Black Earmarks

Secrecy and pet projects are a bad combination. Just ask Duke Cunningham.

WHAT IF Congress approved funding for a secret "Bridge to Nowhere"? Some congressional earmarks are for pet projects that are flagrantly public, the subject of boastful press releases by the lawmaker who secured them. Others are shrouded in the secrecy of the "black budget," the $30 billion or so that the government spends on classified programs not subject to public review. This offers a tempting and dangerous opportunity for congressional mischief -- one exploited to the tune of at least $70 million by former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), who used his earmarking power as a member of the House intelligence committee to steer that much in government contracts to two defense contractors who paid him $2.4 million in bribes.

Mr. Cunningham is -- at least we hope -- unparalleled in his outright corruption, but he is far from the only lawmaker to direct black earmarks to supporters. The Wall Street Journal's John R. Wilke reported last week about the close relationship between Rep Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.), a member of both the Armed Services and intelligence committees who is running for Nevada governor, and Warren Trepp, a software entrepreneur whose small company, eTreppid Technologies, has won millions of dollars in classified government contracts with Mr. Gibbons's help. "Congressman Gibbons certainly came through for eTrippid!" a company lobbyist wrote in May 2004.

Along the way, Mr. Trepp and his companies have been generous supporters of Mr. Gibbons's campaigns. And Mr. Trepp paid most of the tab for a week-long Caribbean cruise that included the House member and his family. Mr. Gibbons told the Journal that the cruise wasn't prohibited by congressional gift rules because of his long-standing friendship with Mr. Trepp, but the rules in such cases still require written approval from the ethics committee and public disclosure.

Until the last decade or so, earmarks weren't permitted in intelligence bills because of the absence of public scrutiny. That was the right approach. It's one to which the committees should return.