lily
10-12-2007, 04:43 PM
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102524.html?wpisrc=newsletter)
Earmarks Put Candidates On the Spot
Obama, Clinton Camps Defend Requests Made for Constituents
By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A01
Just a few months before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama
(D-Ill.) co-sponsored a little-noticed proposal to require the Pentagon to
spend $2 million on brain trauma research for soldiers wounded in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Earlier this year, Obama made dozens of additional earmark requests, and --
consistent with his position that such requests be transparent -- he
publicly disclosed the beneficiaries. More than half a dozen requests were
meant for clients of a lobbying and law firm whose partners have donated
more than $38,000 to Obama in the past two years.
Obama's work highlights the delicate balancing act faced by several members
of Congress running for president, as they try to sound a populist,
anti-special-interest message while also fulfilling their traditional role
of delivering federal money for their constituents' pet projects.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has rejected Obama's attacks that
she is too close to lobbyists, arranged a $3 million earmark this spring for
the development of hydrogen-fuel and hybrid technology by General Motors,
whose lobbyists include one of her biggest fundraisers.
And Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), whose presidential campaign frequently attacks
excessive spending by Congress, requested more than five dozen earmarks this
year worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a
Texas theater, funding a local trolley and helping his state's shrimp
industry.
"Yes, Barack Obama is indeed guilty of fighting for important projects in
Illinois that help veterans, kids and important infrastructure priorities,"
said Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman. "He is committed to
dramatically reforming the earmark process, and as president he will do so."
Durbin spokesman Joseph Shoemaker said that the senator originally came up
with the idea for the University of Chicago earmark and that he invited
Obama to join in the request. Shoemaker added that he was unaware of any
conversations about Michelle Obama's role at the university.
The earmark faced stiff opposition on the Senate floor last year. Sen. Ted
Stevens (R-Alaska), then the Appropriations Committee chairman, said
directing the funds to the University of Chicago would circumvent the normal
process by which the National Institutes of Health hands out research funds.
"For this to be earmarked here, now, means they no longer have to compete,"
Stevens said of the university. "The program [NIH has] for allocating money,
I think, should not be obviated by an earmark here on the floor." The
spending proposal was eventually set aside.
Bernadette Sargeant, a former counsel for the House ethics committee,
questioned whether Obama should have put his name on a request that would
have sent funds to his wife's employer. "It is not like her salary is going
to change because of this benefit," she said. "But, given her title and the
stature of her position, it is a prestige enhancement, or could be perceived
as a prestige enhancement."
Sargeant said Obama's decision to co-sponsor the earmark raises concerns
under two provisions of the Senate ethics
Earmarks Put Candidates On the Spot
Obama, Clinton Camps Defend Requests Made for Constituents
By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A01
Just a few months before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama
(D-Ill.) co-sponsored a little-noticed proposal to require the Pentagon to
spend $2 million on brain trauma research for soldiers wounded in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Earlier this year, Obama made dozens of additional earmark requests, and --
consistent with his position that such requests be transparent -- he
publicly disclosed the beneficiaries. More than half a dozen requests were
meant for clients of a lobbying and law firm whose partners have donated
more than $38,000 to Obama in the past two years.
Obama's work highlights the delicate balancing act faced by several members
of Congress running for president, as they try to sound a populist,
anti-special-interest message while also fulfilling their traditional role
of delivering federal money for their constituents' pet projects.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has rejected Obama's attacks that
she is too close to lobbyists, arranged a $3 million earmark this spring for
the development of hydrogen-fuel and hybrid technology by General Motors,
whose lobbyists include one of her biggest fundraisers.
And Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), whose presidential campaign frequently attacks
excessive spending by Congress, requested more than five dozen earmarks this
year worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a
Texas theater, funding a local trolley and helping his state's shrimp
industry.
"Yes, Barack Obama is indeed guilty of fighting for important projects in
Illinois that help veterans, kids and important infrastructure priorities,"
said Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman. "He is committed to
dramatically reforming the earmark process, and as president he will do so."
Durbin spokesman Joseph Shoemaker said that the senator originally came up
with the idea for the University of Chicago earmark and that he invited
Obama to join in the request. Shoemaker added that he was unaware of any
conversations about Michelle Obama's role at the university.
The earmark faced stiff opposition on the Senate floor last year. Sen. Ted
Stevens (R-Alaska), then the Appropriations Committee chairman, said
directing the funds to the University of Chicago would circumvent the normal
process by which the National Institutes of Health hands out research funds.
"For this to be earmarked here, now, means they no longer have to compete,"
Stevens said of the university. "The program [NIH has] for allocating money,
I think, should not be obviated by an earmark here on the floor." The
spending proposal was eventually set aside.
Bernadette Sargeant, a former counsel for the House ethics committee,
questioned whether Obama should have put his name on a request that would
have sent funds to his wife's employer. "It is not like her salary is going
to change because of this benefit," she said. "But, given her title and the
stature of her position, it is a prestige enhancement, or could be perceived
as a prestige enhancement."
Sargeant said Obama's decision to co-sponsor the earmark raises concerns
under two provisions of the Senate ethics