Find Insurance Online

In March, 2010, leaders of the US House Appropriations Committee (chaired by Rep. David Obey (D-WI)), banned ear-marks to for-profit companies. Had the ban on for-profit earmarks been in place in 2009, it would have meant the elimination of about 1,000 awards worth a total of about $1.7 billion. Many of those earmarks went to military contractors for projects in lawmakers’ home districts. The decision ends a practice that has steered billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to companies and set off corruption scandals. So far, though, the Senate is not joining in. House Democrats had tried to reach an agreement with their counterparts to ban for-profit earmarks, but the senators balked, Congressional officials said. With the Senate including for-profit earmarks in its budget bills and the House excluding them, negotiators from each body will have to determine which earmarks, if any, would make it into a final bill sent to the White House for approval. So it is possible that businesses could continue to get no-bid government contracts. According to the Office of Congressional Ethics, there is a “widespread perception” among the private-sector recipients of earmarks that giving political contributions to lawmakers on the panel helped secure the grants. It is possible that this assumption could survive from future ear-marks (via conference committee negotiations)  even as the House leaders are percieved as having solved the problem.  In other words, the corporate political contributions continue even as the House incumbants campaign on having solved the problem in the House.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11earmark.html?ref=us