During the last election season, Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) created an interactive online map showing the pork he had won for each county in his district, including $1 million for an Appalachian wine institute, $2 million for an astronomy center in Transylvania County and $3 million for a local school "to promote healthy childhood development and prevent violence." In Montana, which ranks in the top 10 on lists of both per capita pork and federal spending per dollar of federal taxes, Republican Sen. Conrad Burns boasted of sponsoring some $2 billion in earmarks for the state.

"That money is going to be spent somewhere," Burns explained. "I want Montana to get first share." In a political culture with no respect for constitutional limits on federal spending, that attitude is sadly common.

But contrary to what politicians like Burns and Taylor seem to believe, the connection between pork-barrel spending and re-election is unclear. In his 1991 book "The Culture of Spending," political scientist James L. Payne concluded, based on data from the mid-1980s, that "a congressman's support for spending does not seem to have any significant effect on his electoral showing." Payne also noted the political success of fiscal conservatives who pride themselves on eschewing earmarks.

It's possible too much pork might even be bad for a politician. Both Taylor and Burns -- who had served 16 and 18 years, respectively -- lost their bids for re-election, perhaps partly because Cunningham's corruption made the earmarks about which they bragged seem disreputable. If so, we can thank the crook for helping to restore some semblance of fiscal discipline.