Earmark (politics)

"Earmark" comes from the livestock term, where the ears of domestic animals were cut in specific ways so that farmers could distinguish their stock from others grazing on public land. In particular, the term comes from earmarked hogs where, by analogy, pork-barreled legislation would be doled out among members of the local political machine.{{cite web |url=https://money.cnn.com/2009/03/11/news/economy/earmark_primer/index.htm?postversion=2009031111 |title=Earmarks: Myth and reality |last=Sahadi |first=Jeanne |date=March 11, 2009 |website=money.cnn.com |publisher=CNN |access-date=April 20, 2018 |quote=The term earmark originated in ancient England when farmers tagged – or marked the ears – of their livestock mixed among the village herd.}}

In 2006 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) compiled a report on the use of earmarks in thirteen Appropriation Acts from 1994 through 2005 in which they noted that there was "not a single definition of the term earmark accepted by all practitioners and observers of the appropriations process, nor [was] there a standard earmark practice across all appropriation bills."{{rp|2}} It was noted at that time, that while the CRS did not summarize earmarks that they came in two varieties: hard earmarks, or "hardmarks", found in legislation, and soft earmarks, or "softmarks", found in the text of congressional committee reports. Hard earmarks are legally binding, whereas soft earmarks are not but are customarily acted upon as if they were.{{citation |title=Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41554.pdf |author1=Robert S. Kirk |author2=William J. Mallett |author3=David Randall Peterman |date=January 4, 2017 |access-date=January 7, 2017 |work=Congressional Research Service}}{{citation |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/m012606.pdf |title=Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005 |date=January 26, 2006 |access-date=January 4, 2017 |work=Congressional Research Service (CRS) |pages=49}} The CRS did not aggregate the "varying definitions" as the result would be invalid.{{rp|3}}{{rp|4}}

By 2006, the definition most widely used, developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress was,{{citation |date=March 6, 2006|publisher= Congressional Research Service |title=Comparison of Selected Senate Earmark Reform Proposals |number=RL33295 |author=Sandy Streeter }}Government and Finance Division

{{quote|"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."|Sandy Streeter, Government and Finance Division, March 6, 2006 CRS}}

According to the federal Office of Management and Budget the term earmark referred to,{{citation |work=Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President of the United States |date=2010 |access-date=January 4, 2017 |url=http://earmarks.omb.gov/ |title=Earmarks Database |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100310213556/http://earmarks.omb.gov/ |archive-date=March 10, 2010 |url-status=dead }} last updated 2011

{{quote|"funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process. Earmarks are funds provided by Congress for projects or programs that curtail the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process."|Office of Management and Budget. Last updated 2011}}

As recently as January 2023, clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 118th Congress states that the term "congressional earmark" means,{{citation |title=Rules of the House of Representatives |date=January 10, 2023 |url=https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules118.house.gov/files/documents/Rules%20and%20Resources/118-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf |work=Clerk of the House of Representatives |pages=37 |editor=Cheryl L. Johnson |access-date=January 25, 2023}}{{rp|36}}

{{quote|"a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process."|Clerk of the House of Representatives January 10, 2023}} The House Rules impose disclosure requirements for earmarks, while a standing rule of the Republican Conference has, since the 114th Congress, imposed an "earmark moratorium".{{citation |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22866.pdf |title=Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements |author=Megan S. Lynch |date=May 21, 2015 |access-date=January 4, 2017 |pages=7 |work=Congressional Research Service (CRS)}}Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process{{rp|1}}

Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in their home state or district.

The two most powerful Congressional committees, the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Appropriations, pass bills that regulate expenditures of the United States federal government.{{citation |url=http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1160453,00.html |title=The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close |author=Timothy J. Burger |magazine=Time |location=Washington, DC |date=February 16, 2006 |access-date=January 7, 2017}}{{cite web|last1=Tollestrup|first1=Jessica|title=The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction|url=https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BP%3C%3B3%0A|website=Senate.gov|access-date=23 November 2014}} Chairs and Members of these committees are seen as influential. The Senate Appropriations Committee is the largest committee in the U.S. Senate, with 30 members in the 114th Congress and is, therefore one of the most powerful committees in the Senate.{{cite web | title=Overview of the Committee's role | work=U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations | url=http://appropriations.senate.gov/jurisdiction/jurisdiction.htm | access-date=October 14, 2005 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20051013065730/http://appropriations.senate.gov/jurisdiction/jurisdiction.htm |archive-date = October 13, 2005}}{{cite web | title=Creation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations | work=U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations | url=http://appropriations.senate.gov/commhistory/commhistory.htm | access-date=October 14, 2005 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050927235752/http://appropriations.senate.gov/commhistory/commhistory.htm |archive-date = September 27, 2005}} In 2006 the two committees controlled $843 billion a year in discretionary spending in 2006 and earmarked tens of billions of dollars that year.

The 2006 CRS report compared the value of earmarks from 1994 to 2005.{{citation |url=http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/Earmarks_16(rev).pdf |pages=45 |title=Earmarks in the Federal Budget Process |author1=Rob Porter |author2=Sam Walsh |series=Harvard Law School Federal Budget Policy Seminar |date=April 1, 2006 |access-date=January 5, 2017 |number=16}}

Congress is required by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution to pass legislation prior to the expenditure of any U.S. Treasury funds.United States. Constitution. [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_7.html Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7]

The earmarking process provided Congress with the power to earmark discretionary funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process was a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government. For many years they were a core aspect of legislative policymaking and distributive politics - an essential political instrument whereby political coalitions were forged through compromise in order to pass or reject key legislation. As congressional earmarks came into disfavor and eventually were prohibited, the ban "contributed to legislative gridlock and increased the difficulty of winning enactment of tax and immigration reform."

{{cite news |last=Edsall |first=Thomas B. |title=The Value of Political Corruption |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/thomas-edsall-the-value-of-political-corruption.html |date=August 5, 2014 |work=The New York Times}}{{Cite web |date=2014-08-06 |title=Let's Do It! Let's Bring Back Earmarks! |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/earmark-reform_n_5656138 |access-date=2023-04-20 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority, the terms of the annual authorization bill passed by Congress and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress directs a specified amount of money from part of an agency's authorized budget to be spent on a particular project. In the past members of Congress did not have to identify themselves or the project.{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}

The process of earmarking was substantially reformed since the 110th United States Congress between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009. Since 2009, members of Congress had to post all their earmark requests online along with a signed letter certifying that they and their immediate families had no direct financial interest in the earmark.{{citation |url=http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/EarmarkAnnouncement3-11-09.pdf |date=March 11, 2009 |title=Pelosi, Hoyer and Obey Announce Further Earmark Reforms |location=Washington, DC |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325093616/http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/EarmarkAnnouncement3-11-09.pdf |archive-date=March 25, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}

In March 2010, the House Appropriations Committee implemented rules to ban earmarks to for-profit corporations.Andy Sullivan, [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-earmarks/house-bans-some-earmarks-amid-ethics-concerns-idUSTRE62959V20100311 House bans some earmarks amid ethics concerns], Reuters (March 10, 2010). Approximately 1,000 such earmarks were authorized in the previous year, worth $1.7 billion.{{cite news |last=Lichtblau |first=Eric |title=New Earmark Rules Have Lobbyists Scrambling |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/politics/12lobby.html |date=2010-03-11 |work=The New York Times}} At the time, earmarks constituted less than 1% of the 2010 federal budget, down from about 1.1% in 2006.

After gaining control of the House in 2011 (following the 2010 elections), Republicans adopted a House earmark ban. This was controversial within the House Republican Conference, which had internal debates several times over whether to partially lift the ban.{{cite news |last=McPherson |first=Lindsey |title=House Republicans to Consider Changing the Way They Select Committee Leaders |url=https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/house-republicans-to-consider-changing-the-way-they-select-committee-leaders |date=November 14, 2018 |work=Roll Call}}{{cite news |last=Ferris |first=Sarah |title=House GOP mulls lifting a ban on earmarks |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/republican-lifting-earmark-ban-271491 |date=January 9, 2018 |work=Politico}}{{cite news |last=Ferris |first=Sarah |title=House GOP leaders dodge final-hour earmarks fight |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/20/gop-leaders-earmarks-985767 |date=November 20, 2018 |work=Politico}}{{cite magazine |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/republicans-earmarks-congress/508328/ |title=Republicans Get Ready to Welcome Back Earmarks: GOP lawmakers want to wrest back the power of the purse, but the pull of pork is colliding with Donald Trump's call to "drain the swamp" |date=November 25, 2016 |last=Berman |first=Russell |magazine=The Atlantic}} The earmark ban is contained in the House Republicans' intraparty rules (not the House rules).{{cite news |last=McPherson |first=Lindsey |title=Democrats' Draft House Rules Would Return Some Regular Order |url=https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-house-rules-regular-order |work=Roll Call |date=November 16, 2018 |access-date=November 21, 2018 |archive-date=November 21, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121204015/https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-house-rules-regular-order |url-status=dead }}

President Obama promised during his State of the Union address in January 2011 to veto any bill that contained earmarks. In February 2011, Congress "imposed a temporary ban on earmarks, money for projects that individual lawmakers slip into major Congressional budget bills to cater to local demands."{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/nyregion/05earmarks.html |title=District Liked Its Earmarks, Then Elected Someone Who Didn't |work=The New York Times |first=Raymond |last=Hernandez |date=February 4, 2011}}

In December 2015, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) claimed in their 2016 Congressional Pig Book,{{cite web |url=http://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book |title=2016 Congressional Pig Book |date=July 20, 2022 |publisher=Citizens Against Government Waste |location=Washington, D.C.}} that all the FY2016 earmarks were contained in the December 2016 omnibus 2000-page Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 which authorized $1.15 trillion in appropriations.{{cite news |url=http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-21/news/69189293_1_pat-toomey-tax-breaks-national-debt |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090504/http://articles.philly.com/2015-12-21/news/69189293_1_pat-toomey-tax-breaks-national-debt |url-status=dead |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |title=Area Votes in Congress |first=Pat |last=Toomey |date=21 Dec 2015 |work=The Philadelphia Inquirer}} The CAGW argued that "Throwing all earmarks into one large bill makes it more difficult to identify and eliminate earmarks than if Congress adhered to regular order and considered the 12 appropriations bills individually."

Members of Congress can influence priorities and policy-making that promote projects that are important to their constituents by accessing discretionary DOT spending, through regular formula-based funding mechanisms and increased interaction with both transportation official as the federal and state levels.{{rp|9}}

In January 2017, a report by the CRS described how, prior to the earmarks ban in 2011, Members of Congress had used earmarks to ensure that local congressional representatives, not the Department of Transportation and its Agencies Administration, set priority discretionary transportation spending.{{rp|9}}

Congressional members and DOT administration often disagree on priorities. In FY2007, with an earmark ban in place, President Bush's Administration's divided about $850 million, which represented almost all of the DOT's discretionary annual funding, to traffic congestion mitigation strategies in only five metro areas, Miami, Florida, Minneapolis, Minnesota, San Francisco, California, and Seattle, Washington through the Urban Partnership Agreement.{{rp|9}}"DOT Urban Partnership Awards a Far Cry from Usual Earmarking," Transportation Weekly, vol. 8, no. 32 September 5, 2007{{rp|3,4}}

Earmarks have often been treated as being synonymous with "pork barrel" legislation.E.g., Diana Marrero, "[https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-22-earmarks_N.htm Alaska 1st, Ariz. last in pork spending]", USA Today, March 22, 2008 ("pork-barrel spending, otherwise known as earmarks"). Retrieved November 4, 2009. Despite considerable overlap,E.g, Ronald D. Utt, "{{unfit|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20021023150918/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1266.cfm How Congressional Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Undermine State and Local Decisionmaking]}}"; The Heritage Foundation, April 2, 1999 ("'pork' . . . often manifests itself as a specific line item, or 'earmark.'"). Retrieved November 4, 2009. the two are not the same: what constitutes an earmark is an objective determination, while what is "pork-barrel" spending is subjective.For one view, see Citizens Against Government Waste, [http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006#criteria 2006 Pig Book Summary] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080714103840/http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006 |date=July 14, 2008 }}. Retrieved November 4, 2009. One legislator's "pork" is another's vital project.Judy Sarasohn, "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601488.html Putting the Pork in One Barrel]", The Washington Post, August 17, 2006.{{citation |title=Sending Money to Home District: Earmarking and Congressional Pork Barrel |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/13/us/sending-money-to-home-district-earmarking-and-the-pork-barrel.html |first=Tim |last=Weiner |date=July 13, 1994 |access-date=January 4, 2017 |location=Washington, DC |work=The New York Times}} In this article about park barrels, Weiner alleged that Paul E. Kanjorski inserted 2 paragraphs "into an obscure section of the Pentagon" in 1991 earmarking millions of the Defense Department's budget for Earth Conservancy, managed by his family members in Hanover Township, Pennsylvania.

Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly point out that directing money to particular purposes is a core constitutional function of Congress. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch. There is no guarantee that the allocation made by executive agencies will be superior to that of Congress. Presidents and executive officials can use the allocation of spending to reward friends and punish enemies.{{citation |author1=Scott A. Frisch |author2=Sean Q Kelly |title=Cheese Factories on the Moon: Why Earmarks are Good for American Democracy |location=Boulder, CO |publisher=Paradigm Publishers |date=2010 |isbn=978-1-59451-731-0}}{{Page needed|date=November 2010}}

There are also those who opine that earmarks are good because they are more democratic and less bureaucratic than traditional appropriation spending, which generally is not tailored to specific projects.{{cite news |url=http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/aug/10/contrarian-view-earmarks-are-good/?partner=RSS |title=Contrarian view: Earmarks are good |first1=Timm |last1=Herdt |newspaper=Ventura County Star |date=August 10, 2010 |access-date=November 11, 2011}}

The Gravina Island Bridge, popularly known as the "Bridge to Nowhere", has become shorthand for frivolous earmarks.[http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/08/politics-of-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx The Politics of the 'Bridge to Nowhere'] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910040255/http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/08/politics-of-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx |date=September 10, 2008 }}. Newsweek (September 8, 2008). Retrieved November 16, 2010. In 2002, it was proposed that a for-profit prison corporation, Cornell Corrections, build a prison on the island. To connect the island with Ketchikan, it was originally planned that the federal government spend $175{{Nbsp}}million on building a bridge to the island, and another $75M to connect it to the power grid with an electrical intertie. The Ketchikan Borough Assembly turned the proposal down when the administration of Governor Tony Knowles also expressed its disfavor to the idea. Eventually, the corporation's prison plans led to the exposure of the wide-ranging Alaska political corruption probe, which eventually ensnared U.S. Senator Ted Stevens.

The bridge idea persisted. The 2005 Highway Bill provided for $223M to build the Gravina Island Bridge between Gravina Island and nearby Ketchikan, on Revillagigedo Island. The provisions and earmarks [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/08/politics-of-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx The Politics of the 'Bridge to Nowhere'] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910040255/http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/08/politics-of-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx |date=September 10, 2008 }}. Newsweek (September 8, 2008). Retrieved May 8, 2019. were negotiated by Alaska's Rep. Don Young, who chaired the House Transportation Committee and were supported by the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Alaska's Senator Stevens.[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/alaska-kills-bridge-to-nowhere-that-helped-put-end/ Alaska kills infamous 'bridge to nowhere' that helped put end to earmarks], The Washington Times, Stephen Dinan, November 8, 2015. Retrieved May 8, 2019. This bridge, nicknamed "The Bridge to Nowhere" by critics, was intended to replace the auto ferry which is currently the only connection between Ketchikan and its airport.

However, the federal earmark was withdrawn after meeting opposition from Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, but only after the state of Alaska received $300M in transportation funding. The state continued to study improvements in access to the airport, which could conceivably include improvements to the ferry service.[http://juneauempire.com/state/2013-07-01/state-studying-ways-link-ketchikan-gravina-island State studying ways to link Ketchikan, Gravina Island] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151025232421/http://juneauempire.com/state/2013-07-01/state-studying-ways-link-ketchikan-gravina-island |date=October 25, 2015 }}. Bohrer, Becky. Juneau Empire, July 1, 2013 Despite the demise of the bridge proposal, Governor Sarah Palin spent $26M in transportation funding for constructing the planned access road on the island that ultimately served little use.[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/palin.road.to.nowhere/ The bridge failed, but the 'Road to Nowhere' was built], CNN, Abbie Boudreau and Scott Bronstein, September 24, 2008. Retrieved May 8, 2019.

{{Portal|United States|Politics|Business and economics}}

• Expenditures in the United States federal budget
• Mandatory spending
• Appropriations bill (United States)
• Client politics
• Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
• Lobbying
• Hypothecated tax
• Local and personal Acts of Parliament (United Kingdom)

{{Reflist|2}}

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080921153936/http://earmarks.omb.gov/ Earmarks Database] from the Office of Management and Budget Last updated in 2011
• [http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/favorfactory_2008/ Seattle Times Database of Congressional Earmarks 2008] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111110134112/http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/favorfactory_2008/ |date=November 10, 2011 }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Earmark (Politics)}}

Category:Political terminology of the United States

Category:Terminology of the United States Congress

Category:Government finances in the United States

Category:Political terminology

Category:Public choice theory

Category:Fiscal policy