When Earmarks Trump Ethics

THE EXISTENCE — and, until recently, the rapid proliferation — of congressional earmarks presents a quandary. Lawmakers have a legitimate interest in securing funding for their districts. The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, and earmarks reflect the exercise of that authority. On the other hand, the explosion of earmarked spending threatens to elevate political clout over the merits of a project. The existence of earmarks may not increase overall spending, but they may send limited dollars to where they’re not most needed. When bridges are crumbling, the country cannot afford bridges to nowhere.

That background is helpful in assessing the significance of the latest installment of The Post’s series “Capitol Assets.” Reporters Scott Higham, Kimberly Kindy and David S. Fallis scoured disclosure reports and public records and found 33 lawmakers who had steered more than $300 million in earmarks or other spending to projects located within two miles of properties they own. Equally, if not more troubling, the investigation identified 16 lawmakers who have taken actions benefiting entities connected to their immediate families. The importance of these findings is not necessarily that they demonstrate out-and-out corruption as that they illustrate the inevitable ethical questions intertwined with congressional earmarking.

More