Spending, Political Speech, Clay Pigeons

|

The most promising thing to come out of the Abramoff scandal, besides seeing members of Congress face prison, has been the talk about reining in earmarks, those pet spending projects that enable legislative excess and abuse.

The currently-stalled House lobbying reform package has a provision intended to curb earmarks in spending bills. However, Republican spenders, like Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, feel singled out and are pushing for "broad-based" earmark reforms that would also address pet projects tacked onto tax and policy bills. Sounds great. But spending hawks call this is a poison pill designed to sink earmark reform. "Appropriators know you lose the whole thing if you broaden it," said Jeff Flake (R-Ariz).

Whatever ultimately happens on earmarks, there will still be good reasons to hate the lobbying reform bill: Republican leaders are determined to slip in a recently-passed campaign finance provision that imposes limits on contributions to 527 groups, which represents an outrageous attack on free speech.

Meanwhile, the Senate debates a larded up $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that Bush threatens to veto (right), while Tom Coburn (R-Okla) tries to cut $2.6 billion worth of earmarks using something called a "clay pigeon strategy," described here.

NEXT: Oh, If Only They Had A Hammer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does anybody have any sense as to whether the 527 restriction would be upheld by SCOTUS? Maybe the political strategy is to support the reform and the restrictions, if you’re confident SCOTUS will invalidate that portion of the law.

    If you’re not, then yeah, it’s worth ditching earmark reform just to avoid further emasculating the First Amendment.

  2. When I first read the headline, I thought it was going to be another joke at the expense of Chenney.

  3. Holy crap, Mike Alissi’s still here!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.