For defense industry, earmarks mean business

By Bob Edgar and Bill Goodfellow

When President Obama threatened to veto next year's defense appropriations bill if it included funding for seven more F-22 fighter planes, his threat was not directed primarily at Republicans. The fiercest defenders of the F-22 - and of other expensive weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't need or want - are members of Obama's own party, led by Pennsylvania Rep. John P. Murtha.

Murtha, chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, seems never to have met a weapons system he didn't like - especially if it is built in his central Pennsylvania congressional district. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Murtha received $384,475 in campaign contributions from defense industry representatives during the 2007-08 campaign cycle. Of that, $44,900 came from committees and individuals associated with Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-22, which may help explain Murtha's enthusiastic support for a plane that Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls a Cold War relic.

Using so-called earmarks, members of Congress can make expenditures not requested by the Pentagon or subject to any public review on specific programs or companies in their districts. These are essentially gifts from members to their constituents, and the gestures are usually repaid with generous campaign contributions.

From the defense industry's point of view, these campaign contributions are a good investment. The companies' representatives give thousands in contributions, and they get back millions or even hundreds of millions in contracts. It's pay-to-play politics, and it's perfectly legal.

Publicly financed campaigns are the only sure way to eliminate this sort of pay-to-play from our political system. But curbing the abuse of earmarks would be a good first step.

When the defense appropriations bill came to the floor of the House recently, two Republican representatives, Jeff Flake of Arizona and John Campbell of California, introduced amendments to strip 553 earmarks, worth $2.7 billion, from the bill. While the amendments were supported by a slight majority of Republicans, they were overwhelmingly defeated, with only six Democrats voting for them.

When it comes to earmarks, the House takes a back seat to the Senate. Bowing to pressure from the White House, the Senate Armed Services Committee cut the funding for more F-22s, saving $1.75 billion. But the committee then turned around and added an eye-popping $9 billion in other earmarks to the bill. That included $4.3 billion in "no member request" earmarks, a blatant circumvention of rules passed by the previous Congress requiring members to disclose earmarks they have given out.

Because they control both chambers of Congress, Democrats are in a position to reward supporters with earmarks. Should Republicans win majorities in the House or Senate again, you can be sure they will give out just as many earmarks to their friends and supporters.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, both John McCain and Obama railed against earmarks. Candidate Obama said he would go through the budget "line by line" and made a promise - still on the White House Web site - to "slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels."

One Democrat who remains serious about curbing the abuse of earmarks is New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes, who is sponsoring a bill that would break the link between earmarks and campaign contributions. His bill would prohibit any member of Congress from taking a contribution from any person or company that has gotten an earmark requested by the member. This straightforward legislation would go a long way toward ensuring that our defense policy is not driven by the defense industry's lobbying and campaign contributions.

Hodes introduced his bill in April, but so far only six Democrats and three Republicans have cosponsored it. That's hardly encouraging. It's even more discouraging that neither Sen. McCain nor Obama has endorsed the bill.

Until they do, it remains business as usual in Washington.