by Frank James
As we reported earlier today, Citizens Against Government Waste issued its latest "Pig Book" today listing the members of Congress who the group views as the most egregious offenders when it comes to getting legislative earmarks, also known as pork.
Now comes word of an academic study which arguably implicates us media types as playing a role in pork barreling.
How so? It's because the scholars say they found a correlation between the amount of media coverage a member of Congress receives and the federal money that goes into that district.
According to the abstract of the paper by scholars, James M. Snyder Jr. at MIT and David Stromberg of Stockholm University in Sweden:
Congressmen who are less covered by the local press work less for their constituencies: they are less likely to stand witness before congressional hearings, to serve on constituency-oriented committees (perhaps), and to vote against the party line. Finally, this congressional behavior affects policy. Federal spending is lower in areas where there is less press coverage of the local members of congress.
I'm not sure I buy their argument but it's definitely interesting.
In any event, thanks to the Marginal Revolution blog for letting us know about this study.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Again, McCain is one of only five senators who don't ask for or receive pork. Clinton and Obama? Oink, oink, oink...
Posted by: Jeff | April 2, 2008 7:17 PM
Checking a little closer in the report, one sees that New York is next to last in "pork per capita", with Arizona last. So although Hillary is a very big pork spender, it is spread around a very populous state.
Also, Illinois ranks 36th on pork per capita.
So there doesn't seem to be much real dirt on our candidates in this report.
Posted by: Allan | April 3, 2008 1:47 AM