Over the weekend, the Myrtle Beach Sun took a look at the earmarks:

Nonprofit agencies in South Carolina received about $4.7 million this fiscal year in federal earmarks from legislators who critics say do little to check the financial backgrounds of the agencies and nonprofit executives who are put in charge of spending tax dollars.

CREW's Melanie Sloan explained how that is allowed to happen.  There isn't a lot of oversight of earmarks anyway, but it's even less for "smaller" amounts:

Melanie Sloan, executive director of taxpayer watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said government oversight of earmark spending is spotty at best.

"There aren't many auditors at these federal agencies, and those auditors aren't going to be looking very closely at something a member of Congress earmarks," said Sloan, whose nonpartisan group aims to promote accountability in government.

The relatively small dollar amounts given to nonprofit agencies also leads to less oversight, Sloan said.

"They [auditors] aren't going to get riled up over half a million dollars," she said. "It's unlikely anything will happen."

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) wants to know how a controversial earmark for a road in Florida was added to legislation after the legislation had already passed.  And, Coburn is willing to slow down action in the Senate until he gets answers.   Of course, it's no secret that Rep. Don Young (R-AK) was behind that earmark -- and that his actions have prompted an investigation by the Justice Department.  The Hill reports on Coburns efforts:

“Because secret, improper and unauthorized changes to congressionally passed legislation call into question the integrity of our entire constitutional and legislative process, I believe a full and open investigation into this matter is necessary to restore the integrity of both the U.S. Congress and the Constitution,” Coburn wrote.

Coburn acknowledges that the latest version of the technical corrections bill reverses the change to the original language, which authorized the money for “widening and improvements” for I-75, but he argued that more must be done.

“Those who perverted and distorted the explicit will of the U.S. Congress must also be held to account,” he wrote.

The offices of McConnell and Reid did not respond by press time to a request for comment.

Courtesy of Think Progress, we found the prediction for Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake that we can expect more "earmark indictments":

Over the years, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has garnered a reputation as “the House’s No. 1 earmark-hater” due to his willingness “to kill projects” favored by his colleagues. Though he’s gained increased support for his anti-earmark mission since the 2006 elections, Flake says it will probably take “another” earmark-centered “indictment or two” before his fellow lawmakers seriously tackle earmark reform.

Flake believes that day is right around the corner, telling the Politico that he thinks more indictments “are coming“:

One common take on the problem comes from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). The 44-year-old conservative sees many of his colleagues publicly applauding his attempts to kill pork-barrel spending while privately working to keep alive the budget “earmark” system that has already been the wellspring of several recent corruption cases. “It will probably take another indictment or two” to force change, Flake said in a Wednesday interview. “I think those [indictments] are coming.”

The latest edition of BusinessWeek investigates the business of earmarks. It's a lucrative business for companies who hire lobbyists -- and it's filled with abuse: 

The sad history of earmarks features a long list of abuses: earmarks used by congressional leaders to buy votes on other legislation, earmarks sent to political donors, and earmarks used in outright bribery. Such issues continue to arise: As recently as July 30, the FBI raided the home of Senator Stevens in a probe into potential earmark-related corruption. Senator Stevens, who has not been charged with any wrongdoing, will not comment until the investigation is complete. In the face of recent earmark scandals, Congress in early August passed a reform bill aimed at reducing abuses by opening up the highly secretive process. Whether those efforts succeed won't be clear until yearend.

From The Hill, pressure is growing on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to rein in Senator DeMint who is holding up passage of ethics reform for the sake of earmarks reform:

Frustrated by Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-S.C.) vow to hold up ethics conference talks until earmark reforms are enacted, Democrats and watchdog groups are pointing a finger at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

McConnell is standing idle while DeMint keeps a unanimously approved ethics bill in limbo, Democrats and watchdogs charge. By pressuring the Senate GOP and its leader, not merely the affable freshman who has become the face of the opposition, reform advocates hope to end the Senate’s ethics logjam without forcing a difficult procedural vote to silence DeMint.

“Mitch McConnell is making a big mistake sitting on his hands,” said Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen. “Now he’s letting his own rank-and-file undermine his image of authority.”

Last night, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House struck a deal that will make earmarks part of appropriations bills, as opposed to measures added on in conference without any scrutiny.  This should, we say should, add transparency to the budgeting process:

Hoyer and Obey confirmed the details on the House floor in response to members’ questions.

“It has been the intention of the Minority Leader, Majority Leader and myself to try and get the House moving on this bill tonight so we are not here until four in the morning,” Obey said. “There is an understanding that has been reached ... the intent that all of the bills by the time have an opportunity for earmarks to be attached to the bills.”

“Every earmark starting with Monday forward will be included in the bills,” Hoyer said.

Hoyer and Obey explained  that due to the amount of earmarks and the complicated nature of the Energy and Water bill, it’s earmarks will be attached to a separate report that will be fully considered by the House. The bill will be sent to the Senate as one document.

On October 11, 2006, Citizens Blogging did a post on earmarks linking to a Wall Street Journal article that provided one of the best explanations of the issue we'd seen. In light of the revelation that Rep. Obey intends to publicize earmarks in advance, we thought it might be a good time for a refresher on the controversy behind the earmarks process:

Today's Wall Street Journal article about Charles Taylor also provides a succinct description of the earmarks process. There has been an enormous amount of attention paid to earmarks because of the scandals involving Members of Congress, like the currently imprisoned Duke Cunningham. The passage below explains both how the process works and the opportunities for abuse:

But the growth of earmarks and the secrecy that shrouds the practice inevitably raises questions of self-dealing. Earmarking has been at the center of the influence-peddling and corruption probes that have shaken public confidence in Congress this year. The practice also played a central role in the case against former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The California Republican was imprisoned after pleading guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense firms in exchange for earmarks and other favors.

The growth of earmarking points to a shift in the way Congress works. Most federal spending originates in requests by departments and agencies. The Transportation Department might seek funds to build a highway interchange, for example, or the Pentagon might ask for new tanks. The spending proposals are then put into legislation which must win approval by Congress.

Earmarks are different because lawmakers can directly insert them into spending bills, often without public scrutiny. Many lobbyists and corporations have discovered in recent years that one of the fastest ways to get the spending they desire is to approach an individual lawmaker of either party on the House or Senate appropriation panel about an earmark. That has fed the growth in earmarks to an estimated $47.4 billion last year from $19.5 billion a decade earlier, according to the Congressional Research Service.

When you see terms like "secrecy that shrouds the practice" and "without public scrutiny" associated with members of Congress, it can't be good. Understanding how this game is played is critical to exposing it.

Earmarks have been the bane of Congress for the past several years.  That's because abuse of the earmarks process had landed several members of Congress in ethics trouble -- and at least one former member, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, in jail.

There has been enormous pressure on Congress to publicize earmarks and their sponsors.  The process has been mostly anonymous. The Chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee claims that is just what he's going to do:

A top House Democrat delivered a promise — and a threat — on Monday about the disclosure of the pet projects known as earmarks.

Under pressure from Republicans, the Democrat, Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said that this year all earmarks and their sponsors would be listed in The Congressional Record a month before they come up for final approval.

Lawmakers and the public can raise questions, sponsors can defend their projects, and the Appropriations Committee will make final decisions.

Mr. Obey warned that he would bar earmarks completely if Republicans attacked individual projects to score political points.

“If they think they can demagogue the earmarks process all year long and expect Democrats to carry the burden of passing earmarks, they’re wrong,” he said. “Then there will be no earmarks for anybody.”

The threat underscores Mr. Obey’s determination to preserve the authority of his committee to deliver or withhold earmarks, federal money for bridges, clinics or military contractors that helps endear lawmakers to constituents.

The Alaska congressional delegation is making major ethics news today.  The New York Times has a front page article on questionable dealings of the state's only Congressman, Don Young (R).  The first few paragraphs explain how a fundraiser held for Young led to an earmark that local officials didn't want -- but the fundraiser's host did want:

It is no secret that campaign contributions sometimes lead to lucrative official favors. Rarely, though, are the tradeoffs quite as obvious as in the twisted case of Coconut Road.

The road, a stretch of pavement near Fort Myers, Fla., that touches five golf clubs on its way to the Gulf of Mexico, is the target of a $10 million earmark that appeared mysteriously in a 2006 transportation bill written by Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska.

Mr. Young, who last year steered more than $200 million to a so-called bridge to nowhere reaching 80 people on Gravina Island, Alaska, has no constituents in Florida.

The Republican congressman whose district does include Coconut Road says he did not seek the money. County authorities have twice voted not to use it, until Mr. Young and the district congressman wrote letters warning that a refusal could jeopardize future federal money for the county.

The Coconut Road money is a boon, however, to Daniel J. Aronoff, a real estate developer who helped raise $40,000 for Mr. Young at the nearby Hyatt Coconut Point hotel days before he introduced the measure.

Mr. Aronoff owns as much as 4,000 acres along Coconut Road. The $10 million in federal money would pay for the first steps to connect the road to Interstate 75, multiplying the value of Mr. Aronoff’s land.

Allegations of threats over earmarks could result in a House vote today on a reprimand for Rep. Murtha.   As the Washington Post's Paul Kane duly notes, earmarks are the source of much trouble on Capitol Hill:

The latest dustup has nothing to do with the war or Pelosi, however, and instead much more to do with congressional courtesy and special line-item spending measures known as earmarks. [Republicans have to tread very carefully in attacking Murtha, because they have at least a dozen members of their own who in recent years found themselves under federal investigation because of the way they steered earmarks to their own special interests.]

Rogers alleges that last Thursday Murtha approached him on the House floor and angrily denounced him for leading an effort to strip $23 million in funding from an intelligence authorization bill that is intended for the National Drug Intelligence Center, based in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown, Pa. Republicans believe that the money is wasteful and just an example of Murtha doing pork-barrel spending, while Murtha defends it as helping in the fight against illegal drugs.

But the incident moved beyond the drug center spending when, according to Rogers, Murtha threatened to pull any funding Rogers ever wanted from the Defense appropriations subcommittee, which Murtha chairs.

"I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever," Murtha shouted at Rogers, according to Rogers' account. This prompted a Rogers retort of: "This is not the way we do things here and is that supposed to make me afraid of you?"