Four Things You Need to Know About the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’

By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff

One of the most arcane elements of the lawmaking process has burst into presidential politics as the two campaigns wrangle over earmarks – the narrowly-targeted spending and tax breaks lawmakers include in legislation, usually to help local constituencies foot the bill for projects.

The overwhelming majority of the projects in any given year are not controversial. In the past, that has been because so many are for widely-acceptable causes such as medical equipment at hospitals and because there was often a great deal of attention paid to concealing those that might become controversial.

Although Congress’ appetite for earmarks has drawn increasing criticism in recent years, very few of them ever became the subject of vigorous public debate, and the infamous “bridge to nowhere” at the center of much of the current presidential campaign is one of a kind in terms of notoriety. Though anti-earmark crusaders have mostly focused on appropriations bills, the largest earmarks have often been written into tax or authorization bills. The “bridge to nowhere,” for example, was in a highway authorization bill.

The presidential campaigns have been trading barbs over earmarks lately because Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , Republican John McCain ’s vice presidential running mate, has been patting herself on the back for “stopping” the “bridge to nowhere,” and the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama has cried foul because she once supported the project.

Here are four things to keep in mind when you hear about the “Bridge to Nowhere”:

(Continued here.)