‘Look what I brought home for you’: GOP embraces earmark revival as Election Day looms

Posted

With voters sour on Republican governance, GOP candidates in the most competitive House and Senate races are reaching for a time-tested message that has grown out of fashion in their party: bringing home the federal bacon.

A POLITICO analysis of the dozen closest congressional races for Republican incumbents revealed that most are highlighting earmark success stories in the final days before voters head to the polls.

The ability to secure federal funding for pet projects back home — something many in the GOP have spent years trying to curtail — has given those candidates a positive talking point as President Donald Trump’s flagging approval ratings and widespread voter dissatisfaction over issues like the Iran war, high gas prices and tariffs weigh on other messages.

“When the president's job approval is in the 30s, it is helpful for Republican candidates to be able to create some distance from the president. It's challenging to do that without encouraging the president's wrath,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said in an interview. “But focusing on bringing home the bacon might be one very good way to do it without antagonizing the president.”

In Michigan, Rep. Tom Barrett is out with an ad about a $750,000 earmark for youth mentoring; in New York, Rep. Mike Lawler is talking about how he secured $120 million for local projects.

Rep. Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania is telling voters he has “brought back more than $110 million to our community,” including millions in earmarks, while Rep. David Valadao has run ads showcasing $500 million in earmarks for water projects in California’s Central Valley.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a GOP moderate seeking to project independence from Trump in a competitive contest, has repeatedly touted the exact count of the earmarks she has locked in over the last half-decade for her home state of Maine.

The sum: 672 projects totaling $1.5 billion, “from Madawaska to Kittery, from Eastport to Rumford,” as she said in her opening statement earlier this month in her first debate against Democrat Troy Jackson. This past week, Collins has peppered voters with county-specific text messages detailing how much she’s secured for each area.

There are countless other examples of earmark campaigning among vulnerable Republican incumbents, though many conservatives remain reluctant to associate themselves with the practice. It still carries a stigma of corruption after two Republicans were sent to prison on related bribery charges in the mid-2000s, paving the way for the GOP to do away with earmarks in 2011.

That left GOP candidates unable to play up the clearest spoils of incumbency ahead of the “blue wave” of 2018. But Democrats revived them in 2021 with new safeguards, and now Republicans are taking advantage as they navigate another tough midterm cycle.

“That word ‘earmark’ can carry some negative baggage, especially among the old fiscal conservatives,” nonpartisan pollster Mike Noble said in an interview. “But when you describe that same expenditure as funding for a local water system, highway, public safety project — voters evaluate that differently.”

Recognizing the advantages, Republicans opted to keep earmarks around under unified party leadership in 2025, resulting in the enactment of almost $16 billion worth of earmarks this year. For those who still consider earmarks anathema to the GOP’s values of fiscal restraint, it’s causing complications on the trail.

Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan is fielding criticism for not requesting any earmarks for his district. While he airs ads calling himself “tight with a buck,” his opponents are telling voters that lawmakers like Huizenga are increasing their net worth “while turning down community project funding.”

Some recent polling shows Huizenga trailing his Democratic challenger, state Sen. Sean McCann, by 1 percentage point.

McCann said in an interview he will “go to bat” for earmarks if he defeats Huizenga: “That's an expectation that people have when you want to represent them — that you do the things that are important and secure crucial investments for the district.”

Huizenga defended himself in a statement, saying “earmarks have a long history of waste and abuse by politicians looking to enrich themselves in office.”

Huizenga noted that he has “helped secure hundreds of millions in federal investments for Southwest Michigan without requesting a single earmark,” including a $400 million grant last year for a nuclear power plant and $51 million for a housing redevelopment project.

He isn’t the only Republican incumbent in a tight race who has foregone earmarks. Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, who is facing a competitive challenge from former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, refused to request cash for district-specific projects as part of the annual government funding process. Instead, he points to his support for efforts made possible through the 2021 infrastructure law signed by then-President Joe Biden, as well as other legislation and grants the Trump administration doles out for local efforts.

Trump officials have traveled to Alaska in recent weeks to stand alongside Sullivan in announcing the delivery of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for the state, including $38 million in energy grants and $250 million for rail infrastructure.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who appears to be in a dead heat with his Democratic challenger Adam Hamilton, also didn’t ask for any federal funding this year. But he is getting flak for seeking a $4.2 million earmark in 2024 to finance improvements to increase water to a wildlife refuge that borders his ranch.

Spokespeople for the Sullivan and Marshall campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.

Whether voters perceive earmark requests as positive or negative likely depends heavily on how a candidate frames the talking point, Noble said, acknowledging that incumbents rarely use the word in campaign ads or town hall speeches and instead speak broadly about how they “deliver” for their district.

“Voters, at the end of the day — it's about direct benefit. What are they getting out of this deal? That's one of the powers of incumbency. They have that ability to say, ‘Hey, look what I brought home for you,’” he said. “But again, what else are they going to talk about?”

Congress, DC