In criticizing Sarah Palin’s use of federal funds in Alaska, the line between federal spending and earmarking seems to have been erased. The media points to her request for federal funds of state infrastructure and other projects as evidence of hypocrisy on the issue. The only problem is that not all federal spending qualifies as an earmark. “Earmark” isn’t a term used to describe spending you don’t like. Shannon Love writes:

The problem with earmarks lies less in their often seemingly trivial and non-federal import than in the unaccountable mechanism by which individual federal legislators turn them into law. Earmarks lead to corruption by allowing individual legislators to reward constituents and contributors without having to stand up and argue publicly for spending the funds. In short, earmarks represent a defect in the parliamentary procedure of the federal Congress. The term “earmark” isn’t simply shorthand for “federal spending I do not like.”

As such, earmarks represent a flaw in the federal Congress, not the state governments. No one in state government can “request” an earmark. An official of a state government can only (1) apply for federal funds made available through existing federal legislation or (2) make an informal request to the state’s federal representatives that they argue for particular funding. In neither case is the governor responsible for how the federal government makes the funding available.

An earmark isn’t spending of federal funds that Congressmen stand up and debate. Senator McCain has nothing against spending federal money on state projects that are found to be necessary and are appropriated through legislation. Earmarks are “suggestions” on how to spend appropriated money that tend to be followed as if mandated by law. They aren’t debated and passed through legislation.

There’s a difference between using federal funds for something in your state and earmarking.