The Power of the Purse: How Congress Controls Funding but the Executive Spends It—And Why Earmarks Breed Corruption

The "power of the purse" is one of the most fundamental checks that Congress holds over the executive branch. Enshrined in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution, this authority ensures that no money can be drawn from the Treasury without congressional approval. In theory, this means that Congress controls government spending. In practice, however, Congress only authorizes and appropriates funds, while the executive branch determines how they are spent within the parameters set by law.

While this system is designed to balance power between the legislative and executive branches, Democratic-led earmarks have repeatedly undermined it, leading to corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead of ensuring responsible spending, earmarks have frequently been used to funnel taxpayer money into politically motivated projects, benefiting special interests at the expense of fiscal responsibility.

Congress has two primary roles in federal spending:

Authorization – Establishing programs and policies that are legally allowed to exist.

Appropriation – Determining the amount of funding allocated to those programs.

Once Congress passes an appropriations bill, it is up to the executive branch to actually spend the money. Federal agencies, under the direction of the president, decide how to distribute funds within the legal guidelines set by Congress. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays a key role in ensuring the executive branch follows the president’s policy priorities while staying within the limits of congressional appropriations.

For example, if Congress allocates $800 billion for national defense, the Department of Defense decides how much goes to troops, weapons, research, and infrastructure. Congress may earmark specific amounts for certain programs, but the Pentagon ultimately has the flexibility to execute spending decisions within the law.

While Congress technically does not control how every dollar is spent, earmarks—or special provisions that direct funds to specific projects, often benefiting lawmakers' districts or political allies—have been a breeding ground for corruption. Democratic lawmakers, in particular, have repeatedly abused earmarks to push through wasteful spending and politically motivated projects.

Earmarks are funds designated for a specific purpose within a broader spending bill, often inserted without thorough debate or oversight. Rather than allowing agencies to allocate money based on national priorities, earmarks direct funding to pet projects that often lack transparency or justification.

Pay-to-Play Politics – Lawmakers have used earmarks to reward political donors and lobbyists who contribute to their campaigns. This creates a quid pro quo system where taxpayer money is diverted to politically connected businesses and interest groups. Unlike standard appropriations, earmarks often bypass rigorous review, making them a prime avenue for fraud and abuse. Funds are often directed to projects with no competitive bidding process. Instead of funding urgent national priorities, earmarks prioritize politically expedient projects, leading to inefficient spending.

There is no shortage of examples demonstrating how Democratic earmarks have led to wasteful spending and corruption:

The "Bridge to Nowhere" (2005)

One of the most infamous examples of earmark abuse was the $223 million allocated for a bridge in Alaska that would connect an island of only 50 people. This project, championed by Democratic lawmakers and supported by lobbyists, was a textbook example of wasteful spending.

The PMA Scandal (2009)

The PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm, was at the center of a massive earmark-for-campaign-cash scandal. Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), were accused of steering millions in earmarked funds to PMA clients in exchange for campaign contributions. The scandal revealed deep-rooted corruption in how earmarks were being used to benefit political donors.

The Obamacare "Cornhusker Kickback" (2010)

In a clear example of earmark abuse for political gain, Senate Democrats offered special Medicaid funding to Nebraska in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on Obamacare. This blatant use of taxpayer money to secure political loyalty exposed how earmarks are manipulated to serve party interests rather than the public good.

Why Earmarks Were Banned—and Why They Should Stay Banned

Recognizing the rampant abuse, Congress banned earmarks in 2011 under Republican leadership. However, in 2021, Democrats reinstated earmarks, branding them as "community project funding."

The Return of Earmarks: More of the Same?

In 2022 alone, Congress allocated $9 billion in earmarks.

The vast majority of these funds went to projects benefiting Democratic districts.

Lobbyists immediately ramped up efforts to secure earmarked funds, reinforcing the same pay-to-play cycle.

Despite efforts to impose new transparency rules, the fundamental problem remains: earmarks allow lawmakers to funnel money into politically motivated projects with little oversight.

Conclusion: Restore Fiscal Discipline, End Earmarks for Good

The power of the purse is essential to maintaining constitutional checks and balances, but earmarks have consistently turned this power into a tool for corruption and waste. While Congress controls how much money is allocated, the executive branch ultimately decides how funds are spent. However, when Congress micromanages funding through earmarks, it undermines efficiency, prioritizing political interests over national needs.

What Needs to Happen?

End Earmarks Permanently – The 2011 ban should be reinstated to prevent further abuse.

Increase Transparency in Budgeting – All federal spending should be subject to competitive bidding and public review.

Hold Lawmakers Accountable – Congress should face stricter ethics rules to prevent pay-to-play schemes.

By eliminating earmarks and restoring fiscal discipline, Congress can ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely rather than being funneled into political pet projects. The power of the purse should be about responsibility, not corruption.