Jeff Crank wants to ban members of congress from inserting Earmarks for anyone the member has ever accepted a campaign contribution from.
For once I agree with Crank. But why stop there. Why not just require Earmarks be publicly disclosed in advance, or voted on line item, or allow the president a line item veto as a check and balance.
Lamborn denied that the $250.00 campaign donation had anything to do with his helping Sturman, saying the military is interested in the technology her company is developing.
Obviously this is a campaign year. While 3 members of Congress from Colorado approved and had a part in this earmark, it is Doug Lamborn that Crank has in his sights.
Doug Lamborn has a track record of voting against abusive pork earmarks. Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn scores a perfect 100% on Anti-Pork Voting Report Card. http://coloradopols.com/showDi…
SOME WANT TO LIMIT EARMARKS
Lamborn opponent looks to restrict the funding practice
By ED SEALOVER THE GAZETTE 01-07-08
In July, Congressman Doug Lamborn took a $250 campaign donation from Carol Sturman, co-owner of an engine controls research and development company in Woodland Park.
Later in the year, Sturman Industries received $800,000 in a defense appropriations bill for research on a technology that could improve engine-fuel efficiency. That earmark was requested by Lamborn, as well as by two Democratic members of the Colorado delegation, Rep. Mark Udall and Sen. Ken Salazar.
There is nothing illegal about a member of Congress helping to get federal money for a campaign donor. But some in Congress favor tightening the law on earmarks, the monetary awards for specific companies or projects that are inserted quietly into budget bills.
One of those is Jeff Crank, the 2006 Republican primary runner-up who is running against Lamborn, a fellow GOP member, again this year. If elected, Crank said, he would introduce a bill to ban members of Congress from taking money from people for whom they acquired earmark funding.
“Could it be an oversight that any member of Congress could take that money and get an earmark? Certainly,” said Crank, former administrative director for Lamborn’s predecessor, Rep. Joel Hefley. “But that’s why you shouldn’t even do it – because you don’t want the appearance that your vote’s being bought. And I don’t want to guess what Doug’s intentions are.”
Lamborn denied that the campaign donation had anything to do with his helping Sturman, saying the military is interested in the technology her company is developing.
“I don’t make that connection because there is no such connection in reality,” he said. “I’m not for sale, and for anyone to think that is just plain wrong.”
Lamborn said he is also concerned with keeping jobs in the 5th Congressional District, and that an earmark like this can help.
Earmarking is one of the issues that played heavily in Republicans losing control of Congress in 2006. Huge, often hidden spending on projects such as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska made people doubt the party’s claims to open government and fiscal conservatism.
The House voted last year to require members to release information on their earmarks, though that measure failed in the Senate. Democratic leaders have vowed to bring a similar bill back in 2008, and Lamborn said he agrees with that.
Lamborn secured six earmarks, totaling $9.41 million, in this year’s budget. They ranged from a $3.2 million award for the postgraduate school in homeland defense at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs to a $149,000 grant for an ongoing study of Fountain Creek.
Lamborn said he would consider supporting Crank’s proposal barring earmarks for campaign donors, but only if there were a provision limiting the time that passes between a donation and an earmark. He would not, for example, want someone to have to deny an earmark for a company six years after getting a donation from it, he said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: joe_burly
IN: Lowering the Price of Eggs by Banning Transgender Athletes
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Gabe Evans, Jason Crow: Yin And Yang On Pete Hegseth
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Gabe Evans, Jason Crow: Yin And Yang On Pete Hegseth
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: How Will Colorado’s Gabe Evans Balance GOP and His Swing District’s Priorities As a New Member of Congress?
BY: kwtree
IN: Lowering the Price of Eggs by Banning Transgender Athletes
BY: IndependentProgressive
IN: Lowering the Price of Eggs by Banning Transgender Athletes
BY: bullshit!
IN: Gabe Evans, Jason Crow: Yin And Yang On Pete Hegseth
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Gabe Evans, Jason Crow: Yin And Yang On Pete Hegseth
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Senate Republicans Look to Save Coloradans Whole Dollars!
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Does it hurt Lamborn?
Well, it sure doesn’t help. But frankly, I have given more money than this to Doug Lamborn, and all I got was Hors D’Oeuvres and a soft drink.
Let’s see. 2 Colorado Congressmen (1D 1R) and 1 Colorado Senator (Democrat Ken Salazar) all agree on an earmark for a Colorado business. (I think this was one of those necessary earmarks my liberal friends are always telling me about.)
I have no problem with earmarks. I do have a big problem with secret earmarks, and with no checks and balances in the form of a presidential line item veto.
Lamborns record is pretty good on the earmark subject.
OK robert, your turn, fire away.
GOP Pundit felt the need to start a whole new diary over what is really one comment to this original post on the story.
GOP Pundit said:
I think most people would hardly call a $250.00 contribution “sizable”.
In politics, I believe “sizable” has a much larger threshold.
I know his point is on Lamborn’s wording, but Lamborn does make a good point.
If you bar any involvement from any Congressman or Senator who ever accepted any reportable amount from any person who is a stockholder, or CFO, CEO, etc. in any business in your state, that is a nightmare. That is not smart or fair.
First how would a candidate know? Those officers and stockholders change sometimes more than annually. The record keeping and compliance would be prohibitive. And to what purpose.
Our campaign finance laws get crazier the more we try to “fix” them. This “sizable” contribution won’t even buy one tiny ad in the Gazette. Yet to be elected at this level, a candidate must raise $150,000 to $250,000.
I know this makes great fodder for you anti-Lamborn folks, but Jeff Cranks proposal is bad law, and this story is not about a scandal. Mark Udall D-CO and Ken Salazar D-CO also pushed this earmark for this company. Who in the company ever gave any amount to them???
GOP Pundit and his CRANKy buddy’s aren’t even curious because their focus is just “get Lamborn”.