The familiar dance for funding

WASHINGTON - Along with the pomp and pride that comes with hosting the 2016 Democratic National Convention, there's an underside for Philadelphia: begging Congress for money.

Since 9/11, federal lawmakers have set aside $100 million every four years to help cover security costs for the cities hosting the national party conventions, but only after overcoming resistance from those who balk at laying out taxpayer money for lavish political rallies.

The wrangling in those fights provides a window into how pet causes creep onto the federal tab - often as footnotes in larger and more pressing bills.

This year looks no different. House Republicans have approved only $10 million each for Philadelphia and Cleveland, which will host the Republican National Convention. The Senate has offered no funding.

Local lawmakers worry about being shortchanged, but have seen this dance before.

In 2011, lawmakers started with $4 million for the 2012 conventions in Tampa, Fla., and Charlotte, N.C.

But then $100 million for the conventions got tucked into a $182 billion spending bill passed to keep the government running.

In 2007, lawmakers representing convention hosts St. Paul, Minn., and Denver hitched their aid to a $122 billion emergency bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, a similarly murky process looms for the mayors of Philadelphia and Cleveland and their Congressional allies. They say they are confident that this go-round will end like the others.

"You can quote me: There will be $100 million available for the security and safety for the two cities," said Philadelphia Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), a longtime member of the House Appropriations Committee. "There will be an adjustment made."

He and others representing the host cities argue that security at the conventions is a national concern, and that federal funding ensures local police have the resources to handle the demands of events that draw former, current, and future presidents.

The bashes are designated "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, with the Secret Service leading security planning.

"This money is not for balloons to drop from the ceiling," Fattah said. "This is for law enforcement and security personnel."

Sens. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) and Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) have written fellow senators seeking more security money. So has Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio).

"We should do for both conventions this year what we've done in the past, which is to provide an adequate level of funding," Casey said. "I'm going to insist on it."

Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) has discussed the security needs with the chairman of the subcommittee overseeing police grants, a Toomey spokeswoman said.

At past conventions, the government aid has paid for more police officers, plus overtime and benefits; consultants; contractors; and equipment from motorcycles to vans to armored trucks - though at times, the expenditures have raised questions from federal auditors.

Philadelphia and Cleveland have already lost one usual funding stream. Conventions used to get money from the $3 checkoff on federal income tax forms - $18.2 million for each in 2012. But a law signed last year ended that practice.

Still, the national parties are hardly hurting.

The Democratic and Republican national committees combined to spend $723 million during the last presidential cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Hundreds of millions more flowed from the candidates and outside groups.

And moves last year by the Federal Election Commission and Congress now let wealthy donors give the parties $100,200 a year to help defray convention costs.

"When you have these two committees raising such huge amounts, it shouldn't fall on the taxpayer," to pay for security, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan fiscal watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The practice of lawmakers tacking money for local projects onto bigger spending bills is nothing new, said Josh Huder, of Georgetown's Government Affairs Institute.

With the normal, piece-by-piece appropriations process snarled by partisan gridlock and fierce opposition to spending, Congressional leaders have instead often advanced sweeping bills, passed with deadlines looming or in the face of crises such as natural disasters or expiring programs.

Lawmakers then rush to add policy riders or hometown priorities onto the "moving vehicle," a bill destined to pass because of the grave consequences if it fails.

The final measure becomes "a giant take it or leave it," Huder said. ". . . They can't not support it."

For instance, that new rule allowing supersized donations for conventions? It was buried in a 1,603-page, $1.1 trillion spending measure.

The 2007 military bill that included convention aid? It also had billions for Hurricane Katrina victims and agricultural disasters, $24 million for sugar beet growers, and $20 million to fight Mormon crickets - each important to someone. The House version had $74 million for peanut storage.

Legislators expect that Congressional leaders - who have an interest in seeing the national conventions go well, because they serve as launchpads for campaign season - will make sure security funding is approved once again. The aid "comes later in the process, once the leadership has weighed in," Portman said.

After that, "then they'll come to us," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.), who leads the subcommittee that oversees spending on police grants. "We'll get into particulars later," he said.

(It probably won't hurt that House Speaker John Boehner, of Ohio, represents a host state.)

Spending "anomalies" - items that aren't regular parts of year-to-year annual budgets - often go through a winding process, Fattah said. The decennial Census is another example.

"This is done this way," Fattah said. "This is the way it has been done. This is the way it will be done."

@JonathanTamari

www.philly.com/capitolinq