Egad, an Earmark

The lead story in The New York Times this morning, “Leaders in House Block Earmarks to Corporations,” describes a ban on a particularly pernicious practice, the inclusion of special grants for local representatives, inserted into a larger bill to please their constituencies.

The ban only covers for-profit companies but could still save over $1 billion per year. However, the Senate still allows earmarks for corporations, meaning they must be reconciled with the House version before being sent to President Obama’s desk for signature.

Excuse me for cynicism but does anyone believe this will significantly reduce the power of lobbyists in Congress? Instead, they will work to influence representatives on the actual legislation, a far more lucrative attempt in any case.

And the real problem with influence peddlers remains the nation’s campaign finance laws. As long as you have corporations donating significant amounts to political campaigns, there will be the expectation of some return on their investment.

And now the Supreme Court has made matters even worse in their recent ruling, granting “corporations” the same rights of free speech, creating political ads, etc. as those of ordinary citizens. President Obama was right when he decried this ruling in his State of the Union speech.

So money and politics will continue to go together despite the well-meaning attempt of an earmark ban.