Republican lawmakers are gearing up to debate an uncomfortable question they won’t be able to put off much longer: Resurrect earmarks, or leave the controversial practice dead and buried?
Earmarks were a mechanism members of Congress used to secure funding for projects in their districts—until 2011, when they were banned by House Republicans after public opposition to the practice reached a fever pitch as a result of projects such as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”
But there has long been an argument that, despite their abuse, earmarks served an important legislative function in lubricating the processes of government. (See Jonathan Rauch’s thoughtful 2014 piece “The Case for Corruption.”) After the 2016 election a group of House Republicans who advocate a return to earmarks demonstrated they had enough support to force a vote on the matter. House Speaker Paul Ryan convinced them to back down at the time, but according to the Washington Times, some lawmakers are hoping to move forward on the effort in the coming days.
Supporters argue earmarks could be reintroduced as a positive legislative tool without the corruption and waste it previously enabled, through reforms and strict qualifications for their use. But conservative Republicans are still wary of bringing them back.
Republican Study Committee chairman Mark Walker told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Congress’ history of abusing earmarks was too extensive for him to believe that returning to the unpopular deal-making tactic would benefit Americans.
“It could end up doing more harm than good,” he said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. “I don’t think it’s a healthy place for us to go.”
Walker acknowledged there are currently enough supporters of earmarks in the conference to pressure Republican leadership to reconsider the matter, but he warned such a move could undermine whatever political capital the party gained with voters through passing their tax package in December.
Walker told TWS he expects the debate to play out in the coming months, and suggested Republicans could reach a decision before summertime. The Washington Times reported Sunday that the House Rules Committee will hold hearings on the issue in late January.
Members pushing to restore earmarks, such as Texas Republican John Culberson, argue that the corruption of the past could be avoided this time around through changes—for instance, requiring earmark spending to be requested by local officials in advance. And that such provisions would have to be included in legislation from the beginning of the legislative process—approved by committee in the first draft of a bill, rather than manifesting in last-minute negotiations on the House floor.
Nonetheless, Walker said he and the roughly 150 other members of the RSC remain skeptical.
He described earmarks like a gateway drug: “It starts off okay, but before long it gets abused,” he said. “But I am willing to listen.”
