Advertisement

White House posts earmarks on website

Pet spending projects that lawmakers put in the fiscal '05 budget are listed. Administration requests aren't.

The Nation

April 05, 2007|Nicole Gaouette and Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writers

But in 2005, earmarking became a public concern. It emerged at the center of the case against former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), now in prison for securing federal funding for individuals who provided him personal benefits.

It was also the basis for much of the wealth amassed by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was convicted of bribery and a bogus casino deal. He referred to the House Appropriations Committee as "the favor factory."


Advertisement

Flake hailed the database as a step forward. "Whenever any members of Congress can basically write a check to a group at home without any real oversight, and when people in Congress basically will look the other way if you'll offer them the same courtesy when they offer earmarks, you'll have something ripe for abuse," Flake said. "We shouldn't be surprised when we have a Duke Cunningham."

The congressman, who puts out a weekly e-mail spotlighting the "egregious earmark of the week," said the database "should help those of us who think this process is really short-circuiting the traditional authorizing, appropriating and oversight function of Congress. I think when taxpayers take a look, they'll be quite upset at how their dollars are being spent."

When Democrats took power, House and Senate leaders created rules that will identify sponsors of earmarks and require them to certify that they have no financial interest in the earmark.

"It was a missed opportunity to get rid of earmarks altogether," said Beth Daley, head of investigations at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan nonprofit. Daley calls earmarks "the funding stream for the lobbying profession."

The database, at www.whitehouse.gov/omb, lacks some information considered vital by activists. It is only for fiscal 2005 and does not give the name of the lawmaker behind the earmark.

It also does not include any earmarks requested by the administration. As a result, it contains fewer earmarks than some other sources. For example, the Congressional Research Service found $48 billion in earmarks in its review.

Some of those deficiencies will be addressed next year when congressionally authorized earmark disclosure data are released.

"This is a treasure trove of information that [the Office of Management and Budget] has made available to the public," said Steve Ellis, a vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that developed its own earmark database in years past. "We would like to see more, but this is far more than anyone else has had to date."

Los Angeles Times Articles
|