It’s a dance with some familiar steps.

Cash flows into the campaign coffers of elected officials and federal funds spill back into their respective congressional districts for projects sponsored by donors representing those special interests.

Congressional earmarks have become the preferred way of directing federal funds toward the home districts of elected representatives. Two local congressmen and the state’s senior U.S. senator appear to have learned the dance well.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, U.S. Reps. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, and John Sullivan, R-Tulsa, sponsored about $19.45 million in congressional earmarks tacked on to legislation passed this past year.

The nonpartisan budget watchdog group reported U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe’s name was attached to $151.47 million worth of earmark spending. Sen. Tom Coburn, a Muskogee Republican who says earmark spending “is an unconstitutional abuse of power,” sponsored none.

Earlier this year, Coburn said out-of-control congressional spending is, in effect, mortgaging the future of America’s children. He blames career politicians who value gamesmanship over statesmanship.

“We’re rotting from within as far as fiscal policy,” Coburn said during a town hall meeting earlier this year. “If we don’t get this right (fiscal policy) the kids in this country aren’t going to go to college, they’re not going to own a home, and their kids for sure aren’t.”

Defenders of earmark spending say the practice allows elected representatives, who know more about their district’s needs than Washington bureaucrats federal agencies, to direct funding to where it is needed most.

Inhofe said he works closely with his constituents and local leaders while trying to determine the merits of proposed projects. Sullivan said he uses earmarks as a tool to combat out-of-control spending. He said earmarks represent only a small portion of the total budget pie.

“As a fiscal conservative, I believe Congress must take every step to control spending and exercise fiscal restraint while providing the transparency necessary for fiscal accountability,” Sullivan said. “It is important that Congress address not only earmark spending, but all the wasteful spending that goes on in Washington.”

Critics, however, point to the campaign contributions that can be traced to special interests seeking federal funding for pet projects. They say the dollars that line the campaign coffers of earmark sponsors give the appearance of a “pay-for-play” environment — one that raises some serious questions.

Earmarks totaling about $7.92 billion were requested in the defense spending bills approved for fiscal year 2008, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

L-3 Aeromet, a Tulsa-based developer and integrator of sensors and complex electronic systems used in aerospace applications for the U.S. Department of Defense, was the recipient of a $2 million earmark. The congressionally directed funding steered toward L-3 Aeromet was sponsored by U.S. Sen. Inhofe and U.S. Reps. Boren and Sullivan.

Inhofe said the airborne infrared surveillance technology being developed by Aeromet is used to “track ballistic missiles and their warheads in all phases of flight.”