Rep. Russ Fulcher: I will keep fighting earmarks and the corruption and waste they foster

Earmarks are back. In 2010, at the height of the use of earmarks, a poll revealed 79% of respondents saw earmarks as “not acceptable” – including 71% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans. The next year, Congress banned the practice – and rightly so. Have Americans changed their mind or has Congress forgotten why the vast majority opposed their use?

A few months ago, I conducted my own survey in Idaho’s 1st District. To no surprise, the results mirrored the national 2010 survey: Over 87% of the roughly 12,000 Idaho respondents opposed the use of earmarks and did not support their return to Congress.

Unlike Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I suspect these Idahoans did not forget the slippery slope of corruption and wasted tax dollars caused by earmark spending.

The “earmark” provision began as part of a large spending bill in the 1990s and quickly accelerated in the 2000s. It allocates money to be directed to a specific location, project or institution, usually within an influential member’s district. Between 1994 and 2011, earmarks increased yearly by 282%, generating almost 16,000 extra funding requests per year (that’s over 36 requests per member).

Several members of Congress were criminally convicted for using “bribe menus” (leveraging earmark levels to campaign contributions), and using earmarked taxpayer funds to pay illegal loans. Lobbyists have also been sent to prison for providing members with campaign donations, gifts and trips in return for earmark funding.

This year we will see the highest level of government spending and expansion in history. With these historic levels of spending already underway, it is baffling to me that Speaker Pelosi decided to reinstate earmarks after 10 years, under a new name: “member-directed spending.”

Despite continued criticism from the media accusing me of not caring about my district and “opting out” of securing funding for Idaho, I have fought the return of earmarks since the day they were rumored to return.

I joined a majority of Republicans in the House who voiced concerns with the return of this extra spending – particularly while the 2020 budget deficit stands in the trillions, and over $27 trillion in total national debt. Joining over 30 senators and fellow members of Congress, I sent a letter to the Senate and House appropriations committees to oppose the return of earmarks. I then sent a second letter, this time addressed to Speaker Pelosi. The letter is a pledge against requesting earmarked money.

There is no shortage of appropriations that waste taxpayer dollars on special wish lists – such as the $600 million to Pelosi’s home of San Francisco, provided by the Biden COVID relief package, comes to mind. One can only imagine how quickly this pet-project spending will accrue with the earmark option put back into place.

We must remember, with the national debt nearing $30 trillion, every federal spending bill is an invoice to our grandchildren.

I introduced the “One Subject at a Time Act” to eliminate these massive bills which hide further wasteful spending and countless pet projects. Earmarks do the opposite and if enacted again, will continue the culture of pork-barrel spending and backroom deals.

Russ Fulcher has served as the U.S. Representative for Idaho’s 1st Congressional District since 2019.