When congressional earmarks flourished under the GOP majority, Dems set out to change how the system operated. The straightforward key to reform: transparency. If a lawmaker wants an earmark, he or she has to attach their name to the proposed project, disclose which entity will get the money, and declare that they have no financial stake in the expenditure.
The idea behind the open process was to shame lawmakers into responsible behavior — if everyone knows who wants what, there’s less chance of abuse. At least, that was the idea.
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.
This is not to say there’s been no progress. In 2005, the Republican-led spending process produced 16,000 earmarks, so there has been a 60% decrease from the GOP excesses.
But as it turns out, lawmakers like to brag about delivering for the constituents, and disclosure isn’t exactly a deterrent. As Yglesias put it, “After all, what member of congress wants it to be public knowledge that he’s in the bottom 20 quintile in terms of brining home the bacon?”
