During the third and final presidential debate of the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama said, “Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget.” Earmark reform alone would not result in a significant decrease in federal spending, he noted. The President may be right, but using this statistic to refrain from seriously addressing the issue of pork barrel spending is simply dishonest.
Pork barrel spending is nothing more than institutionalized corruption and the fact that the practice still exists is a serious blight on our democratic system. Earmarks funnel money into Members’ districts, helping them win reelection bids by ostensibly proving to their constituents that they are doing their job. Critics call this buying votes. Digging into the actual process, however, reveals conduct by our government officials far more insidious than showering federal money on voters.
The most troubling aspect of earmarks is that they allow Members to use taxpayer money to fund their reelection campaigns and maintain a dominant fundraising advantage over challengers. Donation records can give the appearance that a Member’s sponsorship of an earmark may be connected to donations from earmark recipients and their associates. This is, of course, a matter for law enforcement, but we can examine the evidence.
President Obama is a prime example. As a Senator, Obama funneled $300 million dollars to Illinois, many going to projects closely associated with his political allies. Still, there is plenty of blame to place on Democrats and Republicans alike—who can forget Congressman Don Young, R-Alaska, and the infamous Bridge to Nowhere?
Recently, Roll Call highlighted the lobbying organization connected to Congressman Jack Murtha, D-Pa.—the PMA Group—and its efforts to sue its former clients for unpaid debts. They noted that a company called Badenoch LLC was countersuing PMA, claiming that the PMA had cheated it out of a $3 million earmark.
Badenoch LLC is a small defense contractor, which is developing an alternative to the military humvee, which it believes will be safer and more roadworthy. A little digging into public records reveals an interesting financial relationship between the president of Badenoch LLC and the Congressman who sponsored his company’s previous earmark requests.
Former Congressman Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., who lost reelection in 2008, had previously sponsored earmarks for Badenoch LLC totaling $2.8 million according to LegiStorm, a website that tracks earmarks.
Knollenberg received a good return on these earmarks. The company president, Scott Badenoch, gave $4,600 to Knollenberg since 2007, with his family members chipping in another $6,100 according to Open Secrets, a government watchdog website. Badenoch’s son listed his occupation as a student, but still managed to donate $1,400, while Badenoch’s wife, listed as a homemaker, has donated $4,600. Both Badenoch and his wife donated the maximum amount of money allowed by law to Knollenberg in 2007 and 2008.
Would Knollenberg have received these lucrative donations if he hadn’t sponsored Badenoch’s earmark?
There’s no way to know for sure, but the evidence indicates that as Badenoch LLC started lobbying, Knollenberg started receiving large donations from the company’s president and family. According to publicly available records, despite Knollenberg having served in Congress since 1993, no one in the Badenoch family had previously donated to him. It stretches credulity to imagine that these donations, given immediately before and after Badenoch LLC received $2.8 million in federal spending, are not connected to the earmark request.
I contacted Badenoch LLC to ask them about this financial relationship and their PMA Group countersuit. After five days of phone calls, I was referred to their attorney. It does not appear we will hear their side of the story.
It is remarkable there is not more public outrage. Congressmen, without fear of consequences, take your tax money and distribute it in ways that they know will benefit their campaigns. Such a practice is remarkably unhealthy for our electoral system and is equivalent to taking kickbacks, something that, last time I checked, is illegal. This practice might be common, but it is still corrupt, and I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic when I say it undermines democracy.
Although I support the elimination of earmarks, I realize this probably isn’t going to happen. A more realistic goal is to push for a law that makes it illegal for any recipient, family member of a recipient, or employee of a recipient of an earmark to donate money to the earmark sponsor. I am aware that this idea comes with loopholes. But the first step is criminalizing this type of behavior, which currently has no inhibitions.
Of course, the only people who have the power to make these changes are also the very people who have the least incentive to take action.
I’m not holding my breath.
Loading ...
June 30th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Yes – why isn’t there more outrage?
This corrupt behavior is so rampant in the American political arena, it’s truly disgusting and very discouraging.
As this article points out, the only ones currently in a postion to do anything about it are the slimy Congressional beneficiaries of our tax dollars.
It would take alot of grass roots tea parties and such to get the message out loud enough to effect change.
[Reply to this Comment]