Earmarks were eliminated for their wastefulness and corruption. Trump wants to bring them back

House Republicans banned earmarks when they retook the House in 2011. Top Republicans, led by then-Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, argued that they corrupted lawmakers and caused them to support bad legislation simply to shovel taxpayer money into unnecessary projects back home. It was common to solicit campaign donations from those who received the earmarks, as well as the lobbyists who advocated for them.

At the time, Republicans presented their elimination of earmarks as a sign of their commitment to eliminating unnecessary government spending.

But Donald Trump, who likely benefitted from earmarks as a businessman, has waded into a brewing controversy in the House and endorsed their return.

“Our system lends itself to not getting things done, and I hear so much about earmarks — the old earmark system — how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks,” Trump told a group of lawmakers at Tuesday's White House meeting on immigration. “But of course, they had other problems with earmarks. But maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks.''

Trump's remarks came as House Republicans are weighing a change to their rules to permit a limited return of earmarks. They claim that they’ll rein in the potential for corruption with a new set of restrictions and reforms.

Earmarks can include road and bridge projects, community development grants, monuments and many other projects that lawmakers want for their districts. But the often involve projects that lawmakers use to reward their family members and benefactors by providing them with federal contracts. Earmarks do not require the competitive process required for other federal spending.

History is full of cases of elected officials abusing the earmark process. Former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., for instance, spent seven years in prison for taking bribes in exchange for securing earmarks.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., did not seem sympathetic when asked about earmarks Tuesday. Asked if they are making a comeback, Ryan said, “Conversations are having a comeback.''

Ryan was central to squelching an effort a year ago to revive earmarks. Groups opposing earmarks swiftly attacked the idea of their return.

“Bringing back earmarks is the antithesis of draining the swamp,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh, whose group helps finance campaigns of staunch conservatives. “Earmarks will only benefit the special interests that grow government at the expense of working men and women.”

In defense of earmarks, veteran Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., said he believes the earmark ban “is one of those things that's held up the appropriations process, because people have not had a vested interest in voting for spending bills.” As for the potential return of earmarks, Aderholt said, “as long as it's done on a fair and transparent basis, then I think we need to seriously consider it.''

The Rules Committee is holding hearings next week on the topic.

“We are not moving backwards and I would not (make) a recommendation for us to move back to almost any part of a system that I saw that existed before 2011,” Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, told reporters.

Trump noted at the White House that Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was nodding along when Trump brought up earmarks.

Graham immediately chimed in: “Starting with the Port of Charleston. Absolutely.''