by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

Congressional earmarks are corrupt and corrupting, said Rep. John Kline, R-Lakeville.

He won't take them anymore, he said.

Kline, a three-term congressman, acknowledges that he has benefitted from earmarks in the past to gain things for the 2nd District.

"But even while I was doing that I was fighting the system, because it was evident to me, year after year, that this thing was broken," said Kline recently.

"Both parties are guilty, if you will, in my judgment, of this institutional problem," he said.

Earmarks are language slipped into bills that directs funding to specific purposes - a highway, a park, or a bridge to nowhere, critics of the system have protested.

"It is corrupt and corrupting," said Kline.

Members of Congress will vote for even bizarre projects because they're afraid if they don't, they'll lose their own earmark, he explained.

Jeopardizing federal funding?

Some argue that Kline is jeopardizing federal funding for the district by his no earmark policy.

REP. JOHN KLINE

"Everyone else (in Congress) is doing it," said Dakota Commissioner Michael Turner, adding it's unfortunate but true.

Dakota County Commissioner Tom Egan shares the concern. "The earmark process is about the only game in (Congress) town," said Egan.

Kline's approach to earmarks, for instance, could hurt the Cedar Avenue rapid transit project - the project, widely vetted and discussed, is seeking more federal funding, Egan explained.

Local officials have pondered bypassing Kline, trying other members of the congressional delegation - senators Norm Coleman or Amy Klobuchar or 5th District Congressman Keith Ellison - for help with the funding, Egan explained.

The worry is they'll fail to get all of the needed funding and beyond that, they're also concerned about insulting Kline, he explained.

Innocent victim

Dakota County is an "innocent victim" of the Kline's no-earmark stance, Egan opined. But Kline argues that if earmarks were done away with, legislative districts would be seeing more federal dollars, not less. "We need to fundamentally change this," he said of earmarks.

"And the way to do that, it seems to me and my colleagues, is to step out of it - don't get into that smarmy business and insist we change it," said Kline. "So I've done that - I've had some criticism," he said.

Minnesota DFL State Party Chair Brian Melendez opined that Kline must have come to the realization that as a junior House member in the minority he wouldn't be getting many earmarks anyway, so adopted his stance.

Or maybe Kline just doesn't "give a damn" about the 2nd District, he opined.

Professor Larry Jacobs of the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota opined that Kline's position on earmarks could have been firmer.

Principled stand

"A principled stand against earmarks would be more compelling if Representative Kline had taken it while his party was in the majority and he was a recipient," said Jacobs, a political science professor, in an e-mail.

But Republican State Party Chairman Ron Carey endorses Kline's decision. "I think it's a great idea," said Carey. "I think it's letting taxpayers keep more of their money - letting taxpayers make the decision on how their money is being spent," he said. "It's a fantastic idea. It's a Republican idea," Carey said.