An aspect of ermarking that, in my view, needs to be addressed because of the corruption potential is the circle that has developed between lobbying firms (often populted by former committee or personal staff) specializing in particular types of earmarks (defense-the Murtha investigation) and campaign fundraising and contributions . This part of the earmark system, it seems to me, cannot be justified on geographic or constituent service grounds.
Trevor Potter
Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Oren [mailto:oren@camden.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 04:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Lowenstein, Daniel
Cc: legislation@mailman.lls.edu; Election Law
Subject: Re: [Leg] Earmarks
I am not as exercised about earmarks as a lot of other people are. One of
the great things about America (cue up the national anthem) is that,
unlike several European nations like France, we have geographic
constituencies, and so folks at the local level can be heard in
Washington. (Contrast the alienation between Paris and non-Paris France.)
A congressman getting money for his/her district is, in our system, doing
the job; he or she is not permitting some faceless bureaurucrat in
Washington to make all the decisions about which projects to support, and
where. True, the ear-marked projects may not be the ones that rank highest
on technical criteria, but there is more to the world than technical
criteria. If my congressman wants to get money for my law school, I am all
in favor of that. If Senator Robert Byrd wants to get money for the
poverty-stricken state of West Virginia, he's doing exactly what he was
elected to do, and exactly what he should do. If he asks every agency that
comes before him, "have you considered putting your new facility in West
Virginia," he is representing his constuents in a way we ought to applaud,
not condemn.
Beside, I think, as Dan himself suggested, his proposal suffers from the
logrolling deficiency. It may be that Congressman #2 sponsors the
legislation that Congressman #1 wants, but don't worry, Congressman #1
will be able to make clear to his or her district that he or she is
responsible for the boon.
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Lowenstein, Daniel wrote:
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed a couple of weeks ago, Bob Livingston, a Republican House leader in the 90s, made a surprisingly strong case for earmarks. The main thrust of it, as I recall, was that earmarks are a way of protecting Congress' power of the purse, which is one of the major devices in the Constitution for preserving the power of Congress against the Executive. Yet everyone agrees that earmarks as they currently operate are widely abused (or, at least, serve parochial rather than general interests) and that there is strong political demand for their abolition. As Rick's blog post this morning noted, this is probably the leading divisive issue for the new Republican majority in the House, though of course the Democratic majority in the Senate will also have to take this on.
I believe there is more or less a consensus that earmarks should be transparent, that is that it should be easy, for anyone who wants to, to find out what earmarks any individual Member is responsible for and to find out what Member is responsible for any particular earmark. However, many believe this is desirable but not sufficient, because a typical parochial earmark is likely to be an electoral benefit rather than a cost for the Member in his district or state. Thus, disclosure is not likely to be a significant deterrent in many and probably most cases.
Not that I think the following idea has a prayer of going anywhere, but it seems to me at first blush to be a good way on the merits of reconciling the different worthy considerations. I put it forth to see if others can show why at second, third, or fourth blush it's really a pretty stupid idea.
The rule would be that no Member could sponsor an earmark if it is foreseeable that more than a certain percentage of the direct or indirect expenditures called for by the earmark would occur in the Member's district or (for Senators) state. I don't know what the percentage should be, but let's say 25% for House members and 40% for Senators, though maybe they should be lower. That way, there would be no impediments to earmarks that Congress (or some substantial group in Congress) wants to impose in order to assert its control over the Executive, but it would be difficult to use earmarks in the traditional way for pork barrel simply or primarily to benefit one's district.
Theoretically, Members could get around this with a little logrolling. You sponsor the earmark for a new bridge in my district and I sponsor a large grant to the university in your district. But the proposal assumes an effective disclosure system. You'd have to explain why you sponsored the bridge in my district, which your constituents no doubt regard as nowhere. You could explain that it was a part of a logroll that secured the university grant, but usually that will probably be an electoral loser.
Best,
Daniel Lowenstein
Director
UCLA Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
310-825-5148
lowenstein@law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein@law.ucla.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Craig N. Oren telephone 856-225-6365
Rutgers School of Law-Camden fax 856-969-7921
Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey
217 N. 5th Street
Camden, N.J. 08102-1203 oren@camden.rutgers.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
legislation mailing list
legislation@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/legislation
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law