How to buy re-election with other people's money

 

Most members of Congress are unimpressive in terms of accomplishments while in office.  By that I mean they introduce little legislation and what they do introduce is of little importance.  But they like the lifestyle and perks that come with with the job so they struggle to find ways to impress their constituency and their financial contributors.

It has become increasingly hard since 2011 when Congress killed the ability of members of Congress to use "earmarks" to buy votes.  Earmarks, as Charles Lipson describes them "captured specific benefits" (i.e. payback for donors and supporters) and "offloaded the costs onto taxpayers."

In the recent past, bills coming through the House and Senate were larded with earmarks whether or not the earmark had anything to do with the purpose of the bill (and 99% likely didn't) or not. And if the earmarks were significant enough, you could count on that member's vote for the bill, even if they disagreed with the substance. 

Known as "pork-barrel spending" it led to horrific abuses and a lot of bad law. So in 2011, riding the Tea Party revolution, Republicans managed to kill earmarks. Taxpayers were tired of politicians rewarding/paying off supporters and constituents with their money.

Why, then, is there talk of reviving the practice?

Lipson asks and answers the salient question:

Why, then, are earmarks making a comeback? Why, as HuffPost reports, are ‘Democratic leaders in the House and Senate…planning on returning earmarks ― often derided as pork-barrel spending ― to congressional spending bills’?

Earmarks are returning two reasons. The first is that the Swamp itself has returned in full force, now that Trump is gone and his populist movement weakened. The second is that Democratic leaders desperately need a tool to round up congressional votes because their majorities are so thin. A small clique of progressives or centrists can block any bill Pelosi advocates. She and her committee chairs need an effective tool to round up votes.

Earmarks are that tool. Big City Machines used them for decades, securing a councilman’s vote by promising to hire a ne’er-do-well nephew over at Streets and Sanitation department, or put a few more policemen on patrol in his district, or pave the street in front of his mistress’s house.

 In the House, earmarks were especially notorious. House members have to run for office every two years, so the pressure to deliver something tangible is enormous, or so they think. So their planning (and thinking) never gets far beyond the next election and what it is going to require for them to stay in office. And, as Lipson points out, the Democratic leadership is desperate to find a way to leverage their thin majority.

Pork is the bait. Votes are the "catch". Votes in the House and, if the practice is revived, votes in their district. 

All, dear taxpayer, at your expense.

~McQ