When Joe Biden was elected president and Democrats took unified control of Washington, party leaders hoped they could blunt the historical trend of midterm losses by delivering major policy victories on ambitious agenda items: climate change, universal childcare, college debt, health care, middle-class tax cuts, and trillions of dollars worth of other investments.
But those dreams ran headfirst into the reality of governing with paper-thin majorities. Now Democrats are left to turn to that time-honored security blanket for the party in charge: pork projects.
Transformational change has taken a backseat to small, hyperlocal wins like new fire stations, rebuilt dams and sewers, improved highways and bridges, better internet, and more vocational programs.
ADVERTISEMENT
Thousands of so-called “earmarked” projects like these, scattered across hundreds of districts, were included in Congress’ $1.5 trillion annual spending bill that passed earlier this month. And Democrats believe they can spin this cash—which was a political liability not long ago—into a viable election backup plan.
Earmarks—rebranded as “member-directed spending”—returned this year for the first time in over a decade, and they couldn’t have come at a better time for Democrats.
Biden and his party have been frank about their struggles to counter Republican attacks, particularly on the state of the economy, as rising levels of inflation batter consumers.
Against that backdrop, Democratic lawmakers were eager to return home for a mid-March recess that looked, for many, like extended victory laps to tout the bacon they had brought home.
When asked about the disappointment many Democrats feel about not being able to run on achieving the loftiest items of their agenda, Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) was quick to push back. “I got no disappointment,” said Spanberger.
The second-term Democrat, who will face one of the most competitive re-election fights of any Democrat this fall, ticked through the funding projects she traveled through her district to champion last week.
That includes over $1.8 million to expand a water treatment facility, $1 million for a new addiction recovery center, $122,590 for the improvement of a park, and $200,000 to replace a roof at a rural education center.
Spanberger, who has occasionally been a strong critic of the messaging coming from the top of the party and from the Biden administration, said these types of projects show constituents something very valuable: Congress can actually work.
“There’s a lot to celebrate and, you know, those are the things that I’m talking about, because I think that there’s this kind of choice, this notion, that government doesn’t work and everything’s terrible,” Spanberger said. “But actually, we’re doing quite a lot.”
A number of her fellow House Democrats have been advertising their earmark achievements as well, taking out Facebook ads, scheduling town halls with constituents, and appearing at countless ribbon-cuttings and huge check hand-outs.
That could be just a preview of what’s to come for Democrats heading into the midterm season. Several party aides and operatives told The Daily Beast that lawmakers in challenging races should tout their earmark wins everywhere as often as possible.
Martha McKenna, a Democratic strategist and campaign ad maker, said Democrats should “definitely” run on their earmarks—and, in general, should be “louder and more aggressive” in claiming credit for their local wins.
“In a world where independent voters are turned off by partisan bickering, if we can cut through that and say, ‘This is a project your local Democrat got done and here’s the impact,’ that should be a message that cuts through,” McKenna said.
Most Democrats are clear-eyed about the fact that no matter how well they sell their earmarks—or anything else—they still face long odds to hold the House and the Senate. But several said that, if they communicate well on local wins, that could make the difference between a devastating midterm cycle and a merely bad one.
It’s a chance to “stop the bleeding,” in the words of one Democratic aide. And given the likelihood that the spending bill could be the Democrats’ final major achievement before November, it could be their last chance.
With a few months remaining before November, it’s unlikely Democrats accomplish anything resembling the Build Back Better Act, their now-dead signature proposal that included popular planks like lowering the cost of prescription drugs, investing billions to fight climate change, and expanding universal pre-K.
Discussions are continuing among Democrats about reviving a narrower version of the legislation that could satisfy their key holdouts, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, but even a relatively tiny legislative win is far from assured.
Faced with the impasse, a number of Democrats seem more than happy to build a re-election case that centers on their local contributions. They certainly worked hard for them—the spending bill has been tied up in negotiations for months, and lawmakers submitted their project proposals a year ago.
When the legislation finally passed, House Democrats’ official messaging arm, the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, sent out several emails to all offices urging them to “TAKE CREDIT” and maximize the PR boost that earmarks provide.
“Now is the time to make sure your district knows the funding you fought for and what it means for them,” the guidance read. “Utilize the paper trail you’ve created through the process to demonstrate how you are responsible for bringing this funding home.”
Beyond that, however, a number of Democrats have secured earmarks that could actually help insulate themselves from the sharpest attacks they will get from Republicans.
A key plank of the GOP’s midterm case, for example, is the argument that Democrats are “soft on crime,” and a clear strategy from campaigns and outside groups is to connect as many Democrats as possible to the unpopular “defund the police” slogan.
Dozens of House Democrats responded by using earmarks to literally fund the police. At least 39 Democrats successfully submitted requests for projects that fund local law enforcement, typically by setting aside funds to improve their communications technology. Of that group, 15 are facing competitive re-elections.
In a press release announcing funding for a police department in her battleground district, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) was explicit about countering the “defund the police” argument.
“In Washington, some of my peers like to throw around slogans like ‘defund the police.’ I want to be very clear today: that is the wrong approach,” Slotkin said. “The right approach is to give the police the tools, training and resources they need to get the job done.”
This strategy has worked for some Democrats already. McKenna crafted ads for Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), who won a special election last year in which her stance on law enforcement was a major line of attack for Republicans.
One spot reminded voters that as a state representative, Stansbury had secured some funding for local police. “These were very specific resources that she was able to get funded for Albuquerque police… that we made sure voters knew about,” McKenna said. “It’s a formula worth repeating.”
Earmarks have often been used as a political weapon in the past: a particularly niche or seemingly wasteful big-ticket item can come back to haunt a member of Congress.
Already, some conservative outlets have gone after Democrats—and some Republicans—for their earmarks, reviving old arguments about the practice as an example of Washington’s profligate spending.
Democrats do not feel like this is a major vulnerability—and not just because they had the GOP’s help in resuscitating earmarks last year.
That’s because some Republicans have, to the delight of Democrats, tried to claim credit for parts of two of the Democrats’ biggest legislative wins last year: the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Both of those bills are also full of provisions that have impacts in communities nationwide, and some Democrats feel comfortable that they will form the bedrock of a compelling case to voters.
Earmarks may be more useful to lawmakers because they can claim they personally secured the funding themselves, but Democrats salivated at passing those sweeping bills—particularly the infrastructure bill—because they knew local projects would be funded.
But for those in the party that hoped they could pass an agenda of Rooseveltian scope and significance, it may be a disappointment to pivot to running on the small-bore local projects that are commonly used as earmarks. And there are plenty in the party who believe that voters sent Democrats to Congress to make good on their loftiest campaign promises, not fix roads, and see minimal electoral reward ahead.
Some Democrats look at the country’s scrambled and toxic political landscape and wonder if such bread-and-butter items will break through at all. “It’s hard to know what motivates voters these days,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY).
At this point, though, most Democrats believe that the party has to maximize the positive headlines they do have.
“We’re in some tough spots in some of these seats,” said Kristen Hawn, a strategist who advises Democratic campaigns. “Every little thing helps.”
