PLEASANTON, Calif. - Until this year, Richard W. Pombo, the seven-term
Republican congressman from the Central Valley, had never caused much fanfare
about bringing home earmarks, the special local projects that circumvent the
normal budgeting process. He was far better known for his work fighting
environmental regulations.
All that changed in the closing months of this year's surprisingly tight
re-election campaign, when Mr. Pombo began trumpeting the money he had directed
to his car-bound district - particularly $75 million for highway expansion, a
gift for one of the most congested areas of California.
But it was not enough to persuade voters like Alex Aldenhuysen, a self-described
independent, just out of the Navy and voting for the first time in two years. He
said he was turned off by Mr. Pombo's earmark talk. And in the end, Mr. Pombo
lost his seat to a Democrat in one of the year's most significant upsets.
A timeworn bit of political wisdom has been that larding one's district with
pork projects can act as an incumbency protection program. And the Republican
leaders in Congress ardently followed that principle.
"The leadership talked all the time about how we've got to use earmarks to help
these vulnerable members," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of
Arizona, who has become one of Washington's loudest opponents of earmarking.
"But what this election showed was that earmarks just aren't that important to
voters."
The powers of incumbency could not outweigh far more pressing issues, this year,
like the war in Iraq - which became the central point of most of the Democratic
campaigns - or the scandals that tarnished the Republican Party
as a whole. The abuse of earmarks itself became an issue in several races with
some of their biggest users, including two senators and four House members who
served on the appropriations committees that oversee federal spending, losing
their seats.
It would be premature to write off the power of earmarks. Even in a highly
unfavorable year for Republicans, some of the biggest pork-style spenders
handily won re-election. And though Democrats have vowed to strip earmarks
from unfinished spending bills, the practice is such an oft-used political tool that
it may prove too tempting to eliminate.
"When you're talking about institutional change, you need something sweeping to
happen in an election," said James D. Savage, a professor of political science
at the University of Virginia and the author of a book on earmarks. "I think the
incentive to use earmarks is still there because it's one of the few tools a member
of Congress can use."
The number and total cost of earmarks reached record highs over the last two
years, but they seemed to offer little help to some members.
Representative Anne M. Northup, a Kentucky Republican who was a member of the
House Appropriations Committee, was defeated after five terms despite bringing
earmarks to her district, which includes Louisville, that were worth more than
five times that of two other districts without competitive races. Mr. Flake
identified her as one of the Republican leaders who pushed for earmarks to help
troubled incumbents.
"Anne Northup was in there saying we've got to have these earmarks to help
certain members," Mr. Flake said. "She was always saying how valuable they are."
In an interview, Ms. Northup defended earmarks as a flexible budget tool for
members of Congress, and she took issue with Mr. Flake's conclusion that voters
rejected politicians who relied on them.
Instead, she singled out one of the most notorious earmarks of the last budget
cycle - $230 million to build a bridge from a small town in Alaska to an island
with fewer than 50 people - as an anchor that dragged down other Republicans.
Representative Don Young, an Alaska Republican who served as chairman of the
Transportation Committee, guided a bill loaded with a record amount of earmarks,
including his bridge project in his district.
"How do you explain to voters a $230 million bridge to nowhere?" Ms. Northup
asked. Mr. Young, who has been chairman of the Transportation Committee since
2001, did not respond to interview requests.
A few weeks before the end of his re-election campaign, Senator Conrad Burns,
Republican of Montana, issued an unusual news release. He added up all the
earmark projects he had delivered to his state, boasting of bringing home $2
billion to a state with fewer than a million people.
Montana, Mr. Burns said, had been awarded a huge range of federal projects, from
$597,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute to $8 million to encourage private
space travel.
"That money is going to be spent somewhere," Mr. Burns said in a debate at
Montana State University, where the Burns Technology Center is named for him. "I
want Montanans to get first share."
Mr. Burns, a three-term senator who was considered one of the Senate's most
vulnerable incumbents, lost by about 3,000 votes.
"These vulnerables were literally screaming at the top of their lungs about what
they've been able to deliver," said Steve Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers
for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group.
Representative Mike Sodrel, Republican of Indiana, was put on an influential
transportation committee two years ago specifically so he could increase the
amount of financing for his swing district, he said in a news release.
For Mr. Sodrel's district, it paid off. He boasted that he had been able to
increase transportation spending there by $220 million, or 37 percent, from the
previous spending bill. Mr. Sodrel still lost his seat in November.
There were several races in which the ability to bring home hundreds of federal
projects might have made enough of a difference to withstand a Democratic tide.
Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the fourth-ranking Republican in the
House, issued dozens of news releases over the last 18 months boasting of the
projects she brought home to a district that is considered evenly divided
between the two parties.
There was $2.27 million to convert a mountain of garbage into a green energy
center, $1.1 million to help keep residents of a fast-growing suburb from having
to pay more in user fees for a new sewage system, and the latest installment in
$2.7 million in federal disbursements to "evaluate freeze-dried berries for
their ability to inhibit cancer."
In a spending bill that never passed the most recent session of Congress, Ms.
Pryce's district stood to get the largest single earmark in Ohio - $1.75 million
for a health research institute. In total, the Columbus area lined up about $4.5
million in special money.
By comparison, Portland, Ore. - a similar-sized metropolitan area with no
contested Congressional seats - was to receive $625,000 in earmarks.
Ms. Pryce won by barely a thousand votes.
But she was in some ways an exception this year. Several Republican incumbents
who tried a similar strategy of touting their earmarks were unsuccessful.
Representative Charles Taylor, an eight-term Republican from North Carolina who
lost his race, set up an interactive map on his re-election Web site to show the
largess that he had directed to every county in his district.
"Click on the map to see how many of your taxpayer dollars Congressman Taylor
has returned to your county," it said, going on to detail items like $1 million
for the creation of an Appalachian wine institute, $2 million to an astronomy
center deep in the forests of Transylvania County and $3 million to a local
school "to promote healthy childhood development and prevent violence."
Mr. Taylor was chairman of the appropriations panel on the interior and
environment, making him a spending "cardinal" in the House. His position may
have led him to be caught off guard, said Mr. Ellis said.
"I think being an appropriator makes people lazy," Mr. Ellis said. "They think
they don't have to do all the other important things for their district. It
makes them feel bulletproof - 'The voters wouldn't be so stupid as to vote me
out of office.' "
Mr. Taylor, who refused interview requests, lost his seat to Heath Shuler, who
made excessive federal spending one of his campaign themes.
While people who oppose earmarks saw last month's election as a rejection of the
growing volume of special projects, others say that is the wrong way to
interpret the results.
"Bringing federal projects home to a district helps an incumbent - period," said
Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee. "Jeff
Flake is totally misreading the results."
He said Mr. Taylor and another member of the Appropriations Committee, Don
Sherwood, Republican of Pennsylvania, had lost because of personal problems. Ms.
Northup, he said, "was just in a bad district - it's always been tight."
He attributed Indiana's three losses to poorly run campaigns.
But Mr. Flake cited his own state as proof that that pork does not ensure
re-election. A fellow Arizona Republican member who had embraced earmarks,
Representative J. D. Hayworth, lost his seat.
"In the end, the voters saw through it," Mr. Flake said.
Mr. Forti attributed Mr. Hayworth's loss to running a single-issue campaign,
against immigration.
Still, Mr. Flake cites his own experience to back his point. Two years ago, Mr.
Flake drew a strong opponent in the primary who rounded up several mayors in his
district and made an issue of his refusal to tag earmarks for the home district.
