Beyond the 60 second debate answer: Earmarks

I’m the only House Democrat to oppose them, here’s why:

Katie Porter

Feb 3

READ IN APP

Today I want to once again go beyond my 60 second debate answer and talk about an issue that is animating this race: earmarks.

I’m the only person in this race who opposes “earmarks.” In last week’s debate, I explained why:

Earmarks are specific buckets of money set aside in much larger pieces of legislation to fund certain, very specific projects. Earmarked spending accounts for less than 1% of the money Congress appropriates.

We’ve all lived in a world without earmarks. President Obama was a fierce advocate against them, and they were banned in 2011, and only brought back in 2021.

When Congress, under Democratic leadership, brought them back in 2021, I was the only House Democrat to oppose them. Here’s why:

Earmarks invite corruption, waste, and fraud. The result of our broken campaign finance system is that most of my colleagues are beholden to corporate cash and multi-millionaire donors. One way we’ve seen those donors be thanked is through—you guessed it—earmarks. Through earmarks, politicians can direct funding to a donors’ business—think: building a bridge to nowhere using a donors company, or building a new park for a Mayor who endorsed you, but not for the Mayor who didn’t.
Earmarks don’t go to the neediest communities: Data shows that earmarked funds end up in whiter, wealthier, more affluent communities—in fact, Members who represent majority Black and Hispanic districts get half as much money as those who represent majority white districts. Neutral experts are the best qualified to determine where taxpayer dollars are most needed.
Earmarks don’t give Californians their fair share: Senators from much smaller states like Alabama and South Carolina have taken home more money than California. California’s next Senator should be a fierce advocate for changing the system so that Californians do get their fair share.

Earmarks are not about addressing your biggest challenges. They’re about diverting taxpayer dollars from where they’re needed most to where Washington politicians want them to go, with very little transparency or accountability. It’s not good enough to just keep doing things the way we have been, and I’m proud to be standing up against them.

Katie Porter

Donate