The Cincinnati Enquirer shines  a light on the federal dollars hauled in by Greater Cincinnati's nine-member  House and Senate delegation. When it  comes to delivering the pork, the paper found that Sen. Mitch McConnell is the area's most powerful member. McConnell, a member of the Senate  Appropriations Committee, hauled in $391 million in federal funding for local  projects in budget bills being worked on in Congress, more than 1½ times the  amount that the area's other eight lawmakers got -- combined.

In a dramatic contrast, House Minority Leader  John Boehner is a teetotaller. He doesn't believe in earmarks and hasn't asked for any money for local  projects in the 13 spending bills that make up the federal budget. 

The  Enquirer built their own search engine that  allows readers to search what earmarks local members have gotten in spending  bills that are pending in Washington. Update: It bears mentioning that the database shows just how lousy the new Senate disclosure requirements on earmarks is. There are no company names. Just a general description of what the money should be spent on. The Enquirer writes about Earmark Watch, a joint project of Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Sunlight Foundation.  

Kudos  to The Enquirer.  Hopefully more papers will do the same and  start following what their congressional delegation is doing with our  money.  

0 Comments

As one who has followed Sen. Mitch McConnell's stiff opposition to campaign finance reform efforts for many years, I can't help but recall that while McConnell opposed any campaign finance reform efforts he was always a fan of campaign finance disclosure. That's why his current position on the secret hold/objection on the Senate's electronic disclosure bill - I know but I won't tell - is a bit strange. I mean, if he's for disclosure, then he should want to help S. 223 along.

Here's a sampling of some of what he said in 2001 and 2002 in the context of the debate on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law:

This is about as mild as it gets. All we are asking is for a simple disclosure to the public and to union members of how this money is spent….

It doesn't restrict their spending of the money. It doesn't in any way hamper their ability to raise the money. Simple disclosure is all the Hatch amendment is about, disclosure and sunlight….

If you want to deal with perception, you take money all the way out of politics and we'd have a Japanese kind of system. What we ought to have is disclosure….

I think groups should have the right to run those ads, but they ought to be disclosed and they ought to be accurate.

Sen. McConnell has even gained praise in at least two Kentucky papers for his advocacy of campaign finance disclosure:

The Kentucky Post has written: "But give McConnell this: He has never hidden his opposition to campaign spending limits, he's been a worthy opponent for all comers and he has advocated full disclosure so that voters know who is giving to whom. He has elevated the debate."

The Lexington Herald Leader wrote: "McConnell and others oppose most restrictions on constitutional grounds and instead advocate greater disclosure of the sources of money in political campaigns."

So where does Senator McConnell stand today? For or against campaign finance disclosure? Call him and find out at (202) 224-2541. If he won't talk with his colleagues and ask them to drop their objection on S. 223, or start naming names, we know he's no friend of transparency.

0 Comments