Earmarks Fill Up Defense Spending Bill

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Domestic Issues

(AP)

Even as politicians decry pork barrel politics and complain of wasteful federal spending, both Democrats and Republicans have requested to insert billions of dollars in earmarks into a defense spending bill for companies that gave them millions in campaign contributions.

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense approved (PDF) the fiscal-year 2010 defense appropriations bill. The bill includes 1,080 earmarks worth $2.7 billion dollars requested from the full House of Representatives.

Before the subcommittee approved the bill, its members specifically requested more than $1.6 billion in earmarks for their campaign contributors, according to the nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The group reports that all 18 members of the subcommittee requested funds for companies and organizations that donated money, either through employees or a political action committee, to their campaigns. Those entities donated nearly $1 million to the members.

The group's analysis was conducted before the subcommittee approved the spending measure -- and the bill must still undergo changes in the full Appropriations Committee and the full House, and then be reconciled with the Senate version. Still, the analysis reflects the official requests of the members.

"No matter what happens, these lawmakers literally signed on the dotted line that they thought the federal government should spend money on these projects," Taxpayers for Common Sense Vice President Steve Ellis told Hotsheet.

Of the 18 subcommittee members, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) received the most in campaign contributions -- $201,100 -- from companies he requested earmarks for. Moran's district is home to a number of defense industry firms. He requested a total of 45 earmarks for companies like BAE Systems and General Dynamics, as well as organizations like Hampton University and Virginia Tech.

Subcommittee Chairman Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) received the second highest amount from potential earmark recipients that he listed support for, at $199,050. Murtha has long been the subject of scrutiny over earmarking. He was recently brought under investigation because of contributions he received from the now-defunct lobbying firm and earmark recipient, PMA.

The subcommittee ranking Republican, Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-Fla.) brought in $122,000 from potential earmark recipients he backed.

President Obama in March was resigned to signing what he called an "imperfect" spending bill that was loaded with 8,500 earmarks.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said President Obama signed an "imperfect" stimulus bill. In fact, he referred to the omnibus spending bill as "imperfect," not the stimulus.

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

6 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

by babooph July 18, 2009 10:43 AM EDT

The USA has the finest politicians that money can buy& it is legal to bribe them with lobbyists-[the propaganda systems name for briber]-other nations are then called corrupt-what a joke!

Reply to this comment


by iam4honesty July 18, 2009 2:25 PM EDT: The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group?s support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group?s chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.

For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: ?Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU?s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU?s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)?

The conservative group?s remarkable demand ? black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as ?pay for play? ? was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25072.html#ixzz0LdX3caME


by velma179 July 17, 2009 6:15 PM EDT: This is so annoying.

I don't want Democrats or Republicans or Independents or any of our representatives to get away with earmarks as repayment for campaign contributions.

Granted... some appropriations that TCS (Taxpayers for Common Sense) have called "pork" in the past have actually been for projects etc. that would benefit the people of the rep's district and even the entire country as a result.
But, just to repay a campaign contribution "IOU", no good! It peesses me off, beyond any kind of partisan finger pointing.

Our country needs defense, our soldiers need the tools to provide it -- putting this kind of crapola in this bill and just taunting Obama to not sign the legislation because of it, is beyond wrong.

(Caveat: of course, if the Democrat president didn't sign it, then the minority Republican party would call him "against the soldiers"... if he did... they'd make sure to say he "owns" the bill, it's his "porkulus spending bill".)

No wonder Americans of all political leanings give Congress their lowest approval ratings across the board.; Reply to this comment

by antoniof123 July 17, 2009 3:53 PM EDT

They are all dogs aren't they.

Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 July 17, 2009 4:16 PM EDT: "Republicans have requested to insert billions of dollars in earmarks into a defense spending bill for companies that gave them millions in campaign contributions."

SOCIALIZED MILITARY!
BIG GOVERNMENT TAX AND $PEND, TAX AND $PEND.
SOCIALIZATION
SOCIALIZATION
SOCIALIZATION

at this rate the costs will bankrupt our nation...


by CBSAYArewayOmmiescay July 18, 2009 10:06 AM EDT: Demorats have always earmarked defense spending 6 times more than republicans...

This is not NEWS...

The very people who cry out against war, earmark more in their districts for weaponary, they just hate war, but they LOVE the war spending dollars in their districts. Even Ted Kennedy earmarked money for an airplane engine manufacturer to build an engine nobody wanted to buy but the factory was in his state so he floated them with money and now we have all these engines sitting in surplus that not ONE MILITARY branch wants to buy...

Hypocrisy anybody?