**TL;DR: Congressional earmarks represent an effective way to ensure legislative control over spending and address local needs.** In February 2021, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives [lifted a decades-long ban](https://www.rollcall.com/2021/02/26/house-appropriators-to-cap-earmarks-at-1-percent-of-topline/) on Congressional earmarks. Earmarks allow legislators to direct federal resources to their districts in specific forms. Due to various scandals, it has become a synonym for corruption by politicians. However, despite the risks, earmarks serve as an effective appropriations tool. Earmarks allow politicians to address local needs. The mechanism directs a certain amount of resources to a specific purpose, allowing politicians to guarantee benefits to their constituents. Since these elected officials have significant connections with their constituents, earmarks can help them address their local needs directly. Without earmarks, many local interests [lose their visibility](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/) entirely in the all-encompassing federal appropriations process. While some critics have associated earmarks with abuses of federal funds, the risk persists without them. In the absence of earmarks, the President and other federal agencies would determine how to spend the appropriations. This alternative does little to check the potential abuses of federal resources from the executive branch. In comparison, legislators more attuned to the needs of their districts should have more say over the use of fundings. With the comeback of earmarks, some levels of abuse will surface. However, overall Congressional earmarks are beneficial.

Congressional earmarks are a big part of the overall problem with money in politics. In the fallout of the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, which ruled that money is a form of free speech, the line between donations and bribes has significantly blurred. This is why congressional earmarks are a hot topic in US congressional politics. An earmark is a provision placed onto a spending bill that pours money to a specific project often favored by a politician. Politicians often execute this form of politics as a way of winning re-elections. Critics have pointed out similarities of earmarks with another congressional politics practice known as pork barrel spending. Essentially, pork barrel spending is the same concept as earmarks: politicians slipping funding for local projects into federal spending budgets. Though the project has nothing to do with the bill, and, as Will Kenton notes on Investopedia about pork barrel spending, benefits only the lawmaker's home district. The similarities have led earmarks to be referred to as "congressional pork". Congressional earmarks are not necessarily illegal. But as Mary Brown notes also on Investopedia in an article on Political Earmarks, they are usually related to scandals, hence people's distrust of the practice. The US federal government has been locked in a gridlock throughout its history. The contentious nature of partisan politics often prevents things from being accomplished. Brown notes, earmarks are a convenient way for getting things done, but they often lead to "uncompetitive bids and a lot of waste". One notable scandal, Brown notes, is when California Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham pled guilty for using his positions on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee to insert earmarks for military spending after accepting bribes from military contractors. Admittedly, banning earmarks is not simple. As stated earlier, money in politics is a tricky issue, particularly when it comes to defining what defines a donation, a simple flow of money to projects, and a bribe. Simply "banning" earmarks outright may just make lawmakers reshape the narrative of how they insert earmarks into spending bills. So, rather than outright trying to ban something that does not simply go away when ruled out, accountability should be held for congressional earmarks. But even though earmarks are probably going to be a thorny aspect of congressional politics, that does not mean they are a good idea. They are ripe with corruption that would diminish credibility with the United States federal government. As citizens of the United States, we look to the federal government as a means of providing our essential aspects of maintaining a stable life through providing our resources with enough money. And since we pay for some that spending money with our tax dollars, it's reasonable that our dollars are spent wisely. CITATIONS: Brown, Mary. “6 Outrageous Political Earmarks.” Investopedia, 1 Apr. 2020, www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/6-outrageous-political-earmarks.aspx. Golshan, Tara. “The Case for — and against — Earmarks.” Vox, 12 Jan. 2018, www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/12/16873520/case-for-and-against-earmarks. Investopedia. “How Are Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending Related?” Investopedia, 5 Jan. 2021, www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042715/how-are-earmarks-and-pork-barrel-spending-related.asp.