Nearly every story about earmark reform, which is supposed to discourage legislators from using narrowly targeted spending to curry favor with donors and constituents, mentions Cunningham. Yet it's hard to see how the reforms adopted by the House could have prevented his graft, since they include an exception for just the sort of earmarks he found most profitable.Nor are the changes likely to stop members of Congress from trying to buy votes with taxpayers' money. The reforms rely mainly on greater openness to shame legislators into better fiscal behavior, and when it comes to pork, legislators have no shame.
The new rules require House members to submit written requests for earmarks to the chairman of the relevant committee, identifying the recipient, describing the purpose and certifying that neither the sponsor nor his spouse has a financial interest in the expenditure. Information about earmarks in legislation considered by the House will be made available online.
But as Citizens Against Government Waste notes, these disclosure requirements do not cover earmarks designated for federal agencies, which are how Cunningham generated most of his graft income. Instead of allocating money directly to the two companies that paid him some $2.4 million in bribes, he obtained Defense Department project earmarks that resulted in contracts for them.
An inquiry by the House Intelligence Committee, on which Cunningham served, found he had bullied committee staffers into going along with the earmarks and pressured Pentagon officials into awarding the contracts. As a member of the House appropriations subcommittee in charge of defense spending, he had enough clout to overcome his enablers' misgivings.
At least Cunningham had the decency to hide what he was doing. For legislators who brag about taking money from taxpayers around the country and spending it on parochial projects in their districts or states, the threat of publicity does not seem like much of a deterrent.