« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Lobbyists Upset About Demint Earmark Ban

One interest group is very upset about Senator Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) plan to force a vote in the Senate Republican Conference for a two year earmark moratorium — Lobbyists.  According to The Hill, the lobbying group that represents lobbyists are very angry and worried that the easy money days of earmarking for dollars is over.  Yes, even lobbyists have lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

The head of the American League of Lobbyists is blasting the proposed earmark bans in Congress, saying lawmakers are letting down their constituents by not working to fund projects in their districts.  Dave Wenhold, the league’s president, said members of Congress would not be representing voters’ interests if they adopted the “foolish” proposal to ban earmarking.

Taxpayers Against Earmarks has an excellent compilation of pledged votes on the DeMint Amendment.  Right now this list has more Senate Republicans voting for DeMint’s Amendment than against.  Although the vote total now has the pro-earmark moratorium forces with a huge majority, it is important to note that the Conference will have a vote on the DeMint proposal in secret and the undecideds may all vote against DeMint.

Jim Harper at Washington Watch has this take on the earmark lobbyists lobbying against an earmark ban:

So does it help preserve earmarking for a group representing lobbyists to come out in favor of earmarking? Heck no! A variety of earmark opponents are doing everything they can to spread this news far and wide. It helps their battle to get rid of earmarks if they can show that lobbyists like those pesky little spending instructions.  Going to the press was a fundamental error for the American League of Lobbyists and for Bob Livingston. These are the Keystone Kops of advocacy.

Dave Wenhold is an excellent voice for the pro-earmark lobbying community, because he is proud an earmark lobbyist.  In his bio he brags that he has earmarked millions of your tax dollars for court reporters.

Dave then became the Director of Government Relations and Public Policy at the National Court Reporters Association where he was successful in lobbying the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch and persuaded Congress to earmark tens of millions of dollars for the court reporting profession.

Wenhold tells The Hill that earmark lobbyists are worried that the easiest way to make money in D.C., earmark lobbying, will be hit hard by the DeMint plan. 

Banning the pet projects would also hit at one of K Street’s most profitable sectors: appropriations lobbying. Wenhold admits an earmark ban would hurt lobbying revenues but says voters would suffer more.  “It will definitely put a ding in the lobbying profession,” Wenhold said. “The real losers of this are going to be the members of Congress and their constituents.”

It is true that Members of Congress will not get as much money in campaign donations from earmark lobbyists, so they will be hurt in the wallet.  Constitutents who own high end clothing stores should worry that demand will go down for Armani suits, silk ties and Gucci shoes.  Wenhold is not the only earmark lobbyist fighting to preserve earmarks.  Former Congressman from Louisiana and current lobbyist Bob Livingston wrote an Op Ed for the Wall Street Journal where he argued that:

But my advice to Republicans, if you regain the majority, is not to shun the appropriations committees—and not to shun good and honorable earmarks, which even in the worst of years accounted for less than 1% of the federal budget. If earmarks have merit, make them transparent to the public and stand by them. Don’t sneak them through in the dead of night.

The members and lobbyists who love earmarking argue that we need “transparency” as a means to allow the American people better understand the earmarking process.  Transparency is a means for members and lobbyist to brag that they brought home the bacon.  Transparency initially did not stop the Bridge to Nowhere and has yet to stop money flowing to Maine for the Lobster Museum. 

I wrote in Human Events in March of 2009 the over 9,000 earmarks buried in the FY2009 Omnibus Spending Bill, signed by President Obama, included money for lobsters in Maine thanks to Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Collins and Snowe have inserted a $150,000 earmark in the omnibus for the Maine Department of Marine Resources to conduct “lobster research.” Tax dollars to research lobsters hardly seems an essential function of government, especially in times of economic distress. According to the State of Maine, the “Lobster Program” has collected statistics on the commercial and natural population of lobsters along the Maine coast for 30 years.

We have transparency, yet we still have federal dollars flowing to study lobsters in Maine.

COMMENTS

  • wattchildress

    “Although the vote total now has the pro-earmark moratorium forces with a huge majority, it is important to note that the Conference will have a vote on the DeMint proposal in secret and the undecideds may all vote against DeMint.”

    Why the secrecy? “Transparency” is one of the most popular words in Washington, yet it is so easily stripped of meaning by the political establishment.

    • icemountaincool

      Ear marks are just a way for Politicians to make more money and take care of those that contribute to them. they should be outlawed as the money is never used to do what they say it will be used for. The bridges to no where and the Airport that Murtle ? who died, good ridens! left a 80MM dollar airport that no one uses, he used to go back and forth from home to Washington.

      Such scandal has to stop or we need a revolt of tax paying.
      jasck Stuart
      Hinsdale illl

  • student

    Republicans voting to continue earmarking is as clueless as Democrats re-electing Pelosi and her leadership team. If the Republicans act in a clueless manner than the obvious solution is to make the Tea Party into a new political party and replace them. This would be a windfall for the Democrats in the short term but our problems are long term and if the Republicans cannot be trusted they have to be replaced.

    • acat

      Clearly, any Republican who wants to vote for earmarks, thinking it’s a good career move, or any Democrat who wants to vote for Pelosi, is trapped in an echo chamber.

      Mew

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      Third parties are LOSERS. The system is rigged as a two-party system. The answer is to dig in deeper and remove the pro-earmark loons in Washington. It’s been ONE election cycle, and only 1/3 of the Senate was up for election.

      I sincerely hope we get a serious challenge to Sen. McConnell is Kentucky when he is up for reelection in 2014. In the meantime, there are plenty of bozos to primary in 2012.

      • webcorex2

        any third pary support is suicidal without major electoral reform coming first. Reform that gives more parties access is probably one of the few things liberals and conservatives could work together to accomplish, if they wanted to.

        Speaking of liberals, does anyone know what kind of support an earmark ban has on the other side of the isle? Given the new makeup of the senate, you would only need a few dems to pass such a measure (we all know they dont have the balls to force a supermajority vote).

        • shadowmane

          With the elected official in Congress tied to the Tea Party, if just those 85 freshmen left the Republican Party, it would leave the Democrats with a majority, but it would give the new party up to 85 Representatives in the House of Representatives. If it was copied in State Houses across the country, then what has been suggested would translate into a viable third party that would eventually eclipse and kill the Republican Party.

          • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

            The only reason ‘tea party’ candidates were elected was because they ran as Republicans. You have to get rid of single-member districts and go to a parliamentary style electoral system if you want to make third parties viable.

            If that is confusing, think of it this way: California has what, 50+ seats in the House, right? A statewide election where people vote for their party of choice, and the delegation is apportioned based upon the percentage of the vote that the party gets. This is the way they do it in Canada.\

            So, if the libertarian party got 10% of the vote, they would be assigned 5 seats.

            Another way to do it is to run the 50 seats statewide, and give each person 50 votes and they choose 50 candidates that they vote for. The top 50 vote-getters get elected. I believe this is how they do it in the UK (not certain).

            Anyway, I do not support any of this trash. I think single-member districts are fine. Our system is not a parliamentary system, so you have to live within the two-party system. That’s why we have primaries.

          • webcorex2

            It’s first-past-the-post for them as well. They still have good access for third parties for a few main reasons:

            No gerrymandering
            Smaller districts
            Universal ballot access for basically all parties
            no private donations to individual candidates (I don’t know the policy for the parties as a whole)

            The only functional difference between us and a parlimentary system is that we have a legislature seperate from the executive. Having only two parties in congress isn’t an inherent necessity in countries that use single member districts. In fact, I think third parties could have a very effective role in our particular setup.

  • ithos

    Dear Senator Vitter,

    The abuse of earmarks has caused tremendous damage by facilitating corruption. Think Murtha and Abramoff. You know darn well that this legislative practice was the major reason why the GOP lost it’s way while in power. And being from Louisiana you should know more about the root causes of corrupt political practices than any other Senator.

    You have been a stalwart defender of conservatism while in office. That is why I am so dismayed by your reluctance to state your position on the subject. I can only interpret it one way. You plan on voting against the earmark ban. I am really disappointed in you.

  • John_Wonderlich

    We don’t yet have effective transparency for earmarks. As the Sunlight Foundation (my employer) has often pointed out, earmark disclosures are currently scattered over more than 559 Web sites, including two-dozen Web sites maintained by the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees and the official site of each member of Congress. While it is possible for seasoned researchers to follow the money, constituents are still left in the dark. A single point of online disclosure would make earmarks truly transparent, and citizens could more easily judge the spending priorities of their elected lawmakers.

    You may be right that Members who love earmarking argue in favor of earmark transparency. But consensus around better disclosure for earmarks isn’t limited to pro-earmark members. The Earmark Disclosure Act in the Senate, (S. 3335) is cosponsored by Senators Coburn and Gillibrand. Senator Coburn’s work on the ETA is clearly not motivated by a defense of the earmark process.

    http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/07/28/baby-steps-on-the-earmark-transparency-act/

    Similarly, it’s true that “Transparency is a means for members and lobbyist to brag that they brought home the bacon.” However, it’s also a way for the public to evaluate and apply pressure on earmarks. Let’s have a clear look at how earmarks actually work, and who is behind them. That should be the basis for how earmarks are dealt with, and for how moratoriums and conference rules are judged.

    We only talk about the “Bridge to Nowhere” because watchdogs like Senator Coburn or Taxpayers for Common Sense are scrutinizing earmarks and uncovered it in the first place.

    Just because Earmark Transparency has earned a role as a compromise position in the moratorium debate doesn’t mean it’s a compromised position. If a moratorium happens, especially if it’s a conference rule self-imposed by Republicans, then watching where the earmark requests happen will be more important than it was before.

    http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/11/08/transparency-and-the-earmark-moratorium/

    http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Earmark_Reform_Bills

    (again, I should point out that I’m the Policy Director at the Sunlight Foundation)

    • davesinsanantonio

      to get rid of earmarks altogether!
      If the proposed target of the earmark is a constitutionally valid federal venture, and the project itself is worth doing, then the item should be separately voted into the budget, not earmarked in at the last minute so that it is “passed” without any debate at all.
      If it meets neither of these conditions, then the taxpayers should not be forced to take money out of their pockets to pay for it. Earmarks are evil because of all the harm they do outside of the actual earmark, as well as the waste of money most of them are. If they were not wasteful, they wouldn’t have to be snuck into bills.
      Stop this corrupt practice!

      • tex41lb

        Every earmark has the likelyhood of having a quid pro quo. I will support your $50,000 learning to knit program in Two Dot, Montana, if you will vote for the eight billion high speed rail project the speaker and I want.

        I suspect every earmark of some ties to another or toward passage of an otherwise unsupported law.

        $50,000 for a vote is an accounting error. When linked to the resulting multiple magnitude of spending it enables in helping passage of an 8 billion law, the earmark also adds to the corrupt growth of government power for the well placed political player.

        End earmarks. Should the Senate continue earmarking and a Senator is credited for an earmark in the future, we will have a good indicator of how the Senator voted on the proposal to ban.

  • izoneguy

    I post this specific link because look where it is:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/11/obama-earmark-reform-rema_n_173873.html

    Any republican pushing to keep earmarks is music to Obama’s oversized ears.

  • the_invisible_hand

    I’m having a hard time figuring out the logic here for Republicans.

    On one hand they say it is a small and insignificant part of the budget and then they say it is too important to get rid of. If it is so small, then why can’t we take the affirmative symbolic step to change this small part of the budget that is obviously a problem?

    You can’t fool us, boys. We know that this is a big pork game on the beltway.

    If earmarks were really so small there would be no mobilization of the special interest groups that own that terrible town and if it were such a small matter the leadership in the Senate wouldn’t be moving mountains to try and stop banning them.

    Earmarks are a big deal. Anytime your enemies move rapidly to curtail you, the issue is big.

    If they blow this one, I have little hope for the future.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    and we’ll hear a lot more moaning from corrupt politickers over those “newbies trying to change everything”…

  • icemountaincool

    Ear marks are just a way for Politicians to make more money and take care of those that contribute to them. they should be outlawed as the money is never used to do what they say it will be used for. The bridges to no where and the Airport that Murtle ? who died, good ridens! left a 80MM dollar airport that no one uses, he used to go back and forth from home to Washington.

    Such scandal has to stop or we need a revolt of tax paying.
    jasck Stuart
    Hinsdale illl

    I have not said before!! not a duplicate.

  • dudette

    is important in a symbolic sense as well. The people that gave the PUBS the majority in the house want banning earmarks as a sign that the Pubs “get it” This is no time for green eyeshade BS and wonk talk–it won’t work at all, even the best arguments pro earmarks–

  • ihateliberals

    it was only about money not a cause. Lobbyist no more care what the voters want than the Democrats do. Most generally in side the beltway the answer to most questions is very simple: “MONEY”. for example why is there a TSA? Money. Why is there an Obamacare law? Money. Money equals power That is why the liberals fear conservatives. Conservtives believe that the people should have the money and liberals believe the government should have the money.

  • lizaz

    in 2012. Lobster research is not my idea of a crucial use of taxpayer money in this poor economy. They just don’t get it…we want them to STOP SPENDING!!! It’s another ploy to get votes and we are really tired of the disregard of the citizens’ money. Let’s see how she votes on this one…..mark it down for future reference. You can find a list of all senators, Dems, Reps and Inds, running in 2012 to use to track their actions for next two years.

  • indyjohn

    that he is in favor of a complete ban on earmarks. It looks like Reality and the Senator from Kentucky had a long-delayed meeting and McConnell came out of it chastised. He stated that, even though earmarks represent only a minute portion of the budget and that the action was primarily symbolic, he understood that eliminating earmarks was an important gesture, since it signalled that Republicans are serious about curbing spending. Any Republican Senator who entertains opposition, and is up for election in 2012, knows he will have a primary opponent. I don’t think that there will be any defectors.