Pet projects can come back to bite lawmakers

'The currency of corruption'
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., perhaps Congress’ most outspoken critic of earmarks, with no mention of the Stevens situation, said of earmarking in general: “Earmarks have been the currency of corruption.”

“Our own practices contributed to recent scandals as much as the actions of corrupt lobbyists,” Flake said.

He was one of eight House members who voted Tuesday against the ethics-lobbying bill that easily passed the House and now awaits Senate action. The bill’s backers say it would discourage earmark abuse by requiring lawmakers to identify their proposed spending projects and certify that they have no direct financial interest in them.

Critics say the disclosure requirements could be dodged. They note, for example, that the Senate majority leader could declare that a large spending bill has met all disclosure requirements, and senators would have no means to challenge the conclusion directly from the floor.

Moreover, critics say, recent promises by House leaders to disclose earmarks have proven leaky.

In May, Flake noted that House leaders declared that an emergency supplemental spending bill “does not contain any congressional earmarks.” In a House floor speech, he pointed out that Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., had issued a press release the day before headlined: “Lowey inserts funds in emergency supplemental appropriations bill for critical flood mitigation projects” in New York, to the tune of $8.6 million.

“I claim no responsibility for any statement made by any member,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis.

High profile cases ignored
Even the imprisonment of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., on corruption charges that included earmark abuses has not dulled lawmakers’ appetite for pet projects. One recent study found that earmarks in House legislation went from 3,000 in 1996 to 15,000 in 2005.

Gerald Herbert / AP Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, now imprisoned, admitted he engaged in a scheme to provide campaign contributions, trips and other items "in exchange for certain official acts."

And Obey said earlier this year that House members had requested 32,000 earmarks in spending bills for fiscal 2007.

Even those who say the House-passed ethics bill should do more to disclose earmarks stop short of calling for their elimination.

“This is a pivotal moment for Congress, particularly in light of the concerns about mishandling earmarks,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. He will push for greater disclosure requirements, he said, “but I don’t think there’s any sense that we ought to do away with earmarks, because then you just relinquish all the power to the bureaucrats.”

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., acknowledged in an interview Wednesday that he may not find enough support to back his demand for greater disclosure of earmarks in the lobbying bill.

That’s too bad, DeMint said, because “earmarks are really where most of the corruption has come from. It is us directing money in return for some favor.”

More from msnbc.com World Blog: Egyptians weigh in on U.S. election Briefing Book: The candidates and gun control  Experts: Half of mammals in decline NBC: Supreme Court to tackle cigarette, drug issues Vote on the strangest story of the week

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Registration gains favor Democrats   McCain accuses Obama of lying Palin expands character attacks Bush wins ruling in prosecutors' case Republican lawmakers: Stop Palin ethics probe Mudslinging grips McCain, Obama campaigns Essay: When Palin talks, women talk NYT: McCain, Obama sharply divided on Iraq Briefing Book: Shooting for the sweet spot Newsweek: Obama and the (faint) echoes of Lincoln Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: