Congressional Earmarks; Invitation to corruption

How did Randy "Duke" Cunningham deliver the contracts to his bribers? I'm sure some was based on phone calls to various people in executive departments and personal conversations, but that is the primitive method. The modern method is called congressional earmarks.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Earmarks are typically small provisions that members of Congress insert into a bill to fund programs that often benefit their districts or supporters.

This was something that the Democrats used to do before the Republicans took over the House in 1994, and the Republicans promised to rein in the practice. Instead, they have expanded the practice to more than three times the previous level. Consider how this and other techniques have aided Randy Cunningham to obtain $2.4 million in bribes:

lawmakers are able to influence spending in many ways.

Committee and subcommittee chairs, eager to expand their turf, often urge rank-and-file members to request earmarks for local projects. They also pressure federal agencies to buy certain goods and services.

The problem is compounded when secrecy is involved, experts say. Congress approves billions of dollars in secret intelligence and defense spending each year. The companies that Cunningham has admitted aiding – Washington-based MZM Inc. and Poway-based ADCS Inc. – in return for cash and gifts did defense and intelligence work.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he would have been privy to the most sensitive information about intelligence contracting and he would have been in a position to improperly assist his benefactors," said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

"He would be in a position to tip off bidders for impending contracts. He might also be able to tailor or to influence the development of a program in such a way as to make it conform to what a particular vendor has to offer."

The process could have worked the same with Cunningham's other key assignment on the defense appropriations subcommittee. Both panels have launched reviews of Cunningham's committee work.

"Ninety-nine percent of what goes on is setting things up," said Dan Guttman, an expert on government contracting who teaches at Johns Hopkins University. "You wire things not by telling the person making the selection, 'Pick this company,' but by telling the person, 'These are the criteria.' " [...]
Budget experts note that, if not for the bribery, many of the favors Cunningham did for the two companies could have been considered part of business as usual on Capitol Hill. Cunningham publicly acknowledged helping MZM and ADCS land government work before he was charged with any crimes.

Lawmakers are eager to take credit for helping hometown businesses grow or securing money for projects. Most consider it a part of what they were sent here to do – represent their districts and states. An analysis by the Democratic staff of the House Appropriations Committee contends that earmarking of defense spending has more than tripled since fiscal year 1995. (Overall, defense spending has increased dramatically since the 2001 terrorist attacks and the beginning of the Iraq war.)

A Republican spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee did not return a call for comment.

Ornstein and other critics argue that the practice of earmarking has become little more than a way to boost lawmakers' re-election prospects, reward contributors and, for some, secure lucrative employment later with the businesses or lobbying firms they help.

It also allows party leaders to maintain discipline and pass controversial bills that are loaded with money for local projects.

"It has exploded since Republicans took control," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "It's shameless. . . . It's really out of control."

"Members are getting hooked on earmarks quickly. They are led to believe that that is the way you get re-elected. The leadership pretends that they're going to get earmarks under control. But they love them because once they get the members hooked, they can lead them around by the nose," Flake said.

So earmarks are a way that individual Congressmen have to influence federal government spending and contracts to be done in their own districts. But having that power, they can shake down companies and individuals for campaign contributions in order for them to get preferences and controversial bills that fund local projects.

Note that the Republican leadership has used this to keep individual Republican Congressmen in line. If the leadership doesn't approve of your behavior, you cease to get the power to earmark funds. As long as you stay in line, you get as much federal money as you can grab.

My first thought was that this could be controlled by simply making each Congressman's earmarks public before the next election, as well as the campaign contributions. But Republican Rep. Cunningham's earmarks were frequently to contracts in classified Department of Defense and Intelligence Community budgets.

Controlling earmarks to classified budgets would have to be done by Congressional leadership in a classified procedure. The problem is, that I don't trust the majority party to be honest. (Regardless of Party.)

That might be resolved by having a bipartisan committee like the Ethics committee (With equal party voting membership) review all earmarks and getting full information on all personal funds and campaign funds received by each congressman earmarking funds in a classified budget.

In any case, earmarking funds is one of the many techniques available to majority party leadership to maintain party discipline. It's not necessarily bad. That depends on the morality of the majority Party leadership. That leadership is elected by the members of the Majority Party, so they represent the morality of the entire party.

Randy "Duke" Cunningham clearly does not reflect well on the Republican Party.