Lobby shop tells lawmakers: Shift from earmarks to grants

With earmark bans now in place in both the House and the Senate, lobby firms like Ferguson have had to readjust to find new funding sources for their clients. The study by the lobby firm is further evidence that K Street is trying to adapt to the new belt-tightening climate in Washington.

The lobby firm makes clear that it does not want to bring back the earmarking process. Like other firms on K Street, Ferguson thrived on earmarks in the past, which are now much maligned by politicians in both parties, including President Obama.

“The purpose of the study is not to revitalize the earmarking process, but to illustrate the vital importance of directing federal funds to local priorities by way of competitive grants, loans, loan guarantees, or formula funds,” the report says.

The study is full of recommendations of how to move federal programs that have had their funds traditionally earmarked by lawmakers into competitive grant programs. If followed, those suggestions could keep federal spending flowing to local governments without the taint of earmarks.

For example, the lobby firm recommends that lawmakers have the Federal Transit Administration host an open grant competition for bus and bus facility funding. That spending has been divvyed up into earmarks in the past.

Ferguson also recommends that other programs — such as the Justice Department’s COPS and Edward Byrne grants that provide funding for local law enforcement agencies — be awarded to towns and cities through a competitive grant process.

Ferguson is one of the top-earning firms of K Street and represents several municipal governments that have sought earmarked federal funding in the past. But the firm has had to change course as Congress has moved away from the practice.

“Congress must ensure that federal funds are widely distributed to worthy projects across the country; not just to a select few projects,” said William Ferguson, founder and CEO of The Ferguson Group, in a statement. “Many smaller communities do not have the political muscle to ensure that the federal agencies recognize and address their needs.”