What Is Pork Barrel Legislation?
In May of 2024, six Republican candidates vying to represent District 4 in the U.S. House of Representatives engaged in a fiery debate about the ethical considerations of using earmarks to fund legislative priorities in their district. While this type of funding, which is sometimes confused with pork barrel legislation, was a point of contention between the moderator and candidates, most viewers were left wondering what all the fuss was about.
The practice of setting aside funding for pet projects back home has become a notorious aspect of American politics, often sparking debates about its necessity and its impact on government integrity and transparency.
What exactly is pork barrel legislation, and how did it come to play such a significant role in the legislative process? Join us as we explore the origins, evolution, and implications of pork barrel spending and shed some light on its controversial nature.
Pork Barrel Legislation vs. Earmarks
Although the terms “earmarks” and “pork barrel legislation” are often used interchangeably, there are subtle differences in how they’re authorized and allocated. Pork barrel spending refers to the allocation of taxpayer funds for localized projects secured primarily to bring money to a representative's district.
These expenditures are often included in larger, often unrelated, bills, and they’re intended to please constituents and win votes rather than to serve a national interest. Such appropriations also escape routine budgetary oversight and voting since spending bills must be passed in an all-or-nothing manner. The funds can be spent at the legislator's discretion, and they often involve backroom deals and undue influence from special interests.
Earmarks, on the other hand, are funds set aside for special projects. They usually have a specific start date, and they’re targeted to a particular city or district. The projects funded by these monetary allocations can range from infrastructure improvements to public works, but the practice is frequently criticized for being unnecessary or wasteful.
For example, one of the most wasteful and self-indulgent allocations was made by the late Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who set aside $7 million dollars of taxpayer money to fund research at his own institute.
Fed up with politics as usual?
The Origins of the Term “Pork Barrel”
The term "pork barrel" has a colorful history that dates back to the early 18th century, although there is some divergence as to its origins. One story has it that, due to lack of refrigeration, pork was salted and preserved in large barrels. People would reach in to grab their share, with the biggest, quickest, or most powerful getting the most. This came to symbolize the way politicians would “dip into” federal coffers and distribute benefits to constituents to curry favor and get votes or donations.
Another version of the story posits that the term originated from the practice of awarding barrels of salted pork to enslaved people as a “reward” for good service from their masters.
Also called patronage, the phrase gained popularity in the post-Civil War era when it was used to describe the practice of politicians passing legislation that benefited their districts at the expense of the broader public good. By the early 20th century, "pork barrel" became a staple in the lexicon of political commentary and a facet of crony capitalism, encapsulating the idea of using public funds for local projects with limited national benefit.
The Evolution of Pork Barrel Legislation
Pork barrel spending has evolved significantly since its early days. Initially, it was a straightforward way for politicians to deliver tangible benefits to their districts and secure voter support. Over time, however, the process of securing funds became more sophisticated and, in many cases, more opaque.
The language changed as well, transitioning from the rather vulgar “pork barrel spending” to the more innocuous “community project funding.” Some people even put the concept of constituent services into the same category as earmarks and pork barrel spending.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the use of financial set-asides surged, with members of Congress routinely inserting pet projects into large appropriations bills. This period saw a dramatic increase in the number and cost of earmarks, leading to growing public and political concern about the practice.
By the mid-2000s, the issue had reached a boiling point, culminating in various scandals that exposed the extent of the problem.
Examples of Pork Barrel Legislation and Earmarks
Historical Examples of Pork Barrel Legislation
Although there was no name for pork barrel spending at the birth of our nation, Thomas Jefferson pondered the consequences of such appropriations in the postscript of a letter to James Madison, dated March 6, 1796:
“Have you considered all the consequences of your proposition respecting post roads? I view it as a source of boundless patronage to the executive, jobbing to members of Congress and their friends, and a bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by only appropriating the surplus of the post-office revenues: but the other revenues will soon be called in to their aid, and it will be a scene of eternal scramble among the members who can get the most money wasted in their state, and they will always get most who are meanest.”
Although Madison may be credited with initiating the practice, he’s far from the only public official to engage in it.
Abraham Lincoln routinely awarded war contracts in exchange for jobs and political support during the U.S. Civil War.
A political cesspool of corruption, Tammany Hall, was a place where favors were often traded for political support until it was shut down by the arrest and conviction of Boss Tweed in 1873.
In 1991, a conservative non-profit group called Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) began to compile an annual publication called The Congressional Pig Book. The goal was to locate and publicize the most egregious examples of pork barrel appropriations in the U.S. government.
They list the criteria for pork barrel legislation or earmarks as one which is:
Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the president;
Greatly exceeds the president’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.
In order to qualify as wasteful spending, an appropriation must meet at least one of the criteria.
Modern Examples of Pork Barrel Legislation
To understand the impact of pork barrel legislation, it's helpful to examine some modern examples. These are in no particular order:
#1: The "Big Dig" in Boston
One of the most infamous examples of pork barrel spending is the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, known as the Big Dig. Originally estimated to cost $2.8 billion, the project ultimately exceeded $14 billion, becoming a symbol of budget overruns and inefficiency.
#2: Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere"
In the early 2000s, an earmark was secured for a $398 million bridge in Alaska connecting the town of Ketchikan to Gravina Island, which had a population of about 50 people. The project faced massive public backlash and was eventually canceled, but not before it had become a national symbol of wasteful spending.
#3: The F-22 Raptor Program
Despite opposition from military leaders who deemed the program unnecessary, Congress allocated billions of dollars for additional F-22 fighter jets. Critics argued that the funds could have been better spent on more pressing defense needs.
#4: Funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission
While the Appalachian Regional Commission's goal of economic development in the Appalachian region is laudable, critics argue that some of its projects funded through earmarks do not provide significant benefits and are used to curry favor with local constituents.
Individual Member Examples
Since reform efforts were largely repealed by 2022, pork barrel spending has reemerged as a contentious issue in modern politics. One prominent example of wasteful spending is by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine).
According to reporting in the Maine Morning Star, Collins is the undisputed Queen of Senate Appropriations. As of this point in Fiscal Year 2024, she has grabbed 231 in earmarks, totaling more than $575 million.
She’s also a ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. But she’s not the only culprit. The latest CAGW report lists the top five offenders for 2024 — who make up only 0.93% of the 535-member congressional body — as:
Susan Collins (R-Maine): 231 earmarks ($575,580,000)
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): 185 earmarks ($466,370,279)
Angus King (I-Maine): 186 earmarks ($453,591,043)
Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii): 114 earmarks ($428,634,250)
Chuck Schumer (D-New York): 227 earmarks ($421,738,113)
That’s a grand total in congressional appropriations of $2,767,651,798 from just five members in one year alone!
Attempts at Reigning In Government Spending
In response to increased public awareness and the resulting outrage over wasteful appropriations, there have been several attempts to curb the practice of pork barrel spending. One of the earliest was the adoption of the Line Item Veto Act of 1995, which gave the president the power to strike out wasteful spending without holding up more important legislation. The practice was used liberally by then-President Bill Clinton until it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.
The next attempt to control unauthorized appropriations came in 2011 under the guise of the Bipartisan Control Act. This piece of legislation placed a moratorium on congressional earmarks that failed to meet certain criteria, but it was nullified in 2018 by the Bipartisan Budget Act.
The latest attempt at adding some guardrails to congressional spending is the Defense Appropriations Act of 2025. This piece of legislation, which was passed by Congress on June 28, 2024, provides money for critical defense measures while cutting unnecessary spending in other areas.
Pros and Cons of Pork Barrel Legislation
One might ask, “What’s wrong with claiming funds to get things done back home? Aren’t our representatives supposed to work for their constituents?”
Like many facets of our government, there are pros and cons to this practice.
Pros of Pork Barrel Spending
Infrastructure and Development: Pork barrel spending can fund critical infrastructure projects that might not otherwise receive attention. Roads, bridges, and public buildings can be improved, benefiting local communities.
Political Stability: For legislators, appropriating funds can be a way to demonstrate their effectiveness to constituents, thereby increasing their chances of reelection and maintaining political stability.
Cons of Pork Barrel Spending
Corruption and Wasteful Spending: Pork barrel legislation is often criticized for leading to corruption and inefficiency. Projects funded through earmarks can be poorly conceived and executed, leading to significant waste of taxpayer money.
Political Favoritism: Earmarks can perpetuate political favoritism, with funds being allocated based on political connections rather than merit. This undermines public trust in the legislative process.
Distortion of Priorities: Pork barrel spending can distort national priorities, diverting funds from important issues to less critical projects. This can hinder the government's ability to address pressing national challenges effectively.
Final Thoughts
Pork barrel legislation, with its roots in political patronage and local favoritism, remains a deeply ingrained aspect of American politics. While it can provide tangible benefits to communities, the practice is often fraught with corruption and inefficiency.
The challenge lies in balancing the need for local development with the imperative to maintain a transparent and fair legislative process.
As public awareness and scrutiny of pork barrel spending continues to grow, there is a pressing need for reforms that ensure government spending serves the broader national interest rather than parochial political gains. By advocating for greater transparency and accountability, we can hope to curb the excesses of pork barrel legislation and foster a more equitable and effective government.
GoodParty.org is at the forefront of creating a national movement to reform the American government and elect transparent, trustworthy political leaders. Join us as we work to support qualified, anti-corruption candidates at all levels of government.
Fed up with politics as usual?
Frequently Asked Questions
