Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What you (yes, you!) need to know about congressional earmarks

Opinion

congressional earmarks
Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

Meeker is the director of special initiatives for the Popvox Foundation. Harris is a member of the organization’s board.

With the passage of the fiscal 2023 omnibus appropriations bill and a wave of congressional press releases touting new spending in lawmakers’ states and districts, it is official: “Earmarks” are back.

The decades-old practice of members of Congress securing money for local projects has been reformed and reinstated after a 10-year ban. The new system limits recipients of “congressionally directed spending” to nonprofits or government entities and the maximum amount available to less than 1 percent of discretionary spending. New requirements prohibit any connection with lawmakers or their families, prioritize community input, and mandate disclosure and transparency at every step — as recommended by bipartisan organizations, congressional experts and the House Select Committee on Modernization.

The new program was announced last year as the appropriations process began, giving congressional offices a very short window to share information about the opportunity to apply for funding and set up their systems for receiving inquiries. Despite this, 332 House members and 64 senators submitted requests in the fiscal 2023 cycle, and the vast majority made it into the final bill.


With the bipartisan success of the first year of “Earmarks 2.0” and longer lead time for getting the word out, it is likely that many more eligible organizations and governments will submit projects for consideration this year. Is earmarked funding right for your organization? The information below will help you decide. And if you choose to submit, the three-step “D-I-Y Earmarks” guide from Popvox Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center will help you design your application and outreach for success.

About the new earmarks:

  • Limited: They are only available to nonprofits and government organizations.
  • Targeted: They are awarded for specific projects and locations, and only awarded for one fiscal year at a time.
  • Transparent: Members must disclose their requests to the public and certify that neither they nor their immediate families have any financial stake in their chosen projects.
  • Accountable: A selection of projects will be reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.
  • Narrow availability: Funding is limited to specific areas of federal spending, including education, health care, economic development, conservation, agriculture, transportation, rural connectivity, law enforcement, STEM research, energy, tribal affairs, historical preservation and entrepreneur support.

If you decide to submit a project, keep three things in mind:

1. Don’t be intimidated.

Even if you have never applied for federal funding or reached out to your member of Congress, this is the perfect opportunity to start. This “D-I-Y Earmarks” guide and other resources from Popvox Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center will walk you through what to expect.

2. Do your homework.

Congressional offices receive many applications and not every worthy project will receive funding. Familiarizing yourself with your lawmaker’s priorities can be a good way to figure out how to “pitch” your project.

3. Approach the process for long-term success.

Applying for earmarked funding is a great way to build or strengthen relationships with your local members of Congress, even if the project is not funded. The process will draw attention to the issue, raise awareness of your organization’s work, and give you practice navigating federal funding requirements. Keeping these long-term goals in mind will help you get the most out of participating in this process.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less