Ben Smith has a clever story on a small political development that's telling of the way legislating has changed in recent years. The break down: New Representative Tom Perriello -- hey, didn't someone write an expansive profile of him? -- has declined to support an earmark that would fund a center run by political prognosticator Larry Sabato; the prior incumbent in the seat, Virgil Goode, had religiously protected Sabato's funding. To make the situation more interesting, the center's top spokesperson is apparently thinking of challenging Periello in the next election.
That's all interesting stuff politics-wise, but for students of government, the interesting nugget is how the last decade of debate around earmarks has changed the incentives for legislators to use them:
Sabato said he doesn't know why he lost his funding and says he's never let a personal or financial relationship get in the way of calling them as he sees them. Perriello spokeswoman Jessica Barba said the funding denial had nothing to do with Sabato’s skepticism of Perriello’s prospects, or Sabato’s friendship with Goode, or even the fact that Sabato’s current spokesman, Cordel Faulk, is considering a challenge to Perriello in 2010.
“Congressman Perriello certainly respects and supports the work of the Center for Politics and the [center's] Youth Leadership Initiative, but it did not meet his criteria for appropriations requests, which were focused on clean energy investments, infrastructure and job-creation projects,” said Barba.
... Goode didn't respond to a message left at his law office; however, a congressional source said the former congressman, an appropriator of the old school, didn't follow a bureaucratic process for earmarks but, rather, simply awarded them as he saw fit. And until recently, the earmark went directly to Sabato's center, bypassing the University of Virginia administration, though the request now flows through a more formal internal channel, said the center's chief of staff, Ken Stroupe
The idea that earmarks contribute to our fiscal problems is laughable; however, earmarking procedure did contribute to the rampant corruption of Congress. Now that earmarks are more transparent, members of Congress are forced not only to reveal what they are funding but also justify it politically -- which is why Perriello's office is choosing to fund economic projects they hope will help their constituents. That's not to say a political science center at a state university is an undeserving project, but it's the other earmarks Goode supported that indicate the problems behind awarding taxpayer money as you see fit.
-- Tim Fernholz
