STEVE INSKEEP, host:
Let's talk about an alternative that members of Congress already use. NPR's Andrea Seabrook says it's even less transparent than earmarking.
ANDREA SEABROOK: Phonemarking, that's what it's called in Washington. It's sort of the evil twin of earmarking. Put it this way: Earmarking at its worst goes like this, according to Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian think tank, the CATO Institute:
Dr. DAN MITCHELL (Senior Fellow, CATO Institute): Special interests giving money to lobbyists. Both of them, of course, give contributions to the politicians, who then turn around and use these earmarks to funnel money back to the interest groups. Everyone wins, except the taxpayers.
SEABROOK: Mitchell has a phrase for this earmarking cycle.
Dr. MITCHELL: A Carousel of Corruption.
SEABROOK: With earmarking, a lawmaker specifically designates funding for a particular project in a congressional spending bill. It's written there. It's on paper, though not necessarily with the lawmaker's name.
Now, with phonemarking, says Arizona Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, the process is a little different.
Representative JEFF FLAKE (Republican, Arizona): Phonemarking is basically when a member of Congress will call up an agency head, or somebody directly in control of dispersing money and say, hey, I have this project that I think you should consider.
SEABROOK: It could be a new bus system or a hospital in that Congressman's district. Or it could be a valuable contract for a private company that contributes to the Congressman's campaign. Whatever the project is, says Mitchell, phonemarking is even deeper in the shadows.
Mr. MITCHELL: It's all done, behind the scenes with phone calls, and of course there's a quid pro quo in this - the bureaucracies know that if they don't acquiesce to the demands of the politicians, who are making these phonemarking requests, they might not get even bigger budgets next year.
SEABROOK: And with phonemarking, there's almost no paper trail, so it's very difficult to prove any kind of insider deal making. One reason we know about it at all is because agency heads have complained about the number of requests they get when earmarking has been cut down. That makes a good argument, says Vermont Democrat Peter Welch, for keeping earmarks.
Representative PETER WELCH (Democrat, Vermont): It's not as though, quote, "banning the earmarks" necessarily means that you'll cure what are the legitimate complaints about earmarks, and in fact you may just drive them underground.
SEABROOK: And by the way, says Welch, not all earmarks are bad. Yes, they've been a problem, he says, they drive up spending when they shouldn't.
Representative WELCH: But there are certain things where it's nonprofit, where it's spending in the community to provide a sewer system or it's a road or a bridge, where in fact you've got to give some designation.
SEABROOK: Welch thinks if Congress made earmarks fully public, transparent, required the lawmaker's name on the funding request, it could work and it wouldn't drive lawmakers to more phonemarking. Mitchell at the Cato Institute agrees that banning earmarks could lead to more phonemarks.
Mr. MITCHELL: Well, there's no question that if you go after earmarks, to some extent it's like pressing down on a balloon, it's going to pop up someplace else. And as long as human nature is what it is, politicians are going to respond to campaign contributors and try to help them stick their snouts even deeper into the federal trough.
SEABROOK: But banning earmarks is worth it, he says.
Mr. MITCHELL: At least you're making it harder for this carousel of corruption to operate at full speed.
SEABROOK: To get a handle on phonemarking, says Mitchell, agencies could require budget directors to log their calls, or keep track of funding requests from Members of Congress. Then journalists and watchdog groups could try to connect lawmakers' funding requests with their campaign contributors.
For his part, Mr. Anti-Earmark himself, Republican Congressman Flake, is skeptical that anything will totally end corruption in Washington, but banning earmarks is worth it, he says.
Representative FLAKE: I don't know how you ever stamp that all out, but at least it puts it on the margins, and that's progress.
SEABROOK: Even if it does mean more of earmarking's evil twin phonemarking.
Andrea Seabrook, NPR News, the Capitol.
Copyright © 2010 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.