Opinion: Ted Stevens: still a persuasive argument for earmark reform

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

This just in: former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is still a former senator.

The Justice Department’s decision not to try Stevens again for failing to report gifts from a supporter on his financial disclosure forms seems odd at first -- it’s a Democratic appointee (Attorney General Eric Holder) chastising the previous Republican administration for being overzealous in its pursuit of a powerful Republican lawmaker. But then, it’s easy for Holder to repudiate his predecessors -- and spare Stevens the expense and anxiety of another defense -- when there’s no point left in prosecuting him. His career is done.

I’m no fan of prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys. Stevens deserved a fair trial, and he didn’t get one. On the other hand, Stevens was one of the roadblocks to badly needed reforms in the appropriations process. I’m not talking about his ability to backhoe federal tax dollars into Alaska; I’m referring instead to the we-make-the-rules attitude shown by Stevens and other senior appropriators.

I don’t have a problem with members of Congress telling the administration how to spend money. That’s their constitutional role, after all. But earmarks have long been the weak link in the process. They’re inadequately disclosed, there’s virtually no vetting (ever hear of a committee hearings on proposed appropriations earmarks?), and there’s no oversight to speak of after the bill becomes law. Members who seek earmarks should be required to do so publicly, with appropriators inviting the public’s scrutiny. There should also be more thorough disclosure requirements for any lobbying efforts (and campaign contributions) related to each earmark request. Finally, earmarks shouldn’t lead to disproportionate distributions of tax dollars. Instead, when lawmakers direct dollars to a specific project in a state, the money should come out of that state’s share of the federal pie.

Stevens wasn’t former Republican Rep. Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham, an appropriator convicted of bribery for trying to steer defense contracts to his benefactors. Instead, he was the king of disproportionate distributions, as the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense has noted. Had the Justice Department not honed in on his financial disclosure forms, he’d probably still be in office today. After all, Alaskans benefited from Stevens’ mastery of the earmarking process. They had plenty of motivation to keep him in office, regardless of what it meant for the rest of us.