So, I keep looking for potential loopholes in the rule. One question that comes up in my head is the rule’s definition of earmark where it describes an earmark as going to an “entity”. I assume that since the previous rule (adopted in September 2006) described an earmark as going to a “non-federal entity” that by simply describing earmarks as going to entities (or targeted to a specific state, locality, or Congressional district) that federal entities such as the Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, national laboratories would be included. But I am assuming. Also, it says that an earmark is included “primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator” I wonder whether that may be a loophole as well. Could Podunk, USA send a letter to the Appropriations Committee requesting an earmark, which is followed up by a member of Congress. Is that “primarily” the member’s request?

Of course one drawback of this proposal is that there is no new method to strip earmarks from bills. Also, the disclosure provisions provide only that the additional earmark request information should be “open for public inspecti.png”. That seems to mean hoofing it over to Rayburn rather than putting the information up on their web site.

At the end of the day, it appears the spirit of this reform package is greater transparency. But the proof will be in the pudding, and we will know better in the Spring when the appropriations process is underway and we will see what spirit moves the committee chairmen. If the spirit really is greater transparency than if some of these are loopholes, the new majority should be amenable to closing them.