The NYT reports on what Steve Benen has labeled one of the "unintended consequences" of Democratic reforms in the earmarking process:
Eight months after Democrats vowed to shine light on the dark art of "earmarking" money for pet projects, many lawmakers say the new visibility has only intensified the competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving.
So far this year, House lawmakers have put together spending bills that include almost 6,500 earmarks for almost $11 billion in local projects, only half of which the Bush administration supported. [...]Far from causing embarrassment, the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout. Indeed, lawmakers have often competed to have their names attached to individual earmarks and rushed to put out press releases claiming credit for the money they bring home.
The only way anyone can claim this is an "unintended consequence" is if they honestly believed that transparency would be an end to all earmarking. The thing is, I don't know anyone who actually believed that.
Instead, as I've always understood it, the point of transparency is to end two types of earmarking. First, there was the issue of bribery. In the case of Duke Cunningham, for example, bribes were exchanged for earmarks, with the corrupt bargain hinging on the fact that it was almost impossible to figure out who had earmarked what to whom. With greater transparency, the hope is that this sort of thing could have been avoided. Second, there was the widespread belief by proponents of reform that some earmarks were so narrowly targeted - and therefore, absurd - that public scrutiny would bring embarrassment to those doing the earmarking. The goal, in short, was to eliminate bad earmarks rather than all earmarks.
Benen reports that the new law has brought a 60% decrease in the total number of special projects. If we're realistic about this, it seems to me that's quite an accomplishment.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
