Print edition: 
U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate, helped dole out nearly $24 million in earmarks this year to private companies, school districts and universities in Kansas.
A new study has found that individuals and political committees tied to those special-interest groups made more than $46,000 in campaign donations to Tiahrt — the second-highest total among all members of Congress.
Tiahrt, an eight-term Republican from Goddard who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, insisted there's no tie between earmarks he voted for and campaign contributions he received. He said his only goal is to help Kansas.
"It's related to building the economy in Kansas," Tiahrt said of earmarks, which call for federal money to be spent on specific projects, usually in a lawmaker's home district. "I feel like the people of Kansas sent me to Washington to try to do something about their problems. One of them is the tough economy."
But as Tiahrt's campaign for Senate against Rep. Jerry Moran closes in on the Aug. 3 primary, Tiahrt's handling of earmarks is emerging as a campaign issue.
In a recent TV ad, Moran accuses his fellow Republican of voting "to hide earmarks from public scrutiny," a claim Tiahrt vehemently disputed.
Moran also pursued $5.3 million in earmarks this year, but he pointed out that his requests are for nonprofit groups, such as local police departments and Kansas State University, which are all in his district.
"Earmarks used to be a much less utilized practice," Moran said. "In that light, we developed a system only making requests for public entities like strengthening education at Kansas State University.. "
The new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that Moran netted only $1,500 in campaign contributions from interests tied to earmarks.
"Unfortunately, earmarking has now become the political norm, with a process that was hijacked by spending interests in Washington," Moran said.
Tiahrt sees hypocrisy in Moran's earmark philosophy. "Everybody in Kansas asks for earmarks," he said. "Everybody."
"That's the real paradox here," Tiahrt said. "He thinks it's evil for me to do it, but it's very good for him to do it. That's what people hate about Washington. It's someone who's disingenuous."
Earmarks have proved to be a fast way for members of Congress to respond to community needs, Tiahrt argued.
Case in point: A few years ago, Wichita police needed more money to help solve the BTK serial murder case. The killer, Tiahrt said, was threatening to kill again. Wichita police needed more money to beef up efforts to catch him, and Tiahrt was able to deliver.
How earmarks play in the upcoming primary isn't clear, said Washburn University political scientist Bob Beatty.
"Voters can be so wishy-washy on the issue," he said. "A number of voters will say, 'Stop pork-barrel spending.' Those same voters will say, 'Oh, good, we got a new bridge.' "
Earmarks have become more controversial in recent years as voters have grown increasingly worried about federal spending and mushrooming deficits.
House Democrats this year pledged to forgo earmark requests that would benefit for-profit companies, but are still seeking other types of earmarks. House Republicans in turn signed off on a total ban on earmarks for fiscal 2011.
As a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, Tiahrt aggressively pursued them, but is now pushing a reform bill that proposes a sweeping review of the earmark process. He said his office relies on a 15-step, four-phase review of earmark requests.
The Office of Congressional Ethics investigated Tiahrt and two dozen other House members last year in connection with an inquiry into defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling.
Tiahrt and other members of a subcommittee that controls Pentagon spending were examined in connection with their work obtaining earmarks for clients of an influential lobbying firm known as the PMA Group.
According to CQ Politics, Tiahrt secured $7 million in earmarks working alone or with others for PMA clients in the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations law. Tiahrt received $21,250 in campaign contributions from the PMA Group's political action committee or its employees between 2001 and 2008.
The now-defunct PMA Group was allegedly part of a "pay-for-play" scheme in which the firm and its clients benefited from billions of dollars in earmarks in exchange for campaign donations.
At the time, Tiahrt said he was cooperating with the investigation. But he later soured on the ethics committee's work, complaining that investigators violated their own rules and were "blowing through deadlines."
He and key staff members declined interviews with investigators. Partly for that reason, the Office of Congressional Ethics — whose members aren't public officials — forwarded the case to the House Ethics Committee for review. That committee comprises members of Congress.
In February, the House Ethics Committee cleared Tiahrt and six other members of Congress in the case. At the time, Tiahrt called the finding "absolute vindication."
But other questions linger. In 2009, the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity found that former Tiahrt aide Brad Ayers had left the office in 2004 and started a solo lobbying practice. One of his first clients was Radiance Technologies, an Alabama-based company with an office in Wichita.
In the years since he left the office, Ayers has donated $11,400 to Tiahrt while Radiance's political committee and top executives have donated $17,300 to Tiahrt.
Radiance benefited from two 2008 Tiahrt earmarks. One was for $1 million in "upward looking sonar" technology, and the other was $1.2 million for an "integrated vehicle health monitoring system." Ayers declined to comment.
Asked about the earmarks, Tiahrt said they went through the same process as any other.
"It has to withstand the light of day," he said. "There's no process that has the light of day like my projects do."
