Mollohan’s defeat

Did earmarks play a role in the defeat of Allan Mollohan in Tuesday’s Democratic primary?

Mollohan is the third ranked Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and has used that position to benefit his district in northern West Virginia.  Usually a Congressman or Senator can point to his earmarks as an indication of his effectiveness for his district.  However, Mollohan’s opponent, state Senator Mike Oliverio, accused Mollohan of corruption for supporting earmarks that benefitted non-profit corporations to which some of Mollohan’s friends and supporters were connected. 

Mollohan countered that Oliverio was “lying” about him and that the Justice Department had dropped its investigation of him in January.  However, this was not enough to beat back Oliverio’s challenge.

Mollohan use of earmarks wasn’t the only issue in the campaign.  His vote in favor of the final health care bill brought down the ire of anti-abortion groups which targeted him for defeat in this conservative district.

However, there is a strong anti-incumbent mood out there and to the extent that earmarks are attached to insider status and perceived as “corrupt”, regardless of the realities of particular situations, earmarks could play a role in bringing down more members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in primary elections occurring in the spring, and in Congressional elections in the fall.

It is already clear that there will be major shifts in the membership of the Appropriations Committees, regardless of who wins the elections.  This will mean a corresponding shift between “winners” and “losers” in the earmarking process among Congressional districts and states.  The extent to which it will change the process itself, and by how much, remains to be seen.