Congress and the Whiff of Corruption

The Washintongton Post runs an interesting story today about the possibility of corruption and the Congress's method of "earmarking" appropriations. Earmarks are targeted, specific congressional spending measures that are often inserted by members so that they are not subject to general debate. When a spending bill is approved by both the House and Senate, a Conference Committee forms to iron out the differences. After the conference produces a uniform bill, it goes back to the chambers, usually for an up-or-down floor vote. At that point, members either vote against the entire piece of legislation (which would probably take funding away from publicly minded projects) or they vote for it, which means funding an area of narrow spending measures.

The narrowness, at best, means that a good deal of government spending benefits small segments of the population, as opposed to wide swaths. An infamous recent example is of an earmark inserted by Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska. The so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" will connect Ketchikan, Alaska (8,900 pop.) to the remote island of Gravina, Alaska (population 50). The bridge has received about $223,000,000 in federal funds. Stevens' seniority nearly guarantees that his earmarks will be largely unquestioned by his colleagues. In fact, when one senator, Tom Coburn, proffered an amendment to shift that funding to Hurricane Katrina relief, Stevens threatened to resign from his post. The Coburn Amendment failed by a vote of 82-15.

Why did it fail? The U.S. Senate is famous for its collegiality and its logrolling/back-scratching. Senators knew that if the Coburn Amendment passed, all such spending could be called into question. They were not willing to bring scrutiny to their spending for it is a key component to re-election. This type of spending is often detested by fiscal conservatives (of which there are few to none in Congress), but it has been an almost accepted price of business for Congress.

The Post's story today, though, raises an additional concern surrounding earmarks. Given that legislators sponsor earmarks, there is the possibility that members can benefit financially from federal spending. The article primarily examines the controversy surrounding Dennis Hastert, the Republican Speaker of the House. Some groups are alleging that federal highway funding, that was controversial, has significantly increased the value of some property Hastert owns. Hastert and those near him are strongly denying a connection between the profits and the spending.

There is a simple solution for this, and if Republicans and Congress want to cleanse their image, they can do so. Federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, must enter all their invested assets into double-blind financial trusts. The judges do not know how their funds are being invested, and those doing the investing, fund managers, do not know the investor's identity. This removes the whiff of corruption, which in recent months, has become more of an aroma on the Hill.