The candidates and earmarks

On the issue of earmarking federal funds for pet projects, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has the right record and the right idea. The Washington Post reports the following revealing figures for the leading presidential candidates, based on a report by Taxpayers for Common Sense: Hillary Rodham Clinton sponsored $342 million in earmarks, Barack Obama $91 million, and especially worth noting, John McCain zero.

Mrs. Clinton, the Post reports, ranked 10th among legislators in the amount of federal dollars she directed to beneficiaries, including government agencies and private firms. The New York Democratic senator co-sponsored nearly all of these earmarks with other members of her state delegation. According to the Post and an earlier article in the Los Angeles Times, Mrs. Clinton believes securing federal funds for her constituents is an important part of her job and takes pride in it.

Sen. Obama mostly works in concert with other Illinois lawmakers on earmarks, the Post reports. He supports earmarks only for public agencies and supported Senate rules changes to require public disclosure of all earmarks by each sponsor.

The most controversial aspect of earmarking in recent years is the link between earmark beneficiaries, lobbyists and campaign contributions. A 2006 Washington Post series noted that a leading Washington lobbyist said of campaign contributions to those members of Congress who had helped his clients: "You can't be in this business and not give."

This year, for the first time, it is possible to link public campaign-giving records kept by the Federal Elections Commission and earmark sponsors, thanks to new congressional rules requiring sponsors to identify themselves and the beneficiaries.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Sen. Clinton has received more than $1 million in campaign contributions from individuals affiliated with recipients of her earmarks. Said the Times in an article reviewing earmarks by Mrs. Clinton, "Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations.

"About 64 percent of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists." The same Times article listed $10,000 in campaign contributions to Sen. Obama from persons connected with a public aquarium in Illinois for which he obtained an earmarked appropriation.

As long as there is no explicit quid pro quo, it is legal to give campaign funds to legislators who fill earmark requests, unless, and until, South Carolina's Sen. Jim DeMint, a leading anti-earmark crusader, is successful in getting legislation passed to outlaw it.

The president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, Ryan Alexander, calls the link between earmarks and campaign contributions a "pay to play" culture. Sen. McCain, promising to end earmark abuse, has said, "The system is corrupt. To think anything else ignores the way in which it has spiraled out of control. ... It is disgraceful and it has got to stop."

That's the right and credible approach from a man who practices what he preaches.