House Democrats ban earmarks to corporations

[heli]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVEsZoX0HfgQEFRy1-y8_mtewsYwD9EBU8DO4

House Democrats ban earmarks to corporations
By ANDREW TAYLOR (AP)

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders announced Wednesday that they will ban the much-criticized practice of using annual spending bills to direct pet projects to for-profit companies that often return the favor with campaign contributions. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters that he hopes the step will mean 1,000 fewer earmarks and break the linkage between campaign contributions and earmarks that has sparked intense criticism and resulted in ethics probes of several lawmakers.

The election-year step comes after the ethics committee investigated seven members of a Pentagon spending panel for rewarding earmarks to companies whose executives and hired lobbyists showered them with campaign cash. The panel found no linkage and absolved the lawmakers. The announcement by House Democrats comes as their GOP rivals are weighing giving up so-called earmarks altogether in an appeal to voters frustrated with Washington's free-spending ways.

The subject of earmarks has over the years sparked intense criticism of Congress that's often fueled by wasteful earmarks such as the $200-million-plus "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska that was supposed to connect an island with a population of just 50 or so to the mainland. But among congressional watchdogs the more odious element has been the pay-to-play culture in which campaign cash flows from earmark beneficiaries into the coffers of powerful lawmakers.

"For-profit earmarks are really where the rubber meets the road as far as corruption," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group that has been critical of earmarking. "Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member's actions are being influenced by campaign contributions," the ethics panel found. "It's just ridiculous on its face," Ellis countered...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. They should do away with earmarks and sub-bills altogether.

This effort is a step in the right direction.

IMO, a piece of legislation should be strong enough to be discussed and passed on its own merit.
All these earmarks and totally unrealated legislation being tacked onto "must pass" legislation is bullshit.

[loudsue]

2. Agreed. All we have now is institutionalized extortion. Like...add this to the bill or I won't

vote for it, and/or add this to the bill or I won't vote for your NEXT project.