Ted Stevens: still a persuasive argument for earmark reform
This just in: former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is still a former senator.
The Justice Department's decision not to try Stevens again for failing to report gifts from a supporter on his financial disclosure forms seems odd at first -- it's a Democratic appointee (Attorney General Eric Holder) chastising the previous Republican administration for being overzealous in its pursuit of a powerful Republican lawmaker. But then, it's easy for Holder to repudiate his predecessors -- and spare Stevens the expense and anxiety of another defense -- when there's no point left in prosecuting him. His career is done.
I'm no fan of prosecutors who withhold exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys. Stevens deserved a fair trial, and he didn't get one. On the other hand, Stevens was one of the roadblocks to badly needed reforms in the appropriations process. I'm not talking about his ability to backhoe federal tax dollars into Alaska; I'm referring instead to the we-make-the-rules attitude shown by Stevens and other senior appropriators.
I don't have a problem with members of Congress telling the administration how to spend money. That's their constitutional role, after all. But earmarks have long been the weak link in the process. They're inadequately disclosed, there's virtually no vetting (ever hear of a committee hearings on proposed appropriations earmarks?), and there's no oversight to speak of after the bill becomes law. Members who seek earmarks should be required to do so publicly, with appropriators inviting the public's scrutiny. There should also be more thorough disclosure requirements for any lobbying efforts (and campaign contributions) related to each earmark request. Finally, earmarks shouldn't lead to disproportionate distributions of tax dollars. Instead, when lawmakers direct dollars to a specific project in a state, the money should come out of that state's share of the federal pie.
Stevens wasn't former Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, an appropriator convicted of bribery for trying to steer defense contracts to his benefactors. Instead, he was the king of disproportionate distributions, as the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense has noted. Had the Justice Department not honed in on his financial disclosure forms, he'd probably still be in office today. After all, Alaskans benefited from Stevens' mastery of the earmarking process. They had plenty of motivation to keep him in office, regardless of what it meant for the rest of us.
Photo: Ted Stevens. Credit: AP Photo / Lauren Victoria Burke / file



I say get rid of these goofy earmarks. Some bills have so many of them that staffers can't possibly read them all in time to brief their bosses before a vote. So much pork gets in on bills. No wonder we are in such sad shape economically speaking. Gov. Reps are so beholding to those that contributed the most to their campaigns that hard earned tax dollars go directly to whatever these folks hold most dear.
www.stategicbookpublishing.com/TheGH4Effect.html
Posted by: Scott Snyder | April 04, 2009 at 09:39 AM
Conservatives loudly trumpet when a convicted fellon gets off on a technicality, their silence is deafening. Senator Stevens had a long long career as an arrogant senator. He, the father of the Bridge to Nowhere, channeled millions and millions of tax dollars to Alaska and he did receive an abundance of gifts and services from contractors. He had his career, got off on a technacality, and can now ride off into the Alaskan sunset.
Posted by: Dan | April 02, 2009 at 09:54 AM
You complain about all the earmarks and then only list the republicans. The last $400 billion spending bill had over 8,000 earmarks and you can't even remember any of the democrat names that shackled us with their pork.
Posted by: chatmandu | April 02, 2009 at 09:01 AM
Look at the facts . Ted did nothing wrong . He is a leader here in Alaska against those bribe taking thugs . And he is catching them too .
He's a true , honest man .
Healy . YOU'RE MISSIN' MAN .
Posted by: Jeff evalt | April 02, 2009 at 07:51 AM
Hey, Kelly -- I'm not sure the jury would have acquitted the senator had the case been handled properly. I'm just saying that it wasn't, and that's reason enough not to retry him in light of the nature of the charges.
As for the ends justifying the means, I wondered a bit about that as I was writing this post. I believe you are correct, but here's my defense. Appropriators can buy the good will of their voters by steering huge amounts of cash into their districts or states, at the expense of other members' constituents. That's rigging the game. So that's why I'm not shedding any tears over what happened to Sen. Stevens. If you're concerned about the way Congress spends tax dollars, I think you should agree with me that this outcome is a win for taxpayers, as unfair as it may be to the former senator.
Posted by: Jon Healey | April 01, 2009 at 05:03 PM
So Mr. Healey, Stevens would have been exonerated if the prosecutors had let all the facts be considered by the Jury; but that is OK with you because you don't like him. Oh, that's right, the end justifies the means -- as long as the ends are your ends!
Posted by: Kelly Hale | April 01, 2009 at 04:40 PM
While reading about the trial as it advanced I got the impression that Stevens was being railroaded. This confirms my supisions. I would like to know the political persuasion of the prosecutors. Noe that they have caused him to loose the election the AG can drop the charges before that comes out. This should be investigated and prosecuted if evidence was withheld. I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING THOUGH.
Posted by: Curly4 | April 01, 2009 at 03:55 PM
All anyone would have to do is listen to his tapes to know he is guilty. Letting him off is an abuse of the law.
Posted by: Jim Smarz | April 01, 2009 at 03:41 PM