As they do with quarterly disclosure requirements, the House and Senate bills mirror one another when it comes to one earmark measure, with both calling for Members who sponsor the narrowly targeted pots of funding to attach their name.
Vincent Versage, a lobbyist with the National Group who has worked for appropriations clients for decades, said that forcing Members to list their names beside earmarks shouldn’t interfere with his client business at all.
“I don’t know of any Member who would not want to have his or her name attached,” he said. “A lot of these Members are proud of bringing projects back.”
But another appropriations lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that forcing Members to disclose which earmarks they push for will have a chilling effect on Members’ support for projects outside of their home states, even if the project is relevant to the committees they sit on.
This lobbyist added that Members and lobbyists alike will be scared off because press reports will link Members’ support of an earmark to lobbyists and their campaign donations.
“I am sick of seeing these articles,” this lobbyist said.
— Kate Ackley
Senator Tom Coburn's activity on the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-2254 Fax: 202-228-3796
