Congress has decided to resume using earmarks. It was always known as “pork” or “pork-barrel spending”. The reason it was known by those names is that it involved spending taxpayer money on small, low-priority projects that only matter to one politician. Why was it used in the first place? Why was it eliminated? And why has it made a comeback?
As part of Republicans’ 2010 campaign for Congress, Boehner targeted the elimination of earmarks as a way to signal to the average voter that it was time to change the way Washington did business. When Republicans retook the House majority in that election, Boehner did exactly as he had promised — he got rid of earmarks entirely.
It seemed, at the time, like a smart political move. People were sick and tired of the insider game played by those in Washington — the massive earmarking scandal involving California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham had been national news earlier in the decade — and banning these pet projects seemed like a way to get corruption (or the appearance of corruption) out of politics.
What happened, in practice, was that leaders in both parties lost leverage over their rank-and-file members. They no longer had a carrot to dangle in front of wavering members to get them to sign on to a piece of legislation where the vote was tight.
That loss of leverage was compounded by the rise of third-party groups — led by super PACs — over the past decade. Their ascension signaled a diminution in the power of political parties. No longer could party leaders overseeing campaign committees bend members to their will by offering — or withholding — support.
