for debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the States, debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of localities, or debts, common Defence, and general Welfare the People.
If Constitutional expenditures were to apply to say localities, how many localities would be necessary for the expenditure to be for “debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the united States”? One, one hundred, a million, all?
Congress may spend on items that are Union-wide only because each expenditure must meet the constraints as enumerated in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1.
Dominus providebit!
@FWB
like anyone reads the Constitution anymore…
Ron Paul was not on the list of congressmen not getting earmarks. Bummer.
Government is truely a criminal organization. What a hell of a money laundering scheme involving illegally confiscated money from the tax payer. If I wasn’t so angry about this, I would be impressed.
I think this is pretty potent, even if it isn’t air-tight with it’s accuracy. not many newspapers are even attempting to report real news, the Seattle Times should be proud.
Logrolling, its whats for dinner
Jeff, McCain requested 0 earmarks. Some people who received earmarks gave to him, but it doesn’t mean he requested the earmarks that they received.
@Michael
Yes, that makes sense. But now I have another concern with this report. I’ve looked at a few individuals, and there are very few people who have gotten significant money from groups they earmarked money for. I’m not sure I’m too concerned about a congressman getting money from a concern that did not benefit from that congressman. No tit? No tat.
What is the deal with all this fuss over earmarks? The money has already been taken, but the earmarks just determine where it goes. It has to go somewhere, so how can you blame congressmen for trying to bring the money back home to the their local taxpayers?
The only way to stop it is to keep the money away from these guys to begin with. Earmarks are completely irrelevant…basically the same as claiming deductions on your taxes to get money back.
Because earmarks cause corruption. It’s not about the amount of money, which in terms of our overall budget is pocket change. It’s about the influence that the money buys as it heads back into the Congressman’s pocket.
“What is the deal with all this fuss over earmarks? ”
Because if people aren´t paying directly for a program or a public work they are more wiling to want it, even if not´s necessary.
That jackass Moran can’t even do earmarks right. I’ve spent most of the past 14 years in Arlington, and I can’t think of a major, federally funded public works project in my district during that time.