SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home McConnell vs. The Earmark Ban

JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 10, 2010

McConnell vs. The Earmark Ban

An earmark ban would be, at best, about one-millionth as important as conservatives make it out to be. Yet Mitch McConnell's fervent opposition is kind of strange:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his “Old Bull” allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.

In a series of one-on-one conversations with incoming and sitting senators, McConnell is encouraging his colleagues to keep an open mind and not to automatically side with DeMint, whose plan calls on Senate Republicans to unilaterally give up earmarks in the 112th Congress, according to several people familiar with the talks. ...
“My guess is that DeMint has the votes to push this through, but McConnell is whipping it hard,” said a Republican leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

McConnell likes to deliver the pork, but it's not like he needs pork to keep winning easily. The only explanation I can think of is that McConnell, more than anything else, is an opponent of good-government reform. Opposition to campaign finance reform was the fight of his life, the cause that aroused the most genuine passion in him. He just loathes the idea that reforms are needed to cleanse the government of corruption.

I don't think earmarks are a major cause of corruption and bad policy, but they are a cause. It's kind of fitting that this is one of the few conservative causes he opposes.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 4 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4 comments

Even if they could agree to no earmarks, they'll just be arguing over what is or is not an earmark. As Sarah Palin actions explain about her saying "no" to the "Bridge to Nowhere," Congressional payment for a "bridge to nowhere" is not an earmark if you don't use that money specifically for the bridge to nowhere.

- Nusholtz

November 10, 2010 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is great. Fan the flames!

- subterran

November 10, 2010 at 9:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McConnell's concern is what it always has been: the acquisition and maintenance of power. He's not really conservative, except that conservatism has been the rising tide he's risen. He's hauled a ton of pork back to Kentucky, and hates campaign finance regulation in large measure because it would limit interest group contributions to the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, a monument to himself that is his consuming passion. He'd be perfectly thrilled with good government reforms if they served to keep him in power. They don't, so he's against them, always on highly principled grounds.

- Johnson172

November 10, 2010 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You nailed it, Jonathan. Mitch the Bitch is nothing more than an anti-reformist hack.

- liberal reformer

November 10, 2010 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close