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

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
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
Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less