Earmark ban and rise of ‘lettermarking’ could be detrimental to transparency
WASHINGTON (Jan. 30, 2016) – While earmarks were an easy target for those looking to reduce government spending, banning them has led members of Congress to secure funds for their districts through a practice called “lettermarking,” in which members write to the head of an administrative agency to request the funding. The end result may be detrimental to the separation of powers and to lawmakers’ productivity, according to a new R Street policy study by Bowling Green State University professors Russell W. Mills and Nicole Kalaf-Hughes.
“Our recent research on lettermarking found executive agencies and the president now have wide discretion in the allocation of projects,” Mills and Kalaf-Hughes write. “The ban on earmarking and the emergence of lettermarking has shifted decision-making authority to spend funds from the legislative to executive branch, while also giving the president increased control over the electoral future of members of Congress.”
The policy led to President Barack Obama’s use of his authority to shift federal spending to swing states during the 2012 election and to vulnerable democratic Senate candidates during the 2014 midterm, according to a recent study by John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.
The authors conclude, “Reformers need to pick their poison. We can continue the earmark ban and live with lettermarking, or we can restore a transparent and accountable system of earmarking.”
