In what looks like another step in the right direction, House Democrats will no longer award contracts to for-profit companies through earmarks in appropriations bills. Sure, it came after a move to clear subcommittee members of any wrongdoing, but it is encouraging to see such shady political practices curbed. I, for one, am a big fan of earmarks, but I am not in favor of awarding earmarks to companies and firms that do not bid on contracts and employ campaign contributions as ways to gain favor with committee members in exchange for those appropriations.
Earmarks are generally considered to be as bad as lobbyists in politics, and indeed are often attributed to the lobbying power of one industry or another. But both have their place. Lobbyists, when employed approriately, advocate for companies and often give rise to alternate views and opinions in debating the merits of a law or regulations. Earmarks, when employed appropriately, create transparency in a spending bill, allowing money to followed from the taxpayer to the grant awarded or the firm receiving the funds. No-bid contracts, however, do not have their place in what should be a transparent process, and a move to eradicate earmarks for for-profit companies is not only laudable, but bold. Unless I’m crazy, couldn’t this move could also reduce government spending on projects (especially defense contracts) by opening more bidding wars and lowering what we end up spending on those contracts? It may only amount to a relatively small savings, but coupled with the open-door process the House is touting, then we should be all for it.
