By D.E. Smoot
Phoenix Staff Writer
June 07, 2008 11:04 pm
—
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.”
“Early versions of the system are currently limited to certain aircraft, but with further development could be deployed on a variety of platforms, including manned or unmanned aerial vehicles,” Inhofe said. “L-3 Aeromet continues to be a leader in developing this critical technology that can be used to defeat incoming ballistic missiles.”
Records show the Tulsa-based company was awarded a $4.4 million federal contract for development of the technology in 2002. The following year, Aeromet was acquired by L-3 Communications, a major defense contractor based in New York.
In 2003, L-3 Aeromet received an additional $3 million to further its AIRS research, which the company’s literature states “is continually advancing remote sensing capability for the most challenging airborne surveillance missions.” Records show congressional funding continues along with campaign contributions from a number of parties with Aeromet interests.
Records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy, executives at Aeromet and L-3 Communications, the lobbying firms they have hired and the employees of all those entities have been generous donors to a number of elected officials.
During the past few years, Inhofe, Sullivan and Boren have received tens of thousands of dollars from special interests associated with Aeromet, L-3 Aeromet, L-3 Communications and lobbyists hired by the companies.
Contributions tracked through the Center for Responsive Politics’ searchable databases show campaign contributions from Aeromet executives dating back to at least 1994.
Garry Booker, Aeromet’s chief operating officer and vice president before the 2003 acquisition by L-3 Communications, said campaign contributions reported by him and others with connections to the family business were nothing more than financial support for congressional members who have the best interests of their districts in mind.
“I guess there are people who feel that political contributions are a way of doing business in Washington,” said Booker, whose father founded Aeromet in 1974 and sold it in 2003 for $20 million. “But if any of the congressional members I worked with ever said to me, ‘Give me some money and I’ll talk to you,’ those aren’t the kind of people I want to do business with.”
While considering the existence of a “pay-for-play” mentality that critics of earmark spending say clouds the credibility of the process, Booker said he sees three kinds of people holding congressional seats:
• Those who don’t support their local districts and maintain a clean image “by not weighing in on important issues or doing anything to promote” their constituents’ interests.
• Those who trade political influence for campaign contributions.
• Those who know the issues and projects important to their districts and work to get the federal funding necessary to grow the local economies and promote new jobs.
“Those are the kind of people — the third type — we like to do business with,” Booker said. “They are not taking kickbacks or bribes. They keep the two issues (federal funding and campaign contributions) separate and make it clear to their constituents they are separate.”
Boren, in a written statement responding to inquiries about the L-3 Aeromet earmark, said his support of the company’s research stems from his belief “that protecting our nation from long-range missile attacks is critical to the security of the United States.”
With regard to congressional earmarks, Boren said he takes the “process very seriously.” Boren said he works closely with potential earmark recipients to study the merits of any proposed project for which funding is sought.
“Furthermore, I post all earmarks I’ve obtained to my Web site and send them out to the media outlets in my district once they are fully approved,” Boren said. “I remain committed to bringing federal dollars home to Oklahoma that enhance our quality of life through road and infrastructure improvements and that will help keep our children and grandchildren safe from foreign attacks for decades to come.”
Sullivan also defended the $2 million earmark for L-3 Aeromet.
“My project requests come as part of my official capacity in representing the First District in Congress and are unrelated to any campaign activity,” Sullivan said. “L-3 Aeromet is a leader in designing special mission aircraft to detect incoming ballistic missile threats to the United States and our allies.”
Sullivan said L-3 Aeromet is an “active and vibrant part of the community and employ a number of my constituents.”
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.