Earmark Reform 2.0
(No Ratings Yet)A little something for you open government folks…Josh
For Immediate Release
September 24, 2007
Contact:
Steve Ellis
Vice President
Taxpayers for Common Sense
steve@taxpayer.net
202-546-8500 ext 126
NEW ONLINE TOOL BRINGS TRANSPARENCY TO EARMARKS
On EarmarkWatch.org, Citizen Journalists Investigate Pork-barrel Spending
WASHINGTON, DC – EarmarkWatch.org, a new project from the Sunlight Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense, lets citizens determine if earmarks – the measures inserted by members of Congress into the various appropriations bills that direct funds to a specific project or recipient – address pressing needs, favor political contributors or are simply pure pork.
Building on Taxpayers for Common Sense’s (TCS) ground-breaking research and cataloging of earmarks, TCS and Sunlight Foundation today are launching EarmarkWatch.org, a user-friendly investigative tool and social networking site that enables citizens to add to the growing body of research into congressional spending.
“When Congress adopted new rules to provide more disclosure of earmark spending, Americans immediately volunteered to band together online to investigate whether their tax dollars pay for legitimate constituent needs or political favors,” said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation. “To meet this demand, we created EarmarkWatch.org to bring real citizen oversight to the very murky realm of congressional earmarks with a few clicks of the mouse.”
TCS created databases of the thousands of earmarks in the Fiscal Year 2008 spending bills; the Sunlight Foundation developed and designed the user interface. The Sunlight Foundation has been a leader in the development of citizen journalism tools, and has completed several successful citizen journalism projects, including “Congress as a Family Business.”
“Knowledge is power, and EarmarkWatch.org will arm the nation’s taxpayers with information about how lawmakers are spending federal dollars and empower citizens to challenge the murky world of special interest spending,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
For the first time, constituents can research, evaluate and comment on the pet projects favored and funded by their members of Congress. Users are guided through a series of steps that an investigative reporter would follow, associating different kinds of political information with each earmark, and then they can further explore the information that interests them (or consult a handy list of tips and suggestions for continuing their research.)
EarmarkWatch.org guides citizen journalists to online resources on campaign finance, lobbying and federal spending, including OpenSecrets.org and FedSpending.org. Users can also comment on and fact-check one another’s work, or send messages – including tips and suggestions – to others.
In an alpha test of the tool, Sunlight researchers used it to determine that 17 of the 27 recipients of Defense earmarks sponsored by Rep. James Moran had contributed to his campaign or leadership PAC in 2007 – some $99,900 in all. Those 17 firms were showered with earmarks worth $24 million.
EarmarkWatch.org provides a single, elegant online repository for research and information on earmarks generated by concerned citizens interested in what their representatives in Congress are doing. At its launch, the site includes nearly 3,800 earmarks from three bills: the House Defense Appropriations bill and both the House and Senate versions of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. Sunlight and TCS will continue to develop the site, allowing for different kinds of research and information to be added to it, including earmarks from other appropriations bills.
The Sunlight Foundation supports, develops and deploys new Internet technologies to make information about Congress and the federal government more accessible to the American people. Through its projects and grant-making, Sunlight serves as a catalyst to create greater political transparency and to foster more openness and accountability in government.
Taxpayers for Common Sense is an independent voice for American taxpayers and is dedicated to cutting wasteful government spending and subsidies in order to achieve a responsible and efficient government that operates within its means.
on September 24th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Josh - I was certain that you had perished!
While this is certainly an excellent distributive reporting tool, I wonder how people will continue to react to hard evidence of congressional graft. For instance everyone knows that Senators Stevens and Byrd are essentially looting the treasury, but that’s precisely why they get re-elected. Any thoughts on this?
on September 25th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Representative John Murtha has a response, sort of.
Many politicians and many individuals think that “bringing home the bacon” is an important, if not the most important job of an elected representative. There is, however, a difference between representing the interests of your district and serving as a cash cow for special interests. I believe that most people in this country do not see their representatives as and do not want them to simply be ATMs servicing the highest bidder (the ones with the best connections/make the most in campaign contributions/or even bribe). We want them to be representatives of our interests both local and national.
The seemingly obvious line between legitimately promoting the interests of your constituents and being an unethical pork-barrel spender, is bribery. Short of bribery (think Duke Cunningham; earmarking money to a defense contractor for cash via a grossly inflated selling price on his house, or Rep. Jefferson taking cash in exchange for promises to perform services) it gets a little gray, but still we can find lines for ethical and proper behavior.
Earmarking is a problem when it is done out of sight from the public and when it serves to subvert competence, and quality in the spending of our tax dollars. If a representative is indeed pursuing the interest of his or her district, he or she should have no problem with letting everyone in the world know about his/her actions, whom is benefiting from these actions and exactly how much of our tax dollars they are receiving.
The reality, however, is that earmarks are often used not to promote the common good (even when the “common” referred to is restricted to the district or state), but to promote particular individuals, corporations or programs at the expense of the common good. If a service, bridge, interchange or new joint strike fighter is important enough to merit funding, then come out and ask for it, on the floor in front of everyone. The current earmarking scheme takes away nearly all of the benefits of competition and innovation. Those who are willing to pay the most on lobbyists, squeeze out (sometimes illegally) campaign contributions or simply are lucky enough to have roomed in college with Representative A, receive their earmarks, sometime regardless of the quality of the services they will render or the overall return on investment for the spending of our tax dollars. Earmarking is in its essence anti free market.
I realize my tirade is not directly answering your question and is bordering on Graysonesque (sorry G-thing, could not help myself), so let me change focus.
Senators Stevens and Byrd, as well as Inouye, Bond, Kennedy and Representatives Young, Murtha, Obey and many others are surely gaining votes by securing money in their districts. I have not seen any studies on this, that is studies to determine how much federal appropriations influences re-election rates as opposed to name recognition from incumbency, quality of opponents, party strength, or the myriad of other factors that play in elections, but I too believe securing funding is effective, and at the very least many representatives think it is. A little historical tidbit-prior to 1995, most “pork” went to the powerful; leadership and members of appropriations committees. Part of Gingrich’s…brilliance?…was to use federal dollars to shore up weak incumbents or individuals in marginal/non-secure districts. But there are a couple of other points.
People want to be represented. An elected official who loses touch with his/her constituents will not long last in office. Determining “interests” is complicated, but simply selling your services to your friends and those who are willing to pay to be your friends eventually will catch up to you. It will catch up to you because you will lose sight of the actual interests of your constituents. Oh, wow, thanks for this awesome brand new six lane highway, I just wish I could drive on it, but I can’t afford gas because it is too expensive, I can’t use it to go to the doctor because I am unable to afford health insurance and, well, I’m too scared to spend my money b/c I think Social Security will collapse and my job is likely to be shipped to India.
Finally, we elect representatives to act as participants in a national legislature. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a representative must only pursue the parochial interests of his/her home state or district. I am a current DC resident and a Missourian by birth/culture, but I am also an American. Our elected representatives need to prioritize the spending of OUR tax dollars and better balance the competing interests in order to ensure they are tackling what actually matters and doing it in a rational, efficient manner.
Ultimately I have faith in the American people. And I am not the only one.
—As far as my perishing. Alas, I am born again!