The Return of Earmarks?

Republican lawmakers are gearing up to debate an uncomfortable question they won’t be able to put off much longer: Resurrect earmarks, or leave the controversial practice dead and buried?

Earmarks were a mechanism members of Congress used to secure funding for projects in their districts—until 2011, when they were banned by House Republicans after public opposition to the practice reached a fever pitch as a result of projects such as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”

But there has long been an argument that, despite their abuse, earmarks served an important legislative function in lubricating the processes of government. (See Jonathan Rauch’s thoughtful 2014 piece “The Case for Corruption.”) After the 2016 election a group of House Republicans who advocate a return to earmarks demonstrated they had enough support to force a vote on the matter. House Speaker Paul Ryan convinced them to back down at the time, but according to the Washington Times, some lawmakers are hoping to move forward on the effort in the coming days.

Supporters argue earmarks could be reintroduced as a positive legislative tool without the corruption and waste it previously enabled, through reforms and strict qualifications for their use. But conservative Republicans are still wary of bringing them back.

Republican Study Committee chairman Mark Walker told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Congress’ history of abusing earmarks was too extensive for him to believe that returning to the unpopular deal-making tactic would benefit Americans.