![](media/image1.png){width="3.446527777777778in"
height="0.7284722222222222in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="8.333333333333333e-3in"
height="8.333333333333333e-3in"}

### Tough Races, More Earmarks

July 9, 2008\
*By Tory Newmyer\
Roll Call Staff*\
![](media/image2.png){width="8.333333333333333e-3in"
height="9.236111111111112e-2in"}

Vulnerable House lawmakers are already outpacing their more senior
rank-and-file colleagues in grabbing earmark dollars for their
districts, proof that politics continues to play a pivotal role in the
appropriations process.

The dynamic is particularly pronounced among Democrats, who, in the two
most earmarked spending bills unveiled so far, appear to be parceling
out equally sized pots of money to incumbents facing the toughest
challenges.

Sixteen Democrats in the "Frontline" program, aimed at protecting the 29
most vulnerable House Democrats, secured \$810,000 worth of earmarks
each in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education spending
bill. It is unclear how appropriators arrived at that sum.

Democratic Reps. Don Cazayoux (La.), Travis Childers (Miss.) and Bill
Foster (Ill.) --- who this spring helped Democrats expand their majority
by winning special elections in heavily Republican districts --- all
received \$810,000 for earmarks as well, according to an analysis of
figures from Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog.

And in the Commerce, Justice and Science spending measure, 18 Frontline
members received \$900,000 worth of projects each, as did Foster and
Rep. André Carson (Ind.), who won a special election in March to succeed
his late grandmother.

In both bills, rank-and-file Democrats in safe seats appear to average
significantly less. Kirsten Brost, spokeswoman for House Appropriations
Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.), did not respond to a request for comment.

Critics of the process charge that distributing taxpayer dollars on the
basis of political considerations is at odds with a primary argument
earmark defenders often advance: that lawmakers are better suited than
bureaucrats to make effective decisions about where to spend taxpayer
money.

"It fundamentally undercuts the idea that this is at all a merit-driven
process," said Steve Ellis, vice president of programs at Taxpay- ers
for Common Sense. "There is no distinction among these different
lawmakers, who have very different districts and different needs within
them."

Republicans facing stiff competition for the most part are also pulling
down greater sums in both bills than their safe colleagues, though there
appears to be less coordination. For example, among the 23 Republican
incumbents participating in the Regain Our Majority Program this cycle,
14 secured \$900,000 or more in the Labor-HHS bill. But their takes
ranged widely, from Rep. Sam Graves (Mo.), who claimed \$900,000 worth
of projects, to Rep. Joe Knollenberg (Mich.), an appropriator, who
secured \$2.25 million. Twelve of those Republicans pulled down \$1
million or more in the CJS bill, with eight of them securing \$1.5
million each.

Jennifer Hing, minority spokeswoman for the Appropriations Committee,
suggested political considerations aren't part of the calculus in
determining which projects get funded. "All earmark requests are
considered and debated on their merits," she said. "All the requests get
a fair and thorough scrubbing by the committee to make sure they deserve
funding, pass the smell test and comply with earmark rules and
regulations."

An ongoing debate in the House Republican Conference about whether the
party should swear off earmarks was reflected in the performance of
vulnerable GOPers. Four of them have signed a pledge to forgo the
projects, and another --- Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.) --- has limited himself
to requesting funding only for projects already under way and did not
ask for money in either bill.

This is the second year that transparency standards in the
appropriations process require a precise accounting of who is getting
what. Analysis of last year's spending bills showed a clear pecking
order in the hunt for earmarks, with Congressional leaders and
Appropriations Committee members taking home far more than their
colleagues.

Vulnerable lawmakers, too, fared better than their politically secure
counterparts in last year's bills. Those in the 73 House districts
designated as competitive by the Cook Political Report on average
brought home 14 percent more in earmarked projects than others not on
the committee, Taxpayers for Common Sense found. The study found that
Democrats in competitive races averaged \$29.4 million in earmarks each,
outpacing vulnerable Republicans, who averaged \$23.4 million.

That vulnerable Members, many of whom are freshmen representing
comparatively wealthy areas, were securing more money than senior
lawmakers from poorer districts prompted gripes from some corners of the
Democratic Caucus last year. Minority Members especially felt they were
getting shorted. One appropriations lobbyist said that in the wake of
those discussions, committee staff have examined how to inject more
"standardization and predictability" into the process.

"What you've seen this year is a realignment that is a little more
democratic," he said. As a result, this lobbyist predicted that
Frontline Democrats would actually fare slightly worse this year than
last, as leaders seek to spread some of their project money to more
disadvantaged districts.

Several spokesmen for vulnerable Democrats said they received no advance
notice from the Appropriations panel of how much they would be
receiving. Childers, for example, made \$8 million worth of requests in
the Labor-HHS bill for a single entity: Itawamba Community College in
Fulton, Miss. "The situation there was so bad, they didn't have the
resources to let students into their nursing program," said Dana
Edelstein, his spokeswoman. The school received an \$810,000 earmark for
facilities and equipment. Foster, who likewise received \$810,000 for
his requests, saw them spread across seven projects, from \$25,000 for a
childhood obesity program at the Kendall County Health Department in
Yorkville, Ill., to \$250,000 for a computer training program at the
Waubonsee Community College in Sugar Grove, Ill. "We just acted the way
every other Congressional office acts in accordance with the
appropriations process --- we submit requests to the committee," Foster
spokeswoman Shannon O'Brien said.

But one aide to a Frontline Democrat said that, at least based on
experience, lawmakers in tough races know they will be getting a little
extra from the committee. "They kind of know they are going to get more
of their requests prioritized," the aide said.

The concept of directing earmarks to shore up political weak spots is
hardly novel. In the summer of 1996, as a then-newly minted House
Republican majority headed into its first test at the polls, Speaker
Newt Gingrich (Ga.) circulated a memo directing appropriators to focus
on funding California projects, as the Golden State figured prominently
in the party's plans for retaining the majority. And former Rep. Tom
DeLay (R-Texas) is widely credited with transforming the process into a
political cudgel during his time in GOP leadership, presiding over an
unprecedented boom in the projects --- a development many conservative
Republicans now blame for helping the party slip from power.\
![](media/image2.png){width="8.333333333333333e-3in"
height="0.2604166666666667in"}

2008 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.