Many of the Capitol Hill lawmakers from both parties who are scrambling to look as if they are “doing something” about earmarks have come up with a slew of new forms to be filled out by those seeking slices of federal pork.
Terrified by the prospect of being identified in the media as the sponsor of the next “Bridge to Nowhere,” these lawmakers are demanding much more information before they agree to back an earmark request.
Recommended Stories
An unexpected consequence of the demand is the discomfort among the growing ranks of lobbyists who specialize in getting earmarks for their clients. Seems they are discovering what a pain in the neck it is to have to fill out stacks of forms to provide mountains of intricate details just to get your hands on a sack full of federal tax dollars.
The Hill quotes one such lobbyist who works the House Appropriations Committee complaining that the “more time you spend on the forms, the less time you have on developing a better project and coming up with a strategy on how you sell the project.” Oh, the poor dear must be exhausted. And time really is money when you work on retainer or commission, as do most lobbyists.
Welcome to the real world faced by businessmen for decades. These lobbyists are getting just the slightest taste of what life at the office is like when somebody in government continually hands you a stack of forms and says, “Fill this out in triplicate. Answer every question. Failure to do so will disqualify you from eligibility for funding or contracts under this program.” Ironically, thanks in no small part to the efforts of many of these same lobbyists, the Federal Register continues to grow every year as Washington bureaucrats come up with new regulatory hoops. This regulatory burden costs the private sector an estimated $1 trillionannually, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Some of the lobbyists aren’t taking this painful new regulatory burden on their business lying down.
The Hill quotes a second lobbyist who working the appropriations panel who puts the matter in terms every Member of Congress can instantly understand: “I think you would see a drop in their contributions. It is definitely more difficult to fundraise when you limit the universe you can assist.”
Put simply, fewer earmarks for the lobbyists and their clients will mean fewer campaign donations for congressmen.
In the private sector, such a statement is known either as a “bribe” or “extortion,” depending on which end of the transaction is involved. In Washington, it’s called “congressionally directed spending.”
